HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 26, 2001 Budget & Implementation054500
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 2:30 p.m. RECORDS
DATE: Monday, March 26, 2001
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 - Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
VIDEO CONF SITE: City of La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico - Section Room
...COMMITTEE MEMBERS...
John Hunt, Chair / Jan Wages, City of Banning
Phil Stack, Vice Chair / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage
Placido Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont
Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DeGrandi, City of Cathedral City
Juan DeLara / Lupe Dominguez, City of Coachella
Mike Wilson / Marcos Lopez, City of Indio
John Pena / Ron Perkins, City of La Quinta
Kevin Pape / Robert Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore
Bonnie Flickinger / Frank West, City of Moreno Valley
Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside
John Tavaglione, District Two / County of Riverside
Jim Venable, District Three / County of Riverside
Patrick Williams / Chris Carlson-Buydos / City of San Jacinto
Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
... STAFF ...
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
... AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY...
Annual Budget Development and Oversight
Countywide Strategic Plan
Legislation
Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs
Public Communications and Outreach Programs
Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement
and SB 821 -Bicycle & Pedestrian
Property Management
SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol
and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the
Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
http://www.rctc.org
3560 University Ave - Riverside, CA 92501 - Conference Room A
PARK IN THE PARKING GARAGE
ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET
MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2001 - 2:30 P.M.
AGENDA.
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
City of La Quinta City Hall (Video Conference Location)
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 - Session Room
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (February 27, 2001)
5. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will
be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests
separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent
Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT - P. 01
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule
Report for the month ending February 28, 2001; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget & Implementation Committee
March 26, 2001
Page 2
5B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT - P. 05
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report
for the months ending January and February 2001;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5C. STREETS AND ROADS FUND BALANCES REPORT - P. 07
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Streets and Roads Fund Balances
report; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6. SCOPE OF WORK FOR MEASURE "A" HOV WIDENING PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY - P. 10
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2042, to Holmes &
Narver, to provide additional engineering design services for:
Bridge Replacement for the Perris Boulevard under crossing
in the amount of $180,440; Bridge Replacement for Indian
Budget & Implementation Committee
March 26, 2001
Page 3
Avenue Overcrossing in the amount of $331,870; and
Seismic Assessment/Retrofit of Heacock Street under
crossing in the amount of $49,150. This additional cost will
bring Holmes & Narver's total authorized contract value from
$2,229,400 to $2,790,860;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review,
to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission
using a standard amendment; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7 AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. RO-9844, WITH F.R. HARRIS,
TO DEVELOP A FINAL PS&E FOR AN ELECTRONIC
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM AT THE LA SIERRA AND WEST
CORONA METROLINK STATIONS - P. 25
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-9844 with F.R. Harris
to. provide for additional design services to develop a final
PS&E for an Electronic Surveillance System at the La Sierra
and West Corona Metrolink Stations for an amount not to
exceed $36,632 and additional engineering construction
support services contingency of $13,368, for a total not to
exceed amendment amount of $50,000;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review,
to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission
using a standard amendment; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget & Implementation Committee
March 26, 2001
Page 4
8. APPROVAL OF CALTRANS PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT NO. 009-M AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.
2 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2128 WITH STV INCORPORATED TO
SUPPORT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UP RAILROAD - P. 29
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) Caltrans' Program Supplement Agreement No. 009-M to
Administering Agency -State Agreement No. 08-6054,
covering Preliminary Engineering for the San Jacinto Branch
Line;
2) Amendment #2 to Contract No. RO-2128 to provide
alternatives analysis for using the Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR) Riverside Branch Line to provide a direct connection
to the Riverside Downtown Station from the San Jacinto
Branchline for a base amount of $104,170, with additional
extra work of $10,500. This additional cost will bring
STV's total authorized contract value to $310,993 and total
extra work value to $32,1 13 for a total not to exceed value
of $343,106;
3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review,
to execute the Contract Amendment #2 on behalf of the
Commission; and,
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. SANTA FE DEPOT - P. 39
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Declare the Santa Fe Depot as surplus property;
Budget & Implementation Committee
March 26, 2001
Page 5
2) Initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period
and if no interest is expressed, authorize staff to offer the
depot on the open market;
3) Withdraw application of Santa Fe Depot from National
Registry consideration; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. AMENDMENT TO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE'S FY 2001 MEASURE
"A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND
ROADS - P. 41
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The amendment to FY 2001 Measure "A" Capital
Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the
County of Riverside, as submitted; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. FY 2001-02 SB821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
PROGRAM - P. 62
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Release a Call for Projects for the FY 2001-02 SB821
program and notify cities, the County, and local school
districts of the estimated funding available for the fiscal
year; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget & Implementation Committee
March 26, 2001
Page 6
12. CMAQ CLEAN FUELS OPPORTUNITY FUND MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING - P. 64
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval .to:
1) Enter into the attached Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the County of Riverside Waste Management
Department for construction of the Agua Mansa Liquified
Natural Gas station funded partially with Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality monies in the amount of
$385,000;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review,
to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission;
3) Adopt the MOU as the model agreement format for the
remaining seven CMAQ Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund
projects which have been approved by the Commission;
4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review,
to execute all subsequent MOU's which do not contain any
substantive language changes; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. AWARD OF SECURITY GUARD CONTRACT - P. 87
OVERVIEW
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Continue working with Legal Counsel to develop the
contract with Western Area Security Services for security
services at the Riverside County Metrolink Stations; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget & Implementation Committee
March 26, 2001
Page 7
14. FY 1999/2000 AUDIT / MANAGEMENT LETTER COMMENTS
AND COMMISSION RESPONSE - P. 88
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) Staff's response to Ernst and Young's management letter
comments from the FY 1999-2000 Audit; and
2. Forward to the Commission for final action.
15. FISCAL PROCEDURES MANUAL - P. 91
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The attached Fiscal Procedures Manual; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
16. -STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - P. 92
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1. Adopt the following bill positions:
a. AB 1396 (Longville) - Support
b. AB 860 (McLeod) - Support with Amendments
c. AB 37 (Strickland), SB 116 (Kuehl), SB 618 (Margett)
- Oppose
d. AB 1039 (Oropeza) - Watch;
Budget & Implementation Committee
March 26, 2001
Page 8
8) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as
an information item; and
9) Forward to the Commission for final action.
17. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
18. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting is scheduled to be held at
2:30 p.m. on Monday, April 23, 2001 at the RCTC offices.
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chairman
John Hunt at 2:30 p.m. at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission,
3560 University, Suite 100, Riverside, California, 92501.
2. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present: Members Absent:
Chris Carlson-Buydos
Lupe Dominguez
Bonnie Flickinger
John Hunt
Ameal Moore
Kevin Pape
John Pena *
Gregory Pettis *
Ron Roberts
Phil Stack
John Tavaglione
Placido Valdivia
Jim Venable
* Attended meeting via video conference
3 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mike Wilson
Eric Haley, Executive Director, introduced the two new staff members. Karen Leland
will work on commuter rail issues and Edward Gonzales will work on the rideshare and
public outreach programs.
• Chairman Hunt confirmed the appointment of Commissioners John Tavaglione, Kevin
Pape, Ron Roberts, Ameal Moore and himself to the Property Committee.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (January 22, 2001)
Chairman Hunt.noted that the minutes should show the attendance of Chris Buydos instead
of Patrick Williams as the representative of the City of San Jacinto at the last meeting.
M/S/C (Tavaglione/Pape) to approve the minutes dated January 22, 2001, as revised.
Abstain - Flickinger
Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 2
7. . CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (Pape/Stack) to approve the Consent Calendar as follows:
5A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
To: 1) Receive and file the Financial Statements for the quarter ending December 31,
2000; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORTS
To: 1) Receive and file the Investment Report for the quarter ending December 31,
2000; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
5C. QUARTERLY CALL BOX REPORT
To: 1) Receive and file the operational statistics for the Riverside County Motorist Aid
Call Box System for the quarter ending December 31, 2000; and, 2) Forward to the
Commission for final action.
6. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO PROVIDE PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO
ROUTE 91, FROM MARY STREET TO 7TH STREET
M/S/C (Pape/Tavaglione) approval to: 1) Concur with a Caltrans request that RCTC
become the lead agency for preliminary engineering and environmental clearance, for
proposed improvements to Route 91, from Mary St. to 7"' St., in the City of Riverside;
2) Prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP), for consultant services to
provide preliminary engineering and environmental studies for proposed improvements
to Route 91; 3) Form a selection committee to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's
received; and after the evaluation process; 4) Negotiate a contract with the top ranked
consultant(s) and return to the Commission with a contract recommendation; and,
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. SCOPE OF WORK FOR MEASURE "A" HOV WIDENING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF MORENO
VALLEY AS IT RELATES TO RAMP IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PERRIS BOULEVARD
INTERCHANGE AND BRIDGE VERTICAL CLEARANCES
The following points were made during deliberation of this item:
+ Trent Pulliam, City of Moreno Valley Public Works Director, expressed his appreciation
of RCTC staff in trying to find a solution to this problem. The City of Moreno Valley
has been working on this project for the past four years and provided $.5 m for the
acquisition of a vacant lot to facilitate the improvements that are being eliminated
during this portion of the project. This is the City of Moreno Valley's number one
priority and will provide congestion relief at one of their major interchange crossings.
It is hoped that as we move forward into other funding opportunities in the future that
this would continue to be a priority of the Commission as well.
Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 3
♦ Commissioner Ron Roberts expressed his concern that this seems to happen on a
regular basis, where Caltrans informs RCTC that something else is required for the
project to be complete at a time when the project is halfway completed, thus,
increasing project costs. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, explained that
Caltrans rotates their staff among their departments. every six months and, therefore,
the staff overseeing a project changes.
+ Commissioner Bonnie Flickinger added that the City of Moreno Valley is disappointed
that the ramps have been postponed, but they do understand and are willing to support
the staff recommendation. She hoped that as part of the motion, it could be noted
that the ramps remain a top priority for future funding.
M/S/C (Flickinger/Stack) approval to: 1) Separate the Perris Boulevard
Interchange ramp improvements from the State Route 60 HOV project, while
coordinating the SR 60 HOV improvements so that there will be minimal throw -
a -way costs when the future Perris Boulevard Interchange improvements are
approved; 2) Assist the City of Moreno Valley to research alternatives to fund
the preparation of a separate Project Study Report to serve as a funding
document for future improvements to the Perris Boulevard Interchange ramp
improvements; 3) Resolve the bridge vertical clearance scoping issue with
minimal cost to the SR 60 HOV project to maintain project delivery and prevent
loss of present CMAQ funds; 4) Address as a separate project any major new
scope issue that was not addressed in the Project Report as a separate project
that can compete for funding based on priority, need and future availability of
funds; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. RELEASE OF RETENTION REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9932 FOR THE
PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING STRUCTURES AT THE LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA
METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
9. SECURITY GUARD SERVICE CONTRACT
M/S/C (Tavaglione/Roberts) approval to: 1) Take the Security Guard Service contract
recommendation directly to the Commission for action.
10. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) approval to: 1) Transfer $6,500 in budget authority from
the Finance department budget to Regional Issues department budget; 2) Increase by
$72,000 the Salaries and Benefits budget for the Commuter Assistance Program; and,
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
M/S/C (Venable/Pape) approval to: 1) Receive and File the State and Federal Legislative
Update; 2) Adopt the following bill position; A. AB 227 (Longville) - SUPPORT
Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 4
3) Endorse Congressional project funding request list; and, 4) Forward to the
Commission for final approval.
12. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
M/S/C (Flickinger/Stack) 1) Authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for
Freeway Service Patrol beats #1 and #2, and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final
action.
4. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting of the Budget and
Implementation Commission was adjourned at 3:32 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be
held at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, March 26, 2001 at the RCTC offices.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci McGinley
Deputy Clerk of the Board
AGENDA /TE1►f 5A
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager
Louie Martin, Project Control Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Contracts Cost and Schedule Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and File the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month
ending February 28, 2001; and
2) Forward to the Commission 'for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts
reported by projects, 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 February 28, 2001
Attachments
000001
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY,. ,L PR OJECTS
BUDGET REP ORT BY R OUTE
COMMISSION
PR OJECT AUTHORIZED
DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION
ROUTE 60 PROJECTS
Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd (2042)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60
ROUTE 74 PROJECTS
Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966,
(R02142) (R02141)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74
ROUTE 79 PRO JECTS
Engineering/Environ./ROW
Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961)
319 B TOTAL.:: ROUTE .79
ROUTE 86 PROJECTS
Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 (Segment 2)
Avenue 66 to Avenue 82 (Segment 3)
(Caltrans Funded Projects)
Sl it3T4 Ri Rr)RJ- :$6 :
RO UTE 91 PROJECTS
Soundwall design and construction
(R091019337984798619848983299692043)
(2058)
Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535)
Sndwall Landscaping (809933,9946,9945,2059)
SUE3tCt1('A� RC3. UtE 91
R OUTE 111 PROJECTS
(R09219,9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538)
9635,9743,9849-9851,9857
SUBTOTAL NOUTE:111
$2,229,000
$2,229;000
$8,000,400
$8,000,400
$740,000
$740,000
$20,253,000
$33,860,000
$54,113,000
$10,632,800
$2,300,000
$883,450
$13,81. 6,250
$15,933,909
CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR
CO MMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH . M ONTH ENDED
TO DATE ALLOCATION 02/28/01
, $2,006,100
$2,006,100
$7,605,200
$7;803;200
$630,000
$630,000
$19,500,000
$33,760,000
$53,260,000
$9,872,324
$2,300,000
$798,291
$12,970,616
$15,933,909
$15,933,909 } $15,933, 909
Page 1 of 3
90.0%
90.0%
95.1%
95.1%
85 .1%
85.1 %
96 .3%
99 .7%
92.8 %
100.0%
90.4%
93.0
100. 0%
$48,724
$48,724
$114,401
$114;401
$O
Project Complete
$2,070,000
$2,070,
OO
$526,110
$8,913
535;023
$359,258
100.Qo $359,258
% EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE
$208,433
$208,433
$2,959,056
x2;953,056
$100,770
$100,770
$18,060,000
$26,800,000
;800,008
$7,567,837
$1,797,708
$688,874
$10,054,419
$9,659,450
:$9,659 450
10.4%
38.9 %
8'9°3,9.
16 .O %
92.6%
79,4%
o4
76.7%
78 .2%
86.3%
77 .5%
60 .6%
60.6%
PROJECT
DESCRIPTI ON
1-215 PR OJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018)
SUBTOTAL 1-215
INTERCHANGE IM PRO V. PRO GRAM
Yuma IC Landscaping (R0 9926,9946)
SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE
PROJECT 8 CONSTR. MGM T SERV.
(RO 2100)
SUBTOTAL BECHTE ;
PROGRA M PLA N & SERVICES
North/So uth Corridor study (R09936)
SU13TOT L PRDGEW! PLAN:& S.V
PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM
(RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917)
UBTOTAL PARK -N -R DE
COMMUTER RAIL
Studies/Engineering
(RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028)
R02031,2027,2120,2029,9937
Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs
(0000,2026,2056,9929,9845,9953,9957, 9932,9972)
SUBTOTAL COM UTE RA L
TAI.:
RCTC MEASURE "A" H
BUDGET REPOR
COM MISSION CONTRACTURAL
AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS
ALL OCATION TO DATE
$6,726,504
$6,726,504
$5,878,173
$5,878,173
$440,000 ' $400,000
$440,000 $400,000
$1,750,000 $1,715,104
$1,750,000 $1,715,104
$125,000 $125,000
$125,000 $125,000
$2,293,911 $2,293,911
$2,293,911 $2,293,911
$2,807,070 $2,764,070
$13,190,402
$15,997,472
$122,"185446
$12,810,402
$15;574,472
$11$,392,484
Page 2 of 3
GHWAY PROJECTS
BY ROUTE
°o CO MMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
AGAINST AUTH MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
ALLOCATION 02/28/01 TO DATE COMMIT MNTS TO DATE
87 4%
87 .4%
90.9%
90.9%
98 .0 %
98.0%
100,0%
100:0",
100.0%
98.5 %
97.1% I
97:4%
96. 95
$0
$174,739
$174,739
$6,347
$5,347':
$99,371
,371;:
$169,683
$42,726
'212,40?
#3,$,20;272
$5,704,897
$5,704,897
$312,481
$312,481
$919,043
$919 ,043
$72,607
$72G0'
$1,826,223
;8,26,,223
$2,167,104
$11,284,983
$13,452,087,
$90,129,455
97 .1%
97,1 %
78 .1%
78,1.%
53.6 %
58 .1%,
79.6%
78.4%
88.1%
s8,4m4
76.1%
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAYILOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements
SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1)
Storm drainage structure
SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA
CITY OF PERRIS
Local streets & road improvements
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Local streets & road improvements
CITY OF TEMECULA
Lo cal streets & road improvements
CITY OF NORCO
Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
Local streets & road improveme nts
CITY OF HEMET
Local streets & roads improvements
TOTALS
EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL
APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE"A"
COMMIT MENT 02/28/01 ADVANCES
$1,600,000
$1,600,000
$5,212,623
$5,212,623
$1,936,419
$1,324,500
$5,094,027
$2,139,067
$1,500,000
$730,000
$16,806,636
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs.
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
$0
$0
xa
$1,600,000
$1,600,000
$5,212,623
$5,212,623
$1,936,419
$1,324,500
$5,094,027
$2,139,067
$1,500,000
$730,000
$18,806,636
OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE
LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST
BALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT .
Page 3 of 3
$1,141,675
$1,141,675
$3,501,080
$3,501,060
$1,445,553
$988,750
$3,802,732
$1,596,831
$1,416,401
$670,958
512;475,62
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$a
$0
$0
so
$0
71.4%
71.4%
67 .2%
67.2*/0
74.7%
74 .7% .
74.7%
74.7 %
94.4%
91.9%
6.3%
Stat us as or: 2128/01
AGENDA ITEM 5B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Single Signature Authority Report I
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months
ending January and February 2001; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The attached report details all contracts which have been executed for the months of
January and February under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive
Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $382,145.
Attachment
000005
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2001
CONSULT ANT
SANBAG
LSA Asso ciates, Inc.
Ray Go rski
D. J. Smith
Bob Shea Perdue
• Amendment
C. R. G ann Demolitio n, Inc.
. Diversified Landscape, Inc.
DESCRIPTION
OF SERVICES
Co -manage study of growth in dem and
f or air carg o and other freight movement
In relation to Inland Empire Employment
a nd p opulation growth .
Environmental services Apache Trail &
1-10 Improvement project .
Consulting Services in supp ort of RCTC
Air Quality and Tran sp ortation Programs
Develop initial Survey Questi onnaire
Appraisal of Van Buren/Indiana, Pierce/
M agno lia and Hopkins pr operties
Additional appraisals Blaine & SWC Main St.
Board -u p Services of the Santa Fe Depot
at 3750 Santa Fe Ave.
Erosion Contro l Project at Pige on Pass
Park and Ride lot.
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2000
AMOUNT USED
AMOUNT REMAINING THROUGH Ju ne 30, 2001
gibiAter.. 9f4124,-44-14&"
Prepared by
•
Reviewed by
Note: Shaded area represents new co ntracts for January and February.
* Amount from previous report has been amen ded by $5,000 to add additio nal properties.
C)
f:\users\preprint\dp\sinsig0l
ORIGINAL
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
15,000.00
15,760.00
20,000 .00
31, 000.00
25,000 .00
5,750 .00
5,345.00
EXPENDED
AMOUNT
15,000 .00
7,853.59
20,000.00
19,302.11
RE MAINING
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
0 .00
7,906.41
0 .00
11,697.89
0.00 25,000.00
0.00 5,750.00'.
. 0 .00 5,345.004
$ 500,000 .00
117,855.00 $ 62,155.70
$ 382,145.00
$ 55,699.30
AGENDA /TE1►f 5C
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Streets and Roads Fund Balances Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Streets and Roads Fund Balances report; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the February 14, 2001 Commission meeting, staff presented the FY 1999-2000
audit results. As part of the audit results, Ernst and Young had provided a list of the
TDA/Measure A recipients having a fund balance representing at least three years of
unspent monies. During the discussion of this item, staff promised to provide a short
listing of the projects with each of the cities and county. Starting next fiscal year,
staff will include the summary with the audit results.
Attached is a report prepared by Ernst and Young that outlines the projects that are
scheduled to be completed with these fund balances. This report covers the unspent
monies for FY 1999-2000.
Attachment
000007
ElERNST & YOUNG
February 1, 2001
Mr. Ivan Chand
Chief Financial Officer
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
Dear Ivan:
D Ernst & Young ur
Suite 200
3403 Tenth Street
Riverside, California 92501
Phone: (909) 276-7200
Fax: (909) 787-8184
www.ev.com
As requested by the Audit Subcommittee at our presentation of the audit results for the
Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants and Measure A recipients, we have prepared
the enclosed summary of significant transportation projects to be funded with TDA and Measure
A local streets and roads available fund balances. This information was obtained from our audit
working papers.
If there are any additional questions or comments that we may be able to provide, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (909) 276-7263.
TLT/mn
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Theresia Trevino
Senior Manager
Ernst & Young LIP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
000008
COMMENTS ON THE 2000 TDA CLAIMANTS AND
MEASURE A RECIPIENTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The following have a fund balance representing at least three years of unspent monies and
includes a brief listing of the major projects for each city.
• County of Riverside Article 8 monies of $680,415, representing allocations since 1994.
General projects — no specific projects are identified for Article 8 funds.
• City of Blythe Measure A monies of $2,279,307, representing allocations since 1998.
Hobsonway
• City of Cathedral City Measure A monies of $2,034,785, representing allocations since
1998.
City-wide Public Works Maintenance, Palm Canyon widening at Auto Park
• City of Indio Measure A monies of $4,663,824, representing allocations since 1994.
Highway 111 (Monroe to Rubidoux), Jefferson Street (Highway 111 to Indio Blvd.), Fred
Waring Drive (Silverwood to Monroe)
• City of Moreno Valley Measure A monies of $8,380,147, representing allocations since
1998.
Nason/Alessandro to Fir Street Improvements, Route 60/Nason Interchange, Ironwood Ave.
Rehabilitation, Annual Pavement Resurfacing
• City of Palm Desert Measure A monies of $6,852,669, representing allocations since 1998.
Monterey Avenue/Country Club, Highway 111 improvements, Gerald Ford, Washington
• City of Perris Measure A monies of $1,522,260, representing allocations since 1998.
Ramona Expressway, Pavement Rehabilitation
• City of Riverside Measure A monies of $23,713,910, representing allocations since 1996.
Van Buren/91 Interchange, Van Buren widening — Magnolia to 91, Jurupa — Van Buren to
Crest. Widening, Tyler St.
• City of San Jacinto Measure A monies of $1,766,864, representing allocations since 1998.
Seventh St and Cottonwood, Lake Park Bridge
000009
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION j
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Scope of Work for Measure "A" HOV Widening Project in the City
of Moreno Valley
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2042, to Holmes & Narver, to
provide additional engineering design services for: Bridge Replacement for
the Perris Boulevard under crossing in the amount of $180,440; Bridge
Replacement for Indian Avenue overcrossing in the amount of $331,870;
and Seismic Assessment/Retrofit of Heacock Street under crossing in the
amount of $49,150. This additional cost will bring Holmes & Narver's
total authorized contract value from $2,229,400 to $2,790,860;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the amendment on behalf of the Commission using a standard
amendment; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the July 1999 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved the State Route 60 HOV
median widening project. This Measure "A" funded widening project is located
between Day Street and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley.
At the February 9, 2000 RCTC meeting, the Commission awarded a final design
contract for the subject project to Holmes and Narver Infrastructure. The Commission
directed that the Perris Boulevard ramp improvements were to be included in the
design of the SR 60 HOV lane project.
000010
At the March 14, 2001 RCTC meeting, staff presented to the Commission the scoping
issues which currently prevent staff from making progress on project delivery. The
first scoping issue was the inclusion of the Perris Boulevard ramp improvements. The
second problem related to scoping was the fact that several of the bridges, according
to Caltrans, have vertical clearance problems. Vertical clearance is the smallest
distance between the structure and highway and determines the largest vehicle that
can safely pass under the structure. Caltrans uses the smallest point of vertical
clearance regardless of what lane or portion of the shoulder on the highway that it
occurs.
At the March 2001 meeting, the Commission directed staff to obtain a resolution of
the bridge replacement issues with a minimal impact to the project budget. Caltrans
staff, understanding the funding limitations by which the project is constrained,
suggested that the State would pay for the Indian Avenue bridge replacement if RCTC
would fund the bridge design. RCTC would also fund the Perris Boulevard under -
crossing design and replacement as suggested in the March 14, 2001 agenda Item.
In addition to the above, it will be necessary to seismically retrofit the under crossing
bridge at Heacock Avenue. The Perris Boulevard bridge improvements will
accommodate both the HOV project as well as the future improvements of the Perris
Boulevard Interchange. The scope improvements to the Indian Avenue overcrossing
will provide for a new bridge length that will accommodate the future freeway
widening, both vertically and horizontally.
Holmes & Narver has estimated that the cost to provide the design for the bridge
replacements at Perris Boulevard and Indian Avenue, as well as to perform the seismic
retrofit analysis at Heacock Avenue, is a base amount of $561,460. This additional
cost will bring Holmes & Narver's total authorized contract value from $2,229,400 to
$2,790,860.
Additionally, staff is recommending that an extra work amount of $40,000 be added
to the contract and the contract be amended to allow the direction of extra work under
written direction of the Executive Director. The extra work funds will make the
administration of the contract more efficient and assist in keeping the project on
schedule. If the extra work amount is approved, the total contract value will be
$2,830,770. The extra work will be authorized by the Executive Director. A standard
consultant amendment will be used and reviewed by RCTC Legal Counsel.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $601,460
Source of Funds: CMAQ Budget Adjustment: Y
GLA 222 31 81102
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Date: 3/20/01
000011
7
H
Holmes & Narver
INFRASTRUCTURE
N
March 20, 2001
Mr. Gustavo Quintero
Project Coordinator
RCTC
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
RECEIVED
MAR 2 1 2001
BEICHTE1, COAP,
R versi a rce
054369
RE: SEISMIC ASSESSMENT AND RETROFIT OF HEACOCK UNDERCROSSING
REPLACEMENT OF PERRIS BOULEVARD UNDERCROSSING
REPLACEMENT OF INDIAN AVENUE OVERCROSSING
Dear Mr. Quintero:
Holmes & Narver is pleased to submit this proposal for additional engineering services for the seismic
assessment and retrofit of the Heacock Street Undercrossing, the replacement of the Perris Boulevard
Undercrossing and the replacement of the Indian Avenue Overcrossing. A detailed scope of work and
proposed fee for each of these items is included below.
Also included below is a description of fees paid directly to Caltrans for encroachment permit oversight.
Holmes & Narver respectfully requests reimbursement for these fees.
SEISMIC ASSESSMENT ANT) RETROFIT OF HEACOCK UNDERCROSSING
Holmes & Narver submitted preliminary seismic assessment for the Pigeon Pass Road, Heacock Street,
and Perris _Boulevard Undercrossings (UCs) to Caltrans for review (Reference 1). We received written
comments and had follow-up discussions with Caltrans. Based on these discussions and comments it was
concluded that Heacock Street and Perris Boulevard UCs will need to be retrofitted and that Pigeon Pass
Road UC did not require retrofitting. Since it is now proposed to replace the Perris Boulevard UC, the
Heacock Street UC is the only structure which will require retrofitting. See attachments A and B for a
record of the phone conference and written comments from Caltrans.
The negotiated scope of work for the project is based on the assumption that retrofit would not be
required (see the attached excerpt from the Consultant contract). Although the seismic assessment
performed to date is included in our current scope of work, the scope of work did not include the
evaluation of potential retrofit schemes nor to develop PS&E documents for the retrofit details. We have
developed a preliminary scope of work and cost estimate to perform the additional analysis and design
necessary for the Heacock UC structure.
Post Office Box 6240, Orange, CA 92863-6240 999 Town 8 Country Road, Orange, CA 92868-4786
Fax (714) 567-2441
(714)567-2400
000012
Additional costs are broken down into what is required to satisfy type selection requirements and what is
required to develop PS&E documents. The costs to develop PS&E documents will be subject to Caltrans
approval of the proposed retrofit schemes.
Bridge Type Selection/Retrofit Strategy (BTS/RS)
To satisfy the type selection requirements, we need to perform preliminary sizing calculations for the
steel casings, perform iterative analysis using potential retrofit schemes to reduce bridge deflections, add
retrofit details to the general plan, perform preliminary cost estimates for the retrofit details and prepare
the retrofit strategy reports to be included with the type selection reports.
PS&E
To develop the PS&E documents, we need to perform design calculations for the retrofit details, add
retrofit details to the drawings, and perform the independent check. Additionally we will need to develop .
retrofit detail specifications and perform final cost estimates for the retrofit details,
Cost Estimate
The estimated engineering fee for the seismic assessment and retrofit of the Heacock Street UC is
summarized below. A detailed breakdown of the following costs is included in Attachment C.
Bridge Type Selection/Retrofit Strategy:
Bridge PS&E:
Total Estimate for Replacing Perris Blvd UC
=5 19,185
=5 29.965
=5 49,150
REPLACE PERRIS BOULEVARD CNDERCROSSING
This work includes the replacement of the existing Perris Boulevard UC to accommodate the HOV
project and the future width of Perris Boulevard. PS&E will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans and
City of Moreno Valley requirements and included in the SR60 HOV Lanes PS&E package. The
following is a summary of the proposed scope of work:
Bridge Type Selection
The type selection process will include a field review, development of the bridge general plan,
preliminary seismic design, general plan cost estimate and type selection report. Field review is most
critical for bridge replacements and widenings to observe the condition of the existing structure and
identify aesthetic and constructabiliry issues. The preliminary seismic design is required by Caltrans
prior to ripe selection to ensure that the bridge will meet the requirements of Caltrans Seismic Design
Criteria. The preliminary seismic design represents a significant design effort involving both global and
stand-alone dynamic analysis of the recommended structure type. A type selection report will be
prepared in accordance with Memo to Designers 1-29 which addresses all pertinent issues related to
development of the bridge general plan. These issues will be presented in a meeting with a Caltrans
review panel consisting of representatives from Design, Specifications & Estimates, Project Aesthetics,
Structure Maintenance and Structure Construction in order to obtain consensus on the recommended
bridge type.
Page 2
000013
Bridge PS&E
Based on our preliminary assessment, it appears that a two -span bridge will be required. It is assumed
that the proposed bridge will be approximately 66 meters long, two -span, CIP/PS box girder structure on
pile foundations. A two -span bridge will require a bent in the center of Perris Boulevardand the
placement of a center bent will require the installation of a median island. It is assumed the bridge
replacement will be constructed in three stages to maintain the existing number of freeway lanes. The
bridge may need to be cast on falsework above the final profile and lowered to the final position. A list
of proposed bridge drawings for the replacement of the Perris Boulevard UC is included in Attachment
D.
Geotechnical
Field Investigation/Laboratory Soil Testing
No borings are proposed for Perris Boulevard UC; the three borings already drilled for the proposed
widening at this site are considered adequate.
Geotechnical Engineering Analyses
Results obtained from the field investigation and laboratory tests will be used to develop idealized
subsurface profiles and define soil parameters for engineering analyses. The following analyses are
anticipated for the project:
• Capacity of pile foundations and bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
• Lateral earth pressures and foundation design.
• Corrosion potential of on -site soil.
• Recommendations for temporary excavations and shoring, overexcavations, fill placement and
relative compaction of fill, and slope stability.
Seismicity and seismic hazards including controlling earthquake, maximum ground acceleration,
and liquefaction potential.
Report Preparation
Upon completion of the above tasks, a draft foundation report will be prepared. This report will contain
Caltrans standard LOTB sheet. The draft foundation report will be submitted to RCTC and Caltrans for
review. A final report will be prepared incorporating review comments.
Geotechnical Costs
The estimated geotechnical costs (see Attachment D, Tables 1A through 1 C) are based on the
above scope of work and the following assumptions:
• One Type Selection meeting in Sacramento.
