Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 8, 2006 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, March 8, 2006 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Marion Ashley 15L Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson 2' 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 Jim Ayres/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 RECORDS 76185 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, March 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 - February 8, 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 fordiscussion at the end of the agenda.) • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 8, 2006 Page 2 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matterson 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. 7A. FISCAL YEAR 2004/05 TDA AND MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS Page l Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for the Fiscal Year 2004/05. 7B. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) FINANCING THROUGH STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 15 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve in -concept the Commission's participation in the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP). 7C. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt the Updated Investment. Policy. 7D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Overview Page 28 Page 39 This item is for the. Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2005. 7E. REQUEST FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN Overview Page 50 This item is for the Commission to allocate $133,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to assist in the completion of the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 8, 2006 Page 3 7F. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAMMING ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY Page 53 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the TUMF Programming Administrative Policy. 7G. CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Page 55 Overview 1) Renew Sherry Thibodeaux, Andrea Puga and Mary Venerable's memberships to the Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC); 2) Appoint Michelle Anglin as a new member to the CAC/SSTAC; and 3) Approve the membership roster for CAC/SSTAC effective January 2006. 7H. NEW YEAR-ROUND INLAND EMPIRE ORANGE COUNTY WEEKEND SERVICE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 60 1) Approve implementation of year-round Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) weekend service; 2) Amend the RCTC Commuter Rail SRTP to include the new IEOC weekend trains; 3) Allocate $120,000 in Local Transportation Funds for operations and promotion of the IEOC weekend service for FY 2005/06, and amend the Commuter Rail Budget by $120,000; and 4) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 8, 2006 Page 4 8. 71. PUBLIC OUTREACH SERVICES CONTRACT FOR PERRIS VALLEY LINE METROLINK EXTENSION Overview This, item is for the Commission to award: Page. 66 1) Three-year consultant agreement No. 06-25-034-00 to O'Reilly. Public Affairs in an amount not to exceed $ 140,000; and 2) Three-year consultant agreement No 06-25-035-00 to Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $140,000. 7J. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the following bill positions: AB 2025 (Niello, R-Fair Oaks) — SUPPORT AB 2028 (Huff, R-Diamond Bar) — SUPPORT; and 2) Receive and file the update as an information item. Page 69 PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 BUDGET Page 76 Overview This item is for the Commission to. approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2006/07 Budget. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 8, 2006 Page 5 9. AWARD AMENDMENT NO. 3, AGREEMENT NO.. 02-31-043-03 TO CH2M HILL. FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT PROJECT REPORT. AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT Page 84 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award of Agreement No: 02-31-043-03, Amendment No. 3, to CH2M Hill based on the negotiated project scope, schedule and cost. that is attached to this agenda item for the Realignment of SR-79 in the vicinity of the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet for the development of an Administrative Draft Project Report and Environmental Document (PR/ED) (the Project). This Amendment will not increase the currently approved not to exceed amount for this consultant services contract. The revised scope of services will be funded by rescoping the Project back from the completion of a final PR/ED to the completion of the Administrative Draft PR/ED by taking the actions noted below in recommendations 2 and 3; 2) Authorize the use. of the contingency funds in the amount of $1,807,873 that were established by Amendment No. 2, Agreement No. 06-31-516, to fund a portion of the attached newly defined scope of services that will be required to take the Project to the Administrative Draft level of the PR/ED; 3) Authorize the reallocation of the existing scope of services that are currently valued at $1,428,639 from approved Amendment No. 1, Agreement No. 05- 31-532, to fund the remainder of the revised scope of services defined in Amendment No. 3 to take the Project to the Administrative Draft level of the PR/ED; 4) Authorize staff to work with the consultant team to develop a revised scope of work that will move the Project from the Administrative Draft level to the final PR/E•D; and 5) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 02-31-043-03 on behalf of the Commission. 10. SELECTION OF A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Page 99 This item is for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula to select their representative to the Executive Committee. 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 6, 2006 Page 6 12. 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. 13. