Loading...
02 February 8, 2006 CommissionRECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 75680 MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Marion Ashley 1st Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson 2n' Vice Chairman: Jeff Stone Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / Joseph DeConnick, City of Blythe John Chlebnik / Shenna Moqeet / Bill Davis, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Charles England, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Alex Bias / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Mary Roche / Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Douglas McAllister, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Mike Perovich, Governor's Appointee Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. 11.36.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, February 8, 2006 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (items not listed on the agenda) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 11 and January 23, 2006 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 8, 2006 Page 2 7. 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. Page 1 7A. FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005 COMMISSION AUDIT RESULTS Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the fiscal year (FY) 2004/05: 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; 2) Local Transportation Fund Audited Financial Statements; 3) State Transit Assistance Fund Audited Financial Statements; 4) Compliance Report; 5) Audit Results Report; 6) Management Letter; 7) Agreed -Upon Procedures Report related to the Commuter Assistance program incentives; and 8) Agreed -Upon Procedures Report related to the Appropriation Limit Calculation. 7B. MID -YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the: Page 51 1) Mid -year revenue projections; 2) Budget adjustments to reflect the revised Measure A revenues of $14,376,000 and expenditures of $7,065,000; and 3) Budget adjustments to reflect the revised Local Transportation Fund (LTF) planning revenues of $747,728 and expenditures of $747,728. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 8, 2006 Page 3 7C. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND AND MEASURE A REVENUE PROJECTIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the: Page 55 1) Projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment for the western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas; and 2) Projections for Measure A and the related allocations. 7D. DEVELOPMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 60 1) Approve the conceptual framework for a Commission Accountability Program; 2) Direct staff to develop specific accountability measures based on such framework and present such guidelines to the Commission for its future review and approval; and 3) Receive and file the management certifications. 7E. MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Overview This item is for the Commission to approve an increase of: Page 65 1) S306,000 in expenditures for recruitment, employment screening, office reconfiguration and office systems, and salaries and benefits; and 2) S65,000 in Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) general legal costs related to litigation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 8, 2006 Page 4 7F. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 68 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the second quarter ended December 31, 2005. 7G. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview Page 75 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2005. 7H. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Overview Page 77 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan activity report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2005. 71. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 99-31-001-01 (CALTRANS AGREEMENT NO. 8-1120 A/1), AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 50252, BETWEEN CALTRANS AND THE COMMISSION FOR. THE STATE ROUTE 74 PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 79 1) Approve Agreement No. 99-31-001-01 (Caltrans Agreement No. 8-1120 A/1), Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 50252, with Caltrans to extend the agreement period for the State Route (SR) 74 project from December 31, 2005 to December 31, 2007; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 8, 2006 Page 5 7J. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-66-031-00 BETWEEN RCTC AND CALTRANS FOR STATE ROUTE 60 — VALLEY WAY TO INTERSTATE 15 WIDENING, 60/215 EAST JUNCTION HOV CONNECTORS, AND STATE ROUTE 91 GREEN RIVER ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND CALTRANS MSHCP RESPONSIBILITIES Page 82 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-66-031-00 between RCTC and Caltrans for the State Route 60 — Valley Way to Interstate 15 widening project, the 60/215 East Junction HOV connector project, the State Route 91 Green River Road interchange , improvement project and Caltrans MSHCP funding commitment; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7K. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-66-032-00 BETWEEN RCTC AND CALTRANS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 GREEN RIVER ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 93 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 11 Approve Agreement No. 06-66-032-00 with Caltrans for the State Route 91 Green„ River Road interchange improvement project; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 8, 2006 Page 6 7L. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. 06-310-017-00 FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF INDIO Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Memorandum of No. 06-310-017-00 for the State Highway 111 Jefferson improvements within the city of to exceed $3,200,000;and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant Page 103 Understanding (MOU) funding reimbursement of Street to Madison Street Indio for a total amount not to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. 7M. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. 06-31-016-00 FOR FUNDING OF THE CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH ROAD INTERCHANGE Page119 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 06-31-016-00 for the Measure A balance amount for the Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road interchange project programmed for $2,734,000; and 2) Authorized the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. 7N. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 130 1) Approve the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request to reprogram federal and local funds for the purchase of capital equipment; 2) Allocate $111,589 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) reserve funds as the local match to the federal funding contingent upon the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) approval to reprogram the federal funds; and 3) Amend RTA's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to include the capital projects (once approved by FTA). • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 8, 2006 Page 7 70. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS PENDING RECEIPT OF FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006 SECTION 5307 FUNDS Page 133 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $4,800,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) pending receipt of fiscal year (FY) 2005/06 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds; and 2) Approve the reimbursement of the $4,800,000 in funding upon RTA's receipt of the federal funding. 7P. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS' TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STUDY: REQUEST FOR FUNDING PARTICIPATION Page 135 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate an additional $12,500 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to be used as its contribution to expand the Western Riverside Council of Governments' (WRCOG) scope of work to study transit oriented development and amend RTA's fiscal year (FY) 2005/06 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect this change; and 2) Allocate $12,500 in LTF planning funds to WRCOG as RCTC's contribution towards the transit oriented development study. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 8, 2006 Page 8 7Q. REQUEST FROM EXCEED FOR MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS MATCH FOR FISCAL YEARS 2002/2003 AND 2003/2004 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 137 1) Allocate $91,600 in Measure A specialized transit funds to Exceed to provide the required local match for the purchase of ten vehicles; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-26-015-00 with Exceed for $91,600 in Measure A specialized transit funds available in western Riverside County; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7R. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006 MEASURE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Page 140 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the Fiscal. Year (FY) 2005/06 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Palm Springs. 7S. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 144 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail program update as an information item. 7T. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 150 1) Approve the following bill positions: SB 1165 (Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga) — SUPPORT AB 1838 (Oropeza, D-Long Beach) — SUPPORT; and 2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative update. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 8, 2006 Page 9 8. APPROVE THE LIST OF PRE -QUALIFIED FIRMS AND AWARD OF AGREEMENT NOS. 06-66-026-00, 06-66-027-00, AND 06-66-028-00 FOR ON -CALL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISOR SERVICES Page 156 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the list of pre -qualified firms for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor services: a) Nossaman Guthner Knox Elliot LLP b) KPMG c) PB Consult in association with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. and Lamont Financial; 2) Award Agreement Nos. 06-66-026-00, 06-66-027-00, and 06-66-028-00 to the respective firms identified for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor services; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 9. STATUS REPORT ON ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY, CAPITAL PROJECTS, 2009 MEASURE A ALLOCATION AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING Page 158 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the capital project status reports; 2) Direct staff to have the transit operators add to future quarterly capital grant reports, the number of projects completed (per quarter), the dollar amount associated with those projects as well as whether any funds were deobligated and/or lapsed (by fiscal year); 3) Direct staff to work with transit operators to revise future reports to reflect projects that are partially funded, fully funded, demonstration projects, etc. (Revised report format will be developed collaboratively with transit operator and RCTC staffs); and 4) Adopt the timeline for the 2009 Measure A Allocation and Transportation Development Act ITDA) funding discussion. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Riverside County TransportationCommissionAgenda February 8, 2006 Page 10 11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case number: Riv. No. 393352 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 8, 2006, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL February 8, 2006 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of. Riverside, District III ; CI County of Riverside, District IV . County of Riverside, District City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm -Desert City of Palm Springs City. of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET February 8, 2006 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS .� it .� �� V\ vt ON P--1tv\Y\ I V\/ )00.v /t(�1 G V V1 vw 1. nod. CU Y1/ r-.0 6, $\ i G a-L 1 J 6 ,kJb 44 .i l---1- / lkl Cer 6 //g 75 �'P'-- (2://4-7^) w„,___ 0,4 ,v.� 14/E-s/ ' V3—,3006 /740Ag� LGEj R1 C � / � � S �oiq A? C 7 a�&�s MU krr eff. ag G`� i ZG71r� /S� � j111.1'771 . �e Jo� . N,"2�S �� F► 2 Q. , ,/ / �. � �� ,49,4JPil� eide -/2 g/CZ6- S P DAinS O ivcx.5ac 4 .62 J�.7 /1/// CIP./L 7.1d26244/1 `ti GKkc----I... A. ---'Ez_Cfiltc+i CRZ`W-6A,OS / rnttozvs: UtawC2411CA.6 '-f-e-wVEr,1AN z-e_,J(6%t/tvls_j Veoz,1 .��„ eizi4, �/ �vp/-G/� W,%C ��,,�✓°am� IS� l _ I nA l aA.f s (-/ (=__ 7 p 1 v; n ai n , re-dar� X(X At it(c.7 e r_40-a: cdvc /A --_6(� �m-) ` p v ( c . , ..Jo/-11.1 C#1.- A3n11l G`AG//yEs/?- -''/YI1 c Ag & z— 171c,J 1L—St> N I > LA, 4 � `ie.ees /,�/*0,4s_c jeffh,4_nz /47e-/ � /d-S ',vs�� � &u.61/4.(A' r%/p//L s /17,1, Cn/i-kr' C.ry,f0_' �72J410g- 4ry J Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission 'FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Acting Clerk of the Board DATE: February 8, 2006 'SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues - RCTC Agenda of February 8, 2006 The February 8, 2006 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. An RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months from any entity or individual listed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8, Approve the List of Pre -qualified Firms and Award of Agreement Nos. 06-66-026-00, 06-66-027-00, and 06-66-028-00 for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services Consultants: Nossaman Guthner Knox Elliot LLP Thirty -First Floor 445 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90077-7602 KPMG Suite 3300 Commerce Court West PO Box 37 Stn Commerce Court Toronto, ON M5L 7B2 PB Consult in association with Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. and Lamont Financial Services Corporation 3840 Rosin Court Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95834 • AGENDA ITEM 5 • MINUTES • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Marion Ashley at 9:03 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Chair Ashley led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Marion Ashley Roger Berg Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Mary Craton Juan M. DeLara Rick Gibbs Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Robin Lowe Dick Kelly Bob Magee Jeff Miller Shenna Moqeet Ronald Oden Mike Perovich Gregory S. Pettis Ron Roberts Mary Roche Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Frank West Roy Wilson Alex Bias Robert Crain Ron Meepos Ameal Moore Michael H. Wilson Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 11, 2006 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 14, 2005 M/S/C (Buydos/Craton) to approve the December 14, 2005 minutes as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted a revision to Agenda Item 9, "2006 State Transportation Improvement Program Recommendations for Programming". 7. CONSENT CALENDAR MIS/C (Buydos/DeLara) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY -ORANGE COUNTY CETAP CORRIDOR PHASE 2: AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND RCTC AND APPROVAL OF A PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT WITH RAHIMIAN MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-65-041-03, Amendment No. 3 to Cooperative Agreement 04-65-041, between the Orange County Transportation Authority and RCTC for the next phase of work for the project management services consultant assisting with the Riverside County -Orange County. CETAP Corridor that will include equal funding participation; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-65-014-00 between RCTC and Rahimian Management and Consulting, Inc, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, for project management services on the Riverside County -Orange County CETAP Corridor project; and, 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel ` review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. - • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 11, 2006 Page 3 7B. TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURE ITCM) PROJECT SUBSTITUTION 1) Approve the new Corona Park -and -Ride Lot as a suitable substitution for the City of Corona's past planned purchase of three expansion buses; and 2) Program the Park -and -Ride Lot into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). 7C. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION EAST SIDE PARKING LOT Authorize staff to advertise to receive bids for the construction of the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station East Side Parking Lot. 7D. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE AND RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN STATION 1) Allocate $520,538 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to RCTC's Commuter Rail program for additional analysis of noise and vibration impacts needed to obtain the environmental clearance and associated tasks on the Perris Valley Line; 2) Approve reprogramming $2,845 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) from operating to capital for the Riverside -Downtown Station Parking Lot Expansion; and 3) Amend the. Commuter Rail Program's FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. 7E. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO AMEND ITS SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN TO PROGRAM FUNDS FOR EXPANSION OF CLEAN FUELS MALL AND HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY 1) Allocate $87,379 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to SunLine Transit Agency as the local match for the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5309 earmark for expansion of SunLine's Clean Fuels Mall and Hydrogen Facility; 2) Include the project in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program; 3) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 11, 2006 Page 4 . 7F. RTA'S REQUEST FOR ALLOCATION OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT 1) Authorize the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to spend $1,521,880 of excess operating funds identified in June 30, 2005financial audit; 2) Allocate $188,482 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) from RTA's reserves; and 3) Amend RTA's FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect service changes. 7G. WHITESIDE MANOR'S REQUEST FOR MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT Allocate $17,845 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit funding available in Western Riverside to Whiteside Manor, Inc., for the payment of a 17-passenger, wheelchair accessible van. 7H. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL. IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF COACHELLA Approve the FY 2005-09 and FY 2006-10 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the. City of Coachella. 71. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT AND REVIEW AND UPDATE OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 1) Adopt the update of the 2005-2006 RCTC Legislative Program; and 2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative status report. 8. STATUS REPORT ON THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director, updated the Commission on the alternatives, coordination efforts with Caltrans and County of Riverside, and environmental technical studies for the Mid County Parkway project. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes. January 11, 2006 Page 5 In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's question regarding the distribution of survey notices to residents along the far south alternative, Cathy Bechtel confirmed that those notices have been sent out and preliminary work is being conducted. Commissioner Daryl Busch requested staff provide the city of Perris with a copy of a recent report for the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Perris Dam. Cathy Bechtel responded that staff was unfamiliar with such a report and will follow-up with the Army Corps of Engineers. M/S/C (Buster/Miller) to receive and file -a status report on the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project. 9. 2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAMMING Shirley Medina, Program Manager, presented the recommendations for programming for the 2006 ,State 'Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Eric Haley, Executive Director, highlighted the benefits of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) land acquisition project and complete funding of the 60/215' East Junction connector project as a result of the recommended actions. M/S/C (R. Wilson/DeLara) to: 1) Carryover 2004 STIP state highway projects into the 2006 STIP; 2) Delete $16.882 million of local arterial projects from the 2004 STIP and reprogram with federal funds, and reprogram the $16.882 million of STIP funds on the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project; 3) Maintain the Commissions commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lane project by programming $91.3 million of 2006 STIP Western County Formula funds; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 11, 2006 Page 6 -4) Support Caltrans in reprogramming $8 • million of STIP/IIP funding from the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MS.HCP) land acquisition project and $15.483 million of STIP/IIP funding from the AB 3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV lane and SR 91 /Green River interchange improvement projects to the 60/215 East Junction connector project; 5) Program $2.5 . million of CMAQ funds on the 60/215 East Junction connector project to complete funding on this project; 6) Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the 60/215 East Junction connector project by reprogramming $7.349 million of STIP/RIP funds from the AB.3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV lane .and SR 91 /Green River interchange improvement projects; 7) Program 2006 STIP Eastern County -Formula funds as proposed by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to cover cost increases on the 1-10 interchanges at Bob Hope/Ramon Road, Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive, and Date Palm Drive; 8) Enter into an agreement with Palo Verde Valley on trading 2006 STIP Palo Verde Valley formula funds in the amount of $1.315 with commercial paper and programming the STIP funds on the 91 HOV lane project; 9) Program $30 million of STIP funds on the •Perris Valley Line project in exchange for local funds on the SR 91 HOV project; 10) Reprogram $3.465 million • of STIP funds from the city of Riverside's local arterial widening project on Van Buren Boulevard to the SR 91 /Van Buren _Boulevard interchange project as proposed by the city of Riverside; and 11) Work with Caltrans in programming an additional $4 million of STIP/IIP funds to cover the cost increase on the North Main Corona Metrolink Station parking structure project currently programmed in the STIP with Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the consent calendar. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 11, 2006 Page 7 11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley: • Updated the Commission on the Strategic Growth Plan proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger. • Announced that Jennifer Harmon has assumed the role of Acting Clerk of the Board. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case Nos. RIC 386647 and 72 199 Y 00108 03 There were no announcements for the Closed Session items. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m. in memory of Commissioner Jeff Miller's parents, Harvey and Gloria Miller. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 8, 2006, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Acting Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, January 23, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Marion Ashley at 12:01 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Chair Ashley led the Commission in a flag salute. 3 ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Steve Adams Marion Ashley Roger Berg Alex Bias Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos John Chlebnik Mary Craton Juan M. DeLara Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Hank Hohenstein Dick Kelly Paul Marchand Ron Meepos Jeff Miller Ronald Oden Ron Roberts Mary Roche Jeff Stone Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Rick Gibbs Robin Lowe Bob Magee Mike Perovich Gregory Pettis John F. Tavaglione* *'Commissioner John Tavaglione assigned his proxy vote to Chair Ashley. A letter has been filed with the Clerk of the Board. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley noted a revision to Agenda. Item 6, "Delivery of the State Route 60 - Valley Way to Interstate 15 Widening and the State Route 91 - Green River Road Interchange Projects" 6. DELIVERY OF THE STATE ROUTE 60 - VALLEY WAY TO INTERSTATE 15 WIDENING AND THE STATE ROUTE 91 - GREEN RIVER ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECTS Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, presented the recommendations to. the Commission. Eric Haley, Executive Director, stated that Commission entered the commercial paper market for the flexibility to keep the projects moving forward. In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's concerns regarding the escalation of bids and project impacts including the Van Buren and La Sierra interchange projects, Hideo Sugita responded that the law sets forth the process for bidding which the Commission is required to follow. The last segment of SR 91 HOV project will be impacted. Therefore, staff will be phasing the construction of that project and working with Caltrans to move forward with the design project. As for the Van Buren and La Sierra interchange projects, the projects are exclusive of and funded separately, noting that given the current estimates in funding for those projects, there could possibly be cost increases at the time of bidding over and above what maybe available to actually fund the projects. In response to Commissioner Frank West's concern regarding impacts to the East Junction project, Hideo Sugita stated that the Commission is maintaining that commitment. In response to Commissioner Alex Bias's concern possible impacts to the Palm Drive, Date Palm and Indian overpasses in Desert Hot Springs, Allyn Waggle, CVAG Director of Transportation, states there are no funding impacts on these projects related to the current proposed actions. • 0 Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 3 MIS/C (Busch/Henderson) to: 1) Approve the use of up to $16,000,000 of un-programmed Western County Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds on the SR 60 — Valley Way to I-15 improvement project; 2) Approve a 61 % State and 39% RCTC share to fund cost increases over the $55,356,000 funded contract value for the SR 60 — Valley Way to 1-15 improvement project per the master Agreement; 3) Approve an amendment to RCTC's Regional TUMF TIP to include $3,114,600 of Regional TUMF funds for the Green River interchange improvement project; 4) Approve the use of $10,898,400 of RCTC's commercial paper program for the SR 91 Green River interchange improvement project; 5) Approve a 72% State and 28% RCTC share to fund cost increases over the $18,130,000 cost estimate for the Green River interchange improvement project; 6) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review to negotiate any further amendments that may be needed to the Draft Master Agreement which documents the funding arrangements between the State and RCTC for the SR 60 — Valley Way to 1-15 improvement project, the SR 91 Green River interchange improvement project, and the 60/215 East Junction HOV project; 7) Approve the transfer of $5,250,000 of Caltrans IIP funds ;for MSHCP land acquisition to the 60/215 East Junction HOV connector project, with the Commission committing to acquiring Caltrans MSHCP lands; and 8) Amend the Commission's 2006 STIP proposal (approved January 11, 2006) to be consistent with these actions. COMMISSIONERS 1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT There were no reports from Commissioners or the Executive Director. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 4 8. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case No. 72 199 Y 00108 03 There were no announcements for the Closed Session items. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:43 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 8, 2006, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Acting Clerk of the Commission • AGENDA ITEM 7A • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2004/2005 Commission Audit Results BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the fiscal year (FY} 2004/05: 1 ) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; 2) Local Transportation Fund Audited Financial Statements 3) State Transit Assistance Fund Audited Financial Statements; 4) Compliance Report; 5) Audit Results Report; 6) Management Letter; 7) Agreed -Upon Procedures Report related to the Commuter Assistance program incentives; and 8) Agreed -Upon Procedures Report related to the Appropriation Limit Calculation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2003, McGladrey & Pullen LLP was selected to perform an audit of the Commission's basic financial statements included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), the State Transit Assistance Fund, and federal awards. Additionally, it was requested to ,perform agreed -upon procedures related to the annual Appropriations Limit Calculation and the Commuter Assistance program incentives. The audits and ,agreed -upon procedures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 have been completed, and all reports have been issued by McGladrey & Pullen. The Commission's CAFR consists of three sections: introductory, financial, and statistical. While the introductory and statistical sections were not audited by McGladrey & Pullen, the basic financial statements included inthe financial section Agenda Item 7A 1 were audited by McGladrey & Pullen. The Commission received an unqualified opinion on its basic financial statements from McGladrey & Pullen, which is the highest form of assurance. Limited procedures were performed related to the required supplementary information, including Management's Discussion and Analysis; such information was not audited. The other supplementary information was subject to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and, in the opinion of the auditors, it is fairly stated in relation to the basic financial statements. The auditors' opinion also includes an explanatory paragraph related to a restatement for capital assets and net assets that is discussed further in Note 13 to the financial statements. While the restatement did not affect the fund financial statements, it did result in a net increase to the government -wide financial statements for capital assets and net assets of $19,283,259. Staff determined that certain rail easements and property had not been properly accounted for in prior year financial statements upon implementation in FY 2001 /02 of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements —and Management's Discussion and Analysis —for State and Local Governments. The basic financial statements reflect the new reporting model as required by GASB Statement No. 34; this is the fourth consecutive year under the new reporting model. The basic financial statements include government -wide financial statements and fund financial statements. Additionally, Management's Discussion and Analysis is required and provides a narrative overview and analysis of the Commission's financial activities for the fiscal year. Financial highlights include net assets of $334,455,859 at June 30, 2005, representing an increase of $99,566,167 from the prior year (as restated), and governmental funds fund balances of $336,635,297 at June. 30, 2005, representing an increase of $91,260,931 from the prior year. The audit reports related to the separately issued financial statements of the Local Transportation Fundand the State Transit Assistance fund also reflect unqualified opinions from McGladrey & Pullen. These financial statements are required to be issued separately under the Transportation Development Act; however, they are also included in the fund financial statements in the CAFR. These reports noted no matters considered to be a material weakness in internal control and no instances of noncompliance. The Compliance Report, often referred to as the Single Audit Report, includes the reports on compliance and internal control over financial reporting and over federal awards. These reports noted no matters considered to be material weaknesses in internal control and no instances of noncompliance. Agenda Item 7A 2 A management letter usually includes recommendations for improvements and operational efficiencies related to internal control and other matters noted during the audit. McGladrey & Pullen's management letter consisted of a general comment on "Developing Policies That Address Fraud Risk." The Appropriations Limit Calculation and Commuter Assistance Program reports are based on specific procedures agreed to by the Commission and other agencies. The auditors noted no exceptions or findings related to the procedures performed. Professional auditing standards require the auditors to communicate to the audit committee, or an equivalent group, to ensure that it is provided with additional information regarding the scope and results of the audit that may assist the group in overseeing management's financial reporting and disclosure process. Such required communications were discussed with the Audit Ad Hoc Committee in a ' presentation by McGladrey & Pullen. Attachments: 1) 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (available at www.rctc.org) 2) 2005 Local Transportation Fund Financial and Compliance Report ' 3) 2005 State Transit Assistance Fund Financial Report 4) 2005 Compliance Report 5) 2005 Communications to the Audit Ad Hoc Committee 6) 2005 Management Letter 7) 2005 Agreed -Upon Procedures Report on Commuter Assistance Program Incentives 8) 2005 Agreed -Upon Procedures Report on Appropriations Limit Calculation Agenda Item 7A 3 ATTACHMENT 2 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Financial and Compliance Report June 30, 2005 McGlsdiey 8 Pain, LLP is a member fin of RSM Innnaonat, an altla6on of separate and independeot legaleobles. 4 Contents IndependentAudlor's Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information 1 and 2 Financial Statements Balance Sheet 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance 4 Notes to Financial Statements 5-7 Supplementary Information Schedule of Allocations and Disbursements 8 Schedule of Unclaimed Apportionments (Articles 4 and 8) g Schedule of Unclaimed Apportionments (Article 3) 10 Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over. Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based om an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 11 Schedule of Transportation Development Act Compliance Summary of Schedule of Prior Audit Findings < ;. 12 McGladrey& Pullen Certified Public Independent Auditor's Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2005, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the " Commission's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Financial statements are free of material misstatement An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our ' opinion. As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the Local Transportation Fund and d not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission or the County of Riverside, California, as of June 30, 2005, and the respective changes in its financial position, where applicable, for the yea then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Commission, as of June 30, 2005, and the respective changes in financial position, where applicable, thereof for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 14, 2005 on our consideration of the Commission's internal control over finial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of intemal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. Thal report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and shout be considered in assessing the results of our audit McGladrey 8 Patten,.LLP is a menlierfimr of RSM Intematioral, an &fiinnan of separate and independent legal sniffles. 1 6 The Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside has not presented a Management's Discussion and Analysis required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34 that the GASB has determined is necessary to supplement, although not required to be a part of, the financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole. The schedules listed in the table of contents as supplementary information are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the financial statements of the Local Transportation Fund. Such information has been subjected. to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly presented in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Riverside, California October 14, 2005 2 7 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Balance Sheet June 30, 2005 Assets Cash and Investments with County Treasurer Accounts Receivable Interest Receivable Prepaid Allocations Total assets Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities Accounts payable Due to other Riverside County Transportation Commission fund Total liabilities Fund Balance Reserved: Rail and bus transit and local streets and roads apportionments Bicycle and pedestrian projects Prepaid allocations Transportation program Unapportioned carryover Unreserved and designated for bicycles and pedestrians Total fund balance Total liabilities and fund balance See Notes to Financial Statements. 3 8 $ 43,605,451 13,692,556 256,097 239,640 $ 57,793,744 $ 215,063 2,845 217,908 37,853,099 1,360,685 239,640 13,692,556 3,821,711 608,145 57,575,836 $ 57,793,744 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance Year Ended June 30, 2005 Revenues: Sales taxes Interest Total revenues Expenditures: Disbursements to claimants Excess of revenues over expenditures Fund balance at beginning of year Fund balance at end of year See Notes to Financial Statements. 4 9 66,776,38i 605,717 67.,382,098 52,399,514 14,982,564 42,593,252. 57,575,836 i Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements Note 1. Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies The Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), in its capacity as the transportation planning agency for -the County of Riverside, California (County), is responsible for administering funds provided through the Local Transportation Fund (Fund), which was created in accordance with the provisions of the Transportation Development Act of 1971. The significant revenue to the Fund is derived from one-fourth of one percent of the seven and one -quarter percent statewide sales tax collected in the County by the State Board of Equalization. The accounting policies of the Commission conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States as applicable to governmental units. A summary of the Commission's significant accounting policies is as follows: Presentation: The accompanying financial statements of the Fund are intended to present the financial position and the changes in financial position of only that portion of the governmental activities of the Commission that is attributable to the transactions of the Local Transportation Fund of the Commission. They do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission as of June 30, 2005 and the changes in its financial position, where applicable, for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. i Basis of accounting: The modified accrual basis of accounting is followed in the Fund. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures are recorded when they are expected to be liquidated with expendable available resources, and revenue is recorded when it becomes both measurable and available: 'Measurable' means the amount of the transaction can be determined, and "available" means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. Funding: There is a three -step process for obtaining funds from the Fund: apportionment, allocation and payment. Annually, the Commission determines each area's share of the anticipated Fund. This share is the area apportionment. Once funds are apportioned to a given area, they are typically available only for allocation to claimants in that area. Allocation is the discretionary action by the Commission which designates funds for a specific claimant for a speck purpose. Payment is authorized by disbursement instructions issued by the Commission. i Expenditures: Expenditures represent disbursements to the Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, cities, the Canty of Riverside and transit operators that have met the claimant eligibiRy requirements to receive Fund monies per various Public Utilities Code Sections. All disbursements are to be used for transportation purposes. Disbursements for subsequent year allocations are recorded as prepaid allocations. Note Z Cash and Investments with County Treasurer The funds in the County Treasury are pooled with those of other entities in the County and invested in accordance with the County's investment policy. These pooled funds are carried at fair value: Fair value is based on quoted market prices and/or died bids, when needed, from government dealers on some variable or floating rate kerns. Moneys in the Fund are legally required to be deposited in the County Treasury _pool. An Investment Oversight . Commftee has been established by the County, which acts as a regulator of the pool. 5 10 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements Note 3. Fund Balance Reserves for the, Fund represent the unclaimed apportionments related to dawns for transit programs, the unexpired allocations available for bicycle and pedestrian projects, prepaid transit allocations, earned but not received revenues for transportation Programs, and unapportioned carryover. Expired allocations related to bicycle and pedestrian projects are unreserved and designated. At June 30, 2005, amounts held in trust are allocated as follows: }tail and Bus Transit and Local Streets and Roads Apportionments: Western County: Commuter rail: Allocated and unclaimed $ 2,075,000 Apportioned and unallocated 13,915,940 Bus transit: . City of Banning 50,000 City of Beaumont 760,500 Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) 5,685,950 Apportioned and unallocated 10,943,769 Total rat and bus transit—Westem County 33,431,159 Coachella Valley apportioned and unallocated Allocated and unclaimed 1,050,300 Apportioned and unallocated 3,0613,812 Total bus transit —Coachella Valley 4,119,112 Palo Verde Valley: Apportioned and unallocated for transit and local streets and roads 302,828 Total for rail and bus transit and local streets and roads apportionments $ 37,853,099 Bicycle and pedestrian projects: Reserved for allocated amounts . $ 1,360,685 Unreserved and designated for unallocated amounts 608,145 Total for bicycle and pedestrian projects $ 1,968,830 Reserved for prepaid allocations $ 239,640 Reserved for transportation program $ 13,692,556 Reserved for unapportioned carryover $ 3,821,711. , 6 11 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements. Note 4. Commitments ' The RTA and the SunLine Transit Agency (collectively, the Agencies), major transit providers for the County, obtained available lease financing. for bus acquisitions through the proceeds from certificates of participation issued • by the Califomia Transit Finance Corporation (Corporation) for each agency. focal transportation funds, to the extend of the Agencies' eligible share, along with other federal and state funds, were pledged as support for the Agencies' lease payments to the Corporation. For the year ended June 30, 2005, there were no Local Transportation Fund amounts expended for IPa^4. payments. 7 12 Supplementary Information 13 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Allocations and Disbursements . Year Ended June 30, 2005 Expenditures: City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona • City of Desert Hot Springs .�CItyof Hemet 4"City of La Quints City of Moreno Valley City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula County of Riverside Auditor/Controller Road Department Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Commission Riverside Transit Agency SCAG SunLine Transit Agency Total expenditures Prepaid allocations; Riverside Transit Agency Total prepaid allocations Total • S8 521 Article 3 Article 4 Allocations Disbursements Allocations $ 307,500 $ 91,294 $ 987,116 • 736,481 53,975 29,900 60,000 60,000 42,000 1,235,700 95,000 65,000 56,341 88,090 • 152,520 57,520 50,000 109,939 30,426 145,000 85,000 504,489 291,579 1,910,57D 117,000 52,000 160,825 100,000 552,450 158,918 Z495,129 $ 2,495,129 789,300 7,017,800 28,534,769 • 1.1,517,007 1,021,637 52,728,743 239,640 239,640 $ 1,021,637 $ 52,968,383 Article 8 Article 3 Planning, Programming and Administrative Totals Unclaimed Disbursements Allocations Disbursements Allocations Disbursements Allocations Disbursements Amount $ 633,714 $ 906,009 1,910,570 789,300 5,195,645 28,659,832 10,466,707 48,761,777 239,640 239,640 49,001,417 $� • $ 2,618,100 $ $ - $ 1,2.94,616 $ 925,008 $ 369,608 - 736,481 736,481 - 53,975 29,900 24,075 60,000 60,000 42,000 - 42,000 1,235,700 906,009 329,691 95,000 65,000 30,000 56,341 56,341 88,090 - 88,090 152,520 57,520 95,000 50,000 50,000 • 109,939 30,426 79,513 145,000 85,000 60,000 • 2,415,059 2,202,149 212,910 117,000 52,000 65,000 160,825. 100,000 60,825 12,000 12,000 • 2,497,800 2,497,800 106,300 106,300 2,616,100 2,616,100 $ 2,616,100 12,000 12,000 - 552,450 158,918 393,532 789,300 789,300 • 9,515,60D 7,693,445 1,822,155 28,534,769 28,659,832 (125,063 106,300 106,300 11,517,007 10, 466,707 1,050,300 57,839,972 52,399,514 5,440,458 239,640 239,640 239,640 239,640 $ 58,079 612 $ 52,639,154 $ 5,440,458 • Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Unclaimed Apportionments (Articles 4 and B) Year Ended June 30, 2005 Western County, Rail Bus Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley, Transit Unallocated v' Total transportation Auditor/Controller Commission administration Commission planning SCAG planning Total administration and planning Total apportionments Fiscal Year 2004/2005 Prior Fiscal Year Amounts Apportionment Claimed $ 10,635,868 37,708;988 12,990,775 $ 5,195,645 30,275,294 10,466,707 789,300 789,300 235,618 62,361,549 46,726,946 12,000 12,000 675,000 675,000 1,822,800 1,822,800 106,300 106,300 Unclaimed Uncaimed Amount Apportionment Apportionment Claimed $ 5,440,223 $ 10,317,152 $ 7,433,694 7,698,490 2,524,068 143,558 236,618 61,122 15,634,603 18,220,322 Amount Returned Unclaimed Interest Apportionment Allocation Total Unclalm( ' Apportlonn June 30, 2 $ - $ 10,317,152 $ 233,565 $ 15,990,5. 2,274,471 4,300,000 9,724,019 282,506 17,440,`i 1,400,000 1,543,558 51,486 4,119,1 61,122 5,088 302, 2,274,471 5,700,000 21,645,851 572,645 37,853,C 2,616,100 2,616,100 $ 64,977,649 $ 49,343,046 $ 15,634,603 $ 18,220,322 $ 2,274,471 $ 5,700,000 $ 21,645,851 $ 572,645 $ 37 853,C 10 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Unclaimed Apportionments (Article 3) Year Ended June 30, 2003 Unclaimed unclaimed Apportionment Interest Apportionment July 1, 2004 Apportionment Disbursements Allocations June 30, 2005 Bicycle and pedestrian projects $ 1,684,710 $ 1,272,685 $ 1,021,637 $ 33,072 $ 1,968,830 10 16 McGladrey&Pullen ' CertiTied ebliicAttonntants Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California We have audited the financial statements of the local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2005, and have issued our report thereon dated October 14, 2005. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Commission's intemal control over financial: reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of the internal control over financal reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that mis4a►omenis used by error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being, audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the intemal control over financial reporting and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Commission's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. This induded those provisions of laws and regulations IdentMed In the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended, and corresponding regulations of the California Government Code. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we dd not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of the Commission, the Board of Commissioners and the Department of Transportation of the State of California, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Riverside, California October 14, 2005 McGlacitey 8 Pelee, LLP is a memberfmn et Rqt International. an alCdiaron of separate and independent Legal entities. 11 •17 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commssion Schedule of Transportation Development Act Compliance Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings Year Ended June 30, 2005 CF #2003-01--SunLine Transit Agency Conditions: The SunLine Transit Agency (Statine) is an enterprise fund of the SunLine Joint Powers Transportation Agency (SunLine JPA), the primary government. The SunLine JPA is a stand-alone government that was originally formed by the County of Riverside and the cities in the Coachella Valley to provide local and regional transportation services in the Coachella Valley. An audit of Sunline's financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 revealed two findings related to TDA funding. The fast finding reported that SunLine advanced $751,000 in TDA funding, which is restricted to transit purposes only, to: its affiliate, SunLine Services Group (SSG), whichdidnot have sufficient cash flowto repay SunLine in the current period. SunLine pays administrative expenses for allocated salaries and benefits on behalf of SSG. SSG's funding comes primarily from contracts that pay on a reimbursement basis for SSG's services. SSG did not have sufficient rash flows to reimburse SunLine in the current period and, therefore, SunLine reserved $751,000 as a potential bad debt. SunLine proposed 10 request that its funding agencies allow a transfer of certain transit related equipment from SSG to SunLine to recover a substantial portion of the unpaid receivable. The second finding reported that SunLine secured a loan from a bank for the benefit of its affiliate, SSG. SunLine agreed to provide financing for SSG in connection with a program to provide CNG vehicles io the taxi industry. SSG purchased 45 CNG taxicabs to sell through a capital lease program to private taxicab operators. SSG did not have sufficient c ecitworthinesa to obtain a bank loan to purchase the cabs. SunLine borrowed the funds on behalf of SSG. Although the finding does not result in questioned costs, the loan encumbers funds restricted for transit use only. Current Status: On July 14, 2004, the Commission took action to approve the transfer of assets valued at $1,142,000 from SSG to SunLine inconsideration of SSG's outstanding debt to SunLine. The matter regarding SunLine's securing a loan from a bank for the benefit of SSG has not been resolved. The Commission believes that the compliance matter has been substantively corrected. 12 18 ATTACHMENT 3 State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Financial and Compliance Report June 30, 2005 McGla�rey� Pullers r Md3ladrey S Pullen, UP is a member band RSM International. an &nation or separate and Independent legal enbles. 19 Contents Financial Statements Balance Sheet Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance Notes to Financial Statements 3 4 5and6 Supplementary Information Schedule of Allocations and Disbursements Approved During the Year Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 20 McGladrey&:Pullen_ Fsrtified I'u�lic A,reotmtarits. independent Auditor's Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund of the Countyof Riverside, as administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2005, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Commission's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our . audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United Slates of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our • opinion. As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the State Transit Assistance Fund and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial positron of the Commission or the County of Riverside, California, as of June 30, 2005, and the respective changes in its financial position, when: applicable, for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Commission, as of June 30, 20C15, and the respective changes in financial position, where applicable, thereof for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Audding Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 14, 2005 on our consideration of the Commission's internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of taws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit The State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside has not presented a Management's Discussion and Analysis required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34 that the GASB has determined is necessary to supplement, although not required to be a part of, the financial statements. McGladrey & Palen, LIP is amember fim of RSM Intetnadonal, an aArigon of separate and independent legal entities 1 21 Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole. The Schedule of Allocations and Disbursements Approved luring the Year listed in the table of contents as supplementary information is presented for purposes of addifional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements of the Slate Transit Assistance Fund. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly presented in all material: respects .in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. 4feles duy/.4-eee.sc, Riverside, California October 14, 2005 2 22 State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transpoitation Commission Balance Sheet June 30, 2005 Assets Cash and investments $ 3,280,171 State Allocation Receivable 839,216 Interest Receivable 18,597 Total assets $ 4,137,984 Liabitifies and Fund Balance Liabilities Accounts payable Due to other Commission funds Total liabilities , Fund Balance Reserved for allocations available for programming Reserved for unclaimed allocations Total fund balance Total liabilities and fund balance See Notes to Financial Statements. 3 23 41,120 170,538 211,658 2,022,654 1,903,472 3,926,326 $ 4,137,984 State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance . Year Ended June 30, 2005 Revenues: Sales taxes Interest Total revenues Expenditures: Disbursements to claimants Excess of revenues over expenditures Fund balance al beginning of year Fund balance at end of year See Notes to Financial Statements_ 4 24 • 3,348,739 61,492 3,410,231 2,050,529 1,359,702 2,566,624 3,926,326 State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements Note 1. Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies The Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), in its capacity as the transportation planning agency for the County of Riverside, California (County), is responsible for administering funds provided through the State Transit Assistance Program, which was created in 1979 under Chapter 161 (SB 620) of the Califomia statutes 10 provide a second source of Transportation Development Act funding for the development of transit systems. The funds are derived from fuel sales tax revenue and are budgeted through legislation and appropriated to the State Controller's Office for allocation to local agencies. The accounting policies of the Commission conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States as applicable to governmental units. A summary of the Commission's significant accounting policies is as follows: Presentation: The accompanying financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund (Fund) are intended to present the financial position and the changes in financial position, of only that portion 'lithe govemmentai activities of the Commission that is attributable to the transactions of the Fund. They do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission as of June 30, 2005 and the changes in its financial position, where applicable, for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Basis of accounting: The modified accrual basis of accounting is followed in the Fund. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures are recorded when they are expected to be liquidated with expendable available resources, and revenue is recorded when it becomes both measurable and available. °Measurable' means the amount of the transaction can be determined, and °available' means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. Allocations to local agencies: State transit assistance funds are allocated to the operators within the County. Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99313 allocates funds to regional transportation planning agencies based on the ratio of area population to state population. PUC Section 99314 allocates funds to public operators based on their share of fares and local support to other operators in the state. The allocations must be made in a resolution adopted by the Commission. Cash: It is the Commission's policy to deposit all funds received with the County of Riverside Tax Collector -Treasurer for investment until the funds are required for disbursement. Interest income is earned while these funds are so deposited. Fund balance reservations: The reserve for allocations available for programming represents amounts apportioned but not allocated to claimants. The reserve for unclaimed allocations represents amounts allocated and due to claimants but not yet paid. Disbursements to claimants: Disbursements to claimants represent funds disbursed to transit operators that have met the eligibility requirements to receive State Transit Assistance Program funds per PUC Sections 99313 to 99314. All disbursements are to be used for transit purposes. 5 25 State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements Note 2. Cash and Investments Cash and investments at June 30, 2005 consist of the follow' Cash and investments with County Treasurer Cash at bank Investments at bank Total cash and investments 2,813,402 1,345 465,424• 3,280,171 The funds in the County Treasury are pooled with those of other entities in the County and invested. These pooled funds are carried at fair value. Fair value is based on quoted market prices and/or direct bids, when needed, from govemment dealers on some variable or floating rate items. The Commission is a voluntary participant in the pool. An Investment Oversight Committee has been established by the County, which acts as a regulator of the pool Note 3. Fund Balance At June 30, 2005, amounts reserved for unpaid allocations and for apportioned and unallocated amounts are follows: Reserved for allocations available for programming: Western County. Commuter rail $ 525,452 Bus 1,226,234 Coachella Valley 198,020 Palo Verde Valley 73148 2,022,854 Reserved for unclaimed allocations: Western County: City of Beaumont 212,100 Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) 642,665 Coachella Valley: Sunfine Transit Agency (STA) 1,048,707 1,903,472 Total fund balance $ 3,926,326 Note 4. Commitments The RTA and the STA (collectively; the Agencies), major transit providers for the County; obtained available lease financing for bus acquisitions through the proceeds from certWeates of participation issued by the California Transit Finance Corporation (Corporation) for each agency. State transit assistance funds, to the extent of the Agencies' eligible sham, along with other federal and state funds were pledged as support for the Agencies' lease payments to the Corporation. For the year ended June 30, 2005, Fund revenues of $94,117 were expended for lease payments by STA 26 • • • Supplementary Information 27 State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Allocations and Disbursements Approved During the Year Year Ended June 30, 2005 Recipient Western County: City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside Riverside Transit Agency Commission Commuter Rail Program Total Westem County 5unitne Transit Agency Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Other Amount Allocated California Code of Regulations Amount Section No. Disbursed Reference $ 41,000 $ 41,000 6731 212,000 6731 111,000 111,000 6731 107,000 107,000 6731 953,361 832,466 6730 750,000 757,166 6730 2,174,361 1,848,632 702,205 181,805 6730 19,730 19,730 6730 362 $ 2,896,296 . $ 2,050,529 28 i MCGIadrey&Pullen CertifiedPublic Accountants Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California We have audited the financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission {Commission}, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2005, and have issued our report thereon dated October 14, 2005. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Commission's internal control over financial reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and not M provide assurance on the internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in the intemal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or . more of the intemal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts ttrat would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a fimely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control over financial reporting and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Commission's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. This induded those provisions of laws and regulations identified in the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended, and corresponding regulations of the California Government Code. However, providing an, opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordngly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported wider Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended solely for the infatuation and use of management of the Commission, the Board of Commissioners and the Department of Transportation of the State of California, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than those specified parties. /�7C;Hd'CR�ifii f �f/�1vt� GL^I� Riverside, California / October 14, 2005 LteClachey a Puren. U.P is a member btu oftts►e International, an arffation of separate and Independent legal entities 8 29 ATTACHMENT 4 Riverside County Transportation Commission Compliance Reports June 30, 2005 McGiac (ey&Puilen : Certified Ptibli6loutfiatat tdc(Yarkey R Nina uv a a nentet bmi of RSM Irdernallona& an aBabon of separate and independent legal entities 30 Contents Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Note to schedule of expenditures of federal awards Independent Auditor's Report on: Internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards Compliance with requirements applicable to each major program and on internal c Ontrol over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 and on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards 3 4 and S • Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs 6 and 7 Summary Schedule of Prior Year Audit Findings 8 31 Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Year Furled June 30, 2005 Grantor/Pass-through Grantor Program Title .U.S. Department of Transportation: Highway Research, Planning and Construction Program Pass -through State Department of Transportation: SR-60 from 1-215 to Redlands HOV Lanes SR-79 Realignment Riverside to Orange County Major Investment Study Calibox Traffic Monitor Pedley Station Security Enhancement Pedley Station Platform Extension Pass -through San Bemardino Associated Governments: Rideshare Programs Regional Ridematching Pass -through Southern California Association of Governments: Riverside to Orange County Corridor Pass -through Orange County Transportation Authority: Authority: Regional Ridematching Pass -through Ventura County Transportation Commission: Regional Ridematching :Federal Transit Administration, Formula Grants: Pass -through Riverside Transit Agency: Perris Multimodal Direct program: N. Maio- Corona and La Sierra Parting Expansion Total expenditures of federal award * Denotes major program See Note to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 1 32 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 20.205* 20.205* 20.205* 20.205* 20.205* 20.205* Pass -through Entity Identifying Number/ Federal Grant Number Expenditures CMLN-6054 (016) HP21L-6054'(015)' STPL-6054 (039) RPSTPL-6054 (018) CML-6054 (024) STPL-6054 (022) $ 13,025,854 4,221;771 104,011 7,061 (331) (22,254) 20.205 * 04-003 - 04-41-506 747,684 20.205 * 04-003/04/04-41-506 32,286 20.205 * OCTA MOU C-4-1184 300,000 20.205 * 04-41-516/C-4-0329 64,024 20.205 * M 24-004/MOU RSO405 21,751 20.500 M23-001 20.507 CA 90-Y182-00 18,501,857 129,700 13,384" _ 143,084 $ 18,644,941 Riverside County Transportation Commission Note to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Basis of Presentation The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (the Schedule) presents the activity of all federal award programs of the Riverside County Transportation Comnission (Commission). The Schedule includes federal awards received dirrectly from federal agencies, as well as federal awards passed though other agencies. The Commission's reporting entity is defined in Note 1 to the Commission's basic financial statements. Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the Commission, it is not intended to, and does not, present the financial position of the Commission. The accompanying Schedule is presented on .the modified -accrual basis of accounting. The information in this Sdredule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations. Therefore, some amounts presented in this Schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in the preparation of, the basic financial statements. 2 33 McGiatlrey&;Pullen Certified i'tigitiMAccountants independent Auditor's Report and on Internal Control over Financial Reporting on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2005, which collectively comprise the Commission's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated October 14, 2005. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. internal Control over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Commission's intemal control over financial reporting in order to determineour auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of the intemal control over financial reporting wouldnot necessarily disclose all matters in the internal Control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the intemal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the ri,sk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control over financial reporting and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Commission's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Commissioners, management, federal awarding agencies and pass -through entities, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than those speed parties. %l[•g �/°a�Q�.t� Ge-i' Riverside, California October 14, 2005 AieGladrey A PWlen, ue is a member Wed RSM Intemadonal, an Acne s al separate and independent legal entities 3 34 AtGladrey&Pullen Certified Public Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to Its Major Program and on Internal Control over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133 and on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California Compliance We have audited the compliance of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's ;(OMB) Circular A-133, Compliance Supplement that are applicable to its major federal program for the year ended June 30, 2005. The Commission's major federal program is identified in the summary of the independent auditor's results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. Complance with the requirements of laws, regulations, - contracts and grants applicable to its major federal program is the responsibility of the Commission's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Commission's compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United Slates of America; the. standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non - Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we purr and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred toabove that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Commission's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination on the Commission's cormliance with those requirements. In our opinion, the Commssion complied, in all material respects, with the requirements referred to above that,are applicable to its major federal program for the year ended June 30, 2005. Internal Control over Compliance The management of the Commission is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with requaements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to federal. programs. In planning and performing our audti, we considered the Commission's Internal control over compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program in order to determine our auditing procedures For the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB CiircularA-133. McGladrey6 Pullen, ur is ataerrberban of Rad lnlemararel, - an affinatiun of separate and independent legal entities 4 35 Our consideration of the internal control over compliance would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that noncompliance withapplicable requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants caused by error or fraud that would be material in relation to a major federal program being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely : period by employees an the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control over compliance and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses. Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund and the aggregate . remaining fund information of the Commission as of and for the year ended June 30, 2005, Which collectively comprise the Commission's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated October 14, 2005. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by U.S. OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations, and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended for the information of the Commission's management, Board of Commissioners, federal awarding agencies and pass -through entities, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than those specified parties. t emirs t.7 i �G," Riverside, California October 14, 2005 5 36 Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year Ended June 30, 2005 I. Summary of Independent Auditor's Results Financial Statements Type of auditor's report issued: Unqualified Internal control over financial reporting: • Material weakness(es) identified? Yes X No • Reportable condition(s) identified that are not considered to be material weaknesses? Yes X None Reported Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? Yes X No Federal Awards . Internal control over major program: • Material weakness(es) identified? • Reportable condition(s) identified that are not considered to be material weaknesses? Yes X None Reported Yes X Type of auditor's report issued on compliance for major programs: Unqualified • Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with Section 510(a) of OMB Circuits A-133? Y Identification of major program: CFDA Number Name of Federal Program X No 20.205 Highway Research, Planning and Constriction Program Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and -type B programs: $ 559,348 Auditee qualified as low -risk auditee? X Yes 6 37 Amount Expended $ 18,501,857 Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of findings and Questioned Costs, Continued Year Ended June 30, 2005 II. Financial Statement Findings A. Reportable Conditions None reported. B. Compliance Findings None reported. III. Findings and Questioned Costs for Federal Awards A. Reportable Condition None reported. B. Compliance Findings None reported. 7 38 Riverside County Transportation Commission Summary Schedule of Prior Year Audit Findings Year Ended June 30, 2005 There were no audit findings reported for the year ended June 30, 2004. B 39 • CGladrey& til ea Gertrf'iicf Pink ountatits January 6,2006 To the Audit Ad Hoc Committee of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California. ATTACHMENT 5 This letter is intended to inform the Audit Ad Hoc Committee about significant matters related to the conduct of the annual audit so it can appropriately discharge its oversight responsibtiity and that we comply with our professional responsibdfiies to the Audit Ad Hoc Committee. The following summarizes various matters which must be communicated to you under auditing standardsgenerally accepted in the United States of America. The Auditor's Responsibility Under Auditing Standards Generally Accepted in the United States of America Our audit of the financial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) for the year ended June 30, 2005 was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the provisions of the Single Audit Act, OMB Circular A-133 and OMB's Compliance Supplement; the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended; and corresponding regulations of the California Code of Regulations. Those standards, circulars, regulations, and the supplement require we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether caused by error, fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation of assets. An audit includes examining; on a test basis, evidence supporting • the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Accordingly, the audit was designed to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about the • financial statements. We believe our audit accomplished that objective. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also performed tests of controls over intemal control over financial reporting and tests of compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that contribute to the evidence supporting our opinion on the financial statements. However, they do not provide a basis for -opining on, the Commission's intemal control over financial reporting or on compliance and other matters. Management Judgments and Accounting Estimates Accounting estimates are an integral part of the preparation of financial statements and are based upon management's current judgment. The process used by management encompasses their knowledge and experience abort past and current events and certain assumptions about future events. Management has informed us they used ail therelevant facts available to them at the time to make the best judgments about accounting estimates and we considered this information in the scope of our audit. Estimates significant to the financial statements include such items es valuation of vacant land acquired and the useful lives of capital assets. The Audit Ad. Hoc Committee tray wish to monitor throughout the year the process used to compute and record these accounting estimates. 40 Audit Ad Hoc Committee Riverside County Transportation Commission January 6, 2006 Page 2 Audit Adjustments There were no audit adjustments made to the original trial balance presented to us to begin our audit However, the Commission's June 30, 2004 capital assets and net assets were restated to properly reflect the effects of rail easements previously acquired and not capitalized when the Commission initially adopted GASB34. The total effect on capital assets and net assets of this restatement was a net increase in net assets as previously reported of $19,283,259. This restatement was brought to our attention by Commission management. Accounting Policies Management and the Audit Ad Hoc Committee have the ultimate responsibility for the appropriateness of the accounting policies used by the Commission. The Commission did not adopt any significant new accounting policies nor have there been any changes in existing significant accounting policies during the current period which should be brought to your attention for approval. The GASB has issued certain new pronouncements, which follow, that will/may impact the Commission's accounting policies in the future: GASB Statement No. 42, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Impairment of Capital Assets and for Insurance Recoveries, will be effective for the Commission beginning with its year ending June 30, 2006. GASB Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions, will be effective for the Commission beginning with its year ending. June 30, 2008. GASB Statement No. 46, Net Assets Restricted for Enabling Legislation (Art Amendment of GASS Statement No. 34), will be effective for the Commission beginning with its year ending June 30, 2006., GASB Statement No. 47, Accounting for Termination Benefits, will be effective for the Commission beginning with its year ending June 30, 2006. Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements We are not aware of any other documents that contain the audited basic financial statements. if such documents were to be published, we would have a responsibility to determine that such financial information was not materially inconsistent with the audited statements of the Commission. Disagreements with Management We encountered no disagreements with management over the application of significant accounting principles, the • basis for management's judgments on any significant matters, the scope of the audit or significant disclosures to be, included in the financial statements. Consultations with Other Accountants We are not aware of any consultations management had with other accountants about accounting or auditing matters. Maior Issues Discussed with Management Prior to Retention No major issues were discussed with management prior to our retention to perform the aforementioned audit 41 Audit Ad Hoc Committee Riverside County Transportation Commission January 6, 2006 Page 3 Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We did not encounter any difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit. Closing We will be pleased to respond to any questions you have about the foregoing. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to be of service to Riverside County Transportation Commission. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Audit Ad Hoc Committee, Board of Commissioners and management, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than the specified parties. i*.d 7 /A"-ee, Riverside, California 42 McGladrey& Puiien Certified Public Accountants Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California ATTACHMENT 6 In connection with our audit of the basic financial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) for the year ended June 30, 2005, we offer the following matter for the Commission's consideration: Developing Policies That Address Fraud Risk Management is ultimately responsible for designing and implementing effective internal controls over financial reporting including controls that ensure legal, regulatory and statutory compliance. In this regard, it is also management's responsibility to design and implement programs and controls to prevent, deter and detect fraud. Management, along with those who have responsibility for oversight of the financial reporting process, should set the proper tone; create and maintain a culture of honesty and high ethical standards; and establish appropriate controls to prevent, deter and detect fraud. When these responsibilities are fulfilled, the opportunities to commit fraud can be reduced significantly. The Board of Commissioners and management should consider establishing policies that address the risk of fraud and programs and controls that serve to prevent, deter and detect fraud. This process can be initiatedby determining management's understanding about the risk of fraud in the Commission, including any specific fraud risks the Commission has identified or account balances or classes of transactions for which a risk of fraud may be likely to exist. The process continues with development of programs and controls to mitigate specific fraud risks the Commission has identified, or that otherwise help to prevent, deter and detect fraud, and how management intends. to monitor those programs and controls. The policies should also address when and how management communicates to employees its views on business practices and ethical behavior. This process provides a framework within the Commission that sets the tone at the top and expectations of employees for ethical behavior and acceptable business practice. Finally, the policies should address when and how management reports to the Board of Commissioners regarding how intemal controls serve 10 prevent, deter and detect material misstatements due to fraud. The policies should also address how the Board of Commissioners or any other board committee exercises oversight of the Commission's fraud risk assessment and the programs and controls the Commission has established to mitigate these risks. The policies and procedures a govemmental agency develops to mitigate fraud risks or otherwise help 10 prevent, deter, and detect fraud will vary from agency to agency. Certain aspects of this discussion may be applicable to some governmental agencies and inapplicable to others. Also, the extent to which management and the goveming board are involved in the establishment and implementation of such policies and procedures will vary depending upon the nature of the governmental agency's operating activities and the size and complexity of the organization. In any event, establishing such policies and procedures can serve to further enhance a governmental agency's internal controls and create an environment, which dearly defines expectations for employees and commissioners, alike. We will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have about the foregoing. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to be of service to the Riverside County Transportation Commission. /:9�//�x_eeieei Riverside, Califomia October 14, 2005 McGlartrey d Pun, ltP is a member firm or RSM International, an affiiGabon or separate and independent !gal males 43 McGladrey& Pullen Galati intantS. Independent Accountant's Report on Applying Agreed•upon Procedures ATTACHMENT 7 Board of Commissioners , Riverside County Transportation Commission and Board of Directors Inland Transportation Services Riverside, California We have performed the procedures enumerated below, which were agreed to by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) and Inland Transportation Services (ITS), solely to assist the specified parties with respect to the purchase of gift certificates or coupon incentives and the payment of incentives related to the Commuter Assistance Program (Program) administered by ITS for the year ended June 30, 2005. This agreed - upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in this report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. As background information for this engagement to perform agreed -upon procedures, we were provided with: Resolution No. 03-025, Resolutionof the Commission Amending Guidelines for the Administration of the Measure A. Funded Commuter Incentive projects as part of its Program, and Agreement No. 04-41-517, Amendment No.43 to the Agreement for Development and Management of Commuter Assistance between 1TS and the Commission, entered into as of July 1, 2004. In addition, we received an explanation of the ITS registration process with the employer and employee from the program manager of ITS. The procedures and related findings are as follows: 1. We obtained a list of all disbursements recorded by the Commission to vendors for the purchase of gift certificates or coupon incentives for the year ended June 30, 2005 and judgmentally selected a sample of 10 disbursements for selected testing (see Exhibit 1). Our procedures and findings related to Exhibit 1 are as follows: a. We agreed the amount recorded as disbursed by the Commission to canceled checks or warrants without exception. b. We agreed the amount recorded as disbursed to ITS to check requests without exception. c. - We agreed the amount recorded and the payee to the log of requested gift certificates maintained by ITS without exception. 2. We obtained the Tideshare Payment' Reports that 1st recorded disbursements made to recipients by ITS for the year ended June 30, 2005 and judgment* selected a sample of 10 items for selected testing (see Exhibit 2). Our selected testing and findings related to Exhibit 2 were as follows: a. We obtained the Employer Information Form and Statement of Participation (SOP) for the employer indicating their participation with ITS as a participant No exceptions were noted. b. We obtained the Employee Enmllment Form indicating the employee is registered with ITS as a participant No exceptions were noted. ekciaarey S Nden, LLP is a mend firm of RSM h4ernatimia. an alrrra9on of separate and independent legal envies. 44 c. We agreed ITS' disbursement to the employee claim form, noting proper approval of the claim, vdttrout exception. d. We recalculated the number of days the employee participated in each rideshare mode and the incentive earned for each rideshare mode and agreed those totals to the amounts listed on the monthly incentive claim form without exception. e. We agreed the daily amount of reimbursement per mode of transportation to the amount approvedin the SOP without exception. f. We agreed the recorded disbursement amount per the incentive Payment Report to .the employer transmittal letter without exception. 3. We compared ITS' total gift certificate inventory balance from gift certificate inventory schedules provided by ITS as of June 30, 2005 to the actual gift certificates maintained by ITS by judgmentally selecting certain gift certificates for recounting. The gift certificate inventory balance per the inventory schedules as of June 30, 2005 is $58,066. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures: We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an examination, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the specified elements, accounts or items thereof. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Commissioners and management of Riverside County Transportation Commission and the Board of Directors and management of Inland Transportation Services, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Riverside, California October 14, 2005 2 45 Exhibit 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission and Inland Transportation Services (Contractor) Schedule of Selected Purchases of Gift Certificates and Coupons by the Contractor Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2005 Project # Vendor Voucher Date Amount Payment Voucher#` 1P2101 Gaiterla 08/24/04 $ 5,000 27943 P2101 Stater Bros' 08/26/04 5,000 28082 P2102 Galleria 08/02/04 10,000 27834 P2102 Stater Bros' 10/07/04 15,000 28412 P2102 Stater Bros' 03/01/05 31,980 29610 P2110 Slater Bros' 08/26/04 7,500 28082 P2110 Stater Bros' 03/01/05 8,590 29610 P2111 Stater Bros' 11/09/04 10,000 28769 P2111 Ontario Mills 08/09/04 15,000 27862 P2111 Nome Depot 10/11/04 2,300 28525 3 46 Exhibit 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission and Inland Transportation Services (Contractor) Schedule of Selected Employee Incentive Payments Made by the Contractor Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2005 Employee InitialsEmployer Name Incentive Type Commute Mode Disbursement Date Amount E.T. J.P. D.G. S.L. J.A. M.M. R.B. S.R. J.G. G.0 Califomia State University Fullerton Forest River, Inc. Washington Mutual La Sierra University Telelex Medical Ashley Fumiture Industries, Inc. County of San Bemardino County of San Bemardino ADP Teletech Galleria Stater Bros' Home Depot Galleria Home Depot Stater Bros' Ontario Milts Ontario Mild Home Depot Stater Bros' 4 47 Commuter Rail Carpool Carpool Bicycle Carpool Walk Public Bus Bicycle Carpool Commuter Rail 08/20/04 06113/05 10/13/04 09122/04 07/27/04 05123105 10/21/04 05/23/05 06/07/05 09/22/04 $ 120 126 122 134 120 136 116 114 106 128 McGladrey& Pullen Certified Public Accountants Independent AccountanNs Report on Applying Agreed -upon Procedures Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California ATTACHMENT 8 We have performed the procedures enumerated low to the accompanying Appropriations Limit Calculation of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission) for the year ended June 30, 2005. These. procedures, which were agreed to by the Commission and ate League of California Cities (as presented in the publication entitled Agreed -upon Procedures Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIIFB of the California Constitution), were performed solely to assist the Commission in meeting the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the Califomia Constitution. The Commission's management is responsible for the Appropriations Limit Calcuation. This agreed -upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in this report Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this repod has been requested or for any other purpose. • The procedures performed and our findings were as follows: 1. We obtained the completed internal calculations and compared the limit and annual adjustment factors . included in those calculations to the limit and annual adjustment factors that were adopted by a resolution_ of the Board of Commissioners. We also compared the population and inllafion options included in the. aforementioned calculations to those that were selected by a recorded vote of the Board of Commissioners. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. 2. for the accompanying Appropriations Limit Calculation, we added line A, last year's limit, to line E, total adjustments and compared the resulting amount to line F, this year's limit. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. 3. We compared the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Calculation to the supporting calculations described in item 1 above; Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. 4. We compared the prior year Appropriations Limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Calculation to the prior year Appmpriations Limit adopted by the Board of Commissioners during the prior Year - Finding: No exceptions were rioted as a result of our procedures. We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an examination, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the accompanying Appropriations Limit Calculation of the Commission. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. No procedures have been performed with respect to the determination of the appropriations limit for the base year, as defined by Article XIII-B of the California Constfiution. itGladrey Si Palen, ay is a merrier ant of RS11 International an Wake of sepaale and independent legal enties 48 This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Commissioners and management of the Commission, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. d'Oai /./ , Riverside, California October 14, 2005 . . 49 • C Riverside County Transportation Commission Appropriations Limit Calculation Year Ended June 30, 2005 Amount Source A. Last year's limit $ 212,121,630 B. Adjustment factors: 1. Population change 1.0336 State Finance 2. Per capita change 1.0230 State Finance Total adjustments [01.1 x B.2)-1.0] 0.0574 C. Annual adjustment 12,170,012 (BxA) D. Other adjustments: 1. Lost responsibility (-) 2. Transfer to privale (-) 3. Transfer 10 fees (-) 4. Assumed responsibility (+) Subtotal E. Total adjustments 12,170,012 (C+D). F. This year's limit $ 224,291,642 (A+E) 50 AGENDA ITEM 7B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: Mid -Year Revenue Projections STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the: 1) Mid -year revenue projections; 2) Budget adjustments to reflect the revised Measure A revenues of $14,376,000 and expenditures of $7,065,000; and 3) Budget adjustments to reflect the revised Local Transportation Fund (LTF) planning revenues of $747,728 and expenditures of $747,728. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, staff made projections regarding the revenue received from Measure A and LTF funds for budget and apportionment , purposes, respectively. Staff has tracked these revenues on a monthly basis.. Current trends indicate that Measure A and LTF receipts are about 19.9% and 19.1 % higher, respectively, for the six months ended December 31, '2005 compared to the same period last year. For FY 2004/05, Measure A and LTF receipts were about 14.4°% and 12.8% higher, respectively, than the prior year. The Inland Empire's local economy and in particular, Riverside County has continued to perform better than the rest of the state of California. The local economy's strength appears to be attributable to continued growth in population, jobs, taxable retail sales and affordable housing. The local economists are cautious and continue to project moderate growth in Riverside County. Based on the economic data and an emphasis on the trends of sales tax receipts for the last six months and FY 2004/05, staff is recommending that the Commission increase the current year revenue projections as follows: Agenda Item 7B 51 FY 2005/06 Revenue Projections Measure A LTF Original (January 2005) S 130,416,000 63,190,000 Revised for FY 2005/06 Budget $132,924,000 63,190,000 Revised for Mid -Year Adjustment $147, 300, 000 70, 600, 000 Increase from Budget $14, 376,000 7,410,000 For reference purposes, audited Measure A and LTF revenues for FY 2004/05 were $138,921,247 and $66,776,381, - respectively. The FY 2005/06 mid -year projections reflect an approximate 6% increase over the FY 2004/05 actual revenues: The increase in Measure A revenues has a direct effect on the distributions to the geographic areas and related programs, especially local streets and roads (LSR). Accordingly, in addition to the revenue budget adjustments, budget adjustments are required for the LSR aggregating $5,641,000 as well as regional arterial expenditures of $1,424,000 related to Measure A. The LTF audit was completed and financial statements were issued in November 2005. Staff has revised the original projections to include the carryover that is now available to the local governments and transit agencies amounting to $17,514,267. This carryover also includes accounts receivable of $13,692,556 for LTF amounts due to the Commission from the State of California as of June 30, 2005 which were not received as of year end. The revised projections include a budget adjustment to RCTC Planning for $747,728. The ircrease for SB821 bicycle and pedestrian projects of $483,405 does not require a budget adjustment as such expenditures are made from the LTF, which' is an unbudgeted fund of the Commission. Upon Commission approval of this item, staff will provide this updated information to the necessary local governments and transit operators. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY2005/06 Amount: $747,728 sales tax $747,728 planning Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Ad ustment: Y GLA No.: 106-65-40101 $747,728 106-65-86205 $747,728 LTF Planning sales tax revenues LTF Planning expenditures Fiscal Procedures Approved: \pbutfacitit Date: 1 /23/06 Agenda Item 78 52 Financial Information $14,376,000 sales tax In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $7,065,000 LSR & regional arterials Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Ad ustment: Y Revenues: 227-71-40100 $ 4,281,000 Western County LSR sales tax 221-33-40100 1,766,000 Western County Rail sales tax 222-31-40100 4,121,000 Western County Highway sales tax 225-26-40100 267,000 Western County Special Transit sales tax 226-41-40100 267,000 Western County Commuter Assistance sales talc 254-71-40100 1,247,000 Coachella Valley LSR sales tax 252-26-40100 356,000 Coachella Valley Special Transit sales tax 253-31-40100 534,000 Coachella Valley Highway sales tax GLA No.: 255-72-40100 1,424,000 Coachella Valley Regional Arterial sales tax 233-71-40100 113,000 Palo Verde Valley LSR sales tax $ 14,376,000 Appropriations: 227-71-86104 $ 4,281,000 Western County LSR 254-71-86104 1,247,000 Coachella Valley LSR 233-71-86104 113,000 Palo Verde Valley LSR 255-72-86405 1,424,000 Coachella Valley Regional Arterials $ 7,065,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \iiiiCA/r%t' Date: 1/23/06 Attachments: FY 2005/06 Mid -Year Revenue Projections for Measure A and LTF Agenda Item 7B 53 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 2005/2006 APPORTIONMENT (Revised 1/06) Budget FY 2005/2006 Projection (revised) Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $17,514,267 Est Receipts 70,600,000 TOTAL 88,114,267 Less: Auditor 12,000 Less: RCTC Administration 700,000 Less- RCTC Planning (3°% of revenues) 2,643,428 Less: SCAG Planning 116,300 BALANCE 84,642,539 Less' SB 821 (2% of balance) 1,692,851 BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES 82,949,688 Less- 10%Transit Reserves 8,294,969 BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT $74,654,719 APPORTIONMENT Revised Budget Original Population FY 2005/2006 FY 200512056 Rail Transit Population %of Total Apportionment Apportionment Increase 22% 7S°% Western 1,379,558 77.65% $57,965,872 $41,409,018 $16,556,854 $12,752,492 .$45213380 Coachella Valley 368,205 20.72°% 15,471,132 11,052,096 4,419,036 Palo Verde Valley 28,981 1.63% 1 217 715 869,898 347,817 1,776,744 100.00% $74,654,719 $53,331,012 $21 323 707 ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2006) Western: Rail $1,416,944 Transit: RTA 54,308,618 Banning 123,137 Beaumont 132,421 Corona 179,939 Riverside 279 594 Subtotal Transit $5,023,709 5,023,709 Subtotal Weslem 6,440,652 Coachella Valley 1,719,015 Palo Verde Valley 135 302 Total Reserves $8,294,969 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2004 Allocation of Reserves: FY 2003/04 SRTP Funding Allocations Approved July 9, 2003 54 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A DISTRIBUTION PROJECTION FY 2005/2006 (Revised 1/06) FY 2005/2006 FY 2005/2006 FY 2005/2006 Revised Projection Budget Original MEASURE "A" PROJECTION $ 147,300,000 $ 132,924,000 $130,416,000 LESS: ADMINISTRATION 3,090,000 3,090,000 3,090,000 TOTAL PROJECTION $ 144,210,000 $129,834,000 $127,326,000 Local Streets _. Commuter Special CITIES & Roads Highway Rail Assistance Transportation 40.00% 38.50% 16.50% 2.50% 2.50% WESTERN COUNTY PORTION $ 107,368,000 $ 42,946,000 $ 41,337,000 $ 17,716,000 $ 2,684,000 $ 2,684,000 BANNING $ 770,000 �BEAUMONT 461,000 �CALIMESA 197,000 CANYON LAKES 257,000 CORONA 5,140,000 HEMET 2,061,000 'LAKE ELSINORE 1,153,000 MORENO VALLEY 4,368,000 IMURRIETA 2,327,000 NORCO 946,000 _ ,PERRIS 1,282,000 'RIVERSIDE 9,366,000 SAN JACINTO 691,000 TEMECULA 3,386,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 10,539,000 - AREA TOTAL $ 42,944,000 § 41,337,000 $ 17,716,000 $ 2,684,000 $ 2,684,000 Local Streets Regional Special Roads Highway Arterial Transportation 35% 15% 40% 10% COACHELLA VALLEY PORTION $ 35,710,000 $ 12,498,000 $ 5,357,000 $ 14,284,000 $ 3,571,000 CATHEDRAL CITY $ 1,729,000 COACHELLA 457,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 354,000 INDIAN WELLS 230,000 INDIO 1,455,000 LA QUINTA PALM SPRINGS 1,816,000 ! PALM DESERT 2,670,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 946,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1,713,000 CVAG 1,129,000 AREA TOTAL $ 12,499,000 $ 5,357,000 $ 14,284,000 - $ 3,571,000 Local Streets Roads 100% PALO VERDE PORTION $ 1,132,000 $ 1,132,000 BLYTHE $ 903,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 229,000 AREA TOTAL $ 1,132,000 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences STANDARD POOR`S Publication date: 16-Dec-2005 Reprinted from RatingsDirect Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Primary Credit Analyst. Edward R McGlade, New York (1) 212-438-2061; edward_mcglade@standardandpoors.com Secondary Credit Analyst: David G Hitchcock, New York (1) 212438-2022; david_hitchcock@standardandpoors.com Credit.Pmfile% AFFIRMED' =0utstaeding Jr '- A+(SPUR); Outst 10-1:0 igsales,taXi AA(SPUR) loutstandirg Rationale Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its 'AA' standard long-term rating and Standard & Poor's underlying rating (SPUR), and stable outlook, on Riverside County Transportation Commission, Calif.'s senior sales tax revenue bonds and its'A+' SPUR, and stable outlook, on the commission's subordinate sales tax revenue bonds. The ratings reflect: • An essentially closed lien, indicating an unlikelihood that management will issue any additional parity debt; • The county's diversifying economic base with improving, but still below - average, income levels; • The strong sales tax revenue growth with a total 28% increase during fiscals 2003-2005 resulting in very strong debt service coverage (DSC) on the senior- and subordinate -lien debt at 3.79x maximum annual debt service (MADS); • The commission's prudent financial management -- its policy is to maintain annual DSC of at least 2.00x; • The sound legal provisions of 1.50x MADS on the senior debt and 1.15x MADS on the subordinate debt; and • A fully funded capital plan, coupled with a short maturity (2009) on all debt outstanding, which coincides with the sales tax sunset date. A first and second respective pledge on the commission's sales tax revenues, which are a countywide half -cent sales tax approved by the electorate under Measure A, secures the senior- and subordinate -lien bonds. Officials will use bond proceeds to fund preapproved projects under the existing Measure A program. In conjunction with the statewide 7.25c/0 tax rate, the county imposes the half -cent sales tax on gross receipts of retailers within the county. The county's sates tax has been authorized for collection through June 30, 2009. The electorate has approved a new Measure A sales tax that will begin on July 1, 2009, and will be levied through June 30, 2039; these revenues are not yet pledged for the repayment of any bonds. Sales tax revenues are distributed based on the proportionate share of generated revenues. Officials dedicate revenues for highway projects, street and road maintenance, and transit purposes. Sales tax revenues have continued to demonstrate very strong growth and have increased by an average of about 8.72% annually since its inception in 1982. During this period, there has only been one decline of 6.42% in 1991. Recent sales tax revenue growth has been stronger than the historical average; sales tax revenues have grown by an average of 10.56% annually since 2001. Revenues grew by more than 14% in fiscals 2004 and 2005. Total sales tax revenues for fiscal 2005 topped $134.5 million. Sales tax growth has been driven by continued expansion in the Riverside County MSA. A diversity of sales tax generators such as automobiles-(23% of total revenues), general merchandise (12%), and food and liquor (8%) are part of the diverse mix of sales revenues. The county's median household effective buying income indicators are 81.6% and 103.3% of state and national averages, respectively. The 2005 unemployment rate of 5.22% is an improvement from double-digit unemployment in the early 1990s. DSC remains a very strong 3.79x in 2005, up from 2.40x in 1994. These coverage levels comply with the commission's internal policy of maintaining at least 2.00x senior -lien DSC. Additionally, the commission has either completed or fully funded all capital projects that were approved by the electorate under Measure A. Therefore, commission officials do not plan to issue any additional senior- or subordinate - lien debt under this lien. Furthermore, since Measure A revenues sunset in 2009, it is unlikely management could issue any debt. In November 2002, the commission asked the electorate to extend the sales tax revenue program to 2039 from 2009; the proposal passed, and management expects the new measure to fund capital projects identified within that measure. The new measure proposed more than $4 billion in projects. Officials are currently projecting sales tax revenues for the 2010- 2039 period to exceed $10 billion. The measure also limits how much the commission can issue, which is, no more than $500 million of bonds outstanding at any given time. Management has indicated it would like to go back to the electorate and remove this limitation. Any bonds issued would be secured by a new and separate indenture and would be secured by revenues collected after the current Measure A sunsets. The commission would most likely issue these new bonds shortly before 2010, and we would rate them based on their own separate credit characteristics. Outlook The stable outlook reflects the expectation that no additional debt will be issued under Measure A, sales tax collections will continue to increase, and MADS coverage will remain sound. The stable outlook also reflects that with final maturity in 2009 and current sales tax collections, it is highly likely the commission will repay its debt outstanding fully and timely. Economy San Bernardino County borders Riverside County on the north while Arizona borders Riverside on the east, San Diego and Imperial counties on the south, and Orange and Los Angeles counties on the west. Riverside County remains one of California's fastest -growing counties, both in terms of employment and population growth, and is driven by the high cost of land and housing in the greater Los Angeles region and Orange County. With more than 1.77 million residents as of 2004, the county's population has grown by almost 15% since 2000 and 52% from 1990. County officials forecast the fast population growth to continue and job growth to remain strong. Among California's'10 largest counties, Riverside County has been one of the three leadersinterms of employment growth since 1995; in 2004, it ranked first at 5.1%. In addition, employment is diversifying with strong growth in professional and business services; management predicts growth in the future will increasingly focus on construction, transportation, warehousing, and professional services. Its abundant, vacant, affordable land and convenient location and access to key highway and rail transportation makes it a leading distribution and warehouse location for many firms; the county ranks third in the nation for growth of distribution centers over the past 10 years. Industrial and commercial office space is high in demand but still quite affordable compared with counties to the west and southwest. Because of this, office vacancy rates are the lowest among Southern California counties. Leading county employers include: • Riverside County (17,236 employees), • University of California at Riverside (7,033), • Stater Bros. Markets (5,600), and • Corona -Norco Unified School District (5,000). County unemployment of 5.8% in 2004 was lower than the state's 6.2% rate but above the nation's 5.5% rate. Strong population and employment expansion have produced strong growth in the county's tax base, including both property and sales taxes. In December 2004, the median price for homes sold in the county hit a record high $335,000, which was up by more than 30% over the December 2003 median. Among the six major Southem California counties, 35% of new homes sold during 2003-2004 were in Riverside County. County assessed valuation (AV) grew to $142 billion in fiscal 2005 from $91 billion in fiscal 2001 for an increase of almost 12% annually, or an overall increase of 56%; AV is up by 15% in 2005 alone. The property tax base is also diverse with the 10 leading taxpayers accounting for less than 3% of total AV. County market value, an indicator of wealth, is a high $79,855 per capita as of 2005, up by 15% from $69,468 in 2004 and just $57,313 in 2001. Income levels, however, have only risen marginally due,to the continued trend of lower income families taking advantage of the county's relatively more affordable housing opportunities. As of 2003, median household effective buying income indicators were 103% of the national average, which was up just slightly from 98% in 2001. Likewise, per capita effective buying income indicators increased only slightly to 84% of the national average from 80% in 2000. Original Measure A Sales Taxes Original Measure A sales taxes sunset on June 30, 2009. With four fiscal years of collections left before sunsetting, management estimates, based on a conservative estimate of 6% annual growth, that collections should increase to more than $169.8 million in 2009 from $142.5 million in 2006. MADS coverage will increase to more than 4.79x from 4.02x. The original Measure A revenues have been sufficient to allow commission officials to fund the originally planned $870 million project; the commission has actually done much more than was originally planned. 2009 Measure A Sales Taxes In 2002, the electorate approved a new Measure A sales tax program. Based on the commission's ability to deliver projects identified in the original Measure A, management asked the electorate to approve a new package. While the original Measure A package of projects totaled $870 million, management asked the electorate to approve a more than $4.4 billion project package. The electorate authorized the commission to continue collecting the half -cent sales tax when the original Measure A sunsets in 2009. Based on conservative growth estimates, management estimates it will collect more than $10 billion in sales tax revenues. Thi's report wad reproduced from Standard & Poor s F2attngs©irecf, the premter sb�rce of real time, Web based credit=ratings antl resea�chfroni an orgamzafit%n thathas been a -Deader in objective credit analysrs'fir more tfian 1'40rears: To-prevleW.ttls riynamlc on-line product vlslt.our ` RatingsDlFect Web site at-vlivliw.stantlartlantlp�drs.corY!€atrngscfres:' Published by Standard & Poor's, a Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Executive offices: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020. Editorial offices: 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041. Subscriber services: (1) 212-438-7280. Copyright 2005 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. Information has been obtained by Standard & Poor's from sources believed to be reliable. However, because of the possibility of human or mechanical error by our sources, Standard & Poor's or others, Standard & Poor's does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or the result obtained from the use of such information. Ratings are statements of opinion, not statements of fact or recommendations to buy, hold, or sell any securities. cGraw•Hill Comp • AGENDA ITEM 7C • i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006/2007 'Local Transportation Fund and Measure A Revenue Projections BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the: 1) Projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment for the western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas; and 2) Projections for Measure A and the related allocations. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Local Transportation Fund The LTF projection consists of revenues generated from a quarter cent of the statewide sales tax. These LTF funds are principally used to fund transit requirements within the' County of Riverside (County). The Transportation Development Act (TDA) legislation that created LTF requires the County Auditor Controller to annually estimate the amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. That estimate then becomes the basis for geographic apportionment and for claimant allocation through the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process, which commences in January for the next fiscal year. While the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility over the LTF revenues, the Commission by statute is charged with administration of the LTF funding process. The practice has therefore been for the Commission staff to develop the revenue estimate and then submit it to the County Auditor Controller, for concurrence. Once the Commission and the County have agreed on a revenue amount, Commission staff prepares the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is the process that assigns revenues to the three major geographic Agenda Item 7C 55 areas (as defined by TDA law) within the County. They are western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. The revenues are divided based on the respective populations for each area. The apportionment occurs after off -the -top allocations for administration (distributed to the County, Commission, and SCAG) and set asides for planning activities (3%) and bicycle and pedestrian projects (2%). Attached is the FY 2006/07 LTF apportionment based on a' revenue estimate of $74,850,000. The County has reviewed the estimate and concurs with it. The estimate is based on a revised projection for FY 2005/06 of $70,600,000 plus an increase of 6%. After the deductions for administration of $885,500 and set asides of $3,679,880, the amount available for apportionment is-$70,284,620. The balance available for apportionment is as follows: Apportionment Area Amount Western Riverside County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total $ 54,288,222 14,879,370 1,1 17,028 $ 70,284,620 In accordance with the Reserve Policy adopted ; by the Commission on January 12, 2005, a reserve of 10% for each apportionment area will be established and set aside for FY 2006/07 for unforeseen cost increases or other emergency. For the Western County apportionment area, a portion of the reserve will be allocated to each of the transit operators. For public bus transit operators, the allocation of the reserve is based on each operator's proportionate share of FY 2004/05 LTF operating allocations. Operators may access reserve funds by amending their Short Range Transit Plans through the established amendment process. Measure A The Measure 'A projection consists of revenues generated from the local half -cent sales tax approved by the voters in November 1988. These Measure A funds are principally used to fund highway, commuter rail, regional arterial, local streets and roads, commuter assistance and specialized transportation projects needs in the three geographic areas of Riverside County. The Measure A projection for FY 2006/07 is $156,150,000. This projection will, become the basis for the preparation of the FY 2006/07 budget. The budget process .typically commences in January of each year following the development of Agenda Item 7C 56 e the Measure A revenue projections. Additionally, the amounts for the local streets and roads and regional arterial programs are usually provided to the local jurisdictions for planning purposes. The attached Measure A estimate of S156,150,000 is based on a revised projection for FY 2005/06 of $147,300,000 plus an increase of 6%. After the deduction for administration of S3,500,000 which is approximately 2.2% of Measure A revenues, the amount available for distribution to the three geographic areas is $152,650,000, which is allocated as follows: Geographic Area Western Riverside County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Amount $113,162,000 38,407,000 1,081 000 $152, 650,000 Upon Commission approval of this item, staff will provide this information to the necessary local jurisdictions and transit operators for planning purposes. Attachments: 1) Local Transportation Fund FY 2006/07 Apportionment 2) Measure A Distribution Projection FY 2006/07 Agenda Item 7C 57 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 2006/2007 APPORTIONMENT Budget FY 2006/2007 Projection Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $0 Est. Receipts 74,850,000 TOTAL 74,850,000 Less: Auditor 12,000 Less: RCTC Administration 750,000 Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) 2,245,500 Less: SCAG Planning 123,500 BALANCE 71,719,000 Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) 1,434,380 BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES 70,284,620 Less: 10% Transit Reserves 7,028,462 BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT $63,256,158 APPORTIONMENT Budget Population FY 2005/2006 Rail Transit Population %of Total Apportionment 22% 78% Western 1,449,805 77.24% $48,859,400 $10,749,068 $38,110,332 Coachella Valley 397,364 21.17% 13,391,433 Palo Verde Valley 29,831 1.59% 1,005,325 1,877,000 100.00% $63,256,158 ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2005) Western: Rail $1,194,341 Transit: RTA $3,597,878 Banning 116,924 Beaumont 102,775 Corona 156,588 Riverside 260,316 Subtotal Transit $4,234,481 4,234,481 Subtotal Westem 5,428,822 Coachella Valley 1,487,937 Palo Verde Valley 111,703 Total Reserves $7,028,462 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences Population Source: Califomia Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2005, as adjusted for annexations Allocation of Reserves: FY 2004l05 SRTP Funding Allocations Approved July 14, 2004 58 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIW MEASURE A DISTRIBUTION PROJECTIOlk FY 2006/2007 FY 2006/2007 Original Projection MEASURE "A" PROJECTION $156,150,000 LESS: ADMINISTRATION 3,500,000 TOTAL PROJECTION $ 152,650,000 Local Streets Commuter Special CITIES & Roads Highway Rail Assistance Transportation 40.00% 38.50% 16.50%" 2.50% 2.50% •WESTERN COUNTY PORTION $ 113,162,000 $ 45,264,000 $ 43,567,000 $18,672,000 $ 2,829,000. $ 2,829,000 BANNING $ 797,000 BEAUMONT 535,000 CALIMESA 202,000 CANYON LAKES 267,000 CORONA 5,297,000 HEMET 2,126,000 LAKE ELSINORE 1,214,000 MORENO VALLEY 4,614,000 MURRIETA 2,586,000 NORCO 967,000 PERRIS 1,360,000 RIVERSIDE 9,775,000 SAN JACINTO 739,000 TEMECULA - 3,739,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 11,046,000 AREA TOTAL $ 45,264,00D $ 43,567,000 $18,672,000 $ 2,829,000 $ 2,829,000 Local Streets Regional Special Roads Highway Arterial Transportation 35% 15% 40% 10% : COACHELLA VALLEY PORTION $ 38,407,000 $ 13,441,000 $ 5,761,000 $15,363,000 $ 3,841,000 - , CATHEDRAL CITY $ 1,758,000 COACHELLA 510,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 400,000 INDIAN WELLS 241,000 INDIO 1,680,000 ' LA QUINTA PALM SPRINGS 1,968,000 PALM DESERT 2,773,000 , RANCHO MIRAGE 944,000 ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1,885,000 CVAG 1,284,000 AREA TOTAL $ 13,443,000 $ 5,761,000 $15,363,000 $ 3,841,000 Local Streets. Roads 100%, PALO VERDE PORTION 8 1,081,000 $ 1,081,000 BLYTHE $ 836,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 245,000 AREA TOTAL $ 1,081,000 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences 59 • AGENDA ITEM 7D • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financialbfficer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Development of Accountability Program BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the conceptual framework for a Commission Accountability Program; 2) Direct staff to develop specific accountability measures based on such framework and present such guidelines to the Commission for its future review and approval; and 3) Receive and file the management certifications. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In response to recent corporate accounting and ethics scandals as well as business failures, new federal laws and regulations have been enacted for public companies required to file reports in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These reforms address oversight, auditor independence, governance and responsibility, disclosure, and fraud. While these laws and regulations are not yet applicable to state and local governments, it may be just a matter of time before such governments are required to follow similar laws and regulations. Furthermore, this topic has increasingly appeared in government finance conference agendas and publications and has been part of an ongoing discussion with the Commission's audit firm, McGladrey & Pullen LLP, for the last year. As a result of these discussions, McGladrey & Pullen's management letter to the Executive Director consisted of a single comment, "Developing Policies That Address Fraud Risk." The Commission's management fully supports the development of an Accountability Program that addresses fraud risk, ethical conduct, disclosure, and responsibilities to maintain the public's confidence in the Commission. Agenda Item 7D 60 Accordingly, management proposes the following conceptual framework to be used in the development of specific measures for this program: • Oversight —strengthen the role and importance of the Audit Ad Hoc Committee; • Reporting —provide management disclosures related to financial and operational responsibilities; • Fraud —establish a confidential and anonymous mechanism to encourage employees to report potential fraud; • Internal Control —assess the effectiveness of controls and procedures; and • Ethics —develop a code of conduct regarding communication, conflicts of interest, compliance,and confidentiality. Management intends to be proactive regarding the managementletter comment and has taken the first step toward the reporting 'objective of an Accountability Program with director certifications relating to financial reporting and operational disclosures. In addition to obtaining the Committee's support for the conceptual framework outlined above, management is also seeking direction to develop specific accountability measures that would be presented at a future date for the Commission's review and approval. Attachments: 1) Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer Certifications 2) Directors' Certification Agenda Item 7D 61 • mow._ •` Riverside County Transportation Commission January 23, 2006 Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3re Floor • Riverside, California Mailing Address: Post Office Box 12008 • Riverside, California 92502-2208 Phone (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • wun arrtc.org Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) for the year ended June 30, 2005 is hereby submitted for your receipt and acceptance. The CAFR is presented in three sections consisting of Introductory, Financial, and Statistical. The Financial Section includes the audited financial statements and other supplementary information and the independent auditor's report on those financial statements. Management of the Commission is responsible for the financial statements and other information presented in the CAFR. As the Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Commission, we have reviewed the CAFR for the year ended June 30, 2005. Based on our knowledge, the CAFR does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made in the CAFR not misleading with respect to the period covered by the CAFR. Additionally, based on our knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in the CAFR fairly present in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Commission as of and for the year ended June 30, 2005. Eric Haley, Executive Director 7-62ed,14, Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 62 Riverside County ransportation Commission Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, California Mailing Address Post Otte Box 12008 • Riverside, California 92502-2208 Phone (950 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org - _ -z January 23, 2006 Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California In connection with the submission of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report' (CAFR) of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) for the year ended June 30, 2005, as the management and Directors of the Commission, we understand that we are responsible for the operations and activities of the Commission's programs, projects, and administration. Accordingly, we hereby make the following representations based upon our knowledge. We are responsible for establishing and maintaining controls and procedures related to these operations and activities. We have designed such controls and procedures to ensure that material information is made known to us, particularly during the year ended June 30, 2005. The controls and procedures have been effective for the year ended June 30, 2005 and through the date of this letter. There have been and are no significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls regarding financial reporting for the same period which could adversely affect the Commission's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data. There have been and are no material weaknesses in internal controls. There have been no significant changes in internal control or in other' factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to June 30, 2005. Management also recognizes its responsibility for fostering a strong ethical climate so that the Commission's affairs are conducted according to the highest standards of personal and organizational conduct. In connection with this responsibility, we are not aware of any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Commission's internal controls. Eric Haley, Executive Director Hid o Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Anne Mayer, Progrming and Administration Director 63 1 Leer Cathy Bech-.el, Project Davery Director r to C_?/YL6 Thresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer John Standifo , Public Affairs Director StephAnie Wiggins, Flegib Programs Director 64 • AGENDA ITEM 7E • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Mid -Year Budget Adjustments BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve an increase of: 1) $306,000 in expenditures for recruitment, employment screening, . office reconfiguration and office systems, and salaries and benefits; and 2) $65,000 in Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) general legal costs related to litigation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has performed a review of expenditures for the six months, ended December 31, 2005 and an estimate of expenditures for the remainingsix months of the fiscal year (FY) ending June 30, 2006. As a result of the review, the following mid -year budget adjustments are proposed. Adjustment 1 - *306,000 On December' 14, 2005 the Executive Committee approved the recruitment of four new positions: a right of way program manager, two capital projects program managers, and one staff analyst. These recruitments were not anticipated at the time the FY 2005/06 budget was adopted in June 2005. Additionally, the recruitment of two staff analysts included in the FY 2005/06 budget has been initiated. As a result, staff is requesting budget adjustments for the recruitment, employment screenings, office reconfiguration, new office systems, and salaries and benefits to cover the costs associated with expanding Commission staff. Agenda Item 7E 65 • Adjustment 1A To ensure the Commission received an ample pool of candidates with the desired qualifications, skills, and expertise, it was . important to advertise these job . announcements with various media sources. The job announcements were advertised from December 25, 2005 to January 8, 2006 with Jobs Available, Women's Transportation Seminar (WTS), regional transportation planning agencies, Press Enterprise, Los Angeles Times, Desert Sun, La Opinion, and Black Voice. This approach has proven to be very successful with a tremendous response of applicants. Staff is requesting a budget adjustment of $25,000 to cover the costs of these advertisements for the six new positions. Adequate General Fund fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. • Adjustment 1B For those qualified applicants offered with conditional employment, a background investigation (applicable to finance and accounting -related positions) and a medical screening will be required. The intent. of the background investigation is to determine if the selected candidate's past history might indicate any potential problems related to the ability to perform financial and accounting duties. The purpose of the health screening is to identify any potential drug issues and physical issues primarily concerning flexibility. The estimated cost of these employment screenings for the six new positions and the vacant senior accounting assistant position is $10,000. Adequate General Fund fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. • Adjustment 1C In order to accommodate the six new staff positions, the Commission must add and/or redesign office systems and reconfigure existing office space. Staff estimates the cost for the new office systems including furniture and equipment at $24,000. The cost to construct office reconfigurations has preliminarily been estimated at $50,000. Adequate General Fund fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment of $74,000. Adjustment 10 Staff has prepared a six-month salary and benefits cost analysis to determine the effects of the retirement of two directors and the six new recruitments. The analysis determined a total cost savings of $74,400 with the reassignment of duties from the retiring Director of Administrative Services Agenda Item 7E 66 to the acting Clerk of the Board, from the retiring Director of Regional Issues and Public Affairs to the new Regional Programs Director, and from the former Rail Department Manager to the new Rail Program Manager. The cost to cover salaries and benefits for three program managers is partially offset by the cost savings above; therefore, a budget of adjustment of $197,000 is requested for the remaining costs. Staff had included the salaries and benefits for the staff analyst positions in the FY 2005/06 budget adopted in June 2005. Adequate Special Revenue Fund fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Adjustment 2 - *65,000 As the SAFE for Riverside County (County), the Commission is in litigation against and has filed motions regarding a lawsuit filed by the California Center for Law and the Deaf. The lawsuit relates to the request for text -typewriter (TTY) equipment in the call boxes located within the County. Accordingly, legal costs are expected to be greater than those anticipated when the original budget was adopted in June 2005. Staff is requesting a budget adjustment of $65,000 to accommodate these legal expenditures. Adequate SAFE fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY2005/06 Amount: $371,000 Source of Funds: Measure A/LTF/FSP/SAFE Budget Ad ustment: Y S-18-73660 P1001- 01 $35,000 S-12-90501 P1001- 01 $74,000 GLA No.: 222-31-60000 P3999 $105,000 222-31-61000 P3999 $92,000 202-45-65101 $65,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \11144.444.414_ Date: 1 /23/06 Agenda Item 7E 67 • AGENDA ITEM 7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee` Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, ExecutiveDirector SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the second quarter ended December 31, 2005. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the last six months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements present the revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the fiscal year (FY). Period closing accrual adjustments are not included for revenues earned but not billed and expenditures incurred for goods and services received but not yet invoiced, as such adjustments are normally made during the year end closing activities. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues through the second `quarter at 38% of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales taxrevenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure A funds and remits them to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two -month lag; in the receipt of revenues by the Commission and related disbursement of localstreets and roads allocations. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the Measure A sales tax revenues and related local streets and roads' expenditures related to collections through October 2005. On a cash basis, the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues are 20% and 19% higher respectively, than the same six-month period last fiscal year. Federal, state and local government reimbursements and other revenues are on a reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. Agenda Item 7F 68 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues are remitted to the Commission by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) the 10' of each month. During the second quarter, WRCOG remitted approximately $13,482,600. The expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget. General administrative expenditures are slightly higher due to one-time payments in September for certain FY 2005/06 membership dues renewals. This category is expected to be in line by the end of the third quarter. Listed below are the capital related projects, including budget amounts, which have significant variances along with a status report: . Highway Engineering/Right of Way/Land • State Route (SR) 91 Van Buren Interchange ($7,600,000)—The city of Riverside is the lead agency and has experienced delays related to environmental issues. The environmental process is complete and right of wayacquisition will commence in FY 2005-06. Construction will not commence for 18 months and the city requested, and ` the ` Commission approved, amending the Measure A Strategic Plan to allow the Van Buren funds to be used for the construction phase of the La Sierra interchange scheduled for spring 2006. SR 91 HOV Lanes between Adams Street and 7th Street ($18,300,000)—The Commission is awaiting final approval of the environmental document and geometric approval drawings in order to commence the final design phase currently forecasted for June 2006. • SR 79 Realignment ($7,010,000)—Engineering delays were caused by requests from resource agencies to study new avoidance alternative alignments. An amendment to the contract was required which resulted in the need for a pre award audit prior to the issuance of a notice to proceed. Additionally, the consultant is currently behind in submittal of invoices through December 2005. • SR 74 G Street to Interstate (I) 215 ($1,450,000)—The Commission is awaiting completion of the traffic studies in order to commence the preliminary and environmental phase of work. Acquisition of right of way will not start until FY 2006/07. • SR 74 from 1-15 to 7t ($4,175,000) —The County of Riverside (County) continues to negotiate with parcel owners to acquire the property needed to Agenda Item 7F 69 { complete the mitigation requirements of the project. In addition, funding ,has been allocated to cover settlements through state condemnation for those properties acquired through eminent domain. - • SR 60 East Junction to 1-215 HOV ($2,500,000)—Caltrans has approved the project to proceed with the final design. Funding authorization from the Federal Highway Administration is pending. • Commercial Paper Projects ($43,700,000)—Commercial Paper proceeds remain available for right of way and land acquisition related to projects and mitigation as opportunities arise; however, the second tranche of ' $55,000,000 included in the budget as bond proceeds has not been issued due to the balance of unexpended proceeds as of December 31,.2005. Highway Construction • 1-15 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Interchange ($2,700,000)—The .County recently awarded the construction contract. Construction is forecasted for spring 2006 with an 18 month construction period. • SR 74 ($14,325,000)—The prior year's winter rainfalls caused delays in construction and utility relocation. Delivery of oil base material for asphalt has caused additional delays, and construction completion is currently forecasted for the end of the second quarter in FY 2006/07. • SR 60 ($2,010,000)—Project is complete; however, punch list items are still being reviewed, and final payment will be released upon settlement of claims. Additionally, the plant establishment was delayed due to the prior year's rainfalls and is expected to be complete by the fourth quarter of FY 2005/06. • -SR 111 ($1,957,000)—The widening project in the -city of La Quinta was awarded, and construction started June 2005. The Commission recently received a progress payment invoice from the city. The city of Indio will commence its project April 2006. The city of Rancho Mirage is expected to submit an invoice for the completed Magnesia Falls project in June 2006 for $1,000,000 as part of the terms of an agreement with the Commission. Agenda Item 7F 70 Rail Engineering/Right of Way/Land • North Main Corona Station Parking Structure ($1,100,000)—The CEQA environmental document was approved, and the NEPA environmental document was preparedand submitted for approval to the Federal Transit Administration. Funding to proceed with the start of final design has been appropriated with a consultant agreement to be awarded in February 2006. Perris Valley Line ($10,050,000)—Preliminary engineering contract award was rescheduled for the third quarter in FY 2005/06. Additionally, property acquisition has been postponed as a result of the delay in the NEPA environmental document due to public comments on the noise and vibration study, which is now complete and awaiting comments. Rai/ Construction Riverside Downtown Eastside Parking Lot ($1,735,000)—Delays in the final design have occurred due to the requirements for preparation and submittal of the engineering/planning application to the city to obtain permits. Accordingly, the start of construction has been delayed until the fourth quarter of FY 2005/06. Rail Stations ($150,000)-Estimates for potential rehabilitation projects were included in the budget. Staff is developing a station rehabilitation plan to monitor costs going forward. TUMF Engineering/Right of Way/Land • Mid. County Parkway($29,100,000)—Approval of the pre award audit for the consultant was recently received, and Amendment No. 2 for Phase II preliminary engineering was approved and a notice to proceed was issued December 2005. Staff continues to have ongoing discussions with developers to try to reserve corridor right of way. Various Western County TUMF Regional Arterial Projects 028,300 000)— Agreements for more than half of the projects have been signed with the cities and County. These agencies are now in the process of preparing requests for. proposal to award contracts. Commission staff will continue to actively work with the agencies to have agreements signed for the remaining projects. Agenda Item 7F 71 TUMF Construction ($13,097,500)—No construction activities on approved regional arterial projects wi►I occur until the final design phases are completed and environmental documents are approved. Intergovernmental distributions are primarily expended as one-time LTF payments made at the beginning of the fiscal year based on claims submitted by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and WRCOG. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the, Commission of any unusual events. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements — December 2005 Agenda Item 7F 72 DESCRIPTION Revenues Sales lax Federal, stele & local government reimbursements Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fes (TUMF) Other revenues !Morsel Total revenues • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION _ QUARTERLY ACTUALS BY FUND 2ND QUARTER FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/05 MEASURE PALO STATE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM WESTERN COMMERICAL GENERAL F9P1 WESTERN VERDE COACHELLA TRANSIT MITIGATION FEE COUNTY PAPER DEBT COMBINED FUND SAFE COUNTY VALLEY VALLEY ASSISTANCE TUMF CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM SERVICE TOTAL $ 7,205,559 $ • S 35,004,116 $ 340,048 $ 12,083,940 $ • $ - $ $ - 5 - $ 55,293,663 318,901 607,470 398.176 - - - - - 1,272.627 • - - - 20,575,872 - - 20,575,872 192,020 1,084 016.102 • 143,023 1.478.402 - - - 2,730,031 54,029 30,632 753,440 546 38,389 31,623 431,739 714 354,039 905,754 2,192,714 7,831,389 539,136 37.610,843 340,504 12,265,352 1,510,025 21,007,611 714 354,03D 496,754 82,065,507 Expenditure. Administration Salaries & benefits 725,674 37,213 General legal services 30,501 1,548 Proleaaiaret cervices 435,575 21,028 Office lease & utilities 176,398 8,952 General administrative expenditures 011,897 30,902 Total administration 1,980,145 100,543 Programs/projects Salaries & benefits General legal services Profesalonel services General projects Highway engineering Highway construction Highway right of wayltend Rall engineering Rell construction Rail right of way TUMF engineering TUMF construction TUMF right of way Local etreele & roads Regional arterial Special studies FSP towing ' Commuter assistance Property management Motorist assistance Rail operations & maintenance , STA distribution Specialized transit Planning & programming services Total programs/projects Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay Debt service Princlpel Interest Arbitrage rebate tax Cost of Issuance Total debt service 477E85 45,831 108,267 78540 208,287 17,312 267,618 34,185 3E09E01 14,516 557,104 200,542. • 257,716 247,157 281,489 852,812 1,633.481 2,067.668 (1.059,882) 99,195 220227 31,811 14,241,847 256,964 1,095,340 • 464.936- 7,774 158 10,671 101,068 108,222 340,048 4,229,37 4,008,88 1,382,45 78 2,078,290 55,303 120,003 1,055 50,028 2,442,250 2298,148 6,530 6,455 85,935 1,700,000 762,887 32,049 457803 195,350 642,799 2,080,688 504,309 550,080 684,157 923,911 1,734,549 2,175,890 648115 09,105 220,227 31,811 2,442,250 2,268.143 18.811.074 4,006,881 531,222 557,104 1,008,340 34,185 200,542 3,000.691 2,078.290 2.347.394 14,518 4,208,252 890,620 20723,501 340.046 10,357,611 2,078,369 055,873 (36,165) (1,835) 193,517 Tool expenditures 7.107,005 Excess revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer In Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Payment to escrow agent Total financing sources/uses 5,004.324 1,792.30 45,404,184 955,673 155E17 384,862 3421,610 3,806.472 • 384,862 3,421,610 3,806,472 908,337 20,817,076 340,048 10,35751 723,484 (359,151) 16,702,7E5 5,820 5,326 253,000 253,000 • • 2,078.369 546 1,907,741 (568,349) 13,037,161 - 3,949,182 03,057,161) 5,004,324 2,177,252 3.921,610 52,402,534 16.003,287 714 (1,823,213) (2,924,856) 29,662,873 107 - 17,006 316 17,285,24E 80 17.265,248 • • (3,040,1821 Net change In fund balances 723,484 (359,151). 3,64,5,604 546 (2,041,441) (568344) Fund balance July 1, 2005 - 8,520,480 4,303;300 134,846,240 48,370 8,357000 3,026,325 Fundbalence December 31, 2005 $ 9,243,984 3 3 944 149 $ 138,591853 - $ 49,918 $ 0,315,849 $ 3,357,081 $ a 107 17,006,236 16,083,287 821 (1,023,213) 14,081,380 20,662,973 83,614,159 100,551 25,463,830 20,081,472 279,282,835 78617,446 3 101,372 S 23,840,428 $ 44,062,852 3 308,925E08 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DESCRIPTION Revenues Sales tax Federal, state & local government reimbursements Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Other revenues Interest Total revenues Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services Office lease & utilities General administrative expenditures Total administration Programs/projects Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services General projects Highway engineering Highway construction Highway right of way/land Rail engineering Rail construction Rail right of way TUMF engineering TUMF construction TUMF right of way Local streets & roads Regional arterial Special studies FSP towing Commuter assistance Property management Motorist assistance Rail operations & maintenance STA distributions Specialized transit Planning & programming services Total programs/projects Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay Debt service Principal Interest Arbitrage rebate tax Cost of issuance Total debt service Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Payment to escrow agent Total financing sources/uses Net change in fund balances Fund balance July 1, 2005 Fund balance December 31, 2005 w..w,. ainVinwia,ron.,m®s., auas.M QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 2ND QUARTER FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/05 BUDGET $ 144,629,700 43,608,200 45,825,000 8,055,752 5,453,600 247,572,252 1,608,000 98,500 1,068,200 375,000 1,128,200 ACTUAL REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT UTILIZATION $ 55,293,663 $ (89,336,037) 38% 1,272,627 (42,335,573) 3% 20,575,872 (25,249,128) 45% 2,730,631 (5,325,121) 34% 2,192,714 (3,260,886) 40% 82,065,507 (165,506,745) 33% 762,887 845,113 47% 32,049 66,451 33% 457,603 610,597 43% 185,350 189,650 49% 642,799 - 485,401 57% 4,277,900 2,080,688 ' 2,197,212 .49% 2,087,500 1,472,300 1,672,785 3,190,200 30,871,000 26,720,800 55,572,700 7,660,000 2,089,000 5,050,000 26,125,385 13,097,500 26,120,000 49,465,500 8,569,900 1,671,600 1,430,980 2,765,000 95,300 2,275,144 6,587,900 5,617,000 5,086,500 43,300 285,337,294 904,309 1,183,191 558,880 913,420 684,157 988,628 923,411 2,266,789 1,734,549 29,136,451 2,175,890 24,544,910 640,118 54,932,582 99,195 7,560,805 220,227 1,868,773 31,811 5,018,189 2,442,250 23,683,135 13,097,500 2,298,146 23,821,854 18,811,074 30,654,426 4,008,881 4,561,019 531,222 1,140,378 557,104 873,876 1,098,340 1,666,660 34,185 61,115 200,542 2,074,602 3,009,691 3,578,209 2,078,290 3,538,710 2,347,394 2,739,106 14,518 28,782 45,404,184 239,933,110 43% 38% 41% 29 % 6% 8% 1% 1% 11% 1% 9% 0% 9% 38% 47% 32% 39% 40% 36% 9% 46% 37% 46%- 34% 16% 1,161,400 955,673 205,727 82% 855,000 155,517 699,483 18% 28,669,500 8,345,200 400,000 37,414,700 329,046,294 (81,474,042) - 28,669,500 0% 3,806,472 4,538,728 46% 0% 400,000 0% 3,806,472 33,608,228 10% 52,402,534 276,643,760 16% 29,662,973 111,137,015 -36% 46,551,700 17,265,249 (29,286,451) 37% 46,551,700 17,265,249 29286451. 37% 55,000,000 - (55,000,000) 0% - 0% 55,000,000 (55,000,000) 0% (26,474,042) 29,662,973 56,137,015 -112% 230,537,100 - 279,262,635 48,725,535 121%. $ 204,063,058 $ 308,925,608 $ 104,862,550 151% 74 • AGENDA ITEM 7G • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority , Report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2005. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the second quarter ended December 31, 2005 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at December 31, 2005 is $370,765. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of December 31, 2005. Agenda Item 7G 75 CONSULTANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2005 SCAG Advanced Marketing MHV Enterprises, Inc. AMOUNTUSED - Less retum of remaining contract value due to expiration: AMOUNT USED, net of adjustments AMOUNT REMAINING through December 31, 2005 Tows ReabreFDeMorst SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ORIGINAL CONTRACT REMAINING DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT Amendment It 1 for travel demand analysis Commuter assistance mall -house fulfillment Amendment # 3 software development Construction lay down yard Theresia Trevino Prepared by Reviewed by •Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the second quarter. 76 $500,000.00 12,235.00 25,000.00 24,000.00 129,235.00 0.00 129,235.00 E370,765.00 0.00 25,00/3.00 23,031.25 84,948.89 12,235.00 0.00 968.75 )4- 44,286.11 AGENDA ITEM 7H • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C0119MISS/ON DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2005. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 14, 2004 the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". Subsequently, the Commission requested that the interfund loan activity be reported on a quarterly basis. The attached details all interfund loan activity through December 31, 2005. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of. December 31, 2005 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report Agenda Item 7H 77 Date of Loan April 2, 2003 March 4, 2004 Total • Riverside County Transportation Commission Interfund Loan Activity Report For 2nd quarter ended December 31, 2005 Amount Maturity of Loan Date Lending Fund Borrowing Fund $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) Purpose of Loan Advance to make repairs and improvements to Railroad Canyon Road 275,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 Assistance (226) Widening/Animal Crossing Project $ 575,000 78 Date Commission Approved March 12, 2003 December 10, 2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita; Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement No. 99-31-001-01 (Caltrans Agreement No. 8-1120 A/1), Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 50252, Between Caltrans and the Commission for the State Route 74 Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 99-31-001-01 (Caltrans Agreement No. 8-1120 A/1), Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 50252, with Caltrans to extend the agreement period for the State Route (SR) 74 project from December 31, 2005 to December 31, 2007; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission and Caltrans entered into an agreement which provides the terms and conditions for the delivery of the SR 74 improvement project between 7`h Street in the city of Perris to just east of Interstate 15. The project is currently under construction and has experienced significant delays due to the wet winter of 2004-05 and utility relocation issues. The agreement ended on December 31, 2005. Caltrans District 08 transmitted an amendment to the agreement to extend the term of the SR 74 project agreement to RCTC on December 16, 2005. This amendment will extend the term of the agreement from December 30, 2005 to December 31, 2007. The term of the agreement is the only change. Staff recommends Commission approval of Agreement No. 99-31-001-01 (Caltrans Agreement No. 8-1120 A/1). Attachment: Agreement No. 99-31-001-01 Agenda Item 71 79 Agreement No. 99-31-001-01 08-Riv-74-KP 32.40/41.5 (PM 20.14/25.8) SR 74 from Wasson Canyon Rd To 7t° Street in the City of Perris 08303 - 464111 (Phase II) District Agreement No 8-1120 A/1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT, entered into on December 30, 2005, is between the STATE of CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE," and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as, "COMMISSION." RECITALS 1. The parties hereto entered into an Agreement (District Agreement 8-1120) on April 21, 2000, said Agreement defining the terms and conditions of a project to perform roadwork and installing signals and safety lighting on State Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris, referred to herein as "PROJECT." 2. It has been determined that PROJECT will not be constructed prior to the termination date of said Agreement. IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. The termination date specified in Section III, Article 27 of the original Agreement shall now be December 31, 2007 instead of December 31, 2005. 2. The other terms and conditions of said Agreement (District Agreement 8-1120) shall remain in full force and effect. 3. This Amendment No. 1 to Agreement is hereby deemed to be part of District Agreement 8-1120. 180 District Agreement No. 8-1120 A/1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WILL KEMPTON By: Director ERIC HALEY Executive Director By: MICHAEL A. PEROVICH District Director CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: By: District Budget Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE: By: Attorney, Department of Transportation CERTIFIED AS TO PROCEDURE: By: Accounting Administrator 281 By: Legal Council BEST, BEST AND KRIEGER • AGENDA ITEM 7J • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement No, 06-66-031-00 Between RCTC and Caltrans for State Route 60 — Valley : Way to Interstate 15 Widening, 60/215 East Junction HOV Connectors, and State Route 91 Green River Road Interchange Improvement Projects and Caltrans MSHCP Responsibilities STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-66-031-00 between RCTC and Caltrans for the State Route 60 — Valley Way to Interstate 15 widening project, the 60/215 East Junction HOV connector project, the State Route 91 Green River Road 'interchange improvement project and Caltrans MSHCP funding commitment; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 23, 2006 special meeting, the Commission authorized the Executive Director to negotiate language for a master agreement with Caltrans for the State Route (SR) 60 — Valley Way to Interstate (I) 15 Widening, 60/215 East Junction HOV connectors, and SR 91 Green River Road interchange improvement projects and Caltrans MSHCP responsibilities. The master agreementconcept was recommended by Caltrans as a way to memorialize all of the actions by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and RCTC in keeping formerly state funded project commitments moving to construction. In essence the attached agreement recognizes and provides for the following: Agenda Item 7J 82 State Route 60 — Valley Way to Interstate 15 Widening RCTC has received a "'letter of no prejudice" from CTC, which can provide future eligibility of RCTC to receive up to $21.0 million reimbursement from the State, should the TCRP loans be repaid. With the bid increase over the budget, RCTC acted on January 23, 2006 to provide upto $16 million of unprogrammed Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds to the completion of this project' through construction. The initial amount provided through this agreement is $12,635,000. The agreement provides for 61 % of these funds ($7,708,000) be made available to the 60/215 East Junction HOV connector project in the 2006 or 2008 STIP. Furthermore additional costs of the project RCTC. chooses to fund will have a 61 % return to RCTC which will be committed to a future eligible Interregional Improvement Project that Caltrans and RCTC agree upon. RCTC will absorb 31 % of all future cost increases to the project. State Route 91 — Green River Interchange Improvement Project RCTC approved $3,114,000 of Regional TUMF funds and $10,898,000 of Commercial Paper funds to fund this project and Caltrans will re -program $10,062,000 of IIP funds to the 60/215 East Junction project. A cooperative agreement specifically for the SR 91 Green River Road interchange improvement project is also on the February 8, 2006 agenda. The agreement will allow Caltrans to solicit bids to construct the project. Any costs overand above the current project estimate will be shared by Caltrans (72%) and RCTC (28%) and the master agreement documents this arrangement. Caltrans MSHCP Commitments Caltrans has. committed $5.250 million of IIP funds to the acquisition of MSHCP lands to meet the requirement of 3,000 acres as identified as mitigation for all existing freeways in western Riverside County. The base arrangement was an 80%/20% split between RCTC and Caltrans to underwrite the cost of purchasing 3,000 aces. The original estimate was $32 million RCTC and $8 million. Caltrans. This budget has been revised to have Caltrans provide $5.250 million for the purchase of the properties. RCTC is working with the western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency in acquiring appropriate lands when opportunities come up. The master agreement documents the transfer of Caltrans commitments for MSHCP lands to the construction of the 60/215 East Junction HOV connector project. Agenda Item 7J 83 60/215 East Junction HOV Connector Project The master agreement identifies the following amounts of IIP funds moved from the SR 60 ($7.708 million + $5.421 million), SR 91 — Green River Road 010.062 million) and Ca!trans MSCHP ($5.250 million) commitments for a total established IIP funding through CTC AB 3090 actions and RCTC commitments of $28.441 million. Attachment: Agreement No. 06-66-031-00 Agenda Item 7J 84 RCTC Agreement No. 06-66-031-00 08-RIV-60,91,215, Other Various District Agreement No. 08-1299 MASTER FUNDING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON , 2006, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE"; and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as "RCTC". RECITALS 1. STATE and RCTC, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code sections 114 and 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State Highways within RCTC's jurisdiction. STATE and RCTC wish to utilize this Master Funding Agreement to memorialize their collective understanding of the relevant funding history of two exiting projects and the terms and conditions for immediate and future funding of the following four projects: • RIV-60, Valley Way to I-15, EA 354801, is referred to herein as RIV-60: 0 Past funding actions by RCTC and STATE for RIV-60 are included in Exhibit A, attached and made a part of this Agreement. 0 The project has been environmentally cleared, 'designed and advertised by Caltrans. TCRP funds were used for the work to -date. 0 Bids were opened Jan 2006. Additional funding of approximately $12,635,000 is needed to award the construction contract. 85 Agreement No. _08-1299 • RIV-91, Green River, EA 45661, is referred to herein as RIV-91: 0 Funding actions by RCTC and STATE for RIV-91 are included in Exhibit B, attached and made a part of this Agreement. 0 RIV-91 has been environmentally cleared, and designed by Caltrans. A cooperative agreement for Construction is drafted but is pending the execution of this Agreement and the project specific cooperative agreement. RIV-91 will then be ready to advertise. 0 As recent trends indicate, the bid opening may disclose bids that are higher than the final estimate and the volatility of material prices may affect the ultimate cost of the project. • RIV-60/215, East Junction HOV connector project, EA 44931, is referred to herein as EAST JUNCTION: 0 EAST JUNCTION is a future project. Construction is not yet programmed. 0 EAST JUNCTION is identified by RCTC as the replacement project for the AB 3090 STIP amendments 04S-018, March 2005, and 04S-066, June 2005. 0 EAST JUNCTION will be the focus of the HP funding commitments of this agreement. • The Westem Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan, is referred to herein as MSHCP. 0 MSHCP provides for mitigation of impacts of covered activities within State Highway Right of Way. 0 STATE commitment to MSHCP is documented in the MSHCP Implementation Agreement executed July 15, 2003. 0 STATE commitment requires the acquisition of 3000 acres as mitigation for covered activities. The original cost estimates for acquisition are documented in a Project Study Report dated December 15, 2003. RCTC(RIP or other sources) and STATE(HP) estimated funding for acquisition, estimated at $40,000,000 was $32,000,000 and $8,000,000 respectively. 0 A Supplemental Project Study Report dated May 20, 2004 revised IIF funding from $8,000,000 to $5,250,000. 3. There is a previous cooperative agreements on RIV-60, agreement 08-1219, and one amendment, agreement 08-1219A-1 4. In the event of inconsistencies, this Agreement supersedes any prior Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to projects. - page 28 8- Agreement No. _08-1299 5. It is noted that the next opportunity for programming IIP funds, unless an opportunity arises in the adoption of the 2006 STIP, is the 2008 STIP. SECTION I RCTC AGREES: 1. For RIV-60: 0 To support a supplemental funds request of $12,635,000 funded with RIP funds from RCTC's un-programmed reserve to allow award of the construction contract. 0 To fund any further cost increases in an identical fashion. 2. For RIV-91: 0 To fund the project using a commercial paper program and/or eligible local Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Any commercial paper funds used for the project will then be retired with the use of future Measure A funds. 0 To be responsible for initiating a STIP amendment, if RCTC chooses to pursue one, to amend the AB 3090 arrangement of STIP amendment 04S-066 to reflect any changes in RCTC funding contributions to RIV-91. 3. For MSHCP: These actions fulfill IIP commitments to acquisition of 3000 acres: SECTION II STATE AGREES: 1. For the RIV-60: 0 To submit a supplemental funds request to the CTC for $12,635,000 to allow award of the construction contract. 2. For EAST JUNCTION: 0 To program $7,708,000 in IIP funds to EAST JUNCTION or other IIP eligible project within Riverside County in the 2006 or 2008 STIP. This amount represents the IIP share (61%) of the $12,635,000 cost increase on RIV-60. - Page tol 8- Agreement No. _08-1299 0 To program $5,421,000 in IIP funds to EAST JUNCTION in the 2006 STIP. This amount represents the IIP share (61%) of the RIV-60 AB 3090 Replacement project. 0 To program in the 2006 or 2008 STIP, IIP funds equivalent to a 61 % share of any future cost increase necessary for the completion of RIV-60 to EAST JUNCTION, or other IIP eligible project within Riverside County to be named later. 0 To program $10,062,000 of IIP funds to EAST JUNCTION in the 2006 STIP. This amount represents the IIP share (72%) to the RIV-91 AB 3090 Replacement project. 0 To program in the 2006 or 2008 STIP, IIP funds equivalent to a 72% share of any future cost increase necessary for the completion of RIV-91to EAST JUNCTION, or other IIP eligible project within Riverside County to be named later. 0 To program $5,250,000 in IIP funds to EAST JUNCTION in the 2006 STIP. This amount represents the IIP funding commitment to MSHCP. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. STATE's contractual obligations are subject to Annual State Budget Act authority, the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, and the allocation of funds by the CTC. 2. The State and RCTC will cooperatively work together to obtain STIP amendments necessary to secure State's share of current and future cost increases (per this agreement) that RCTC funds for RIV-91 and Route 60 projects. 3. The IIP commitment to EAST JUNCTION, or any other project named later, is defined by the funding commitments to RIV-60, RIV-91 and MSHCP stated above and is capped at that level. 4. Should the East Junction not require additional funding, then RCTC and STATE will mutually agree upon another priority interregional eligible project and programmed it in a manner agreeable to both parties. 5. The availability of environmental credits in MSHCP originally envisioned for IIP projects has not changed. Each project requires a separate cooperative agreement as appropriate for the completion of work. - Page affg 8- . Agreement No. _08-1299 7. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not party to this Agreement nor is it intended to affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the development, design, or construction of State Highways and public facilities different from the standard of care imposed by law. 8. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, consistent with the indemnification given hereinabove, RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all its officers and employees from any and all claims, costs, suits (including appeals), or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. 9. Neither RCTC nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, consistent with the indemnification given hereinabove, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RCTC from any and all claims, costs, suits (including appeals), or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. 10. l This Agreement may be terminated or provisions contained herein may be altered, changed, or amended by mutual consent of the parties hereto. 11. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made by a formal amendment executed by the parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 12. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Agreement to the contrary, this Agreement shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the construction contract for EAST JUNCTION, or on January 1, 2020, whichever is earlier in time. - Page 13 8- Agreement No. _08-1299 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Director of Transportation By: District Director Approved as to form and procedure: Marion Ashley, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission Approved as to form: Attorney Steven DeBaun, Legal Counsel Department of Transportation Certified as to available funds: District Budget Manager - Page V68- Riverside County Transportation Commission Agreement No. _08-1299 Exhibit A RCTC and State Actions on RIV-60 Sep 2000 State programs $25 million of Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funds on the SR 60 HOV lane project. Dec 2000 State programs $9.785 million of Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds in 2000 STIP. Mar 2001 RCTC approves programming of $3.261 million of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds in the 2002 STIP (as requested by Caltrans to complete funding). Feb 2002 Governor suspends TCR program due to state budget crisis. $21 million of TCR funds on SR 60 HOV are suspended. Oct 2003 RCTC approves $21 million of federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to replace suspended TCR funds. Jul 2004 RCTC approves additional CMAQ funds "up to $5 million' to cover construction cost increases. Aug 2004 Allocation request for $3.261 million of RIP and $9.785 million of IIP funding is denied due to lack of available funds in the STIP. Dec 2004 RCTC approves 1) $8.881 million of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds to replace IIP and RIP construction costs; 2) Entering into an AB 3090 agreement; and 3) Committing future RIP funds on interchanges on the TUMF network as repayment of loan. RCTC also identifies the 60/215 East Junction Connector as the AB 3090 Replacement project. Mar 2005 California Transportation Commission (CTC) approves AB 3090 request (STIP Amendment #045-018). Mar 2005 A Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) (#TL-05-01) is approved by the CTC that commits a $21 million payback to RCTC in the event TCR funding is available in the future. Oct 2005 Final construction estimate reveals $7.840 million shortfall. RCTC approves an additional $3.058 million of RIP funds to cover construction cost increases. State receives approval for an additional $4.782 million of IIP funds to cover construction cost increases. Jan 2006 Bids are opened revealing an additional funding need of approximately $12.635 million in order to award the contract to the low bidder. - Page 7cyr 8- Agreement No. _08-1299 Exhibit B RCTC and State Actions on RIV-91 Jan 2000 State programs $5 million of Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funds on the SR 91/Green River Interchange project. Apr 2002 2002 STIP provides complete funding for SR 91/Green River Interchange. Funding consisting of $15.615 million of IIP funds, $4417 mullion TEA 21 Demonstration funds, and $3.889 million of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds (as requested by Caltrans to complete funding). Aug 2003 'STIP Amendment 02S-097 approves the transfer of $8.550 million of Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds to replace suspended Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funding and construction cost increase. Apr 2004 2004 STIP delays SR 91/Green River Interchange project from fiscal year 2005/06 to 2007/08. May 2004 RCTC approves 1) $13.4 million of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds as a loan to replace IIP and RIP construction costs in order to maintain the construction schedule in fiscal year 2005/06; and 2) repayment of TUMF loan to be repaid by committing future federal funds to TUMF eligible projects (e.g. Mid -County Parkway or Route 79 Realignment). RCTC also identifies the 60/215 East Junction Connector project as the recipient of the replaced RIP and IIP funds. Mar 2005 .RCTC approves additional $1.141 million of TUMF increasing the TUMF loan from $13.4 million to $14.541 mullion to replace suspended TCR funds and construction cost increases. Jun 2005 RCTC approves moving $590,000 of suspended TCR funds from the SR 91/Green River Interchange to the SR 91 Eastbound auxiliary lane project in Orange County reducing the amount of the TUMF loan from $14.541 million to $13.951 million. Jun 2005 California Transportation Commission (CTC) approves an AB 3090 Agreement (STIP Amendment 04S-066) that identifies $13.951 million of RIP and IIP funds to be replaced with TUMF funding. Jan 2006 Based on recent trends, the bid opening for the SR 91/Green River interchange may disclose bids that are higher than the fmal engineers estimate. - Page lig 8- • AGENDA ITEM 7K • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement No. 06-66-032-00 Between RCTC and Caltrans for the State Route 91 Green River Road Interchange Improvement Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ' This item is for the Commission to: 1► Approve Agreement No. 06-66-032-00 with Caltrans for the State Route 91 Green River Road interchange improvement project; and 2► Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 23, 2006 special meeting, the Commission authorized the Executive Director to negotiate language for a master agreement with Caltrans for the State (SR) Route 60 — Valley Way to Interstate (I) 15 Widening, 60l215'East Junction HOV connectors, SR 91 Green River Road interchange improvement, projects and Caltrans MSHCP responsibilities. The master agreement is included on the February 8, 2006 Commission agenda for authorization to execute. This agreement is a project specific cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the SR 91- Green River Road interchange improvement project. A cooperative agreement identifying funding must be in place before Caltrans can solicit construction bids for the project. The funding authorized by the Commission on January 23, 2006 for the SR 91 Green River Road interchange project was $3,114,600 of Regional TUMF and $10,898,400 of commercial paper for a total local commitment of $14,013,000. Agenda Item 7K 93 It is anticipated that there may be further action required by the Commission once Caltrans has received bids for the project. It is important to note that Caltrans will be responsible to fund 72% of additional cost increases for this project through the programming of Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) :funds either to the 60/215 East Junction HOV connector project or another IIP eligible project in Riverside County that is mutually acceptable to Caltrans and RCTC. Attachment: Agreement No. 06-66-032-00 Agenda Item 7K 94 RCTC Agreement No. 06-66-032-00 08-Riv-91-KP R1.0/R2.0 (PM R0.62/R1.24) Widen SR-91 at Green River I.C. Reconstruct Interchange - EA 456610 District Agreement No. 08-1285 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, entered into effective on , 2006, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE," and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as "RCTC." RECITALS 1. STATE and ROTC, pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code sections 114 and 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State highways within the City of Corona and the County of Riverside. 2. STA 1'E and RCTC are also entering into this Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 14529.7(a), which allows a transportation planning agency (with the prior concurrence of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and STATE), to advance a project included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to an earlier fiscal year through the use of its own funds. One or more replacement projects may then be identified and included in the STIP at the originally scheduled fiscal year of the advanced project or other year as determined by the CTC. 3. STATE is authorized to do all acts necessary, convenient or proper for the construction or improvement of all highways under its jurisdiction, possession or control. 4. STATE and RCTC contemplate constructing highway improvements on State Route 91 at the Green River Drive Interchange consisting of replacing the overcrossing bridge, referred to herein as "PROJECT." 95 District Agreement No. 8-1285 5. RCTC, pursuant to Government Code Section 14529.7(a), has requested that the CTC amend the STIP to allow RCTC to advance the construction capital costs of PROJECT in . the amount of $13,951,000 (programmed with $10,062,000 in Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds and $3,889,000 in Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds for future allocation in fiscal year 2007/08) using local (non-State/non-Federal/non-gas tax) funds in fiscal year 2005/2006 and replace it with another project (" REPLACEMENT PROJECT"). 6. CTC approved STIP amendment 04S-066 on July 14, 2005, allowing RCTC to use local (non-State/non-Federal/non-gas tax) funds to advance and complete construction of PROJECT and reprogrammed the $13,951,000 (of which $10,062,000 is IIP funds and $3,3889,000 is RIP funds) for a REPLACEMENT PROJECT for RCTC in fiscal year 2007/08. 7. STATE and RCTC have entered into a Master Funding Agreement, agreement # 08-1299, that, in part, memorializes the collective understanding of the relevant funding history and the immediate and future funding plans for PROJECT. 8. STATE has performed preliminary engineering, obtained environmental clearances, performed all necessary right of way work, and prepared the plans, specifications, and estimate (PS&E) for PROJECT. 9. STATE will advertise, award, and administer the PROJECT construction contract and will be responsible for the actual costs thereof using STIP-IIP funds, estimated to be $2,232,000. 10. STATE and RCTC desire to specify the terms and conditions under which RCTC ,will advance the PROJECT's construction capital costs pursuant to Government Code section 14529.7(a) in order to allow PROJECT to be constructed. SECTION I STATE AGREES 1. To advertise, award, and administer the PROJECT construction contract, and to provide. Resident Engineer, Bridge Representative, material source inspection, independent assurance and specialty testing, and such other construction engineering as may be required for satisfactory completion of PROJECT. These services will be paid for with STATE's STIP-IIP funds, which amount is estimated to be $2,232,000. 2. To constructPROJECT by contract in accordance with plans and specifications of STATE. 3. To establish separate PROJECT accounts to accumulate charges for all costs to be paid by RCTC pursuant to this Agreement. 296 • District Agreement No. 8-1285 4. To submit an initial billing in the amount of $788,000 to RCTC fifteen (15) days prior to STATE's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT. Said initial billing represents RCTC's initial deposit for one (1) month of estimated construction capital costs. 5. As construction of PROJECT proceeds, to use electronic fund transfer procedure to submit to RCTC monthly summaries of charges and detailed statements for actual expenditures for construction. 6. To submit to RCTC a monthly summary listing of charges for PROJECT capital construction costs and, within seven (7) working days thereafter, to submit a detailed invoice with supporting information. Should RCTC fail to make electronic fund transfer payments pursuant to Section II, Article 3, STATE may at its discretion, after notification to RCTC, require all subsequent payments by RCTC to be made as deposits in advance of incurring obligations. For said advanced deposits, STATE shall prepare and submit monthly billing statements for estimated expenditures for construction costs one (1) month in advance to RCTC as construction of PROJECT proceeds. 7. Upon receipt of a notice of invoice discrepancy from RCTC, STATE shall notify RCTC within seven (7) working days if STATE disputes such claim. STATE shall credit undisputed claims to RCTC in its current funding request. Upon final resolution of a disputed claim, STATE shall make the appropriate credit or debit to RCTC's PROJECT account. 8. To submit to RCTC each month a construction progress report which describes the work performed and completed during the reporting period and gives pertinent contract data such as change orders issued, cumulative costs of change orders, progress payments made (reported in dollars), and percentage progress achieved to date, all in accordance with STATE standard accounting practices. 9. To consult with RCTC on all change orders for PROJECT with an estimated cost over $50,000 before implementation except when necessary for the safety of motorists and/or pedestrians or for the protection of property. 10. Upon completion of PROJECT and all work incidental thereto, to furnish RCTC with a detailed statement of the total actual capital costs of construction for PROJECT, including the costs of any contract claims which have been allowed to the construction contractor. STATE thereafter shall refund to RCTC (promptly after completion of STATE's fmal accounting of PROJECT costs) any amount of RCTC's payments STATE is holding after actual costs to be borne by RCTC have been deducted, or to bill RCTC for any additional amount required to complete RCTC's financial obligations pursuant to this Agreement. 11. To maintain all State Highway facilities as constructed within the State Highway right of way under this PROJECT in accordance with the provisions of the freeway agreements and freeway maintenance agreements presently in effect or as may be executed or modified hereafter. 12. To retain, or cause to be retained for audit by RCTC auditors, for a period of three (3) years from date of processing the final detailed statement of PROJECT, all records and accounts relating to construction of PROJECT. 397 SECTION II ROTC AGREES: District Agreement No. 8-1285 1. As required by Government Code section 14529.7(a) and STIP amendment 04S-066, the . $13,951,000 for capital construction costs for PROJECT shall be provided by RCTC in the earlier year to allow for the construction of PROJECT and ensure that PROJECT is deliverable. RCTC shall provide said funds; and, thereby pay for one hundred percent (100%) of the total actual construction capital costs of PROJECT, which amount is estimated to be $18,905,000. Said construction capital costs shall include the cost of State - furnished materials, supplemental work, change orders, and construction contract claims paid to the construction contractor. 2. To deposit with STATE within twenty (20) days of receipt of billing therefore (which billing will be forwarded fifteen (15) days prior to STATE's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT), the amount of $788,000. Said figure represents the initial deposit for one (1) "month of estimated PROJECT construction capital costs. 3. As construction of PROJECT proceeds, to use the electronic fund transfer procedure to make monthly payments to STATE for actual expenditure for construction capital costs. Upon receipt of STATE's monthly summary listing of charges for PROJECT to be paid by RCTC as described in Section I, Articles 4,6,and 7, RCTC will, within three (3) working days, transfer funds electronically (wire) to STATE equal to the amount requested therein. Such electronic transfer of funds shall not be construed as acceptance of said charges. Should RCTC fail to make electronic fund transfer payments within the three-day period, STATE may at its discretion, after notification to RCTC, require all subsequent payments by RCTC to be made as deposits in advance of incurring obligations. RCTC, upon receipt of monthly billing. statements for estimated expenditures, will immediately transfer the funds required to meet costs. 4. Upon receipt of STATE's complete billing with supporting information; RCTC will endeavor to notify STATE in writing within seven (7) working days and no more than thirty (30) days of charges with which RCTC disagrees. '5. To pay for all costs associated with the establishment of electronic fund transfers for RCTC and each outgoing bank wire transfer fee assessed to STATE. 6. To pay STATE after completion of all work and within twenty-five (25) working days after receipt of a detailed statement made upon final accountingof costs therefor, any amount over and above the aforementioned payments required to complete RCTC's financial obligation pursuant to this Agreement. 7. To provide STATE with a certificate of funding which `shall be attached hereto and made a. part of this Agreement. This certificate shall indicate that funds are available and budgeted for payment to STATE and shall be executed by the designated responsible' fiscal officer of 498 District Agreement No. 8-1285 RCTC. 8. STATE's construction contract claims process will be used, with STATE acting as the lead agency in consultation with RCTC. RCTC shall abide by the outcome of said claims process. In the event that arbitration under the provisions of Public Contract Code Section 10240 et seq. results from the contract claims process, STATE will act as lead agency in Arbitration unless otherwise agreed by STATE and RCTC. SECTION III. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the legislature, annual State Budget Act authority, and the allocation of resources by the CTC. 2. All applicable laws, rules and policies relating to the use of Federal funds or State funds shall apply notwithstanding other provisions of this agreement. 3. STATE shall not award a contract to construct PROJECT until receipt of RCTC's required initial deposit. 4. As required by Government Code section 14529.7(a), RCTC shall advance and deliver PROJECT as defined in STIP amendment 04S-066, approved July 14, 2005, or PROJECT as subsequently amended by CTC. Subsequent amendments sought by RCTC (with concurrence of STATE) may include, but are not limited to: a. Revised scope of work that may be completed within the limits of the original financial amount set forth herein; and/or b: Revised financial commitment in order to allow RCTC to fund and thereby all PROJECT to be completed as originally scoped. 5. During the construction of PROJECT, RCTC may, at no cost to STATE, furnish a representative if it so desires. Said representative and STATE's Resident Engineer will cooperate and consult with each other, but the decisions of STATE's Resident Engineer shall prevail as final, binding and conclusive in all matters concerning the PROJECT construction contract. RCTC's representative shall have no dealings with STATE's contractor or with the public or other local agencies without consultation with STATE's Resident Engineer. 6. If any unforeseen hazardous waste sites are encountered during construction of PROJECT such sites will be handled as follows: • HM-1 contamination is defined as that level or type of contamination which State or Federal regulatory control agencies having jurisdiction have determined must be remediated by reason of its mere discovery regardless of whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not. STATE, independent of PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 599 District Agreement No. 8-1285 found within the existing State Highway right of way. STATE will exert every reasonable effort to manage the HM-1 materials with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule. If RCTC wishes to minimize PROJECT delay, RCTC may, independent of PROJECT, fund the cost difference between the STATE HM-1 management action plan and an acceptable alternative plan • HM-2 is defined as that level or type of contamination, which State or Federal regulatory control agencies would have allowed to remain in place if undisturbed, had PROJECT not proceeded. STATE, as implementing agency for construction administration, will be responsible for the appropriate management activities relating to the HM-2 materials, including the manifest. Management of HM-2 is a PROJECT cost. 7. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all material, equipment and appurtenances installed as part of PROJECT will automatically be vested in STATE, and no further agreement will be necessary to transferownership to STATE. 8. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either . party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the construction of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. 9. Neither RCTC nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE, under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction arising under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the ` RCTC and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortuous, contractual, inverse condemnation and other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under this Agreement. 10. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction arising under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortuous, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under this Agreement. 11. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not . incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 12. This agreement shall terminate upon completion of the construction contract for PROJECT or June 30, 2010, which ever is earlier in time. However, the indemnification; audit, claims, and replacement articles shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual consent. 6100 District Agreement No. 8-1285 SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE 7101 District Agreement No. 8-1285 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY Department of Transportation TRANSPORATION COMMISSION WILL KEMPTON By. Director ERIC HALEY Executive Director By: By: MICHAEL A. PEROVICH Legal Council District Director BEST, BEST AND KRIEGER Certified as to funds: By: District Budget Manager Approved as to form and procedure: By: Attorney, Department of Transportation Certified as to procedure: By: Accounting Administrator 8102 AGENDA ITEM 7L • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager E Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director - SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding No. 06-310-017-00 for the Funding and Joint Development of State Highway 111 Improvements within the City of Indio BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 06-310-017-00 for the funding reimbursement of State Highway 111 Jefferson Street to Madison Street improvements within the city of Indio for a total amount not to exceed $3,200,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 1988 Measure A Program includes a state highway element that provides 15% of the Coachella Valley area's Measure A funds to project improvements on State Route (SR) 86 and State Highway (Hwy) 111. At the July 2001 meeting, the Commission approved funding for SR 86 and Hwy 111 projects, as recommended by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) totaling $15.42 million. Subsequently, the Measure A revenue forecast was updated by Ernst & Young in 2001 to support the development of the extension programs. The updated revenue forecast projected a reduced revenue expectation between fiscal year (FY) 2003/04 and FY 2008/09 resulting in a need to realign the program for the SR 86 and Hwy 111 projects with the new revenue forecast. The new revenue forecast for the period is $12.0 million, a difference of $3.42 million in comparison to previously approved project costs. Through meetings with CVAG staff, the CVAG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and Commission staff, project scope ' and cost estimates were refined reducing the projected costs for Tier II projects to $13.8 million. Agenda Item 7L .103 Given the FY 2004/09 revenue projection of $12.0 million, a shortfall of $1.8 million is forecast. CVAG has committed to cover this shortfall in FY 2008/09, if necessary. The CVAG Executive Committee approved this commitment at its March 2003 meeting. An MOU for the fifth of nine projects programmed for funding under the Measure A Tier II SR 86 and Hwy 111 program is being submitted for a total funding authorization of $3,200,000 for the city of Indio's Hwy 111 Jefferson Street to Madison Street project. This MOU is consistent with CVAG's adopted Measure A state highway program of projects and cash flow is attached which was approved ;bythe Commission at the July 9, 2003 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the MOU for the city of Indio, consistent with the approved list of Tier II SR 86 and Hwy 111 project improvements. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $700,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 253 31 81102 P3416 Fiscal Procedures Approved: v14,4,4,7, Date: 1 /23/06 Attachments: 1) Memorandum of Understanding for City of Indio 2) CVAG — State Highway 111 Funding Schedule Agenda Item 7L 104 Agreement No. 06-31-017-00 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN TIIE CITY OF INDIO 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this day of , 2006, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF INDIO ("CITY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax' to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds_ 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements along State Highway 111 with the City of Indio_ 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify for Highway 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. 1 105 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements: This Agreement is intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds to provide funding, design and other services for authorized portions of the Route 111 improvements currently being planned on Highway 111, from Jefferson Street to Madison Street, within the City of Indio (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to initially allocate to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the sum of Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,200,000.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs ("Funding Amount"): It is also understood and agreed that 100% of the proposed improvements will be installed within the existing State right-of-way. Therefore, the Initial Funding Amount represents one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated Total Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2 below. This cost/funding allocation percentage ("Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage") is subject to an adjustment pursuant to Section 3.14.3 below. In addition, the Funding Amount is subject to an adjustment pursuant to section 3.14.5 based upon the final Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage and the final Total Project Cost. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Proiect Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to ROTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or Until June 30, 2009, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's. Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. 2 106 • 3.6 The City's Representative. The City hereby designates Glenn Southard, City Manager, or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility_ The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The City and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and City's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway I I 1 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. Such allocation shall be determined by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage (which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 3.13.3) by the amount of the Total Project Cost, as defined in Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, incurred prior to the date of termination The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the, City of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.10 . Prevailing Wages. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform 3 107 services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its record copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its sub -consultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against clahns ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys ❑ fees, incurred by the City, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC: 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. One party's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the other party or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons, or entities, performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC; in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the City, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to the City caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. 4 108 3.13 Insurance. The City and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs, covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.14 Payment of Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Total Project Cost. The total Project costs ("Total Project Cost') shall include the following items: (1) funds expended by in preparation ofpreliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review, documentation for the Project; (3) all costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) 5 109 construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and ROTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by RCTC and the City towards completion of the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall not include the following items which shall be borne solely by the individual parties without reimbursement: (1) ROTC management costs for Project coordination which are attributed to its total State Highway 111 Project of Measure "A"; (2) City Project coordination costs; (3) City and/or RCTC costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (4) any City and/or RCTC fees attributed to the processing of the Project. 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. The final determination of the appropriate Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made by the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator using the guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, and the best available cost estimate information from the project design engineer. The determination of the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made after the design review process has terminated, but prior to the award of the Project for public contracting purposes. In the event of a disagreement between the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, RCTC's Executive Director and the City Manager shall review the determination and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the City Manager and Executive Director are unable to agree, either party may appeal, in writing; to the RCTC Board. The RCTC Board's determination regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be final. 3.14.4 Payment. RCTC shall pay for all consultant costs as they are incurred and invoiced for design work, right-of-way services and any other services under its responsibilities, which payments shall serve as a credit towards its Funding Amount. ' The City shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under this responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced, which amounts, if appropriate pursuant to Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, shall be applied towards the Total Project Cost. Payment requirements for the City shall include backup documents for all charges requested for reimbursement. 3.14.5 Funding Amount/Adjustment. If the Project is completed before June 30, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator shall meet with the City's Representative within thirty (30) days following the filing of a proper written Notice of Completion of the Project by the City to determine the Funding Amount. This determination shall be made by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage by the Total Project cost. The Total Project Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Project. In the event the Project is not completed by June 30, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator and the City's Representative shall meet to determine the Funding Amount to be allocated up through June 30, 2009. The City shall not be entitled to any funding pursuant to this Agreement after June 30, 2009. If as a result of payments made under Section 3.14.4,`above, either the City of RCTC has paid in excess of its allowable share of the Total Project Cost, the other party shall reimburse said party for the excess within 30 days of the determination and approval of the Funding Amount by 6 110 O the City Representative and RCTC Project Coordinator. 3.14.6 SB 300 Reimbursements. Any SB 300 (Streets & Highways Code Section 2600) reimbursements received from the State for the Project shall be split proportionally according to the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, and credited towards each party's funding of the Total Project Cost. (SB 300 Reimbursement does not apply to this project) 3.14.7 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.8 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project. 3.18 Books and Records.. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall . make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, "officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them: All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City. and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of 111 reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion,transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be govemed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of Indio P.O. Drawer 1788 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92202 ATTN: City Manager RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon, 3'd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties'' understanding concerning the performance of the Services.' 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such 8 112 contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consultant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of. services on the Project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF INDIO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Marion Ashley, Chairman Gene Gilbert, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission 9 113 Eddie Kotin, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Highway 111 Widening Project Project Description: The proposed road widening will be on State Highway 111 from Madison Street to Jefferson Street. Project Scope: This project is for preparation of environmental documentation, Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) and Construction of the road widening of SR-111 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street from 41anes to 61anes. The existing bridge over the storm channel must be widened to 120 feet to accommodate the proposed six lanes and two turning lanes at the intersection of Jefferson Street. The intent of the Project is to mitigate current congestion and operations problems occurring daily along SR-111 highway. The Highway 111 currently operates under heavy delays during peak travel hours. Heavy traffic volumes and short intersection spacing create severe congestion in the morning and afternoon commute hours. The preparation of the necessary initiation documents, environmental clearance, preparation of a utility plan, preparation of rights of way map including legal description and plot map, right of way acquisition services, site plan, construction plans, a cost estimate and specifications to construct a 120 feet six lane road including bridge widening. Traffic signal modification at the intersection of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street and installation of a new traffic signal at intersection of Highway 111 and Shields Road together with center median channelization along Highway 111 are also included in the scope of work. The following services will be provided, as necessary to complete the improvements: 1. Completion ofProjeet development activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Pr eparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statues. 3. All needed right- of- way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. 4. Construction of improvements as shown in attached Exhibit "C" 114 EXHIBIT `B" RESPONSIBILI 1'1ES OF PAR 1"1ES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City with appropriate funding contribution at completion of project or in accordance with the phased reimbursement schedule approved by the Coachella Valley Association of Govemments ("CVAG'). CVAG'sphased reimbursement schedule allocates $700,000 during Fiscal Year 2005/06, $300,000 during Fiscal Year 2006/2007, $300,000 during Fiscal Year 2007/08 and $1,900,000 during fiscal year 2008/09 for eligible project components. RCTC will contribute a maximum of $3,200,000 for the Project. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall Project in conjunction with City ofIndio prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF INDIO SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all Construction Management of the construction activities including survey and material testing. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City as defined in this exhibit maybe changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. 