• Five copies of draft and five copies of final reports will be submitted.
Page 3
000014
The cost estimated for the design of a new structure at Perris Boulevard is the cost needed in addition to
the amount already budgeted for the Perris Boulevard Undercrossing widening task.
Cost Estimate
The estimated engineering fee for replacing the Perris Boulevard UC is summarized below. A detailed
breakdown of the following costs is included in Attachment D.
Bridge Type Selection:
Bridge PS&E:
Bridge Foundation Report (EMI):
Total Estimate for Replacing Perris Blvd UC
= $ 35,500
= 5140,040
= $ 4,900
= 5180,440
The estimated engineering fee for replacing the Perris Boulevard UC is based on the following
assumptions:
• The estimated fees for the originally proposed westbound on -ramp bridge and the Perris Boulevard
UC widening have been subtracted from the estimate. Therefore, the above fee estimate is a delta
cost to complete the bridge replacement design.
• Roadway work will be required between Elder Avenue and Sunnymead Boulevard to accommodate
the proposed median island. The estimated roadway PS&E fee for this work is essentially equal to
the proposed roadway PS&E fee to provide new westbound ramps at the interchange (as originally
proposed). Therefore, the delta cost to complete the roadway PS&E is negligible and not included in
the above estimate.
REPLACE INDIAN AVENUE OVERCROSSING
This work includes the replacement of the existing Indian Avenue Overcrossing (OC) to achieve the 5.1 -
meter standard vertical clearance over SR60. PS&E will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans and
City of Moreno Valley requirements and included in the SR60 HOV Lanes PS&E package. The
following is a summary of the proposed scope of work:
Bridge Type Selection
The type selection process will include a field review, development of the bridge general plan,
preliminary seismic design, general plan cost estimate and type selection report. Field review is most
critical for bridge replacements and widenings to observe the condition of the existing structure and
identify aesthetic and constructability issues. The preliminary seismic design is required by Caltrans
prior to type selection to ensure that the bridge will meet the requirements of Caltrans Seismic Design
Criteria. The preliminary seismic design represents a significant design effort involving both global and
stand-alone dynamic analysis of the recommended structure type. A type selection report will be
prepared in accordance with Memo to Designers 1-29 which addresses all pertinent issues related to
development of the bridge general plan. These issues will be presented in a meeting with a Caltrans
review panel consisting of representatives from Design, Specifications & Estimates, Project Aesthetics,
Structure Maintenance and Structure Construction in order to obtain consensus on the recommended
bridge type.
Page 4
000015
Bridge PS&E
It is assumed that the Indian Avenue OC will be replaced with a 58.5 -meter long, two -span, CIPIPS box
girder structure on pile foundations. The proposed two -span configuration will be designed to
accommodate the ultimate width of SR60 (vertical and horizontal), which consists of three mixed -flow
lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. The proposed bridge width will consist of one standard width
lane, one standard width shoulder and a sidewalk in each direction on Indian Avenue; however, the
proposed bridge will be designed to accommodate future widening of Indian. Avenue to its ultimate four
lane configuration. It is assumed that Indian Avenue will be closed during construction, therefore the
replacement bridge will be constructed in one stage on the existing alignment. A list of proposed bridge
drawings for the replacement of the Indian Avenue OC is included in Attachment E.
Roadway PS&E
The Indian Avenue profile will be raised approximately 1 meter to achieve the standard 5.1 -meter
vertical clearance over SR60. This will require reconstruction of approximately 460 meters of Indian
Avenue, from Sunnymead Boulevard to Hemlock Avenue. It is assumed that Indian Avenue will be
closed during bridge replacement construction, therefore a detour route will be provided. A summary of
drawings and tasks required for the proposed roadway PS&E is included in Attachment E.
Design Survey
The design survey will be performed by our subconsultant, Associated Engineers (AE). The design
survey will be performed at 15 -meter intervals along Indian Avenue. The field survey will include a
utility survey to locate aboveground and subsurface utilities within the reconstruction limits. The field
survey limits will extend approximately 100 meters north of Hemlock Avenue and 100 meters south of
Sunnymead Boulevard.
Geotechnical
Field Investigation
Prior to the actual field exploration, available geotechnical data and the layout and profile sheets will be
reviewed to plan the location of the borings. Based on this review, a Boring Location Map will be
prepared and submitted to Caltrans review and approval.
A total of 3 borings using hollow -stem auger drill rig will be drilled to a maximum depth of about 15 to
20 meters below the ground surface.
For the pavement design at Indian Avenue, two shallow exploratory borings using hollow -stem auger
drill rig will be drilled to a maximum depth of about 2.5 meters to collect subgrade materials for R -value
testing.
Laboratory Soil Testing •
The field boring logs will be reviewed to select representative bulk and ring samples for laboratory
testing. Various laboratory tests will be performed on subsurface samples to determine their physical and
engineering characteristics and R -value.
Page 5
000016
Geotechnical Engineering Analyses
Results obtained from the field investigation and laboratory tests will be used to. develop idealized
subsurface profiles and define soil parameters for engineering analyses. The following analyses are
anticipated for the project:
• Capacity of pile foundations and bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
• Lateral earth pressures and foundation design.
• Corrosion potential of on -site soil.
• Pavement structural sections will be designed in accordance with California Department of
Transportation standards and methods.
• Recommendations for temporary excavations and shoring, overexcavations, fill placement and
relative compaction of fill, and slope stability.
• Seismicity and seismic hazards including controlling earthquake, maximum ground acceleration,
and liquefaction potential.
Report Preparation
Upon completion of the above tasks, a draft foundation report will be prepared. This report will contain
Caltrans standard LOTB sheet. In addition, a draft Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) will be prepared
to provide the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed pavement structural section.
This report will contain logs of exploratory borings presented on letter -size sheets. The draft foundation
report and GDR will be submitted to RCTC and Caltrans for review. Final reports will be prepared
incorporating review comments.
Geotechnical Costs
The estimated geotechnical costs (see Attachment E, Tables IA through 1C) are based on the above
scope of work and the following assumptions:
• No other encroachment permit is required except from the City of Moreno Valley and Caltrans and
there is no permit fee.
• No investigation of hazardous materials; if hazardous material is encountered during our field
exploration, we will terminate our work and notify you immediately.
• All field work will be performed together (one mobilization/demobilization).
• One Type Selection meetings in Sacramento.
• Five copies of draft and five copies of final reports will be submitted.
Cost Estimate
The estimated engineering fee for replacing the Indian Avenue OC is summarized below. A detailed
breakdown of the following costs is included in Attachment E.
Bridge Type Selection:
Bridge PS&E:
Roadway PS&E:
Bridge Foundation Report (EMI):
Geotechnical Design Report (EMI):
Page 6
= $ 30,990
= $185,130
_ $ 66,710
_ $ 28,390
= $ 9,380
000017
Design Survey (AE): _ $ 11,270
Total Estimate for Replacing Indian Ave OC = 5331,870
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
Since our subconsultants, Associated Engineers and Earth Mechanics, obtained their respective
encroachment permits from Caltrans prior to the approval of the Cooperative Agreement Report (CAR),
they were required to pay deposits directly to Caltrans for permit oversight fees. A summary of these
fees is as follows:
Associated Engineers Permit Oversight Fee
Earth Mechanics Permit Oversight Fee
Total Permit Oversight Fees
= $ 4,480
=5 980
= $ 5,460
Copies of the checks paid to Caltrans for permit oversight are included in Attachment F.
Please call me at (714) 567-2617 if you have any questions or need additional information.
Respectfully submitted,
Holmes & Narver, Inc.
Project Manager
View dJ. Maftinez, P.E.
References: I. Letter from G. Brown (H&N) to E. Seaberg (Caltrans) dated September 20,
2000, RE: Seismic Assessment of SR60 Bridge Widenings.
Attachments: A. Telephone conference between Caltrans and Holmes & Narver dated October 13,
2000 to discuss seismic assessment of SR60 bridge widenings.
B. Letter from E. Seaberg to G. Brown dated October 16, 2000, RE: Seismic
Assessment of SR60 Bridge Widenings.
C. Detailed breakdown of the fee and labor hour estimate for the Seismic Assessment
and Retrofit of Heacock Street UC.
D. Detailed breakdown of the fee and labor hour estimate and a detailed list of proposed
drawings for Replacement of the Perris Boulevard UC.
E. Detailed breakdown of the fee and labor hour estimate and a detailed list of proposed
drawings for Replacement of the Indian Avenue OC.
F. Checks paid to Caltrans for permit oversight.
Page 7
000018
COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
NAME OF CONSULTANT (TITLE OF PROJECT
Holmes & Narver, Inc. SR 60 HOV - Heacock UC Retrofit Fee
Detail Description
Estimated
Holes
(Average)
Rate/Hotn
1. DIRECT LABOR (Specify) SEE CONTINUATION SHEET
Total Estimated
Cost (S)
PROJECT MANAGER
32
55400
PROJECT ENGINEER
160
542.00
SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER
DESIGN ENGINEER
232
337.00
1,728.00
6.720.00
8,584.00
0
531.00
0.00
CADD TECHNICIAN
48
526.00
CLERICAL
0
519.00
1,248.00
0.00
TOTAL
472
2 INDIRECT COSTS (Ovencead,G&A-specify)
Burden Rate
X Base
S18.280.00
Burden (5)
144.45%
518.280.00
526,405.46
526.405.46
3 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2)
4 FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify. applies to line 3 only)
Percent
10.00%
X Base =
544.685.46
Fee (S)
54.468.55
544,685.46
S4,468.''
TOTAL
5 OTHER DIRECT COSTS
54,468.55
PRINTING
TRAVEL
OVERNGHT MAIL/DELIVERY
MISC (CADD CHARGES: COMPUTER USAGE, ETC.)
SUBCONSULTA1vTS
CH2MHILL
Earth Mechanics. Inc
Associated Engtnecrs
Lynn Capouva. Inc
Katz Okitsu
The Culver Group
Sal -R -Dug
6 TOTAL CONTRACT COST (Sum of lines 3.4 and 5)
549,150.00
3„9T°b4rrbMi 9
SEISMIC ASSESSMENT AND RETROFIT OF HEACOCK ST UC
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
3K
Retrofit Strategy
Develop potential retrofd•measures
Perform analysis to evaluate
potential retrofit measures
Modify general plan sheets to
include retrofit details
Modify quantities and cost
estimates to include retrofit
Prepare strategy report
Subtotal
Retrofit PS&E
Perform final design of retrofit
details
Add retrofit detail drawings
Add retrofit details to existing
drawings
Independent check of retrofit
design and details
Add special provisions for retrofit
Add final cost estimate for retrofit
Add OA review for retrofit
Subtotal
Project
Mana . er
8
12
4
8
20
'4L HOURS 32
Principal
En•ineer
16
40
16
32
40
16
88
160
Senior
En • ineer
Senior TOTAL
CADD
24
80 1 120
8
50
4
2
80
8
144
232
8 8
8
20
8 180
86
32 36
8 10
120
24
8
8
40 292
48 472
Steel column shells, passive soil keys. etc.
Trial and error finite element analysis
Finalize retrofit design w/Caltrans' comments
1 - 2 drawings
1 - 3 drawings
Additional analysis to account for retrofit details
000020
1
COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
NAME OF CONSULTANT
Holmes & Narver, Inc.
Detail bcscnptton
WILE OF PROJECT
SR 60 HOV - Perris Blvd UC Replace Fee
Estimated
Hours
(Aver )
Rate/Hour
1. DIRECT LABOR (Specify) SEE CONTINUATION SHEET
PROJECT MANAGER
85
4.00
Total Estimated
Cost (S)
PROJECT ENGINEER
793
542.00
SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER
600
537.00
DESIGN ENGINEER
CADD TECHNICIAN
0
193
531.00
4,590.00
33,306.00
22,200.00
0.00
526.00
CLERICAL
0
519.00
5,018.00
0.00
TOTAL
1,671
2 INDIRECT COSTS (Overttead.G&A-5pacify)
Burden Rate
144.45'/.
X Base -
565,114.00
Burden (S)
S65,I 14.00
594,057.17 594,057.17
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines I and 21
a FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify. applies to line 3 only)
Percent
X Base -
Fee (5)
5159,171.17
10.00.4
5159,171.17
S15.917.12 S15.917
TOTAL
s OTHER DIRECT COSTS
515,917.12
PRINT[NG
TRAVEL
OVER\GHT MAIUDELIVER!'
MISC (CADD CHARGES. COMPUTER USAGE, ETC.)
SUBCONSULTANTS
5200.00
5100.00
5150.00
f H2MHILL
Eanh Mechanics. Inc
Associated Engineers
Lynn Capouva. Inc
Katz Oknsu
The Culver Group
54,902.00
Saf-R-Dig
h TOTAL CONTRACT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5)
5180.440.00
1
uun
PERRIS BLVD UC (REPLACE BRIDGE)
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
TASK
Project
Manager
Pnncipal
Engineer
Senior
Engineer
Senior
CADD
TOTAL
REPLACE PERRIS BLVD UC
Type Selection
Field Review / Gather Info
4
8
4
16
Preliminary General Plan
4
8
36
48
Seismic Design Calculations
80
120
200
Cost Estimate
_
4
16
20
Type Selection Report / Meeting
8
40
48
QA Review
8
8
Subtotal
20
136
148
36
340
PS&E
Plan Preparation (33 shts)
80
184
1056
1320
Structural Design / Detailing
56
520
520
1096
Independent Check
32
320
320
672
Cost Estimate
4
8 _
80
92
Special Provisions
8
16
24
QA Review _
40
40
Subtotal
140
944
1104
1056
3244
A
Perris Blvd UC (Widen)
(35)
(132)
(300)
(411)
(878)
Perris Blvd WB On -Ramp UC
(40)
(155)
(352)
(488)
(1035)
'IOIAL
HOURS (Delta)
85
793
600
193
1671
000022
COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
NAME OF CONSULTANT
Holmes & Narver, Inc.
Delos; Description
TITLE OF PROJECT
SR 60 HOV - Replace Indian Ave OC Fee
Estimated
Hoots
(Average)
Rate/Hour
1. DIRECT LABOR (Specify) SEE CONTINUATION SHEET
PROJECT MANAGER
Total Estimated
Cost (5)
i
150
554.00
8.100.00
PROJECT ENGINEER
SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER
DESIGN ENGINEER
468
1,357
542.00
537.00
19.656.00
50,209.00
0
531.00
0.00
CADD TECHNICIAN
1,036
CLERICAL
0
526.00 26.936.00
519.00 0.00
2 INDIRECT COSTS (OverF:ead,G&A-specify)
TOTAL
3,011
5101.901.00
Burden Rate
I44.45%
X Base
Burden (5)
5104,901.00
5151,529.49 5151,529.49
3 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2)
4 FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only)
Percent
10.00%
X Base -
5256,430.49
Fee (5
I256,430.49
525.643.05 525.643'
TOTAL
5 OTHER DIRECT COSTS
PRINTING
TRAVEL
OVEIZNGHT MAIUDELIVERY
MISC (CADD CHARGES. COMPUTER USAGE, ETC.)
SUBCONSULTANTS
525,643.05
CH2MHILL
S500.00
5100.00
S150.00
'Earth Mechanics. Inc
Associated Engineers
Lvnn Capouva. Inc
S37,774.00
511,270.00
Katz Okrtsu
The Culver Group
Sat -R -Dig
6
TOTAL CONTRACT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5)
5331,870.00
000023
3/192001 2:54 PM
INDIAN ST. OC (REPLACE_BRIDGE)
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
TASK
Project
Manager
Principal Senior
Engineer ! Engineer
Senior
CADD
TOTAL
Type Selection
Field Review / Gather Info
4
8
4
16
Preliminary•General Plan
_
_ 4
8
_36
48
Seismic Design Calculations
40
_ 120
160
Cost Estimate _
4
16
20
Type Selection Report / Meeting
8
40
_ 48
QA Review _
8 _
8
Subtotal
20
96
148
36
300
PS&E
Plan Preparation (19 skits)
48
104
608
760
Structural Design / Detailing
32
120
480
632
Independent Check
24
100
300
424
Cost Estimate
4
8
80
92
Special Provisions
8
16
24
QA Review
24
24
Subtotal
92
292
964
608
1956
TOTAL HOURS
112
388
1112
644
2256
000024
INDIAN ST. OC (REPLACE_ROAD)
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
TASK
PS&E
Plan Preparation (15 slits)
Quantaty Esbmate&Cast Estimate
TOTAL HOURS
Project
Manager
36
2
38
Pnnapal Senior
Engineer Engineer
72
8
80
215
30
245
Senior
CADD
392
392
TOTAL
715
40
755
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Amendment to Contract No. RO-9844, with F.R. Harris, to develop
a Final PS&E for an Electronic Surveillance System at the La Sierra
and West Corona Metrolink Stations
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-9844 with F.R. Harris
to provide for additional Design Services to develop a Final PS&E for an
Electronic Surveillance System at the La Sierra and West Corona
Metrolink Stations for an amount not to exceed $36,632 and additional
Engineering Construction Support Services Contingency of $13,368, for
a total not to exceed amendment amount of $50,000;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the amendment on behalf of the Commission using a standard
amendment; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BA CKGRO UND INFORMATION:
On September 10, 1997, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9844 to F.R.
Harris for design of the La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations' pedestrian over
crossings and electronic surveillance systems, for each station, with a connection to
the downtown Riverside Station. The contract was for an amount of $257,339, with
a contingency of up to $38,600, for a total amount of $295,939.
On May 12, 1999, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9932 to Mallcraft. The
award amount was for $3,459,000. Mallcraft started construction of the project on
July 12, 1999. A portion of the project was to install a new electronic surveillance
system using closed circuit television (CCTV) and connect the system to the Riverside
Downtown Station using the Caltrans fiber optic lines that run along State Route 91.
During the course of construction, several design and construction issues arose in
000025
conjunction with the construction of the proposed CCTV, for La Sierra and West
Corona, and the connection to the downtown Riverside Station. Staff concluded that
it would be better economically for RCTC to delete the CCTV work from the Mallcraft
Contract, resolve the issue at hand with Caltrans, and later repackage and rebid the
work under a separate contract.
Staff requested of F.R. Harris, the original engineer of record, to provide RCTC with
an estimate to resolve the issues involved with the addition of a new CCTV system
at the existing La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations, and to develop a new
PS&E package for this work. F.R. Harris responded, that this additional work can be
completed for an estimated amount of $36,632. Staff concurs with this estimate.
Also, because of various issues that have arisen during construction and the fact that
the construction of the La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Over Crossings is behind
schedule, the remaining F.R. Harris Construction Support contingency is running low.
At this time, staff is recommending that the F.R. Harris Construction Support
contingency be increased by $13,368.
Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize Amendment No. 2 to Contract
No. RO-9844, with F.R. Harris, for additional Engineering Design Services to develop
a Final PS&E for an Electronic Surveillance System at the La Sierra and West Corona
Metrolink Stations for an amount not to exceed $36,631.66 and an additional
Construction Support contingency of $13,368, for a total not to exceed amendment
amount of $50,000.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2001-02
Source of Funds: CMAQ
GLA 222 33 81301
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Amount: $ 50,000.00
Budget Adjustment: N
Date: 3-20-01
000026
MAR -19-01 15:44 From:FREDERIC R. HARRIS - LB 5629812930 T-029 P.02/03 Job -3Z8
Frederic R. Harris, Inc.
3800 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 350
Long Beach, CA 90806
Tel (562) 961-2950
Fax (562) 981-2930
March 19, 2001
FRH Job No. 16-3474-01
Mr. Karl Sauer
Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, Ca. 92501
Subject: Riverside La Sierra and West Corona Overcrossings
CCTV Repackaging and Caltrans Approval Fee Proposal
Dear Mr. Sauer:
Further to you verbal request of last Thursday for a fee proposal for rebidding the CCTV part of the
above contract as a separate Bid package and obtaining the CALTRANS approvals required for the
work. We have contacted our CCTV Subconsultant, LJ and Associates and obtained their proposed costs
for carrying out the requested work and have added our management time required to administer did
contract.
The costs shown do not include any fees or other payments that may need to be made to CALTRANS
:ne C::;es of Riverside or Corona for plan check or permit.
We look forward to your instructions on proceeding with this extra work.
Sincerely,
F2EDERIC II RRIS, INC.
Allen t on
Vice President/Unit Business Manager
enclosures
cc: Project File
70
years of engineering services worldwide
000027
Frederic R. Harris
West C oro na La Sierra Metrolink Stations
Quotation - Development Engineering of Revised Bid Specifications
for CCTV Installation at La Sierra, West Cor ona Station
[Description
Cost Unit Quantity Subtotal A
LJ Associates
REVIEW / REDEVELOP / PRODUCE NEW CAD DRAWINGS - CORONA & LA SIERRA
REVIEW / REDEVELOP / PRODUCE NEW WRITTEN SPECII (CATIONS - CORONA & LA SIERRA
REVIEW / REDEVELOP/ENGINEER 1 CALTRANS FIBER INTERACE DRAWINGS
DEVELOP NEW CALTRANS INTERFACE DRAWINGS / INTO F RH PACKAGE
INCORPORATE LJA DRAWINGS 1 SPECIFICATIONS INTO FRI I PACKAGE
SITE VISITS TO VERIFY CURRENT STATUS OF PR OJECTS
DVERHEAD / EXPENSES / SUPPORT /SUB CONTRACT / SI I E MEETINGS
PROJECT MANAG EM ENT / ADMNSTRATION SERVICES / BID REVIEW
Frederic R. Harris, Inc.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
CADD OPERATOR
O DCs
$ 5,399.22 LS 1 $ 5,399.22
$1,427.08 LS 1 $ 1,427.08
$ 9,701.98 LS 1 $ 9,701.98
$ 1,929.94 LS 1 $ 1,929 .94
$ 891.92 IS 1 $ 891:92
$ 1,427.08 LS 1 $ 1,427.08
$1,922.25 LS 1 $ 1,922.25
$ 98.25 HOURS 96 $ 9,432.19
LJ ASSOCIATES TOTAL $ 32,131.66
110 HOURS 20 $
55 HOURS 20 $
70 HOURS 10 $
$
FR®ERIC R. HARRIS; INC . TOTAL $
T OT AL
2,200.00
1,100.00
700.00
500 .00
4,500.00
$ 35,631.66
Note: Ll Associates c osts are spec ific to a window of 6 months from date of bid documents being released to the public . After six months, costs incurred by LJA
in support of the project will be billed additionally on a time and materials basis.
r
an
71a3aRid:moal
}
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Approval of Caltrans Program Supplemental Agreement No. 009-M
and Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-2128 with
STV, Incorporated to Support Negotiations with the UP Railroad
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) Caltrans' Program Supplement Agreement No. 009-M to Administering
Agency -State Agreement No. 08-6054, covering Preliminary Engineering
for the San Jacinto Branch Line;
2) Amendment #2 to Contract No. RO-2128 to provide alternatives analysis
for using the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Riverside Branch Line to
provide a direct connection to the Riverside Downtown Station from the
San Jacinto Branchline for a base amount of $104,170, with additional
extra work of $10,500. This additional cost will bring STV's total
authorized contract value to $310,993 and total extra work value to
$32,113 for a total not to exceed value of $343,106;
3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the Contract Amendment #2 on behalf of the Commission; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BA CKGRO UND INFORMATION:
At the January 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved contract No. RO-2128
with STV Incorporated for a base contract amount of $166,187 with an extra work
amount of $16,613 for a total amount of $182,800. The scope of work for this
contract is to perform preliminary engineering that will result in improvements to the
San Jacinto Branch Line that will result in a new commuter connection between
Downtown Riverside and the City of Perris.
000029
At the February 13, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #1 to STV
to provide complete mapping of the San Jacinto Branchline to support ongoing
property management issues that effect the entire length of the San Jacinto Branch
Line. Staff was of the opinion that it would be more cost effective to have the entire
length of the line flown and mapped at the same time. The photography and mapping
are significant management aids for staff while working through issues related to the
rail line. STV's cost of flying and mapping the segment of the line between Perris and
San Jacinto was for $40,636 with an extra work amount of $5,000 established to
address any unforseen issues that must be addressed' to complete the task.
Amendment #1 to the STV contract brought STV's total not to exceed contract value
to $206,823.
First Action Item:
The Program Supplemental Agreement is required so that RCTC can be reimbursed for
the expenditures of Commission funds on a federally funded project. The Program
Supplemental Agreements are attached for review and approval.
Second Action Item:
The UPRR has in the past suggested that they might be interested in selling certain
rights to portions of the UPRR Riverside Branch line. RCTC has had Boyle Engineering
perform preliminary estimates to determine the value of the improvements that would
be required to support negotiations with the UPRR. STV was subsequently selected
to provide further services to RCTC related to improving the San Jacinto Branchline for
future transit service. After the STV contract was approved, the UPRR again has
shown interest in continuing talks that could lead to RCTC obtaining UPRR access or
control of portion of the UPRR Riverside Branchline facilities that would provide direct
access between the San Jacinto Branchline and the Riverside Downtown Station.
Since this connection has been identified as being important to future operations of the
San Jacinto Branchline facility as a transit facility, Staff sees the need to have
resources available to keep this dialogue moving forward in parallel with the other STV
preliminary design activities that may lead to the implementation of communities rail
services between Perris and Riverside.
STV has estimated that the cost to provide an alternatives analysis and to provide
negotiation support with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) is for a base amount of
$104,170. Staff recommends that an additional extra amount of $10,500 be
established to address any unforseen issues that must be addressed to complete the
task. This additional cost will bring STV's total authorized contract value to $310,993
and total extra work value to $32,113 for a total not to exceed value of $343,106.
The extra work will be authorized by the Executive Director. The amendment language
will be drafted by RCTC Legal Counsel.
000030
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01
Source of Funds: Measure A
GLA 222 33 81102
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Amount: $114,670
Budget Adjustment: N
Date: 3/20/01
000031
STATE OF CALIFORNIA . BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
GRAY DAVIS.Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
1120 N STREET ATTACHMENT #1
P.O BOX 942874, MS # 1
Sacramento. CA 94274-0001 (3 pages)
TDD (916) 654-4014
(916) 654-3151
Fax (916) 654-2409
March 6, 2001
Mr. Eric Haley
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Mr. Gustavo Quintero
Dear Mr. Haley:
File : 08-RIV-0-RCTC
CML-6054(025)
San Jacinto Branch Line from
erside to Perris
VDE
•
Enclosed are two originals of Program Supplement Agreement No. 009-M to Administering Agency -State Agreement
No. 08-6054 covering: Preliminary Engineering for the above -referenced project.
Please sign both copies of this Agreement and return them to this office, Office of Local Programs - MS1. Alterations
should not be made to the agreement language or funding. Attach your local agency's certified authorizing resolution
that clearly identifies the project and the official authorized to execute the agreement. A fully executed copy of the
agreement will be returned to you upon ratification by Caltrans.
Your prompt action is requested. No invoices for reimbursement can be processed until the agreement is fully
executed.
Sincerely,
C1
FARDAD FALAKFARSA, Office Chief
Southern Project Implementation
Local Assistance Program
Enclosure
c: OLP AE Project Files
(08) DLAE - Louis Flores
000032
Accounting Offi L
PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. M009
to
ADMINISTERING AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT
FOR FEDERAL -AID PROJECTS NO. 08-6054
Date:February 23, 2001
Location: 08-RIV-0-RCTC
Project Number: CML-6054(025)
E.A. Number:08-412264
This Program Supplement is hereby incorporated into the Agency -State Agreement for Federal Aid which was entered into between
the Agency and the State on 06/03/97 and is subject to all the terms and conditions thereof. This Program Supplement is adopted in
accordance with Article I of the aforementioned Master Agreement under authority of Resolution No.
approved by the Agency. on (See copy attached).
The Agency further stipulates that as a condition to payment of funds obligated to this project, it accepts and will comply with the
covenants or remarks setforth on the following pages.
PROJECT LOCATION:
San Jacinto Branch Line from Riverside to Perris
TYPE OF WORK: upgrade rail line for passenger service
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION OR PHASE(S) OF WORK
[X] Preliminary Engineering
[ ] Construction Engineering
Estimated Cost
$564,780.00
[ ] Right -Of -Way [ ] Construction
Federal Funds
Q40 $500,000.00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By
Date ,
Attest
Title
LENGTH: 0(MILES)
LOCAL
$64,780.00
Matching Funds
$0.00
OTHER
$0.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
By
Chief, Office of Local Programs
Project Implementation
Date
I hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance:
L'f� ' Date 4;7"e; / . ° /
52 2000 2660-101-890 2000
Category
Fund Source
$500,000.00
AMOUNT
C 262040 892-F 500,000.00
000033
Program Supplement 08-6054-M009- ISTEA Page 1 of 2
0t-Rl V-0-RCTC
CML-6054(025)
03/05/2001
SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
1. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that payment of Federal funds
will be limited to the amounts approved by the Federal Highway
Administration in the Federal -Aid Project Authorization/Agreement
or Amendment/Modification (E-76) and accepts any increases in
Local Agency Funds as shown on the Finance or Bid letter or its
modification as prepared by the Office of Project
Implementation, Local Assistance Program.
2 The ADMINISTERING AGENCY is required to have an audit in
accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB A-133, if it
receives $300,000 or more in federal funds in a single fiscal
year. The federal funds received under this project are a part
of the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 20.205,
Highway Planning and Research. OMB A-133 superceded OMB A-128 in
1996. Reference to OMB A-128 in Master Agreement (if any) is
superceded by this covenant.
3. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY will advertise, award and administer
this project in accordance with the current Local Assistance
Procedures Manual.
4. All maintenance, involving the physical condition and the
operation of the improvements, referred to in Article III
MAINTENANCE of the aforementioned Master Agreement will be the
responsibility of the ADMINISTERING AGENCY and shall be performed
at regular intervals or as required for efficient operation of
the completed improvements.
5•. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY will reimburse the State for their share
of costs for work requested to be performed by the State.
6. This Program Supplement will be revised at a later date to
include other phases of work.
000034
Program Supplement 08-6054-M009- IS TEA Page 2 of 2
STV Incorporated
1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 3150
Los Angeles. Ca!itorr•re 90017-2577
(213) 482.9144 fax:(2t3) 482-5278
March 19.2001
Mr. Gustavo Quintero, Project Coordinator
Bechtel Infrastructure Group
3500 University Ave., Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: RCTC - San Jacinto Branchline
STV Job No.: 06-10533
UPRR Alternatives Study
Dear Gustavo:
ATTACHMENT 12
(4 pages)
The STV Team has prepared for your approval a Scope of Work and estimate of cost associated
with evaluating the UPRR's Riverside Branch as it relates to RCTC's start-up commuter rail
operation on the San Jacinto Branch Line. Additionally, we would assist RCTC in reaching an
agreement with the UPRR, as required, during the Preliminary Engineering Phase of the San
Jacinto Branch Line Project. We estimate the cost of services to be 3104,170.00.
The Scope of Work as proposed will revolve around three alternatives;
1. Abandonment of the existing UPRR Riverside Branch Line in its entirety, with any
current customers being served after abandonment with a bulk -transfer facility. The line
segment between the UP/BNSF crossing on the San Jacinto Branch and the BNSF
mainline would be rebuilt for commuter only operation and connected to the BNSF San
.acinto Branch Line and BNSF's mainline at Riverside.
Partial abandonment of the existing UPRR Riverside Branch Line from Colton to the
UP/BNSF crossing on the San Jacinto Branch Line, rehabilitate to FRA Class III
remaining segment to Riverside, including a new connection at the San Jacinto Branch
Line and at Riverside into BNSF's mainline. Line segment from the UP/BNSF crossing
would remain in service for joint freight .and commuter service.
3. Rehabilitation of UP Riverside Branch, with the segment from UP/BNSF San Jacinto
Branch Line to Riverside upgraded to minimum FRA Class III operation with joint
freight and commuter operation, including a connection at the San Jacinto Branch Line
and a new connection into the BNSF mainline at Riverside.
Services to be provided:
• Study the current and future customer base on the UPRR Riverside Branch Line,
including economic and local impacts, as may be involved if line were to be
completely or partially retired.