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case number: RIC 393352 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 The Clad litigation: Case No. C 05 1525 JSW C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 12, 2006, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. JOHN F. TAVAGLIONE SECOND DISTRICT SUPERVISOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE March 1, 2006 Riverside County Transportation Commission Attn: Jennifer 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 STAFF ANNE STEPHENS, Senior Legislative Assistant JOHN FIELD , Senior Legislative Assistant KAREN CHRISTENSEN, Legislative Assistant LILIANA ALLIN, Legislative Assistant DONNA JOHNSTON, Board Assistant Re: March 8, 2006 RCTC Meeting Dear Jennifer: I will be unable to attend the RCTC Meeting on March 8, 2006, and in my absence, I would like to give my proxy vote to Jeff Stone, Third District Supervisor. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Jo ''. Tavaglione Second District Supervisor 4080 LEMON STREET • 14TH FLOOR • P.O. BOX 1646 • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502-1646 • (909) 955-1020 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET MARCH 8, 2006 N/ E AGENCY EMAIL ADDRESS '4 ��� l / ,,,,ra,✓ g �rn/ L ,�Es� +:15k V\ vv.\ t j r Oca3r. Wit,:ti, �,76. a4.k_ � G , 17_, C, C.- L -r ,_ €3 4-vvho,c- /�i7fliv/f-- te/,e_ s 74 /4I 7e(9.r-o j/� e co '_ Y/7- ? oo d PreA l< f',ILL /1c0$c,c7 fShai12 849a01,coreA R,i cK Gi 6 e. S M vRe2--/� ra(3- RGIS4)-e, lidtA 7/to-A rho 04.. �BuZ( /514 1.7di"!46 0‘a9S_ ) / v P ef�A< /e/L_.- cc..467,-,-/,4-- -,--4.,c,a-k&w_A__ eNs -v c-AL-- CRA . S 4 t-tve,z. _ : vovicAa12,oz> c a�z , ��O t c,1-i Si-eVQn D284.64n Legal Cad Oso4 ?LA.". De&,d„6?88k1Ge..6 "----i4lc //ioL.&-ey ,.1&404-e e ha.fe/ oia /4csc. cu it 1 6hC 44 L L Y _2>.¢i-cam- i Li "' l %/I ' cc c-i ," 4'.. IAA �-4 L:'7 F /L c ozr c4 —7-- . , �a__ C` v Lo , 1 4,110f I/Ai /e_yq-e-2_. 61. W 1L-S o r-1 /NO/D J 76� ' " .17,4- 1 �/!;_alt-- e e.c.- Pc-r i S CA--77-it-or ( c<z jafilwn Leix*_, ava.e-Az ll Jci¢%.<Ax14.rr.ev� -I).Q .4/�- 1. 'IS ► a s se,A7L—sc � ,��mi%s aty_21, 40ty towr p, a< J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL March 8, 2006 Present Absent County of Riverside, District County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City, of; Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City ° of Temecula ` Governor's Appointee, Ca!trans District 8 " " AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON MINUTES Wednesday, February 8, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Marion Ashley at 9:02 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, Second Vice Chair Jeff Stone 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 Rick Gibbs Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Bob Magee Paul Marchand Jeff Miller Ronald Oden " Mike Perovich Mary Roche Jeff Stone Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Juan M. DeLara Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Ron Meepos Ron Roberts John Tavaglione Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 11 and January 23, 2006 M/S/C (Stone/Craton) to approve the January 11, 2006 minutes as amended and the January 23, 2006 minutes as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Henderson/Buydos) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005 COMMISSION AUDIT RESULTS Receive and file the FY 2004/05: 1) Comprehensive Annual FinancialReport; 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 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. " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 3 7C. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND AND MEASURE A REVENUE PROJECTIONS Approve the: 1) Projections of the Local " 'Transportation Fund 4LTF) 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 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 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. 7F. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the second quarter ended December 31, 2005. 7G. SINGLE' SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2005. 7H. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan activity report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2005. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 4 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 1) Approve Agreement No. 99-31-001-01 (Caltrans Agreement No. 8-1 120 A/1), Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 50252, with Caltrans to extend the agreement period for the State Route 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. 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 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 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. " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 5 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 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No.06-310-017-00 for the funding reimbursement of State Highway 1 1 1 Jefferson Street to Madison Street improvements within the city of Indio for a total amount not to exceed $3,2000,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant 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 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) Authorize 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 1) Approve the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request to reprogram federal and local funds for the purchase of capital equipment; 2) Allocate $1 11,589 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 Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 6 70. RIVERSIDE - TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS PENDING RECEIPT OF FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 SECTION 5307 FUNDS 1) Allocate $4,800,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) pendingreceipt of 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 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 (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. 7Q. REQUEST FROM EXCEED FOR MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS MATCH FOR FISCAL YEARS 2002/03 AND 2003/04 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 7 • 8. • 7R. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 MEASURE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005/06 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Palm Springs. 7S. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE 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 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. 