115 1S NOSICIVW O1 1S N0Sb3333f dVW AVM-30-1H0121 44 4 AMH • ,S =—.9 .q--.tt .L xn za'rr1 031N3r0flY HY70311 Gi114Nd k0 038ana 9aRO .ZOt .021 nano ft %VOX' 9 I i.9 .S wa M/ l ONIISIX3 0 0 c y MI 0350d021d z .L£4 OLL I ,L6G .1.1116 I I I ,OLLI ,SELL g (7, 073 z $ M m co 1 to —1 I �. ,09Lt J AAA. t MP8 03SOd011d — = m r. v u) o ,9554 004"6-2 M/21 ONIlSIX3 no., zlinur7. • EXHIBIT "D" Project Schedule: START FINISH Preparation of Environmental Documents April 06 September 06 Acquisition of Right of Way June 06 March 07 Preparation of Plans and Specifications June 06 June 07 Construction of the Improvements July 07 December 07 117 • COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION / 15% STATE HIGHWAY MEASURE "A" FUNDS PROJECTS PROGRAMMED TO RECEIVE 15% STATE HIGHWAY MEASURE "A" FUNDS SCHEDULE FOR RCTC PAYBACK BY FISCAL YEAR 02/03 •08/09 Available Funds per RCTC Plan Lead Project Revised Description Mena = Cost State Route 111 Projects 1- West Cathedral Canyon Channel Bridge CC 1,584,000 1,584,000 2-Jefferson SL to Madison St. IND 3,200,000 3,200,000 3- Simon Dr. to Adams St. LQ 291,507 311,644 4-Adams St. to Jefferson St. LQ 2,433,995 1,8130,835 5- West City Limits to Washington St. LQ 244,616 321,255 8- Magnesia Falls to Fairway *" RM 6,500,000 6,100,000 7- Intersection Improvements @ Lincoln/4th COR 800,000 80,000 8- Left tumlane Q Pierce COR 100,000 100,000 State Route 86 Projects 9- Traffic Signal Q 66th Ave. Total Authorized COR 271,000 271,000 15,425,118 13,828, 534 FY02/03 FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY03/09 "" TOTAL 0 1,600,000 1,800,000 1,900,000 2,100,000 2,200,000 2,400,000 12,000,000 0 100,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 484,000 1,584,000 0 0 300,000 400,000 300,000 300,000 1,900,000 3,200,000. 0 200,000 111,644 0 0 0 0 311,644 0 100.000 100,000 96,101 400,000 500,000 664, 534 1,860,635 0 0 100,000 121,255 100,000 321,255 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 6,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 86356 02,644 0 0 0 271,000 0 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,900,000 2,100,000 2,200,000 4,228,534 13,828,534 "' FY08/09 shortfall from RCTC funds of$1,828,534 will be covered by CVAG TUMF/Measure"A" funds, If necessary """_VAG will advance the City of Rancho Mirage project cost 08,100,000) in accordance with Available Funds per RCTC Plan, from TUMF/Measure "A" funds . RCTC will reimburse CVAG .according to the RCTC Payback by Fiscal Year 02/03-08/09 for the City of Rancho Mirage, shown in the table above CO 1- West Cathedral Canyon Channel Bridge: Thia project Is scheduled to start Design In Feb, Mar of 2003 (4.6 months) Including Environmental, then 2 months advertising followed by 6.8 months construction 2- Jefferson SI. to Madison St. Thle project Is scheduled to start Construction In January 2004. Construction will be completed In 90 days. The cost for Design is $300,000 and construction is $2,300,000 3- Simon Dr. to Adams St 4- Adams St. to Jefferson St - The above two La Cuinta Projects will be In design once the Cily finalizes an agreement with RCTC to secure the reimbursement. Start design in March, April 2003 for 6-8 months, followed by construction for 10-12 months 5- .West City Umliie to Washington SL Project will start once funding la available. 6• Magnesia Fells to Fairway ------Project completed - 7- Intersection Improvements @ Lincoln/4th ---County of Riverside withdrew this project County of Riverside did some Design, Env, S Survey work which cost $80,000. This project needs more money $1.6Million, If there are no funds, county willdrop this project, otherwise they like to proceed with this project. 8- Lek tumlane @ Pierce 9- Traffic Signal 2 66th Ave. The above two County projects are waiting for the money to be available so they can start working on them. • AGENDA ITEM 7M • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding No. 06-31-016-00 for Funding of the Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Interchange BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 06-31-016-00 for the Measure A balance amount for the Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road interchange project programmed for $2,734,000; and 2) Authorized the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road interchange project (formerly Galena Street at Interstate 15 interchange project) is one of the projects included for funding as part of the Job Development Interchange program in the 1989 Measure A program of projects. The amount of funds committed for this project is $5,000.000. In March 1996, an agreement between the County of Riverside (County) and the Commission provided for an exchange of Measure A funds totaling $2,266,000 in receipt of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for this interchange project in order to provide non-federal funds to the State Route (SR) 79 Winchester Road widening project in the city of Temecula. Congestion on SR 79 was severe and worsening. Additionally a new school was being constructed and the highway improvements were needed to provide safety for students traveling to and from the school. Allowing the exchange of funds prevented a two-year delay in construction because of the federal review requirements. The County has made the STP funds available and applied them to the project's design and environmental phase. The construction phase of the project is to start in spring 2006 and the County is hereby requesting the remaining balance of the Measure A commitment totaling $2,734,000. Agenda Item 7M 119 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $2,734,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 222 31 81301 P3013 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \puud;oviliwz,Date: 1 /23/06 Attachment: MOU for Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Interchange Agenda Item 7M 120 • Agreement No. 06-31-016-00 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING OF THE CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT ( FORMER I-15 AND GALENA AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS) Parties and Date. 1.1 This Funding Agreement is executed and entered into this day of 2004, ' by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ("County"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of. Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 Among other things, the Plan allocates funds for the "Interchanges for Local Circulation Improvements" programs (the "Interchange Improvement Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5; The County would like to have constructed certain improvements to the Interstate 15 and Galena Avenue interchange, and has approached RCTC for funding. 2.6 RCTC intends by this Funding Agreement to allocate Interchange Improvement Funds towards construction and construction management. All funding hereunder shall be contingent on securing all necessary environmental approvals. 2.7 RCTC and the County acknowledge that RCTC's original total commitment to the Project had been $5 million. 2.8 RCTC and the County acknowledge that the County elected in 1996 to accept $2.266 million of funds which would have been allocated to the Project for the Route 79 Winchester Road Widening Project instead. RVPUBIHAVIVA.SHANS672999.1 121 2.9 RCTC and the County acknowledge that by accepting the funds described in Section 2.8, the County committed to and will at this time commit $2.266 million dollars of Surface Transportation Program funds allocated to the County for the Project. 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Funding Agreement is intended to allocate funding for authorized portions of the Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Interchange (formerly the Interstate 15 and Galena Avenue Interchange) improvements, which are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Project"). The Project is subject to modification as requested by the County and approved by RCTC, pursuant to Section 3.3. It is understood and agreed that the County shall expend Interchange Improvement Funds only as set forth in this Funding Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Funding Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to allocate for the Project, on the terms and conditions set forth herein and subject to the availability of funds, the maximum sum of two million seven -hundred thirty-four thousand dollars ($2,734,000) (the "Funding Amount"). 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the County and. RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit `B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the County or RCTC may be requested in writing by the County and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative. 3.4 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this Funding Agreement shall be from the date first hereinabove written until the date the County provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.8 or until December 2007, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Funding Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the County's work as it progresses. 3.6 The County's Representative. County's Director of Transportation shall serve as County's Representative and shall have authority to act on behalf of County for all purposes under this Funding Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under County responsibility. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The County represents and maintains that it shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled . in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. RVPUBIHA V I VA.SHANI:1672999.1 2122 i 3.8 Review of Services. The County shall allow RCTC's Representative to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Funding Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. RCTC may, by written notice to the County, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in pint at any time, by giving written notice to the County of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, the County shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Interchange Improvement Funds pursuant to this Funding Agreement. The County may also terminate this Agreement for cause. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination by RCTC or the County, RCTC shall allocate Interchange Improvement Funds towards the Project improvements of specifically identified portions thereof satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. The County shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project costs incurred and Program improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the County of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The County and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The County shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The County shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ROTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from any failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its records copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. The County agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Funding Agreement, including all design and construction activities, due to acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the County or its agents and contracting parties. The County will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures; including reasonable attomeys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the County or its agents and contracting parties. RVPUB\HAVIVA_SHANEl672999.1 3123 3.12.1 Effect of Acceptance. The County shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. RCTC's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the County or any other person or entity working on the Project shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights RCTC may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of such person or entity's performance. Further, the County shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the County's negligent perfonmance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. 3.13 Design/Construction Liability. It is understood and agreed that RCTC shall not be responsible or liable for any damages or liabilities arising out of the design or construction of the Project, and that the County, design consultant(s), contractor(s) or other persons or entities shall be responsible and liable for any such damages. 3.14 Insurance. The County shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their subconsultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the terms of this Funding Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.14.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insureds with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insureds; 3.13.1.2' Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insureds provisions. 3.14.2' Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance o equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.14.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with "a 'limit or not less than $1,000,000.00. Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.14.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits or not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. RVPUB HAVIVA.sHANE672999.1 4124 I 3.15 Payment of Funding Amount. 3.15.1 Payment to County. A. RCTC shall pay up to $2.734 million to the County for construction for the Project. The County shall not be reimbursed for administrative costs in preparing and processing invoices, billings or payments. B. County shall submit to RCTC monthly invoice statements which indicate the date and description of work completed and the costs for the invoicing period. The statement shall describe the work completed since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing period, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. RCTC shall, within thirty-five (35) days of receiving such statements, review the statements and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.15.2 Progress Reports. A Project schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit"C". The County shall submit to RCTC monthly progress reports in reference to the Project schedule. The progress reports shall include lists of current action items and the following information as to each action item:. a completion schedule, including start and completion dates and milestones; a description of the individual or depai fluent responsible for completing, each action; and a narrative description of progress made to date and during the reporting period. 3.16 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, as discussed above in Section 3.12, RCTC shall not be responsible or liable for any damages or liabilities arising out of the design or construction of the Project. 3.17 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make such records available for examination by the other party. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement. 3.18 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.19 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.20 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. RVPUB\HAVIVA.SHANE\672999.1 5125 3.21 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency Transportation Department County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502-1629 Attn: Director of Transportation RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first-class postage prepaid, return receive requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. 3.22 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instruction signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.23 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.24 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Marion Ashley By: Its: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Best, Best & Krieger, LLP County Counsel Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission R VPUB\HAVI VA.SHANE1672999.1 6126 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Project shall be to construct a new interchange 6 lane bridge on Galena between Hamner and Wineville a total of approximately 1 mile and to construct new connecting ramps and extend the connecting roads to Hamner and Wineville. RVPUB\HAVI VA.SHANE1672999.1 Exhibit "A" 127 EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC RESPONSIBILITIES RCTC shall provide funding for the Project, up to the maximums specified elsewhere in this Agreement COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Funding. County shall provide $2.266 million of Surface Transportation Program funds allocated to the County for the Project and additional funding for the Project as necessary. 2. Lead Agency. The County shall be lead agency for all purposes of the Project, including all environmental review. The County understands and agrees that no funding for right-of-way appraisals and negotiations and construction plans, specifications and estimates for the Project shall be made until all environmental review is completed and the Project is approved. 3. Environmental Review/Right-of-Way/Design. The County shall be responsible for coordinating and securing all environmental review necessary to begin and complete the Project. In addition, the County shall be responsible for providing all right-of-way appraisals and negotiation services, as well as preparing all construction plans, specifications and estimates. 4. Administrative Fees. The County shall waive all fees necessary for the processing of this Project, including all' permits, review and environmental fees. RV PUBIHAVI V A.SHANE1672999.1 Exhibit `B" 128 EXHIBIT "C" PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE MILESTONE START PLANS, SPECIFICATION & ESTIMATES JAN. 1998 AND COMPLETE ENVIRONMENTAL i RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION Exhibit "C" RVPUBIHAVIVA.SHANE\672999.1 129 COMPLETE JUN. 2005 AUG.1998 MAR. 2005 APR.2006 SEP.2007 • AGENDA ITEM 7N • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency's Request for Local Transportation Funds for Capital Projects PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION; This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request to reprogram federal and local funds for the purchase of capital equipment; 2) Allocate $111,589 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) reserve funds as the local match to the federal funding contingent upon the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) approval to reprogram the federal funds; and 3) Amend RTA's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to include the capital projects (once approved by FTA). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On an annual basis, the 'Commission allocates local, state and federal funding to public operators based on their capital and operating needs outlined in the SRTPs. For federal funding, capital project implementation occurs after the FTA approves the federal capital grant funding through its Section 5307 program. On a continuing basis, RTA reviews its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to determine if fund balances remain on completed capital projects. As the fund balances accumulate, they are identified for potential reprogramming to another CIP project. At this time, RTA has identified the following fund balances fromvarious completed capital projects: Agenda Item 7N 130 Balance of Funds Grant Project Description Year Federal Match Total Purchase of 40-ft CNG Buses '97,'01; 02 $ 286,348 $ 531 $ 286,879 Purchase of 32-ft CNG Buses '03 2,258 2,258 Purchase of Dial -A -Ride (DAR) Vans '00,'01,'04 107,134 3,588 110,722 Purchase of Mini Vans '04 49,940 "10,229 60,169 Purchase Support Vehicles '00; 03 27,651 - 27,651 COP Payment- Debt Service '00 10,810 2,483 13,293 Presentation Projects '04 2,693 673 3,366 Aerial Mapping Software '04 2,858 714 3,572 Title VI Survey Expenses '04 2,687 672 3,359 Fare Study '04 16,966 4,241 21,207 Geographic Information System (GIS) - '04 989 247 1,236 $ 508,076 $ 25,636 $ 533,712 In order to effectively use the federal funding, RTA has developed a list of new capital projects in which to utilize the $508,076 remaining in federal funds. Some of the new projects have sufficient match to cover the new capital projects, however, for other projects to be implemented, additional match funds are required. The following chart identifies the new capital projects that'RTA is seeking approval for together with a breakdown of local and federal project funding: Project Funding Project Match Project Description Amount Federal Available Match Needed _ Total Total Match Funding Fund Balance: Completed Projects $ 508,076 $ 25,636 $ 25,636 533,712 Recommended Projects , (1) 30-ft CNG Bus 345,500 276,400 , 3 64 afi 0 669,100 345,500 3 Passenger Vans 210,000 157,074 13,817 39,109 52,926 210,000 COP Payment- DS'' 13,513 10,810 2,483 220 2,703 13,513 (2) Support Vehicles 31,600 25,280 6,320 6,320 31,600 Displays 1,500 1,200 300 300 1,500 Training: Mapping S/W 3,572 2,858 714 - 714 3,572 FY2007 Title VI Survey 3,359 2,687 672 - 672 3,359 COA 21,207 16,965 4,242 4,242 21,207 Training: GIS S/W 1,237 989 248 248 1,237 Subtotal $ 631,488 $ 494,263 $ 25,636 $ 111,589 $ 137,225 631,488 Fund Balance After Implementation: 13,813 Agenda Item 7N 131 Commission staff is in support of RTA's request to reprogram the funds and recommends that the additional local match requirement of $111,589 be approved contingent upon FTA's approval to reprogram the federal portion of the funding. Staff is concerned that the age of the grants (dating back to FY 1997) may be a barrier to FTA's approval as federal funds have a shelf life of four years. Staff recommends that upon approval from FTA, the additional local match requirement of $1 1 1,589 be allocated out of RTA's reserves. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: N/A Amount: N/A Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds - Western County Apportionment: RTA's Reserve Balance Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: \141,14_,444,.. Date: 1/11/06 Agenda Item 7N 132 AGENDA ITEM 70 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency's Request for Local Transportation Funds Pending Receipt of Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Section 5307 Funds PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $4,800,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) pending receipt of fiscal year (FY) 2005/06 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds; and 2) Approve the reimbursement of the $4,800,000 in funding upon RTA's receipt of the federal funding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 2005 meeting, the Commission approved a total of $9,323,875 in FTA Section 5307 funds for RTA through the FY 2005/06 Short Range Transit Plan allocation process. Of that amount, $6,989,385 was approved for operating and capitalized preventive maintenance costs. Although RTA has completed data input for the FY 2005/06 federal grant, its request cannot be processed pending finalization of the actual dollar amounts available through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act — A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- LU). Due to the non -receipt of the federal operating funds, RTA is projecting an operating shortfall of $4,800,000 from April 7, 2006 through June 30, 2006. To maintain current operating levels, RTA has requested an advance of LTF funds. There are sufficient Western County LTF funds available to cover this request. If approved, staff recommends that upon RTA's receipt of the federal funding, after an advance payment is made, the Commission will be reimbursed $4,800,000. Agenda Item 70 133 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: N/A Amount: N/A Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds — Western County Apportionment Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ d„:0,1,.uv �o Date: 1 /1 1 /06 Agenda Item 70 134 • AGENDA ITEM 7P • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Western Riverside Council of Governments' Transit Development Study: Request for Funding Participation Oriented PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate an additional $12,500 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to be used as its contribution to expand the Western Riverside Council of Governments' (WRCOG) scope of work to study transit oriented development and amend RTA's FY 2005/06 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect this change; and 2) Allocate $12,500 in LTF planning funds to WRCOG as RCTC's contribution towards the transit oriented development study. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: WRCOG was recently awarded a Community Based Transportation Planning grant from Caltrans to conduct a study for transit oriented development in western Riverside County. As part of the study, WRCOG will conduct survey research on residents' views of growth, land use, and development. The survey results will be used to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about these issues as they pertain to transit. Other key focuses will be on the relative importance western Riverside County residents place on various types of solutions for accommodating growth, including their willingness to support new land use patterns at key locations (i.e. higher -density, mixed use, transit -supportive development along key corridors and nodes). The Caltrans' grant provides $25,000 in funding for a survey sample of approximately 900 western Riverside County residents. Staff from WRCOG believes that a total of $50,000 is needed to conduct a comprehensive, meaningful survey and has requested $12,500 in additional funding from RTA as well as $12,500 from RCTC. If approved, the additional funds will be used to augment the survey sample to include a sub -area focus related to transit development. Agenda Item 7P 135 There are adequate LTF funds available in the western Riverside County apportionment area to cover RTA's request as well as adequate LTF planning funds to cover RCTC's contribution towards the study. Based on discussions with WRCOG's staff, the study should be completed in April 2006. RTA's Board reviewed and approved WRCOG's request at its January 26, 2006 board meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $25,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: Planning: 106-65-86205 Western County Apportionment: 601-62-86101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: weaysitbt,-, Date: 1 /1 1 /06 e Agenda Item 7P 136 • AGENDA ITEM 7Q • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request from Exceed for Measure A Specialized Transit Funds as Match for Fiscal Years 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 Section 5310 Program PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $91,600 in Measure A specialized transit funds to Exceed to provide the required local match for the purchase of ten vehicles; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-26-015-00 with Exceed for $91,600 in Measure A specialized transit funds available in western Riverside County; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Exceed was notified by Ca!trans that it was approved for $458,000 in funding under the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 program for the purchase of ten vehicles identified in Attachment 1. The Section 5310 program provides funding for 80% of the cost of capital projects. Exceed is requesting that the required 20% match ($91,600) be funded from Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds available in western Riverside County. These funds are specifically set aside, on an annual basis, to provide the local match to operators located in western Riverside County participating in the Section 5310 program. Exceed provides transit assistance to disabled adults with developmental disabilities whose primary diagnosis is mental retardation. Although Exceed coordinates its transportation services with the Riverside Transit Agency, its clients have trouble riding mass transportation due to lack of mobility skills as well as the presence of Agenda Item 7Q 137 physical and mental disabilities. If the request for Measure "A" funding is approved, the local match will be placed on deposit directly with Caltrans. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $91,600 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funding: Western Riverside Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 225-26-86103 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Ny.b4,.44v,ilitez , Date: 1 /11 /06 Attachment: Identification of Ten Vehicles Agenda Item 7Q 138 • Exceed Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 Program Fiscal Year Contract No. Quantity Item Description Price Total 2002/03 6402722 1 Accessible Medium Bus $ 56,000 $ 56,000 2002/03 6402722 1 Accessible Modified Van $ 47,000 $ 47,000 Subtotal: $ 103,000 2003/04 6403882 3 Accessible Minivans $ 42,000 $ 126,000 2003/04 6403882 4 Accessible Small Buses $ 44,000 $ 176,000 2003/04 6403882 1 Accessible Medium Bus $ 53,000 $ 53,000 Subtotal: $ 355,000 Total: $ 458,000 20% Local Match Requirement $ 91,600 139 AGENDA ITEM 7R RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the fiscal year (FY) 2005/06 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Palm Springs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of local 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 its 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 also required to submit an annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The Measure A plan for the city of Palm Springs (City) was approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2005 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City is requesting to amend its fiscal year (FY) 2005/06 Measure A plan to cancel three (3) projects carried over from FY 2004/05, cancel another project (#8 SB 821 sidewalk project) in the FY 2005/06 plan, and increase the Measure A funding for the Mesquite Avenue improvement project programmed in FY 2005/06 by $150,670. As noted in its letter, the City has invested a lot of time into this project, the neighborhood has been promised delivery of this project for several years, and the City Council has determined that this is a top priority project. Attachment: Letter from the City of Palm Springs with Revised FY 2006 Schedule Agenda Item 7R 140 75202 JR City of Palm Springs Department of Public Works and Engineering 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Waf • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: 060) 323-8253 • Fax: (760) 322-8360 • Web: www-ci.palfn-springs.ca.us Mr. Jerry Rivera Measure "A" Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3ra Floor Riverside, CA 92502-22083 : Fiscal Year 2006-2070, S-Year Measure "A" Local Street & Road Program Proposed City of Palm Springs Annual 5-Year Measure "A" Plan (Fiscal Year 2005/2006 - 200912010) - REVISED . Dear Mr: Rivera: I am enclosing the first revision to the Measure A lists for funds that are listed on the "2004/2005 continued to 2005/2006" Table and the "2005/2006"•Table for Fiscal Year 2006-2010 5-Year Plan. The purpose of this request is to switch the listed funds from the identified projects to fund the -"Mesquite Avenue Improvement Project", which currently has Measure A funding identified for it. The project had a final engineer's estimate of $1.7 Million. In December we solicited construction blds and at bid opening received one bid from Yeager Skanska, inc., for almost $4 Million. Due to the fact that the City has invested a lot of time into this project, and the neighborhood has been promised delivery of this project for several years, the City Council has determined that this is a top • priority project, and a number of other funding sources were used to come up with the additional funding necessary to award the construction contract. . .It is our intent to cancel the Measure A funded projects listed on the two Tables, and transfer $150,670 of Measure A funds into the existing Measure A project account for the Mesquite Avenue Improvement Project. ' Please review the information and let me know if you have any further questions. I can be reached j1 at (760) 323-8253, ext. 8744.. f Sincerely, l r }t1 ---(44{.(/�+1 Marcus L. Fuller; P.E., P.L.S. Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, • enc cc: Thomas Jason, Assistant City Manager David Baraldan, Director of Public WMrs/City Engineer Craig Graves, Director of Fiinance?reasrxer Past Office.Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 141:... 4 10 4 aped 6wpun} pefoad pelleoueo i6noail OL9`044$ peseenul 'o lmot ieueuo .yelol 'ems .QZti`E99$ 504'689`£$ 900Z/900Z Ol 03/1141LN00 500ZW003 7V101 *OZtr'£99$ SO4'699'£$ sluawanoadwl e6euleuQ pue edeospuei laaes (swellim of ice M pese w a) sluaenadwl anuany allnbaeW g SC1Nfld 1S00 3d.. 103fO21d -_ S11W1 iavvv �i ON .H.321f1S`d3tN ib`l01 1.09f 021d 1+11L311 :ol Bulpun} Gut la}sue.ji OL9'0414 OL9`01s4$ 900Z/900Z'01 03nN11N00 SOQZl1790Z11/101 S90' 4L$ 990°1•L$ 6umeo ogleki sainsoja lowiS eINS snug uortue0 ueiput LIPoN 174 Z94'Z9$ Z94'Z9$ 6u1wle0 ou.184 sloa(oad /tte}eS NMI, •Z4 £5b`21 £54'3 suorte0ylp01N Ieu6IS olileJl s,.uatuanoaciutl mold 01118.11 6 SQNfId .v.32�f1SYEW 1900 l'd101 3c1 103P02id S11Wt'1/3WHN.10�P021d I. .ON, 1131.1 :sloafoad 6uuaw1lol ail leoue0 (03SIAMI) 900Z1900Z o} penuliuoo 900Z/VOOZ aeaA mom weaBoad speoa +g laaalS leool eansem ae0A 9 `0 40Z-900Z aeaA leosld 900Z '9 Denim(• :Kea (Jaaupu31w0 Joluag Uelind l snoien bq) aee46u3 ifi10/s)yoM 01I4nd }o „imam 'uepteJe8 T pineQ :Aq pandaid sBuudS wied }o ltl!0 utouaBy • _.YNb21OONd..SONrld-71V0011$V» 3NnsvaIN - NOISSIININOO N011V.LNOdSNtI:11 A1Nnoo 3aISZ13AIN N • I. ;o 4 aged leelge1900Z/500z uaeA leosid pue 900MOZ:ot g00Z/400Z aeeA'weld, penunuoo uo meg sraafad sepnloul) tulpun; peroad pepaoueo y6n0ly; 0L9'OS 4$ Aq peseaioul Bul pun};oefoid 's;uaumoiduq enueny e4nbsa w uo; Bu 1pun; pa road y einsem paslnal le;o1. tuipun} we cud pegsou= yOn0.1 00D'049 A ` g pasea�ou! OOEE6l$ de leto; leulBua 'le .00£`£OZS SO I.699`£9 900Z/SOOZ aet% leosid Td10.1. .00S'£OZ9 901•'699'et s;uawanaldwl a6eu1 is pus adeospuei pan -- (sua og/A o; ReM pasep) s;uaulanoadull enueny aambsapj t ` SaNfld .V.911SV3VY 1S00 1V1.01 3dA1109rOMd S11WIl/31WN 103f021d 'ON nHl1 M :01 Bulpun; ay; 000`01$ 000'014 900V900Z ma). leasld lylol 000`0 IS 000'04Z uo rulsuoa Alemapl8 (90/90 Ad) Pefold IllemeNS 4Z9 EIS '9 awns .V„ 32lf1SV3W 1S00 1V101 3dA1103f 021d SlInnaravN _Loa ON W311 :;oafoad 64%011 N; laoue3• (0391A3V) 900Z/900Z asaA Jeosld wea60ad speoa pain pool „y„ aanseally ne g `0 L0Z-900Z aet% IOasid 900Z 'S A+enuep :aaea {aeaul6u3 Imo aoluag '�alhd 7 snoaeW iCq) Jaaul6u3 4113/�pM d[Ignd P0.10;oana 'uelNglea 'r..pinea :Aq paaedard s6uudatum:1)o A1I0 :doua6y wdap_oad saNnd.-r000a_«d„ aansv3uu NOISSIWW00 NOI1'd1Z1OdSNVII1 A1Nn00 3019N3A121 • AGENDA ITEM 7S • i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Programs Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail` .program update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Passenger Trips Riverside Line 5,200 5,000 a 4,800 4,600 0 4,400 4,200 4,000 p� O� • • h p� ph ph ph Oh .ph oh 0� O� �a� � `g`a� PQ�a� ` NI•�Jc" �J PJ� 5°� �°�°4 pec; Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside line for the month of December' averaged 4,248 which is down 543 (-11 %) from the month of November 'due to holidays and vacation. The Riverside line 'has ,averaged an overall decrease of (-4%)from a year ago December 2004. Agenda Item 7S 144 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line 100 m 95 c • 90 L.)• 85 80 a 75 70 oIx Ah oh o� oh o4' ph o<0 o`0 oCo oh oh o4 06j �a� Fro �ac PQ�a\ �J� �J\ PJc-5 5� °6. , Ocj Month December on time performance averaged 97% inbound (+3% from November) and 94% outbound (-2% from November). There were 11 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of December. The following are the primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other Riverside Line On Time Performance Follow Up The Riverside line's on time performance improved due to better dispatching from the Union Pacific Railroad. The Riverside line on time performance was 71 % in April and has dramatically increased since then and has maintained a level near or above 95% for the past 5 months. In addition, the Union Pacific is planning a major track replacement program that has the potential to impact train service for about 20 service days over a four month period from February to May of 2006. Metrolink has developed a plan to accommodate the passengers with bus bridges and additional cars ,on parallel service along the 91 line. There will also be a discounted monthly pass for Riverside line users once the project is complete. Agenda Item 7S 145 Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 4,400 4,200 m 4,000 C 3,800 H c 3,600 It 3,400 3,200 3,000 ob` 00 c4r) 0 00 00 00 00 O) O0 00 00 Oe° �a� (< sec P�� �a� �J� �J� \, 5eSr •36`r e Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) line for the month of December averaged 3,652 a decrease of 439 riders or (-1 1 %) change from the month of November due to holidays and vacations. The IEOC line has increased 16% from a year ago December 2004. On Time Performance (95%-Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line 100 — 95 ram 90 d 85 d 80 -- n_ 75 70 r Off` O� O� O� O�`' O� 00 O< O� 00 O� O( Oy 4QG o ImFe' �my V9 4<z' ��c �J` PJ,5eg O °J OeG Month December on time performance averaged 90% southbound (-5% from November) and 90% northbound (-3% from November). There were 24 delays greater than five minutes during the month of December. Agenda Item 7S 146 The primary causes are: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other TOTAL 91 Line Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,200 2,000 c 1,800 f- 1,600 w 0 * 1,400 1,200 1,000 o° SP o`' o`' 'D 0° �m� Q�� �a� 1 17 3 o) oh 50 o<0 Oh o`' o� P �J� �J� eO � j o, eG 5 � O Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 line for the month of December averaged 1,801 a decrease of 228 riders or (-11 %) from the month of November due to holidays and vacations. The 91 line has averaged an increase of 9% from a year ago December 2004. On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 100 95 m 90 85 80 75 - 70 ,r0IN kph �O {ph c h 3 O \h SS Agenda Item 7S Month 147 • December on time performance averaged 87% inbound (-2%,from November) and 89% outbound (-4% from November). There were 23 delays greater than five minutes during the month of December. The primary causes are: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other TOTAL Riverside County Station Boardings Information 0% 74 % 0% 26%. 2005 RCTC Stations Passenger Distribution West Corona, 246,10% North Main Corona, 720, 29°/a La Sierra, 543, 22% Riverside, 776, 32% Pedley,183, 7% Agenda Item 7S 148 2005 Holiday Toy Train Riverside Station Events The 2005 Holiday Toy Train events at the RCTC Metrolink Stations were a 'great success. From estimates taken by Metrolink personnel, there were 2,850 people attending the four events, over 600 more than the previous year. The Pedley Station increased from 540 in 2004 to780 in 2005, and was over three times the 250 participants in 2003. The La Sierra Station attendance grew from 680 to 950 . and was seven times better than the 125 in 2003. The North Main Corona Station increased from 350 in 2003 to 710 in 2004, and was at 820 this year. The Downtown Riverside Station attendance remained consistent at 300, due to limited activities at the site and competition from other local events. Many local groups and agencies helped make the events so successful.: Riverside Public Utilities participated with an information booth at the La Sierra Station. The Fender Kids Rock Band entertained the crowds at North Main Corona. The Corona Fire Department really made a big difference with the antique fire engine and provided food and refreshments at the site. The fire engines with their mascots Sparky and Smokey the Bear helped entertain everyone at the other stations. . The annual Firefighters Spark of Love Toy Drive had a terrific response again this year. The events filled" multiple vans and pickups full of toys at some of the stations. The RCTC sponsored school contest was also successful and brought many school kids to the events. The number . of donations was very encouraging and many local kids will have a brighter holiday because of the events. The Metrolink Train Show with Santa along with additional station activities of music, snow, and food made for a very enjoyable evening. The extensive advertising efforts and support from the Press Enterprise continued to make a big difference in increasing . awareness. Agenda Item 7S 149 • AGENDA ITEM 7T • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Public Affairs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to`. 