1'VR{61ECAxCOPirai 1 erCPIULdUmmelfts.►reveatex
E n 3 i n e e r s; A r c h, t e c: s i P l a n n e r s) C o n s t r u c t i o n M a n i e r 8
Over 65 Years In California
000035
Mi-IM—ZW—CVVI 11 • 1 f J I V l iY1„ Wmr urcn 1 CL
C1.J �GG.JG 7 r .
STV Incorporated
Mr. Gustavo Quitero
Bechtel Infrastructure Group
March 19, 2001
Page 2
• Evaluate property and land use issues as it pertains to existing right-of-way including
property values_
• Work with UP and/or BNSF railroads to resolve switching requirements and the
continued handling of customers currently on line.
• Identify any environmental issues and advise RCTC of any necessary resolutions or
complications during agreement negotiations or planning efforts.
• Determine impacts of at -grade crossing closures as a result of line retirement.
• Prepare an estimate of cost to upgrade/rehabilitate existing line segments to a
minimum FRA Class III Operation.
• Identify strategic location and estimate cost to connect into BNSF's current mainline
from the UPRR's Riverside Branch line to serve as RCTC's commuter line
connection at Riverside.
• Assist RCTC in negotiations with UPRR and BNSF.
The above services would be conducted concurrent with present STV Team activities and STV
Team members. However, to successfully perform services in a desired amount of time and with
as little disruption to present work, we would like to add to our team Mr. George Fetty. Mr.
Fetty is locally based and has a broad base of railroad related experience within Southern
California, extensive experience with the UPRR as a former officer, and has maintained a
working relationship with both UP and BNSF management personnel. We feel that Mr. Fetty
will be an asset to our team in any railroad based operating and agreement negotiations.
Please contact me if you have any questions as it pertains to the above information. The STV
Team looks forward to providing services as outlined above and assisting RCTC.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Walker
Project Manager
Attachments
cc: D. Borger / B. Cardenas (file) / File: 10533-15.00, 31.00
URmEGTVACrCVe.o 1 eaWPPLILUesiuw. P,egie,eue,
TOTAL P.33
000036
STV Inc
San Jac
ed • Estimat e of Cost
a nch C ommuter Rail Pr oject
Alternatives Revie RR Riverside Br anch
Riverside County Transport. ommissl on
Task lrerns
U PRR Riverside B r. - lnd+rs[ria!
St udy l ocatio n for BTF .
Under stand BTF prperty I ss ues.
Co st responsibility of BTF.
Cost estimate of BTF.
Local impa ct of BTF.
Track traffic impact a ss oci at ed with BTF.
Stu dy current cust om er b ase. _
Slug potential customer base.
Eco monlcImpact Riversid e/Sa n B ernadl no Cty .
Reciproc al switching.
UPRR switching. _
Customer exchange.
BNSF origin.
Un derstand pro pe rty ownership I ssu es BNSF.
RCTC own ership UP xifig to Riverside .
Freight Franchise Impa cts
Evalua te property va lues.
ant
Sub Tot al!
U PRR Riverside B r. - Infras tructure
BNSF Con ne ctio n location (o rignal)
BNSF Con nection locatio n (new) -
Evalua te removal of interlocking. - -
Double tra nsfer track at UP king
Single transfer track at UP z ing.
Study road crossings UP xfng to Rlverslde.
Study roa d crossings UP king to Co lton .
Plant, Fullerton ext. vs. R iverside line to LA.
Env lrome ntaf - ide ntify c oncerns.
Ope rating contro l issues at ne w tra nsfe r track.
Ide ntify road c rossing abandome nts.
Grade cross in g impact_s r UP z in g to Rive rs ide.
San ta Ana River Bridge
Co lto n roa d cro ssln f.
1 215 bridge — -
Track retirement cos ts/values.
Main line control point.
Potential Jalnt Fac ility, UP kin g to Riv er side.
Upgr ade road crossin gs UP xfng to H/ghgro ve .
Run -a -rou nd tra ck at Rive rside.
Co st estimate, Cla ss 1!!, UP zing to Colto n
C ost estima te for UP kin g to R ivers ide . -
® identify land use issues.
Local traffic Is sues UP zing to Riverside .
Eva luate long-te rm mice . UP xfn g to Colton
CD UPRR Plan t evaluation.
CA.) Sub Tota l:
R .e UPRR. AddlUPRR 'Nadal
P. Warker
J Craft
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
17 16
26
1d2
./19,0 12 12 PM
rfse k1 . C[lrrlor C. LlXfvr SeilrtrFl aty
4 8
2
2
2
2
2 4
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
8 34 12
4
64 16
4
8
50
3
3
3
21
3
3
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
5
11
87
7
7
7
5
7
9
7
1
9
7
17
13
5
3
13
17
212
ROW
r ev 3/10/Of
1
STVl nc orporated- Estimate of C ost
San Jacinto Branch Commuter Rail Project
Alternatives Review U PRR Riverside Bran ch
Ri ver sid e County T a nsportati on Commission
Meeetrnq/Neco r/arions 0
Agreem ent neg otlat ons BNSF. 4 4 4 12
Agreem ent nt otl ati ons UPRR. 4 4 8 16
Leg al revi ew.
Meeti ngs Omaha UPRR . o n 16
Meetings B NSF . 8 - - 12
Meetlngl Metrollnk . t6
D ocumentati on 2 8 4 14
Da ta In corporati on. -
2 4 6
Data collection. - e 4 6
Agenc y me etings. 1 n 16 48
Sub T otal 55 8 28 151
Total Hours: 98 80 80 102 90
Avg Lab or Rate / Hr .:. _ 1159 $109 1159 $159 50
Total L abor C ost: 115,582 $8,720 $12,720 116,218 14,500 $57,740
R. Walker
oro
T otal Direct L abor:
Trav el.
T otal
Subconsulta nts
G. Fetty
M. Frank
J. Falter
To tal
157,740
16,672
164,412
$ 19,600 00
1 9,500 00
$ 9,500.00
$ 38,600.00
Administrative Fee on subconsultants 6 %3 $ 1,158 .00
Total Phase l:
51041170
116hrs /Tvl.
80hrs /T vl .
80hrs /Tvl.
8
a Clarftc :: a. clinlor.
4
8
16
52
•
0, odor Shril l
Roy UP RR Add1 UP RR ea .f
2 of
3119,012 12 PM
RMY
roe 7/19001
AGENDA ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Claudia Chase, Property Agent
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Santa Fe Depot
PROPERTY AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Declare the Santa Fe Depot as surplus property;
2) Initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and if no
interest is expressed, authorize staff to offer the depot on the open
market;
3) Withdraw application of Santa Fe Depot from National Registry
consideration; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BA CKGROUND INFORMATION:
On November 3, 1997, the Commission purchased the historic Santa Fe Depot in
Riverside. The depot is in close proximity to the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station
and was purchased for the use of a crew quarters for Metrolink engineers. Currently,
under a temporary Conditional Use Permit, we provide a trailer at the Downtown
Station to comply with union requirements for a staging center for the Metrolink crews.
Staff has contacted city staff to discuss the possibility of releasing the Commission
from temporary use and allow the trailer to be a permanent facility. The primary use
of the trailer is for train crews to receive their daily work orders.
On November 12, 1998, the Commission approved $500,000 of discretionary Surface
Transportation Program funds towards rehabilitation of the Santa Fe Depot.
Subsequently, on April 12, 2000, the Commission awarded a contract to Milford
Wayne Donaldson to develop engineering/architectural work including plans,
specifications and estimates to provide new electrical service, security lighting, local
alarm system, interior lighting and protection from the elements. In addition, the scope
of work included the preparation of Section 106 studies to fulfill the requirements for
a National Registry nomination.
000039
Given the recent activity in the North Park area with the opening of the Sevilla
Restaurant and the establishment of the former Union Pacific station as a coffee house,
staff has received inquiries from parties who have expressed interest in acquiring the
depot. The stated intent is to maintain the integrity and historic value of the property
while also placing the depot into another use (e.g. restaurant, offices, etc.). If the
depot were to be surplused by the Commission and sold, there are several potential
benefits. The depot would no longer be in public ownership and therefore would be
back on the tax rolls and, depending on use, could generate sales tax revenue.
It has also been recently expressed that the Riverside Downtown Station site may be
a good location for a transit oriented development. While there have not been any
substantive discussions to date, this may prove to be a future opportunity to
incorporate a permanent facility for a crew quarters in closer proximity to the station.
It is important to note that the expanded parking the Commission constructed (adjacent
to 14th Street) is also under a temporary conditional use permit. Staff recommends that
the Commission be open to explore interests in transit oriented development at the
Riverside Downtown Station and that could lead to establishment of permanent
expanded parking and a crew facility.
The reason for bringing this forward is that staff has some reservations on the potential
cost exposure the Commission may incur in renovating a historic building. While the
acquisition and commitment of funds was well intended, there is no way to reasonably
predict the potential cost of rehabilitation and operating the facility. Staff recommends
that the Budget and Implementation Committee consider the recommendations of the
Property Ad Hoc Committee and forward to the Commission for final action.
000040
AGENDA ITEfrf /0
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
SUBJECT:
Amendment to County of Riverside's FY 2001 Measure "A" Capital
Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The amendment to FY 2001 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans
for Local Streets and Roads for the County of Riverside, as submitted;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities
in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the
Coachella Valley) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of
Maintenance o.f Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation.
The County of Riverside's Measure "A" Plan was approved by the Commission at its
July 12, 2000 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted Plan must be returned to the
Commission for approval. On January 23, 2001, the County Board of Supervisors
approved amendment #1 to the FY 2000-01 Plan and the County is seeking
Commission approval.
000041
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
February 8, 2001
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program
Attn.: Mr. Jerry Rivera
Dear Mr. Haley:
David E. Barnhart
Director of Transportation
On January 23, 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment 1 to the
FY 2000/2001 County of Riverside Transportation Improvement Program.
Attached is an updated five year program of projects for the County's portion of
Measure "A" funds as established by Amendment 1. We have scheduled
expenditures based on the revenue projections transmitted by your letter of April
24, 2000.
This five year program supersedes the previous report approved by the RCTC on
July 12, 2000.
If there are any questions concerning this program, please contact George
Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation, at (909) 955-2e5'.
Sin - iy
az/
David E. Barnhart
Director of Transportation
RKN.
attachment
cc: George Johnson
Scott Barber/Russ Kennedy
Roy Null (transmittal only)
4080 Lemon Street. 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955-6740
P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721
000042..
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Fund Fund
Source Source
Amount
x 51000
Total
Academy Dr 300
University Ave to Cornell St
0.20 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft)
Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC and 0.12' AHRM other
Albatross Way
Vander Veer Rd
0.24 (mi)
Resurface AC paved road
to 72nd Ave
24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Alberta Ave
Swingle Ave
0.15 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Wly 0.15 mi
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
Angel Way
Malibar Ave to S'ly 0.05 mi
0.05 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Angela Dr
Sycamore Rd
0.44 (mi)
Resurf RMS paved road
Antelope Rd
Scott Rd
1.53 (mi)
Resurf with 0.17' AHRM
Arrowhead Blvd
18th Ave
1.00 (mi)
Resurf 26',0.21'RMS
to 16th Ave
33 (ft)/ 33 (ft)
to Craig Ave
23 (ft)/ 23 (ft)
to 20th Ave
26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Total
301
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
302
other
Total
34
0
34
24
0
24
48
0
48
Page 2
1/23/01
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
00/01 J 01/02 102/03 1 03/04 ' 04/05
D
E
R
C
2
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
D
E
R
C
2
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0 0
E 0
R 0
C 0
301
10
0
37
0
0
0
0
Measure A/Coachella Valley
9 D 1 0 0
E 0 0 0
R 0 0 0
0 C 8 0 0
9
59
0
59
194
0
194
103
0
103
300 Measure A/Western
D' 2
E 1
0
C 56
301 Measure
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D 8
E 0
R 0
C 186
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
E 0
R 0
C 0
1
0
101
0
0
0
302 Measure A/Palo Verde
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000043
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Page 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 1/23/01
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Belmont Ct
Piping Rock Rd to S'ly Piping Rock .09mi
0.09 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Big Pine St
Jeffery Pine Rd
0.20 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Silver Fir Dr
26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Blue Hill Dr
Griffith Dr to Crews Hills Dr
0.17 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft)
G n nd and Resurf with AHRM
Bohlen Rd
Mitchell Rd Nly
0.50 (m1) 20 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Widen, Const 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS w/Berms
Bowden Dr
Hopewell Ave
0.25 (mi)
Recon AC surface
to Cambridge Ave
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
Box Canyon Rd
1-10
7.00 (mi)
Resurf RMS paved road
to Shavers Well
28 (ft)/ 28 (ft)
Boyer Ave
Yale St to Katharin St
0.16 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft)
Recon AC paved road surface
Fund
Source
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
Raid
Source
Amount
x 51000
13
0
13
33
0
33
23
0
23
103
0
103
56
0
56
389
211
600
31
0
31
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
. 00/01 01/02 i 02/03 f 03/04 04/05.
D 2
E 0
R 0
C 11
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
1 0
29
0
3 0
0 0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
21
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
0
0
0
2
0
E
0
0
0
1
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
100
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
E
R
C
5
1
0
50
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
389
0
0
0'
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
D
2
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
29
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
000044
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Fund
Source
Total
Calle De Las Flores
Clearwater Wy
0:31 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Snow View Dr
17 (ft)/ 17 (ft)
Camellia Dr
Yale St to Lois Ct
0.23 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft)
Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC, 0.12' AHRM
Camino ldilio
Avenida Manzana to Bubbling Wells Rd
0.30 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
Recon exist.8 const 450' new RMS paved road
Capilano Dr
Piping Rock Rd to Wentworth Dr
0.26 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Carol Dr
Dillon Rd
0.50 (mi)
,Resurf RMS paved road
to loth Ave
33 (ft)/ 33 (ft)
Case St
Hayes Ave to Grand Ave
0.30 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Recon 26' RMS paved road
Catt Rd
Hidden Springs Rd
0.30 (mi)
Const RMS paved road
to W'ly 0.3 mi
0 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
Fund
Source
Amount
x 51000
55
0
55
42
0
42
112
0
112
37
0
37
64
0
64
53
0
53
Page 6
1/2=1
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
00/01 101/02 1 02/03 03/04 J 04/05
D 0
E 0
R - 0
C 0
0 5
0 1
0 0
0 49
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
D
E
R
C
3
1
0
38
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
1
1
5
105
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
2
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
35
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
E
R
C
2
1
0
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
1
0
0
0
0
E
1
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
51
0
0
0
0
40 0
E
R
0 C
40
300 Measure A/Western
2
1
0
37
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000045
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Page 8
1/23/1
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Fund
Source
Total
Clearwater Way
Calle De Las Flores
0.16 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to S'ly Palm Oasis O.O5mi
17 (ft)/ 17 (ft)
Clinton Keith Rd
Avenida La Cresta to Murrieta City Limits
1.65 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Reconst road
Coordinate with the City of Murrieta for the
west half of 0.3 miles of road.
High ground water is causing road failure.
Clinton St
Fred Waring Dr to S'ly to C.L.
0.75 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft)
Resurf west 1/2 of AC paved road
Coachella Valley Area
various roads
6.00 (mi)
Resurf
0 (ft)/ 0 (ft)
Colgate Ct
Fulton Ave to S'ly 0•.05 mi
0.05 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Collegian Way
Columbia St to Major Dr
0.19 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft)
Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC and 0.12' AHRM
Collegian Way
Cornell St to E'ly 0.12 mi
0.12 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft)
Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC and 0.12' AHRM
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Fund
Source
Amount
x 51000
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
32
0
32
00/01 01/02 J D2/O3 1 03/04 104/05
0
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
26
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
605
D
60
0
0
0
0
E
5
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0 IC
540
0
0
0
0
605
300 Measure A/Western
350
D
80
0
0
0
0
E
2
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
2
266
0
0
0
Total 1 350
301 1 1130
other d 180
Total 1 1310
300 r 10
other 1 0
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
10
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
150
130
850
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
D
1
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
9
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
33
D
2
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
31
0
0
0
0
33
23
0
23
300 Measure A/Western
0
2
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
Cl
21
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
000046
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Page 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 1/23/01
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Delano Dr
Toll Gate Rd
0.27 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Sly end
24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Dillon Rd
Worsley to Diablo Rd
1.00 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft)
Overlay with RMS
Coordinate with City of Palm Springs for 10%
share of project
Double View Dr
Middle Ridge Dr SWIy
1.66 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Dowman St
Broomall Ave to Grand Ave
0.23 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Recon 26' RMS paved road
El Rancho Dr
Bradley Rd to Piping Rock Rd
0.48 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Elaine Dr
Sycamore Rd
0.44 (mi)
Resurf RMS paved road
to 16th Ave
33 (ft)/ 33 (ft)
Elm Ave -
14th St to Beaumont C.L.
0.49 (mi) • 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Resurf AC paved road
Coordinate with City of Beaumont for half of
road width.
Fund
Source
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
Fund
Source
Amount
x S1000
41
0
41
85
10
95
228
0
228
43
0
43
72
0
72
59
0
59
103
0
103
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 61000
= Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
= Environmental C = Construction
00/01 01/02 02/03 J 03/04 04/05.
E
R
C
2
0
38
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
E
R
0
0
2
1
0
82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
U 0
0 0
0' 0
0 0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
E
R
C
5
1
0
222
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
1
0
0
0
0
E
1
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
41
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
E
R
C
3
0
0
69
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
56
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
0
92
00004'7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Page 12
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION► DEPARTMENT 1/23/01
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Four Chimneys Rd
Delano Dr
0.10 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Wly End
24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Fred Waring Dr & Clinton St
Indio C.L. to Wily Silverwood Dr
0.58 (mi) 64 (ft)/110 (ft)
Widen street and Const sidewalk
Sidewalk includes the west side of Clinton St
from Fred Waring Dr to Riverlane Dr.
Fulton Ave
Dartmouth St to Stanford St
0.27 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Garbani Rd
Murrieta Rd to Evans Rd
0.43 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Recon 24'-53', AC paved road
Width varies from 24' to 53'.
Gavilan Rd
Cajalco Rd
0.85 (mi)
Resurf paved road
to S'ly 0.85 mi
24 (ft)/ 0 (ft)
Gavilan Rd
Lake Mathews Dr
2.20 (mi)
Reconstr and widen road
to Eldridge Dr
21 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Gene St
Whittier Ave
0.05 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to N'ly end
30 (ft)/ 30 (ft)
Fund
Source
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
Fund
Source
Amount
x S1000
16
0
16
203
48
251
57
0
57
309
0
309
188
0
188
303
377
680
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
00/01 i 01/02 102/03 03/04 D4/05
D 2
E 1
R 0
C 13
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
`0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
0
0
0
203
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
4
0
0
0
0
E
1
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
52
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
55
0
0
0
0
E
1
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
253
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
0
0
3
0
0
E
0
0
2
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
183
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
10
0
0
0
0
C
293
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
10
ID
1
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
9
0
0
0
0
10
300 Measure A/Western
000048
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Page 14
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 1/23/01
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Hansen Ave
10th St to Montgomery Ave
1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Recon 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS w/berms
Hattie Ave
Elm St
0.14 (mi)
Grind and Resurf
Helen Ave
Clinton Ave
0.40 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to E'ly end
22 (ft)/ 22 (ft)
to Wly 0.4 mi
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
Helen Ave
Elm St
0.07 (mi)
Grind and Resurf
to Ply end
22 (ft)/ 22 (ft)
Helm Cir
Beacon Dr -
0.30 (mi)
Resurface Paved Road
to N'ly Beacon Dr 0.3 mi
30 (ft)/ 30 (ft)
Hempstead Ct
E'ly Windsor 0.05 mi to W'ly Windsor 0.04 mi
0.09 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Hermitage Dr
Nly 42nd Av 0.15 mi to Nly 42nd Av 0.24 mi
0.09 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft)
Remove and Replace AC Surface
Fund
Source
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
'Fund
Source
Amount
x 51000
203
0
203
30
0
101
0
101
19
0
19
7
0
7
15
0
15
26
0
26
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
= Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
= Environmental C = Construction
00/01 J 01/02 1 02/03 1 03/04 104/05
E
R
C
0
0
0
0'
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
300 Measure A/Western
2
1
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
E
0
0
0
0
1
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
01
24
300 Measure A/Western
0
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
10
1
0
90
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
5
E
0
0
0
0
1
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
13
300 Measure A/Western
R
C
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
2
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
2
1
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000043
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Page 16
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 1/23/01
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Fund
Source
Total
John Muir Rd
Fern Valley Rd
0.27 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Seneca Dr
24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
300
other
Total
Fund
Source
Amount
x S1000
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
-E = Environmental C = Construction
00/01 1 01/02 102/03 i 03/04 04/05.
48
0
48
Juniper Flats Rd
Juniper Springs to Sly
1.61 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Recon 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS W/Berms
Jurupa Rd
Etiwanda Ave
2.90 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Poinsetta Pl
26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Katharin St
Whittier Ave
0.15 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to NE'ly end
30 (ft)/ 30 (ft)
La Sierra Ave
El Sobrante Rd to Cleveland Ave
1.90 (mi) '26 (ft)/ 64 (ft)
Widen to 4 lane Mtn. Arterial Hwy
Agreement with Victoria Grove,LLC.
La Vida Dr
Calle De Las Flores
0.18 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Palm Oasis Ave
34 (ft)/ 34 (ft)
Lake Ln
ldyllbrook Dr
0.22 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Marian View Dr
24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
202
0
202
733
0
733
31
0
31
524
343
867
61
0
61
36
0
36
D
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
200
0
0
0
0
D
0
60
0
0
0
E
0
3
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
670
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
2
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
29
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
524
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
6
0
0
E
0
0
1
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
54
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
D 3
Cr'
0
0
0
E 1
0
0'
0
0
R 0
0
0
0
0
C 32
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
000050
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
Page 18
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 1/23/01
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Limonite Ave
Etiwanda Ave to 1-15
1.50 (mi) 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft)
Reconstruct road surface
Exist R/W is 85-160 ft.
Lockhart Ln
Jackie Dr to Ply 0.07 mi
0.07 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Locovia Ct
Port Royal Ave
0.02 (mi)
Recon AC surface
to /Ply end
32 (ft)/ 32 (ft)
Lois Ct -
Elsa Ct to Columbia St
0.20 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Lorimer St
Grand Ave to Sly
0.30 (mi) 24=(ft)/ 26 (ft)
Recon 26',0.21'RMS on 0.5'DG
Los Caballos
Pauba Ave
1.34 (mi)
Recon RMS paved road
to SH79
24 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Magnolia Ave
Ply of McKinley St
0.00 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft)
Investigate profile 8 drainage a driveway
Fund
!Source
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
'Fund
Source
Amount
x $1000
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
248
882
1130
00/01 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 1 04/05
D
E
R
C
5D
2
-0
3
0
0
0
193
300 Measure A/Western
0 l7
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
12
D
1,
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
11
0
0
0
0
12
300 Measure A/Western
13 0
E
R
0 C
13
34 D
E
R
0 C
34
102
102
252
0
252
20
0
20
1 0 0
1 0 0'
0 0 0
11 0 0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
32
0 0
0 0
0 0
01 0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
1
0
0
E
0
0
1
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
100
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
E
R
C
D
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
250
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000051
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Fund
Source
Total
Page 20
1/23/01
Fund
Source
Amount
x S1000
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
= Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
= Environmental C = Construction
Market St Bridge •
Santa Ana River
0.00 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft)
Seismic retrofit of bridge and replace guardrail
Mauna Loa Dr
Mojave Nly
0.31 (mi)
Recon 32',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS
32 (ft)/ 32 (ft)
Mayberry Ave
Columbia St
0.50 (mi)
Recon AC paved road
to Dartmouth St
40 (ft)/ 40 (ft)
Mc Call Blvd
valley Blvd
1.30 (mi)
Resurface AC paved road
to 1-215
72 (ft)/ 72 (ft)
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
Mc Mahon Rd
Middle Ridge Rd
0.07 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
•
to Marian•View Dr
24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
McKinney Ln
Canyon Dr to Wily end
0.13 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Resurf AC paved road
Design for groundwater and drainage problems.
Meadow Glen Dr
Double View Dr. to Idyllbrook Dr
0.34 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Resurf 24',0.17'AC
Coordinate with waterline work
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
168
2499
2667
48
0
48
344
0
344
00/01 01/02 1 02/03 03/04 1 04/05
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0,
0
R
0
0
0
0
0 •
C
168'
0
0,
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
0
0
0
2
0
E
0
0
0
1
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
45
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
D
33
0
0
0
0
E
2
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
309
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
39
D
34
0
0
0
0
E
1
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
1037
C
4
0
0
0
0
1076
14.
0
14
81
0
81
300 Measure A/Western
D
E
R
C
2
1
0
11
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
25
0
0
0
E
0
1
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
55
0
0,
300 Measure A/Western
51
D
3
0
0
0
0
E'
1
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
47
0
0
0
0
51
300 Measure A/Western
000052
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Page 22
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 1/23/01
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Monterey Ave
Varner Rd
0.60 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Ramon Rd
50 (ft)/ 50 (ft)
Murrieta Rd
Scott Rd
1.75 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Corson Ave
26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Nancy Dr
Dillon Rd to N'ly to end
0.33 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Widen, Resurf RMS paved road
Nandina Ave
Barton St to Clark St
1.52 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Pulverize, Resurf 0.30' AC
Neptune Dr
Flamingo Dr
0.25 (mi)
Resurface Paved Road
Nevis PL
Butler Bay Pl
0.09 (mi)
Reconstruct Surface
to Nly Via CostaBrava.2mi
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
to Trinity Cir
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
New Bedford Rd
Westover Wy to Windsor Dr
0.09 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with ARM '
Fund
'Source
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
Fund
Source
Amount
x 51000
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
AmoLmt x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
145
423
568
430
0
430
64
0
64
225
0
225
44
44
26
0
26
15
0
15
00/01 01/02 1 02/03 03/04 04/05
D
E
R
40
3
0
2
0l
0 0
0 0
100 0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
26
1
0
403
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
D
0
0
0
0'
2
E
0
0
0
0
1
R
0
0
0
0
13
C
0
0
0
0
48
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
E
R
7
1
0
217
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
41
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
2
0
0
0
0
E
1
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C'
23
0
0
0
0
E
R
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
2
0
0
13
of 0 0
0 0 p
0 0 0
0 0 0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
000053
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Page 24
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 1/23/01
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Palm Oasis Ave
Snow View Dr
0.36 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Clearwater Wy
34 (ft)/ 34 (ft)
Fund
Source
Total
301
other
Total
Palo Verde Area
various roads
0.00 (mi)
Resurf RMS paved road
0 (ft)/ 0 (ft)
Palomar Rd
San Jacinto Rd
0.28 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Dickenson Rd
24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Par Dr
Thornhill Dr to Olympia Way
0.26 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft)
Resurf 32',0.21' AC Petromat
Pauba Rd
SH79 to De Portola Rd
2.3. (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Recon RMS paved road
Peach St
Esperanza Ave
0.17 (mi)
Grind and Resurf
to Ida Ave
22 (ft)/ 22 (ft)
Pebble Beach Dr
Cherry Hills Blvd to McCall Blvd
0.37 (mi) 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
302
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
Fund
Source
Amount
x 51000
121
0
121
385
360
745
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
00/01 01/02 f 02/03 1 03/04 04/05
D
E
R
C
0
D
-0
0
0
0
0
0
11
109
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
155
70
160
302 Measure A/Palo Verde
47
0
0
3
0
0
0
E
0
1
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
43
0
0
47
38
0
38
508
508
34
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
1
0
E
0
0
0
1
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
36
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
0
0
0
5
0
E
0
0
0
3
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
500
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
28
144
D
6
0
0
0
0
E
1
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
137
0
0
0
0
144
300 Measure A/Western
000051
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Page 26
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 1/23/01
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Port Cir
Barnacle Dr
0.10 (mi)
Resurf RMS paved road
to W'ly 0.1 mi
30 (ft)/ 30 (ft)
Port Royal Ave
Hermitage Dr
0.38 (mi)
Reconstruct Surface
to Cambridge Ave
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
Port Royal Ave
Cambridge Ave
0.22 (mi)
Recon AC surface
to Jamaica Sands Dr
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
Primrose Ln
Viola St to Ply 0.05 mi
0.05 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft)
Remove pavement, Resurf 0.15' AC and 0.12' AHRM
Ramon Rd
W'ly of Arbol Real Ave
0.05 (mi)
Const drainage dry wells
0 (ft)/ 0 (ft)
Rancho California Rd
Butterfield Stage Rd
4.21 (mi)
Const Left Turn Lane
to Glen Oaks Rd
32 (ft)/ 44 (ft)
Rancho California Rd
De Luz Rd to Temecula L.L.
3.39 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft)
Grind and Resurf 0.17' AC
Fund
Source
Total
301
other
Total
301
other
IFund
'Source
Amount
x $1000
12
0
12
84
0
Total 1 84
301 1 52
other 1 0
Total j 52
300 1 9
other 1 0
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
9
44
0
44
260
278
538
300 1 568
other 1 0
Total f 568
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x !1000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
00/01 j 01/02 J 02/03 1 03/04 04/05
E
R
C
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
R
C
8
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
5
1
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
9
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
O
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
44
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
E
R
c
10
0
0
2501
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
55
1
0
0
0
0
512
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000055
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Page 28
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 1/23/01
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (•ft)/PW (ft)
Roble Dr
Encino Rd
0.18 (mi)
Resurf AC Paved Rd
to S'ly End
21 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Rocky Way
Double Tree Dr Wly
0.10 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Round Robin Dr
SH 243
0.11 (mi)
Recon AC paved road
to SW'ly End
28 (ft)/ 28 (ft)
Rouse Rd
Bottlebrush Rd
0.40 (m1)
Resurf AC paved road
to Bradley Rd
30 (ft)/ 30 (ft)
Royai Cir
Jackie Dr to Ply 0.07 mi
0.07 (mi) -29 (ft)/ 29 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Rubidoux Blvd
UP RR X-ing 3-54.70-C
0.05 (mi) 70 (ft)/ 0 (ft)
Upgrade Crossing gates and road surface
Rustic Ln
Opal St
0.26 (mi)
Recon AC paved road
to Pacific Ave
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
Fund Fund
Source Source
Amount
x S1000
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x S1000
= Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
= Environmental C = Construction
34
0
34
21
0
Total 1 21
300 1 99
other J 0
Total 1 99
300 1 77
other f 0
Total 1 77
300 1 12
other 1 0
Total 1 12
300 1 46
other 428
Total 1 474
300
other
277
0
Total 1 277
00/01 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 1 04/05
D
E
R
C
7
1
0
26
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
E
0
1
0
0
0
R'
0
0
0
0
0
C
0,
1
76
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
6
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0'
0
C
71
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
E
R
C
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
46
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
D
39
0
0
0,
0
E
1
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
2
235
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
000056
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
San Jacinto Rd
Fern Valley Rd
0.38 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Glen Rd
24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
San Timoteo Cyn Rd
Redlands Blvd
1.20 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
50% in SD#3
to S.B. County Line
24 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Sandra Dr
Jackson St
0.11 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to W'ly end
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
Santa Rosa Mine Rd
Lake Matthews/Gavilan to Christmas Tree Ln
2.50 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Resurf exist RMS paved road
Santa Rosa Rd
Post Rd
0.98 (mi)
Recon RMS paved road
to W'ly
24 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Saturn Way
Matibar Ave to S'ly 0.05 mi
0.05 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Scenic Dr
Daryll Dr
0.30 (mi)
Resurf AC paved road
to Wayne Dr
24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Fund
Source
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
Fund
Source
Amount
x 51000
62
0
62
Page 30
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
1/2r'/Ci
= Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
= Environmental C = Construction
00/01 1 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 1 04/05
0
E
R
C
0
0
-0
0
3
1 0
0 0
0 58
300 Measure A/Western
375 0 0 0 0
E 0 0 0
R 0 0 0
140 C 0 0 375
515
27
0
27
300 Measure A/Western
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
R
C
2 0' 0, 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
533 D 40 0 0
E 20 0 0
R 0 0 0
0 C 2[ 471 0
533
115
0
115
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
D 0 0 0
E 0 0 0
R 0 0 0
C 115 0 0
300 Measure A/Western
9 D 1 0' 0
E 0 0 0
R 0 0 0
0 C' 8 0 0
9
300 Measure A/Western
50 0 0 3
E 0 1
R 0 0
0 C 0 0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0 0
0 0
0 0
46 0
0
0
0
0
000057
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Page 32
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 1/23/31
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Simpson Rd
Briggs Rd to Rte 79
3.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Reconst AC Paved Rd
Investigate groundwater problem near ponds.
