HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 25, 1999 Budget & Implementation•
•
044956
IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 3:00 p.m.
DATE: Monday, January 25, 1999
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office
3560 University Avenue, Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
Records
Members
Supervisor John Tavaglione, County of Riverside
Supervisor Jim Venable, County of Riverside
Supervisor Tom Mullen, County of Riverside
Mayor John Hunt, City of Banning
Councilmember Gregory S. Pettis / Councilmember Sarah DeGrandi, City of Cathedral City
Councilmember Juan DeLara / Mayor Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella
Councilmember Andrea Puga / Councilmember Karen E. Stein, City of Corona
Mayor John Pena / Councilmember Ron Perkins, City of La Quinta
Mayor Kevin Pape, City of Lake Elsinore
Councilmember Frank West / Councilmember Bill Batey, City of Moreno Valley
Councilmember Don Yokaitis, City of Rancho Mirage
Councilmember Alex Clifford / Councilmember Ameal Moore, City of Riverside
Councilmember Jim Smedley / Mayor Debbie Cornett, City of San Jacinto
Councilmember Ron Roberts / Councilmember Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
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, JANUARY 25, 1999
3:00 P.M.
AGENDA -
•Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. 1998 Fiscal Audit Results
Ernst & Young, LLP will make an oral presentation on fiscal year 97/98 fiscal audit.
5. Formation of Audit Committee
Establishment of an Audit Committee to review Commission audits and advise on internal
controls.
6. Friends of Jefferson House
Increase to the Friends of Jefferson House maintenance contract for the Commission's
commuter rail stations.
7. Selection of Investment Advisor
The Ad Hoc Committee will meet January 25`h to review the investment advisory RFP's. Four
firms have been selected for the interview process. The results of that interview process will
be reported to the Commission at their February meeting.
8. Investment Report for Quarter Ending December 31, 1998
Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and
Commission policy.
9. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports
It is recommended that the Commission receive and file.
10. Progress Report on Internal Operations Review
This is a progress report on the Internal Operations Review.
Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda
January 25, 1999
Page 2
•
11. Award of Construction Contract No. RO-9932 to Construct a Pedestrian Overcrossing Structure
and Security Enhancements at the Existing La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Commuter Rail
Stations
At the October 8, 1998 meeting, the Commission directed staff to advertise to receive bids for
the construction of a Pedestrian Overcrossing Structure and Security Enhancements at the
existing La Sierra and West Corona Commuter Rail Stations. the evaluation panel will
recommend the lowest responsive bidder to the Budget and Implementation Committee on
January 25, 1999, for award of Contract No. RO-9932.
12. Local Sales Tax Measure Renewal Options
Discussion of options for obtaining voter support for local sales tax measures.
13. Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Projection
Annual Local Transportation Fund apportionment for Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and
Western Riverside County.
14. Work Plan for the Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan will address all major funding sources including sales tax, state and federal
funding, possibility of developer fees and any other viable sources of revenue.
15. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 3:00 p.m., on Monday February 22, 1999 at the
RCTC offices.
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 4
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
1998 Audit Results
Ernst & Young LLP, the Commission's independent auditors will make an oral
presentation on the results of the Commission's and the Measure A and TDA funding
recipients' audits. A copy of the report is included in your agenda packet.
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
Focus: 1998
Audit Results
3
=� ERNST&YOUNG LLP
SUMMARY OF WHAT WE AGREED TO DO
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Our Approach
As previously discussed with management, our audit plan represents an approach responsive to the -
assessment of risk for the Commission. Specifically, we designed our audit to issue reports and letters on
the following:
• General Purpose Financial Statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission
• Financial Statements on the Local Transportation Fund
• Internal control over financial reporting and compliance
• Management letter
Areas of Audit Emphasis
The principal areas of audit emphasis were as follows:
• Evaluation of the Commission's investment policies and internal control over cash and investments
• Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for debt, including issuance of debt, and debt covenant
compliance
• Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for project expenditures
• Evaluation of TDA and Measure A expenditures
• Analytical review and inquiry into the nature of various account balances
• Evaluation of litigation, claims and assessments
• Review of compliance with the provisions of Measure A, including level of administrative salaries
and benefits
• Review of compliance with the provisions of TDA
• Evaluation of the Commission's internal control
• Implementation of GASB Statement No. 31 on investments
• Implementation of GASB Statement No. 27 on pension plans
4 J ERNST & YOUNG LLP
TDA Claimants and Measure A Recipients
Our Approach
We designed our audits to issue reports and letters on the following:
• Transit and Transportation Financial Statements of TDA claimants and Measure A recipients
• Internal control over financial reporting and compliance
• Management letter
Areas of Audit Emphasis
The principal areas of audit emphasis were as follows:
• Evaluation of TDA and Measure A expenditures
• Evaluation of Measure A expenditures in relation to approved Measure A five-year capital
improvement plans
• Evaluation of deferred revenues and capital grants equity, as applicable
• Analytical review and inquiry into the nature of various account balances
• Analytical review of actual results and comparison to budgeted amounts
• Review of compliance with the provisions of TDA and Measure A
There were no changes to our planned approach or audit areas of emphasis.
5 ERNST&YOUNG LLP
BUSINESS RISK ASSESSMENT UPDATE
As changing demographics, regulations and other factors continually transform the operating environment, the Commission faces a
steady stream of new business risks. Business risks have audit implications and drive our choice of audit procedures and emphasis.
Understanding Internal/External Factors
Business Implication
Audit Implication
INDUSTRY ISSUES
Funding Sources
The Commission, TDA claimants
and Measure A recipients rely
heavily on various funding sources
including federal, state and local
monies. There continues to be a
possibility of a decrease in funding,
primarily at the federal and state
level. However, under SB45, the
Commission has direct responsi-
bility relating to the regional choice
allocation of State Transportation
Improvement Plan (STIP) dollars.
The Commission must continually
assess project funding availability and
monitor sales tax growth. Debt
financing of future projects is limited.
Two-thirds voter majority is required
to extend Measure A beyond 2009.
Expenditure/expense funding for
cities/agencies is often dependent on
other federal, state and local monies.
Assess budgeting controls and
review project expenditures for
allowability under transportation
plans and grant awards.
BUSINESS ISSUE
Restructuring
Cash Management
Technology'
Year 2000
The Commission continues to evolve
and will expand its Board as of
January 1999.
The Commission is responsible for
making investment decisions for its
cash and investments.
The Commission operates in an
environment that requires the
Commission to continue to assess
the security and adequacy of
information systems.
As the Year 2000 approaches, the
Commission is faced with ensuring
that the information systems are
compliant with Year 2000 issues.
Restructuring presents the Commis-
sion with operating challenges.
The Commission must balance its
safety, liquidity, and yield investment
objectives and ensure that investments
are made in accordance with state laws
and Commission policies.
Maintain operations during disasters.
Prevent unauthorized use of system and
related data.
The Commission cannot function
without operational information
systems. Be aware of whether vendors,
fiscal agents and others will be Year
2000 compliant.
Impact on financial statement
disclosures.
Compliance with investment ob-
jectives, state laws and policies.
Determine disclosures in financial
statements are appropriate.
Adequacy of access and pro-
gramming controls on EDP con-
trols and related effect on nature
and extent of audit testing.
Review Commission's plan for
Year 2000 issues to ensure
management has properly
addressed the issues and proper
financial statement disclosures are
made.
6
=� ERNST &YOUNG LLP
Understanding Internal/External Factors
Business Implication
Audit Implication
TECHNICAL ISSUES
Property Held
for Development
Debt
GASB Statement
No. 31
GASB Statement
No. 27
The Commission has property
purchased ter right-of-way acqui-
sition, of which a portion may not be
used for project construction.
The Commission, the Riverside
Transit Agency and the SunLine
Transit Agency maintain various
types of debt.
Issuance of GASB Statement No. 31
required a change to fair value
accounting and reporting for invest-
ments.
Issuance of GASB Statement No. 27
established standards for state and
local governmental employer pen-
sion measurement, recognition and
presentation.
Fraud Consideration SAS clarifies auditor responsi-hilities
(SAS 82)
for detecting fraud.
Identification of strategy for excess
property is necessary to maximize the
Commission's investment.
Evaluate financial feasibility scenarios.
Commission requires understanding of
and adherence to debt covenants and
operating ability to service debt.
Arbitrage calculations are required.
Fair value provides a new perspective
on financial position and condition.
Recognition of unrealized gains or
losses may impact financial decisions.
Annual pension cost to be recorded
may differ from pension expenditures,
and net pension obligations will be
recorded as general long-term debt.
Management should be aware of the
risk factors related to the Commission
in order to he able to address them.
Adequate disclosure in the fmancial
statements.
Compliance with debt covenants
and proper accounting and
reporting.
Ascertain proper accounting and
reporting for investments and
related unrealized gains and losses.
Ascertain proper accounting and
reporting during implementation.
Auditors must document their
assessment of the risk and their
response to the risk factors.
7
=� ERNST&YOUNG LLP
REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS
Professional standards require the auditor to communicate to the audit committee or an equivalent group to
ensure that it is provided with additional information regarding the scope and results of the audit that may
assist the group in overseeing management's financial reporting and disclosure process. Summarized
below are these required communications related to our financial statement audits:
Area
Comments
Auditors' Responsibilities under Generally
Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS)
The general purpose financial statements are the
responsibility of management. Our audits were designed
in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing
Standards (GAS), which provide for reasonable, rather
than absolute, assurance that the general purpose
financial statements are free of material misstatement.
We have a responsibility to opine on whether the general
purpose financial statements are fairly stated in
accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles. As a part of our audit, we obtain a sufficient
understanding of internal control to plan our audits and
to determine the nature, timing and extent of testing to
be performed.
We have issued an unqualified opinion on the
Commission's general purpose financial statements for
the year ended June 30, 1998. We have issued or
anticipate issuing unqualified opinions on the financial
statements of the TDA claimants and Measure A
recipients, except for the City of Beaumont, which
received a qualified opinion for a going concern
uncertainty; the City of Perris, which may receive a
qualified opinion for a going concern uncertainty; and the
cities of Blythe, Indio and Perris, the County of Riverside
and the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, which
received qualified opinions as a result of a scope
limitation resulting from insufficient audit evidence to
support the disclosures with respect to the Year 2000
Issue. Management did not place any restrictions on the
scope of our audits.
Significant Accounting Policies
Initial selection of and changes in significant accounting
policies or their application and new accounting and
reporting standards implemented during the year must he
reported.
The significant accounting policies used by the
Commission are described in Note 1 to the general
purpose financial statements. There were no changes in
significant accounting policies or new accounting or
reporting standards. except for the following:
• GASB 31 requires fair value reporting for
investments. The Commission's accounting policy
for investments is included in Note 1. The effect of
the change in accounting for investments on fund
balance at July 1, 1997 was not material.
• GASB 27 established standards for employer
pension measurement, accounting and disclosure.
The Commission's participation in PERS is
disclosed in Note 12. The pension liability was $0
both before and at the transition.
8
=I ERNST &YOUNG L L P
Management Judgments and Accounting
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements requires the use There are no areas requiring significant judgments or
of accounting estimates. Certain estimates are accounting estimates in the 1998 general purpose
particularly sensitive due to their significance to the financial statements.
statements and the possibility that future events may -
differ significantly from management's expectations.
Significant Audit Adjustments
No audit adjustments were recorded for the Commission.
Various audit adjustments were recorded by the TDA
claimants and Measure A recipients.
Other Information in Documents
Containing Audited Financial Statements
The Commission's 1996 audited general purpose
financial statements were used in connection with the
$48 million sales tax bonds financing. We were not
requested to provide a consent for the inclusion of our
audit report.
Disagreements with Nlanagement on Financial None
Accounting and Reporting Matters
Major Issues Discussed with Management None
Prior to Retention
Consultation Stith Other Accountants None
Serious Difficulties Encountered in None
Performing the Audit
Material Errors, Fraud and Illegal None identified and management represented there were
Acts none.
Significant Disclosures Not Made None
Single Audit Findings The Single Audit of the Commission is in the process of
being performed.
9 =I ERNST & YOUNG L L P
Area
Comments
Nlost Recent Ernst & Young LLP
Peer Review Results
GAS requires the independent auditor to communicate KPMG Peat Marwick LLP recently completed the 1998 ' .
the most recent peer review results to its governmental peer review of Ernst & Young. The peer review results
clients. are contained in an unqualified Peer Review Report,
which indicates that the quality control policies and
procedures for E&Y's accounting and auditing practice
are being complied with in such a manner as to provide
the firm with reasonable assurance of conforming with
professional standards.
lanagement Advisory Services
Ernst & Young was engaged to perform agreed -upon
procedures related to the sales tax forecast during 1998
and is providing assistance related to the development of
an indirect cost allocation plan during fiscal 1999. The
fees approximate $35,000 and $50,000, respectively.