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 Chair Ashley notified the Commissioners to the possible conflict of interest related to this item. In response to Chair Ashley's concern regarding advanced notification of the possible conflict of interest issues, Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director, noted that all Request for Proposals and Statements of Qualifications include a disclosure form for the consultants to review and declare contributions made to current Commissioners. She added that when the consultant declares a contribution, staff notifies each named Commissioner individually. Steve DeBaun, RCTC Legal Counsel, clarified that consultants have an obligation to notify the Commission of any contributions made to the Commissioners. Anne Mayer provided a brief overview of the Statement of Qualifications received by the consultants for the specific tasks related to On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 8 M/S/C (R. Wilson/Buydos) to: 1) Approve the list of pre -qualified firms for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor services: a) KPMG b) PB Consult in association with Parson 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. Abstain: Magee and Stone 9. STATUS REPORT ON ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY, CAPITAL PROJECTS, 2009 MEASURE A ALLOCATION AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING Tanya Love, Program Manager, presented a status report on route productivity, outstanding capital projects, the 2009 Measure A allocation of funds and the western county TDA funding split. M/S/C (Busch/Miller) 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 (TDA) funding discussion. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 9 • 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA No items were pulled from the Consent Calendar. 11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Eric Haley reported on the following items: • • Standard and Poors affirmation of RCTC's debt rating. • The California Transportation Commission decision to move ahead with the State Route 60 Valley Way to 1-15 project. • Goods Movement Hearing of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in Sacramento. • The promotion of Sheldon Peterson to Rail Program Manager. • New start time for Budget and Implementation Committee of 9:30 a.m. • Staff will be polling members of the Transit Policy Committee for preferred date and time of the quarterly meetings. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case No: RIC 393352 There was no announcement for the Closed Session item. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, March 8, 2006, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, 0-)"^"-ik??4— Jennifer Harmon Acting Clerk of the Commission " AGENDA ITEM 7A " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 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 2004/05 TDA and Measure A Audit Results BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and. Measure A audit results report for the Fiscal Year 2004/05. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2003, Caporicci & Larson (C&L) was selected to perform the audits of Riverside County's TDA claimants and Measure A recipients, except for the Riverside Transit Agency which elected to select its audit firm. This is the third year that C&L has performed these audits for the Commission; however, it did not perform the audit for the city of Beaumont. In October 2005, the city of Beaumont was notified by the Commission to engage an audit firm to perform the financial and compliance audits of its transit and transportation funds for the FY 2003/04 and 2004/05. C&L has completed the audits of and issued the audit reports for most of the local governments, non-profit agencies, and transit agencies that received TDA and Measure A funds. Professional auditing standards require the auditors to communicate to the audit committee, or an equivalent group, to ensure additional information is provided regarding the scope and results of the audit that may assist in overseeing management's financial reporting and disclosure process related to the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients. Such communications related to C&L's responsibilities and approach, summary of results, and preliminary findings were discussed by Caporicci & Larson with the Audit Ad Hoc Committee. Following are highlights from C&L's presentation: Agenda Item 7A " Of the $107,601,000 distributed related to Measure A, State Transit Assistance (STA), and TDA funds$67,752,000, or 63%, was audited by C&L. This comprised 33 recipients who received funds for transit, local. streets and roads, and bicycle and pedestrian project purposes. " $39,849,000*, or 37%, was not audited by C&L. The majority of these disbursements were related to TDA planning and administration funds to agencies, including the Commission, as well as Measure A and TDA funds to the city of Beaumont and the Riverside Transit Agency. " As of February 3, 2006, 26 reports were issued. Fieldwork was substantially completed for six additional recipients (Volunteer Center of America, San Jacinto, Riverside, SunLine Transit, Corona, and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency); issuance of these final reports was pending resolution of open items and completion of quality review procedures. Fieldwork for one recipient (County of Riverside) has commenced but will not be completed until March 2006, and such fieldwork will include completion of the FY 2003/04 audit. " Findings and observations were discussed, and significant matters are presented below. There were three findings related to the Measure A Specialized Transit Program: " Care-A-Van`s matching funds included in -kind contributions which were not supported by third party documentation and were related to volunteer hours from a full-time, salaried manager. " Care Connexxus and Inland AIDS project obtained insurance from insurance companies which did not meet the Commission's minimum standard, and these agencies had not requested a waiver. As a result of the current and prior years' findings related to the Measure A Specialized Transit Program, staff has considered these matters in the development of the Measure A Specialized Transit Call for Projects which was released February 10, 2006. Such changes include the following: " Qualifying in -kind contributions and acceptable supporting documentation were defined. " Exceptions to the model agreement, including insurance requirements which have been reduced to no less than A-:VII, must be noted in the proposal submitted. " Audits required by the Commission must be completed in a timely and cooperative manner or funding may be suspended. Agenda Item 7A 2 " " There were two findings and an observation related to TDA Article 4 Transit: " City of Riverside Special Services Transit did not meet its required fare ratio of 10%. The actual fare ratio was 9.9%. This is the first year of noncompliance, and as a result this year is deemed a grace year. " City of Corona Transit received capital funds in FY 2004/05 in excess of amounts spent which was not in compliance with TDA regulations. " The auditors observed that some transit operators are excluding capital purchases which were not capitalized in accordance with agency accounting policies from operating expenses in the fare ratio calculation. Current TDA and Commission fare ratio policies have not addressed if this deduction is permitted; however, it has been done in past audits based on a review of audit reports. This issue was highlighted in the current year as one operator would not have met the fare ratio requirement if this deduction were not allowed. As a result of the discussion regarding these matters, staff was directed by the Audit Ad Hoc Committee to review best practices and applicable regulations to determine if any changes should be proposed to the Commission's transit capital grant funding process and fare ratio policy. Attached is the summary of transportation and transit fund operations and related audit results for the various types of TDA (Articles 3, 4, and 8) and Measure A (specialized transit and local streets and roads) funding. Each schedule provides information for each claimant and recipient regarding the revenues, expenditures/expenses, and change in fund balance/net assets for the year ended June 30, 2005; other financial and compliance information; summary of observations and findings; and other information pertaining to the status or scope of work performed. Attachments: 1) Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule 2) Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule 3) Transportation Development Act Article 8 Schedule 4) Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule 5) Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule and Comments Agenda Item 7A " " Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2005 (Note 1) Cathedral Desert Hot Moreno Palm County of San Banning Blythe City Springs Indio Valley Springs Perris Riverside Riverside Jacinto Temecula (Draft) (Draft) Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article $ 11,418 $ 29,900 $ - $ 35,000 $ - $ 68,902 $ 30,426 $ 85,000 $313,338 S - $ 52,000 $ 65,127 Other revenues - - 785 - Interest income 730 - (6,973) 1,000 - 261 Total revenues 12,148 29,900 35,000 62,714 30,426 86,000 313,338 52,000 65,388 Total expenditures 25,332 29,900 35,000 62,714 30,426 196,285 313,338 52,000 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (13,184) (110,285) - 65,388 Transfers In (out) 11,418 (250,000) - (65,388) Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers In over (under) expenditures (1,766) (250,000) - (110,285) Fund balances at beginning of year 6,647 417,944 - 56,810 Fund balances at end of year $ 4,881 $ $ $ $ $167,944 $ - $ (53,475) $ - $ $ - $ Deferred revenues at end of year $ $ $ - $ 30,000 $ 1,411 $ 10,218 $ - $ - $ 53,102 $ $ - $ 34,873 No activity Source: 2005 Financial Statements Note 1 2004 and 2005 audits have not been completed. Summary of Observations (Article 3 allocations are for specific bicycle and pedestrian proiects approved by the Commission) 1 Cathedral City submitted a claim for $60,000 subsequent to year end for FY2004/05, which was accrued by RCTC as payable. Amount to be included in FY2005/06 audit, 2 Indio has not expended its deferred balance, which is a carryover from FY2004. 3 Desert Hot Springs has not expended its deferred balance, which was related to a claim submitted subsequent to year end for FY2005. 4 Temecula has not expended its deferred balance, which was received in FY2005. 5 Moreno Valley has not expended its deferred balance, which was received in FY2005. 6 Moreno Valley has recorded interest income in Measure A fund while unrealized gain (loss) on investments is recorded in Article 3 fund. Fund balance is related to transfers in primarily from Measure A fund. Section 99234 2;22/2006 4 " " " Total operating revenues Operating expenses: Depreciation and amortization Other operating expenses Total operating expenses Operating loss Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Grants: Local Transportation Funds State Transit Assistance Federal Measure A specialized transit Other Interest income Interest expense Transfers In (out) Gain (loss) on sale of property Recovery of bad debt to affiliate Other Total nonoperating revenue (expense) Net Increase (decrease) Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2005 (Note 1) (Draft) (Draft) (Draft) (Drab) Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside PVVTA SunLine RTA $ 98,252 $ " $ 200,817 $ 199,961 $ 55,376 $ 2,983,055 $ 6,004,812 277.899 - 164,365 300,943 89,744 2,219,533 6,428,895 962,843 - 1.450,636 2,259,551 774,034 17,226,766 38,565,612 1,240.742 - 1.615,001 2,560,494 863,778 19,446,299 44,994,507 (1,142,490) (1,414,184) (2,360.533) (808.402) (16,463,244) (38,989,695) 905,577 1,098,528 1,912,555 728,809 9,359,808 27,897,073 35,220 - 22,816 29,280 19,828 315,870 482,536 134,589 181,329 - 3,465,858 11,419,101 - - 3,302,256 624,378 27.500 8.133 645,571 3,624 6,763 751 72,460 263,187 - (66,953) (488,875) (50,000) 16,216 - - - 3,650 - - (64,878) - (3.586) (628.125) - - 867,989 - 14,161 5,015 3,075 " 101,848 898.071 - 1.293,073. 