Soboba Rd
N'ly Bath Ave 0.1 mi to Chabela Dr
0.56 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft)
Resurf AC paved road
Coordinate with City of San Jacinto for south
half of road.
Fund
Source
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
South Broadway
15th Ave to Blythe CL
0.40 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft)
Resurface 0.1', 38' A/C W/ petromat
Spalding Dr
Cambridge Ave
0.25 (mi)
Resurface 0.21', 35' AC
to Hopewell Ave
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
Spar Cir
Galley Dr
0.04 (mi)
Resurface Paved Road
to NWIy Galley Dr 0.07 mi
30 (ft)/ 30 (ft)
St. Lucia Ct
Port Royal Ave
0.03 (mi)
Reconstruct Surface
to Nly Port Royal 0.03 mi
32 (ft)/ 32 (ft)
Sun City Area
various roads
0.00 (mi)
Resurf AC paved roads
0 (ft)/ 0 (ft)
302
other
Total
301
other
Total
301
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
Fund
Source
Amount
x 51000
1205
0
1205
92
0
92
85
0
85
56
0
56
13
0
13
13
0
13
660
0
660
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
= Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
= Environmental C = Construction
00/01 01/02 1 02/03 03/04 04/05
D
E
R
c
110
5
0
0
0
0
0
1090
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OI
D
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
0
82
D
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
302 Measure A/Palo Verde
8
2
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
E
R
C
5
1
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
10
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
1 0
1 0
0 0
11 0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
E
0
0
0
0
10
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
550
300 Measure A/Western
000058
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Thousand Palms Canyon Rd
Ramon Rd/Washington St to Dillon Rd
5.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Widen and Resurf RMS paved road
Tobago Ct
Port Royal Ave
0.03 (mi)
Reconstruct Surface
to Nly Port Royal 0.03 mi
32 (ft)/ 32 (ft)
Trenton Way
Fordham Dr to Jamestown Dr
0.05 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Trinity Cir
Port Royal Ave
0.20 (m1)
Recon AC surface
to NW'ly end
35 (ft)/ 35 (ft)
University Dr
Acamemy Dr to Collegian Wy
0.04 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft)
Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC and 0.12' AHRM
Van Buren Blvd
Mockingbird Canyon Rd
0.10 (mi) 48 (ft)/ 60 (ft)
Const right turn lane for SE -bound traffic
Van Buren Blvd
W'ly of Chicago Ave to. 1/3 mi
0.00 (mi) 61 (ft)/ 61 (ft)
install flashing beacons at'Fire Station
Fund
Source
Total
301
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
Fund
Source
Amount
x 61000 '
Page 34
1/23/01
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
770
0
770
14
0
14
. 00/01 01/02 1 02/03 1 03/04 1 04/05.
E
R
C
0
,•0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
764
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
E
R
C
1
1
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
11 D 2
E 0
R 0
0 c 9
11
52
0
52
12
0
12
107
0
107
56
0
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
5
0
0
0
0
E
1
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
C
46
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
D` 1
E 0
R 0
C 11
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
R
C
25
2
0
5
0
0
0
75
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0'
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0. 0
E
R
1
0
47
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
000059
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Name
Limits
Length (mi)
Description
(comments)
EW (ft)/PW (ft)
Vineland St
Edgar Canyon Channel
0.01 (mi)
Construct box culvert
26 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Viola St
Plumrose St to Whittier St
0.09 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft)
Remove pavement, Resurf 0.15' AC and 0.12' AHRM
Washington St -
Thousand Palms Cyn Rd to S'ly Pushawalla 0.90mi
2.53 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)
Grind and Resurf
Wellman Rd
Terwilliger Rd to Kirby St
1.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft)
Widen North side,0.5'DG; Resurf 26',0.21'RMS
Wentworth Dr
Bradley Rd to SE'ly 0.37 mi
0.37 (mi) 37 (ft)/ 37 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Westover Way
New Bedford Rd to S'ly New Bedford .11mi
0.11 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
Windsor Dr
Cherry Hills Blvd to McCall Blvd
0.39 (mi) 41 (ft)/ 41 (ft)
Grind and Resurf with AHRM
IFund
'Source
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
301
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
300
other
Total
Page 36
1/23/01
Fund
Source
Amount
x S1000
Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year
Amount x 51000
D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition
E = Environmental C = Construction
00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 104/05
403
D
0
0
52'
"0
0
E
.0
0
20
0
0
R
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
331
0
403
300 Measure A/Western
17
0
1
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
0
0
0'
0
0
C
16
0
0
0
0
17
184
681
865
103
0
103
54
0
54
17
0
17
64
0
64
300 Measure A/Western
D
E
R
C
10
0
0
0
40
2
0
132
0
0
0
0
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
100
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
2
0
0
52
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
R
C
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
E
R
C
3
0
0
61
0
0
0
300 Measure A/Western
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000060
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM - AMENDMENT 1
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005 Fund Source Sunnery
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Fund Fund Source
Source Name
300 Measure A/Western
301 Measure A/Coachella Valley
302 Measure A/Palo Verde
* Grand Totals *
Page 38
1/23/01
Fiscal Year (Amt x 51000) Fund Source
Total Expenditure
00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 (Amt x 51000)
12806 6602 4893 5649 4698 34648
1870 1061 1058 1089 1058 -6136
114 211 155 155 160 795
14790 7874 6106 6893 5916 41579
000061
AGENDA ITEM 11
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION j
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
SUBJECT:
FY 2001-02 SB821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Release a Call for Projects fo.r the FY 2001-02 SB 821 program and
notify cities, the County, and local school districts of the estimated
funding available for the fiscal year; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Each year, 2% of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is made available for
use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB821
Program. This is a discretionary program funded by the state and administered by the
Commission.
There are three steps to carry out the program:
1. All cities and the County are notified of the SB821 program estimate of
available funding and are requested to submit project proposals (all school
districts in the county are also notified and asked to coordinate project
submissions with either their local city or the county transportation department).
The Commission's SB821 Program policies, project application, selection
criteria, and Caltrans' Highway Design Manual are also provided with the
notification. The Call for Projects will be released immediately upon
Commission action in April, and respondents will be given until the end of May
to respond.
000062
2. The Commission's SB 821 Evaluation Committee, comprised of members of the
Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees (3 each), meets to
review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by
the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the
Commission for approval. The Evaluation Committee will convene as quickly
as possible after the deadline for proposals passes.
3. The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves the
program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. Staff expects to bring
this item to the Commission in July.
Based on LTF revenue estimates for FY 2001-02 adopted by the Commission on
February 14, 2001, the 2% LTF funding for the SB821 Program will amount to
approximately $842,000. In addition to these funds, any unapportioned carryover
(receipts of LTF revenue in excess of the FY 2000-01 apportionment) will not be
known until the close of the fiscal year. Also, there may be an unidentified amount
of carryover funds from projects in the current program as a result of funds which
were not claimed or because time extensions were not requested and granted prior to
the expiration of the funding authorization for FY 2000-01. Since these amounts will
not be identified until after the awards are approved, the excess funds will be carried
over to the following fiscal year (FY 02-03) and made available for allocation to local
agencies.
000063
AGENDA ITEPI 12
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
CMAQ Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund Memorandum of Understanding
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Enter into the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
County of Riverside Waste Management Department for construction of
the Agua Mansa Liquified Natural Gas station funded partially with
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality monies in the amount of
$ 385,.000;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the MOU on behalf of the Commission;
3) Adopt the MOU as the model agreement format for the remaining seven
CMAQ Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund projects which have been approved
by the Commission;
4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute all
subsequent MOU's which do not contain any substantive language
changes; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Pursuant to approval by the Commission, a Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund CaII for
Projects was issued by staff in February 2000. The Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality solicitation of $2 million was for the western Riverside County area only. The
Call for Projects was designed to encourage the development and increased availability
of alternative fuel and electric vehicle refueling/recharging infrastructure and was
structured as an application process. The process established requirements that an
applicant must meet in order to qualify for funding and was structured as a first -come,
first -served process.
000064
The CaII for Projects contained four project categories under which applications could
be submitted. All applications underwent a technical analysis before being reviewed
by the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) based upon a set of
objective criteria. The TAC's recommendations were forwarded through the Budget
and Implementation Committee to the Commission. The following list summarizes
those projects which have been approved to date (July and October, 2000) by the
Commission totaling $1,853,250:
▪ Category 1: Implementation of New or Expanded Alternative Fuel Infrastructure
1. County of Riverside Waste Management Department - Agua Mansa
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Station, $385,000
2. City of Banning - 22nd Street Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Station,
$385,000
3. Riverside Transit Agency - Hemet Satellite Facility CNG Station,
$385,000
4. City of Riverside - Lincoln Avenue Public Access CNG Station,
$385,000
5. UCR/CE-CERT Intelligent Shared Vehicle Infrastructure Expansion,
$113,250
• Category 2: Implementation and Demonstration of Truck Stop Electrification or
Warehouse/Distribution Electrification
1. County of Riverside - Electrification of Refrigeration Trailers at Costco
Mira Loma Depot, $50,000
• Category 3: Development and Implementation of Alternative Fuel Infrastructure
Education and Vocation Training Programs
1. Riverside Community College - Light- and medium -duty vehicle training
curriculum, $75,000.
2. Mt. San Jacinto Community College - Heavy-duty vehicle training
curriculum, $75,000.
• Category 4: Research, Development and Demonstration of Emerging Clean Fuel
Technologies
None. One project has been submitted but the proposer, UCR/CE-CERT,
has not to date provided verification of required co -funding. Staff is in
contact with CE-CERT to determine if the project should be withdrawn.
This is the only category which remains open. The application period
closes August 14, 2002. The set -aside for this category is $100,000.
One of the requirements of the Call for Projects and award of funding was that the
recipient would enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Commission. The MOU sets forth the terms, conditions, obligations, and reporting
requirements that must be complied with as a part of accepting federal funding. The
MOU was specifically created for the Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund and is not used for
000065
any other CMAQ allocations made by the Commission. The MOU is necessary to
ensure that the infrastructure funded remains in place (given that it can be
disconnected and removed) and in operation for a period of at least three years.
Further, it includes provisions for repayment of funds to the Commission if the project
is not completed and operated per the terms of the MOU.
The attached MOU with the County of Riverside Waste Management Department is
the first project to move forward and is nearing the construction bidding phase with
design of the facility completed. The MOU represents an model agreement. All
recipients were given an opportunity to comment on the draft document. Proposed
language changes which staff and Legal Counsel concurred with were incorporated
into the model agreement. The Commission is being asked to review and approve the
agreement as presented. Given that the model agreement will be used for all projects
funded under this Call for Projects process, staff recommends that the Commission
Chairman be given the authority to execute all subsequent agreements, pursuant to
Legal Counsel review, as long as no substantive language changes are made to the
agreement.
000066
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
by and between
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
and
Riverside County Waste Management Department
for
CMAQ PROJECT
Agua Mansa Liquefied Natural Gas Fueling Station
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is made and entered into the day of
2001 by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC"), and
the Riverside County Waste Management Department ( "RECIPIENT").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, RECIPIENT is a California public entity and warrants and represents that it
is eligible to receive Federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
("TEA21 ")Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ("CMAQ") Improvement Program funding;
and
WHEREAS, RCTC has determined that RECIPIENT is eligible to receive
TEA21/CMAQ funds in an amount not to exceed $385,000 for the purpose of constructing and
operating a publicly accessible liquefied natural gas fueling station; and
WHEREAS, RECIPIENT warrants and represents that it shall use the CMAQ funds
awarded by RCTC herewith solely for the purpose of implementing the PROJECT which will
directly contribute to the attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone and carbon monoxide and/or will contribute to the attainment or
maintenance of air quality standards for particulate matter (PM,o) within Western Riverside
County;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the promises set forth herein, the receipt and
adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The parties agree that the above -stated Recitals are true and correct.
2. General Scope of MOU. RECIPIENT shall implement the PROJECT, as more particularly
defined in Exhibit "A", Scope of Work, and in accordance with the Budget, and Milestones
and Reporting Schedule, as more fully set forth respectively in Exhibits "B", and "C", all of
which Exhibits are attached hereto and are incorporated by reference into this MOU.
3. Term. The term of this MOU shall be from the date of execution by both parties of this
MOU until the PROJECT's completion, which shall include the fulfillment of the
Operational Availability requirements as defined in paragraph 4 below, and the submission
of all required reports, unless terminated earlier by RCTC as set forth in Paragraph 10 below.
I
000067
4. Operational Availability. RECIPIENT agrees to maintain the PROJECT in good working
order for a period of no less than three (3) years from the date the PROJECT, in RCTC's
reasonable sole judgement, has become fully operational.
5. Public Use and Fleet Accessibility. RECIPIENT shall operate the Project and make it
available for public use during the hours of 6:00 a.m. tc 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
and 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
6. Compliance with Federal. State, and Local Law. RECIPIENT shall comply with all
applicable requirements of Title 23 United States Code, -and the Uniform Relocation Act, as
well as any other federal, state, and local environmental laws, Caltrans administrative
guidelines, and RCTC requirements that may be applicable to the PROJECT.
7. Inclusion in Regional Transportation Improvement Program ("RTIP"). Upon execution of
this MOU, RCTC shall take action to program the PROJECT in the next update of the RTIP.
8. Coordination with State and Federal Agencies. RECIPIENT shall directly obtain from
Caltrans, the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA"), Federal Transit Agency ("FTA"),
and any other applicable state or federal entity, all necessary applications, permits, and other
documents required for the performance of the PROJECT. RECIPIENT shall further be
solely responsible for meeting all application, submission, and/or reporting requirements that
may be required by law. RCTC shall promptly receive copies of all correspondence between
RECIPIENT and Caltrans, FHWA, and FTA related to the PROJECT.
9. Quarterly Reporting. RECIPIENT shall submit, on a quarterly basis, and in a form
acceptable to RCTC, reports that document the status of PROJECT's implementation
progress, including task completion status, budget status, and adherence to PROJECT
milestones. The first report shall be submitted to RCTC within three (3) months after the
execution of this MOU. All subsequent quarterly reports shall be submitted in accordance
with the reporting schedule set forth in Exhibit "C", Milestones and Reporting Schedule.
10. Revocation of CMAQ Funding, Termination. RECIPIENT acknowledges that failure to
comply with any provision of this MOU and exhibits thereto may result in the termination of
PROJECT funding by RCTC. In the event RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her
designee. determines that RECIPIENT has failed to comply with any provision of this MOU,
RCTC shall notify RECIPIENT in writing of the Default or non-compliance at issue.
RECIPIENT shall have thirty (30) days from the date of RCTC's letter to: 1) cure the Default
or non-compliance or, 2) dispute the Default or non-compliance according to the procedures
set forth in Paragraph 20 (Disputes) below. Should RECIPIENT fail to remedy the Default
or non-compliance within this thirty (30) day period, or should RECIPIENT fail to dispute
the issuance of the notice of Default or non-compliance pursuant to the procedures set forth
in Paragraph 20 below, RECIPIENT's entitlement to any and all CMAQ funding for the
PROJECT shall immediately cease, all RCTC's duties and obligations under this MOU shall
automatically terminate and RECIPIENT shall immediately return to RCTC all
TEA21/CMAQ funds received by it under this MOU. Any CMAQ funds which may become
available as a result of revocation of such funding and termination of this MOU due to
RECIPIENT's failure to timely cure a Default, may not be utilized by the RECIPIENT in any
manner, but will be reallocated by the RCTC Board through consideration of other unfunded
applications, recompetition, or policy review of other priority projects/programs.
11. Standard of Care; Licenses. RECIPIENT shall perform the work required to complete the
PROJECT under this MOU with all due diligence and in a skillful and competent manner.
RECIPIENT represents and warrants that it and/or its contractors has on will have all
licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are or may be legally
2
000068
required to perform the work on the PROJECT. RECIPIENT further represents and warrants
that it and/or its contractors shall keep in effect all such licenses, permits, and other approvals
that may be required for the performance of the work on the PROJECT throughout the term
of this MOU.
12. Control and Payment of Subordinates: Contractual Relationship. Nothing in this MOU shall
be construed as suggesting RECIPIENT employees are the employees of RCTC. Any
employees of RECIPIENT or RECIPIENT's contractors performing the work governed by
this MOU on behalf of RECIPIENT shall at all times be under RECIPIENT's exclusive
direction and control. RECIPIENT shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due its
personnel in connection with their performance under this MOU and as required by law.
RECIPIENT shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional
personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding,
unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance.
13. Performance. RECIPIENT shall install and operate the Project within the time frames and
according to the requirements set forth in this Agreement and any attachments hereto.
Should RECIPIENT fail to install or operate the Project in accordance with the preceding
sentence, RCTC may terminate the Agreement and require RECIPIENT to reimburse all
funds allocated to RECIPIENT under this MOU in accordance with Section 10, above.
14. Records. RECIPIENT shall keep and maintain all books, papers, records, accounting
records, including but not limited to, all direct and indirect costs allocated to the PROJECT,
PROJECT files, accounts, reports, cost applications with backup data, and all other material
relating to the PROJECT ("PROJECT records"). These PROJECT records shall be kept for
the term of this MOU and for a three (3) year period after the PROJECT's termination, or for
any longer time period that may be required by law. RECIPIENT shall, upon request, make
all PROJECT records available at any reasonable time to RCTC, its designee, or any other
federal or state entity that may have a legal right to inspect these records, for auditing,
inspection. and copying purposes. Any subcontract entered into by RECIPIENT arising out
of or related to this PROJECT shall require each subcontractor to keep and maintain
PROJECT records for the same length of time specified above for the maintenance of
RECIPIENT's PROJECT records. RECIPIENT shall also require any subcontractor
performing work arising out of or related to the PROJECT to make available, at any
reasonable time, PROJECT records to RCTC, its designee, or any other federal or state entity
that may have a legal right to inspect PROJECT records, for auditing, inspection and copying
purposes.
15. Indemnification. RECIPIENT shall defend, indemnify and hold the RCTC, its Commission
members, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless from any
and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage, or injury,
in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out
of or incident to any acts, omissions or willful misconduct of RECIPIENT, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, consultants and RECIPIENT's arising out of or in connection
with the performance of this MOU and PROJECT, including without limitation the payment
of all consequential damages and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses.
RECIPIENT shall defend, at RECIPIENT's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such
aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or
instituted against RCTC, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers,
RECIPIENT shall pay and satisfy any judgement, award or decree that may be rendered
3
000069
against RCTC or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers, in any such
suit, action or other legal proceeding. RECIPIENT shall reimburse RCTC and its directors,
officials, officers, employees, agents, and /or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and
costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in. enforcing the indemnity herein
provided.
16. Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this MOU shall be given to the
respective parties in writing at the following address, or at such other address as the
respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
RECIPIENT:
RCTC:
Riverside County Waste Management Department
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Attention: Robert A. Nelson, General Manager, Chief Engineer
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
Attention: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues
and Communications
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight
(48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the
party at its applicable address.
17. Entire Agreement. This MOU contains the entire MOU of the parties with respect to the
subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements.
This MOU may only be modified by a writing approved by RCTC's Board of Directors and
signed by both parties.
18. Governing Law and Venue. The parties acknowledge and agree that this MOU is entered
into and performed in Western Riverside County, California. The law of the State of
California, without regard to any conflicts of law provisions, shall govern any action or claim
arising out of this MOU. The parties agree that the venue for any action or claim arising out
of or related to this MOU shall be Riverside County. If any action or claim concerning this
MOU is brought by any third party, the parties hereto agree to use their best efforts to obtain
a change of venue to Riverside County.
19. Successors and Assigns. This MOU shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the
parties, but may not be assigned by RECIPIENT.
4
000070
20. Disputes. In the event any dispute arises between the parties hereto or in connection with
this MOU, the dispute shall be resolved by RCTC's Executive Director or his or her duly
authorized representative within thirty (30) calendar days after written notice of the dispute
has been received by him or her; provided, however, that RCTC may submit a letter of
Default or non-compliance to RECIPIENT, as set forth in Paragraph 10 above, without first
following the requirements and procedures of this Paragraph. Any written notice of dispute
submitted by RECIPIENT shall include a detailed statement of the grounds for the dispute
and reasons why the dispute should be resolved in RECIPIENT's favor. If RECIPIENT does
not agree with the Executive Director's decision regarding the dispute, RECIPIENT may
make written appeal to the RCTC Board within thirty (30) calendar days of the Executive
Director's determination of the matter. The Board's decision shall be final. RECIPIENT
shall proceed with the performance of this MOU to the extent practicable during the
pendency of any dispute between the parties.
21. Attornevs' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of
or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled
to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit.
22. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and by this reference are
incorporated herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the MOU on the date first
hereinabove written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
By:
William G. Kleindienst, RCTC Board Chair
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED
FOR APPROVAL:
By:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
By:
Steven C. DeBaun, BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
Counsel for RCTC
5
By:
Robert A. Nelson, General Manager,
Chief Engineer
000071_
EXHIBIT A
TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
CMAQ PROJECT
SCOPE OF WORK
000072
FY99 9'02/03 RCTC CMAQ Call for Projects
Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SCOPE OF WORK - PART 1
(Return this page as part of your CMAQ application)
A. Please provide a detailed Project Description and Scope of Work. Include the following elements, at
. a minimum: a) project goals and objectives; b) Scope of Work, including all proposed Project Tasks
related to project design, development, and implementation; and c) Project End Products. Please
attach extra sheets if necessary.
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In summary, the development of this LNG infrastructure aims to achieve the following:
• To reduce air pollution emissions and diesel consumption from heavy-duty motor
vehicles traveling throughout southern California.
• To provide a LNG fueling site necessary to initially provide capacity for Burrtec to
operate 55 LNG heavy-duty trucks.
• To provide a vital LNG infrastructure link along the Interstate Clean Transportation
Corridor (ICTC).
• To allow Riverside to continue as a transportation hub for this industrially zoned area by
providing the needed infrastructure for clean fuel, natural gas vehicles.
• To allow for the expanded market penetration of additional clean fuel, natural gas
vehicles along the ICTC and especially within Western Riverside County.
Riverside is working to design, construct and operate a publicly accessible LNG fueling station
on County property located on Agua Mansa Road in Riverside, CA. The proposed station is
easily accessible from 1-10,1-60 and California State Highway 91. This LNG station will serve
the immediate needs of Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. as the company hopes to soon deploy 55
LNG trucks from its Agua Mansa facility. Additionally, as is evidenced from the support letters
attached to this application as Attachment B, it is anticipated that the County's LNG fueling
station will allow for.several other local entities operating.medium- and heavy-duty trucks to
easily make the transition away from diesel to clean burning natural gas.
As a link in the nation's first and most successful network of LNG fueling stations, Riverside's
facility will allow for convenient fueling for heavy-duty LNG trucks traveling throughout the
Inland Empire along the ICTC. The LNG station vlrill eventually be a public access facility after
initial staff training and day-to-day operations have been standardized. In just over three years,
the ICTC has become the nation's most successful public -private partnership dedicated to
accelerating the market penetration of clean, alternative -fuel vehicles in interstate goods
movement. The ICTC seeks to foster alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) deployment and alternative
fuel infrastructure development to link Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Reno,
Sacramento, San Francisco and the San Joaquin Valley along I-10, I-15, 1-80,1-15 and CA -99.
As such, the Riverside LNG station will provide the important link along the Los Angeles to Las
Vegas and the Los Angeles to Phoenix portion of the ICTC.
3
000073
FY99/ "02/03 RCTC CMAQ Call jar Projects
Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund
Within its first year of operations, it is projected that the Riverside LNG station will directly
contribute to an annual reduction of harmful NOx emissions from motor vehicles by at least 55.2
tons and will also lead to significant reductions of particulate matter.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ICTC PROJECT
Since its inception, the ICTC Project has helped to secure over $10.2 million in public funding
to:
• Build twelve natural gas fueling stations in California (Buena Park, Coalinga, Fresno,
Rialto, Riverside, Barstow, Santa Fe Springs, Tulare) and Nevada (Reno, Elko,
Winnemucca, Incline Village at Lake Tahoe); and
• Deploy 159 heavy-duty and 160 light duty natural gas vehicles (NGVs) to use these
stations.
The first two ICTC-supported natural gas fueling stations have now begun operation with 42 •
natural gas tractors utilizing this infrastructure. Over $2.0 million in additional funding
proposals have either been submitted or are in development and will result in the deployment of
additional natural gas trucks and establishment/construction/opening of several more natural gas
fueling stations in the region. ICTC staff is moving us closer towards its goal offostering the
establishment of 20 natural gas fueling stations and deployment of 375 NGVs to utilize this
infrastructure that will help to:
• Reduce emissions of NOx and PM by over 433 tons annually over the 1998 HDV
emissions standards for NOx and PM.
• Displace nearly 3.7 million gallons of diesel per year.
• Generate over $62.8 million in economic activity
Additionally, the ICTC has recently given rise to the International Clean Transportation Corridor
(ICTC). Similar to the original ICTC, the ICTC3 was created to identify and implement medium -
and heavy-duty alternative fuel/fuel-efficient vehicle deployment and infrastructure development
projects. Leveraging the successes and lessons learned from the ICTC, the ICTC3 will create a
clean transportation corridor along the 1.900 mile 1-35/1-29 and ultimately I-94 superhighway
connecting Canada, the United States and Mexico. Eventually, Gladstein & Associates (Director
of both Corridor Projects) hopes to connect the two Corridors along such Highways as I-10 and
I-40, thus making the Riverside LNG station an even more valuable link in a national network of
clean, alternative fuel infrastructure.
SCOPE OF WORK
Project Tasks Related to Project Design
Phase I, begun in March 2000, will last until September 2000 and will include:
• Issuing a design Request for Proposals
• Finalizing plans and specifications for project;
• Obtaining necessary permits;
4
000074
FY99/f -'02/03 RC7C CMAQ Call for Projects
Ckan Fuels Opportunity Fund
• Obtain approval of discretionary planning actions;
• Preparing and completing environmental review process per California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
• Managing and finalizing the project's funding sources; and,
• Continuing to identify potential LNG users to increase the base load of station.
Project Tasks Related to Development
Phase II will last from September 2000 until January 2001 and will include:
• Off site improvements to run existing utilities onto property;
• Issuing equipment Request for Quotes or Public Works Bid;
• Evaluating vendor quotes/bids and choosing the equipment supplier, station builder and station
operator; and
• Purchasing LNG facility equipment.
• Site preparation and grading.
Project Tasks Related to Implementation
Phase III will last from January 2001 until April 2001 and will include:
• Installing all equipment;
• Starting up and testing of all equipment;
• Training and handing station from station builder to station operator; and,
• Holding the Station Grand Opening event, after which the station will open for public use.
PROJECT END PRODUCTS
The project will develop a publicly owned LNG fueling station. This LNG station will be
located on County property located on Agua Mama Road in Riverside, CA. The lot will be
improved with site grading, fencing, drainage, and utilities.
Services and equipment utilized for this development will be in accordance with all local, state
and federal rules and codes. While the LNG equipment will be determined through a
competitive bid process, the general specifications have been supplied in a recently issued RFP
and are as follows:
Station Concept
The proposed station will store, dispense and meter LNG at levels capable of dispensing 4,000
gallon of fuel each operating day.
Station Components
Minimum Bulk 1 each 15,000 Gallons'
Storage Capacity
5
000075
FY99/
Y02/03 RC7C CMAQ Cal► for Projects
Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund
Bulk Storage 165 psig Maximum Allowable Working Pressure
(MAWP)
LNG Dispensing Pump 2 each 2 -Stage Pump Providing 80 psig Minimum
Differential Pressure at 50 gpm
LNG Off -Loading/ A Suitable Cryogenic Pump not Requiring a
Dispensing Restart Sequence or Cool Down Period
LNG Dispenser 2 each Single Hose Dispenser2
'While the initial station shall be designed with a capacity of 15,000 gallons, the necessary concrete footings
shall also be installed in order to allow for the addition of a second 15,000 gallon LNG storage cylinder at a later
date. The containment dike -wall shall also be constructed with this concept in mind.
2 While the initial station shall have two LNG dispensers, the necessary stubbed piping shall be installed below
grade in order to allow for two additional LNG dispensers to be easily added at Si later date. Additionally, the
station shall be designed in such a manner as to allow for the addition of a CNG storage and dispensing system
at a later date.
Station Size and Operations
Due to the size of the initial base fleet (Burrtec) being served and the need to accommodate the
unloading of full trailer quantities of fuel, the minimum storage requirement for this project is
15.000 (gross) gallons. No used equipment or Perlite tanks shall be considered.
A preliminary layout of the facility is shown on Figure 1. The layout was based upon what is
believed to be the most efficient preliminary design recently received by Riverside in responses
to a Request for Proposals. Riverside selected the preferred layout based upon site -specific
concerns related to traffic flow, types, and volumes. The layout included as Figure 1 will be
further refined during the final design phase.
Saturation Pressure and Bulk Tank Requirements
To accommodate a minimum delivered saturation pressure of 110 psig., the entire contents of the
bulk storage tank shall be saturated. Due to the relatively high saturation pressures being
delivered, the bulk tank shall have a maximum allowable working pressure of 165 psig. or
greater.
Dispensing LNG
Once the LNG is properly saturated, LNG will be dispensed via a suitable cryogenic pump.
Time is of the essence in the fueling operations of these vehicles, therefore no ground mounted
pumps, or pumps requiring any significant cool -down cycle will be considered. Systems that
require a pump -restart sequence after periods of non-use will not be considered.
Metering LNG
The only metering devices that will be accepted are those which have: already been used
elsewhere in a similar design; are currently in the process of being certified by the California
Weights and Measures Department; or have been used elsewhere in California in a similar retail
fueling application.
6
000076
FY99/C '02/03 RC7C CMAQ Call for Projects
Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund
Minimum Storage Tank Capacity:
Minimum Flow Rate:
Card Read System:
Vapor Return Hose:
Station Controls:
15,000 gallons
25 gpm
Yes
Yes
Display of bulk tank levels and pressure,
status of pump, dispenser, conditioning
system, trailer offloading system and recent
fault code history.
Riverside intends on making the station accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week after initial
staff training and day-to-day operations have been standardized. The LNG station will be
required to incorporate an Industry Standard, universal card reader system capable of accepting
cards such as VISA or MASTERCARD for trained and approved users. Interfacing with the
Riverside County automated fuel system, "Fuel Force" shall also be required.
7
000077
FY99/e "02/03 RCTC CMAQ Call for Projects
Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SCOPE OF WORK - PART 2
(Return this page as part of your CMAQ application)
B. Please describe the proposed Project Organizational Structure, including: a) Description of the
agency implementing the project, b) Use of subcontractors, if any; c) Key project staff, including
Project Manager, and d) Project reporting structure.
DESCRIPTION OF AGENCY
Riverside is implementing this project and is a member agency of RCTC. Riverside staff is over
170 full time employees working within an organizational structure responsible for detailed
accounting procedures related to refuse disposal billing, fuel system tracking, and invoice
payment. Since Riverside's inception more than 15 years ago, staff has been responsible for the
efficient and accurate processing of large sums of money during the course of day to day
operations. For example, in the last five years alone Riverside presided over 225 million dollars
in gross receipts at the active landfills under its management. Through its processing of over
30,000 transactions per month in dealing with over 10 refuse collection haulers and the general
public, Riverside has set a high standard for insuring the protection of public monies. For
example, in order for a refuse collection hauler to establish a line of credit, they must provide an
advanced deposit of three (3) months billing (based upon historical records) with Riverside
facilities. Additionally, Riverside requires posting of a bond or cash in an amount commensurate
with the anticipated level of service for the refuse hauling area.