10 NI ERNST&YOUNG LLP
COMMENTS ON THE 1998 COMMISSION FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
Condensed Balance Sheet
• The decrease in cash and investments was due to highway and regional arterial expenditures paid
from special revenue funds offset by a 9% increase in sales tax revenues.
• Receivables increased in 1998 due primarily to an increase in loan receivables.
• ' Restricted assets increased due to the proceeds of the 1997 bond issuance for local projects which
are recorded in the Agency Fund.
• Accounts payable and other liabilities increased in 1998 due to amounts being held for cities for
local projects included in the 1997 bond issuance.
Totals Totals
(Memorandum (Memorandum
Only) Only)
1998 1997
Assets and other debits:
Cash and investments
Receivables
Other assets
Restricted assets
Property, plant and equipment
Other debits
Total assets and other debits
Liabilities, fund equity, and other credits:
Accounts payable and other liabilities
Long-term debt
Fund equity and other credits:
Investment in general fixed assets
Retained earnings
Reserved fund balance
Unreserved fund balance
Total fund equity and other credits
Total liabilities, fund equity and other credits
$ 56,437,971
25,859,371
1,048,724
44,936,211
104,614,564
247,444,090
$480,340,931
$ 66,089,891
20,834,064
1,071,079
38,267,637
98,147,591
245,831,962
$470,242,224
$ 18,007,744
247,444,090
104,614,564
16,413
95,941,626
14,316,494
$ 15,784,836
245,831,962
98,147,591
11,721
97,294,661
13,171,453
214,889,097
$480,340,931
208,625,426
$470,242,224
11 ERNST&YOUNG LLP
Condensed Operations for Five Years
• Sales tax revenues have increased consistently since the early 1990's recession.
• Reimbursement revenues fluctuate as federal and state funding sources relate to eligible projects.
The increase reflects an increase in available federal and state funding.
• Other sources reflects an increase primarily due to proceeds from bond issuances in 1998 and 1996.
• Program expenditures during the past three fiscal years represent increased regional arterial
program activity.
• • The increase in debt service in 1998 is primarily due to the payment of commercial paper in the
amount of $44,000,000 from the 1997 bond proceeds.
• Other uses primarily represent operating transfers to cover debt service for the 1991, 1993, 1996
and 1997 bonds as well as refunding of debt in 1996.
• Ending fund balance has decreased 25% since 1994 due to significant program expenditures, of
which a significant portion of Measure A highway/regional arterial/commuter rail projects have
been funded from bond proceeds. The Commission's capacity to issue additional debt is limited.
Revenues and other sources:
Sales tax
Reimbursements
Interest
Other
Subtotal
Other sources
Total revenues and other
sources
Expenditures and other uses:
Administrative
Program
Debt service
Intergovernmental
distributions
Capital outlay
Subtotal
Other uses
Total expenditures and
other uses
Net (decrease)
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
1998
1997 1996
1995 1994
$ 99,596,564
9,754,287
5,471,073
6,190,293
121,012,217
96,146,074
$ 91,393,623
5,514,049
6,869,873
5,896,496
109,674,041
26,316,886
$ 88,208,264
8,114,912
7,740,317
5,274,781
109,338,274
106,882,232
$ 79,733,751
12,947,846
8,220,527
4,666,051
105,568,175
$ 75,988,389
17,502,554
5,152,481
3,646,794
102,290,218
41,862,035 45,678,660
217,158,291
2,813,814
104,875,560
74,344,388
309,000
306,660
182,649,422
34,716,863
135,990,927
2,677,290
105,374,197
25,208,531
305,095
53,677
133,618,790
26,316,886
216,220,506
2,732,131
106,225,072
25,327,762
367,936
144,537
134,797,438
92,254,390
147,430,210 147,968, 878
2,723,025
94,808,303
23,379,723
377,927
177,527
121,466,505
2,919,130
128,693,373
21,860,166
395,000
1,176,549
155,044,218
26,862,035 30,678,660
217,366,285
(207,994)
110,466,114
$110,258,120
159,935,676
(23,944,749)
134,410,863
$110,466,114
227,051,828
(10,831,322)
145,242,185
$134,410,863
146,140,515
$145,242,185
148,328,540
185,722,878
(898,330) (37,754,000)
183,894,515
$146,140,515
12
=� ERNST &YOUNG LLP
COMMENTS ON THE 1998 TDA CLAIMANTS AND
MEASURE A RECIPIENTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Balance Sheet Items
The following agency had a cash overdraft in the transit fund at June 30, 1998:
• Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency — $11,150
The Commission is owed $8,371 from the City of Banning for excess TDA and STA capital allocations
received in a prior year.
The following have a fund balance representing at least three years of unspent monies:
• City of Riverside Article 8 monies of $257,515, representing allocations since 1991.
• County of Riverside Article 8 monies of $352,408, representing allocations since 1994.
• City of Beaumont Measure A monies of $753,599, representing allocations since 1994.
• City of Blythe Measure A monies of $2,703,866, representing allocations since 1995.
• City of Indio Measure A monies of $2,924,640, representing allocations since 1994.
• City of Riverside Measure A monies of $15,574,608, representing allocations since 1996.
Income Statement Items
For your information, the following cities/agencies allocate indirect costs and other overhead allocations to
TDA or Measure A funds:
• The City of Banning allocates interfund costs, such as administration, personnel, attorney costs,
insurance, fleet maintenance, financial and computer costs to the Article 4 Transit fund.
• The City of Beaumont allocates administrative overhead costs to both the Article 4 and Measure A
funds.
• Family Services Association allocates overhead based on a percentage of total expenses.
• Inland AIDS Project allocates overhead based on actual duties performed for the Measures A fund.
• Transportation Specialists allocates overhead costs based on vehicle service hours, which agree to
the Measure A match requirements.
• Volunteer Center of Riverside County allocates salaries based on the percentage of full-time
equivalents for the program.
13 =� ERNST&YOUNG LLP
Compliance Findings
In 1997, the City of Blythe was not in conformance with the Measure A requirement to maintain its
continuous commitment of local discretionary expenditures for streets and roads. During 1998, the City's
Annual Street Reports for the years ended June 30, 1997 and 1996 were amended and filed with the State
Controller's Office to properly classify discretionary expenditures for those years. As a result, in 1998 the
City is in conformance with the Measure A requirement to maintain its continuous commitment of local
discretionary expenditures for streets and roads.
The City of Beaumont did not submit and receive approval of the Measure A five-year expenditure plan
for the year ended June 30, 1998. Therefore, the current year Measure A expenditures of $33,806 are
considered to be questioned costs. The City intends to submit the 1998 Measure A five-year expenditure
plan to the Commission. Until the 1998 five-year expenditure plan is approved, the City's 1998 Measure A
allocation of $168,981 is being withheld by the Commission.
The City of Moreno Valley had approximately $325,000 of Measure A expenditures that were not on the
approved five-year expenditure plan. They were identified as questioned costs. The City intends to request
that the submitted plan be revised to include these expenditures.
The City of Riverside had approximately $18,000 of Measure A expenditures that were not on the
approved five-year expenditure plan. They were identified as questioned costs. The City intends to request
that the submitted plan be revised to include these expenditures.
Cash Flow Concerns
The City of Beaumont's General Fund has a cash balance deficit of approximately $1,600,000, and the
City, as a whole, has a total cash balance of approximately $471,000, including $253,784 and $761,418 in
the Transit Fund and Transportation Funds, respectively, at June 30, 1998. This raises substantial doubt
about the City's ability to continue as a going concern and repay the Transit and Transportation Funds for
cash borrowed, which could affect the planned operations of both the Transit and Transportation Funds.
The City of Lake Elsinore has continued to experience City-wide financial pressures regarding the debt
incurred related to the baseball stadium. There has been significant press coverage relating to the City's
financial matters.
The City of Perris has experienced an unusually high rate of turnover of City personnel. Various open
items include the City's difficulty to reconcile timely cash at June 30, 1998. The City received a going
concern opinion from the City auditors for the year ended June 30, 1997. We anticipate issuing a going
concern opinion for the fiscal 1998 year.
14 El ERNST&YOUNG LLP
Section 99234
As of : 1/18/99
Article 3 Sched ule
Year ended June 30, 1998
ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED
City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of
Ban ning Beaumont Hemet I ndio La Q uinta Moreno Valley Riverside Tem ecula
Revenues
Intergo vernmental a llocations:
Article 3 S 80,274 $ 82,376 $ 88,000 $ 44,000 $ 25,000 $ 7,303 $ 98,992 $ 79,531
Interest income 1,706 - - 1,174 - 711
Other revenue - -
Total revenues 81,980 82,376 88,000 45,174 25,000 7,303 99,703 79,531
Total expenditu res
Ex cess of ex penditu res over revenues
111,931 146,645 99,818 48,400 120,963 71,381 99,703 79,531
(29,951) (64,269) (11,818) (3,226) (95,963) (64,078) - -
Operating tra nsfers in 25,000 64,269 11,818 3 ,226 95,963 48,545
Excess of ex penditures and operatin g transfers out -
ov er revenues and operating transfers in (4 ,951) - - - - (15,533) -
Fund balan ces at July 1, 1997 28,165 - - - 22,836
Fund balances at June 30, 1998 $ 23,214 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,303 $ - $ -
(b) (b)
Defe rred revenues at Ju ne 30, 1998 $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,543 $ -
Source: 1998 Financial Statements
(a) Pro jects not co mpleted in curren t yea r, carryover to next fiscal yea r.
(b) Fu nd balance rela ted to operating transfer.
(a)
15 JERNST&YO UNG LLP
Section 99260
As of : 1/18/99
Total operating revenues
Operating ex pe nses:
Depreciation & amortization
Other operating ex penses
Total operating expen ses
O perating loss
Nonoperating reven ues:
Cash grants:
Local transportation fun d
Federal o perating grant
STA operating fu nds
Measure A specializ ed transit
In terest income
Other reven ue
Total non operating revenues
N et loss
Other chan ges to retain ed earnin gs:
D epreciation of property acquired by gran t
funds
Net increase (decrease) in retained earnings
Retain ed earn in gs at Ju ly 1, 1997
Reta ined earnings at June 30, 1998
Deferred revenu e at June 30, 1998:
Operatin g
Capital
Total deferred revenue at June 30, 1998
Sou rce: 1998 Fin ancial Stateme nts
Article 4 Schedule
Year ended June 30, 1998
ISSUED ISSUE D ISSUE D
City of
Ba nning
City of City of
Beaumont Coro na
ISSUED
City of
Riverside
DRAFT
Palo Verde
Valley
Transit Age ncy
$ 101,293 $ 63,532 $ 78,235 $ 87,472 $ 25,215 $ 3,700,373
93,688
523,013
616,701
(515,408)
395,597
24,085
2,038
26,031
481 ,964
507,995
(444,463)
404,881
13,551
149,761
550,072
699,833
(621,598)
423,002
352
31,000
7,694
9 ,789
131,439
1,219 ,263
1,350,702
(1,263,230)
1,037,475
9,060
39,569
22,200
23,487
421, 720 418 ,432 471,837 1,131 ,791
(93,688) (26,031) (149,761) (131,439)
93, 336
(352)
2,810
2,458 $
26, 031
$ 6,723 $ 20,303 $
6,508 139,636
$ 13,231 $ 159,939 $
149,761
- $
- $
63,674
63, 674 $
131,439
117,546 $
32,616
150,!62
10,785
142,171
152,956
(127,741)
116,886
11
59
116,956
(10,785)
10,785
3,076,029
18 ,876,817
21,952,846
(18,252,473)
12,693,911
1,064,103
304,700
734,851
308,446
276,578
15,382,589 7,811,826
(2,869,884) (1,827,273)
ISSUED ISSUE D
Riverside SunLi ne
Transit Transit
Age ncy Agency
$ 2,180,023
2 ,074,831
9,744,291
11 ,819,122
(9,639,099)
5,842,530
329,570
1,527,501
112,225
2,815 ,240
(54,644)
706,279
- $ 651,635 $
19,118
$ 19 ,118
2 ,119,518
292,245
83,820
376,065
$ 2,612,576 $ 335,865
2 ,622,650 1,083,863
$ 5,235,226 S 1,419,728
16 JERNST&YOUNG LLP
Section 99400(a)
As of: 1/18/99
Article 8 Schedule
Ye ar ended J une 30, 1998
ISSUED ISSUED DR AFT
City of City of Co unty of
Blyth e Riverside Riverside
Reven ues:
Intergovern men tal allocations:
A rticle 8(a) $ 187,212 $ - $ -
In terest and o ther inco me 1,469 12,821 6,061
Total reven ues 188,681 12,821 6,061
Total expenditures 3,000 58,664
Ex cess (deficiency) of reven ues ov er (under) expendit ures 188,681 9,821 (52,603)
Other financing sou rces:
Operating transfe r in
Ex cess (deficiency) of revenues an d other financing
sources over (under) expen ditures 188,681 9,821 (52 ,603)
Fund balan ces at Ju ly 1, 1997 - 247,694 405,011
Fu nd balances at June 30, 1998
$ 188,681 $ 257,515 $ 352,408
Fu nd balance by year received:
1998 $ 188,681 $ 12,821 $ 6,061
1997 - 12,897 9,467
1996 - 47,242 9,352
1995
150,204
1994 - 10,419 177,324
1993
1992 - 18,424 -
1991 - 23,642 -
132,070
Totals -
(a) C ity of Blythe continu es to receiv e Article 8 allocations for the Palo Verde area.