2.063,301 779,963 17,321.835 40,316,794 (244.419) (121,111) (297,232) (28,439) 858,591 - 1.327,099 Prior period adjustment 8 - - - (454) Net assets at beginning of year 1,061,234 1,399,182 989,877 390,917 7,119,739 33,470,020 Net assets at end of year $ 816,823 $ $ 1,278,071 $ 692,645 $ 362,024 $ 7,978,330 $ 34,797,119.. Deferred revenue at end of year: Operating $ 27,651 $ $ 126,087 $ 20,000 $ 64,036 $ 972,079 $ 1,521,888 Capital 83,668 - 173,989 96,590 12,705 1,488,282 2,630,412 Total deferred revenue at end of year $ 111,319 $ - $ 300,076 $ 118,590 $ 76,741 $ 2,460,361 $ 4,152.300 Required fare ratio 10.00% 0.00% 20.00% 10.00% 10.00% 17.22% 17.68 % Actual fare ratio 10.20�A 0.00A 20.00% 9.90A '10.80A 17.32�/ 20.01A Fare ratio compliance status Met 0 Met Not Met Met Met Met Source: 2005 Financial Statements Note 1 2004 and 2005 audits have not been completed; clty's auditors to complete audits per RCTC notification Note 2 RTA elected to select Its independent public accounting arm, which met the requirements set forth by the Commission In January 1998. Summary of Findings: 1 City of Riverside Transit did not meet fare ratio requirement. This is Year 1 of noncompliance. 2 Section 99260 52/22/2006 " " " Transportation Development Act Article 8 Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 (Note 1) County of Blythe Riverside Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article 8 $ $ Other revenues Interest income Total revenues Total expenditures 495,279 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (495,279) Prior period adjustments (6,370) Fund balances at beginning of year (42,524) Fund balances at end of year $(544,173) $ Source: 2005 Financial Statements Note 1 2004 and 2005 audits have not been completed. Summary of Observations (Article 8 allocations for Western County and Coachella Valley ended in 1993 and 1987, respectively, as available LTF funds are now used to meet transit needs. Article 8 allocations for Palo Verde Valley are subject to an annual unmet needs hearing.) 1 Blythe has significant negative fund balance. Expenditures were not budgeted for. No disbursements of Article 8 revenue to Blythe have been made in recent years due to unmet needs in PVV. Section 99400 (a) 6 2/22/2006 " Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2005 Partners for Care Inland Aids Independent Care -A -Van Connexxus Project Living Volunteer Center Operating revenues: Measure A $ 195,500 $ 65,000 $ 89,000 $ 304,973 $ Interest income 467 Other revenue 99,958 Total operating revenues 195,500 164,958 89,000 305,440 Total operating expenses Excess (deficiency) of operating revenues over (under) operating expenses Nonoperating revenue: Transfers in (out) Change in net assets Prior period adjustment Net assets at beginning of year Net assets at end of year Deferred revenues Match requirement Actual match Match requirement compliance status Source:2005 Financial Statements 209,870 164,958 89,000 305,440 (14,370) (14,370) 30,742 $ 16,372 $ $ - $ - 19,777 - 32,728 - $ 19,777 $ - $ 32,728 $ 98,000 $ 65,000 $ 89,000 $ 393,410 $ (Note 1A) (Note 1A) (Note 1A) (Note 1B) Friends of Moreno Blindness Beaumont Valley Support USD DPI $ 44,800 $ 62,465 $ 45,977 N/A $ 79,547 $ 62,470 $ 26,351 N/A $. 99,958 $ 89,000 $ 641,994 $ - $ 22,400 N/A $ 26,821 Met Met Met _ In Compl N/A In Compl Note 1A Full -scope audit was not performed due to grant amounts and/or purpose; however, agreed -upon procedures were performed related to the agreement and grant expenditures. Note 1 B DPI provided administration services for the taxi -demonstration program. Agreed -upon procedures were performed related to the agreement. Note 2 Note 3 Summary of Observations (Measure A specialized transit grants are provided in two-year cycles, most. recent cycle ended June 30, 2004) and Findings 1 Care-A-Van's in -kind match included volunteer time for full -lime salaried program coordinator as well as potentially insufficient supporting documentation created internally. 2 Care Connexxus had two findings regarding general liability and automobile Insurance placed with insurers not meeting RCTC requirement. 3 Inland Aids had current year finding regarding insurance with insurer not meeting RCTC minimum standards which was corrected as of 7/1/05. 4 Beaumont USD has unexpended balance which must have RCTC approval for carryover Into FY2006. Measure A Specialized Transit _ 2/22/2006 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A Reimbursements Reimbursements from regional arterial program Other revenues Interest income Total revenues Expenditures: Construction and maintenance Engineering and administration Land Regional arterial improvements Debt service: Principal Interest Total expenditures Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures Transfers in (out) Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures Prior period adjustment Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year • Western County Banning Beaumont Calimesa Corona Hemet Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco (Note 1) (Draft) (Draft) $ 688,316 $ $ 176,383 $ 4,790,754 $ 1,841,621 $ 1,202,503 $ 4,117,231 $ 2,150,022 $ 883,118 1,525 8,063 10,383 146,248 62,479 696,379 186,766 4,938,527 1,904,100 571,038 571,038 125,341 (11,418) 113,923 544,029 $ 657,952 - 120,084 - 120,084 - 66,682 510,801 $ 510,801 66,682 7,933 485,152 $ 559,767 $ 1,528,596 242,343 591,500 14,215 1,216,718 726,646 749 174,279 5,018,905 195,862 110,203 117,611 2,260,225 1,196,591 634,958 68,063 5,771,391 482,509 732,060 400,817 173,526 190,974 117,215 2,611 - - 46,846 2,880,471 634,958 244,200 5,771,391 482,509 969,880 2,058,056 1,269,142 972,518 (752,486) 1,777,716 226,711 - - (483,000) 250,000 - - 2,058,056 1,269,142 489,518 (502,486) 1,777,716 226,711 6,403,777 2,263,686 497,984 5,655,678 4,336,106 4,570,266 6,461,833 $ 3,532,828 $ 987,502 $ 5,153,192 $ 6,113,822 $ 4,796,977 Measure A LSR 1 of 6 2/22/2006 8 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 Western County Banning Beaumont Calimesa Corona Hemet Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances $ - $ - $ - $ 419,394 $ 104,495 $ 60,000 $ 1,495,902 $ - $ Reserved for specific projects 2,872,047 Reserved for continuing appropriations - . Reserved for advances - 797,810 Designated for specific/future projects or cont approp - - 2,378,865 - - Unreserved, undesignated 657,952 - 559,767 5,170,392 3,428,333 927,502 1,278,425 6,113,822 3,999,167 Total fund balances by component $ 657,952 $ - $ 559,767 $ 8,461,833 $ 3,532,828 $ 987,502 $ 5,153,192 $ 6,113,822 $ 4,796,977 Fund balance by year received: 2005 $ 657,952 $ - $ 186,766 $ 4,938,527 $ 1,904,100 $ 987,502 $ 5,018,905 $ 2,260,225 $ 1,196,591 2004 - - 170,598 3,523,306 