1) Approve the following bill positions: SB 1165 (Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga) — SUPPORT AB 1838,1Oropeza, D-Long Beach► - SUPPORT; and 2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION State Update: Governor Unveils Growth Plan and Budget The first few days of January have proven to be full of action in Sacramento with Governor Schwarzenegger's announcements of a multi -billion dollar infrastructure bond and investment plan as well as the annual release of theproposedbudget. After years of neglect from the state, transportation efforts are poised to receive significant investment. During his State of the State address, the .Governor unveiled his Strategic Growth Plan which is a plan to invest $222 billion in the state's infrastructure through a combination of bond revenue, private sector investment and funding from other sources such as the federal government. The plan includes funding for transportation, schools, `water infrastructure and even correctional facilities. A total of $12 billion in state bond funding is slated for transportation and should go before voters in June of this year and in November 2008. The proposal would allocate the $12 billion in the following manner. Agenda Item 7T 150 • Highways $5.6 billion • Technology (ITS) $ .2 billion • Rail and Transit $ .7 billion • Trade Infrastructure $4.0 billion • Safety and Preservation $1.5 billion Within these categories are a number of specific projects that would benefit Riverside County. The plan allocates $265 million for the widening of Interstate (I) 215 between State Route (SR) 60 and 1-15, $65 million for technology upgrades throughout the Inland region to support real time traffic monitoring, $6.1 million for park and ride facilities, $250 million for HOV or managed lanes on the'1-15 in San Bernardino County and $320 million for improvements to SR 91 in Orange County. Although the 1-15 and SR 91 projects are located outside of Riverside County, both facilities are depended on by Riverside County residents. Moreover the future release of the state's goods movement plan will likely allocate a significant amount of the $4 billion for trade infrastructure to projects in the Inland Area. The goods movement plan will also depend on private sector financing and should result in the, state's largest commitment to grade crossings and truck lanes. What is especially striking about the Governor's proposal is its recognition of transportation needs in the Inland Empire. Excluding the trade infrastructure component of the plan, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties receive $887 million for specific projects. This compares to $320 million for Orange County, $670 million for San Diego and Imperial Counties and $1.2 billion for Los Angeles County. The State of the State announcement was the first draft of the overall plan and will now become part of the legislative process — a process that must move swiftly in order to make the June ballot. Two identical bills have been introduced that contain the Governor's plan. They are SB 1165 authored by local Senator Bob Dutton and AB 1838 by Assembly Transportation Chair, Jenny Oropeza. Senator Dutton is taking a strong leadership role on this effort and recently hosted a meeting in Rancho Cucamonga with Senator Torlakson that involved the business community and included participation from RCTC, SANBAG, Metrolink and local governments. The legislation also includes authorization for the use of design build contracting and the ability to enter into arrangements with private sector entities to finance and lease transportation facilities. These provisions are similar to other legislation introduced earlier in the session and supported by the Commission. Agenda Item 7T 151 • Staff suggests a SUPPORT position on SB 1165 and AB 1838, although it will be critical to monitor and participate in the legislative process as these bills advance in the Legislature. The bills will require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature and it will be especially important to obtain approval in time for the June election since some counties fear that a bond measure in November could jeopardize their efforts to pass local, half -cent sales tax programs. It will also be important to monitor how the Governor's proposal will affect other infrastructure bond bills such as SB 1024 introduced by Senator Perata and AB 1783 by Assembly Speaker Nunez. Budget Released — Proposition 42 Funded and More On January 10, Governor Schwarzenegger introduced his proposed state budget for fiscal year 2006/07. For the second year in a row the budget fully funds Proposition 42 and this year, the budget includes $920 million for the early repayment of previously -diverted transportation funds. Over the next few months, the overall budget and the $920 million repayment will be the subject of intense negotiations in the Legislature. One item that will remain constant is the decision to fund Proposition 42. Currently, there is a clause that allows the Governor and the Legislature to suspend the Proposition when the state faces budget shortfalls. The process called out in the law requires the Governor to initiate the suspension with the issuance of a proclamation detailing the need for the suspension. Instead the Governor has indicated his support in funding Proposition 42 and a suspension cannot be initiated by the Legislature. Moreover, in his unveiling of the infrastructure bond plan, the Governor expressed his support for legislation to further strengthen Proposition 42. Federal Update The first month of the year in Washington has been especially newsworthy with ethics investigations, Supreme Court confirmation hearings, a fight for the post of House Majority Leader and the ongoing debate over the war. Although transportation has received scant attention, one item of interest is the possibility of a technical corrections bill to SAFETEA-LU that might be introduced in February. Southern California interests are working with Congressional leaders to clarify wording regarding a funding earmark for the Alameda Corridor East. Staff will return with details on a potential corrections bill once it is introduced. Attachment: Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 7T 152 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION — UPDA rf; .�'�'i: '.4„ .I � ,a 11 , r j ,_. � 4a �r .A P jar;II �� �, d d �Azi�Ittit STATE LEGISLATION AB 426 (Bogh) This bill would require Caltrans to convert all HOV lanes on state highways in Riverside County that currently operate on a 24-hour basis into part-time HOV lanes that operate as mixed -flow lanes except during peak periods, subject to any required approvals of the federal government. 5/25/05 - In Committee on Appropriations. Set second hearing. Held under submission. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 4/13/05 AB 453 (Benoit) This bill would extend the time limit that is currently in place under state law for state funding of railroad grade crossings. 9/22/05 — Signed by Governor. SUPPORT 4/13/05 AB 850 (Canciamilla) This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to enter into comprehensive development franchise agreements with public and private entities for specified types of transportation projects subject to certain requirements and conditions. The bill would require a franchise agreement to allow the department to acquire by condemnation or negotiation the financial value of a competing toll facility if it opens a competitive state facility in the same corridor. 5/25/05 — In Committee on Appropriations. Set second hearing. Held under submission. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS 4/13/05 AB 1266 (Niello) This bill would generally authorize the Department of Transportation to award contracts for projects using the design -sequencing contract method, if certain requirements are met. 5/25/05 — In Committee on Appropriations. Set second hearing. Held under submission. SUPPORT 4/13/05 AB 1699 (Frommer) This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to authorize certain transportation authorities to use a design -build process for bidding on one highway construction project within the jurisdiction of the applicable transportation authority. 7/5/05 Hearing postponed by Senate Trans & Housing Committee. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 5/1 1 /05 AB 1714 (Plescia) This bill would require the construction of the more affordable skyway structure and would limit the use of additional toll revenue to seismic retrofit projects such as the Bay Bridge repair. The state's responsibility of $300 million will be for the demolition of the old bridge. The rest of the money needed to complete the new bridge would have to be raised from a combination of increased tolls, local bond sales and existing state and federal highway appropriations. AB 1714 reflects the Governor's position on the Bridge issue. 5/25/05 Re -referred to Committee on Appropriations. Governor's Plan later adopted. SUPPORT 5/1 1 /05 ACA 4 (Plescia) This measure woulddelete the provision authorizing the Governor and the Legislature to suspend the transfer of revenues from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund for a fiscal year during a fiscal emergency, specific to Proposition 42. Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee on 1/9/06 and referred to Appropriations. SUPPORT 1 /12/05 153 SUPPORT cl 3/18/05 ACA 9 (Bogh) This measure would change the vote requirement to 4/5 of the Approved by Assembly membership of each house of the Legislature in order to enact a Transportation stature suspending in whole or in part the transfer of motor vehicle Committee on 1 /9/06 tax revenue from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment and referred to Fund, specific to Proposition 42. Appropriations. ACA 11 (Oropeza) This measure would delete the provisions authorizing the transfer of Approved by Assembly revenues from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Transportation Fund to be suspended. The measure would authorize the Legislature Committee on 1 /9/06 to loan funds in the Transportation Investment Fund to the General and referred to Fund or any other state fund or account, or to local agencies, under Appropriations. conditions that are similar to conditions applicable to loans of revenues under Article XIX of the California Constitution, and would require interest to be paid on a loan that is not repaid within the same fiscal year as it was made, specific to Proposition 42. SUPPORT 3/18/05 ACA 22 (LaMalfa) Proposed Constitutional Amendment would severely restrict the use Referred to Judiciary of eminent domain. Committee SEEK AMENDMENTS 9/14/05 ACA X 1 4 (Keene) This measure would, on and after July 1, 2006, prohibit the transfer Amended. Re -referred of funds from a special fund to the General Fund as a loan, with to Committee on specified exceptions. Any funds that were transferred prior to that Budget Process date from a special fund for the purpose of making a loan to the 4/12/05. General Fund and that have not been repaid would be required to be repaid over the next 15 years. In exchange, Proposition 42 would be permanently protected in the future. WATCH 4/13/05 SB 371 (Torlakson) This bill would allow state, regional, and local transportation Set for Hearing in authorities to try design -build contracting under specific criteria and Senate Appropriations for these projects to be audited to determine the success or failure of on 1/19/06 use of design -build by these transportation entities. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 5/1 1 /05 SB 427 (Hollingsworth) Originally, this bill would exempt from CEQA requirements the Set for hearing in construction of any overpass, onramp, or offramp that is built on an Senate Appropriations existing State Department of Transportation (CAL -TRANS) right -of- on 1/17/06. way. It is has now been amended to make changes to the environmental scoping process and additional amendments are likely. SUPPORT 4/13/05 SB 561 (Runner & Torlakson) - This bill would provide additional transportation options in allowing for Read second time. toll facilities, but does so in a manner that eliminates the inherent Amended. Re -referred to Senate Committee unfairness to the public from the imposition of non -compete clauses. on Appropriations 5/24/05. SUPPORT 7/13/05 154 • • • SUPPORT 4/13/05 SB 705 (Runner) This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to .contract using the design -build process for the design and construction of transportation projects. The bill would require the director of the department to establish a prequalification and selection process. Set for hearing 4/19/05 in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. Hearing canceled at request of author. SB 1024 Torlakson Perata) & This bill would enact the Safe Facilities, Improved Mobility, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2005 to authorize $7,688,000,000 in state general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including the seismic retrofit of toll bridges, levee improvements, restoration of Proposition 42 transportation funds, port infrastructure and security projects, trade corridors of significance, emissions reduction projects, environmental enhancement projects, and transportation needs in cities, counties, and cities and counties that meet certain requirements relative to provisions of housing needs in their communities, subject to voter approval. 9/8/05 In Senate Appropriations Committee for third reading. Read third time and amended. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS 12/14/05 SCA 15 (McClintock) Proposed Constitutional Amendment would severely restrict the use of eminent domain. 8/30/05 Set first hearing. Failed passage in Committee 3-2. Reconsideration granted. SEEK AMENDMENTS 9/14/05 _ FEDERAL LEGISLATION H.R. 3 (Young) The U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 3 authored by Alaska Republican Don Young which provides a six -year renewal of the Federal Transportation Act. Known as SAFETEA-LU (Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), H.R. 3 authorizes the expenditure of $284 billion over six years on federal transportation programs and also sets a number of federal transportation policies. Signed by the President on Aug. 10 SUPPORT 4/13/05 155 • AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director; SUBJECT: Approval of the List of Pre -qualified Firms and Award of Agreement Nos: 06-66-026-00,06-66-027-00, and 06-66-028-00 for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION_ This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the list of pre -qualified firms for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor services: a) KPMG b) PB Consult in association with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. and Lamont Financial c) Nossaman Guthner'Knox Elliot LLP 2) Award Agreement Nos. 06-66-026-00, 06-66-027-00 and 06-66-028-00 to the respective firms identified for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor services; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the November 9, 2005 Commission meeting, the release of a request for qualifications (RFQ) for Strategic Partnership Advisor services was approved. The assistance of experts, knowledgeable in the area of transportation economics, federal transportation funding tools and corporate equity investment evaluation, is critical to the success of our Strategic Public/Private Partnership program. It is likely that the 10-year delivery plan will identify a significant gap between funding readily available through conventional governmental finance techniques and project needs. Private and public financing, including the development of strategic public/private partnerships, could bridge a significant portion of the funding gap in order to construct the needed projects. Agenda Item 8 156 A Notice Inviting Statements of Qualifications was issued on November 10, 2005. The RFQ was sent to selected. firms (i) with known experience and history evaluating private investments in transportation improvements or (ii) who have expressed interest in providing infrastructure financing services and was posted on the Commission's website. On December 7, 2005, the Commission received six statements of qualifications. Interviews had not been anticipated and upon review of the statements, staff determined that interviews were not necessary due to the superiority of the two proposals and the complimentary strengths of the recommended firms. It was also expected that a pool of advisors would be established from which services could be provided on an on -call basis. The advisor pool has depth and breadth of expertise and knowledge in public/private partnerships and innovative financing. Upon approvalof these selections, staff will proceed immediately to begin program and project assessment. The assessments will include development and selection of potential projects suitable for private involvement and/or federal innovative finance programs, as well as development of draft program and procurement policies.: Based on anticipated scopes of services and the hourly rates proposed, staff estimates the cost of development and implementation of a comprehensive program to be approximately $500,000 this fiscal year (FY). That estimate will be refined as a result of the scoping sessions with the advisor teams. A budget adjustment for $350,000 is required, as $150,000 is already included in FY 2005/06 budget. The objective is to bring information forward. for policy review at the Commission workshop. Staff recommends approval of the selected firms. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Ye No Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $150,000 _$350,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Ad ustment: Yes $350,000 GLA No.: A303-66-65302 P8100 80 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \444,4;4 Date: 01/31/2006. Agenda Item 8 157 • AGENDA ITEM 9 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Status Report on Route Productivity, Capital Projects, 2009 Measure A Allocation and Transportation Development Act Funding TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:' This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the Capital Project Status reports; 2) Direct staff to have the transit operators add to future quarterly capital grant reports, the number of projects completed (per quarter), the dollar amount associated with those projects as well "as whether any funds were deobligated and/or lapsed (by fiscal year); 3) Direct staff to work with transit operators to revise future reports to reflect projects that are partially funded, fully funded, demonstration projects, etc. (Revised report format will be developed collaboratively with transit operator and RCTC staffs); and 4) Adopt the timeline for the 2009 Measure A Allocation and Transportation Development Act funding discussion.''' BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The following two significant recommendations were made in RCTC's fiscal year (FY) 2000/01 - FY 2002/03 Triennial Performance Audit: 1) Create a vision of transit service for Riverside County; and 2) Establish a transit committee to provide policy direction.` At the May 2004 .Commissioners' retreat, Ordinance No. 04-003' was adopted creating the Transit Policy Committee (TPC) to discuss, develop and submit policy direction relating to transit matters for Commission action. At that meeting, the following seven policy issues were identified: Agenda Item 9 158 POLICY ISSUE STATUS 1) State -mandated farebox recovery ratio policy (AB 813) Completed 2) Route productivity In Process 3) Reserves: What, if any, is appropriate level? Completed 4) Funds allocated, unclaimed: Tied to operator? Return to apportionment area? Completed 5) Accrual of interest on allocated, unclaimed funds No longer an issue' 6) Timeliness of spending allocated capital funds In Process 7) Allocation of 2009 Measure A funds: western Riverside Discussion to commence in 2006 As the above chart indicates, much progress has been made on the seven policy items identified in May 2004 as three of the items have been completed, two are "in process", and one is no longer applicable. Only one, the allocation of Measure A funds for western Riverside County, has not yet been addressed. The intent of this agenda item is to memorialize the various recommendations made at .the September 2005 Commission meeting, provide an update of progress made since the last TPC meeting as well as to seek TPC policy direction on the remaining policy issues, which consist of the following items: 1) Route productivity; 2) . Timeliness of spending capital funds; and 3) Allocation of 2009 Measure A & TDA Funds: western Riverside County. The following status report is provided on the remaining three policy issues: Route Productivity As defined by Section 99244 of the Public Utilities Code (PUC), the Commission must annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements which could lower the cost of transit operations. While reviewing and analyzing individual route productivity should remain with the transit operators and their governing boards, the Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that transit operators are utilizing Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds efficiently and effectively. Historically, Riverside County transit operators utilize TDA funding for well over 50% of their operating and capital budgets. ' The issue of allocating interest to unclaimed funds is no longer relevant as unclaimed funds (due to lower than anticipated operating or capital costs) are returned to the area's apportionment balance as a result of policy action taken on October 18, 2004. Agenda Item 9 159 • To be eligible for TDA funding, transit operators must maintain a minimum ratio of fare revenues to operating costs of at least 10% for non -urbanized areas and 20% for urbanized areas (PUC Section 99268.2). As noted in earlier staff reports, some transit operators have had difficulty in meeting the State -mandate over the past several years. Staff believes that the recently reaffirmed Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) will assist transit operators, Commission staff and policy makers in reviewing productivity, which is one of the tools that can be utilized in helping to meet the State's requirements for receiving, TDA funding. The PIP, which will be fully implemented in FY 2006/07, establishes performance targets that transit operators should strive to meet when developing their Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP). The following table provides an overview of the PIP performance indicators: Performance Indicator Method for Establishing Performance Targets 1) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Increases no more than CPI 2) Farebox Recovery Ratio2 Per; PUC requirements and RCTC policy 3►. Subsidy per Passenger +/- 15% variance 4) Subsidy per Passenger Mile +/- 15% variance 5) Subsidy per Revenue Hour +/- 15% variance 6) Subsidy per Revenue Mile +/- 15% variance 7) Passengers per Revenue Hour- +/- 15% variance 8) Passengers per Revenue Mile +/- 15% variance 9) Ridership Growth Goal: 2% minimum growth annually (Applies to Commuter Rail only) 10) Passenger Miles per Revenue Car Goal: 30 passengers per revenue car mile (Applies to Commuter Rail only) Targeted Performance Indicators will be used by transit operators as they prepare their SRTPs. The first two performance targets (Operating Cost per Revenue Hour and Farebox Recovery Ratio) are mandatory per PUC requirements. Transit operators will prepare their agency's SRTP to meet a minimum of three of the remaining eight performance targets. z RCTC's Commuter Rail Program has a 20% State -mandated farebox recovery ratio; however, program staff has established a goal of 40% for farebox recovery. Agenda Item 9 160 As detailed in the following table, based on actual numbers, comparing FY 2000/01 to FY 2003/04, systemwide ridership increased 9%, operating expenses increased 23% and passenger fares increased 27% over the four year period. Between FY 2003/04 (actual) and FY 2005/06 (projected), ridership is projected to increase 5%, total operating expenses are projected to increase by 14% and passenger fares are projected to increase by 18%. SUMMARY FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual). , ss ,• FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005,06. (Projected) der+j�P 13,118,470 13,497,981 13,628,071 14,350,070 14,834,180 _ . 15,046,6218. Total Operating Expenses $ 64,664,218 $ 68,528,817 $ 74,283,099 $ 79,814,594 .€'. - $ 86,694,285 $ 91209,459 Passenger Fares $ 16,801,860 $ 17,715,747 $ 20,015,834 $ 21,415,373 ,_. $ 22.630,226 $ 25,211,675 COMMUTER RAIL FY2000/01 (Actual) FY 200002 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) t . +. aee e=... FY 2004/05_ (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) .: ,. e... Rdershp - 1,262,239 1,935,535 Z248,269 2,458,920 :. 2514,952 2765,418 Total Operating Expenses $ 17,799,900 $ 18658,100 $ - 20,695,600 $ 20,868,500 _r $ 23,149,900. $ 23,958,933 - Passenger Fares $ - 8,515,271 $ 9,190,911 $ 11,294,288 $ 12104,730 � �;� $ 13,0/31,400 $ 13,768,400 , PUBLIC Bus FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) w ,.i FY2004/05 Darts. ' (Prcject¢d) - FY 2005/06 (Ruled%) sa _ s a, Mde+slup - - 11,2.56231. 11,562,446 11,379,802 11,891,15o 12,319,228 12,281.230, Total Cperating Expenses $ 46,864,318 $ 49,6-0,717 $ 53,587,499 $ 58,946,094 ` t $. 63,544,3% .... $ 9,549.426 . $ 67,250,526 $ 11,443275 Passenger Faces $ 8,285,589 $ 8,524,836 $ 8,721.516 $ 9,310,643 Increase in operating. costs was identified in the FY 2000/01 = FY 2002/03 Triennial Performance Audit, and will, in all likelihood, be identified as an on -going concern in the next performance audit which is scheduled to be completed in FY 2006/07. Computerized Tracking Although transit operators submit ridership and operating costs data to the Commission on a quarterly basis, a recommendation was made in RCTC's performance audit to strengthen analytical capabilities to oversee operator performance. Further, it was recommended that: "RCTC should develop a computer -based program that displays useful interpretations of performance data. The program should be able to directly interface with the information submitted on a quarterly basis by each operator, and provide linkages to previous data to form trends." Agenda Item 9 161 At the September 2005, Commission meeting, staff was directed to pursue the development of a computer -based program to assist with data analysis. Since that time, various meetings have been held with transit operators as well as a representative of TransTrack, a computer tracking program which Commission staff believe will improve the data collection capabilities and reduce :the time commitment that is currently required for data analysis. Most recently, the Commission gave approval to enter into .an agreement to implement the TransTrack system; contract negotiations are underway and the first kick-off meetings are scheduled to occur in February 2006. It is staff's belief that the computerized tracking program will provide the analytical tools necessary to assist with the issue of productivity as it relates to the disparity between ridership and operating costs. Capita/ Projects Riverside County transit operators continue to have a number of outstanding/remaining capital projects that have been fully funded with local, state and federal funds. As a condition of funding, transit operators submit capital grant progress reports to the Commission on a quarterly basis. The reports include the total project costs for each capital project line item together with milestonedata detailing the progress made in delivering the capital project(s). In September 2004, staff from the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside together with staff from the Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and RCTC's Commuter Rail program provided an oral presentation of open capital projects covering FY 1996/97 through FY 2002/03. Staff from PVVTA provided a written report. As a result of the September TPC meeting, direction was given that any changes in project completion dates, extending the capital project's time line, that may negatively impact the grant funding, be submitted to the TPC for further consideration. Transit agency staff stated that the 81 projects (as of September 2004) will be completed by December 2006. The following chart provides an overview, by agency, of open capital projects. For comparison purposes, a summary of the "Number of Open Projects" is provided for September 2004 and December 2005: Agenda Item 9 162 FY 1996/97 through FY 2002/03 Apportionment Area/Agency Number of Open Projects Funds Allocated for Identified Capital Projects Balance of UnspentFunds 9/2004 /2/20053 WESTERN RIVERSIDE Banning 3 1 $ 7,000 $ 4,662 Beaumont 9 8 $198,000 $108,135 Corona 3 1 $260,000 $ 32,714 Riverside 2 2 $700,000 $18,839 RTA 32 24 $5,262,867 $5,262,867 RCTC's Commuter Rail 11 6 $24,478,322 $12,257,971 Subtotal: WRC 60 42 $30,906,190 $17,685,188 COACHELLA VALLEY SunLine Transit Agency 21 10 $3,833,357 $1,714,951 Subtotal: CV 21 10 $3,833,357 $1,714,951 PALO VERDE VALLEY PVVTA 0 0 $ -0- $ -0- Subtotal: PVVTA 0 0 $ -0- $ -0- $19,400,139 TOTAL 814 52 $34,739,547 While significant headway has been made in closing out some of the old grants, much work still needs to be done. On an on -going basis, additional capital grant funds are allocated to the transit operators through the SRTP process. The following chart highlights the, open capital grants covering FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06: 3 Commuter Rail's report is through September, 2005. Metrolink compiles quarterly grant information; however, December's information was not available at time of developing this staff report. " In October, 2004, transit agency staff reported that all of the 81 projects will be completed no later than December, 2006. Agenda Item 9 163 FY 2003/04 - FY 2005/06 Apportionment Area/Agency No. of Open Projects Funds Allocated for Identified Capital Projects Balance of Unspent funds WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Banning 9 $164,206 $137,980 Beaumont 8 $233,000 $223,000 Corona 10 $1,733,000 $1,609,001 Riverside 8 $1,360,000 $1,073,111 RTA 53 $22,596,966 $22,596,966 RCTC's Commuter Rail 15 $14,556,614 $14,578,113 Subtotal: WRC 103 $40,643,786 $40,218,171 COACHELLA VALLEY SunLine Transit Agency 21 $15,200,293 $15,101,271 Subtotal: CV 21 $15,200,293 $15,101,271 PALO VERDE VALLEY PVVTA 9 $277,970 $150,950 Subtotal: PVVTA 9 $277,970 $150,950 TOTAL 133 $56,122,049 $55,470,392 In summary, there are a total of 185 open capital projects for FY 1996/97 through FY 2005/06. (Attachment 1 consists of a list of projects by transit agency)'. Staff estimates that an additional 50 projects will be identified in the FY 2006/07 SRTP cycle.` Given the number of open capital line items, the age of the projects, the change in anticipated completion dates as well as the funding commitment, staff recommends that transit operators be directed to add to their quarterly capital grant reports, the number of projects completed (per quarter), the dollar amount associated with those projects as well as whether any funds were deobligated and/or lapsed: In addition, Commission staff and transit operator staffs will revise futurecapital reports to reflect projects that are partially funded; fully funded, etc., to provide a better understanding of the capital projects report. It is staff's belief that this additional information will be beneficial in further strengthening the Commission's capital grant tracking program as part of our fiduciary oversight responsibilities. Measure A and TDA Formula Funding The remaining policy issue that needs to be addressed by the TPC is the allocation of Measure A funding for four program areas in western Riverside County as well as fund allocation in the Coachella' Valley. To assist with this discussion, Agenda Item 9 164 Attachment 2 is an excerpt from Ordinance No. 02-001, the Measure A Expenditure Plan for '2009 through 2039, which identifies $390M available in transit funding for commuter rail expansion, implementation of intercity bus services and the continuance and expansion of programs to assist the elderly, disabled and commuters in western Riverside County. The prevailing policy question is the dollar amount which should be set aside for each of the following program areas: S390,000,000: ➢ Commuter Rail ➢ Intercity Bus ➢ Note: Maximum of $255 million available for Commuter Rail and Intercity Bus Specialized Transit ($85 mil/ion minimum threshold) Commuter Assistance ($50 million — minimum threshold) In addition to the $390 million set aside for western Riverside. County, approximately $188 million in Measure A funding has been identified .for transit services in Coachella Valleys for public transit and specialized transportation services. The current TDA funding formula for western Riverside County is 78% for bus and 22% for commuter rail. When the 78%/22% funding formula was approved, a timeline was established to review the funding formula in FY 2007/08 with proposed changes, if any, to be implemented in FY 2009/10. From a policy perspective, staff believes it is beneficial to review both the Measure A and TDA funding formula simultaneously. This process should further assist the Commission in developing a vision of transit service for Riverside County. Attachment 3 is an overview, by apportionment area, of the 2009 Measure A funding and current TDA funding split (western Riverside County). Attachment 4 is a proposed timeline to assist with the funding discussion. Staff is requesting that the TPC approve the timeline. Attachments: 1) Capital Grant Reports 2) Measure A Expenditure Plan for 2009 through 2039 3) 2009 Measure A Funding and Current TDA Funding Split 4) Proposed Timeline 5 Ordinance states "Fifteen percent (15%) of the Measure A revenues will be used to improve and expand public transit and specialized transportation services" in Coachella Valley. Agenda Item 9 165 City of Banning CAPITAL GRANT STATUS REPORT As of December 30, 2005 Project Description Bus Stop Amenities Total: FY 2002/03 Bus Slop Amenities Exterior Bus Graphics Total: FY 2003104 Bus Stop Amenities Four Post Hoist Shop Equipment Driveline Retarders (2) Total: FY 2004/05 Dial -A -Ride Van Radio System Onboard Information Centers (5) Total: FY 2005/06 Allocation of Funds Allocation Year Mea "A' LTF 2002/03 2003/04 2003/04 Fund Status Balance of Balance of Funds with Funds with STA Federal Total Operator RCTC $ 7,000 $ $ 7,000 $ $ 5,000 $ 12,006 $ 17,006 $ 7,000 $ 4,662 $ $ - $ 7,000 $ 4,662 $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ $ 12,006 $ 8,994 $ $ $ 17,006 $ 13,994 $ 2004/05 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 § 5,000 $ 2004/05 $ 13,000 $ 13,000 $ 1,526 $ 2004/05 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 2,260 $ 2004/05 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ $ - $ $ 41,000 $ $ 41,000 $ 17,786 $ Balance of Funds with FTA $ - $ 2005/06 $ 292 $ 64,708 $ 65,000 $ 292 $ 64,708 $ 2005/06 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ - $ 40,000 $ 2005/06 § 1,200 E 1,200 $ - E 1,200 $ $ 292 $ 41,200 $ 64,708 $ $ 106,200 $ 292 $ 105,908 $ Grand Total: $ 292 $ 48,200 $ 122,714 $ - $ 171,206 $ 36,734 $ 105,908 $ - Previously Reported Completion Dates Anticipated Completion Dates Dec05 Dec-05 Sep-05 ATTACHMENT Project Status/Milestone Jun-06 Feb-06 Amenity standards adopted, Mar-06 benches, waste containers, schedule holders ordered, Jun-06 items installed Jun-06 See above Feb-06 Jan-06 Last coach sent to paint shop Dec-05 Jun-06 Oct-05 Feb-06 Oct-05 Feb-06 Sep-05 Feb-06 n/a n/a n/a See above Hoist delivered, contractor to install in January 2006 Final equipment purchases will be made in January 2006. Purchase Order issued. First retarder will be installed in January 2006. Aug-06 Vehicle will be ordered in January 2006. Jun-06 Feb-06 Equipment spedfied, Mar-06 Bid released, Apr-06 Equipment ordered, Jun-06 Equipment installed Feb-05 Will order as soon as FY 05 audit is complete and FY 06 claim form submitted. 166 City of Beaumont Capital Grant T Ili Status Report as of December 31, 2005 i ATTACHMENT 1 Allocation of Funds Fund Status Allocation # 00-2 Project Description Bus Shelters Allocation Year Mea "A" LTF STA Federal Total -- Balance of Funds with Operator -- Balance of Funds with RCTC - - Balance of Funds with FTA - - Anticipated Completion Dates Project Status/Milestone Footnote 1 Pass Transit Graphics 1999/00 $125,000 $125,000 $67,556 $0 On Hold On Hold for 1999/00 $30,000 $30,000 $11,034 $0 July-06 Joint Agency Formation Totals FY 1999100 $155,000 $155,000 $78,590 $0 75% Completed -Buses Rotated out 02-2 Building Improvements of service when possible T $5,000 $5,000 $1,507 $0 Joint Agency Formation Footnote 2 Buildings Improvements 03-4 Removal 2002/03 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $0 April-06 Project for and Replacement of Exterior Bus Graphics 2002/03 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 July-06 Yard Lighting in Progress 75% Completed -Buses Rotated out Footnote 2 Building Improvements 2002/03 $3,000 of service when possible Footnote 3 GPS System for DAR 2002/03 $3,000 $3,000 $0 April-06 Project for Yard Lighting in Progress Buses $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 September-06 Evaluating Vendors Footnote 4 On Video Systems and Operation -Board System, 2- 2002/03 $18,000 $18,000 $8,038 $0 July-06 Costs Three two-way Radio S T $36,000 $2,000 $38,000 $28,038 $0 camera systems-2 radio systems 05-1 Shop/Miscellaneous 05-2 Bus Equipment Equip 2004/05 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 June-O6 Purchase Footnote 5 Fixed Route 2004/OS $5,000 $5,000 $1,591 $5,000 June-06 Purchase Service Tools as needed Medium duty 2004/05 $150,000 Equipment as needed 28 passenger bus $150,000 $150 ,000 On Hold Will be reprogrammed Footnote 6 DAR 16 Passenger � 05 4 OOffice Computer Bus 2004/05 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Completed Bus has been S T $212,000 $212,000 $212 000 evaluated at this time 06-1 Purchase 06-2 Coin Counter Purchase Office Copier 2005/06 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 October-06 Evaluating 06-3 Bus Equipment: 2005/ $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 6-Jun Reviewing of coin counter systems CNG Fire 2005/066 $10,000, copier needs at this time S Buses purchased -Systems and installed buses Totals FY2005/06 -two Grand $10,000 $11,000 $21,000 $11,000 Total Footnotes: $0 $413,000 $18,000 $0 $431,000 $108,135 $223,000 $0 1. Reprogrammed from Bus Shelter 5. Reprogrammed from $200,000 for DAR Buses Approved 12-21 Funds -Approved by Commission 4-14-04 2. Reprogrammed to Replace Broken 04 6. Reprogrammed from $200,000 for DAR Buses to Purchase DAR Concrete in Yard FY 2002-03 + $3,000 Below to replace broken Concrete = $5,000 2. Reprogrammed from Employee one Bus $50,000 Parking Project FY 2002/03 ($8,000) to Replace Broken Concrete in Yard $3,000 3. Reprogrammed from Employee Parking Project FY 2002/03 ($8,000) $5,000 for GPS System 4. Reprogrammed from Staff Vehicle FY 20002/03 $18,000 for Video System and Two -Way Radios and Dispatch Radio System AGENCY NAME: CITY OF CORONA CAPITAL GRANT STATUS REPORT As of December 31, 2005 Project Description DAR Vehicles (4) Replacement Total - FY 2002/2003 DAR Vehicles (2) Replacement MDC/AVL for 14 Vehicles Total - FY 2003/2004 Fixed route vehicles (2) replacement Total - FY 20042005 Replacement/upgrade of miscellaneous equipment Bus stop amenities (pads, benches, signs and shelters) 3 Fixed Route replacement vehicles 2 Dial a Ride replacement vehicles Securily Cameras for 14 revenue vehicles Dispatch Software and interface to MDC/AVL Supplemental funding for 2 fixed route replacement vehicles Total - FY 20052006 Total (All Fiscal Years) Allocation of Funds Allocation Year Mea'A" LTF STA FY 2002/2003 $44,200 $99,200 FY 2003/2004 $11,000 $13,000 FY 2003/2004 $20,000 $11,000 $33,000 FY 2004/2005 FY 2005/2006 FY 2005/2006 FY 20052006 FY 20052006 FY 20052006 FY 20052006 FY 2005/2006 Federal Total $215,800 $260,000 $215,800 $260,000 $116,000 $80,000 $196,000 $140,000 $100,000 $240,000 Fund Status Balance of Funds with Operator $2.743 $20,000 $22,793 $56,000 $269,000 $325,000 $56,000 $56,000 $269,000 $325,000 $56,060 $30,000 $30,000 $25,000 $25,000 $102,000 $496,000 $600,000 $24,000 $116,000 $140,000 $19,600 $78,400 $96,000 $200,000 $200,000 $75,000 $75,000 $177,0110 5298,600 $692,400 51,188,000 $232,200 $387,600 51,373,200 $1,993,000 $78,743 Note: There are no changes in anticipated completion dates Pam the October 2004 status report. Balance of Funds with RCTC $32,714 $13,258 $80,000 $93,258 Balance of Funds with FTA Anticipated Completion Dates Project Status/Milestone $32,714 June 2006 Project Is complete except pending FTA balance transfer to FY 03/04 project MDC/AVL for 14 Vehicles June 2006 June 2006 $269,000 May 2006 $289,000 $30,000 $25,000 $102,000 $498,000 $24,000 $116,000 $19,600 $78,400 $200,000 $75,000 5475,600 5692,400 $475,800 $1,087,372 ATTACHMENT Project is complete except pending FTA balance transfer to FY 03/04 project MDC/AVL for 14 Vehicles Project award in February 2006 Buses ordered in November 2005 June 2006 On -going Project June 2006 On -going Project October 2006 October 2006 June 2006 June 2006 May 2006 Order Buses in March 2006 Order Buses In March 2006 Project award in February 2006 Project award in February 2006 Buses ordered in November 2005 168 PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL GRANT PROJECTS OUTSTANDING THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 Allocation of Funds Anticipated Balance of Funds Balance of Funds Balance of Funds Completion Project Description Allocation Year Mea "A" LTF STA Federal Total with Operator with RCTC with FTA Dates Lease Costs- Sunline Vehicle FY 2003/04 $ - $ 55,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ 60,000 $ 414 $ $ - 6/2004 Hurricane Fueler FY 2003/04 $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ 12,100 $ $ - 6/2004 Total: FY 2003/04: $ - $115,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ 120,000 $ 12,514 $ $ Lease Costs- Van FY 2004/05 $ - $ - $ 1,530 $ - $ 1,530 $ 1,530 $ $ - 6/2005 Lease Costs- Fixed Route FY 2004/05 $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ $ - 6/2005 Computer Software FY 2004/05 $ - $ - $ 8,200 $ - $ 8,200 $ 489 $ $ 6/2005 Total: FY 2004/05: $ - $ - $ 19,730 $ - $ 19,730 $ 2,019 $ $ - Vehicle Replacement FY 2005/06 $ - $ - $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ $ 85,000 $ - 6/2006 Computer Software FY 2005/06 $ - $ - $ 8,240 $ 8,240 $ 6,417 $ $ - 6/2006 Bus Stop Amenities FY 2005/06 $ - $ 20,000 $ - $ 20,000 $ $ 20,000 6/2006 CNG Fueling Station FY 2005/06 $ $ 25,000 $ - $ 25,000 $ $ 25,000 6/2006 Total: FY 2005/06: $ - $ 45,000 $ 93,240 $ $138,240 $ 6,417 $ 130,000 $ TOTAL $ $ 160,000 $ 117,970 $ $ 277,970 $ 20,950 $ 130,000 $ COMMENTS 1) $40,000 in LTF was reallocated to the Hurricane Fueler In December 2003 2) $19,500 in LTF was reallocated to operating in December 2003 3) $8,400 in LTF was reallocated for the GPS Radio Equipment in July 2004 ATTACHMENT 169 CITY OF RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES CAPITAL GRANT STATUS REPORT As of December 30, 2005 Project Description DAR vehicles (8) replacement DAR vehicles (2) expansion Total FY 2002/03 DAR vehicle replacement DAR vehicle expansion Office equipment, vehicle location equipment, software and miscellaneous items Total FY 2003/04 DAR vehicles (6) replacement Scheduling software, computers and office equipment Total FY 2004/05 DAR vehicles (6) replacement Support Vehicle for Transit Supervisor Facility Improvements TOTAL FY 2005/06 TOTAL ALL FISCAL YEARS: • Allocation of Funds Allocation Year Mea."A" LTF STA Federal Total 2002/03 $0 $0 $95,000 $465,000 $560,000 2002/03 $0 $24,000 $0 $116,000 $140,000 $0 $24,000 $95,000 $581,000 $700,000 2003/04 $0 $0 $12,000 $58,000 $70,000 2003/04 $0 $0 $16,000 $74,000 $90,000 2003/04 $0 $0 $6,000 $24,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $34,000 $156,000 $190,000 2004/05 $0 $0 $77,000 $373,000 $450,000 2004/05 $0 $0 $30,000 $120,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $107,000 $493,000 $600,000 2005/06 $0 $0 $77,000 $373,000 $450,000 $77,000 2005/06 $0 $0 $14,000 $56,000 $70,000 $14,000 2005/06 $0 $0 $10,000 $40,000 $50,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $101,000 $469,000 $570,000 $101,000 $0 $24,000 $337,000 $1,699,000 $2,060,000 $101,000 Balance of Funds with Operator Balance of Funds with RCTC ATTACHMENT Fund Status Anticipated Completion Original Balance of Funds with FTA Date $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,839 $0 $0 $18,839 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,111 $0 $0 $10,111 $0 $0 $373,000 $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $0 $493,000 $0 $373,000 $0 $56,000 $0 $40,000 $0 $469,000 $0 $990,950 Date Project Status/Milestone 1/31/2006 12/31/2005 Awaiting reimbursement from FTA to close out grant. 