Sou rce: 1998 Finan cial Stateme nts
$ 188,681 $ 257,515 $ 352,408
(a)
17 JERNST&YOUNG LLP
As of: 1/18/99
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
N/A
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
ISSUED
DRAFT
ISSUED
ISSUED
DRAFT
DRAFT
ISSUED
Measure A Allocations - Comparison of 1998 to 1997
City of Banning
City of Beaumont
City of Blythe
City of Calimesa
City of Cathedral City
City of Corona
CVAG
City of Hemet
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Moreno Valley
City of Mumeta - Special Revenue
City of Murrieta - Interchange
City of Norco
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Perris
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Riverside
County of Riverside
City of San Jacinto
City of Temecula
Totals
Year ended June 30, 1998
(b)
Measure A
1998
386,545 $
137,071
630,483
103,526
748,111
1,932,896
(c) 670,055
915,970
122,484
603,100
478,631
2,035,107
(d) 593,754
(d) -
436,122
(a) 1,327,666
1,030,639
514,676
422,136
4,431,243
5,381,881
337,694
1,006,540
$ 24,246,330 $
Measure A
1997
357,901 $
156,970
574,257
97,234
709,853
1,761,020
1,026,603
855,894
116,043
550,865
437,525
1,911,527
97,720
415,598
394,633
1,192,734
957,082
480,558
393,574
4,149,938
4,688,286
315,215
879,525
22,520,555 $
(a) Revenues for the City of Palm Desert reflect allocations made by the Commission during the respective
fiscal years and thus will not agree to the revenues on the Measure A financial statements, due to the
City adopting GASB No. 22.
1998 revenue represents the 1995 Measure A allocation, which was disbursed to the City during fiscal
1998 upon the approval of the 1995 Measure A five-year expenditure plan. The fiscal 1998 Measure A
allocation of $168,981 is pending the submission and approval of the 1998 five-year expenditure plan
and has been recorded by the City as deferred revenue at June 30, 1998.
(b)
(c) CVAG 1998 financial statements were not available. 1998 amount represents in -lieu of Measure A
allocations for cities not participating in TUMF.
(d) Advance funding agreement with City of Murrieta was terminated. Accordingly, Measure A allocations
which previously secured the funding agreement for the interchange project are now being recorded in
the special revenue fund.
Source: 1998 Financial Statements
18
Increase
(Decrease)
28,644
(19,899)
56,226
6,292
38,258
171,876
(356,548)
60,076
6,441
52,235
41,106
123,580
496,034
(415,598)
41,489
134,932
73,557
34,118
28,562
281,305
693,595
22,479
127,015
1,725,775
JERNST&YOUNG LLP
As of: 1/18/99 Measure A Sched ule
Year e nded June 30, 1998
Reven ues:
Intergovern mental allocations:
Measu reA S 386,545 S 137,071 S 630,483 S 103,526 S 748,111 S 1,932896 S - S 915,970 S 122,484 S 603,100 S 478,631
SLTPP reimbursemen ts - - - - - _ _ -
STPLG reimbu rsement - - - 128,366 - 266 ,264 - - - - -
-
ISTEA reimbu rsements - - - - - - - - - -
Reimbu rsements from other govern mental age ncies - - - - - - - -
Reimbursements fro m regional arterial program - - - - - - - - - - -
Reimbursemen ts - - - - 177,063 150,719 - - - - -
Interes t income 22,829 55,570 110,714 2,711 77,589 239,474 - 59,217 2 ,927 123,227 24,924
Investment Lo ss Recovery - - - - - -
- - 28,230 -
Other reve nue - - - 7.501 1.105 - - -
Tota l revenues 409,374 192,641 741,197 242104 1,003,868 2,589,353 - 975,187 125,411 754,557 - 503,555
Expenditures:
Construction an d main tenan ce 289,243 33,806 789,497 227,114 675,206 3 .369,993 - 191,601 168,201 361,264 98,718
Re gio nal arterial impro vements - - - - - - - - - -
De bt service:
Principal - - - -
I 253,443 - - -
Interest
- - - - 253 .443
Total ex penditures 289.243 33.806 789.497 227 .114 675.206 3.871.224 - 191.601 - 168.201 361.264 98.718
Excess (deficien cy) of reven ues o ver
(un der) ex penditures 120,131 158,835 (48 ,300) 14,990 328,662 (1,281,871) - 783,586 (42,790) 393,293 404,837
O ther financing so urces (uses)
Proceeds fro m no tes payable - - - - - - - - - -
Other financing sou rces (u ses) - - - - -
NOT
ISS UED ISS UED ISSUE D ISSUED ISS UED' ISSUE D AVAILABLE ISSUE D ISSUE D ISS UED ISS UED
City of City of City of
City of City of City of Clty of Cathedral Clty of City of I ndian City of Lake
Ban ni ng Beaumont Blythe Calimesa Clty Corona CV AG Hemet Wells I ndio Elsi nore
Tota l o ther financing sources (u ses) - - - - - - - - - -
Excess (deficien cy) of reven ues and o ther
financin g so urces over (u nde r) expenditu res
an d other financin g uses 120.131 158,835 (48,300) 14,990 328.662 (1,281,871) - 783,586 (42,790) 393,293 404,837
Fun d balances at July 1, 1997 419.462 594.764 2.752.166 61.561 1.311.090 3.326.956 - 965 .505 94.631 2.531.347 368.265
Fund balanc es at June 30, 1998 S 539. 593 S 753,599 S 2.703, 866 76,551 S 1 .639.752 S 2.045 .085 S - S 1.749 .091 S 51.841 S 2.924.640 773.102
Componen ts of fund balances:
Reserved for encumbrance s S - S - S - S - S - S 410,803 S - S 896 S - S 133,574 S 7,100
Reserved for specific projects - - - - - 1,634,282 - - - -
R eserved for continuing appropriatio ns - - 2,703,866 - 684,793 - 561,476 - - -
Designated fo r co ntinuing appropriations - - - - - - - - - - -
D esign ated for specific/future projects - - - - - - - - -
Unreserv ed, undesignated fun d balan ce 539.593 753.599 - 76.551 954.959 - - - L186.719 51.841 2.791.066 766.002
Total fun d balan ces S 539.593 $ 753.599 $ 2.703.866 S 76 551 S 1 639 752 1_2045 085 3 - 3 j 74909► 3 51 841 $ 2.924.640 S 773.102
Fu nd balance by year of to tal revenu es received:
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
To tal fund balance s
Sou rce: 1998 Fin an cial Statemen ts
S 409,374 S 192,641 S 741,197 S 76,551 S 1,003,868 S 2,045,085 S - S 975,187 $ 51,841 S 754,557 S 503,555
130,219 198,952 697,424 - 635,884 - - 773,904 - 648,495 269 ,547
182,905 692,119 - - - - - - 674,521
- 34,408 573,126 - - - - - 687,046
- 144.693 - - - - - - - 160.021
, j 539,59_ $, 753,599 S 2.703, 866 $ 76.5,51 $ 1.639,752 $ 2.045. 085 S - $ 1.749 .091 S 51.841 S 2,924.640 S 773.102
19 ,-"ryJERNST &YOUNGLLP
As of: 1/18/99 Me as ur e A S ch ed ule
Year ended June 30, 1998
Revenu es:
Intergo vernmental allocation s:
Measure A
SUIPP reimbursemen ts
STPLG reimbursemen t
ISTEA reimbursements
Reimbursements from other govern mental agencies
Reimbursements from regio nal arterial program
R eimbursements
Inte rest inco me
Investmen t Loss Recov ery
O ther reven ue
Tota l reven ues
Expenditu res:
Co nstruction and maintenan ce
Re gional arterial improv emen ts
Debt serv ice:
Principal
Interest
To ta l ex pen ditu res
Excess (deficien cy) of rev enues ov er
(un der) expenditures
Other financing so urces (uses)
Proceeds from no tes pa yable
Other financin g sources (u ses)
Tota l o ther fin ancing sources (uses)
Ex cess (deficiency) of reven ues and other
financ ing source s over (un der) expenditu res
and o ther financin g uses
Fun d balances at Ju ly 1, 1997
Fund balances at June 30, 1998
Components of fun d balan ces:
Re served for en ciunbra nces
Reserved for specific projects
Res erved fo r continu ing appropriations
Designated for con tinuing appro priatio ns
Designated fo r specific/futu re projects
U nreserved, undesignated fun d balance
Total fu nd balances -
Fun d balance by year of to ta l reven ues received:
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
Total fund balanc es
Sou rce: 1998 Fin ancial Statements
ISS UED ISSUED ISSUE D ISSUED ISSUED
City of
More no City of City of
Valley Murrieta N orco
S 2,035,107 S
224,674
439.566
City of
Palm
Desert
City of
Palm
S DrhW
DRAFT ISSUED ISS UED
City of
City of R ancho City of
Perris Mirage Riverside
593,754 S 436,122 S 1,327,666 $ 1,030,639 S 514,676 S 422,136 S 4,431,243
- - 74,676
1,712,729
25,658
6,382,154
368,208 23,376 299,675 88,026
16.136 - - 14.111
3,083,691 603,093 459,498 3,354,181 7,526,477
2,556,748
2.556.748
526,943
200 000
200,000
726,943 184,888 15,989 766,956 307,403
4.785.184 100.725 292.538 4.816.819 1.648.768
S 5. 512,127 S 285. 613 S, 308, 527 3 5.583, 775 S 1 .956 .171 $
S 566,551 S 154,600 S 16,126 S 85,672 S 257,932 $
1,656,656 - 1,795,265
3,841,447 -
4.945.576 - 131.013 292.401 - (97.0261
S 5.512.127 S 285. 613 S 308.527 S 5, 583. 775 $ 1. 956. 171 S
9 ,339
418,205 222 ,885 2,587,225 817,569
- 6,401,505
- 133,686
- 86.938
418.205 443.509 2.587.225 7.219.074
184,888 15,989 766,956 307,403
2,074 385,750
77,229 62,522
742,975
26.224
593,979 870,408 5,275,118
DRAFT DRAFT ISS UED
Co unty of City of City of
Riverside San Jacinto Temec ula Total
S 5,381,881 S 337,694 $ 1,006,540 $ 23,576,275
- - - 299,350
- - - 394,630
- - - 439,566
153,512 - - 179,170
- - - 6,382,154
- 298,790 - 2,727,125
311,111 29,885 284,984 3 ,016,512
- - - 28,230
- - - 65.077
5,846,504 666,369 1,291,524 37,108,089
800,587 1,264,789 1,536,093 4,634 ,353 664,350 2,295,836 24,003,283
- 6,401,505
121,021 - - 82,778 318,363 903 ,636
78.703 - - - 53.831 207.035 679.950
L000.311 1 .264 .789 1.536.093 4.634.353 800.959 2.821.234 31988.374
(406,332) (394,381) 3,739,025 1 ,212,151 (134,590) (1,529.710) 5,119 ,715
1,926,396
(90 6391
1,835,757
- - 1,926,396
- 1 300 000 5 094 027 6 503.388
- 1,300,000 5,094,027 8,429 ,784
1 ,429,425 (394 ,381) 3,739,025 1,212,151 1,165,410 3,564,317 13,549,499
731.914 1.132.080 11 .835 .583 5.054.208 741.739 2.277.518 45_842.823
2.161 .339 5 737 .699 $ )1 ,174 608 6.266 ,3;x,5 1.907,1_49 $. 5.1141.831_ $j9.2,32_
- S
2.161.339
2,161339
11,321
153,991
572.387
S 737. ,699
S 3,283,691 S 285,613 S 308,527 S 3,354, 181 S 1,956,171 S 2,161,339 S
2,228,436 - - 2,229,594 - -
S 1 ,143,172 S - S
6,266,359
11,344,716
3.086.720 -
.aie-$1L 630.6_ ,$59 $
- $ 3,431,541
1907.149 2.410.294
1907.149 S 5 .841 .835
737,699 S 5,275,118 S 5,846,504 $ 1,907,149 S
- 5,290,378 419 ,855 -
- 5,009,112 -
S 6,219,288
1,634,282
13,668,415
153,991
15,186,163
22.530.183
19.P92.322
5,841,835 S 37,711,683
- 13,522,688
- 6,558,657
- 1,294,580
304.714
$ 5.512. 127 S 285.613 S 308.527 S 5.583.775 S 1.956.171 S 2.161339 D7,699 $ 15 608 S 6 .266.359 S 1.907.149 $ 5.841 .835 S 59.392.322
20 J ER NST &YOUNG LLP
As of: 1/18/99
Measure A Speciali zed Transit Schedule
Year ended June 30, 1998
ISS UE D ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED DR AFT DRAFT DRA FT
Family Service Partnership to
Associati on Preserve I ndependent V olunt eer
C are -A -Va n of Wester n Frie nds of Inland Li ving for S eni ors Center of
Transit Riverside M oreno AI DS and Pers ons Riv erside
System, Inc . Co unty V alley Project with Disabilities Tra nsportation Specialist s C ounty
Temporarily
Unrestricted Unr estricted Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted Restricted Total Unrest ricted
Operating rev enu es:
Intergo vernmental allocation s:
Measu re A S 113,500 S 125,000 $ 26,000 S 62,062 $ 139,057 S 147,900 $ 50,900 $ 198,800 S 81,895
Commun ity Dev elo pmen t Block Gran t 23,500 - -
-
Fare revenu e con tributions 14,149 5,995 - -
Other co ntribution s 99,182 - - - -
Do na ted services and re nt 19,776 - -
Agency Paymen ts 3,025
Interest income 80 47 - - -
N et assets released from restrictions - - 38,894 (38,894)
O ther revenue 1,000 - - 212 112 - 112
Total opera tin g rev enues 155,254 250,000 26,000 62,062 139,269 186,906 12,006 198,912 81,895
Total opera ting expenses 175,264 317,352 26,000 62,062 139,269 166,952 166,952 83,620
Excess (deficiency) of operating reven ues
ov er (un der) operatin g ex penses (20,010) (67,352)
19,954 12,006 31,960 (1,725)
Non opera ting rev enue:
Interfun d Transfer 1,725
Family Se rv ice Association of Western Rive rside
Coun ty - Sen io r Center an d othe r su bsidies - 63,784 - - -
Chan ge in n et assets (20,010) (3,568) - - 19,954 12,006 31,960
Net assets at July 1, 1997
Net assets at June 30, 1998
Sou rce: 1998 Financial Sta tements
49,682 16,631 - - 19,967 33,255 53,222
S 29,672 S 13,063 $ - $ - $ - $ 39,921 S 45,261 S 85,182
21 JERNST&YOUNG LLP
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
Focus: 1998
Value Results
22 =U ERNST &YOUNG LLP
THE VALUE SCORECARD
In addition to providing you with the results of our audits, this meeting provides a forum to refine your expectations
regarding our services going forward. We include below some recent examples of value-added assistance provided
to the Commission and seek your input as to additional value we can bring to the Commission.