Additionally, Riverside maintains ongoing contract administration for the fuel supply of a 250 -
piece heavy equipment fleet at it's various landfills. This experience coupled with staffs close
coordination with the Riverside County General Service Agency/Fleet Services gives Riverside a
level of fueling experience not found in agencies of similar size. For example, over the last year,
staff has worked side by side with the County's Fleet Service agency in preparing a Request for
Proposals to upgrade an existing fueling system that manages over 22 gasoline/diesel fueling
stations throughout Riverside County (Please see Figure 2 for a detailed map of existing
Riverside County Fuel Sites).
Riverside's highly experienced staff also conducts in-house environmental reviews, which are
exempt from the typical planning process. This affords Riverside a unique opportunity to pursue
important public works projects such as the proposed LNG fueling facility much faster than any
private entity and most other public agencies.
Complementing Riverside's extensive planning staff is a specialized contingency of California
registered engineers who specialize in the design, construction, and administration of public
works contracts. During the last ten years alone, Riverside has been responsible for over fifty
(50) successful public works contracts totaling more than 42 million dollars. All aspects of site
development, State regulatory compliance, local permit coordination, and contractor oversight is
carried out by a professional staff of ten civil engineers of which two are licensed land surveyors.
8
000073
FY99,
V02103 RCTC CM.AQ Call for Projects
Ckan Fuels Opportunity Fund
Riverside is proud of its continued leadership in the role of clean air advocate as evidenced by
Riverside's Board of Supervisor's numerous stances to promote alternative forms of energy. In
fact, Riverside is proud to be currently represented on the South Coast Air Quality Management
Districts board by Supervisor Roy Wilson. His commitment to the health of the citizens of the
County and support for such initiatives as alternative fuel vehicles has resulted in Board policy
D-2. This policy requires that all County agencies take a proactive stance for clean air prior to
any mandates and is included as Attachment C.
USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS
Subcontractors for the project have not yet been identified. Subcontractors and suppliers will be
selected via a competitive bid process. Any contractors hired by Riverside to perform work on
the project (i.e. grading, paving, equipment installation, etc.) must have a valid license as a
contractor in the State of California and be licensed to perform the type of work for which the
proposal is made. The contractor must be properly insured and bonded in the amount specified
by the County. Furthermore, subcontractors shall be required to keep and maintain all books,
papers, records, and accounting records relating to this project, pursuant to the guidelines
contained within the contract between RCTC and Riverside.
KEY PROJECT STAFF
Robert A. Nelson will oversee the actual contract administration including the procurement of
funds from various agencies. He will work with: Joe McCann (Senior Civil Engineer with
Riverside); Lesley Likins (Principal Planner with Riverside and has the authority to act as the
County Planner); Dan Wagner of the Riverside County Fire Department; Greg Dellenbach and
Doug Thompson of the Riverside County Health Department; and Tony Harmon of the Riverside
County Building & Safety Department, to secure all necessary permits and over see the actual
construction of the facility. Gladstein & Associates, through the Interstate Clean Transportation
Corridor (a South Coast Air Quality Management District sponsored project) will provide
technical assistance whenever necessary.
PROJECT REPORTING STRUCTURE
Riverside shall submit quarterly status reports meeting the guidelines contained within the
contract between RCTC and Riverside. In additionto the quarterly status reports, the following
details the schedule of supportive documentation to be submitted, as is anticipated from the three
phases of the Scope of Work (detailed above).
At the end of Phase I (September 2000), RCTC will receive:
• Copies of the final plans and specifications for the project;
• Copies of all permits already obtained and/or status of any pending permits;
• A copy of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the station builder and operator; and
• Proof of all project funding.
At the beginning of Phase II (September/October 2000), RCTC will receive:
• Copies of purchase orders for the LNG equipment; and
At the end of Phase II (January 2001), RCTC will receive:
9
000079
FY99/r v02/03 RC7C CMAQ Call for Projects
Ckan Fuels Opportunity Fund
• Notification of the selected station builder and operator, and
• A site tour to view completed site preparation.
At the end of Phase III (April 2001), RCTC will receive:
• Documentation of all necessary testing (calibration of equipment);
• A site tour of completed facility; and
• An invitation to the Grand Opening Celebration of the facility.
The County will provide any additional updates as requested by RCTC.
C. Indicate the Environmental Document(s) required for the project, if applicable (e.g., Negative
Declaration, CE, EIR, etc., and the estimated approval date:
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental
Assessment (EA) will be prepared to evaluate the potential impact(s) on the environment from
developing a LNG Fueling Facility at the proposed location. It is anticipated that the project will
not result in impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, in which case,
Staff will recommend that the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration at the public meeting on the matter. It should be noted that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project site and the immediately
surrounding acreage (a total of 34.5 acres) to assess the development of a materials recovery
facility, transfer station, co -composting operation, and other ancillary functions, such as the
fueling of fleet vehicles. The EIR was certified by the BOS on August 2, 1994 (Resolution No.
94-261).
Based upon the previous investigations performed during the construction of the Robert A.
Nelson transfer station, Riverside fully expects little or no environmental resistance to this
project. This sentiment is particularly reinforced due to the fact that the area is zoned for
industrial uses associated with recycling/environmentally green processes, which this project
clearly falls under. The site's further impetus for utilization as a LNG fueling facility is the fact
that the necessary utility infrastructure is above typical standards. For instance, besides the
availability of overhead electrical power and roadway drainage. improvements include sanitary
sewer, storm sewers, and a brine line which currently run under the Agua Mansa road. The mere
size of the industrial development zone and the current recycling industries will serve to attract
ever -large volumes of alternative fuel vehicles to this LNG fueling facility.
Associated studies reflecting Riverside's ongoing interest to study and clean up emissions from
the waste hauling industry include the University of California's evaluation of diesel versus
alternative fuels, funded and later assessed by Riverside. The executive summary from this
report is included with this application as Attachment D.
10
000080
FY99/( '02/03 RC7C CMAQ Cafi for Projects
Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SCOPE OF WORK - PART 3
(Return this page as part of your CMAQ application)
D. If applicable to your proposed project, please attach an 8 W x 11" Site Map/Plan to this Exhibit.
Please see Figure 1.
E. Project Readiness - Please describe the time frame for project implementation and any. anticipated
barriers to project completion. Address other funds used to match or support the project. If project
requires on -going funding, include a discussion on what funding will be used for continuing operation.
Please refer to Project Implementation Schedule for a detailed tentative timeline for the
project.
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has allocated $100,000 of funding for the
development of this station as evidenced by Attachment E. Riverside is pending approval
from the South Coast Air Quality Management District for their funding application in the
amount of $200,000 to The Carl Moyer Fuel Infrastructure Demonstration Program.
Additionally, Riverside is awaiting confirmation of the transfer of Department of Energy SEP
funds totaling $99,000. These funds had originally been secured by the Interstate Clean
Transportation Corridor on behalf of Lucky Stores for the construction of a public access
LNG fueling station. However, Lucky Stores (now known as Albertson's as a result of a
recent merger) has since decided to give back this money, as their station will no longer be
publicly accessible. As the original grant was actually awarded to Southern California
Associated Governments (SCAG) Clean Cities Coalition, SCAG has requested from the
California Energy Commission (CEC), who is responsible for distributing these funds, to
transfer the monies to the Riverside project. Preliminary indications from CEC are that this
transfer is only a matter of processing the necessary paperwork.
Provided that Riverside's applications to the Carl Moyer Fuels Infrastructure Demonstration
Program and Riverside County Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund are approved in the full
amount, Riverside does not foresee any barriers to project completion.
Riverside will enter into an agreement with Burrtec before construction begins that provides
for the operational and maintenance costs associated with the proposed fueling facility to
cover these costs.
11
000081
Jo
J
I
0
CT
m
114111
G
U lf 1-101
13-41-0 A 11( ill lY POSY
I0 0i(I (Le.rl 01(
100 0(1 (l((1Il(,1 (Y ell, ..Iq
1111141(0 (1 *PC 1.♦
MOW* MAI 111110 1
IOpg. Y14I K.
(. Illli .)l.w I
IOOY I r000 11(
IOW(/ AV.
1OW(0 CO ..I1
_w.•ern.w.
012100 11
Mill .1 =
A.CH[1p ii 1
1.11 maI II.'.
lwlyt Nwcf n1 y!1 n'!r
Yw... IC ,10 . 1. Ir:vie�•-..a•,nF'
'- - ..Ir rr rme1. 004
,1. 16 11.'1';11511.1.,a Al _ - 40 14 _ ?? Fl li41441 11004 w
gal
•r... _. 4_ R.ryt r
Aq ua Monso Clean Fuel Stollen
SITE LAYOUT
EXHIBIT B
TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
CMAQ PROJECT
BUDGET
000083
FY99/r '02/03 RCTC CMAQ Call for Projects
Ckan Fuels Opportunity Fund
EXHIBIT C
PROJECT BUDGET
(Return this page as part of your CMAQ application)
A. Budget Summary Data: Please complete the following Table listing project costs by category and
funding source.
BUDGET
COMPONENT
FUNDING
CMAQ $
OTHER $
OTHER $
FUNDING
SOURCE (S)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN & ENGINEERING
$ 50,000
Riverside Co.
$ 50,000
Riverside Co.
SITE ACQUISITION
CONSTRUCTION*
$ 282,900
$
Riverside Co.
$i $
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT*
$ 385,000
$ 200,000 $ 99,000
Carl Moyer and
DOE SEP
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
(please specify below)
TOTAL COSTS
$ 385,000
$ 582,900
$ 99,000
$ 1,066,900
Because of the development of a LNG fueling station as described herein is often bid as a turnkey installation, all construction
and capital equipment costs have been lumped together for the purposed of this application. Even at the time of contracting with a
particular vendor, it is very difficult to get a breakdown of these costs.
12
000084
EXHIBIT C
TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
CMAQ PROJECT
MILESTONES AND REPORTING SCHEDULE
0-400085
Dsseriptlon
SCAOMD Award ($200,000)
RCTC Award (5385,000)
CEC Award (594,000)
Burrtec Executes 55 Truck C onlracl
Political Input/Legal Advice
City of Riv Receives Fra nchise Bids
Driv eway Approval
Re ce iv e Nolte Civil Plans
Bo ard Aulh of CEC Agreement
Fina lize Fuel Bid
Execute M esler Lease Amen dmenl
Finalize Civil Plans
Approval lit' CalTrans
Fin alize Pipe RFP
Approval by Fire Chief
Board Auth of RCTC Agreement
Board Aulh of SCAOMD Agreement
Approval by TLMA
Advertise Fuel Bid
Approval by Coun ty Counsel
ROW Certification
Advertise Civil Plans
Advertise Pipe RFP
CEOA.
Execute Fuel Station Usage 6 Pricin g
Award LNG Fuel Supply Con lracl
Discuss w/Pipe Committe e
Final Execution of SCAOMD Agreement
Final Execution of RCTC Agreement
Final Execution of CEC Agreement
Execute Program Supplemen t
First Burrlec Trucks Available
Nolily CalOSHA
Awa rd Civil Contract
Award Pipe RFP
O rde r Tank (15,000 Gallon)
1st Progress Repo rt Due
Pipe Design/Permit
2nd Progreso Report Due
LNG Civil Construction PH 1
Pipe Co nstructio n
LNG Civil Con struction PH 2
Final Report
Start dale 01JUNOO
Fntah dale 24DEC01
Data date 02MARO I
Run dale 12
Pale num ber IA _
• Primavera Systems, inc.
Late Early lets
alert Polish Finish
01 NO V99A 1flAUG00A 18AU GOOA
04APROO A 12JULOO A 12JULOO A
OIMAY00 A OfiDECOO A 06DECOO A
15 MAY00 A 13NO V00 A 13NOV00 A
28JU100 A
IONOV00 A 14NOV00 A 14NOV00 A
22DECOO A 29 MAR01 07JUN01
28DECOO A 19JAN01 A 19JAN01 A
18JA NOI A 06M ARO1' 16FEB01 '
24JANOI A 02M AR01 29M AR01
02MAROI 12APR01 12APR01
O9MAROI 15 MAROI 22MAR01
2384A R01 05APR 0 1 12AP RO I
30MAROI 15 MAROI 12APR01
30MAROI 15 MAROI 12APROI
30MAR01 15MAROI 12APR01
30M AR01 15 MAROI 12APROI
30MAR01 15MAROI 12APR01
30M AROI 16MAROI 12APRO1
30MAROI 15MAROI 12APR01
O6APRO1 08MAROI 12APROI
13APR01 24MAY01 24MAY01
13APR01 24MAY01 24MAY01
10MAY01 30M AROI 07JUNOI
225M AY01 15MAROI 07JUNOI
25MAY01 30M AROI O7JUN01
25MAY01 07JUNOI 07JUN01
25MAY01 29MAR01 07JUN01
25MAY01 29MAR01 07JUNO1
25MAYOI 20M AROI 07JUNO1
OIJUNOI 12APRO1 07JUNO1
07JUNO1 02M AR01 07JUN0I
07JUNOI 16MAR01 07JUNO1
OBJUNOI 21JUN01 21JUN01
O6JUNOI 21JUN01 21JUN01
22JUN01 07DECO1 07DEC01
11SEPOI 12APR01 24SEP01
245EP01 20JULOI 190CT01
15SEPO1 13JUL01 24DEC01
IOCTOl 13JUL01 190 CT01
20 CT01 24AUGO1 23NOV01
5NOV0I 21DECO1 21DEC01
40EC01 240EC01 24DECo1
Original 111011 o9r
Durrlion FF' OCT NOV O2C 24 e F(a MA>t Axe M AY Allµ 2111. AUO 910 OCT NOV OFc JAY
01 11 11 H s1 et a H 09$s 11 11 3191 11 11 31 91 as 1511Hag 11 le M e1 10 11 11 41 a11F11201/ 11 11 11 64 11 re01. 030111101011131021001571110r 01 11 01 11 00 12 11 11 01 10 ri 71 15 11 1.
Id
14
Id
14
0
55d
204
224
10d
30d
10d,
15d
1od
10d
10d
10d
10d
10d
10d1
5d
304
30d
21d
10d
10d
104
104
104
10d
5d
Id
Id
104
104
120d
10d
20d
65d
15d
25d
20d'
1d
0120 Award ($200 000)
85.0011)
JUL egsI Advice
Ala CEC Award (594 000)
4 Burrtec Executes 55 Tru ck C ontract wIAOMD
AK City of Riv Recei ves Franchise Bids
•
AII IIMMIL Receive N Civil Plans
Board Aulh of CEC Agre ement
Finalize Fuel Bid
Ex ecute Master Leas e Amendment
♦ Finalize Civil Plans
Approval by CalTrans
• Fin alize Pipe RFP
+ Approval by Fire Chief
+ Board Auth of RCTC Agreemenl
• Board Auth of SCAOMD Agre ement
Approval by TLMA
=1! •#-- Advertise Fuel Bid
+ Approval by Co unty C ounsel
+ ROW Certificati on
Advertise Civil Plans
Advertise Pipe RFP
• CEOA
• Execute Fuel Station Usag e & Pricing Agreem ent
Award LNG Fuel Supply C ontrect
A Discuss w/Pipe C ommittee
Final Ex ecution of SCAOMD Agreement
Fi nal Exec ution of RCTC Agreem ent
Fi nal Executi on of CPC Agre ement
111O- 911 E xecute Progr am Supp)emenl
First Burrtec Trucks Avelleb te
- ♦ Notify CaIOSHA
A Award Civil Contract
A Award Pipe RFP
Driveway Approval
• Order Ta nk (11
111 Progress R ap orl Due
;
1,
Pipe DestgruP erm9
0
Attachment 2 -
Agua Manse Clean Fu el Station
2nd Prot'
LNG Civil C nnalrucborl PH 1
• Pip e Constru ct on
41k1.140 Crvt
♦ Final Ra
♦ Lyle sled p oint — Summery bar
A Esrly finish point i Progress point
fttttt I Early bar ♦ Croke! pont
Total float bar • Summary pod
I= Pr ogr ess bar • Start mlleslons p oint
MN Critical bar ♦ sh mile Mlle plains
5
M;4
AGENDA ITE/vi 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget & Implementation Committee
FROM:
Claudia Chase, Property Agent
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Award of Security Guard Contract
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval:
1) To continue working with legal counsel to develop the contract with
Western Area Security Services for security services at the Riverside
County Metrolink Stations; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the March Commission meeting staff was authorized to begin negotiations with
Western Area Security Services (WASS) to provide security guard services to the
RCTC owned Metrolink stations. The negotiations are continuing and legal counsel is
working on developing the contract to include scope, schedule and cost for WASS's
services.
If negotiations conclude, staff will bring the contract to the Committee for review and
action.
000087
AGENDA ITEfrI 14
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
FY1999-2000 Audit Response / Management Letter Comments and
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) Staff's response to Ernst and Young's management letter comments from
the FY1999-2000 Audit; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
On February 14, 2001, staff brought forward an agenda item presenting the results
from the FY 1999-2000 annual audit. As part of the audit, Ernst and Young provided
a management letter with suggestions for improvement. At the Commission meeting,
staff promised to provide the Commission response to the suggestions at the April
Commission meeting. Staff has reviewed the suggestions and listed below is the
response to each suggestion.
Suggestion 1
Improve communication between the finance and planning and programming
departments related to changes in Local Transportation Fund unclaimed
apportionments and allocations available for bicycle and pedestrian projects to ensure
that the reserved fund balances are accurate.
Response
Starting this year; staff has promised to provide the planning and programming
departments and the LTF recipients a Mid Year revenue projection. This change will
allow all involved to have current information and will allow the recipients to budget
accordingly. The first update was provided on January 10, 2001 and staff will
continue this in the future.
000088
Suggestion 2
Install a firewall between the Commission's local area network and the County's wide
area network to restrict access to the Commission's network and to prevent hacking
from the County's network.
Response
The Commission will install a firewall between RCTC's local area network and the
County's wide area network. We are currently performing a comprehensive study of
the Commission's Information Systems needs and upon completion of a plan, staff will
procure the necessary resources to implement the plan and install the firewall. Staff
expects to complete this effort by December 2001.
Suggestion 3
Implement a procedure to remove system access of terminated employees immediately
after termination and perform a periodic review of all network and application accounts
to ensure access is restricted to authorized and current employees.
Response
Last September, the Commission implemented procedures to delete users not currently
on staff and will remove users upon their departure. In addition, staff has initiated
periodic monitoring of the system to ensure login privileges belong to authorized and
current employees.
Suggestion 4
Provide a secure room for the Commission's servers to restrict access to authorized
individuals.
Response
Staff is working on this project and expects to complete it by the end of the fiscal
year.
Suggestion 5
Develop and implement a formal business continuity plan to minimize the financial and
operational impacts to Commission operations in the event of a disaster.
000089
Response
The Commission is currently performing a comprehensive study of the Commission's
Information Systems needs and upon completion of a plan, staff will procure the
necessary resources to develop and implement the disaster recovery plan. Staff
expects to complete this effort by December 2001.
TDA Claimants/Measure A Recipients
Suggestion 1
Adopt policy relating to consistent application of overhead allocations for TDA
claimants and Measure A Recipients
Response
Staff is currently working on bringing to the Commission a policy for consistent
application of overhead allocations for TDA claimants and Measure A Recipients. Staff
expects to bring this to the Commission at the May 2001 meeting.
Suggestion 2
Adopt policy relating to Article 3 claimants timely remittance of any unspent Article
3 funds
Response
Staff will start working on a policy relating to Article 3 claimants timely remittance of
any unspent Article 3 funds. Staff expects to bring this to the Commission at the May
2001 meeting.
Suggestion 3
Revise Measure A five-year expenditure plan requirements to include a description of
specific projects rather than general street improvement projects.
Response
At the present time, staff does not believe that specific projects are required. Staff
would like to allow the Measure A recipients some latitude in expenditures of their
funds. By having specific projects, it would limit the flexibility of the recipients to
spend the funds where needed.
000090
AGENDA /TEl►f 15
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Procedures Manual
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The attached Fiscal Procedures Manual; and
2) Forward to the Commission for appropriate action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During last year's Budget process, one of the goals of Finance was to create a Fiscal
Procedures Manual for the Commission. Staff has worked on this project for the last
six months and we are attaching it for review and approval. Staff has collated the
previously approved policies and added policies previously not defined. The new
policies include the following:
1. Debt Management
2. Encumbrance
3. Purchasing and Encumbrance
Staff has also updated the Fixed Asset policy, the Investment Policy and the Budget
Policy.
• The changes in the Fixed Asset policy include the changing of the value of the
fixed asset to $5,000 and the useful life to greater than two years to match the
Federal and State standards.
• The Investment Policy has been modified with the assistance of our Investment
Advisor to better reflect the types of investments allowed by the Government
Code.
• The Manual reiterates existing Budget policy that sets a cap of 4% for General
and Administrative expenses. This amount is to include the 1% cap set for
Measure A administrative salaries and overhead. This cap does not include
capital expenditures.
The approval of this document will provide one consolidated document to be applied
to all financial transactions of the Commission and will standardize fiscal procedures.
000091
DRAFT
iverside County
ansportation Commission
FISCAL POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
FISCAL PROCEDURES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
Accounts Payable 1
Accounts Receivable/Cash Receipts 3
Budget 5
Debt Management Policy 7
Encumbrance 23
End of Month Reports 27
External Audits 28
Financial Cut -Off 30
Fixed Assets 31
Payroll 32
Petty Cash 34
Purchasing & Encumbrance 36
Quarterly Reports 37
Recurring Contracts 38
Single Signature Authority 39
Travel Policy 41
Investment Policy 44
Policy:
iversideCounty
anspor-tauon Commission
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
• The Commission will endeavor to process all vendor payments within 30 days.
• Warrants are laser printed with a facsimile signature. American Fundware (AFW)
assigns warrant numbers, which must coincide with the pre-printed, numbered checks in
the safe. AFW in conjunction with Advance Printer Control (APC) and a MICR ink
cartridge are required to print a warrant.
• Warrant numbers shall be logged and 100% accounted for in AFW.
• Warrants shall be printed on safety paper containing the following features:
1. Hidden Word Security Tint — Provides the hidden word "VOID" when
photocopied by either a color or black and white copier.
2. Watermarks — Located on the reverse side of the check, visible when held at an
angle. Printed with transparent inks to avoid duplication.
• The warrant safety paper shall be stored in the safe. The safe requires two employees
to open. The CFO and Accounting Supervisor are responsible for the safe combination
and the Account Technician is responsible for the key.
• Personnel with system authorization to process accounts payable transactions shall not
be granted system authorization to print warrants.
• Personnel authorized to sign warrants shall not be granted system authorization to print
warrants.
• APC requires a password to print AFW checks. Only staff authorized to print accounts
payable checks have access to password.
Procedure: Vendor Payments
Account Clerk
• Account Clerk receives all incoming invoices. Each invoice is copied and stamped for
coding and routed to the Director Program Manager for account coding and approval.
After the Director Program Manager has returned the approved invoice, the Account
Clerk matches the copied invoice to the original. The Account Clerk will then batch the
invoices into AFW, stage 30. The Account Clerk will then produce a cover sheet that
will be attached to the invoice. All processed invoices will be given to the Accounting
Supervisor.
1
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/ACCOUNTS PAYABLE.DOC - 02/05/01
Accounting Supervisor
• The Accounting Supervisor will audit each invoice to verify account coding, amount and
appropriate approvals. The Accounting Supervisor will sign off on each invoice
indicating that the invoice is correct and can be paid. The Accounting Supervisor will
give the invoices to the Accounting Technician for processing.
Account Technician
• The Account Technician will prepare a cash transfer for the CFO's approval. After the
approval is granted the Account Technician will give this to the Account Clerk to prepare
a cash transfer transmittal letter which will be forwarded to the County Treasurer. The
Account Technician will transfer the invoices to stage 40 for cash requirement approval,
which is granted by the Accounting Supervisor. After approval, the Account Technician
will transfer the invoices to stage 50 for CFO approval on the warrant register and
review of invoices (warrants over $10,000 require Executive Director's signature). After
the approval, the Account Technician will verify the warrant number assigned by AFW
agrees with the warrant number in the safe. The Account Technician will process the
warrants with the MICR cartridge out of APC and delete the warrants in AFW once they
have printed. The Account Technician will then log the warrants paid, stage 60. The
warrants and invoices will be given to the Administrative Support Specialist.
Administrative Support Specialist
• The Administrative Support Specialist will mail the warrants and remittance advice and
return the original invoices to the Account Clerk for filing.
Stale Dated Warrants
Warrants still outstanding six months from date of issue will be voided and a stop payment
issued. A new warrant will be issued after receipt of a lost warrant affidavit or upon the
request of the payee accompanied by the original warrant.
Lost Warrants
A affidavit of a lost warrant must be received by the payee and the warrant confirmed
outstanding and a stop payment issued before a new warrant will be issued.
2
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/ACCOUNTS PAYABLE.DOC - 02/05/01
r•side County
nsportation Commission
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE/CASH RECEIPTS
Policy:
Accounts Receivable
• All accounts shall be billed either on a monthly or quarterly basis;
• All outstanding receivables in excess of sixty days shall be re -billed and or action taken
to resolve the outstanding receivable;
• All billings shall be accompanied by the proper documentation to support the billing.
Cash Receipts
• All cash receipts shall be received and logged by the Administrative Support Specialist;
• All cash receipts shall be deposited on every Thursday unless a receipt is $100,000 or
more which will require an immediate deposit;
• A receipt shall be issued for all cash receipts;
• All cash receipts shall be verified by the Accounting Supervisor prior to deposit.
Procedure: Accounts Receivable
Accounting Technician
• On a monthly or quarterly basis, dependent upon the respective account(s), the
Accounting Technician shall work with each Program Manager to ensure that the proper
accounts are billed on a timely basis. The Accounting Technician will keep a list (tickler
file) of accounts and billing cycles.
• The Accounting Technician will ensure that receivables do not exceed sixty days
without proper researching to resolve outstanding receivables. Receivables that are not
likely to be resolved will be brought to the attention of the Chief Financial Officer and
Accounting Supervisor to determine a proper course of action, whether to involve the
Program Manager or write off the receivable.
• The billings prepared by the Accounting Technician will be supported with proper
documentation to support the amount being billed to RCTC's vendor.
• The Accounting Technician will post the journal entry into American Fundware (AFW) as
of the date of the billing.
• On a monthly basis the Accounting Technician will reconcile outstanding receivables to
AFW.
3
F/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC/ACCTS RVBL CASH RECEIPTS.DOC - 02/05/01
Procedure: Cash Receipts
Administrative Support Specialist
• On a daily basis, the Administrative Support Specialist will receive incoming cash
receipts and log them in the check roster. The cash receipts will then be given to the
Accounting Clerk.
Accounting Clerk
• The Accounting Clerk will receive cash receipts from the Administrative Support
Specialist on a daily basis. The Account Clerk will lock up the cash receipts as they are
received. However, any cash receipt in excess of $100,000 will need immediate
depositing.
• Every Thursday the Accounting Clerk will prepare the deposit — issue receipts, log the
receipt numbers on the check roster and prepare a deposit slip. After preparation the
deposit will be given to the Accounting Supervisor for verification.
Accounting Supervisor
• The Accounting Supervisor will verify that all cash receipts logged by the Administrative
Support Specialist match the prepared deposit. The Accounting Supervisor will sign off
on each line item indicating verification between the deposit and check roster.
• The Accounting Supervisor will return the deposit to the Accounting Clerk for deposit at
the County Auditor -Controller's Office. The County will issue a cash receipt number.
Accounting Clerk
• The Accounting Clerk will post the cash receipt into AFW referencing the cash receipt
number issued by the County Auditor -Controller's Office.
4
F/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC/ACCTS RVBL CASH RECEIPTS.DOC - 02/05/01
iversideCounty
ransportation Commission
Policy:
BUDGET
• RCTC staff must submit their proposed budgets to the Chief Financial Officer by March
1, 20XX.
• RCTC General and Administrative budget supported by Measure A, must not exceed 4%
of the Measure A revenues, excluding capital expenditures.
• RCTC budget must be approved by the Commission each fiscal year;
• RCTC staff shall be fully responsible for their respective budgets;
• No appropriation shall be made without a budget;
• Budget Control limits shall be set each fiscal year.
Definition of Terms:
• Proposed Budget — Draft format of expected revenue and appropriations.
• Fiscal Year — July 1, 20XX through June 30, 20XX.
• Budget Control — AFW module to set appropriation limits by %. Controls A/P
invoice input, system will notify Account Clerk when departmental totals reach
% set.
Procedures:
1. Original Budget
• The first phase of the budget process will begin with a workshop for Program Managers.
The Finance staff will inform Program Managers of due dates and how to compile
budget data. Program Managers will be given a budget worksheet as well as a time line
for completion.
• Finance staff will require that each program manager submit a draft budget by March 1,
20XX. At this time, Program Managers can begin to develop their performance
workload indicators. The Finance staff will begin to compile the data into a budget
format. The Finance staff and Program Managers will work closely together to ensure
that the data is compiled correctly.
• A proposed budget will be taken to the Budget & Implementation Committee in April.
After approval by the Committee, a public hearing will be held at the Commission
meeting in May. Any changes or suggestions to the budget will be made at this time.
The budget must be adopted by the Commission no later than June 15th of each year.
5
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC./BUDGET DOC. 03/15/01
Procedures: Budget
• After Commission approval, the Finance staff will input budget data into AFW. Program
Managers will be given a budget report for their reference.
• AFW budget control is set up to give a message at 80%, a warning at 85% and an error
at 110% of the total appropriations charged to the department. The Accounting Clerk
will encounter these messages, warnings and errors, as invoices are logged into AFW.
The Accounting Clerk will notify the Accounting Supervisor and the appropriate Program
Manager. Action will be needed at this time to decide to change the appropriation to
another GLA or if a budget revision is needed.
2. Revised Budget
• Program Managers are responsible for notifying the Chief Financial Officer when there is
the need for a departmental budget revision. The Program Manager must prepare an
agenda item for the respective budget adjustment. The Program Manger shall notify the
Chief Financial Officer of the respective agenda item. After review, the Chief Financial
Officer will grant or deny the budget adjustment. If granted, the Administrative Support
Specialist will be notified in order to complete the "Financial Box" at the end of the
agenda item indicating that the Chief Financial Officer has granted approval of the
revision and insert the facsimile signature.
• Once Commission approval is granted for the budget revision, the Finance staff will
make the appropriate change in AFW. The agenda item and any back up will be logged
and filed in the budget adjustment book.
6
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC./BUDGET DOC. 03/15/01
rctc
iuersirte County
nsportation Commission
DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY
The Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") is responsible for providing
leadership and creating transportation choices that enhance the quality of life in Riverside
County. RCTC's mission is to create, coordinate, finance, and deliver an easy to use
transportation network which keeps Riverside County moving and meets the public's needs.
In an effort to fulfill this vision, RCTC issues short and long-term debt on an as -needed
basis. RCTC's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") is responsible for the sale of debt for the
specific projects. RCTC's main objectives in the sale of debt are to:
• Issue bonds subject to a bond debt limitation of $525,000,000,
• Maintain a 2x debt service coverage,
• Obtain the lowest possible cost of funds for each of RCTC's borrowing programs,
• Obtain the highest possible credit ratings that allow sufficient flexibility,
• Minimize risk exposure to variable rate debt and/or derivatives, and
• Maintain the required secondary market disclosure with the rating agencies, institutional
and retail investors.
This Comprehensive Debt Management Policy contains the policies and the procedures that
govern all debt sales.
All participants performing services on RCTC's debt sales:
• Must comply with the policies and procedures set forth herein, and
• Will be expected to consistently perform at a level that provides maximum
benefit to RCTC.
The CFO, after consultation with and approval by RCTC's Budget and Implementation
Committee, reserves the right to remove any participant from an RCTC transaction or
underwriting pool at any time for substandard performance or failure to abide by RCTC's
Comprehensive Debt Management Policy.