1/31/2006 12/31/2005 Awaiting reimbursement from FTA to close out grant. $18,839.62 to be reprogrammed following reimbursement. 1/31/2006 12/31/2005 Awaiting reimbursement from FTA to close out grant. 1/31/2006 12/31/2005 Awaiting reimbursement from FTA to close out grant. 1/31/2006 12/31/2005 Awaiting reimbursement from FTA to close out grant. $10,111.68 to be reprogrammed following reimbursement. 6/30/2006 12/312005 Piggyback to State contract. Ongoing status. 6/30/2006 6/30/2006 6/30/2007 6/30/2007 6/302007 6/30/2007 6/30/2007 6/30/2007 Project implemented. Ongoing status. Submitted application, awaiting award notification. Submitted application, awaiting award notification. Submitted application, awaiting award notification. 170 • ATTACHMENT RCTCs COMMUTER RAIL Open Capital Grants Projects FY 05/061st quaker Report with data as of 9/30/050 Protect DescdPtlon San Jacinto Branch Line- Alternatives Analysis Reconstmct San Jacinto Branch-Rerlis Valley Line PE Total (FY 2000/2001) Anticipated Updated Allocation of Funds Balance of Funds Balance of Funds Balance of Funds Completion Completion FY2Allocation00020/001 Year Mea.'A' [LT STA Federal STP C TTotal with Operator with RCTC with FTA Date Dale Prolect Status/Milestones FY 2$0 $0 $2,111454 $500,000 $0 SO $2,611,454 $0 $289,619 $0 8/822004 32006 Pending STA Clam FY 20002001 $15,000,000 SO SO $2.907,000 $0 $0 $17,907,000 $5,488,000 $0 $2,907.000 102006 i&mu, Awaiting FTA approval le advance to Prete/unary Engineering Consolidated 01M2 Request Inland Empire Maintenance Facility FY 20012002 Total(FY2001/2002) Capital rehabilitation and renovation SCRRA rolling stork arouisition NaM Main Corona PaNJn9 Structure (PA/ED) Total (FY 200212003) Rehabilitation and renovation Fasten area maintenance facility Dovmlovm Staban - phase 2 SCRRA rating stack axpanRon -18 ears SCRRA lease of cars Total (FY 200342004) FY 20022003 FY 20022003 FY 20022003 FY 20032004 $15,000,000 $0 $2,111 454 $3,407,000 $0 $0 $20,516,454 $5,488,000 $289,610 $2,907,000 $0 $0 $0 $61,705 $0 $o $61.705 $0 $0 $61,705 $0 $0 $0 $61,705 $0 $0 $61,705 $0 $0 $61,705 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FY 2003/2004 SO FY 20032004 S1,200,000 FY 20032004 $0 FY 20032004 $2000,000 RehaNntatlon and renovation FY 2004/2005 Capital grade dossing satety (SCRRA) FY 20042005 Rollie{ stock reserve FY 20042005 Total (FY 2004/2005) $3,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,163 $0 SO $154,163 SO $0 $3,244,000 $0 SO $3,244,000 $0 $0 $443,000 $57,000 SO $500,000 $0 $0 $3,841,163 $57,000 $0 $3,898,163 Ea $0 $134,806 $0 SO $134,806 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 RehaMitation and renovation FY 2005/2006 $0 SO Electonic Passenger Information System -RCTC Share FY 20052008 SO $0 Rehabilitation and renovation - RCTCk Share of OCTA's FY 2005/2008 $0 $210,427 $0 $841709 Capital grade dossing safely(SORRA) FY 2005/2006 $0 S12,020 $0 $0 5 New TVMS RCTC Share FY 20052006 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 NaOi Main Corona Parking Structure (Final Design) FY 2005/2006 $0 SD $1,000,000 $0 Station Capdal lmpl0V9nlent Program FY 20052006 $0 $500,000 $9 Total(2o052006) $0 $822,447 $1,000,000 $2,197,021 TOTALS (All Fiscal Years) $18,200,000 $1,072,447 $3,111,454 $16,594,035 • SCRRAmryres thee capital fiscal MGlmalbn an a 4,NMy basis and the 2nd Wrtr dela was not available m the time of the completion of Iles report $0 $1,843000 $0 $0 $1,843,000 $0 $o $0 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $4,329,000 $O $0 $4,329,000 $0 $0 $0 So $2,000,000 $0 $6,306,806 $0 $0 $9,506,806 $0 $771,669 $0 $0 $771,669 $0 S8,671 So $0 $13,671 $0 $0 SO $0 $250,000 $0 $780,340 $0 $0 $1,030,340 $0 $1,198,550 $0 $0 $1198,550 $0 $156,762 $0 $0 $156762 $0 SO $1,052,136 SD $0 $12,020 SO SO $100,000 $0 $O $1,000,060 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $4,019,468 $57,000 $0 $39,034,936 $0 $0 $154,163 $0 $0 $3.244,000 $0 $0 $113.484 92004 $0 $0 $3,511,647 $4 $0 $892,000 6/302004 $0 $0 $1,843,000 $724,732 $0 So SO $0 $4,329,000 6302004 12/2004 4/12006 $2,000,000 SO $0 4/1/2006 $2,724,732 $0 $7,064,000 $0 $0 $771,869 $a $0 $8,671 30 $25opoo $o $0 $250,000 $780,340 62004 92006 Pending Invoices of Aline OH by Cadrans. Rail winding compete, vehidea procured $e115k was budgeted by RCTC vs $essx m sCRRA budget, so $309k bat when SCRRA uses budgeted 92004 82005 ant. 42006 8/312007 Delayed by legal saem 3/31/06 Preliminary Engineering Competed - Final Deegn pirated Red grnmrq complete. vehicles tsewred and others delayed in contracts. Bn2005 $192k was budgeted by ROTC use ubsxh aCRR4 budget, so$3P9k ba when SORRA uses budgeted art. Final design was delayed until site nWeM, but design b praaeecrg as r 6/302007 pee 2006 52006 Final design under review with City ✓RNerside 8/312007 Delayed by legal issues. aids to be opened 1/24/0e. waiwuBd (Csin. eat ai:g owsaimpcng6302007 xnsdring reoeunder OPS) Awarded some contracts and inning costs. FTA approved grant to 12/312005 12/3120/5 reimbursement 4/21/05. 6/302005 6/30/2005 Project 0401000 a1 Van Nuys Blvd. ROTC total budget $12,020. 8✓312007 8/312007 In reseve at ROTC $0 $0 $1,198,550 6302008 $0 $0 $156,762 SO $0 $841,709 SO $12,020 $0 $50,000 $0 SO SO $1,000,000 $0 $500000 SO $50,000 $1,512,020 $2,197,021 $8,262,732 $2,051,639 $16,521,713 6/30/2006 6302006 fi19N2008 6/3020o6 8312006 630/2006 6/302006 Some Prowls competed and Gibers an barre initialed. 6/302006 Conn/bre on bore to develop system 630/2006 ideating projects 6302006 6302006 New TVM b be Installed al Downtown Riverside in January 2O0e 13/312006 Agreement comp/ale with architect- proceeding with pojecl 6302006 Various station projects are being competed. 171 ATTACIRNT 1 Riverside Transit Agency Capital Grants Smuts Report As of November 30, 2005 Fund Status Prefect Number Project Name Award Number Allocation Year LTF STA OTHERS MSRC/TUMF Federal Total BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH OPERATOR BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH RCTC/TUMF BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH FTA TOTAL ORIGINAL 6/30/04 DATES OF COMPLETIO ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATES PROJECT STATUS/ MILESTONES ITS -Intelligent Trnsp Sys ITS -Intelligent Transp System CA-904774 97L-RT17 1996/97 280,763.46 1,123,656.60 1,404,420.06 280,763.46 1,123,656.60 1,404,420.06 Jan-06 Sep-07 Contract w/ Siemens signed 12/30/05, kidroff meeting and notice to proceed on 1/23/06 X774 97L-RT Rept CNC Bus FY 97 ReM CNG Buses=3 CA-90-X774 1996/97 - 182,989.19 182,989.19 182,989.19 182,989.19 N/A TBD Reprogram of furls approved by RTA Board 12/15/05-for FTA approval 2 TOTAL FY 1996/97 - 280,763.46 1,306,645.79 1,587,409.25 280,763.46 1,306,645.79 1,587,409.25 CNG Fuel Station Riv FY99 Clean Fuei Mant Facil4 FY99 STA 99S-RT71 1998/99 1,590.30 -'' 1,590.30 1690.30 1,590.30 Dec-04 Jun-06 Acceptance testing in progress - to pass the 8 day reliability test 1 TOTAL FY 1998 99 1,590.30 1,590.30 1,590.30 1,590.30 0549 OOl PERRIS Petit Multinndal Facility CA-03-0549 1999/00 2,137,795.59 2,137,795.59 2,137,795.59 2,137,795.59 Jul-06 Jul-06 Pass thin grant to RCTC. RTA payment to RCTC O1ru 12/31/05$179,337.46 ITS -Intelligent Troy Sys ITS -Intelligent Transp System FYOOL-RT16 LTF Award 1999/00 368,736.74 368,736.74 368,736.74 368,736.74 Jan-06 Sep-07 Contract w/ 5omens signed 12/30/05, lcickoff meeting and notice to proceed on 1/23/06 X968005- RT03,OOL-RT03 FY00 DAR Vans Rep1=37 CA-90-X968 1999/00 77,821.72 77,821.72 77,821.72 77,821.72 Nov-04 TBD Reprogram of funds approved by RTA X968 005-R704 COP FY00 COP Debt Service - FY00 STA Award 1999/00 2,482.56 10,810.00 13,292.56 2,482.56 10,810.00 13,292.56 Nov-04 TBD Board 12/15/05. working with PTA Io X96800S-RT08 FY00 Support Veh=S CA-90-X968 1999/00 - 9,229.50 9,229.50 9,229.50 9,229.50 Nov-04 TBD approve the rprogram 5 TOTAL FY 1999/00 368,736.74 2,487-56 2,235,656.81 2,606,876.11 2,482-56 368,736.74 2,235,656.81 2,606,876.11 IfSdntellgent Tmsp Sys ITS -Intelligent Transp System CA-90-7066 FYO1L-RT11 2000/O1 83,697.83 334 793.62 418,491.95 83,697.83 334,793.62 418,491.45 Jan-06 Sep-07 Contract w/ Siemens signed 12/30/05, kickoff meeting and notice to proceed on 1/23/06 Grade lli Upgrade Oracle lli Upgrade CA-90-Y066 FY01L-RT11 2000/O1 2,900.00 9,600.00 12,000.00 2,400.00 9,600.00 12,000.00 Feb-05 Jan-06 Oracle Ili upgrade completed Jun-05, Projects & Grants in progress Y066 011-1111)2 FY0140R Bus=12 CAA0-Y066. 2000/O1 530.77 . 1,620.47 2.,151.24 - 530.77 1,620.47 2,151.24 Sep-04 TBD Reprogram of funds approved by RTA board 12/15ro5-Ox FTA approval Y066 011.- RT04,05 FY01 DAR Vans=20 CA-90 Y066 2000/01 - 11,790.88 - 11,790.88 11,790.88 11,790.88 Jan-06 TBD Y066 01L-RT11. FY01 ITS Office Integration CA-90-Y066 FYO1L-R111 2000/O1 2,900.00 9,600.00 12,000.00 2,400.00 9,600.03 12,000.00 Jan-06 J n-06 For Oracle support 5 TOTAL FY 2000/01 ' - 89,028.60 367A04.97 456,433.57 89,028.60 367,404.97 456,433.57 0579 02L-TEM , FY02 Bus - Shelters=15 CA-03-0579 2001/02 -. . '. _ 198,063.00 198,063.00 - 198,063.00 198,063.00 N/A Fdr06 Pass thro grant to the City of Temecula. Project completed Oct-05, awaiting nvoires for payment 0588 3 CNG &a Ftepl FY02 40R CNG Bus ReM=3 CA-03-0588 2001/02 101,738.97 101,738.97 101,738.97 - 101,738.97 Oct-04 TBD Reprogram of funds approved by RTA Board 12/15/05-waking with FTA to approve One reprogram 1/26/2006 1:29 PM 172 9.A1.11.RTA Capital Grants Status 011106 .xls ATTACHMENT Riverside Transit Agency OpiGrants Status Report As of November 30, 2005 Fund Sends Project Number Project Name. Award Number Allocation Year LTF ' STA OTHERS MSRC/711MF , Federal Total BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH OPERATOR BALANCE OF FUNDS WMI - RCTC/TUMF. _ BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH FTA TOTAL ORIGINAL 6/30/04 DATES OF COMPLETIO. ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATES - PROJECT STATUS/ MILESTONES BRT Study F72009 BRT Study FY2004 to F72006 FY02S-RT05 STA Award 2001/02 25,672.38 25,672.38 25.672.38 25,672.38 Sep-04 Jun-06 For RTA beselkre study for pre-BRT Image campaign Oracle 111 DPgr de 010. 111 Upgrade ' F702S-R108 STA Award 2001/02 58,693.01 58,693.01 55,693.01 58,693.01 Feb-05 Jan-06 Orace ill upgrade completed Jun-05, Projects & Grants in propaa 4 TOTAL FY 2001/02 84,365.39 299,801.97 384,167.36 84,365.39 299,80L97 384,167.36 . Business Equipmnt Business Equlpmrn CA-90-7383, 03S-RT07 2002/03 - 1,709.52 . 6,818.06 8,522.58 1,709.52 6,818.06 - 8,522.58 Dec-04 Feb-06 Bus Stops Here & Intwund/Outbumd signs delivered 1st week Jan-06 CNG Fuel Station Riv CNG Fuel Station Riv FY031-RT31 LTF Award 2002/03 170,503.26 170,503.26 170,503.26 170,503.26 Dec-04 Jun-06 Aocrptance testing m mug] he - to pass the 8 day reliability test X017 Emergency Drills Emergency Drills CA-00-X017 - 2002/03 23,737.05 23,737.05 23,737.05 23 737.05 WA Sep-06 faience, Last drat conducted April 27,2005 b cooperation with the Weston R'rver5die Emergency Council Y183 03L-RT01 03S9tT01 FY03 32 Foot CNG Bus=30 FY03 LTF 03L-RT01, 035-RT01 2002/03 177.00 2,081.40 2,258.40 2,25840 2,258.40 N/A �D f funds b oRTA approved BoardedtryD5- Y183 035-R703 FY03 Support Veh FY03 Sup =10 CA-90-7183 2002J03 15,293.62 35,293b2 15,293.67,E 15,293.62 Aug-04 TBD Board g with FT working with epr to appnwe Me reprogram 738303S-RT09 FY03 Support Veh Repkmt=5 CA-90-7183 2002/03 3,127.85 3,127.85 3,127.85 3,127.85 Arg09 TBD 718303S-R109 FY03 Facilities Improvements FY03 STA Award 2002/03 589.91 2,359.66 2,94957 589.91 2,359.66 2,949.57 Dec-09 Mar-06 For Riverside & Hemet cracked bus yard concrete repairs 7 TOTAL FY 2002/03 170,680.26 4,375.83 51,336,24 226,392.33 175,056.09 51,336.24 226,392.33 Business Business Equip nt CA-90-7272, 09L-RT06, 04S-RT03 2003/01 51.00 2 685.00 10,988.00 13,729.00 2,736.00 10,988.00 13,724.00 Oct-04 Feb 06 Bus Raps Here & Inbourd/Ou[Iwnd signs delivered 1st week Jan-06 Equipment CNG Fuel Station Riv MG Fuel Station Riv CA-90-7272, 04L-RT02, 04S-RT02 2003/04 11 157.93 8,663.07 40,686.08 60,507.08 19,821.00 40,686.08 60,507.08 Dec-04 Jun-06 Acceptance testing in CNG Fuel Station Riv CNG Fuel Station Riv R FY04 MSRC 2003/04 6,978.23 6,978.23 6,978.23 6,978.23 - Dec-04 Jun-06 progress- to pass tlne 8 day reliabMy Post CNG Fuel Station Riv CNG Fuel Station Riv FY04SRT14 STA Award 2003/04 14,001.93 . 14,001.43 19,00193 14,001.43 Dec-09 Jun-06 ITS -Intelligent Tmsp Sys ITS -Intelligent Ttnsp Syst-AT1S CA-90-7272 095-RT16 2003/04 200,000.00 800,000.00 1,000,000.00 200.000.00 800,000.00 1,000,000.00 Jan-06 Sep-07 lmtract w/ Siemens signed 12/30/05, kith -off meeting and notice to proceed on 1/23/06 Oracle lli Upgrade Oracle 11i Upgrade CA-90-7272 HY09L-RT09 2003/09 13,015.52 52,18231 65,227.83 /3,045.52 - 52,18231 65,227.83 Feb-0.5 Jan-06 Crack 111 upgrade completed Jun-05, Projeds & Grants in progress 1/26/2006 129 PM • 173 9A1.TL.RTA Capital Grants Sla 06 xls Riverside Transit Agency Capital Grants Status Report As of November 30, 2005 ATTACIIINT 1 Fund Status Project - Project Name Award Number Albcatlon Year LTF STA OTHERS MSRC/TUMF Federal Total BALANCE OF FONDS WITH OPERATOR BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH RCFC/TUMF BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH FTA TOTAL ORIGINAL 6/30/04 DATES OF COMPLETIO ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATES PROJECT STATUS/ Y272 09141705 FY04 Aerial Mapping Software FY04 LW Award 2003/04 714.43 2,857.74 3,572.17 714.43 2,857.74 3,572.17 Oct-04 TBD MILESTONES Reprogram of funds approved 12/15/05 for staff training GIS Y272041.-11706 fY04 DAR Vans Rep/0xp=13 F1(04 LTF Award 2003/04 13,766.38 67,212.35 8G 978.73 13,766.38 67,212.35 80,978.73 Oct-04 180 co software Reprogram of funds approved by RTA board 12/15/05-working with FTA Y272 04L-RT08 FY04 Fare Study Arotysis FY04 ADP FY04 LTF Award 2003/04 4,241.40 16,965.60 21,207.00 4,241.40 16,965.60 21,207.00 Oct-04 Nov-06 to approve the reprogram Reprogram of funds approved 11J15/OS for NA P P Software .Award FY04 LTF . 2003/04 1,171.23 4,684.89 5,856.12 1,171.23 _ 4,684.89 5,856.12 Sep-04 Jun-06 study Purchase server for the balance Y272 04L-RT1l FY04 Presentation Projects FY04 LTF Award 2003/04 673.29 - 2,693.18 3,366.47 673.29 2,693.18 3,366.47 Sep-04 TBD Reprogram of funds approved by RTA board 12/15/05-far Y272 041-RT12 Sup Vet FY04 Support Veil Rep1=14 FY04 LTF Award 2003/01 18,469.93 73,879.74 92,399.67 18,469.93 73,879.74 92,349.67 Seri-04 Jan-06 FTA approval 6 Ford Focus wagon or similar vehicle -bids due Jan 11th Y27204L-RT13 FY04 Surveillance Security Sys FY04 LTF Award 2003/04 953.25 3,813.00 4766.25 963.25 - 3,813.00 4,766.25 Nov-04 Jan-06 Final payment of the Y27204L-R715 FY04 Title W Survey Era FY04 LTF Award LA-90-Y272 2003/04 671.84 2,68739 3,359.18 671134 2,687.34 3,359.18 Sep-09 Sep-07 retailer 12/15/05 Reprogram funds approved m be used for the Tide V1 Y272 04S- FY04 Facilities Improvements 04S-RT02 041-RT02 2003/04 7,584.44 5 888.39 53,891.27 67,364.10 13,472.83 53,891.27 - 67,3E4.10 Oct-04 Mar-06 next survey in 2007 Bids due Jan fish for Riverside & Hemet cracked bus 16 Y272 04S-RT03 FY04 an Stop A FY04 STA Award 2003/04 89718.83 358,876.32 448,595.15 89,718.83 - 358,876.32 448,595.15 Oct-04 Dec-06 yard repairs bus cut-out and bus shelters at 3rd St to be completed Jun-06, balance of funds for bus shelters,Amenities benches TOTAL FY 2003/04 72,500.64 320,956.72 6,978.23 1,494417.82 1,891,85301 193,457.36 206,978.23 1,494417.82 1,891,853.41 Y27204S- FY04 Facilkiies Improvements CA-90-Y337 05S41T05 2004/05 416.70 1,666.81 2,083.51 416.70 1,666.81 2,083.51 Jan-05 Jan-06 Wokstation-ControlW's office completed, vendor by - - Y337 05L-RT01 Systm Upgr FY05 info Systn SfrvreUpgrade - FY05 LTF Award 2004/05 42,079.40 - 168,319.62 210,399.02 42,079.40 168,319.62 - 210,399.02 May-05 payment end of Jan-06 RFP issued 11/14/05, Y337 05L-RT02 FY05 GIS- Geographic Info Sys[m FY05 LTF Award 2009/OS 24752 989.05 1,236.57 247.52 989.05 1,236.57 N0 De9 r184:16 TBD contract award by 3/1/06 Reprogram of fords approved OS f training Y337 OSS- FY05 Misc Support Equipment FY05 FY05 STA Award 2004/05 7346.97 29,387.87 36,734.84 7.346.97 29,387.87 - 36,734.84 Jan-05 Mar-06 software an GIS softwareare Mabm@ DVR, Stops &Zones Equiprrtent-procurement in C COP CAP Debt Service FY05 STA Award 2004/05 - 296196.08 1,184,785.00 1480,981.08 296,196.08 - 1,184,785.00 - 1,480,981.08 Aug-05 Oct-06 progressY337 Payments due April 1st and 7337 05S-RT02 DAR31 FY05 DAR Vans Replcmt=31 FY05 STA Award 2004/05 284,580.00 1,389,480.00 1,674,060.00 _ 289.580.00 1,389,480.00 1,674,060.00 May-05 - - Feb-06 Oct 1st, 2006 Contract awarded to Creative Bus Sales 11/11/05 1/26/2006 1:29 PM 174 3 9A1.7LRTA Capital Grants Status 011106 xis ATTACHMENT 4 Riverside Transit Agency Capital Grants Status Report As of November 30, 2005 Fund Status Project Number Project Name Award Number Allocation Year LTV STA OTHERS MSRC/TUMF - Federal Total BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH OPERATOR . BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH ROTC/TUMF BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH FTA TOTAL -ORIGINAL 6/30/04 DATES OF COMPLETIO ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATES PROJECT STATUS/ bums —rotas Y33705S-RT03 Bus Stp FY05 Bus Stop Amenities FY05 STA Award 2004/05 22,000.00 . 88 000.00 - 110,000.00 . 22,000.00 88,000.05 110,000.00 Jun-05 Mar-07 Pmcaremad of equipments on going as required - Bus shelters, bendles Y337 05S-RT04 COA FY05 COA-Camp Oper Anlysis FY05 STA Award 2004/05 40,000.0D 160,000.00 200,000.00 40,000.00 160,000.00 200,000.00 ]an-05 Nov-06 RFP issued Aug-05, Contract award Jan-06 Y337 05S-RT06 Sdned FY05 Sched Runcuttirg Sfw a FY05 STA Award 2009/05 60,000.00 210,000.00 300,000.00 B0,000.00 240,000.00 300,000.00 Jan-05 Dec-08 Need additional funding for the project. Staff identifying other purchasing options Y337 05S-RT07 APC FY05 Autantc Psg Counting FY05 STA Award 2004/05 10,000.00 40,000.00 50,000.00 10,000.00 40,000.00 50 OW.00 Feb-05 Dec-06 Equipment lease contract provided by Urban Transport Asso. from 8/1/05 to 12/31/06 Y337 05S-RT13 BRT Enh FY05 BRT Transit Enhancement FY05 STA Award 2004/05 52,400.00 209,600.00 262,000.00 52,400.00 209,600.00 262,000.00 Jan-05 TBD Multiple Contracts issued 7/21/05 to O'Reilly, Zhappo Studios and Docu Media 11 TOTAL FY 2004/05 42,326.92 772,939.75 .3,512,228.35 4,327,495.02 815,266.67 0.00 3,512,228.35 4,327,495.02 0703 AILS- FY06 AT1S CA-03-0703, WRCOG TUMF 2005/06 18,204.00 72,815.00 91,019.00 18,204.00 72,815.00 91,019.00 N/A TBD. Stiff working on the design/plan . 0703 BRT Bus Step FY06 BRT %nage &Shelters CA-03-0703, WRCOG TUMF 2005/06 631,166.00 485,437.00 1,116,603.00 631,166.00 985,437.00 1,116,603.00 Jan-07 TBD Staff working on Use designW6n 0703 Corona Corona Transit Center CA-03-0703, WRCOG TUMF 2005/06 669,860.23 808,789.17 1,478,649.90 669,860.23 808,7E19.17 1,478,649.40 Apr-06 Apr-08 Land has been purdmsed. Engineering & design in the planning stage 0703 Hemet Hemet Transit Center CA-03-0703, WRCOG NMF 2005/06 713,535,00 302,912.00 1,016,997.00 713,535.00 302,912.00 1,016,447.00 Jun-05 TBD Engineering & design in the planning stage CNG Fuel Station RW CNG Fuel Satan Riv FY06 Operating Funds 2005/06 2,985.93 - 2,985.93 2,985.93 2,965.93 Dec-04 Jun-06 Acceptance testingin progress - to less the 8 day reliability test F1'06 Rvsd Transit Ctr Riverside Transit Ctr CA-03-0703, FY06 WRCOG- TUMF 2005/06 390,320.56 1,961,293.94 1,851,614.00 390,320.56 1,46I,293.14 1,851,614.00 Jun-06 TOD Location has been identified by the CltY. awaiting foowide after the Feney e 91 wdnknrinB Project plan from 011(rarss Y40306L-RT01 FY06 COP Debt Service CA-90-9903, 06L-RT01 2005/06 412,675.00 1,650,700.00 2,063,375.00 412,675.00 1,650,700.00 2,063,375.00 WA TBD Pending FTA Grant Approval Y40306L-RT02 FY06 DAR Vans Replant=22 CA-90-Y403, 061-12702 2005/06 213,180.00 1,090,820.00 1254g00.00 - 1,254000.00 - 1,254,000.00 N/A TBD Pending FTA Grant Approval Y903 06L-R703 FY06 Support Veh Replan[=9 CA-90-9403, 06703 2005/06 49,800.00 199,200.00 299,000.00 249,000.00 299,000.00 WA TBD PencOng FTA GrantL-R Apgov-el 1/26/2006 1:29 PM 4 175 9.A1.1L.RTA Capital Grants Sla Riverside Transit Agency Capital Grants Spurs Report' As of November 30, 2005 • ATTACHMENT Fund Status Project Number r' Project Name Award Number Allocation Year LTF STA .OTHERS MSRC/TUMF Federal Total BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH OPERATOR BALANCE OF FUNDS WITH RCTC/TUMF BALANCE OF FUNDS WMI FTA TOTAL ORIGINAL 6/30/04 DATES OF COMPLETIO ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATES PROJECT STATUS/ Y Y403 06L4t1139 FY06 Facilities Improvement p CA-90-Y903, O6L-RT04 2005/06 35,8E0.00 143,410.00 179,300.00 179,300.00 179,300.00 WA MILESTONES Pending FTA Gram Y Y903 06L4tT05 FY06 Furniture Replacement CA-90-Y403, 06L-RT135 200 06 5/ 10,748.00 42,992.00 - 53,790.00 53,710.00 53,740.00 N/A TBD Approval Pending ETA Grant 7 74U3 06L-R1116 FY06 Maintenance Spares CA-90-1403, 06L-RT06 2005/06 37,116.00 148164.00 185,580.00 185,580.00 185,580.00 N/A TBD Approval Pending FTA Gram Y Y903 061.-91138 FY06 Sl Gard fa- 94 NABI Buses CA-90-Y403, 061-R708 2005/06 33,854.00 135,416.00 169,270.00 169,270.00 169,270.00 N/A TBD Approval Pending FTA Grant Y Y403 06L4tT09 FY06 Office & Slop Equipment CA-90-Y403, 06L-RT09 2005/06 / 18,400.00 73,600.00 . 92,000.00 92,000.00 92,000.00 TBD Approval Pending FTA Gram Y Y903 06L-RT10 FY06 Software and Upgrades CA-90-Y403, 06L-RT10 2005/06 143,697.00 574,790.00 718,487.00 193,697.00 574,790.00 718,487.00 WA N/A TBD Approval Pe ndn9 FTA Cram L-RTll FY06 Capitalized lire Lease CA-90-Y403, 06L-ATll 2005/06 58,020.00 232,080.00 290,100.00 290,100.00 290,100.00 N/A TBD Approval Pending FTA Gram Y Y493 06L-RT12 FY06 Bus Stop Amenities FYU6 GIS- CA-997103, 06L-RT12 - 2005/06 22,0p0,00 88,000.00 110,000.00 22,000.00 88,000.00 110,000.00 TBD Approval Pending FTA Gram Y Y403 06L-RT13 Geographic Info System CA-90-Y403, 06L-RT13 2005/06 980.00 3 919.00 4,899.00 9,859.00 4,89900 WA N/A TBD Approval Pending FTA Cram Y Y903 06L-RT39 FY06 CRT Transit Enhancements CA-90-Y403, 061-9714 2005/06 82,000.00 297,000.00 21,000.00 400,000.00 379,000.00 21,000.00 400,000.00 N/A TBD Approval Pendn9 FTA Gram Y Y903 061.-RT15 FY06 Hemet Transit Center CA-90-7903, 06L-RT15 2005/06 85,030.00 340,123.00 425,153.00 85,030.00 390,123.00 425,153.00 N/A a Approval Pending FTA Grant 7 7403 06L-RT16 FY06 Temecula Transit Center CA-90-Y403, 06L-R116 2005/06 886,388.00 1,310,139.00 2,196527.00 886,388.00 1,310,139.00 2,196,527.00 WA TBD . Approval Pending FTA Gram 7 7403 06L-RT17 FY06 BRT Bus Stop Amenities CA-90-Y403, 06L-RT17 Z005/06 344,300.00 121,472.00 965,772.00 344,300.00 121472.00 465772.00 WA TBD Approval Palling FTA Gram Y Y403 061_12718 FY06 Riverside Transit Center CA-90-Y403, 06L-R118 2005/06 23,700.00 - 23,700.00 23,700.00 23,700.00 N/A TBD Approval Pending FTA Gant Y903 061.-11T39 FY06 Carona Tonsil Cents CA-90-Y403, 06L-11119 2005/06 294,857.00 299857.00 294,857.00 299,857.00- N/A TBD Approval Pending FTA Gram Y Y403 06L-RT20 FY06 Penis Transit Cella CA-90-Y403, 06L-RT20 2005/06 1,050,000.00 1,050,000.00 1,050,000.00 1,050,000.00 N/A TBD Approval Pending FR Gram 26 Y403 06L-RT21 TOTAL FY 2005/% FY06 Momrro Valley Transit Ctr CA-90-Y403r 06L-RT21 2005/06 - _ _ 594 ,r..40.00 594;590.00 _ _ 594,590.00 594,540.00. _ . N/A TBD Approval Pending FTA Gram - 1,121,335.93 2,316,931.00. 5,701,900.79 7,237,470.61 16,377,61&33 2,985.93 9,137,161.79 7,237,470.61 16,377,618.33 TBD Approval 77 TOTAL $2,145,35255 $3,503,64155 $S,708,879.02 $16,50 96256 1, 527,859,835.68 91,554,377.46 99,803,495.66 $16,501,962S6 ¢27,859,835.68 1B6f2006 1:29 PM 17b 9A1.TL.RTA Capital Grants Status 011106 ids i SunLine Transit Agency CAPITAL GRANT STATUS REPORT As of December 30, 2005 Project Description OEM INQUIRIES AND ROAD TEST (OPERATING) PORCH. REPLAC BUS (3) ATTACHMENT 1 Allocation of Funds Fund Status Balance of Balance of Balance of Anticipated Original Allocation Funds with Funds with Funds with Completion Completion Year - Mee "A" LTF STA Federal Total Operator RCTC FTA Dates Dates Project Status/Milestone Purchase order for Bus 10/01/99 (Fuel Cell Bus - FY 1999 - - - 188,492 188,492 34,567 9/172006 N/A 100% FTA Funds) Delivered 04/O1/00 Continuation of Road Test FY 1999 OperfCap Formula RFP out for Bid - Completed 05/01 /04 - Funds - - 150,000 839,909 939,909 640,166 6/30/2006 06/30/06 ($150,000 STA Funds - $60,000 Other) Contract awarded 08/01/04 First vehicle delivered 03/O1/05 Balance expected to be used with Purchase of 15 new buses scheduled 12/15/05 - extended date 01/31/06 Total BUY REPLACEMENT 40 FT BUS 150,000 1,028,401 1,178,401 674,733 FY 2000 OperfCap Formula Funds - - 38,000 262,000 300,000 26,978 62,000 6/30/2006 06/30/06 Contract awarded 12/01/03 First vehicle delivered 12/31/04 Balance expected to be used with Purchase of 15 new buses scheduled 12/15/05 - extended date Q 01/31/06 Total 38,000 262,000 300,000 26,978 62,000 FY 2001 Oper/Cap Formula CONSTRUCT -MISC EQUIPMENT Funds - 90,000 360,000 450,000 5,868 - 1,912 3/30/2006 On -going purchase of capital equipment :Total 90,000 360,000 450,000 5,868 - 1,912 FY 2002 OperfCap REHAB/RENOVATE-ADMIN/MAINT Formula - FACILITY Funds 45,956 207,000 252,956 21,834 6/30/2006 06/20/04 Continuous improvement to facility BUY REPLACEMENT 40 FT BUS • Total Balance expected to be used with Purchase of 15 new buses scheduled 12/15/05 - extended date Q 200,000 200,000 200,000 6/30/2006 06/30/06 01/31/06 -funds on hold at RCTC - claimed O1/06 245,956 207,000 452,956 21,834 200,000 - - 177 ATTACHMENT SunLine Transit Agency CAPITAL GRANT STATUS REPORT As of December 30, 2005 Project Description BUS LEASE PAYMENT BUY REPLACEMENT 40 FT BUS (3) ACQUIRE -SUPPORT VEHICLES (4) REHAB/RENOVATE-ADMI W MAINT FACILITY Allocation of Funds Allocation Year Mea"A" LTF FY 2003 °per/Cap Formula Funds STA Federal Total 106,000 421,000 527,000 40,000 160,000 200,000 36,000 144,000 180,000 Fund Status Balance of Balance of Balance of Anticipated Original Funds with Funds with Funds with Completion Completion Operator RCTC FTA Dates. Dates Project Status/Milestone 36,000 177,000 368,000 545,000 156,193 40,000 73,957 6/30/2006 160,000 6/30/2006 123,853 131,623 12/30/2006 COPS Payment made - need to reprogram the 06/30/06 extra funds - Federal Funds 06/30/06 N/A Balance expected to be used with Purchase of 15 new buses scheduled 12/15/05 - extended date @ O1/31/06 -funds on hold at RCTC - claimed O1/06 N/A Continuous improvement to facalily Total BUY REPLACEMENT 40 FT BUS BUS LEASE PAYMENT PURCHASE MISC COMMUNICATION EQUIP OTHER CAPITAL ITEM - (Land) Vamer Property PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ACQUIRE -SUPPORT VEHICLES TOTAL FY 2004 Capital Formula Funds 359,000 1,093,000 1,452,000 192,193 200,000 121,000 355,059 410,987 17,688 439,500 100,000 380,000 11,012 84,000 272,500 300,000 501,000 121,000 777,058 766,046 101,688 712,000 439,500 40,000 200,000 14,000 56,000 70,000 14,000 355,059 1,203,175 903,512 2,461,746 1,340,546 200,000 178 489,433 100,000 3/31/2006 380,000 WA 11,012 12/30/2006 2,666 WA 272,500 3/31/2006 56,000 6/30/2006 822,178 Balance expected to be used with Purchase of 15 new buses scheduled 12/15/05 - extended date @ WA 01/31/06- funds on hold at RCTC-claimed 01/06 Need to re -program RCTC Funds and move FTA WA Funds to another line Hem WA Need to re -program Need to move Balance FTA Funds to another line N/A item Grant Pending - need to Echo Funds when WA available Need to review requirements and needs for N/A purchase SunLine Transit Agency CAPITAL GRANT STATUS REPORT As of December 30, 2005 Allocation of Funds Fund Status • • ATTACHMENT 1 Balance of Balance of Balance of Anticipated Original Allocation Funds with Funds with Funds with Completion Completion Project Description Year Mea "A" LTF STA Federal Total Operator RCTC FTA Dates Dates Project Status/Milestone FY 2005 Capital Formula ACQUIRE MISC SHOP EQUIPMENT Funds 15,000 60,000 75,000 15,000 60,000 6/30/2006 N/A Grant Pending - RCTC Funds Claimed 10/2005 REHABIRENOVATE-ADM IN/MAINT FACILITY 73,000 292,000 365,000 73,000 292,000 12/30/2006 N/A Grant Pending - RCTC Funds Claimed 10/2005 OTHER CAPITAL ITEM - (Land) Vamer Property 17,688 84,000 101,688 17,688 84,000 8/30/2006 N/A Grant Pending ACQUIRE MISC COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 70,000 280,000 350,000 70,000 280,000 12/30/2006 N/A Grant Pending Grant Pending - $1,050,300 LTF Claimed 12/2005 - BUY REPLACEMENT 40FTBUS 1,050,300 125,000 1,306,000 2,481,300 1,175,300 1,306,000 6/30/2006 N/A $125,000 STA Funds Claimed 01/06 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 200,000 800,000 1,000,000 200,000 800,000 3/31/2006 N/A Grant Pending TOTAL - 1,250,300 300,688 2,822,000 4,372,988 375,688 1,175,300 2,822,000 FY 2006 Capital Formula PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE Funds 200,000 800,000 1,000,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 W31/2007 Grant Pending BUY REPLACEMENT 40 FT BUS 4,236,726 871,415 1,262,514 6,370,655 2,671,415 2,436,726 1,262,514 6/30/2007 Grant Pending OTHER CAPITAL ITEM - (Land) Vamer Property 21,163 80,837 102,000 21,163 80,837 8/30/2007 Grant Pending TRANSIT ENHANCEMENTS FOR STOPS 5,837 29,163 35,000 5,837 29,163 6/30/2007 Grant Pending 2 EXPANSION DAR VANS 110,000 110,000 110,000 3/302007 Grant Pending 9 REPLACEMENT DAR VANS 99,000 396,000 495,000 99,000 396,000 3/30/2007 Grant Pending BUS STATION RELOCATION - 29,154 29,154 29,154 6/302007 Grant Pending Grant Pending - $50,000 LTF Claimed 9/2005 - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EQUIP 100,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 6/302007 $125,000 STA Furls Claimed 01/06 HASKELL RD MATCH 123,750 123,750 123,750 Land Purchased - Completed TOTAL - 4,745,726 1,022,165 Z597,668 8,365,559 2,966,328 Z801,563 2,597,668 Total (All Fiscal Years) 6,351,085 3,408,984 9,462,073 19,033,650 4,929,435 4,416,863 7,469,924 179 ATTACHMENT 2 EXCERPT . (FUNDING: TRANSIT SERVICES) ORDINANCE NO. 02-001 WESTERN RIVERSIDE AND COACHELLA VALLEY RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX ORDINANCE PUBLIC TRANSIT: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY The Transportation Improvement Plan will provide an estimated $390 million to expand commuter rail, implement intercity bus services and to continue and expand programs to assist the elderly, disabled and commuters. A. Discount Fares and Transit Services for Seniors and Disabled Persons Seniors and disabled persons are becoming an increasing percentage of the population each year. They are currently charged a fare on fixed route transit services that is one-half the normal fare for service within the western county area. In addition, a number of specialized transportation programs have been implemented which meet specialized needs for ,transportation to medical services, social service agencies and programs, shopping and other purposes that cannot be met by conventional- transit. A minimum of $85 million in Measure A funds will be used to guarantee these services. B. Commuter Rail and Intercity Bus Service Metrolink has provided a viable alternative to the automobile for thousands of daily commuters to Orange and Los Angeles counties, and reduces the demand on our freeways. The current service level needs to double in the future and expansion of the system to Moreno Valley and Perris is needed to relieve congestion on 1-215. In addition, an intercity express bus service that feeds the Metrolink service and provides a reasonable alternative to the automobile for daily commuters who travel within the region is needed. Measure A funds will be made available for operations- of these services and to match federal funds for capital. 180 C. Commuter Services, Ridesharing, Vanpools, Buspools, Park-N-Ride Commuter traffic created by Riverside County residents traveling to jobs in neighboring Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties adds significantly to the peak hour congestion on the freeway and highway system. A number of programs have been implemented to assist commuters to share rides, reduce congestion, and take advantage of travel in the "carpool" lanes. These programs include: rideshare matching services; incentive programs; vanpool "seed money"; buspool subsidies; and park-n-ride lot leasing. These programs will become even more necessary in the future as traffic increases. A minimum of $50 million in Measure A funds will be used for this purpose. PUBLIC TRANSIT: COACHELLA VALLEY Fifteen percent (15%) of the Measure A revenues will be used to improve and expand public transit and specialized transportation services. A. Discount Fares and Expanded Transportation Services for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities For Seniors (age 60 and older) and persons with disabilities, access to healthcare, social services, shopping, and recreation is a key to quality of life. SunLine Transit Agency offers a full array of public transit and specialized transportation services at reduced prices to individuals in these special groups. Measure A funds will guarantee discounts continue for the next 30 years. Funds will also be used to expand services to meet future needs of the growing population of the valley. B. Specialized Transportation Services In addition to providing SunBus public transit service, SunDial paratransit service, and SunLine express commuter service to Riverside, the SunLine Transit Agency offers specialized transportation services to Coachella Valley residents and visitors. These services include the Vets Expressthat provides free transportation to the Veterans Hospital in Loma Linda; SunTrip, that enables those beyond SunLine's fixed route service area to receive reimbursement they can pay to volunteer drivers; and SunRide that coordinates the transportation services offered by many non-profit social service organizations. All of SunLine's vehicles operate on clean, alternative fuels thereby preserving the environment and creating a~h`ealthier community while increasing access. Measure A funds will assist these and other types of specialized transportation services which may be implemented. 181 • C. Bus Replacement and More Frequent Service Public bus transportation offers communities many benefits — reduced traffic congestion, reduced wear and tear on roads, reduced parking demand, and lower emissions. By providing access to schools, jobs and shopping, it is also a vital force in economic development. This is especially true in the Coachella Valley where nearly 75% of the 4 million annual SunBus riders take a bus to work and/or school. Public transit buses have a 12-year life. Passage of Measure A will enable SunLine's fleet to be replaced as needed. Funds will also be used to increase frequency of service, which is the single most important factor in use of public transportation. 182 MEASURE "A" 2009 EXPENDITURE PLAN Western County: Coachella Valley: $390,000,000 $188,000,000 Attachment 3 ► Commuter Assistance ($50M — minimum threshold) ► Provide Express East-West Transit Routes in the Coachella Valley ► Specialized Transit ($85M - minimum threshold) ► Improve and expand public transit and specialized transportation services ► Commuter Rail ► Discount fares and expanded transportation services for seniors and persons with disabilities ► Intercity Bus ► Bus replacement and more frequent service Transportation Development Act Funding Current TDA funding formula for Western County apportionment area is 78% for bus and 22% for commuter rail. ► Review funding formula in FY 2007/08 ► Proposed changes, if any, to be implemented in FY 2009/10. 183 • Attachment 4 TPC Committee Meeting January 23, 2006 TIME LINE FOR 2009 MEASURE A EXPENDITURE PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING Activity/Deliverable Discuss time line, expenditure plan and TDA funding April 24, 2006 Review and approve Measure A/TDA revenue projections Provide outline for conceptual plans July 24, 2006 Review conceptual plans of proposed transit operating and capital needs and Measure A Programs October 23, 2006 Evaluate conceptual plans (10 year increments) 184