Issue Description of Assistance
Knowledge
Transfer •
Provide assistance in preparation of the general
GFOA Certificate purpose financial statements for submission to
obtain the GFOA Certificate.
Accounting Assistance
Review significant and/or unusual accounting
transactions for proper accounting and reporting.
Public Sector Training Provide annual technical update
financial personnel.
The Commission has received the GFOA
Certificate on financial reporting excellence
annually since the 1993 CAFR.
External resource to ensure that transactions
are recorded and reported properly.
sessions for Management prepared to comply with future
accounting and reporting developments.
Project Assistance
Commuter Assistance
Program
Arbitrage and
Verification
Calculations
Indirect Cost
Allocation Plan
Update of Measure A
Sales Tax Forecast
Analysis of Measure A
Perform agreed -upon procedures relating to the
financial records and internal control over
inventory and recipient eligibility.
Perform arbitrage calculations required by law
and refunding verification calculations required
for debt financings.
Providing assistance related to the development
of an indirect cost allocation plan.
Perform agreed -upon procedures related to
projection of Measure A sales tax revenues,
including assistance in developing an econometric
model.
Prepared and presented to civic/community
leaders and restructured Commission a summary
analysis of Measure A original revenue and
project costs expectations compared to current
status.
Contractor compliance with Commuter
Assistance Incentive Programs and adequate
internal control over inventory.
Independent analysis and calculations.
Specialized industry resource with information
on indirect cost plans.
Current revenue projection to determine ability
of Measure A revenues to fund required
Measure A projects.
Independent presentations of Measure A
analysis based on E&Y's historical
involvement with Measure A since inception.
23 E.11 ERNST &YOUNG LLP
Issuance of Bonds Provide report on debt service coverage ratio for Compliance with bond indentures and
projected maximum annual debt service. commercial paper agreements.
CPTC's Assessment of Performed agreed -upon procedures with joint Leverage audit needs with E&Y's knowledge
HOV3+ Tolls Caltrans/OCTA/RCTC project team to determine from prior tollroad financial projections
CPTC's ability to assess 50% tolls on HOV3+. assistance.
Resource Reference Periodically. management requests our assistance Access to firm contacts and resources.
in identifying candidates for accounting and Independent participation in the interview and
management positions and in participating in the proposal processes.
interview process. Additionally, management
requested our assistance in reviewing investment
advisory proposals.
Proactive Ideas
Provide suggestions relating to possible Suggestions are included on the following
improvements in operations. page.
?4 =� ERNST&YOUNG LLP
VALUE IDEAS - SUGGESTIONS FOR
IMPROVEMENT
Riverside County Transportation Commission
• Continue implementation activities to be Year 2000 compliant.
• Revise Measure A five-year expenditure plan requirements to include description of specific
projects rather than general street improvement projects.
• Ensure that the disbursement schedules for the TDA Local Transportation, Measure A and
Specialized Transit funds are properly prepared to reflect the actual amounts disbursed to each
city/agency during the fiscal year.
• Ensure that Specialized Measure A Transit grants are approved with a June 30 grant completion
date.
25
=� ERNST&YOUNG LLP
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
Looking Ahead to
Next Year
26 El ERNST&YOUNG LLP
TEAM CONTINUITY
From listening to management and the marketplace, we know that great value is placed on having a
superior service team distinguished by relevant credentials and continuity of service.
There continues to be a high level of continuity among the members of the team. Their enthusiasm and
commitment to the Commission ensure responsive, innovative and forward looking service focused on its
business issues.
The value of the audit arises from and depends heavily on the integrated teaming of management and
E&Y. Throughout the year, the E&Y audit team is in constant communication with management to
facilitate efficiency and continuous improvements in our audit efforts for the Commission.
Sarah Anderson, Coordinating Partner
• Partner in charge of our Southem California Public Sector practice
Over 25 years of experience
11 years serving the Commission
Jim Williams, Independent Partner
National Director Public Sector Services, Governmental Accounting and Reporting
Over 30 years of experience
Over 6 years serving the Commission
Theresia Trevino, Audit Senior Manager
• Known for her experience in Governmental Accounting and Reporting
Over 15 years of experience
11 years serving the Commission
Cynthia Morningstar, Audit Manager
• 9 years of experience specializing in public sector transportation
9 years serving the Commission
Julia Cox, Audit Manager
• 8 years of experience
8 years serving the Commission, primarily on audits of TDA claimants and Measure A recipients
Other Specialists as Needed
• As we have in the past, we continue to draw upon key industry specialists in such areas as
economics, indirect cost plans, and arbitrage to provide the technical resources needed to bring
value to the engagements.
Ernst & Young continues to serve you with a multi -disciplinary team of professionals who offer both
Public Sector industry expertise and a long history of involvement with the Commission. Many of the team
members "grew up" on this engagement. Their enthusiasm and commitment to the Commission ensure
responsive, innovative and forward looking services focused on its business issues.
77
NI ERNST&YOUNG LLP
GASB ISSUES AND PRONOUNCEMENTS
GASB Technical Bulletin 98-1 — Disclosures About Year 2000 Issues
• Effective for financial statements on which the auditors' report is dated after October 31, 1998
• Requires disclosure on significant amount of resources committed for Year 2000 compliance, Year
2000 issue as it relates to the Commission, and stages of completion of the Year 2000'
implementation -
GASB Financial Reporting Model Project
• Management discussion and analysis
• Entity -wide perspective for overall view
• Fund perspective for fund type/major fund information
• Capitalization of infrastructure
28 =i ERNST&YOUNG LLP
FISCAL 1999 AUDIT PLANNING
Planning for the audits will be developed in cooperation with management. As a balanced effort, it will
give full recognition to the existing internal control, as well as a thorough assessment of the business and
control risks. Risk responsive, it will address both your and management's expectations and provide for
the best utilization of external audit resources.
We will continue to meet with management throughout the year to review current developments and
challenge the continuing adequacy of the plan. Any significant changes to the plan will. be promptly
communicated to you as they occur.
Major items that should be considered for early involvement include:
• Timing of year-end audit procedures based on closing the general ledger, preparing all audit
schedules and completing the draft of the financial statements, including all footnote disclosures.
Assistance provided by Commission's Program Manager in connection with TDA/Measure A
audits.
• Consideration of city/agency intent to select own auditors for TDA claimant and Measure A
recipient audits. Coordinate with Commission staff to determine adequacy of work performed,
compliance programs and reporting requirements, and extent of reviews to be performed.
29
=� ERNST&YOUNG LLP
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
Appendix
Audit Process
A Year in the Life of an Ernst & Young Client
Co -Develop
Expectations
Drivers
Understanding
Internal/External
Factors
Methodology
Team
Focus
Portfolio of
Procedures
Value
Scorecard
Client
Satisfaction
JERNST&YOUNG LLP
A process focused on continuous improvement
and exceeding client expectations.
30 El ERNST&YOUNG LLP
AUDIT PROCESS
Co -Develop Expectations
In setting mutual expectations, we agree on: 1) understanding the Commission's needs; 2) providing useful
deliverables; and 3) measuring the valueof our relationship. This meeting with the Budget and
Implementation Committee allows us to validate and extend this agreement.
Drivers
Audit risk is influenced by business risk. Our audit begins with understanding factors which could affect
the Commission, TDA claimants and Measure recipients' business conditions and risks, including
stakeholder needs, industry trends, evolving standards, competitive strategy and market developments.
Business Risk Assessment
We monitor key issues and changes in the business environment to continuously update the Commission,
TDA claimants and Measure A recipients' business risks profile. Through a formal assessment of business
risk, we customize our audit procedures to those areas that signal vulnerability and risk.
Methodology
With a firm grasp of current and emerging business risks, we establish a "portfolio" of audit procedures.
These include: core compliance procedures, analysis of processes that manage and control business risk,
and procedures necessitated by events that occur throughout the year. The mix and emphasis evolves as
the business evolves.
Tea m
We work to leverage the resources that exist within the Commission's Finance and Accounting
Department. This teaming enables us to eliminate unnecessary duplication, increase audit quality and
increase the cost-effectiveness of our relationship.
Focus
Our primary deliverables are assurance as described in our opinion on the Commission's general purpose
financial statements and TDA claimants and Measure A recipients financial statements. Respecting the
talents of management, and the sophistication of the Commission's processes and controls, we have the
right team looking at the right things. Our results are objective and efficient, and provide a real-time view
of the business.
Client Satisfaction
We monitor our success in meeting the Commission's needs and expectations through our client
satisfaction improvement process.
Value Scorecard
The goal of a traditional audit is to render opinions on the Commission's general purpose financial
statements and TDA claimants and Measure A recipients financial statements. Our goal is to deliver on all
of your expectations and to be measured against these expectations. Beyond the attest objective, we expect
to be evaluated on: 1) providing early warning alerts regarding financial information and controls; and 2)
providing meaningful business insight that helps the Commission succeed.
31 El ERNST&YOUNG LLP
•
AGENDA ITEM 5
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Formation of Audit Committee
Background
The most important responsibility that public officials carry is the stewardship of
public funds. For that reason, strong internal controls should be a vital objective of
government managers and public officials. Annual audits by an independent firm are
a critical element of internal controls. Public officials should have a keen interest in
wanting to ensure that appropriate controls exist and are followed. The annual audit
provides an independent and objective evaluation of financial results , internal
controls, and policies and procedures. Commissioners then have a fair, objective,
and reliable assessment of the agency's performance.
Increasingly, as one of the internal control measures, jurisdictions are creating audit
committees composed of policy makers. The audit committee serves two functions:
1) to advise the governing board on matters pertaining to agency audits; and, 2) to
advise on issues involving the internal control structure.
Staff is recommending that an Audit Committee be established for the Commission.
The Audit Committee would meet twice a year and as needed. The first meeting
would be to discuss with the auditors the annual scope and other audit areas of
concern. The second meeting would be to receive the results of the annual audit,
including auditor required communications, management letter comments, and the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report with the auditor's analysis of those results.
Additionally, the result of the audits of funding recipients would also be considered.
Other meetings could be held if requested by the auditors, staff, or the Committee
itself. Once every five years the Committee would also be charged with selecting the
Commission's independent auditors.