The CFO actively manages all phases of each financing. All decisions related to each
transaction are subject to the CFO's approval. Questions regarding the policies and
procedures outlined in this Comprehensive Debt Management Policy should be directed to:
Ivan M. Chand, CFO
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
(909) 787-7141 —E-mail address: ichandlrrctc.org
7
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
Goals and Credit Objectives
RCTC's goals and credit objectives are to:
• Serve the people of Riverside County in the fulfillment of RCTC's policy and
transportation objectives,
• Comply with all State and Federal laws and regulations governing the issuance of debt,
• Promptly repay when due the principal and interest on all debt issued and outstanding,
• Implement debt programs with the highest possible credit ratings which provide the
necessary flexibility in order to achieve the lowest possible borrowing costs on RCTC's
debt obligations,
• Ensure that RCTC's debt proceeds are invested in safe, liquid and secure investments
that earn competitive market rates of return in accordance with RCTC's Annual
Investment Policy and indenture,
• Establish policies and procedures for participation in RCTC's debt financing,
• Hold debt financing participants accountable to such policies and procedures,
• Reward adherence to RCTC's policies and procedures and good performance by the debt
financing participants with continued participation in RCTC's debt financing program,
• Explore and implement innovative structuring ideas when they are prudent and
consistent with the statements listed above, and thus
• Protect the funds that Riverside County taxpayers have entrusted to RCTC.
Credit Rating Objectives
RCTC seeks to obtain and maintain the highest possible debt ratings while at same time
providing the appropriate and necessary flexibility in its bond financing documents.
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
RCTC currently maintains an A3 rating from Moody's Investor Service and an AA- from
Standard and Poor's.
The outstanding bond issues as of January 1, 2001 are as follows:
1. 1991 Sales Tax Revenue
$112,996,959.
2. 1993 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
$136,610,000.
3. 1996 Sales Tax Refunding
$61,765,000
4. 1997 Sales Tax Revenue
$47,910,000.
5. 1997 Junior Sales Tax Revenue
Amount $13,245,000.
6. 2000 Sales Tax Revenue
$35,825,000.
Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A, Principal Amount
(Limited Tax Bonds), Series A, Principal Amount
Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A, Principal Amount
Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A, Principal Amount
Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series B, Principal
Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A, Principal Amount
8
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
Selecting the Appropriate Method of Debt Sale
It is in the interest of RCTC to sell its public debt using the method of sale that is expected
to achieve the best sale results, taking into account both short-range and long-range
implications for Riverside County taxpayers. The CFO will advise the Budget and
Implementation Committee of the most appropriate method of sale in light of the prevailing
financial, market and transaction -specific conditions.
Appointment of a Financial Advisor
The CFO, with the approval of the Budget and Implementation Committee and the
Commissioners, may select a financial advisor to assist in the issuance and administration of
RCTC's debt. The services of the financial advisor may include, but are not limited to:
• Monitoring all fixed income markets,
• Evaluating proposals submitted to the CFO,
• Analyzing the costs and risks of debt issues,
• Reviewing the structuring and pricing of debt issues,
• Advising on terms and conditions of credit facilities dealing with the issuance of variable
rate debt,
• Assisting in the preparation of official statements, and
• Reviewing presentation materials for rating agencies, investors and insurers.
The services of a financial advisor will be obtained through a competitive evaluation of
proposals. The criteria to be used in evaluating and selecting a financial advisor include:
• Experience in providing formal financial advisory services,
• Experience with diverse and complex financial structuring requirements,
• Experience and reputation of assigned personnel, and
• Fees and expenses.
RCTC's financial advisor will provide RCTC with objective advice and analysis, maintain the
confidentiality of RCTC's financial plans and be free from any conflict of interest as defined
by the:
• CFO and all California statutes and regulations governing financial advisors.
RCTC's financial advisor may not participate in any of RCTC's syndicates in the sale of debt.
Appointment of Legal Counsel
The CFO, with the approval of the Budget and Implementation Committee and the
Commissioners, must select a legal counsel to assist in the issuance of RCTC's debt.
All debt issued by RCTC must include a written opinion of legal counsel affirming that RCTC
is authorized to issue the proposed debt, that RCTC has met all the constitutional and
statutory requirements necessary for the issuance of the proposed debt and a determination
of the proposed debt's income tax status. This approving legal opinion and other
documents relating to the issuance of the proposed debt must be prepared by a nationally
recognized private legal counsel with extensive experience in municipal finance and tax
matters.
9
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
The services of the legal counsel may include, but are not limited to:
• Rendering a legal opinion with respect to the authorization and valid issuance of debt
obligations of RCTC including whether the interest paid on the debt is tax exempt under
federal and State of California laws;
• Preparing all necessary legal documents in connection with the authorization, sale,
issuance and delivery of bonds and other obligations;
• Assisting in the preparation of the preliminary and final official statements and
commercial paper memorandum;
• Participating in discussions with potential investors, insurers and credit rating agencies,
if requested, and
• Providing continuing advice, as requested, on the proper use and administration of bond
proceeds under applicable laws and the indenture, particularly arbitrage tracking and
rebate requirements.
Appointment of Underwriters
The CFO, with the approval of the Budget and Implementation Committee and the
Commissioners, may select a pool of qualified underwriters. The appointment will be based
upon a competitive evaluation of objective criteria. The best -qualified firm will be appointed
as the book -running senior manager for long-term debt. The best -qualified firm will be
appointed as the dealer for commercial paper.
Criteria to be used in the appointment of qualified underwriters will include:
• Demonstrated ability to manage complex financial transactions,
• Demonstrated ability to structure debt issues efficiently and effectively,
• Demonstrated ability to sell debt to institutional and retail investors,
• Demonstrated willingness to put capital at risk,
• Quality and applicability of financing ideas,
• Experience and reputation of assigned personnel, and
• Fees and expenses.
The CFO will monitor the performance of the members of the underwriting pool and
recommend changes as appropriate.
The underwriters selected to participate in RCTC's underwriting pool must follow certain
rules for participation:
Minimum Underwriter Qualifications
1. The firm must maintain minimum net capital of at least $500,000.
2. The firm must hold and maintain all licenses and registrations required by applicable
federal and state laws for businesses offering underwriting or investment banking
services. All licenses and registrations must be current and in good standing with
each of the following:
• the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
• the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), and
• the California Department of Corporations (CDC).
10
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
Professional Conduct
All of RCTC's debt financing participants shall maintain the highest standards of professional
conduct at all times:
1. Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) Rules, including Rule G-37, shall be
followed at all times.
2. RCTC expects debt financing participants to assist RCTC's staff in achieving its
goals and objectives as defined in this Comprehensive Debt Management Policy.
3. All debt financing participants shall make cooperation with RCTC's staff their highest
priority.
New Issuance and Bond Proceeds Minimum Balance
RCTC has developed a Strategic Plan (Plan) which sets forth the transportation programs
and services to be provided to the residents of the County. The Plan also contains cash
flow analysis for the capital program with corresponding analysis projecting the available
sources and uses of funds verifying RCTC's financial ability and commitment to deliver
current and planned programs and services.
The RCTC Plan is based on a set of assumptions developed through detailed data collection
and analysis of historical data concerning revenues, economic forecasts and trend
projections. The main sources of revenues include sales tax revenues, contributions from
other agencies and federal operating assistance grants. The largest sales tax revenue
source is the Measure A '/z cent sales and use tax. The revenue generated from Measure A
is expended on the projects contained in the Measure A Ordinance.
RCTC's Measure A program is capital intensive. RCTC will issue its debt as needed in order
to fund the Measure A program. RCTC must be able at all times to pay contractors and
vendors for Measure A work in progress. Therefore, the CFO will work with the Deputy
Executive Director to forecast the Measure A program construction draw down
requirements. Based upon Measure A program construction draw down requirements and
the conclusions resulting from the Plan, the CFO shall attempt to keep a reasonable amount
of bond proceeds (approximately 4 months of Measure A program construction draw down
requirements) available for construction draw down purposes.
The CFO may increase the size of the Measure A tax-exempt commercial paper program to
maintain liquidity in the Measure A program construction draw down account.
Managing the Competitive Sales Process
The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's competitive bid debt sale
process. If the CFO selects a competitive bid process for a sale of debt, the CFO will
instruct RCTC's financial advisor to deliver a preliminary official statement and notice of sale
to prospective underwriters and buyers that clearly states the location, time and
requirements of the bid. After a successful competitive bid, the CFO will instruct RCTC's
financial advisor to work closely with the winning underwriter(s) in order to prepare and
deliver the final official statement at closing.
11
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
Managing the Negotiated Sales Process
The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's negotiated debt sale
process.
Introduction
1. RCTC expects its underwriters to participate in a valuable and significant way. with
respect to the structuring and pricing of each debt issue, sales performance and
various other aspects of the financing.
2. Underwriters are expected to make themselves available to participate, when
requested, in information and other meetings prior to the issuance of debt.
3. Underwriters are expected to cooperate fully with the book -running senior manager
in a way that provides the maximum benefit to RCTC.
4. The book -running senior manager is responsible for developing a time and
responsibility schedule that will allow for the timely and successful completion of the
financing. The book -running senior manager is responsible for communicating
RCTC's finance plan and timing to the other managing underwriters in the syndicate.
Syndicate Management Process
A. Liability
1. Prior to the day of pricing, the book -running senior manager must provide to the CFO
a recommended liability assignment for each underwriter in the underwriting
syndicate. The CFO will review the recommended assignments and make any
necessary adjustments. Upon approval by the CFO, the liability assignments of each
underwriter must be incorporated into the Agreement Among Underwriters (AAU) by
the book -running senior manager.
As a general rule, the liability assignments must not exceed the underwriting ability
of the underwriters in the syndicate to whom they are assigned.
B. AAU
The AAU must include the liability assignments of each managing underwriter, the priority of
orders for the purpose of allocation and the takedown designation policy. The book -running
senior manager must provide a copy of the AAU to each managing underwriter in the
syndicate. Each underwriter in the syndicate must review the terms and conditions set forth
in the AAU and return a signed copy of the AAU to the book -running senior manager the
day of the pricing.
C. Underwriting Gross Spread Components; Fees and Expenses
• The management fee, if any, will be distributed to the managing underwriters based
upon their relative contribution to the development and implementation of the financing
plan.
12
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
• Proposed takedowns (i.e. sales commissions) for all maturities must be included as part
of the proposed pricing terms delivered by the book -running senior manager to RCTC
prior to the final pre -pricing discussions. All takedowns are subject to review and
approval by the CFO.
• The expense component of the underwriting gross spread must be submitted by the
book -running senior manager to RCTC's CFO for approval prior to the day of pricing.
The CFO reserves the right to review and approve all fees and expenses and to request
their substantiation. An estimate of the expense component of the underwriting gross
spread must be submitted by the book -running senior manager to the CFO no later than
one week prior to the pricing. RCTC expects the book -running senior manager to keep
expense items and costs of issuance to an absolute minimum.
• In general, RCTC will not reimburse the book -running senior manager for clearance fees
except for the Depository Trust Company ("DTC") charge on issues that are registered in
book -entry form only. RCTC will not reimburse the book -running senior manager for
MRSB, Public Securities Association and California Public Securities Association
expenses.
• There will be no consideration of an underwriting risk component of the gross
underwriting spread until after the order period closes. At that time, the CFO and the
book -running senior manager will review the book of orders and discuss the need, if any,
for including an underwriting risk component in the gross underwriter's spread for unsold
bonds. There will be no negotiation of the underwriting risk component of the gross
underwriter's spread after the CFO has given the verbal award to the book -running
senior manager.
D. Selling Groups
The book -running senior manager will discuss with the CFO the advantages and/or
disadvantages of using a selling group for the financing. If the CFO decides to use a selling
group, the book -running senior manager will provide a list of recommended firms for RCTC's
approval at least one week prior to the day of pricing.
E. Retention and Takedown Designation Policies
• The book -running senior manager will discuss the use of retention with the CFO at least
one week prior to the day of pricing. During this discussion, the book -running senior
manager will provide to the CFO the proposed retention amounts by maturity for each
underwriter in the syndicate.
• If the use of retention is advised by the book -running senior manager and agreed upon
by the CFO, the book -running senior manager will make retention amounts and
maturities available to the underwriters as soon as possible prior to the day of pricing.
• Any change in the retention to the managing underwriters must be approved by the CFO
prior to its release.
• At least one week prior to the day of pricing, the book -running senior manager must
provide the CFO a proposed priority of orders for the purpose of allocation and a
proposed policy for the designation of takedown on net designated orders. The policy
must include a maximum percentage of takedown to be designated to any one firm, as
well as a minimum number of firms to be designated on any one net designated order.
13
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
It is anticipated that each underwriter in the syndicate will be allowed to place net
designated orders on all RCTC debt sales. Upon approval by the CFO, the priority of orders
and the designation policy must be communicated to the underwriters and included in the
preliminary pricing wire.
• Any changes to the designation policy must be approved by the CFO and communicated
to all underwriters in the syndicate and selling group members, if any, and RCTC.
F. Pricing Procedures
• Prior to the pre -pricing meeting or conference call (one business day prior to the day of
the pricing) the book -running senior manager must deliver to the CFO the proposed
pricing terms. This is to allow for the thorough evaluation of the proposed pricing terms
by the CFO. The list of the proposed pricing terms must include principal amounts,
coupons, yields, optional redemption prices, and takedowns per maturity.
• One day prior to the day of the pricing, the book -running senior manager must initiate a
pre -pricing meeting or conference call with the CFO to discuss the proposed pricing
terms, order period, underwriting gross spread components, market conditions and other
necessary pricing information.
• A draft copy of the preliminary pricing wire must be provided to the CFO upon the
completion of the pre -pricing meeting or conference call. Prior to its release, the
preliminary pricing wire is subject to the approval of the CFO. The preliminary pricing
wire must include, among other things, all pricing terms agreed upon by the CFO and
the book -running senior manager during the pre -pricing meeting or conference call.
• On the morning of the day of the pricing (and prior to the start of the order period), if
the book -running senior manager believes that a change in any of the pricing terms
approved at the pre -pricing meeting or on the pre -pricing conference call is required, the
book -running senior manager must contact the CFO to review proposed changes and
any suggested changes in light of the current market conditions. Any change in the
initial pricing terms must be approved by the CFO and promptly communicated to the
underwriters and syndicate and selling group members, if any.
• The book -running senior manager must track the receipts of orders broken down by
maturity, amount, type and firm. Status reports of the pricing, including total orders
received for each maturity, amount, type and firm, may be requested by the CFO at any
time during the order period. The Dalnet "Orders and Allotments by Maturity" report is
an acceptable report for these purposes.
• The book -running senior manager must receive approval from the CFO before
terminating any order period on any maturity before the previously determined close of
the order period.
• At the close of the order period, the book -running senior manager must provide in
writing and in a format acceptable to the CFO, a listing of the total orders received for
each maturity, amount, type and firm, through the end of the order period. At this time
the book -running senior manager must also make a concerted effort to provide the CFO
with the true interest cost of the issue. The book -running senior manager must initiate a
meeting or conference call with the CFO to review the book of orders and negotiate any
change in pricing terms, prior to the verbal award of the issue to the book -running senior
manager as the representative of the underwriters in the syndicate and selling group
members, if any.
14
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
• The CFO may agree to a verbal award of the bonds and sign a bond purchase contract
with the book -running senior manager as representative for the underwriters in the
syndicate after consultation with and approval from the Commission.
• A complete set of final computer analyses must be provided to the CFO before the CFO
signs the bond purchase contract. The computer analyses must include, but not
necessarily be limited to, a table of sources and uses of funds, a summary of
assumptions and results (including significant dates, underwriting gross spread
breakdown, ratings, true interest cost, etc.) and any additional tables that include
coupons, yields, prices, takedowns, principal amounts and related debt service by
maturity.
• The book -running senior manager and underwriter's counsel is jointly responsible for
coordinating the execution of the bond purchase contract.
• The CFO reserves the right to postpone the pricing if the above pricing procedures are
not strictly followed.
Allocation of Bonds
The book -running senior manager will be responsible for ensuring that the overall allocation
of bond meets RCTC goals of: (a) obtaining the best price for the issue and (b) providing
each underwriting firm involved with bond allocations that are commensurate with the work
performed (i.e., the type and amount of orders submitted). The CFO reserves the right to
monitor the order taking process and to review and approve bond allocations prior to their
release.
Post -Sale Support
• In accordance with MSRB rules, sales credits designated by an institutional investor
must be distributed within 30 days after the delivery of the bonds.
• In accordance with MSRB rules, final settlement of the underwriting account and the
distribution of any profit to members must be made within 60 days of delivery of the
bonds.
• The underwriting syndicate agrees to comply with any syndicate rules prohibiting the
selling of bonds below the public offering price (less the full takedown) prior to the
release of syndicate restrictions. In addition, each managing underwriter in the
syndicate agrees to inform the CFO of any non-compliance with such syndicate rules.
• For seven business days following the release of syndicate restrictions, the managing
underwriters in the syndicate agree to inform the CFO of any firm significantly lowering
the price of the bonds in the secondary market below market levels.
• The book -running senior manager must be prepared to provide the CFO on an ongoing
basis for at least seven business days following the release of the syndicate restrictions
secondary market price levels, unsold balances, and the level of trading activity of the
bonds.
• RCTC expects the managing underwriters in the syndicate to provide liquidity in the
secondary market for its bonds on an ongoing basis.
15
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
Post -Sale Evaluation
ROTC has a policy of acknowledging good performance and building accountability into its
relationships with its managing underwriters. RCTC will conduct post -sale evaluations of
the underwriting account to ensure that its polices are adhered to and that sales
performance is documented.
• The book -running senior manager must provide the CFO with a final pricing book. The
final pricing book must include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following
information: the time and responsibility schedule; the working group distribution list; a
discussion of the market conditions leading up to and during the final pricing; the
preliminary and final pricing wires; media coverage; rating agency credit reports; a full
set of computer analyses; a table identifying takedown and designation dollars by firm;
and a table identifying designations on net designated orders. The book -running senior
manager's final pricing book must be provided to the CFO within 60 days of the day of
the closing.
• The financial advisor must also provide the CFO with its own final pricing report. The
final pricing report must include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following
information: a discussion of the market conditions leading up to and during the final
pricing; a discussion on the sales process; a pricing comparison of similar credits in
California and the national markets and the preliminary and final pricing wires. The
financial advisor's final pricing report must be provided to the CFO within 30 days of the
day of the pricing.
• In addition to the book -running senior manager, each underwriter is encouraged to
provide the CFO with a confidential written analysis of the sale of the bonds.
Managing the Sale of Commercial Paper
The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's sale of commercial paper.
The CFO shall work closely with RCTC's commercial paper dealer to develop a marketing
strategy for the initial sale and subsequent frequent rollover of commercial paper amounts
and maturities. The marketing strategy for the initial sale and subsequent frequent roll-over
of commercial paper amounts and maturities shall take into account the short-term yield
curve as well as RCTC's philosophy to have a significant number of diverse commercial
paper investors.
The CFO will require RCTC's commercial paper dealer to provide quarterly and annual
reports detailing the commercial paper average cost, average maturity and a list of
commercial paper investors.
Subject to the approval of its liquidity and/or letter -of -credit provider, RCTC reserves the
right to change the number of commercial paper dealers for the commercial paper program.
Refunding Opportunities
An advance refunding involves refunding bonds in advance of the bond's first optional
redemption date. An advance refunding is an important debt management tool for RCTC.
Advance refundings are commonly used to achieve interest cost savings, remove or change
burdensome bond covenants or to restructure future debt service payments. Advance
refundings are limited by federal tax law and must be used judiciously.
16
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
RCTC generally will only pursue an advance refunding if the threshold present value savings
level (net of all issuance costs and any cash contribution to the refunding) is at least three
percent of the par value of the refunded bonds. However, in certain circumstances, the
CFO after consultation with and approval by the Commission, may agree that lower savings
levels may be justified.
RCTC's debt management practices anticipate the potential for advance refundings. When
RCTC issues debt careful attention is given to pricing considerations that will affect future
advance refunding flexibility such as:
• Optional redemption provisions and
• Coupon characteristics.
In addition, it is important to create a refunding defeasance escrow that will produce the
greatest savings level. A defeasance escrow is efficient if the yield on the defeasance
escrow is as close as possible (i.e., generally less than 100th of a basis point) to the
arbitrage yield on the refunding bonds. The CFO will select the appropriate defeasance
securities.
Fixed Rate versus Variable Rate Debt
The CFO and the Commission recognize that variable rate securities are a useful debt
management tool that traditionally have had lower interest rate costs than fixed rate debt.
RCTC's current goal is to maintain a debt program which consists of approximately 20% to
25% of variable rate debt (which includes commercial paper) with the remaining 75% to
80% kept as fixed rate debt. RCTC's book -running senior manager, commercial paper
dealer and financial advisor shall advise the CFO if the rating agencies and/or institutional
investors feel that 20% to 25% of RCTC's debt in the variable rate mode is too large a
percentage.
Derivatives
RCTC will continue to explore the use of derivative products as appropriate and in
accordance with the -Investment Policy, provided that the derivative products:
• Hedge variable rate debt exposure,
• Lower interest rate costs, or
• Minimize risks to RCTC.
Although RCTC may enter into swap agreements, including fixed to variable rate swap
agreements; derivative products for debt shall not be used for the purpose of interest rate
speculation.
The CFO has the sole responsibility for determining which prospective debt products for
new issue debt are derivatives. Derivative products debt instruments may be incorporated
into RCTC's debt program only after the CFO has informed the Chief Executive Officer and
the Commissioners of the purpose and the risks associated with the derivative product debt
instruments including but not limited to:
17
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
• Interest rate risk,
• Counter -party credit risks,
• Termination risks, and
• Tax implications.
If appropriate, the CFO, after consultation and approval by the Commissioners, may
determine a minimum level of savings required before implementing a derivative product
debt instrument. If the Commission authorizes the use of derivative products, the CFO will
provide the Commissioners within twenty-four hours a memo detailing any activity related to
the use of derivative products.
Primary and Secondary Market Disclosure
A trustee has been appointed for the benefit of the Measure A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds.
The trustee shall perform all functions and duties required under the terms and conditions
set forth in the respective indentures. For example, RCTC is required to distribute an Annual
Report within 7 months of RCTC's June 30 fiscal year-end to a recognized municipal
securities information repository (NRMSIR) and the state repository. The Annual Report
must include audited financial statements, an update (as of RCTC's June 30 fiscal year-end)
for the table entitled "Sales Tax Receipts and Historical Debt Service Coverage Ratios" and
an update of the table entitled "Debt Service for All Outstanding Bonds" in RCTC's Official
Statement.
In addition to the responsibilities required by the respective indentures, RCTC has a
commitment to continuing to disclose material information after the sale of its debt. The
CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's legal and professional
commitment to continuing to disclose material information after the sale of its debt.
In adherence to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2 -12(b)(5), the Commission's
Continuing Disclosure Agreement with its trustee agrees to provide its Annual Report and
notice of material events to the NRMSIR and state repository for dissemination to interested
parties. Material events" are defined as:
1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies;
2. Non-payment related defaults;
3. Unscheduled draws on the debt service reserve funds reflecting financial difficulties;
4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties;
5. Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; and
6. Adverse tax opinions or events adversely affecting the tax-exempt status of any
bonds or COPs;
7. Modifications to rights of Bondholders;
8. Optional, contingent or unscheduled bonds calls;
9. Defeasances;
10. Release, substitution or sale of property securing the payment of any bond or COPs.
11. Rating changes.
18
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
Rating Agencies
The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's rating agencies relations
program. The CFO recognizes the importance of immediate and timely disclosure of relevant
financial and program information concerning each of RCTC's debt programs to the rating
agencies.
The CFO shall promptly respond to any inquiry from any rating agency analyst. In addition,
the CFO and one or more representatives of RCTC's Commissioners shall periodically meet
with the rating agencies in order discuss RCTC's recent financial results, financial
projections, Board policy, specific RCTC programs such as Measure A as well as the general
economy in Riverside County and Southern California and other matters.
Investor Relations
The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's investor relations program.
The CFO shall make every attempt to promptly respond to any inquiry from an institutional
or retail investor. In addition, the CFO shall periodically attempt to meet with key
institutional investors in order to familiarize the institutional investors with RCTC's financial
history and financial projections. The CFO shall periodically post investor disclosure
information on RCTC's Web site.
19
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
Glossary
Additional Bonds Test: A calculation based upon total pledged revenues divided by total
proposed debt service. A protection to investors so that the issuer cannot issue additional
parity bonds without providing ample security to the investors in the previous financing(s).
Advance Refunding: A defeasance of outstanding debt prior to the date the bonds can be
called by depositing cash and/or securities in escrow sufficient to pay all principal and
interest plus the call premium, if any, when due. Upon an advance refunding and
defeasance, all covenants and restrictions of the refunded bond indenture are extinguished.
Agreement among Underwriters or AAU: The contract establishing the underwriting
syndicate formed to underwrite and purchase the bonds. The AAU will include provisions
covering the liability of each syndicate member, a description of order types, pricing of the
bonds and requirements respecting a public offering. The AAU may contain a variety of
other matters relating to trade practice and applicable rules of the MSRB.
Allocation: The post -sale distribution of bonds among the syndicate and selling group
members, if any.
Basis Point: Yields on bonds are usually quoted in increments of basis points. One basis
point is equal to 1/100 of one (1) percent. For example, the difference between 7.00% and
7.50% is 50 basis points.
Bond Purchase Agreement: The contract between the syndicate and the issuer setting forth
the final terms, prices and conditions upon which the syndicate will purchase a new issue.
Book -Running Senior Manager: The managing underwriter that controls the book of orders
for the transaction and is primarily responsible for the successful execution of the
transaction.
Concession: In the new issue market, one of the two discount members receives from the
syndicate. In the secondary market, a discount one dealer offers to another.
Group Net Order: An order for bonds submitted by a syndicate member in which the
takedown is distributed to syndicate members according to their respective liability shares in
the issue.
Liability: The principal amount of bonds to be underwritten by each member of the
syndicate.
Member Order: An order for bonds placed by a member of the syndicate where the bonds
would be confirmed to that member at syndicate terms.
Municipal Securities Rulemakinq Board (MSRB): An independent self -regulatory organization
established by the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, which is charged with primary
rulemaking Commission over broker -dealers and brokers in municipal securities.
20
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
National Association of Securities Dealers NASD): A self-regulating and self -financed
organization which acts as a buffer between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and broker -dealers. The NASD operates in municipal securities according to a special set of
municipal bond rules written by the MSRB.
Net Designated Order: An order for bonds submitted by a syndicate member in which all or a
portion of the takedown is to be credited to firms designated by the purchaser of the bonds
according to relative designated by the said purchaser.
Priority Order: A retail or a net designated order.
Retail Order: An order for bonds placed by an individual or, as determined by the CFO, a
retail order may also include an order placed by a bank trust department or an investment
advisor for an individual.
Retention: An amount of bonds that will be guaranteed to be available for sale by each
member of the syndicate.
Rule 10b-5: A regulation of the SEC adopted pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, which makes it unlawful for any person to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to
defraud, to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit a material fact
necessary to make statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; or to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which
operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the
purchase or sale of any security.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): The federal agency that oversees and regulates
stock, bond and other financial market participants.
Selling Group: A group of underwriters formed to aid in the distribution of the bonds in a
bond financing. Selling group members do not assume any financial or legal liability in the
financing.
Syndicate: A group of underwriters formed to purchase and re -offer an issuer's bonds for
sale to the public. Each syndicate member has a share in the liability of the issue.
Syndicate Participation Percentages: A sales participation goal for each syndicate member
determined by RCTC and its CFO for RCTC bond issues.
Takedown: The total discount at which members of syndicates buy bonds from an account -
composed of two parts: concession and takedown.
True Interest Cost: The rate, compounded semi-annually, necessary to discount the amounts
payable on the respective principal and interest payment dates to the purchase price
received on the closing date of the bond issue.
21
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
Trust Indenture: A contract between an issuer and a trustee, for the benefit of investors.
The trustee administers the funds specified in the indenture and implements the remedies
provided in case of default.
Underwriter's Gross Spread: In a negotiated sale, the difference between the price the
underwriter pays the issuer and the original re -offering price to the public; includes the
management fee, expenses, and sales commissions (takedown and concession).
22
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - 02/05/01
tirersideCourary
Transportation Commission
ENCUMBRANCE
Policy: The Finance department shall encumber all purchase orders and/ or contracts. The
encumbrance shall be offset against a program's budget. As invoices are received from
outside vendors, the encumbrance shall be reduced and the expense shall be increased by
the amount of the invoice. The following steps are required by the Program Manager for the
encumbrance of purchase orders and/or contracts:
Procedures for Program Manager:
Encumbrance Stage
1. On a fiscal year basis, the Program Manager will provide the Accounting Clerk
documentation to set up an encumbrance for a new purchase order or contract. The
documentation shall contain the account coding (fund/department/GLA), total amount of
purchase order or contract, description of services to be provided, and date of service.
This can be done as part of the completion of the contract.
2. Upon receipt of all documents and information (contract and account coding) in Finance,
the Account Clerk will assign an encumbrance number. This encumbrance number will
remain with the purchase order or contract until the encumbrance has been fully
invoiced by the vendor. The Accounting Clerk will notify the Program Manager of the
new encumbrance number for each purchase order or contract. It is extremely
important that the Program Manager keep track of these numbers. In addition, Finance
will inform the appropriate staff to include this information under the contract log.
Invoice Stage
3. As invoices are received from the vendor, the Accounting Clerk will forward the invoices
to the Program Manager for approval. The Program Manager's should code the invoice
with the encumbrance number and approve the invoice. (If this is not completed, a
double. booking of the expense will occur - once at the encumbrance stage and second
at the invoice stage. It may also cause the department to exceed their budget. The
invoice stage is intended to relieve a portion of the encumbrance and actually book the
expense). The account coding is not needed as this has been done at the encumbrance
stage. The Program Manager will return the invoice to the Account Clerk for further
processing.
4. At year-end, Finance will provide the Program Managers a report listing all their
encumbrances. The Program Manager is to notify the Account Clerk via e-mail or some
other form of documentation whether the encumbrance is to be continued into the new
fiscal year or it is to unencumbered. The Account Clerk will then remove the difference
off the books by canceling the original obligation number. If this is not completed the
encumbrance will remain on the books and will be charged against the department's
budget.
23
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC./ENCUMBRANCE/PROG MGR.DOC - 02/05/01
ENCUMBRANCE
Procedures:
Program Manager
1. The Program Manager will notify the Accounting Clerk when a new Purchase Order or
Contract needs encumbrance. The Program Manager will also give the Accounting Clerk
the account coding which will include the Fund, Department, and GLA.
Accounting Clerk
2. The Accounting Clerk will issue an encumbrance number that correlates to the Fiscal
Year (ie: FY 00/01 = 21XX).
3. The encumbrance number will be noted on the Contract Log, if a contract is
encumbered. The Accounting Clerk will keep encumbrance numbers for Purchase
Orders, in a log.
4. The Accounting Clerk will encumber the Purchase Order and or Contract in American
Fundware (AFW) as follows:
• AFW — In AFW select the following: 7 -Accounts Payable, 3 -Transaction Entry, 1 -
Enter Invoices;
• "Enter Stage" — Type 20 = Encumbrance stage;
• "Entered By" - Type initials;
• "Date Commission Approved" — Type appropriate date;
• "Are your entries correct" — Type Y;
• "Batch" — Type (B) for begin;
• "Item Number" — Automatically assigns entry number, press enter;
• "Field (1)Vendor" — Type vendor number;
• "Field (2) Description" — Type name of Vendor/date of contract service /brief
description;
• "Field (5) Total Amount" — Type amount of encumbrance (Total of PO or Contract);
• "Field (5) Distribute — Type (Y) for 1X departments or (N) for non 1X departments;
• "Field (6) — Type in as prompted: Invoice #, Fund, Invoice begin & end date, Login
date, Coordinator, Prepared by;
• "Field (7) — Automatically assigns detail line entry, press enter. Type description of
GLA, enter through to amount and enter entire amount of PO or Contract. If PO or
Contract is split among various GLA's enter detail line entry for each GLA/Amount;
• After all detail entries are listed, press the "Esc" key and select (E) to end for prompt
to Field (8);
• "Field (8) — Verify that Fund/Dept/GLA and amount are correct. If correct press
"esc" and 0 to accept. After acceptance, this will prompt for posting and create a
obligation number which will need to be tracked because this will be used again
when splitting the encumbrance below;
• After all PO's and or Contracts have been entered to stage "20 -Encumbrance",
generate and print cover sheet.