1,628,728 - 134,287 1,421,978 853,870 2003 - 175,306 - - 1,504,995 1,117,103 2002 - 27,097 - 926,624 595,204 2001 657,521 1998 376,688 Total fund balances by year received $ 657,952 $ - $ 559,767 $ 8,461,833 $ 3,532,828 $ 987,502 $ 5,153,192 $ 6,113,822 $ 4,796,977 Notes payable to RCTC at end of year Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2005 Financial Statements $ - $ - $ - $ 1,907,264 $ - Pd off 2005 $ - $ - $ 797,810 $ 2,382,401 $ - N/A $ 23,566,809 $ 4,957,906 $ 8,319,699 $18,511,398 N/A $ 2,904,550 Met N/A Met Met w/use of Met Met N/A Met (Note 2) excess MOE (Note 2) Measure A LSR 2 of 69 2/22/2006 • • • Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 7 Western Count Coachella Valley -u•strarraT' ITesePt-Ra- Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula City Coachella Springs Indian Wells (Draft) (Draft) Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure $ 1,145,171 $ 8,827,615 $ 678,134 $3,155,455 $1,615,093 $ - $ 334,053 $ 215,025 Reimbursements Reimbursements from regional arterial program Other revenues - 128 - - - - Interest income 84,336 680,759 21,915 115,599 56,646 11,142 14,811 18,321 Total revenues 1,229,507 9,508,502 700,049 3,271,054 1,671,739 11,142 348,864 233,346 Expenditures: Construction and maintenance 254,007 12,034,932 1,882,952 - 1,579,210 549,990 415,927 Engineering and administration - Land - Regional arterial improvements Debt service: Principal 171,663 117,416 451,584 Interest 43,692 29,885 114,938 - - Total expenditures 469,362 12,034,932 2,030,253 566,522 1,579,210 - 549,990 415,927 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over(under)expenditures 760,145 (2,526,430) (1,330,204) 2,704,532 92,529 11,142 (201,126) (182,581) Transfers in (out) (10,000) 4,975,000 (2,546,000) - 100,000 Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures 750,145 2,448,570 (1,330,204) 158,532 92,529 11,142 (101,126) (182,581) Prior period adjustment - - (1) - Fund balances at beginning of year 3,077,378 37,208,703 2,338,268 4,555,084 2,969,615 809,837 835,506 771,899 Fund balances at end of year $ 3,827,523 $ 39,657,273 $ 1,008,063 $ 4,713,616 $3,062,144 $ 820,979 $ 734,380 $ 589,318 Measure A LSR 3 of 1 Q 2/22/2006 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances Reserved for specific projects Reserved for continuing appropriations Reserved for advances Designated for specific/future projects or cunt approp Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component Fund balance by year received: 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 1998 Total fund balances by year received Notes payable to RCTC at end of year Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2005 Financial Statements Measure A LSR • Perris Western County. Riverside San Jacinto 1 I ' -us Rout Temecula City Coachella Valley —OZP Thrt— Coachella Springs Indian Wells - $ 5,757,075 $ 24,582 $ - 22,868,370 3,827,523 11,031,828 $ 3,827,523 $ 39,657,273 983,481 $ 1,008,063 4,713,616 3,062,144 820,979 $ 4,713,616 $3,062,144 $ 820,979 734,380 $ 734,380 $ 589,318 589,318 $ 1,229,507 $ 9,508,502 $ 441,14-5 $ 3,271,054 $1,671,739 1,107,190 8,402,011 - 1,442,562 1,390,405 1,235,464 9,308,641 255,362 7,969,961 4,468,158 566,918 $ 11,142 375,960 433,877 $ 348,864 $ 286,456 99,060 233,346 186,241 169,731 $ 3,827,523 $ 39,657,273 $ 1,008,063 $ 4,713,616 $3,062,144 $ 820,979 $ 734,380 $ 589,318 $ 751,003 $ $ 12,750,688 $ 9,879,338 Met Met w/use of excess MOE $ 514,335 $ 1,978,126 $ - $ $ 9,122,140 N/A $1,625,992 Met N/A Met (Note 2) 4of 11 • $1,275,779 $ 295,467 $ 17,285,374 Met w/use of Met w/use of Met excess MOE excess MOE 2/22/2006 • 900Z/ZZ/Z $ L9b'b69 (4 0PN) Z6 g jo g $ b94'06Z'4 $ 9L6'4L0'Z $ 90L'E49`9 $ £b4'0179'9 $ E4990s`b $ L6E`OL0'4 Zeb'E8£'Z 817C$b9`b 964'LZ6'E 499'99017 L9L'64Z (LO9'80£) L96'£66 Lbe£46'4 Z£4` 49b L9L'64Z (Loner) 1:1S1 V emseew creed jo pue seoueleq pund aes/ jo 6uluul6eq;e seoueleq pund (ueugsnlpe pored aoud san;lpuedxa (aepun) aeon ul sae;suea; pue senuena;o (louelogep) sseox3 ESL Ono) ul saejsueal L96'£66 Lbt£46'4 6LE'0917 Z44'40L 9L£'LZ9'$ 699'LbE'4 EZ4'044'4 LEb'E00'4 9Zb`009 Z44`40L 9L£`LZ9'E EEZ`Lb9 £Z4'044'L LEb'£00`4 698'0Z6 698'94£'£ 949`44E`Z OL9`EZO`E 949`E9b`4 Z9$'9Z 9E£`09 99Z'ZZ4 649`9L 96n 906`£8b 699`LSE`Z 990'LE 0E9`499 $ »9'099 $ 69£'969'4 $ 9Z0'99E`Z $ ZL9'49E`4 I eplsaenla 1 e41119 e6ealw s6uuds wled Pose° wled }o l;uno0 ! -/-Va4V2L I I AelleA l LelleA elle43e00 I----1.2PJedJSc1J bb 4`Z6 olpul sampuedxe (aepun) aeno senuena jo (Iloueloyep) sseox3 san;lpuedxe le;ol ;seaa;ul ledloupd :eopues Aea s;uewanoadwl O ape leuol6a8 puei uopa;slulwpe pue 6uueeupu3 eoueue;ulew pue uop mesuo0 :seanepuedx3 senuana le;ol ewooul;sae;ul s811ueneaae1.140 wea6oad leuepe leuol6ea way s;uewesangwlet' s;uewesangwlea y emseew :suopeoope le;uewweno6ae;ul :sanuena son '0£ eunr pepue 1e6A empeyos spent' pue spasms pool y emseew Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances Reserved for specific projects Reserved for continuing appropriations Reserved for advances Designated for specific/future projects or cont approp Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component Fund balance by year received: m13CreTde r----i Coachella Vallexr ` Valley 'Ran'cfio t County of' Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs Mirage Blythe Riverside j $ 412,774 $ 1,282,166 $ 2,074,975 $ - $ 2,541,335 6,425,029 2,886,334 4,506,813 (2,163,490) - 1,290,154 $ 4,506,813 $ 5,840,443 $ 5,543,705 $ 2,074,975 $ 1,290,154 $ 2005 $ 1,453,816 $ 3,023,670 $ 2,341,616 $ 2,074,975 $ 920,869 $ 2004 1,205,818 2,816,773 1,869,158 - 369,285 2003 1,315,046 - 1,332,931 - 2002 532,133 2001 - 1998 Total fund balances by year received $ 4,506,813 $ 5,840,443 $ 5,543,705 $ 2,074,975 $ 1,290,154 $ Notes payable to RCTC at end of year $ $ - $ $ $ Amount of Excess MOE at end of year $ 18,234,908 $ 61,899,569 $ 20,738,046 $ 26,305,581 $ 2,534,639 $ MOE compliance status Met Met Met Met Met w/use of excess MOE Source: 2005 Financial Statements Measure A LSR 6 of 13 2/22/2006 " " Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2005 Note 1 2004 and 2005 audits have not been completed. Summary of Observations and Findings 1 Indio has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 2 Norco has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 3 Calimesa has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 4 Coachella had not submitted 5 yr CIP until 12/05 and it was approved at 1/06 RCTC meeting. Additionally, city had not completed Its state controllers street report required for MOE calculation and amount for MOE was shown as $0. City used excess MOE carryover, which was sufficient to meet current year requirement and will be sufficient through the end of Measure A. 5 Murrieta has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 6 Norco and San Jacinto have unexpended investments from 1997 bonds issued by RCTC for local projects. 