While the audit committee would undoubtably include some members with a financial
background(e.g., CPA's, bankers, financial planners), membership should not be
limited to financial types. Others with varied expertise(e.g., attorneys) would broaden.
the skill level and usefulness of the committee. The Government Finance Officers
Association of the United States and Canada(GFOA) recommends in their publication,
Audit Management Guidebook", that in "selecting members to serve on an audit
committee, governing bodies should seek not just accounting and auditing skills, but
whatever other skills appear needed in the government's particular situation".
The GFOA also recommends that audit committees should be limited in size. It
should be large enough to accommodate a good range of expertise to enhance its role
as advisors to the full Board, but small enough to be able to operate efficiently and
effectively. Evidently, a number of governments have found five members to be a
number that will accomplish those two goals.
An audit committee could either be established as a sub committee of the Budget and
Implementation Committee, or a standing committee of the Commission. The latter
option would allow for any members of the Commission to serve and would open up
a broader range of potential expertise. For example, staff is, aware that at least two
Commission members are CPA's; however, neither of those serves on the Budget and
Implementation Committee. It may require amendment of the By-laws.
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:
1. That an Audit Committee be established to review Commission audits and
advise on internal controls.
2. Decide if the Committee should be a subcommittee of the Budget and
Implementation Committee or a standing committee of the Commission.
3. If the subcommittee option is selected, authorize the Chair of the Budget and
Implementation Committee to appoint members to the Audit Committee.
•
•
•
UUuuu3
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget & Implementation Committee
FROM:
Claudia Chase, Property Agent
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Friends of Jefferson House Contract
In September 1993, the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the Friends
of Jefferson House entered into an agreement for maintenance services at the
Riverside Downtown Station and the Pedley Station. In October 1995, this
agreement was amended to include the La Sierra Station, the West Corona Station
and the additional parking lot at the Riverside Downtown Station.
In January 1999, with the completion of the expansion at the Riverside Downtown
Station, which includes two elevators, two stair cases, a pedestrian bridge, a second
platform, a restroom facility and a security building, Friends of Jefferson has
requested an additional $1,056.00 for their services. Due to a mandated increase in
minimum wage, Friends of Jefferson House is also requesting an increase in their
current agreement. The proposed amendment will add an additional $945.00 to the
current contract.
Friends of Jefferson House has provided the personnel, supervision, supplies and
equipment necessary to assure the rail stations are always clean and safe. Friends
of Jefferson House has always demonstrated a genuine interest in the quality of their
performance, as well as an ability to be prompt to respond to emergencies that have
occurred at the stations.
Therefore, with the expansion at the Riverside Downtown Station and the increase
to the current contract, the proposed adjustment will be from $4,155.00 per month
to $6,156.00 per month for maintenance services. The total contract value will be
$61,899.00 thru June 30,1999.
UUliuu4
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
12,006.
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Local Transportation Funds (rail operations)
N
Year
Included in Program Budget
N/A
Year Prograrruned
N/A
Approved Allocation
N/A
Year of "Allocation
N/A
Budget Adjustment Required
Y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Budget and Implementation Committee recommend the Commission approve
the requested increase to the Friends of Jefferson House maintenance contract.
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 7
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Selection of Investment Advisor
The Ad Hoc Committee will meet the morning of the 25th to review the shortlisted
investment advisory RFP's. Their recommendation will be reported to the full
Committee.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
To be provided
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
UU0006
•
AGENDA ITEM 8
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Investment Report for Quarter Ending December 31, 1998
Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law
and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ending
December 31, 1998 is also attached for your review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
00000
Riv er side County Transp ortati on Commissi on
Investment Portfoli o Report
Period Ending December 31, 1998
Cash with County Treasurer
Bank of A merica
• 1
Op erating Pooled B ond Proje ct Funds Reserved Funds Held
F unds Funds Funds F or Debt In Tr ust T otal
Operating Account $9,361,795 .41
lmprest Acco unt $8,682.67
Spe cial Events Account $2,854.37
To tal Bank of America Operating $9,373,332.45
Milestone Fun ds
First Ame rican Treasury
U.S. Treasury No tes
M BIA Investment Agree ment
Fina ncial Investo rs Trust (FIT)
Un ion Bank:
Fed Nat'l M tge Assoc
Fe d Home Ln Ba nks
Highmark Money M arket (US Treasury Ob Fund)
Fe d Natl M tg Assn M edium Term
$26,511,746.55 $9,726,703 .26 $36,238,449 .81
$0.00
$5,160,696.17
$9,017,439.43
$1,997,500. 00
$2,480,000.00
$339,210.79
$1,994,531.26
$9,373,332.45
$8,214,662 .16 $8,214,662.16
$14,608,094.16 $4,416,285.16 $24,185,075.49
$2,924,000.00 $2,924,000.00
$13,002,612.00 $13,002,612 .00
$9,017,439 .43
$1,997,500 .00
$2,480,000.00
$339,210.79
$9,373,332.45 $40,345,896. 77 $5,160,696.17 $38,749,368.32 $14,142,988 .42 $107,772,282 .13
Cash with County Treasurer: A copy of the Investment Portfolio Report for the County of Riverside Treasury prepared by
Wayne Watts, County Treasurer is attached for review. (Note: L ocal transportati on funds represent the funds held in trust). The
County's annualized investment ret urn for the quarter was 5.33%.
Bank of America Day to day operating funds of the Commissi on are held in an interest bearing demand deposit acco unt with Bank
of America. Funds are wire transferred from the C ounty as needed, but no less than m onthly.
First American Treasury Money market acc ount provided by US Bank used to hold funds in transition between the Commissi on's
v arious bond funds and to accumulate monies for the payment of semi-an nual and an nual debt service . Interest earnings averaged
approximately 4.3233% for the quarter .
Fin ancial Inv estors Trust U.S. Treasury Money market Fund Triple AA A rated(by Standard & Poors and Moody's) money
market fund provided by Financial Guarantee Insurance Corporation. The f und i nvests in sh ort term U.S. guara nteed obligati ons. The
rate of interest on the fund varies daily, but the e ffective 7 -day yield for week endi ng December 31, 1998 was 4.60% .
Mileston e Treasury Obligation Fund Money market account provided by Milestone Capital which invests in treasury obligati ons .
The fun d is rated A AA by both Moody's and Standard & Poors, and is reviewed weekly by b oth rating agencies. Rate of ret urn for
week ending December 31, 1998 was 4.86%.
MBIA Investment Agreement: The Commission's debt reserve funds for the 1993 Series A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds are held by
MBIA, a AAA rated(by both Standard & Poo rs and Moo dys) bond insurance company. The i nvestment agreement ear ns 6.87% and
matures Janu ary 1, 2000, an d pays an interest rate of 6.87%. Collateralization and downgrade pro visions are consistent with AMBAC .
Union Bank: Prov ides custodial services for the Co mmission by holding in safekeeping the following sec urities:
U. S. G ovt. Agency Obligations (Federal National Mortgage A ssociatio n Note: Purchased December 8, 1997 priced to yield
5. 97%. Note matures December 7, 1999.
Federal Home Loan Ban k Note: Purchased September 16,1997 and priced to yield 6.01%. Note matures September 16, 1999
Federal Natl Mtg Assn Medium Term: Purchased March 9, 1998 and priced to yield 5.95%. Note matures March 9, 2001 .
• •
• • 1
Highmark Money Market US Treas ury Obligations Fund: Money market fund held by Union Bank, sec urities c ust odian.
Fund yielded 4 .28% for week ended December 31, 1998 .
Statement of Compliance
All of the abo the Commission's tments and any investment decisions made for the quarter endi ng December 31, 1998 were in full c ompliance with
i>fives ent policy as adopted on November 12, 1997 .
Signed by
Chief Financial Officer
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Treasurer's Pooled investment Fund
California Govemment Code & Treasurer's Investment Policy
Compliance Analysis and Investment Report
December 31, 1998
PAUL McDONNELL
TREASURER/TAX
COLLECTOR
KENNETH C. KIRIN
INVESTMENT
OFFICER
(909) 955 - 3967
Month -End Book Value
Month -End Market Value*
Paper Gam or (Loss)
Percent of Paper Gain or Loss
Yield Based Upon Book Value
Weighted Average Maturity (Days)
Market value does not include accrued interest.
JULY
1,242,110,962
1,241,395,403
-$715,559
-0.06%
5.49%
279
PORTFOLIO STATISTICS
AUGUST
1.281,105,883
1,281,479,382
$373,498
0.03%
5.49%
234
SEPTEMBER
1.298,283,895
1,300,031.416
$1,747,521
0.13%
5.51%
236
OCTOBER
1,227,364,535
1,228,618,106
$1.253,571
0.10%
5.38%
257
NOVEMBER
1,244,582,397
1,244.946,663
$364.266
0.03%
5.29%
291
DECEMBER
1,732,997,164
1,732,780.486
-$216.678
-0.01%
5.32%
230
THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY POOLED INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO IS RATED
AAA/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICE AND AAA/V-1+ BY FITCH INVESTOR SERVICES
RCTC
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
SUITE 100
RIVERSIDE, CA. 92501
•
UUUIIil
ROTA
Ilelrrtrlrleleirllrrrrerllrrllrrrlitrrltilrlrrrilerllrrrllrrri
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Pooled Investment Fund — Portfolio Characteristics
Maturity Assets
30 Days or Less 1,090,141,883.60
30 - 90 Days 154,976,922.61
90 Days - 1 Year 52,069,220.00
1 - 2 Years 135,057,000.00
2 - 3 Years 300,535,460.00
Over 3 Years
Total: $1,732,780,486.21
Quality
U.S. Treasury
Federal Agency
AAA
A-1 and/or P-1
AA
A
NUR.
Total:
Assets
70,006,200.00
1,003,906,791.76
141,000,000.00
507,867,494.45
10,000,000.00
S 1,732,780,486.21
Sector
U.S. Treasury
Federal Agency
Cash Equiv. & MMF's
.4
Commercial Paper
edium Term Notes
Bankers Acceptances
Certificates of Deposit
Local Agency Bonds
Total:
Assets
70,006,200.00
1,003,906,791.76
141,000,000.00
449,816,436.68
58,051,057.77
10,000,000.00
S 1,732,780,486.21
• !nc:uces Reno, -. Coilateraiized Time Deposits
70.00%
80.00%
s0.w%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
000%
30 Days or less
829%
Maturity
8.9%
3.0%
7.8%
17.3%
0.0%
30 - 90 Days 90 Days - 1 Yes 1 - 2 Yeas
2- 3 Yeas
Over 3 Years
RIVERSIDE PORTFOLIO SIMULATION
Interest Rate Stress Analysis
1
Interest rate stress analysis is used to show the effect on
market value. given a dramatic change in interest rates.
The table to the nght shows the change in market value
for both an instantaneous change in rates (takes place in
one day) and a change in rates that takes place over six
months. Interest rates are assumed to move up or down
300 basis points (bp) in 50 bp increments. Next to the
change in market value is the gainAoss column for each
scenano. The gain or loss is calculated by subtracting
acquisition cost from market value.
There are other factors, but the major difference in the
two scenarios is interest eamed. If the change takes
place over six months there is an additional six months
interest income, plus interest on cash flows assumed to
be reinvested at 5.29%. In addition, the portfolio would be
ex months shorter.
Yield
Acquisition Change
Cost (bp)
$1,732,997 -300
$1,732,997 -250
$1,732,997 -200
$1,732,997 -150
$1,732,997 -100
$1,732,997 -50
$1,732,997 0
$1,732,997 50
$1,732,997 100
$1,732,997 150
$1,732,997 200
$1,732,997 250
$1,732,997 300
Interest Rate Changes Take Place:
Instantaneous Over Six Months
Market Value
Gain/Loss
Market Value
Gain/Loss
$1,742,433
$9,436
$1,757,106
$24,109
$1,740,904
$7,907
$1,758,654
$25,657
$1,739,374
$6,377
$1,760,187
$27,190
$1,737,845
$4,848
$1,761,711
$28,714
$1,736,332
$3,335
$1,763,289
$30,292
$1,734,761
$1,764
$1,764,795
$31,798
$1,732,780
5217
$1,788,125
$33,128
$1,729,977
-$3,020
$1,766,041
$33,044
$1,726,442
-$6,555
$1,765,258
$32,261
$1,722,319
-$10,678
$1,764,241
$31,244
31,717,938
-$15,059
$1,762,901
329,904
$1,713,586
-$19,411
$1,761,657
$28,660
31,709,281
-$23,716
31,760,448
$27,451
omrttea.
This analysis demonstrates that sharp moves of interest rates either up or down by 3% will not have a significant effect on this portfolio.