24
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/ENCUMBRANCE ACCOUNTING.DOC - 02/05/01
Program Manager
1. The program manager will receive vendor invoices from the Accounting Clerk for
account coding. If a particular invoice belongs to a PO and or Contract that has been
encumbered, the Program Manager must notify the Account Clerk of the encumbrance
number (the account coding is not needed as this has been done at the encumbrance
stage). The Program Manager will return the invoice to the Account Clerk for further
processing.
Account Clerk
2. The Account Clerk will need to apply the invoice to the encumbrance by splitting the
encumbrance by the amount of the invoice approved by the Program Manager for
payment as follows:
• AFW — Select 7 -Accounts Payable, 3 -Transaction Entry, 3 -Split Invoices;
• "Split Stage" — Type 30. System will prompt with "From Stage" — Type 20;
• "Entered By" — Type initials;
• "Are your entries correct" — Type (Y)
• System prompts you for Obligation number created when PO and or Contract was
originally entered into AFW at stage 20;
• Make any necessary changes to the description field and reference field. The
description should be changed to the Vendor Name/Date of Service on invoice/Brief
Description. The reference should include the original obligation number;
• Select the field number to change the accounting distribution if needed. This should
be done if the original obligation number needs any additions, changes. Do not split
yet until you are sure the accounting distribution is correct;
• After entering a distribution line, you are prompted for splitting. There are four split
options:
Y — Split entire line to new obligation;
P — Split part of the line to the new obligation. You are prompted for a new amount
to go to the new obligation (this split will be the most used for relieving a portion of
the encumbrance by the current invoice);
D — Duplicate the entire line so that one line remains with the original obligation and
one goes with the new obligation;
N — Do not split the line. Leave the entire line with the original obligation.
• To split encumbrance choose (C) to change; Select (P); you are then prompted for
the amount to go to the new obligation and will be advanced through the detail of
the line you are splitting from.
• After making your entries, scroll all lines of distribution. Those lines marked as spl
are split lines and they belong to the new obligation (this should match the amount
of the invoice to be paid). All lines marked as anything other than spl belong to the
original obligation.
• If you use combined detail and distribution entry, continue to the next step. If you
use separate detail and distribution, you must now split the individual detail lines.
• Verify Total Amount — Verify the dollar amount contained in the Total Amount field.
Total Amount must be the sum dollar amount of both the original and new
obligations. Split Amount is the amount of the new obligation only; this field cannot
be accessed.
25
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/ENCUMBRANCE ACCOUNTING.DOC - 02/05/01
• After verification is complete, it is time to post this encumbrance split. Press esc,
(E) to end and (P) to post.
• The new obligation is now at stage 30 — Accounts Payable. Follow the Accounts
Payable procedures to process the remaining stages.
3. Year -End Procedures — The Account Clerk will run an invoice history report for stage 20
to verify any open encumbrances. The Account Clerk will forward the report to the program
manager for instructions to cancel the balance of the encumbrance or carry the
encumbrance over to the following fiscal year.
• Select 7 -Accounts Payable; 5 -Reports; 2 -Invoice Reports; 4 -Invoice History
• 1) A — Obligation
• 2) Beginning fiscal year obligation number to all
• 3) 20 to 20
• 4) All
• 5) 07/01 /XX to XX/XX/XX
• 6) Business date, usually month or year end
• 7) N
• 8) N
• 9) D
• 10) Reference 1 — C original obligation #
Reference 2 — Q Coordinator
Use invoice distribution report to run by fund/department/gla.
26
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/ENCUMBRANCE ACCOUNTING.DOC - 02/05/01
verside County
ransportaton Commission
END OF MONTH REPORTS
Policy:
The Finance department will provide each Program Manager a monthly budget versus actual
report for their respective departments. The Program Managers will be given the
opportunity to address any questions or concerns regarding their budgets to the Finance
staff for clarification and or research.
Procedure:
• Following the end of the month the Accounting Supervisor will produce a
"Revenue/Expense Actual vs Budget with Encumbrances" report by department/fund.
• The Administrative Support Specialist will attach a memo from the Accounting
Supervisor indicating the due date that each program manager is required to return their
report(s) with any questions, and or concerns they may have.
• In receipt of any returned reports, the Accounting Supervisor will research the line items
highlighted by the Program Manager and discuss and or return the researched data back
to the Program Manager.
27
F/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC./EOM REPORTS.DOC - 02/05/01
uersid County
ransportation Commission
EXTERNAL AUDITS
Policy: The Riverside County Transportation Commission shall undergo a minimum of an
annual financial audit conducted by external auditors.
The following shall be presented to the members of the Commission:
• Audited financial statement
• Auditor's opinion on the financial statements
• Report on the internal control structure
• Report on compliance with applicable laws and regulations that identify all noted
material instance of noncompliance, if any.
Definition of Terms:
External Audit — An audit conducted by auditors who are not employees of the
Commission.
Procedure:
• The audit shall consist of auditing the financial statements of the Commission as well as
recipients of Measure A and TDA funding. The audit is to be conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards as outlined in the AICPA in their audit guide,
Audits of State and Local Government Units, and will accordingly include such tests of
the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as considered necessary.
The accounting and reporting principles adopted by the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board should be applied.
• The following shall be the output of the audit:
• Opinion on the financial statements •
• Report on the internal control structure
• Report on the compliance with applicable laws and regulations that identify all
noted material instance of noncompliance, if any.
• The Commission's participation in the audit is managed by the CFO and Accounting
Supervisor.
28
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC/FISCAL REPORTING.DOC - 02/05/01
• Audit Schedule
• Audit beings
• Audit report for the Commission, submitted
• Report of internal controls
• Report on compliance with applicable laws
and regulations
• Audit adjustments
29
September XX, 20XX
October 31, 20XX
December 31, 20XX
December 31, 20XX
December 31, 20XX
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC/FISCAL REPORTING.DOC - 02/05/01
averside Couuuty
ransportntion Commission
FINANCIAL CUT OFF
Policy:
Procedure:
• Riverside County Transportation Commission's fiscal year begins July 1St and ends June
30th
30
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC/FISCAL REPORTING.DOC - 02/05/01
riverside County
nsportation Commission
Policy:
FIXED ASSETS
Fixed assets are assets equal to or greater than $5,000 with a useful life greater than two
years. Fixed assets include infrastructure, equipment and software. Fixed assets must be
accounted for in the general ledger as well as the General Fixed Asset Account Group
(GFAAG).
Definition of Terms:
• Fixed assets — defined for such items as land, land improvements, buildings,
fixtures, equipment, and property under construction and should be recorded at
cost.
Procedures:
• Authorization to purchase fixed assets requires Commission approval through the
budget process and establishment of a purchase order and/or contract.
31
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC/FIXED ASSETS.DOC - 02/05/01
r i
ransportation Commission
versideCounty
PAYROLL
Policy:
• All employees must complete a bi-weekly timesheet;
• All timesheets must be approved by the employee's supervisor;
• All timesheets are due in the Finance Department at 12:00 on Thursday following the
end of the pay period;
• Pay periods begin on Thursday and end on Wednesday.
• Please refer to "RCTC Personnel Policies & Procedures" manual section 16.4, dated
12/9/98.
Definition of Terms:
• Department Number — Department in which job duties were performed.
• Project I.D. Number — Activities performed for a specific project.
• Straight Time (ST) — 80 hours or less.
• Over Time (OT) — Hours worked in excess of 80 hours
• Vacation — Accrued hours eligible for use after 6 months probation.
• Sick — Accrued hours eligible for use after 6 months probation.
• Holiday — See "RCTC Personnel Policies & Procedures" manual.
• Administrative Time — Time granted to Exempt employees by Executive Director
once a year based on Administrative time accrued during the fiscal year. Time
granted will revert to 0 on June 30. 20XX whether it was used or not.
• Floating Holiday — 8 hours per fiscal year.
Procedures:
• The Accounting Clerk will verify accuracy of collected time sheets. The Accounting
Clerk will enter employee time sheet information into American Fundware. The
Accounting Technician will verify the accuracy of the Accounting Clerk's data entry and
post payroll into American Fundware.
• The Accounting Technician will transmit the employee's information into ADP software
on Tuesday for delivery of paychecks on Wednesday. The Accounting Technician will
verify the accuracy of the payroll checks and reports. Paychecks will be delivered to the
employees on Thursday.
32
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC/PAYROLL.DOC - 02/05/-01
• The Accounting Technician will prepare a fund transfer summary for the Accounting
Clerk in order to wire funds from the County to Bank of America on Wednesday to cover
payroll.
33
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC/PAYROLL.DOC - 02/05/-01
erside County
ransportation Commission
PETTY CASH
Policy:
• All employees must complete a "Imprest Cash Payout Voucher";
• All vouchers must be approved by the Chief Financial Officer or Accounting Supervisor
prior to disbursement of cash;
All vouchers must be accompanied by a receipt at the time of the request or in the case
of a cash advancement, a receipt shall be turned into the Finance office after the
purchase;
Definition of Terms:
• Imprest Cash Payout Voucher — Pre -number voucher form.
• Vendor — Name of individual payment will be made to.
• Expenditure Account Number:
• Department Number — Department in which expense shall be charged to.
• GLA — General ledger account number in which expense shall be charged to.
Procedures:
• Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) staff will request an Imprest Cash
Payout Voucher from the Finance office. Upon receipt of the voucher, the Finance staff
will take the following action:
• The Accounting Technician upon receipt of the voucher will verify that all appropriate
fields are completed by RCTC staff as follows: Date of Request, Date Expense Incurred,
Requestor, Vendor, Goods and/or Services, Meals, Travel Advance, Expenditure Account
Number. The Accounting Technician will ensure proper receipt(s) accompany the
voucher. If a cash advancement is requested by RCTC staff, the Accounting Technician
will ensure receipted costs after the purchase is made and receipt is returned to the
Finance office.
• Upon proper completion, the Accounting technician will obtain cash disbursement
approval from either the Chief Financial Officer or the Accounting Supervisor.
• After approval the Accounting Technician will obtain the Petty Cash Drawer key from
the Accounting Supervisor. The requested disbursement will be removed from the Petty
Cash Drawer and given to the requestor of the voucher. At the time the Petty Cash is
given, the requestor will be required to sign "Receipt of Above Cash Acknowledgement
by". The requestor will be given the yellow copy of the voucher.
34
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC/PETTY CASH.DOC - 02/05/01
• The Accounting Technician will complete the Registered Costs column if a receipt was
provided at the time of the request. If a Cash Advance was requested the Accounting
Technician will complete this column as well as Change Due Fund or Change Due
Requestor after the receipt is returned to the Finance office. The requestor will then be
given the yellow copy of the voucher.
• The Accounting Technician will post the voucher into American Fundware (AFW).
• The white copy of the voucher will be kept with a log of numbered vouchers used.
• Once the Petty Cash Drawer has been depleted by $500.00, the Accounting Technician
will request reimbursement from the Imprest Cash Account. Upon approval from the
Chief Financial Officer or Accounting Supervisor, the Accounting Technician will prepare
a check from the Imprest Account to reimburse the Petty Cash Drawer.
• The Accounting Clerk will take the written Imprest Check to Bank of America for
withdraw. The Accounting Clerk will return the cash to the Accounting Technician for a
cash count and added to the Petty Cash Drawer.
The Accounting Clerk will make the necessary AFW journal entry to post the withdrawal
from the Imprest Account and deposit into the Petty Cash Drawer.
• The Account Technician will verify that the Petty Cash Drawer and the AFW general
ledger balance after posting.
35
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC.PROC/PETTY CASH.DOC - 02/05/01
verside County
ransportation Commission
PURCHASING & ENCUMBRANCE
Policy:
• Purchase Orders are granted for items which will not be billed immediately, and or the
vendor requires a purchase order number to be assigned for the commitment of delivery
of goods;
• Purchase Order numbers shall be maintained by the Finance staff;
• Purchase Orders must be approved by the Chief Financial Officer or one of the directors
in their absence;
• Purchase Orders shall be logged into AFW immediately after approval is granted.
Definition of Terms:
• Purchase Order — Commitment made by RCTC to full -fill its promise to pay for
delivery of goods made by vendor.
• Purchase Order Number — Number assigned to purchase order for record
tracking.
Procedures:
• The Account Clerk will assign the next available Purchase Order number after the name
of the vendor and the amount of the purchase is identified by staff;
• The Account Clerk will obtain approval from the Chief Financial Officer or a director to
proceed with the posting to AFW. The Account Clerk will require from staff the
Fund/Dept/GLA structure for p.osting into AFW.
• The Account Clerk will post the Purchase Order into AFW through the Accounts Payable
module in the Encumbrances Journal (stage 20). The Account Clerk will keep the
Purchase Order form and any back up in a folder until the original invoice is received for
payment.
• In receipt of the original invoice from the vendor, the Account Clerk will verify that all
information is consistent with the purchase order and make any corrections if necessary.
After verification the Account Clerk will transfer the Purchase order from stage 20 (PO)
to stage 30 (invoice). The invoice will proceed through the normal Accounts Payable
procedures for payment.
36
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/PURCHASE-ENCUMBRANCE DOC - 02/05/01
versideCounty
ransportation Commission
QUARTERLY REPORTS
Policy:
Finance staff will provide quarterly financial and investment reports to members of the
Commission on a quarterly basis. The reports provide the Commissioners with results of the
operations at RCTC as well as the results of investment activities during the year.
Procedures:
1. Quarterly Financial Report (Exhibit A)
• The report provides budget versus actual results of the operations at RCTC. The
percent utilization on a quarterly basis should represent 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%
respectively. Percent utilization that is significantly lower or higher than these
quarterly percentages shall require an explanation.
• The report is due the Commissioner's as follows:
Quarter Ending
September 30, 20XX
December 30, 20XX
March 31, 20XX
June 30, 20XX
Month Due
December, 20XX
March, 20XX
June, 20XX
September, 20XX
2. Investment Report (Exhibit B)
• The report provides the results of RCTC investment activities for the quarter.
• The report is due the Commissioner's as follows:
Quarter Ending
September 30, 20XX
December 30, 20XX
March 31, 20XX
June 30, 20XX
37
Month Due
December, 20XX
March, 20XX
June, 20XX
September, 20XX
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/QQUARTERLY REPORTS.DOC - 02/05/01
iuersideCounty
ransportation Commission
RECURRING CONTRACTS
Policy:
As required by the Commission, all recurring contracts must be evaluated to determine when
and if to hold a competitive process. The Finance department shall provide a schedule of
recurring contracts every fiscal year in June.
Procedure:
• The Chief Financial Officer will coordinate with each Program Manager to verify and
determine the status of each recurring contract. The Chief Financial Officer will prepare
a schedule outlining each recurring contract for the upcoming fiscal year detailing the
description of service, comparison of budget for prior and current fiscal years, dollar
change and percentage change.
• The Chief Financial Officer will prepare an agenda outlining as noted above. The agenda
will be presented to the Budget & Implementation Committee in May and submitted for
approval to the Commission in June. (See Exhibit A)
38
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/RECURRING CONTRACTS.DOC - 02/05/01
uerside County
ransportation Commission
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
On December 9, 1988, the Commission approved Resolution 98-013, Resolution of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission authorizing the Executive Director to sign
certain Commission Contracts.
Policy:
• The Executive Director shall be authorized to enter into contracts on behalf of the
Commission in, an amount authorized not to exceed $50,000.
• Such contracts may be entered into without obtaining prior authorization from the
Commission.
• The aggregate amount of contracts shall not exceed $500,000 in any given fiscal year.
• The aggregate value of all contracts awarded to any one entity, shall not exceed in any
fiscal year over $75,000.
• The Executive Director shall provide the Commission bi-monthly report of all contracts.
• The Executive Director may exercise his authority to execute contract amendments for
existing contracts, subject to the same dollar limitations as set forth in this policy.
• The Executive Director may designate the Deputy Executive Director, Chief Financial
Officer or Directors to execute contracts on his behalf.
Procedures:
The Accounting Technician will obtain a listing from the Administrative department of all
contracts entered into during the fiscal year. The Accounting Technician will verify the
list for any single signature contracts authorized by the Executive Director.
• Bi-monthly, the Accounting Technician will prepare a spreadsheet listing all single
signature contracts. This spreadsheet will consist of the consultant, description of
services, original contract amount, remaining contract amount, expended amount, and
remaining balance.
• The Accounting Technician will verify disbursements made to our single signature
vendors in AFW. Any disbursements made will be noted on the spreadsheet. After all
data has been updated and/or added, the Accounting Technician will sign at the bottom.
39
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/SINGLE SIGNATURE.DOC - 02/05/01
• The Accounting Technician will provide the Accounting Supervisor the spreadsheet for
review and signature. After review and approval the Accounting Technician is
responsible for providing the spreadsheet to the Chief Financial Officer in order to
prepare the agenda item.
40
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/SINGLE SIGNATURE.DOC - 02/05/01
iverside County
ransportation Commission
TRAVEL POLICY
RCTC shall reimburse employees and officers of RCTC for travel, lodging, and other
expenses directly related to the conduct of RCTC business. Employees shall provide
receipts for registration, public transportation, lodging, meals and automobile rental.
a. Automobile — An RCTC vehicle may be used for official RCTC business as approved
by the employee's supervisor. Use of such vehicle by more than one employee on
official RCTC business making the same trip is encouraged. Employees may reserve
an RCTC vehicle in advance. RCTC vehicles are to be returned to the RCTC parking
site at the completion of RCTC business. Under no circumstances shall RCTC
vehicles be taken home or parked off site unless approved in writing by the
Executive Director, or in the event of specific cases as it relates to RCTC vehicle use
must be approved by RCTC. Vehicle keys shall be returned to the appropriate
location upon completion of the business trip.
Automobile (Rental) — Rental charges for automobiles shall be limited to the
reasonable cost of non -luxury or specialty vehicles. Approval of rental vehicles shall
be approved only when reasonable or necessary.
c. Automobile (Personal) — Use of personal automobile for authorized travel shall be
reimbursed at the fixed rate per mile as set by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
plus toll and parking fees. For long distance travel, reimbursement shall not exceed
the cost of commercial or public transportation for such travel. Any incidental travel
will be reimbursed at the IRS rate.
d. Air — Employee air travel shall be at coach accommodations on regularly scheduled
air service unless single class service is offered or unless the cost differential
between upper class and coach accommodation is less than ten dollars.
e. Lodging — Lodging in commercial hotels and motels shall be restricted to standard
accommodations. When traveling to attend conferences, lodging may be at
designated hotels. Every effort should be made to get the government rate.
f. Meals — Expenses for meals, including reasonable tips, shall be reimbursed as
follows:
Breakfast $10
Lunch $15
Dinner $5
41
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/TRAVEL POLICY.DOC - 02/05/01
Any meals exceeding the dollar amount as noted, would be reimbursed upon
presentation of a receipt that documents the attendees and the purpose of the
meeting associated with the meal. Any employee conducting Commission business
out of town and unable to present a receipt will be allowed to be reimbursed $40
per day to cover all meals. Employees are encouraged to present receipts at all
times when reimbursement is requested. The Commission will not reimburse
employees for alcoholic beverages.
g•
Communications — Expenses for telephone and telegraph charges shall be kept to a
minimum and shall be reimbursed for business purposes only. For travel requiring an
overnight stay, telephone charges for personal calls is permitted (one call per day).
h. Registration Fees — Whenever possible, registration and payment for registration fees
should be made in advance. The actual cost of registration for approved classes,
seminar, conferences, etc. shall be reimbursed by RCTC.
Business Expenses — Business meetings, luncheons, dinners and entertainment
expenses shall be reimbursed only when such expense is reasonable and clearly
identifiable.
Other Official Expense Reimbursement
Other official expenses of a non -personal nature may be approved if supported by receipts
and a justification for the charge. Laundry and dry cleaning charges will not be allowed
unless the trip is more than one week in duration.
Travel Advance
The Executive Director may grant a travel advance to employees traveling on RCTC business
to defray the expenses of such travel only under extraordinary circumstances. This can be
done by completing a cash advance request. RCTC will extend an advance on travel
expenses for all employees who are engaged in business that extends beyond one day. A
Travel Advance may only be granted by the Executive Director, or the Deputy Executive
Director, up to $200 per person.
Personal Automobile Travel
In the event of accident, employees using a personal automobile for authorized travel in
conducting RCTC business, must rely on personal assets including insurance, for financial
protection. Although RCTC's interests are protected by insurance, RCTC provides no
insurance to protect employees against damage to the employee's personal automobile or
for damage to the property of others or for death or personal injury to others as a result of
an employee using a personal automobile while conducting RCTC business.
Employees suffering injury, dismemberment or death arising from an accident incurred in the
performance of RCTC business shall be covered under terms of the California Workers
Compensation policy.
42
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/TRAVEL POLICY.DOC - 02/05/01
Procedures:
Reimbursement
• RCTC staff is required to submit to their supervisor a Reimbursement Claim Form
(Exhibit A) and attach receipts for any expenditure related to a meeting, seminar or
conference. Approved Reimbursement Claim Form must be forwarded to the Finance
Department for disbursement.
Travel Advance
• RCTC staff is required to submit to the Executive Director or the Deputy Executive
Director a completed Travel Advance Form (Exhibit B) for approval. Approved Travel
Advance Forms shall be submitted to the Finance Department five working days prior to
the date of travel. Any unused funds and receipts shall be submitted to the Finance
Department.
43
F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISC. PROC/TRAVEL POLICY.DOC - 02/05/01
') lj rsideCounty
runsportation Commission
INVESTMENT POLICY
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to identify policies and procedures that enhance
opportunities for a prudent and systematic investment program and to organize and
formalize investment -related activities.
II. Scope
It is intended that this Policy cover all funds (except retirement funds) and investment
activities under the direction of the Commission.
III. Delegation of Authority
Pursuant to the Commission's Administrative Code, the Board's management responsibility
for the investment program is hereby delegated to the Executive Director ("Chief Financial
Officer") who shall monitor and review all investments for consistency with this investment
policy. The Chief Financial Officer may delegate these duties to his designee ("Chief
Financial Officer"). The Commission may delegate its investment decision making and
execution authority to an investment advisor. The advisor shall follow this Policy and such
other written instructions as are provided.
IV. Prudence
All persons authorized to make investment decisions onbehalf of the Commission are
subject to the prudent investor standard. Investments shall be made with care, skill,
prudence and diligence under circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to,
the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the Commission that a prudent
person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct
of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the
liquidity needs of the Commission.
Authorized individuals acting in accordance with this Policy and written procedures and
exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's
credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a
timely fashion.
V. Objective
The Commission's primary investment objectives, in priority order, shall be:
1) Safety. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program.
Investments of the Commission shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to
ensure preservation of capital in the portfolio.
44
2) Liquidity. The investment portfolio of the Commission will remain sufficiently
liquid to enable the Commission to meet its cash flow requirements.
3) Return on Investment. The investment portfolio of the Commission shall be
designed with the objective of maximizing return on its investments, but only after
ensuring safety and liquidity
In order to maximize return on its investments, the Commission seeks an active rather
than passive management of portfolio assets. The Commission may from time to time
sell securities that it owns in order to better reposition its portfolio assets in accordance
with updated cash flow schedules, yield curve optimizations, yield opportunities existing
between market sectors, or simply market timing.
VI. Investments
California Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 govern the investments permitted
for purchase by the Commission. Within the investments permitted by Code, the
Commission seeks to further restrict eligible investment to the investments listed in Section
VI.1 below. Percentage limitations, where indicated, apply at the time of purchase.
Percentage holdings with any one issuer are further restricted to a maximum of 10%, except
investments in U.S. Treasuries and Federal Agency securities, which are unrestricted.
1. Eligible Investments
A. U.S. Government Issues. United States Treasury notes, bonds, bills, or certificates
of indebtedness, or those for which the faith and credit of the United States are
pledged for the payment of principal and interest.
B. Federal Agency securities. Obligations issued by banks for cooperatives, federal
land banks, federal intermediate credit banks, federal home loan banks, the Federal
Home Loan Bank Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or in obligations,
participations, or other instruments of, or issued by, or fully guaranteed as to
principal and interest by, the Federal National Mortgage Association; or in
guaranteed portions of Small Business Administration notes; or in obligations,
participations, or other instruments of, or issued by, a federal agency or a United
States government -sponsored enterprise.
C. Repurchase Agreements. Repurchase agreements are to be used solely as short-
term investments not to exceed 30 days. The Commission may enter into
repurchase agreements with primary government securities dealers rated "A" or
better by two nationally recognized rating services. Counterparties should also have
(i) a short-term credit rating of at least A -1/P-1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size
of $25 billion in assets and $350 million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable
audited financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants.
The following collateral restrictions will be observed: Only U.S. Treasury securities or
Federal Agency securities, as described in V.1 A and B, will be acceptable collateral.
All securities underlying repurchase agreements must be delivered to the
Commission's custodian bank versus payment or be handled under a properly
executed tri-party repurchase agreement. The total market value of all collateral for
45
each repurchase agreement must equal or exceed 102 percent of the total dollar
value of the money invested by the Commission for the term of the investment. For
any repurchase agreement with a term of more than one day, the value of the
underlying securities must be reviewed on an on -going basis according to market
conditions. Market value must be calculated each time there is a substitution of
collateral.
The Commission or its trustee shall have a perfected first security interest under the
Uniform Commercial Code in all securities subject to repurchase agreement. The
Commission shall have properly executed a PSA agreement with each counter party
with which it enters into repurchase agreements.
D. U.S. Corporate Debt. Medium -term notes, defined as all corporate and depository
institution securities with a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less, issued
by corporations organized and operating within the United States or depository
institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the
United States. Eligible investment shall be rated "AA" or better by one or more
nationally recognized rating service. Investments in U.S. Corporate Debt are further
limited to 30% of surplus funds.
E. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper rated in the highest category by one or more
nationally recognized rating service. Eligible paper is further limited to issuing
corporations that are organized and operating within the United States, have total
assets in excess of $500 million dollars and whose senior debt obligations are rated
"A" or better by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Purchases of
eligible commercial paper may not exceed 270 days maturity nor represent more
than 10 percent of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. Investments in
commercial paper are limited to a maximum of 15% of surplus funds. An additional
15%, for a total of 30% of surplus funds, may be invested in commercial paper if
the dollar -weighted average maturity of the entire amount does not exceed 31 days.
F. Banker's Acceptances. Banker's acceptances issued by domestic or foreign banks,
which are eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. Purchases of
banker's acceptances may not exceed 180 days maturity. Eligible banker's
acceptances are restricted to issuing financial institutions with short-term paper
rated in the highest category by one •or more nationally recognized rating service.
Investments in banker's acceptances are further limited to 40% of surplus funds
with no more than 30% of surplus invested in the banker's acceptances of any one
commercial bank.
G. Money Market Mutual Funds. Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified
management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities
and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
Sec. 80a-1, et seq.) that invest solely in U.S. treasuries, obligations of the U.S.
Treasury, and repurchase agreements relating to such treasury obligations.
The Commission may invest in shares of beneficial interest issued by company shall
have met either of the following criteria: (1) Attained the highest ranking or the
highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally
recognized rating services. (2) Retained an investment adviser registered or exempt
from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than
46
five years' experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under
management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).
The purchase price of shares of beneficial interest purchased pursuant to this
subdivision shall not include any commission that the companies may charge.
Investments in Money Market Mutual Funds are further limited to 20% of surplus
funds.
H. Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund ("RCPIF"). The Commission may invest in
the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund. Investments in the RCPIF are limited
to 20% of surplus funds. As on -going due diligence, the Chief Financial Officer shall
obtain the information listed below:
• A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of
investment policy.
• A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions,
and the treatment of gains and losses in the portfolio.
• A description of how often the securities are priced, how the securities are
safeguarded, and the audit arrangements.
• A description of who may invest in the program, how often they may invest,
what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed.
• A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings.
• A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed.
1. Certificates of Deposit. FDIC insured or fully collateralized time certificates of
deposit in financial institutions located in California. Eligible investments are
restricted to those issuing institutions that have been in business at least five years
and whose senior debt obligationsare rated "AA" or better by one or more nationally
recognized rating service. The maximum term for deposits shall be one year.
Investments in certificates of deposit are further limited to 20% of surplus funds.
All time deposits must be collateralized in accordance with California Government
Code section 53561. The Commission, at its discretion, may waive the
collateralization requirements for any portion of the deposit that is covered by federal
insurance.
2. Eligible Investments for Bond Proceeds
Bond proceeds shall be invested in securities permitted by the applicable bond
documents. If the bond documents are silent as to permitted investments, bond
proceeds will be invested in securities permitted by this Policy.
With respect to maximum maturities, the Policy authorizes investing bond reserve fund
proceeds beyond the five years if prudent in the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer.
3. Ineligible Investments
As provided in California Government Code Section 53601.6, the Commission shall not
invest any funds in inverse floaters, range notes, mortgage derived interest -only strips or
in any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity.
The purchase of any security not listed in Section VI.1 above, but permitted by the
47
California Government Code, is prohibited unless the Board approves the investment
either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the Board.
VII. Maximum Maturities
Maturities of investments will be selected based to provide necessary liquidity, minimize
interest rate risk and maximize earnings. Current and expected yield curve analysis will be
monitored and the portfolio will be invested accordingly. Because of inherent difficulties in
accurately forecasting cash flow requirements, a portion of the portfolio should be
continuously invested in readily available funds.
Where this Policy does not specify a maximum remaining maturity at the time of the
investment, no investment shall be made in any security, other than a security underlying a
repurchase or reverse repurchase agreement authorized by this section, that at the time of
the investment has a term remaining to maturity in excess of five years, unless the Board
has granted express authority to make that investment either specifically or as a part of an
investment program approved by the Board no less than three months prior to the
investment.
VIII. Performance Standards
The Chief Financial Officer shall continually monitor and evaluate the portfolio's
performance. A comparison of the portfolio's performance against a performance
benchmark shall be included in the Chief Financial Officer's quarterly report. The Chief
Financial Officer shall select an appropriate, readily available market index to use as a
performance benchmark.
IX. Reporting
The Chief Financial Officer shall prepare and provide to the Board, within 30 days following
the end of the quarter, a portfolio report, which includes the following information:
• Type of investment
• Name of issuer
• Date of maturity
• Date of purchase
• Par value
• Original purchase cost
• Amortized cost
• Accrued interest
• Call date and (if applicable)
• Current market value of securities
• Unrealized market value gain/loss
• Coupon rate, if applicable
• Yield to maturity
• Yield at market
• Average duration of portfolio
• Listing of all investment transactions during the quarter
48
• A statement that the portfolio complies with the investment policy, or the manner in
which the portfolio is not in compliance
• A statement denoting the ability of the Commission to meet its liquidity requirements for
the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may
not be, available
X. Investment Procedures
The Chief Financial Officer, as the Board's designee, is responsible for ensuring compliance
with the Commission's investment policies and establishing written procedures and internal
controls for the operation of the investment program. No person may engage in investment
transactions except as provided under the terms of this Policy and the written procedures
established by the Chief Financial Officer. The written procedures should address: delegation
of authority to subordinate staff members, control of collusion, separation of transaction
authority from accounting and record keeping, written confirmations of transactions,
reconciliation of custody statements, and wire transfer procedures and agreements. An
independent analysis by an external auditor shall be conducted annually to review internal
control, account activity and compliance with policies and procedures.