7 Riverside has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 8 Perris has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. Measure A LSR Comments 1 14 2/22/2006 AGENDA ITEM 7B • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Statewide Community Infrastructure Program Financing through BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve in -concept the Commission's participation in the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Commission's June 2005 retreat, staff made a presentation regarding TUMF fee financing, as several developers have expressed an interest in tax-exempt financing of Western County TUMF fees. The proposed TUMF fee financing plan consisted of the issuance of debt by Riverside County (County); the transfer of debt proceeds to the Commission and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG); and the administration, management, and expenditure of debt proceeds by the Commission and WRCOG. As a result of various issues and concerns discussed during the presentation, there was a lack of support for this TUMF fee financing proposal. The Commission's response was reported at a working group meeting of Commission, WRCOG, County staffs, developers and consultants in June 2005. At subsequent meetings of the working group in November 2005 and December 2005, County staff and its consultants presented a new proposal whereby the County would apply for participation in the California Statewide Communities Development Authority's SCIP for development impact fee financing in unincorporated County areas utilizing 1913/1915 Act special assessment obligations. TUMF fees would be financed through SCIP, the issuer of the debt, under a reimbursement program or prefunding program. Based on a building permit survey of 21 developers interested in participating in the SCIP program, it appears that SCIP revenues available to the Commission for Western County regional arterial expenditures could approximate $56 million over a three-year period. The County's formal request for the Commission's participation in the SCIP program is included as an attachment. Agenda Item 7B 15 The issuance and administration of debt would be the responsibility of SCIP. As eligible infrastructure expenditures are incurred, the Commission would submit to SCIP a requisition for disbursement. The Commission would have no administrative responsibilities other than submitting such requisitions to pay expenditures. Accordingly, no additional costs for the Commission are associated with the SCIP. In order to participate in the SCIP program, the County would need to adopt a resolution to join the SCIP, and the Commission and WRCOG would need to enter into a fee collection and disbursement agreement. The proposed agreement, which is subject to legal counsel review by all parties, as well as a process flowchart regarding the County's proposed SCIP are included as attachments to the County's letter. Staff is requesting that the Committee approve in -concept the Commission's participation in the SCIP as it relates to the financing of TUMF fees in the unincorporated areas of Western County. Attachment: County Request for RCTC's Participation in SCIP Agenda Item 7B 16 " " Executive Office County of Riverside Eric Maley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon .Street, 3ro Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Eric, Larry Parrish County Executive Officer February 16, 2006 As you are aware, Riverside County is experiencing unprecedented population growth. With that growth comes the need to provide necessary infrastructure in a timely manner, particularly in the area of transportation. The County is addressing this growth through farming community facilities districts and developing an area plan implementation program that will address growth on a community -wide basis, A third option the County is considering, is to allow developers, whose development is not eligible for a CFD, or not in an area plan implementation program, to participate in the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program ("SCIP") to finance of their TUMF obligations. This program would only be offered to developments in the unincorporated areas of the county. Because the TUMF is collected by the County on behalf of RCTC and WRCOG, it is necessary for both agencies to formally acknowledge their participation in the program. As such, the County is formally requesting RCTC's consideration to participate in the SLIP program. For your review, I have attached sample documents that must be approved by the County, RCTC and WRCOG, and a flowchart on how the program would work. An action by your 'Board to approve the program in -concept would be sufficient for the County to formally approve the program, followed by your Board formally approving participation in the program: Thank you in advance for your willingness to participate. The SCIP informational material, provided to you at previous meetings, should have adequately explained the SLIP program. If not, please feel free to contact myself at 955-1127, or Adam Bauer with Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates, our financial advisor, at (949) 660-8500. Sincerely, Dean Deines -�� Deputy County Executive Officer Riverside County Executive Office Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street " 4'" Floor " Riverside, Califon of 92501 " (951) 955-1100 " Fax (951) 955-1105 attachments cc: Supervisor John Tavaglione, 2°d District Supervisor Marion Ashley, 5th District John Field, 2nd District Darcy Kuenzi, 5h District. Rick Bishop, WRCOG Ruthanne Taylor -Berger, WRCOG Hideo Sugita, RCTC Theresia Trevino, RCTC Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street • 4h Floor • Riverside, Califo92501 • (951) 