000012
COMPLIANCE
Cal. Govt. Investment Category
Code
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE & COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY
AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
Government Code
Maximum Authonzed % Quality
Maturity Limit S&P/Moodv't
County Investment Policy
Maximum Authorized % Ouality
Matuntv Limit S&P/MoodVs
Actual
Riverside
Portfolio %
536011a)
LOCAL AGY BONDS
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
7 YEARS
IS%/ S150mm
A/A2
0.00%
53601(b)
U. S. TREASURY
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
3 YEARS
85%/850mm
N/A
4.04%
53601(d)
CALIFORNIA LOCAL
AGENCY DEBT
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
Combined w/Local
Agency Bds
0.00%
53601(e)
FEDERAL AGENCIES
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
3 YEARS
75%
N/A
57.94%
53601(f)
BILLS OF EXCHANGE
270 DAYS
40%'
180 DAYS
30%
Al/PI
3.35%
53601(g)
COMM. PAPER
180 DAYS
15% or 30%`
Al/P1
90/31 DAYS
15% plus 15%
Al/PI
25.96%
53601(h)
CERTIFICATE & TIME
DEPOSITS
5 YEARS
30%
1 YEAR
0% max
A+/A1
0.00•/
53601(i)
REPOS
1 YEAR
NO LIMIT
7 DAYS
1.0% max
N/A'
7.85%
53601(i),
REVERSE REPOS
92 DAYS
20%
92 DAYS
10%max
N/A
0.00%
53601(1)
MED. TERM NOTES
5 YEARS
30%
A
2 YEARS
7% / S75mm
AA/Aa2
0.00%
53601(k)
MUTUAL FUNDS
90 DAYS'
20%
AAA/Aaa'
IMMEDIATE
15%/S150mm
AAA
0.29%
53601(m)
SECURED DEPOSITS (BANK
DEPOSITS)
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
1 YEAR
2% max
0.58%
53601(n)
MORTGAGE PASS-
THROUGH SECURITY
5 YEARS
20%
AA -SECURITY
A -ISSUER
N/A
N/A
0.00%
16429 (1,2,3)
LOCAL AGENCY
INVESTMENT FUNDS
N/A
NO LIMIT
3 YEARS
0% max
0.00%
No more than 30%of this category may be invested with any one commercial bank
'30% if dollar weighted average maturity does no exceed 31 days. Commercial paper average days to maturity is
Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as we ghted average maturity not exceeding 90 days.
• Or must have an investment Advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of 5500.000.000.
11.91
100.00%
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND TREASURER'S POLICY
The County Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy is more stringent than the California
Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually and presented to the County's Investment
Oversight Committee and the County Board of Supervisors. As of this month end the
County's Pooled Investment Fund was in compliance with this more restrictive policy.
Although we have been diligent in the preparation of this report, we have relied upon numerous
pricing and analytical sources including Bloomberg Market Database and Capital Management
Sciences, Inc.
FUND SERVICES ADVISORS, INC.
(310) 229-9170
Los Angeles
- San Francisco New York
R e g i s t e r e d I n v e s t m e n t A d v i s o r s
FSA
u000"i3
County of Riverside
PROJECTION OF FUTURE CASH FLOW
• The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. The Treasurer states that based upon
projected cash receipts and maturing investments there are sufficient funds to meet future cash flow disbursement requirements over the next 12 months.
MONTH MONTHLY MONTHLY REQUIRED ACTUAL INV. AVAIL. TO
RECEIPTS DISBMNTS DIFFERENCE MAT. INVEST BALANCE MATURITIES INVEST >1 YR.
1/01 83.1
01/99 278.9 661.8 (382.9) 299.8 - 1,110.1
02/99 337.1 296.1 41.0 41.0 94.0
03/99 378.3 349.1 29 2 70.2 40.9
04/99 628.3 382.6 245.7 315.9 22.0
05/99 259.1 657.2 (398.1) 82.2 -
06/99 299.9 436.6 (136.7) 136.7 10.0
07/99 246.2. 322.3 (76.1) 76.1 10.0
08/99 356.7 311.5 45.2 45.2
9/99 284.6 298.4 (13.8) 31.4
10/99 324.5 361.7 (37.2) 5.8 - 10.0
11/99 337.5 336.2 1.3 1.3
12/99 693.0 388.3 304.7 306.0
Totals: 4,424.1 4,801.8 (377.7) 600.6 1,297.0 1,131.4
34.68% 74.88% 65.32%
,he yield history represents gross yields; administrative costs have not been deducted. Actual earnings on your fund
balance will be credited by the Auditor -Controller based upon County Treasurer calculations. Portfolio yield always lags
current trends in short-term interest rates. Yields fluctuate with changing markets and past performance is not an
indication of future results.
PORTFOLIO 90 DAY
\1ONTH YIELD T -BILL
Jan -98 5.52 5.16
Feb -98 5.49 5.20
Mar -98 5.50 5.14
Apr -98 5.47 5.06
May -98 5.49 5.11
Jun -98 5.50 5.10
Jul -98 5.49 5.07
Aug -98 5.49 5.02
Sep -98 5.51 4.72
Oct -98 5.38 4.01
Nov -98 5.29 4.50
Dec -98 5.32 4.49
Gross Yield Trends
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
Gross Yield Trends
3.50
Jan -98 Feb -98 Mar -98 Apr -98 May -98 Jun -98 Jul -98 Au¢98 Seo-98 Oc4.98 Nov -98 Den. -98
I -48- PORTFOLIO YIELD -II-90 DAY T -BILL
UUU3l..4
20 -J an -99 Pr ojected Statement of ( 'ash Flows
1208 PM .lan. 1999 thru Jun. 1999
4
BEG INNING CASII BALANCE
CASH RECEIPTS:
Sales Tax Revenue
Interest Inco me
Other Revenue
To tal Cash Receipts
TO TA L A VAILA BLE CA SH
CA SH DISBURSEMENTS:
JAN FEB M AR
APR MAY JUN
$50,330,085 548,393,656 548,097,121 546,392,098 543,959,279 542,992,850
54,850,800 56,467,700 56,600,000 54,500,000 56,000,000 56,400,000
68,600 68,600 511,100 68,600 68,600 511,100
1,178,545 2,082,372 102,000 906,250 1,126,250 2,695,250
56,097,945 58,618,672 57,213,100 55,474,850 57,194,850 $9,606,350
556,428,030 557,012,328 555,310,221 551,866,948 551,154,129 552 ,599,200
Othe r Expenditu res(includes G & A) 365,000 365,000 365,000 365,000 365,000 365,000
Highway Projects 1,249,000 1,574,000 1,507,000 1,058,000 757,000 722,000
FSP & SA FE 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000
Rail Pro jects 208,000 319,000 347,000 402,000 555,000 648,000
Spec ia l Tran sportation Projects 168,000 15,000 8,000 168,000 15,000 8,000
Stre ets & R oads 1,793,535 2,391,367 2,440,284 1,663,830 2,218,440 2,366,336
Transit Projec ts 147,000 147,000 147,000 147,000 147,000 147,000
R egional A rterial (CV) 1,161,400 1,161,400 1,161,400 1,161,400 1,161,400 1,161,400
Commu ter Assistance Pro jects 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000
Property Management 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 S8 000
TOTA L CA SH D ISBUR SEMENTS 55,349,935 56,230,767 56,233,684 55,223,230 55,476,840 55,675,736
N ET CASH A VAILABLE 551,078,095 550,781,561 549,076,537 546 ,643,718 545,677,289 546,923,464
Line Advances 50 50 50 SO SO . SO
Bo nd Proce eds 50 50 SO SO SO SO
Interest Expense $0 50 50 50 50 SO
De bt Repayment (52.684.4391 (52.684 4391 (&2,684.4321 (52.684.4391 (52 684.4391 ($2.,.
NET CASH FR OM FINA NCING (52,684,439) (52,684,439) (52,684,439) (52,684,439) (52,684,439) (52,684,439
ENDING CASH BALAN CE 548 393 656 548 097 121 546 392 098 543 959 279 542 992 850 544 239 025
PAGE 2 OF 25
• •
•
AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
William Hughes, Measure A Project Manager
Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports
The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts
reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the
Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value
approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and
the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending December
31,1998.
Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreements
is available from Bechtel staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission receive and file.
Attachments
Ut10016
APPRCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/ROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
COM MISSI ON C ONTRACTURAL
PR OJECT AUTH ORIZED COMMITMENTS
DESCRIPTION ALL OCATION TO DATE
ROUTE 60 PROJECTS
Park Ride Lot Final Design (R09738)
Park 'n' Ride Lot Construction (R09928)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60
ROUTE 79 PROJECTS
Engineering/Environ. /R O W
(R09111,9301,9302, 9306,9337,9735, 9329,9737)
Project is Complete. Performing project close-
out tasks and consultant performing on -going
environmental inspections.
SUBTO TAL ROUTE 79
ROUTE 111 PRO JECTS
(R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538)
9635,9743,9849-9851,9857
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111
RO UTE 91 PROJECTS
Soundwall design and co ns truction
(R09101, 9337,9827,9847,9933)
Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91
1-215 PROJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018)
SUBTOTAL 1-215
$39,697
$325,000
6364,697
$9,696,360
59,696,360
$15,933,909
S15,933,909
$3,429,866
$2,300,000
55,729,866
$6,726,504
56,728,504
$39,697
$304,513
5344,210
$9,696,360
$9,696,360
$15,933,909
515,933,909
$3,331,802
$2,300,000
55,631,802
$5,878,173
55,878,173
•
% COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
A GAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE A GAINST
ALL OCATION Decemb er 31, 1998 TO DATE CO MMITMNTS TO DATE
100 .0%
93.7%
94.456
100.0%
100.056
100.0%
100.0%
97.1 %
100.0 %
98.3%
87.4%
87.4%
SO
$700
6700
Page 1 of 3
se
60
SO
$39,560
639,660
$9,639,646
69,639,648
$8,616,804
$8,616,804
$1,988,798
$1,229,442
$3,218,240
$5,697,757
$5,897,757
99 .7 %
11.5%
99.4%
99.456
54 .1%
64.156
59.7 %
53 .5 %
67.1%
96 .9 %
96 .956
RCTC MEASURE "A" HI GHWAY PROJECTS
BUD GET REPORT BY ROUTE
C OM MISSI ON C ONTRACTURAL
PROJECT AUT HORIZED COMMIT MENTS
DES CRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE
INTERCHANGE IMPROV . PROGRAM
Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) (R09428)
Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926)
SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE
PROJECT & C ONSTR. M GM T SERV.
(R09800, 9900)
SUBTO TAL BECHTEL
PRO GRAM PLAN & SERVICES
Special Study (ITS Plan - R09727)
SUBTO TAL PRO GRAM PLAN & SVCS,
PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROG RAM
(RO 9740-9742) 9859 (9901-9915) (9813)
SUBTO TAL PARK -N -RIDE
COMM UTER RAIL
Studies/Engineering
(RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854)
Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs
(RO 0000, 9920, 9836, 9843,9845)
SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL
TOTALS
$1,364,508
$350,000
$1,714,508
$1,600,000
51,600,000
$450,000
5450,000
$3,075,200
53,075,200
$1,546,860
$9,207,502
510,754,362
556,045,408
$1,364,508
$304,000
S1,668,508
$1,456,568
51,456,568
$450,000
5450,000
$3,075,200
53,076,200
$1,546,860
$8,226,000
S9,772,860
S53,907,590
% C OMMITTED EXPENDITURE F OR % EXPENDITURES
A GAINST AUTH MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE A GAINST
ALLOCATION Dec ember 31, 1998 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE
100 0%
86 .9 %
97.3%
91 .0 %
91 .0%
100 .0%
100 .0%
100 .0%
100.0%
100 .0 %
89.3 %
90 .9%
98.2%
Page 2 of 3
$0
$0
30
$117,152
$117,152
30
3117,852
$1,362,954 99 .9%
0 .0 %
31,362,954 81.7%
$413,396
5413,396
$347,499
5347,499
$2,293,685
32,293,685
$1,440,786
$5,978,041
37,418,827
339,048,368
28.4%
28 .4%
77 .2 %
77.2%
74.6%
74.6%
93.1%
72.7%
75.9%
72.4%
• • •
• • •
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS
BUD GET REPORT BY PROJECT
EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL
PROJECT APPR OVED M ONTH ENDED MEASURE"A"
DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT D ecemb er 31, 1998 ADVANCES
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements (R 09422) $1,600,000 $1,600,000
SUBTOTAL CA NYON LAKE LOAN *1,600,000 *0 51,600,000
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623
Storm drainage structure
SUBTOTAL CITY OF CO RONA $5,212,623 S0 55,212,623
CITY OF PERRIS
Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500
CITY OF TEMECULA
Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027
CITY OF NORCO
Yuma I/C & Lo cal stre ets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067
TOTALS 517,308,636 *0 517,306,636
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
OUTSTANDIN G % LOAN BALANCE
LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST
BALANCE C OMMIT MENT APPR OVED COMMIT.