XI. Authorized Broker Dealers and Financial Institutions
The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a list of authorized broker/dealers and financial
institutions which are approved for investment purposes. It shall be the Commission's
policy to purchase securities only from those authorized institutions and firms. Separate
lists shall be maintained for broker/dealers and financial institutions approved for repurchase
agreements and those approved for the purchase of other securities. If an investment
advisor is used, they may use their own list of approved broker/dealers and financial
institutions for investment purposes.
To be eligible, a firm must meet the following minimum criteria: (i) an institution licensed by
the state as a broker -dealer, or from a member of a federally regulated securities exchange,
from a national or state -chartered bank, from a federal or state association or from a
brokerage firm designated as a primary government dealer by the Federal Reserve bank; and
(ii) all broker/dealer firms and individuals must be properly registered with the NASD and/or
SEC to transact business in the relevant geographic locations and product sectors. In
addition, counterparties for Repurchase Agreements shall be limited to primary government
securities dealers rated "A" or better by two nationally recognized rating services.
Counterparties shall also have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least A-1 /P-1; (ii) minimum
assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 million in capital; (iii) five years of
acceptable audited financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants.
The Chief Financial Officer shall select broker/dealers and other financial institutions on the
basis of the firm's expertise and credit worthiness. The Commission shall annually send a
copy of the current investment policy to all dealers approved to do business with the
Commission. Each broker dealer or financial institution that has been authorized by the
Commission shall be required to submit and annually update a Broker/Dealer Questionnaire
which includes the firm's most recent financial statement. The Chief Financial Officer shall
maintain a file for each firm approved for investment purposes, which includes the most
recent Broker/Dealer Questionnaire.
XII. Safekeeping and Custody
49
AGENDA ITEM 16
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 26, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Darren M. Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative
Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State and Federal Legislative Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Adopt the following bill positions:
a) AB 1396 (Longville) - Support
b) AB 860 (McLeod) - Support with Amendments
c) AB 37 (Strickland), SB 116 (Kuehl), SB 618 (Margett) - Oppose
d) AB 1039 (Oropeza) - Watch
2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an
information item; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION :
State Update
The last day for members of the legislature to introduce bills was February 25th and,
as expected, there was a flurry of activity just prior to the deadline. At last count,
nearly 50 transportation related bills were introduced, most of which were introduced
on the last day or so prior to the deadline. The absolute earliest these last minute bills
can be heard in committee is late March but are more likely to be considered by
committee in April. The bills listed above were introduced earlier in the session and,
for that reason, will be heard before a policy committee earlier or have a direct nexus
to the activities of RCTC or SANBAG and require earlier attention.
00009;`
Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions for approval:
AB 1396 (Longville) - Creates the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety, and
Modernization Subaccount to the Public Transportation Account and appropriates
$ 100,000,000 from the State General Fund to the subaccount to be used for
commuter and light rail improvement, modernization and safety projects. Staff
recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached.
AB 860 (Negrete-McLeod) - "Spot Bill" that includes Legislative intent language to fund
transportation projects that will mitigate the impacts of local traffic impacts caused
by the Construction of the Alameda Corridor. Staff recommends: SUPPORT WITH
AMENDMENTS. The bill analysis is attached.
AB 37 (Strickland) - This bill would exempt motor vehicle fuel and diesel fuel from
sales tax. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached.
SB 116 (Kuehl) - This bill would prohibit a state or local agency from constructing, or
approving the construction of, any public road, or from making any improvement to
an existing road, that substantially increases vehicular traffic capacity, in or through
any property under jurisdiction of the State Department of Parks and Recreation. Staff
recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached.
SB 618 (Margett) - This bill would require expenditures for retrofitting soundwalls
included on Caltrans priority list to be funded prior to making state transportation funds
available for interregional and regional capital improvement projects in the STIP. Staff
recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached.
AB 1039 (Oropeza) - This bill would eliminate the $ 1 million cap on funding received
the Southern California Association of Governments from RCTC, SANBAG, OCTA and
LACMTA to be used for transportation planning. Staff recommends: WATCH. The
staff analysis is attached.
Federal Update
In late February 2001, President Bush released his "Budget Blueprint" with a full
budget expected in April. After early concern that the Bush Administration might not
fund transportation programs, particularly aviation programs, to their guaranteed
authorized levels under TEA -21 and AIR -21, the "Budget Blueprint" does show full
funding. Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee were
strong advocates for full funding and were successful in convincing the President that
funding to authorized levels was necessary.
000093
Darren Kettle, RCTC/SANBAG Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs,
attended the American Public Transit Association's Annual Legislative Conference in
Washington, D.C. Meetings were held with Riverside and San Bernardino County
congressional delegation members and staff to discuss area transit project funding
proposals as submitted in late February of this year. One of the frequently asked
questions during the conference was "Is there any plan to open up TEA -21 this year?"
With the exception of the new chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, Congressman Don Young (R -Alaska), there seems to be little inclination
(and no interest whatsoever on the Senate side) to consider opening TEA -21 prior to
its scheduled reauthorization in 2003.
000091
Date of Analysis: March 14, 2001
Bill Number/Author: AB 1396 (John Longville, D- San Bernardino)
Introduced February 23, 2001
Subject:
Status:
Summary:
Creates the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety, and
Modernization Subaccount to the Public Transportation
Account and appropriates $100,000,000 from the State
General Fund to the subaccount to be used for commuter
and light rail improvement, modernization and safety
projects.
Introduced February 23, 2001. Pending Committee
assignment, presumably Assembly Transportation
Committee.
This bill creates the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety, and Modernization (PRISM)
Subaccount in the Public Transportation Account in the State Transportation Fund. The
bill would annually appropriate $100 million, adjusted annually, from the State General
Fund to the subaccount. The bill establishes a formula for the distribution of program
funds to eligible agencies that is based on both track miles and ridership. The bill
provides that eligible recipients of funding are certain public agencies and joint powers
authorities that provide regularly scheduled passenger rail service. Further the bill
requires that funds allocated to the program be used for the rehabilitation or
modernization of tracks, utilized for public passenger rail transit, signals, structures,
facilities, and rolling stock, and would permit funds to be used for any of these eligible
rail elements. The bill stipulates that, in the Metrolink service area, funds allocated for
eligible projects be apportioned in accordance with memorandums of understanding. The
bill includes a 50% matching requirement for eligible recipients and a maintenance of
effort requirement.
Staff Comments:
The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) is the primary sponsor of
this bill authored by former SCRRA Board Member John Longville. The bill was
developed in collaboration with all the rail transit providers in the state, many of which
are in desperate need of revenues to conduct large scale rehabilitation and maintenance
efforts on both rail infrastructure and rolling stock. While Metrolink is one of the newer
rail systems in the state, it too is starting to experience the need to start undertaking large
expenditures related to maintenance and rehabilitation.
As there is currently no state -funded rail transit maintenance program and, assuming a
rail transit agency makes the policy decision to undertake a maintenance or rehabilitation
effort, it would be entirely funded through existing agency revenues with no assistance
from the state. Since Metrolink is primarily funded from its member agencies (i.e.,
F:\users\preprint\js\ab 139601-dmk.doc
000095
SANBAG, RCTC, OCTA, LACMTA, and VCTC), the onus of funding such efforts falls
squarely on these agencies. Should this bill become law, with the $100 million annual
appropriation from the State General Fund and the 50% match requirement, Metrolink
would then only be required to work with its member agencies to identify the remaining
50% to fund eligible projects.
When the rail agencies initiated collaboration on the PRISM proposal nearly a year ago,
the State General Fund was experiencing revenue surpluses in excess of $8 billion with
the "electricity crisis" not even flickering. So, as originally conceived by the statewide
rail transit agencies and presented to the author, the State General Fund was a logical
source for funding the PRISM program. Also, many of the rail transit agencies, which
are funded by their member agencies, are county transportation agencies, and are
sensitive to pursuing "off the top" STIP funding. While staff certainly recommends
support for AB 1396 in its introduced form, Commission members should be advised that
other funding sources may be pursued by the sponsors. That being noted, the sponsors
indicate that they have no intention of pursuing STIP funding for the PRISM program
and hope to be able to pursue the use of the State General Fund as the primary funding
source.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT
F:\users\preprint\js\ab139601-dmk.doc
000096
Date of Analysis: March 9, 2001
Bill Number/Author:
Subject:
Status:
Summary:
AB 860 (Gloria Negrete-McLeod, D — Chino)
Introduced February 22, 2001 "
Legislative intent to provide funding for Alameda Corridor
East transportation projects.
Not yet assigned, presumably Assembly Transportation.
Existing law generally provides for allocation by the California Transportation
Commission of state transportation capital improvement funds to particular projects
through the State Transportation Improvement Program, unless otherwise specified.
Further, through AB 2928 from the 1999/2000 legislative session, the Legislature and the
Governor recognized the Alameda Corridor East as an important trade corridor and
allocated $95 million to SANBAG for grade separation projects in San Bernardino
County.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to provide funding for a
transportation project in the County of Los Angeles that will assist in the mitigation of
traffic impacts due to the construction of the Alameda Corridor. In speaking with
Assembly Member Negrete-McLeod's staff, they have indicated the specific reference to
transportation projects in Los Angeles County was included erroneously.
Background
Since her election to the State Assembly, Freshman Member Gloria Negrete-McLeod has
taken an active role in discussions with San Bernardino County cities and the San
Bernardino Associated Governments related to the Alameda Corridor East trade corridor.
Based on these discussions and recognizing the impacts on San Bernardino county local
road and highway network caused by the construction of the Alameda Corridor from the
Los Angeles ports -to Downtown Los Angeles, Assembly Member Negrete-McLeod has
correctly identified a need to identify further funding for grade separations and freeway
interchanges. Darren Kettle, RCTC Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative
Affairs, continues to work with Assembly Member Negrete-McLeod's office on the
merits of including Riverside County in the bill recognizing the similar impacts of the
Alameda Corridor.
As discussed above the bill currently references transportation projects in Los Angeles
County. Assembly Member Negrete-McLeod's staff has assured RCTC and SANBAG
staff that it is their intent that AB 860 be a vehicle to identify funding for Alameda
Corridor East transportation projects consistent with recommendations from the Alameda
Corridor East Trade Steering Committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC and
SANBAG.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS
F:\users\preprint\js\ab 860 billanalysis.doc
000097
Date of Analysis: March 15, 2001
Bill Number/Author: AB 37 (Tony Strickland, R -Thousand Oaks)
Introduced December 4, 2000
Subject:
Requires expenditures for retrofitting soundwalls included
on CALTRANS priority list to be funded prior too making
state transportation funds available for interregional and
regional capital improvement projects in the STIP.
Status: Introduced December 4, 2000. Referred to Assembly
Revenue and Taxation Committee.
Summary:
The Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a tax on gross receipts from the sale in the State of
California of, or the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, tangible personal
property. That law provides various exemptions from that tax. This bill would exempt
motor vehicle fuel and diesel fuel from that tax.
Staff Comments:
Staff will provide a more detailed analysis of this bill on the day of the Budget and
Implementation Committee meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
OPPOSE
F:\users\preprint\js\ab3701=drnk.doc
000093
Date of Analysis: March 14, 2001
Bill Number/Author: SB 116 (Sheila Kuehl, D- Santa Monica)
Introduced January 24, 2001
Subject:
Status:
Summary:
Prohibits a state or local agency form constructing, or
approving the construction of, any public road, or from
making any improvement to an existing road, that
substantially increases vehicular traffic capacity, in or
through any property under jurisdiction of the State
Department of Parks and Recreation.
Introduced January 24, 2001. Passed out of Senate Natural
Resources and Wildlife, 6-3. Referred to Senate
Appropriations.
This bill prohibits construction, permitting for construction, or improvement to any road
that substantially increases vehicular traffic capacity in or through property under
jurisdiction of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Included is state-
owned property, leased land, and land otherwise preserved under a conservation
easement. The prohibition on construction, permitting or road improvement applies to
state agencies, including departments, divisions, bureaus, boards, and commissions, and
to local agencies, including cities, counties, districts, joint powers authorities, and other
public agencies and political subdivisions of the state.
The bill includes several exceptions to the above -mentioned prohibitions including:
1. Roads necessary for use, including operation and maintenance, of Parks and
Recreation property; construction, operation or maintenance of utilities; or fire
protection, or;
2. Special circumstances as determined jointly by the Secretary. of Business,
Transportation and Housing and the Secretary of the Resources Agency.
Further the bill provides that any cost to the state in making determinations for denial or
exception may be recovered from fees imposed upon project proponents. The bill also
provides that any individual or class of individuals may sue to enjoin any other
individual, the state or local agency alleged to be in violation of the road prohibitions.
Staff Comments:
This bill is virtually identical to SB 1277 (Hayden) from the 1999-2000 Legislative
Session which was opposed by RCTC in 1999 primarily on the basis that, under SB 45,
transportation planning decisions were appropriately shifted to local governing bodies.
SB 1277 was passed out of the Senate 21-11 but died in the Assembly. Senator Hayden
was termed out and Senator Kuehl was elected to the same Senate seat and opted to
reintroduce the bill.
F:\users\preprint\js\sb11601-dmk.doc
000099
In Riverside County, where the CETAP long-range transportation con-idors planning
process is well underway, this bill would have significant impacts limiting the ability of
Riverside County jurisdictions, including RCTC, the County, and the cities to make
transportation planning decisions at the local level where corridors may need to traverse
State Parks and Recreation property.
While San Bernardino County has not undertaken as comprehensive a planning process
as that in Riverside County, there may be some time in the future that a city, the county
or SANBAG may need to construct transportation facilities where the "preferred
alternative" traverses State Park and Recreation property but, should this bill become law,
the agency would be unable to construct such an improvement. Effectively, the State will
have usurped local land use planning authority, a fundamental tenant of local
government, and for that reason staff recommends an oppose position.
Staff Recommendation:
OPPOSE
F:\users\preprint\js\sbl d 601-dmk.doc
000100
Date of Analysis: March 15, 2001
Bill Number/Author: SB 618 (Bob Margett, R -Arcadia)
Introduced February 22, 2001
Subject:
Requires expenditures for retrofitting soundwalls included
on CALTRANS priority list to be funded prior to making
state transportation funds available for interregional and
regional capital improvement projects in the STIP.
Status: Introduced February 22, 2001. Committee assignment
pending.
Summary:
Existing law requires that all transportation funds that are available to the state be
expended according to specified priorities. Twenty-five percent of the balance available
after deducting expenditures of those priorities is required to be available for
interregional capital improvement projects, and 75% of the balance is required to be
available for regional capital improvement projects, both of which are programmed in the
State Transportation Improvement Program. The funds are made available for regional
projects to be used for, among other things, soundwall projects.
Staff Comments:
Staff will provide a more detailed analysis of this bill on the day of the Budget and
Implementation Committee meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
OPPOSE
F:\users\preprint\js\sb6l 801-dmk.d oc
000101
Date of Analysis: March 14, 2001
Bill Number/Author: AB 1039 (Jenny Oropeza, D- Long Beach)
Introduced February 23, 2001
Subject:
Eliminates the $1 million cap on funding received by the
Southern California Association of Governments from
RCTC, SANBAG, OCTA, and LACMTA to be used for
transportation planning.
Status: Introduced February 23, 2001. Referred to Assembly
Transportation Committee.
Summary:
Under current law, Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local Transportation Funds
(LTF) are received by county transportation agencies for the purpose of implementation
of the TDA. Also in state law is the requirement that the Riverside County
Transportation Commission, the San Bernardino Associated Governments, the Orange
County Transportation Authority, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority are required to allocate up to 3/4 of 1% of the annual LTF
revenues received by the respective agencies to the Southern California Association of
Governments to be used by SCAG for transportation planning and programming.
Existing law limits the annual allocation to a total of $1 million. This bill would remove
that limitation.
Staff Comments:
The impact of AB 1039 on the region's county transportation agencies is purely financial.
In fiscal year 2000, RCTC and SANBAG contributed a combined $198,000,
approximately $95,000 and $103,000 respectively, to SCAG as required by current law.
The OCTA and LACMTA contributed the balance of approximately $802,000 with
LACMTA funding over $630,000 alone.
Should the 51 million limitation be removed county transportation agencies would be
required to allocate the full 3/4 of 1% of their LTF revenues to SCAG, effectively tripling
the revenues received by SCAG to over $3 million. RCTC and SANBAG contributions
increase to an estimated $300,000 and $360,000 respectively. Again, OCTA and
LACMTA would fund the balance. In discussions with LACMTA staff, they estimate an
increase in their payment to SCAG to over $1.8 million.
SCAG argues that it is necessary to eliminate the $1 million limitation so that they are in
a position to receive a full allocation that they would then use to match federal
transportation planning funds. According to SCAG staff, federal transportation planning
funds that are available to the region are going unused due to the inability of SCAG to
match those funds with local resources.
F:\users\preprint\js\ab103901-dmk.doc
00010;2
RCTC/SANBAG staff and governing boards have long supported the need to address
transportation planning at both the county and regional level. Staffs opinion is that
RCTC/SANBAG be "team -players" in ensuring that the region continues to receive its
share of federal transportation planning funds but only if there is a consensus with our
neighboring county transportation agencies, particularly OCTA and LACMTA, due to the
significant increase in allocation amount that those agencies would experience.
Staff Recommendation:
WATCH
000102
F:\users\prepnnt\js\ab 103901-dmk.doc
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COI SSION/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVER TENTS
POSITIONS ON (ATE LEGISLATION
Legislation/Author
Aka 33 (Romero)
AEA 132 (Horton)
quist
AB 227 (Longville)
F:\u sers\preprin t\j s\legmat. doc
D escripti on
In the event of a labor
dispute, this bill would
establish the LACMTA
Labor Relations Trust
Funds as a continuously
appropriated fund in the
State Treasury and
would require the money
in the fund to be
appropriated to the State
Auditor.
This bill would exempt
motor vehicle fuel and
diesel fuel from sales
tax.
This bill would amend
the Meyers-Milias-Brown
Act to provide that a
public agency shop
agreement may apply to
management,
confidential, or
su u erviso em r to ees.
u wou • aut orize
RTPA's to include other
factors of local
significance as an
element of the RTP.
IS
This bill would extend
indefinitely the period
during which the
Controller would be
required to make the
quarterly transfers from
the General Fund to the
TIF and thereby would
make an appropriation.
Bill
Status
Pending committee
assignment.
Introduced December 4,
2000. Referred to
Assembly Revenue and
Taxation Committee.
Pending committee
assignment.
enuing commi'ee
assignment.
Position
No position taken .
Staff recommends:
OPPOSE
Referred to Assembly
Transportation
Committee, hearing date
3/19/01.
No position taken .
o position to en.
SUPPORT
Date of Board
Ado ' tion
SANBAG: 3/7/01
RCTC: 3/14/01
Legislatio n/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
AB 257 (Longville)
AB 321 (Vargas)
X11 F:\users\preprin tljsllegrnat.do c
Existing law authorizes a
county, and cities within
the county, to create a
service authority for
freeway emergencies for
the purpose
of establishing and
implementing an
emergency motorist aid
system on portions of the
California Freeway and
Expressway System
located within the county
in which the authority is
established. Existing law
allows the authority to
contract with the
Department of the
California Highway Patrol
or a private entity to
respond to those calls.
This bill would make
technical changes in that
law.
This bill would require
the State Board of
Equalization to inform
the Controller of the
amount and would
require the Controller to
transfer the amount to
the Congestion Relief
Transportation Trust
Fund, which the bill
would establish in the
State Treasury.
NW/De heard in
Committee 3/17/01 .
May be heard in
Committee 3/22/01.
No position to en.
Date of Board
Adoption
No position taken.
r'
Legislation/Author
Description
'Rill
tus
osition
ate r ,
,,k ,
AB 381 `eapan
This bill would require
that an unspecified
percentage of the money
in the account be
available to the
department for the
purpose of providing
incentives to local
governments, local
transit providers private
developers and financial
lenders for the citing and
construction of transit -
oriented and pedestrian -
oriented development
within one -quarter mile
of an existing or planned
transit station.
Pending committee
assignment.
o position to en.
AB 403 {Bates)
This bill would authorize
the funds transferred as
specified to cities,
counties, and cities and
counties to be expended
to fund transportation
services for the elderly,
as defined, if all of
certain conditions are
met. The bill thereby
would make an
appropriation by
expanding the purposes
for which continuously
appropriated funds may
Pending committee
assignment.
Na position taken .
F: \u sers\preprint\j s\legmat. doc
Legislation ut h or
D escription
Bill
Status
Position
AB 419 (Dutra)
AB 631 COropeza)
F:\u sers\preprin t\j sVegmat. doc
This bill would authorize,
until January 1, 2010,
certain transportation
authorities to use a
design -build process for
bidding on transportation
projects, including a
requirement that certain
information be verified
under oath. Because a
verification under oath is
made under penalty of
perjury, the bill would
impose a state -mandated
local program by
changing the definition of
, a crime.
This bill would require
the CTC, in conjunction
with the department and
state's regional
transportation planning
agencies, to prepare and
submit to the Governor a
comprehensive statewide
transportation needs
assessment containing
specified information
regarding unfunded
transportation needs
every 5 years beginning
on 12/1/03. This bill
would require the needs
assessment to include to
the extent possible, a list
complied by the
department and the
regional agencies
participating in the needs
assessment prioritizing
their top 10 unfunded
projects.
Pending committee
assignment .
Pending committee
assignment.
No position taken.
ate v +oa
Adoption
No position taken .
egje ° tion ut or
Description
AB 710 tC avez
-ATTET60-T1Tegrete-
McLeod)
AB 1039 (0
Existing law requires the
DOT to develop contract
specifications to conduct
a statewide study of
technically feasible and
available cost-effective
means to reduce 4- and
5 -axle truck traffic from
congested urban
freeways during
commute hours. This bill
would delete the
Prowv. provisions of the existing
a
"Spot Bill" that includes
Legislative intent
language to fund
transportation pro jects
that will mitigate the
impacts of local traffic
impacts caused by the
construction of the
Alameda Corridor.
This bill would eliminate
the $1 million cap on
funding received by the
Southern California
Association of
Governments from RCTC,
SANBAG, OCTA, and
LACMTA to be used for
transportation planning.
4tus
Pending committee
assignment .
ropeza
F:\u sers\preprin t\j s\legmat.do c
Pending committee
assignment.
Introduce• e.ruary
2001. Referred to
Assembly Transportation WATCH
Committee.
osition
to recommen• s:
ate ' oar
Adi . ion
Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Position
AB 1091 (Pacheco)
AB 1303 (Hollingsworth)
AB 1396 (Longville)
F: \users\preprint\j s\legma t. doc
This bill would provide
that any provision in a
contract for the design,
construction,
maintenance, or
operation of a
transportation facility,
entered into between a
state entity and private
party, is void if the
provision purports to
limit the authority of the
state to exercise its
jurisdiction over the state
highway system, or any
other transportation
system that is subject to
state jurisdiction, in
order to minimize
competition with the
transportation facility.
This bill would declare
the intent of the
Legislature that
alternative routes that
may be used to travel
from Riverside County to
Orange County be •
evaluated and
considered.
This bill would create the
Passenger Rail
Improvement, Safety,
and Modernization
Program Subaccount to
the Public Transportation
Account and appropriates
$100,000,000 from the
State General Fund to
the subaccount to be
used for commuter and
light rail improvement
modernization and safety
projects.
Status
Pending committee
assignment .
Pending committee
assignment.
Pending committee
assignment.
ate of oar
Adoption
No position taken.
No position taken.
Staff recommends:
SUPPORT
egis ;t on • ut or ' escription
AB 146 a (Longville)
AB 1587 (Pacheco)
Existing law requires a
court in an eminent
domain action to award
the defendant his or her
litigation expenses
whenever the proceeding
is wholly or partly
dismissed or when the
final judgment is that the
plaintiff cannot acquire
the property sought . This
bill would specify that
the court is required to
award the defendant his
or her litigation expenses
whenever the proceeding
is wholly or partly
dismissed, provided that
the defendant owned or
had an interest in the
property that is the
subject of the litigation.
This bill would authorize
the Governor to proclaim
a state of emergency
during conditions of
transportation gridlock,
as defined.
May be Heard in
Committee 3/27/01.
Pending committee
assignment .
F:\users\preprint\j s\legmat. doc
LLegislation/Author
D escription
SB 10 Soto)
SB 18 (Alarcon)
F:\users\preprint\j s\legmat. doc
Existing law requires the
DOT in consultation with
the California Highway
Patrol, to establish and
administer a "Safe
Routes to School"
construction program
pursuant to authority
granted under specified
federal law and to use
federal transportation
funds for construction of
bicycle and pedestrian
safety and traffic calming
projects. This bill would -
delete an obsolete study
and reporting provision
and the January 1 2002
repeal date, thereby
extending the program
indefinitely.
Existing law provides for
the membership of the
Los Angeles County
Metropolitan
Transportation Authority.
This bill would require
that 6 of the members of
the authority be elected
and would otherwise
substantially revise the
membership of
the authority.
Bill
Status
Position
Date of B oard , .
Adoption
Pending committee
assignment.
No position taken.
e -referred to Assembly
Transportation
:ommittee 1/29/01.
No position taken.
Legislation/Author
Description
Position
SB 106 \oher)
0
':\users\preprin t\j s\legmat.doc
Existing law authorizes
the establishment of a
service authority and the
importance of a $1
service fee in a county if
the county board of
supervisors, by a 2/3
vote, and a majority of
the cities
having a majority of the
incorporated3 population
within the county, adopt
a resolution establishing
the authority and the
imposition of a ser vice
fee on vehicles as
specified. This bill would
limit the authority to
suspend the service fee
to abatement programs
that have been in
existence for at least 2
full fiscal years and
would require every
service authority that
imposes a
service fee to issue a
fiscal yearend report, as
specified, to the
Controller on or before
October 31 of each year.
The bill would require
each service authority
that fails to submit the
report by November 30
of each year to have its
fee suspended for one
year.
tus
To Assembiy
Transportation
Committee on 2/1/01.
Set for hearing on
3/20/01, .
No position taken.
Legislation/Author
D escription
Bill
Status
Position
SB 116 (Kuehl)
SB 127 (Johnsoni—
SB 171 (McClintock)
' This bill would prohibit a
state or local agency
from constructing, or
approving the
construction of any
public road, or from
making any improvement
to an existing road that
substantially increases
vehicular traffic capacity
"n or through any
property under
jurisdiction of the State
epartment of Parks and
Recreation.
Under existing law,
certain local entities are
authorized to use design -
build procurement for
specified types of
projects. This bill would
require the Legislative
Analyst to conduct a
study and report to the
Legislature on the
appropriateness of
expanding the number of
local government entities
that may use design -
build procurement.
This bill would authorize
a transportation gridlock
emergency to be
declared for the purpose
of relieving traffic
congestion on any
highway or segment of
highway for the the DOT
has determined that the
average daily vehicle
hours of delay, excluding
weekendsr exceeds
3,000 vehicle hours.
Introduced January 24,
2001 . Passed out of
Senate Natural
Resources and Wildlife,
6-3. Referred to Senate
Appropriations.
Pending committee
assignment.
Mending committee
assignment.
Staff recommends:
OPPOSE
Date of Board
Adoption
No position taken.
No position taken .
F: \users\preprint\j s\legmat. doc
Leg 'tion/Author
Descripti on
SB 618 (Margett)
SB 759 (Murray)
SB 790 (Karnette)
F: \users\preprint\j s\legmat. doc
This bill would require
expenditures for
retrofitting soundwalls
included on Caltrans
priority list to be funded
prior to making state
transportation funds
available for interregional
and regional capital
improvement projects in
the STIP.
Existing law requires that
a regional or local
receiving an allocation
from the Traffic
Congestion Relief Fund
certify that it will sustain
its level of expenditures
of transportation
purposes at a level that
is consistent with the
average of its annual
expenditures during the
97/98, 98/99, and 99/00
fiscal years. This bill
would make technical,
non -substantive changes
in thisprovision
This bill would specify
that it is the intent of the
Legislature to enact
legislation that removes
restrictions on county
share advances from the
State Transportation
Improvement Program
process to promote
efficient use of
transportation funding.
tus
Pending committee
assignment.
Fending committee
assignment .
Pending committee
assignment.
P osition
Staff recommends:
OPPOSE
Date : oard
Ada . don
No position taken .
No position taken.
Legislation/Author
bescription
Bill
Status
Position
SB 829 (Karnette)
SB 956 (Ackerman)
This bill would delete the
requirement that
transfers be made from
the TIF to the Traffic
Congestion Relief Fund
and would revise the
percentages of the total
in the TIF that would be
required to be
transferred to the Public
Transportation Account,
the department, and the
cities, counties and cities
and counties.
Existing law provides for
the funding of state,
local, and regional
highway projects . This
bill would declare the
intent of the Legislature
to appropriate
$500,000,000 annually
from the General Fund
for the purpose of
funding the annual
maintenance cost of, and
to begin to address a
backlog in deferred
maintenance for, local
streets and roads.
Pending committee
assignment.
No position taken.
Date of Boa
Adoption
Pending committee
assignment.
No position taken.
IT
F:\users\preprin t\j s\legmat.doc
egislationJ u
or
escription
osition
ACA 2 k v cin4aT)
F:\users\preprin t\j s\legmat. doc
This measure would
impose certain conditions
upon a loan to the
General Fund of funds in
the Congestion Relief
Transportation Trust
Fund in the State
Treasury, which fund
would be created
separately by statute, or
the Transportation
Investment Fund in the
State Treasury, or any
successor to either of
those funds. Contains
other related provisions.
111
tus
Pending committee
assignment.
ate r `hoard
Ad& on
No position taken .
1
Smith, Kempton & Watts
Consulting and Governmental Relations
MEMORANDUM
To: RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors
From: D. J. Smith and Delaney Hunter
Date: March 12, 2001
Subject: Legislative Report and Update
AB 257 (Longville) — CHP/Call Box Spot Bill
Assembly Bill 257 was introduced by Assemblyman Longville as a placeholder should we not
resolve to our satisfaction issues related to the California Highway Patrol and our call box
service. We expect to hear formally from the CHP this month.
AB 1463 (Longville) - Limiting Eminent Domain Litigation Expenses
Assemblyman Longville on behalf of SANBAG introduced Assembly Bill 1463. AB 1463 in its
current version would not allow a defendant in an eminent domain proceeding from recouping
any litigation expenses it they are found not to have an interest in the property being sought by
the public agency. We will be working on the language and thrust of the bill before our first
committee hearing.
General Legislative Items
The bill introduction was February 23, 2001 and thousands of bill were introduced for the 2001-
2002 Legislative Session. We are in the process of creating a list of bills that we will track for
RCTC/SANBAG for the year. Of particular importance will be Assembly Bill 227 (Longville),
which will statutorily dedicate the revenues from the sales tax on gasoline for transportation
beyond the current 5 years. Also, Assemblymember John Dutra will be introducing a
constitutional amendment to do the same thing. We will of course keep you updated as these
bills begin to make their way through the legislative process.
State Budget Issues
The State Budget was released in early January and while there was no new significant dollars
for transportation, the Governor did not take any of the sales tax on gasoline revenues slated for
transportation as was expected. This is good news for EDCTC - this year's additional revenues,
which amount to approximately $300 million, will be divided amongst the eligible categories
including the STIP and local streets and roads.
980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 446-5508 . Fax: (916) 446-1499
0001.1'7
Transportation Committee Membership
There are new members of both the Assembly and Senate Transportation Committees. They are
as follows:
Assembly Transportation Committee
Chair - John Dutra
Vice Chair — Rod Pacheco
Vice Chair — Tom McClintock
Patricia Bates
Marco Firebaugh
Dean Florez
Dennis Hollingsworth
Jay LaSuer
Tim Leslie
Carol Liu
John Longville
Dennis Mountjoy
George Nakano
Jenny Oropeza
Joe Simitian
Virginia Strom -Martin
Juan Vargas
Senate Transportation Committee_
Chair — Kevin Murray
Chair — Kevin Murray
Vice Chair — Tom McClintock
Jim Brulte
Jim Costa
Joe Dunn
Liz Figueroa
Betty Kamette
Dick Monteith
Bill Morrow
Don Perata
Jack Scott
Nell Soto
Jackie Speier
Tom Torlakson
2
00011E