$1,366,227
*1,366,227
$4,177,023
$4,177,023
$1,749,466
$1,196,625
$4,602,220
$1,932,549
*15,024,110
$0
*0
$0
*0
$0
$0
$0
$0
so
85.4%
85 .4 %
80.1 %
80 .1%
90 .3%
90.3%
90.3%
90.3%
86 .8 %
Page 3 of 3
Status as of 12/31/98
•
AGENDA ITEM 10
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Progress Report on Internal Operations Review
Commission staff performed a review of internal operations in a number of functional
areas of the Commission. The results of that review were communicated to the
Commission at the November 1998 meeting. Staff agreed to provide the Commission
with regular status reports on the progress for those items noted as needing
additional attention. The first report was due back in 90 days. Attached is a matrix
that documents the principal problem items, required action step(s), expected
deliverable, and comments on progress to date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
O0O3
Riverside C ounty 'I portation Commissi on
Internal Operations Review
Progress Report -January 1999
POLIC IE S AND PROCEDURES
P1
P2
Co mplete up-to-da te policies and procedures ma nual
Curren t Pro gram and Funding Guide
t fpdate a nd revise RCTC general policies a nd procedures
Update and re vise RCTC pr ogram and f unding p olicies
Revised policies and proc edures by J une 30,
1999
Revised Program & Funding G uide by April
30, 1999
PERSONNE L MANAGE ME NT
Internal c ommittee of staff with auditor
assist ance has been app oi nted by Exec uti ve
Director
Deputy Executive Director will lead effort
assisted by selected program staff
PM1
M ore co mprehen sive Person nel Polices and Procedures manual
Desig n a nd ad opt new personnel policies a nd procedures
RCTC Pers onnel P olices and Procedures
Adopted by Commission 12/9/98 . Tech nical
c orre cti ons to be c ompleted by March 31,
1999
PM2
No formal man agement or staff train ing program
Develop a m ore structured approach to m an agement and
staff training
Full r ep ort to the C ommissio n including
hours of trai ni ng, subject areas a nd positions
c overed.
PM 3
Classification study has n ot been perform ed for the RCI C.
Retain con sultant to perform a classificatio n study
(authorized by the Commission in June 1998)
Positi on Classificatio n Study
E ffort led by newly created position of
Direct or of Regi onal Issues and
C ommu nications and Dire ct or of
Admi nistrative Services
To be initiated pri or to March 1, 1999 .
FINANCE/TRE4SURi' FUNC TIONS
F1
Passive in vestment strategy
Issue RFP for Inv estment Advisor
Appointme nt of In vestment Advisor
F2
RCTC do es n ot have a formal Audit Committee
Establislun ent of an Audit Co mmittee
F3
Fixed asset acco untability needs to be strengthe ned
a) Compe te in ventory of fixed assets
b) Establish capitalization threshold of $1,000
Audit Committee c onsisting of three to five
members. May require revision to By -L aws
C omplete a nd thorough Fixed Asset Listing
Capit alization policy of $1,000
CO NTRACTING FU NCTION
Scheduled for the February 10, 1999
Commissi on meeti ng.
Scheduled f or the February 10, 1999
Commissio n meeti ng.
Pr ocess u nderway to in ventory all computers
and existi ng list f or other items being
re viewed a nd re vised. C apitalization poli cy
cha nge will c ome f orward to the March
commission meeting.
Cl 1 RCTC do es not hav e fo rmal procurement policy or pro cedures Memorialize existing policies for con tract procurement and Pro curement Polices a nd Pr ocedures Ma nual I Chief Fina ncial Officer assigned
design new policies for general pro cu remen t fu nction . resp onsibility to complete by June 30, 1999.
GI
RCTC does not ha ve an orga nizati onal missi on stateme nt
GENERAL ADVINISTRATI1 E R E17 EH'
Adopt a mission statem ent for the Commission
RCTC Missi on Statement
G2
No feedback between eval uati ons to assist in individual goal
achievemen t
Formalize regul ar sessions with st aff to re view progress on
goals.
St aff oral or written reports to E xecutive
Director on g oal achie vement
Staff will bri ng f orward suggestions as part
of the budget process
First sessi on a ctually held Jan uary 20, 1999.
Quarterly financial reports being provided to
all department heads .
• •
12ERNST&YOUNG LLP
January 25, 1999
Budget and Implementation Committee
Riverside County Transportation Commission
■ Suite 200
3403 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 1270, 92502
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Members of the Budget and Implementation Committee:
■ Phone: 909 276 7200
Fax: 909 787 8184
We are pleased to present the results of our audit of the general purpose financial statements of
the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission) and the audits of the
financial statements of Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants and Measure A
recipients.
This report to the Budget and Implementation Committee summarizes our audit results, the scope
of our engagement, the reports issued and various analyses and observations related to the
Commission and the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients as well as compliance with laws
and regulations. This document also reviews communications required by our professional
standards. as well as current accounting issues that will affect the Commission.
The completion of this year's audits was accomplished through the effective support and the
assistance of the Commission's finance and administrative personnel. As always, we strive to
continuously improve the quality of our audit services. This meeting is a forum for you to provide
feedback on ways we can continue to meet and exceed your expectations.
This report is intended solely for the use of the Budget and Implementation Committee and
Commission management and should not be used for any other purpose.
We appreciate this opportunity to meet with you. If you have any questions or comments, please
call Sally Anderson at (909) 276-7221 or Theresia Trevino at (909) 276-7263.
Very truly yours,
fwv)vat yosi,UP
Ernst &Young LLP is a member of Ernst &Young International, Ltd.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Focus: Fiscal 1998 Audit Results
Summary of What We Agreed to Do 4
Business Risk Assessment Update 6
Required Communications 8
Comments on the 1998 Commission Financial Statements 11
Comments on the 1998 TDA Claimants and Measure A Recipients FinancialStatements 13
Article 3 Schedule 15
Article 4 Schedule 16
Article 8 Schedule 17
Measure A Allocations — Comparison of 1998 to 1997 18
Measure A Schedule 19
Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule 21
Focus: Value Results
The Value Scorecard 23
Value Ideas — Suggestions for Improvement — Riverside County Transportation Commission 25
Looking Ahead to Next Year
Team Continuity 27
GASB Issues and Pronouncements 28
Fiscal 1999 Audit Planning 29
Appendix
Audit Process 31
LT ERNST &YOUNG L L P
•
AGENDA ITEM 11
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Commit -tee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer
THROUGH:
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Award of Construction Contract No. RO-9932 to Construct a
Pedestrian Overcrossing Structure and Security Enhancements at
the Existing La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Commuter Rail
Stations.
At the September 9, 1998 Commission meeting, the Commission authorized staff to
re -program CMAQ funds, that had been allocated to the San Jacinto Branch Line, to
the Riverside La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations. The re-
programed CMAQ funds are to be utilized to construct a Pedestrian Overcrossing
Structure and Security Enhancements at each station. This project is the next step
in providing for public safety within the rail program. The estimated construction cost
and contingencies, and the available funding for the project are as follows:
Riverside La Sierra $1,200,000
West Corona $1,300,000
Contingency (13%) $ 325,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost $2,825,000
CMAQ funds available
11.47% Local Match
Total funding available for project
$2,500,000
$ 325,000
$2,825,000
At the October 8, 1998 meeting, the Commission directed staff to advertise to
receive bids for the Construction of a Pedestrian Overcrossing Structure and Security
Enhancements at the existing La Sierra and West Corona Commuter Rail Stations. The
Notice Requesting Bids was advertised on December 21, 1998. All bids are required
to be submitted by January 21, 1999.
When the bids are received, on January 21, 1999, they will be distributed to the evaluation
panel, consisting of staff members and Legal Counsel, and reviewed for compliance to the bid
documents. Based on the review by staff and Legal Counsel, the evaluation panel will
recommend the lowest responsive bidder to the Budget and Implementation Committee,
scheduled to meet on January 25, 1999, for 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.
UUUu:_'3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
When the bids are received, on January 21, 1999, they will be distributed to the
evaluation panel, consisting of staff members and Legal Counsel, and reviewed for
compliance to the bid documents. Based on the review by staff and Legal Counsel, the
evaluation panel will recommend the lowest responsive bidder to the Budget and
Implementation Committee , scheduled to meet on January 25, 1999, for 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.
•
•
00002 1
•
AGENDA ITEM 12
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
David Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative
Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Local Sales Tax Measure Renewal Options
Beginning in early 1998, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
expressed interest in renewing the current half -cent transportation sales tax
measure, Measure A. In response, RCTC staff raised the issue of the difficulty in
attaining a two-thirds majority to support passage of local sales tax measures. This
difficulty presents a clear dilemma for the seventeen self-help counties in the state
as well as those counties lacking a dedicated local source of revenue to support
necessary transportation investments.
The Self -Help Counties Coalition, under the leadership of SANBAG Executive
Director, Norm King (Moderator), and RCTC Executive Director, Eric Haley (Vice -
Moderator), began discussing options for addressing the two-thirds dilemma. From
this discussion and a series of legal reviews, six options seem to be available. Each
have their own unique legal and political merits or demerits.
Legislation to amend the Constitution to change the two-thirds vote
requirement for local transportation sales and use tax to majority vote. To be
placed on the ballot, a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote
of the Legislature. The proposition would need to be approved by a majority
vote of the state-wide electorate.
2. Adoption of a state tax - 50% ratification by the statewide electorate of a
state transportation sales and use tax collected in each county, contingent
upon local ratification of an expenditure plan by a majority of the cities
representing a majority of the county population and a majority of the county
Board of Supervisors. This would require 50% approval by the Legislature to
be placed on the ballot.
3. A statewide tax (similar to #2 above) - 50% statewide vote required followed
by a two-thirds ratification of the cities and County Supervisors. This would
require 50% approval by the Legislature to be placed on the ballot.
4. A bill requiring two-thirds vote by the Legislature to impose a state
transportation sales and use tax subject to ratification by a majority vote of
the county electorate;
UUOCl2
•
5. State constitutional amendment to reverse the two-thirds, and within the county 50%
requirement, i.e. special taxes require 50% and general taxes require two-thirds;
6. A+B-One measure, requiring 50% which outlays the expenditure plan, the other,
requiring 50% ratification of the half -cent to pay for the plan, both appearing
simultaneously on the local county ballot. (No new legislation needed)
Options 1-5 have not undergone any legal tests to date. However, each has been
researched by legal counsel representing RCTC, SANBAG, the San Diego Associated
Governments (SANDAG), and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). As each
option appears legally feasible, their political acceptance by the Legislature is currently
uncertain. Senator John Burton recently announced his intention to reduce the two-thirds
requirement for local transportation sales tax measures.
This past November, Marin, and Sonoma County each had "A+B" measures on their
respective ballots. While the expenditure plans for each county passed overwhelmingly
(Marin - 63%, Sonoma, 72%), the '/2 ratification for each county failed (Marin - 43%,
Sonoma, 47%). At the same time, Monterey and San Benito each placed a local
transportation sales tax measure requiring two-thirds passage. Each achieved over 50%
support but failed to receive the required two-thirds for ratification.
Representatives from the Self -Help Counties Coalition, Senator Burton's office, Norm King,
Eric Haley, Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel for RCTC and D.J. Smith, RCTC and SANBAG's
Sacramento Advocate, recently met to discuss the options and how to proceed. Senator
Burton will present a series of legal questions, relating to options 1-5 above to the Attorney
General and Legislative Counsel for a confidential legal opinion. Subsequent to receiving the
legal opinion, key legislators will be approached, and a meeting will be scheduled with the
anti -tax organization to assess the political ramifications. From these meetings, and
additional research, staff will bring forward to the Committee a specific recommendation
to support.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee support pursuit of a reduction in the current vote requirement for
passage of local transportation sales tax measures from two-thirds to 50% Currently, too
many legal and political variables exist to specifically select one of several options.
•
•
U U U a, :
•
AGENDA ITEM 13
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Projection
The Local Transportation fund consists of revenues generated from,a quarter cent of the
statewide sales tax. These sales tax revenues are principally used to fund transit
requirements within the County. The Transportation Development Act, legislation
which created LTF, requires the County Auditor Controller to annually estimate the
amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. That revenue
estimate then becomes the basis for geographic apportionment and claimant allocation.
While the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility over the
LTF revenues, the Commission by statute is charged with administration of the LTF
funding process. The practice has therefore been for Commission staff to actually
develop the revenue estimate. That estimate is then submitted to the County Auditor
Controller for concurrence.
Once the Commission and the County have agreed on a revenue amount, staff prepares
the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is the process which assigns
revenues to the three major geographic areas(as defined by TDA law) within the County -
Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and Western Riverside County. Those revenues are
divided between the three areas based on their respective populations. The area
apportionments occur after off -the -top allocations for administration (distributed to the
County, the Commission, and SCAG), set asides for planning activities (3%), and
reservations for bicycle and pedestrian projects (2%).
Attached is the 1999/2000 LTF apportionment based on a revenue estimate of
$35,500,000. The County is currently reviewing the estimate and is expected to
respond by the 22nd of January. Historically, the County has agreed with the staff
estimate. Staff's estimate was based on revenues to date projected to the end of the
year, and then inflated by 5.8%, the lower of two estimates furnished by local
economists (the higher estimate was six percent). The SCAG Planning amount of
$91,500 is a staff estimate. A revised schedule, with the actual amount, will be
provided at the meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the attached apportionment for
Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and Western Riverside County.
UU00:2_ t
r
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
1999/00 APPORTIONMENTS
Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $3,842,091
Est Receipts $35,500,000
TOTAL
Auditor $39,342,091
CTC Admin. $12,000
$375,000
CTC Planning (3%) $1,180,263
SCAG Planning $91,500
BALANCE
SB 821 (2%) $37,683,328
$753,667
BALANCE AVAILABLE $36,929,662
ANNUAL
POPULATION APPORTIONMENT
% of Total
Western 77.7647% $28,718,250
Coachella Valley 20.3966% $7,532,412
Palo Verde Valley 1.8386% $678,999
100.00% $36,929,662
NOTES Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change
UOU J2s
•
AGENDA ITEM 14
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 25, 1999
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Work Plan for the Strategic Plan
One of the most ambitious projects for the Commission for the 1999 calendar year
will be the development and completion of a comprehensive and countywide Strategic
Plan. The Strategic Plan will address all major funding sources including sales tax,
state and federal funding, possibility of developer fees and any other viable sources
of revenue. Projects of regional significance will be identified, prioritized and
sequenced.
Although many of the major projects will be for highways, rail, regional arterials and
new corridors, it is staff's intent that the Strategic Plan will address specialized
transportation programs, transit issues, clean air and air quality projects, funding for
local rehabilitation and maintenance, and commuter assistance and outreach
programs.
Staff and the Commission's financial advisors will be prepared to provide an oral
presentation that will lay out a suggested approach and time schedule for completion.
Staff anticipates completing Phase I of the plan by June 30, 1999 for presentation
at the July meeting. Phase 11 will running on a parallel track with Phase I, is
anticipated to be completed by December 31, 1999.
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
000329
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the work plan for completion of the Commission's comprehensive and
countywide Strategic Plan.
•
•
•
UUJ 1 1)
411
410
•
DRAFT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
OVERVIEW, PROPOSED OUTLINE, WORKPLAN AND SCHEDULE
OVERVIEW
To initiate the process of developing and adopting the Commission's Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan
serves as the Comrission's policy document to implement Countywide transportation solutions. The
Strategic Plan Update will be a collaborative process with participation from policy makers, staff, as well
as community and business leaders. The Strategic Plan will incorporate two phases. Phase 1 will address
near -term strategy and Phase 2 will address the Commission's long-term strategy. Goals of the Phase
Strategic Plan Update include the following:
• Summarize Program Objectives
• Evaluate Historical, Current, and Projected Program Results
• Identify of Key Programmatic and Financial Policy Issues
• Update Project Prioritization, Sequencing, and Benchmarking
• Identify Potential Program Constraints
• Evaluate Funding and Expenditure Alternatives
• Summarize Policy Alternatives Under Multiple Scenarios
• Identify Policy Alternatives and Recommendations
• Provide On -Going Program Evaluation and Benchmarking
The proposed Outline, Workplan, and Schedule follow.
Prepared by Charles A. Bell Securities and Boyea Capital Markets
000031
DRAFT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
OVERVIEW, PROPOSED OUTLINE, WORKPLAN AND SCHEDULE
OUTLINE
The proposed outline for the Strategic Plan Update is as follows:
• Executive Summary
• Overview
• Update on Revised Commission Organization and Committee Structure
• Key Policy Issues
• Summary of Alternatives and Recommendations
• Summary of Measure A Program
• Demand Driven
• Return to Source
• Proposed Allocation Progress Status Report Summary
• Project
• Region (Western Riverside, Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley)
• Source
• Comparison vs. Plan
•
•
•
Prepared by Charles A. Bell Securities and Boyea Capital Markets
000032
•
•
•
• Sources of Funds
• Sales tax
• Overview and Roles of Participants
• Forecast Methodology and Factors
• Historical forecasts
• Actual receipts
• Current forecast
• Reauthorization discussion
• State funding
• Overview and Roles of Participants
• Funding factors and constraints
• Historical
• SB45
• State Transportation Improvement Program
• Surface Transportation Program
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
• State -Local Transportation Partnership Program
• State Highway Operations and Protection Program
• Caltrans Maintenance Funds
• Proposed Legislation
• Federal Funding
• TEA -21 and FTA 5309
• Other Sources
• Local Transportation Fund
• Developer Fees
• Congestion Pricing
• Toll Road Revenues
• Rights of Way (including fiber optics)
• State Infrastructure Bank
• Real Estate/Transit Oriented Development/Parking
• Freight
• Advertising
• Regional Gas Tax
Prepared by Charles A. Bell Securities and Boyea Capital Markets
000033
• Uses of Funds
• Overview
• Project Prioritization , Sequencing and Approval
• Mandated Programs
• Rights of Way and Construction
• State routes and interstate highways
• New corridors
• Commuter rail
• Capital
• Operating
• Other rail
• Regional arterials
• Local Streets and Roads
• Interchanges
• Rehabilitation and maintenance
• Transit operations
• Service expansion
• Capital replacement
• Air Quality/Clean Fuels
• Special Programs
• Commuter education and outreach
• Joint Powers Authority Loan Program
' 1 J J rlp1ed by Cha,les A. Bell Securities and Boyea Capital Markets
•
•
•
• Financing Strategy
• Policy Goals
• Integration with other Commission Documents (Budget , etc.)
• Overview of Participant and Roles
• History and Summary of Financings
• Transactions
• Ratings
• Coverage
• Cost of Capital
• Projections
• Investment Policy
• Summary Cash Flow Model
• Key Policy Issues
• Recommendations
• Implementation Plan
• Addenda (including Project detail and Cash Flow Sensitivity Models)
Prepared by Charles A. Bell Securities and Boyea Capital Markets
000035
DRAFT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
REVISED PROPOSED WORKPLAN
TASK
ACTION STEPS
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Overall coordination of the Strategic Plan Update development and execution including outline, workplan, schedule
and reports.
1.1
Develop initial project schedule
FA, Staff
1.2
Compose Initial Strategic Plan
Objectives, Outline and Workplan
"Workplan"
FA, Staff
1.3
Revise Workplan
FA
1.4
Present Workplan (Budget
Workshop and Committee)
Staff, FA
1.5
Develop Project Team
Commission, Staff
1.6
Finalize Workplan
FA
1.7
Update project schedule
FA
1.8
Arrange/participate in periodic
meetings (Commission, Committee,
Advisory, Staff)
Staff, FA
1.9
Prepare monthly progress reports
Staff, FA
2. DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW
Compile, review and analyze data relevant to Strategic Plan Update.
2.1
Review RCTC Vision and Strategy
Issue Paper
FA, Staff, Commission
2.2
Review Commission action items
subsequent to Strategic Plan
Adoption
Staff, FA
2.3
Review State funding status
including SB45 impacts
Staff, FA
2.4
Review Measure A Expenditure Plan
Staff, FA
2.5
Review Strategic Plans from other
agencies, authorities, and
enterprises
FA, Staff
2.6
Review federal funding programs
including TEA -21 impacts
Staff, FA
2.7
Meet with WRCOG to review
developer fee program
Staff
3. ASSEMBLE PROJECT TEAM
Assemble and coordinate Strategic Plan Update team.
3.1
Establish policy oversight
committee
Commission
3.2
Identify key staff members
Staff
3.3
Establish public advisory body
Commission
3.4
Determine requirements for outside
resources
Staff, FA
4. UPDATE STATUS OF MEASURE A EXPENDITURE PLAN
Provide a summary of Measure A protects.
4.1
Summarize original Measure A
Expenditure Plan
FA
4.2
Meet with Program Managers to
discuss Measure A Expenditure
Plan status
Staff, FA
4.3
Update Project Status
Staff, FA
•
•
•
U 0 0 0 3 ripared by Charles A. Bell Securities and Boyea Capital Markets
DRAFT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
REVISED PROPOSED WORKPLAN
TASK
ACTION STEPS
5. REVIEW AND ANALYZE SALES TAX FUNDING
Review of forecast methodology, actual vs. projections, and revised long-term forecast.
5.1
Meet with E&Y to discuss forecast
methodology
E&Y, FA
5.2
Update regional economic forecast
for sales tax impact
Husing
5.3
Develop and adopt 20 year sales tax
projections
E&Y, Husing, Staff, Commission
5.4
Review sales tax extension
alternatives
Staff, FA
6. UPDATE STATE & FEDERAL FUND NG PLAN
Determine eligibility factors and constraints and applicability to RCTC programs.
6.1
Meet with programming staff to
determine state and federal funding
source availability
FA, Staff
6.2
Summarize state and federal
funding program guidelines and
requirements
Staff, FA
6.3
Review proposed legislation
Staff, FA
6.4
Develop projections for state and
federal funding levels
Staff
7. REVIEW ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES
Review of developer fee, congestion . ricing, toll road, and transit oriented development funding alternatives.
7.1
Analyze developer fee including
review of existing model
County/WRCOG, Staff, Impacted
Cities
7.2
Review and discuss private
development options including
transit oriented development
Staff, FA
7.3
Analyze toll road options
Staff, FA
7.4
Discuss other potential sources
Staff, FA
8. DEVELOP UPDATED EXPENDITURE PLAN
Review project selection methodology and project alternatives.
8.1
Review criteria for project selection,
prioritization, sequencing, and
benchmarking
Staff, FA
8.2
Analyze alternative methodologies
for project selection, prioritization,
sequencing and benchmarking
Staff, FA
8.3
Summarize program needs and
alternatives
Staff, FA
8.4
Present preliminary project
selection alternatives
Staff
8.5
Update project selection alternatives
Staff, FA
8.6
Preliminary review of project
alternatives
Commission, Staff, FA
8.7
Present preliminary project
alternatives to COGS and Public
Advisory Body
Commission, Staff, FA
8.8
Adopt final expenditure plan,
prioritization, and sequencing of
projects
Commission
Prepared by Charles A. Bell Securities and Boyea Capital Markets
000037
DRAFT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
REVISED PROPOSED WORKPLAN
TASK
ACTION STEPS
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
9. DEVELOP INTERACTIVE ANALYTIC CASHFLOW MODEL
Analyze impact of funding/expenditure alternatives under multiple scenarios.
9.1
Determine appropriate input line
items
FA, Staff
9.2
Determine key variables
FA, Staff
9.3
Develop and present draft cashflow
model
FA
9.4
Revise cashflow model
FA
9.5
Analyze multiple scenarios
including various growth,
sequencing, funding level, interest
rate, inflation, and sales tax
extension alternatives
FA, Staff
9.6
Summarize cashflow model
altematives
FA, Staff
10. UPDATE FINANCIAL POLICY
Summarize and update debt and investment policy.
10.1
Review debt history
FA
10.2
Summarize and update debt policy
Staff, FA
10.3
Summarize and update investment
policy
Staff, FA
11. FINALIZE STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE DOCUMENT
Incorporate input to develop policy goals, recommendations and implementation plan for updated Strategic Plan.
11.1
Draft Phase 1 Strategic Plan Update
Staff, FA
11.2
Present Phase 1 Strategic Plan
Update
Staff, FA
11.3
Revise Phase 1 Strategic Plan
Update
Staff, FA
11.4
Finalize Phase 1 Strategic Plan
Update
Staff, FA
11.5
Adopt Phase 1 Strategic Plan Update
Commission
11.6
Present Phase 2 Strategic Plan
Update
Staff, FA
11.7
Revise Phase 2 Strategic Plan
Update
Staff, FA
11.8
Finalize Phase 2 Strategic Plan
Update
Staff, FA
11.9
Adopt Phase 2 Strategic Plan Update
Commission
w 0ci3S
•
•
•
Prepared by Charles A. Bell Securities and Boyea Capital Markets
•
•
•
DRAFT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
REVISED PROPOSED SUMMARY TIME SCHEDULE
Activtty/Month 1999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Project Management
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Data Collection and Review
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Draft Outline, Workplan & Schedule
x
Revise Outline, Workplan & Schedule
x
Budget Workshop
x
Assemble Strategic Plan Team
x
Update Outline, Workplan & Schedule
x
Meet with Program managers
x
x
x
x
x
x
Present Plan Overview & Schedule
x
Update Project Status
x
x
x
x
x
Update Sales Tax Forecast
x
x
x
x
x
x
Preliminary State/Federal Funding Plan
x
x
x
x
x
Update State/Federal Funding Plan
x
x
x
Review Alternative Funding Sources
x
x
Review Project Expenditure Plan
x
x
x
x
Update Project Expenditure Plan
x
x
x
x
Cashflow Model Development
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Update Financial Policy
x
x
x
x
Draft Phase 1 Strategic Plan
x
x
Present Phase 1 Strategic Plan
x
x
Draft Phase 2 Strategic Plan
x
x
Present Phase 2 Strategic Plan
x
x
Prepared by Charles A. Bell Securities and Boyea Capital Markets
j