9554100+ Fax (951) 955=1105 " " Riverside County Statewide Community Infrastructure Program Initial Procedures To Participate In SCIP: SCIP Attorneys Prepare Fee and Collection Agreements and Resolution RCTC In -concept Approves Fee and Collection Agreement ---- County (Executive Office Prepare SCIP ' Approval Standards and Manual and I Resolutions Required for Board Approval WRCOG In -concept Approves Fee and Collection Agreement Riverside County Board of Supervisors Approves Resolution to Participate in SCIP 1 RCTC Approves Fee I WRCOG Approves and Collection Fee and Collection Agreement Agreement Procedures Required Developer Submits After Board Approval: Application ? County Executive Office Reviews,_ Application for Completeness h r and Minimum Standards E E 1 RCTC Concurs with Developer Application and verifies that it can spend funds within 3 Yearn Actions Required Key' Countyef am Riverside 1111 SCIP � RCTCNVRCOG Riverside County Executive Office ell Developer Who low Wishes To Participate T WRCOG Concurs with Developer Application and verifies that it can spend funds within 3,Years County Executive Office Accepted Application Is Sent to SCIP SCIP: Processes, Forms District and Issues Bonds 19 i i _r " Fieldtnan, Kolapp =l & Associates NOEPENDEM FIWOICtuAND N V EMMENE AwQOR$ CO 2006 " FEE COLLECTION AND �'ISBURSEMENT AGREEMENT This FEE COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), dated as of February 1, 2006, by and among the RIVERSIDE COUNTY' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Fee Recipient"), a California RIVERSIDE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County") and the CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("CSCDA"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Fee Recipient is entitled to receive from time to time certain amounts paid by developers of real property (each a "Developer") within the jurisdiction of County as impact fees, connection fees or other capital charges; WHEREAS, the County is a participant in CSCDA's Statewide Community Infrastructure Program ("SCIP"); WHEREAS, as a participant in SCIP, the County has established an account with CSCDA held by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the "SOP Trustee") and administered by Bond Logistix LLC (the "SLIP Program Administrator") M which certain amounts collectedon behalf of the County in connection with SCIP are held (the "County SCIP Account"); WHEREAS, certain fees or capital charges collected by Fee Recipient are eligible for financing through SCIP, subject to approval by Bond Counsel (the "Fees"); WHEREAS, the Fees may be paid to Fee Recipient by Developers, for subsequent . reimbursement from the proceeds of bonds (tbe "Bonds") issued through SCIP, or the Fees may be paid directly to Fee Recipient from proceeds of the Bonds; WHEREAS,in order to allow the Fees to be financed through SLIP, Fee Recipient has requested that for any parcel which applies for SLIP financing, County collect the Fees and remit them to CSCDA for deposit in a separate subaccount within the.County SCIP ilcemmt; WHEREAS, in accordance with Fee Recipient's request, and in order to allow the Fees to be financed through SCIP, the County has determined to collect the Fees on Fee Recipient's behalf and to remit the Fees to CSCDA to beheld in a separate subaccount within the County SCIP Account, and to make or cause to be made disbursements from such subaccount in accordance with properly executed requisitions of the Fee Recipient in the form attached as Exhibit B hereto; FOLLOWS: DOCSSF7:7992402 40929-317 J78 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO MUTUALLY AGREE AS. 20 Section I. Definitions. As used herein, the following capitalized terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them below: "Authorized Officer" means (a) when used with respect to CSCDA, any member of the governing board of CSCDA and such additional person or persons, if any, duly designated by CSCDA in writing to act on its behalf, and (b) when used with respect to Fee Recipient, any person or persons duly designated by Fee Recipient in writing to act on its behalf,. "Bond Counsel" means Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, or any other nationally recognized firm appointed by CSCDA to serve as bond counsel in connection with the issuance of Bonds. "Bonds" means bonds issued by CSCDA to finance development impact fees, including the Fees, in connection with SCIP. "Capital Improvements" has the meaning given to that tern in Section 4. "County" means the County of Riverside, California.. "County SCIP Account" means the County's account with CSCDA held by the SCIP Trustee and administered by the SLIP Program Administrator in which certain amounts collected on behalf of the County in connection with SCIP are held. "CSCDA" means the California Statewide CommunitiesDevelopment Authority, its successors and assigns. "Fee Recipient" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a California "Fees" means those certain development impact fees to be financed through SCIP, approved by Bond Counsel and payable from time to tune to Fee Recipient. CSCDA: "SCIP" means the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program, a program of "SCIP Funds" means payments of Fees received by Fee Recipient, as more fully described in Section 3, together with all of the investment earnings on such Fees. "SCIP Program Administrator"' means Bond Logistix LLC, its successors and assigns or any other administrator appointed by CSCDA as the administrator of SCIP. "SCIP Trustee" means Well Fargo Bank, National Association, its successors and assigns. Section 2. Collection of Fees: SCIP Financing: (a) Fee Recipient acknowledges that it has the authority to collect and use the Fees for its awn benefit. Fee Recipient acknowledges that, subject to approval as set forth in DOCSSFE799240.2 40929-317 j78 Section 3, the Fees may be financed through SCIP, and agrees to allow the County to collect the Fees from time to time with respect to properties applying for SCIP financing on the Fee Recipient's behalf (i) from Developers prior to the issuance of a particular series of Bonds, or (ii) from proceeds of a particular series of Bonds' following the issuance of such Bonds. (b) For any property applying for SLIP financing of the Fees, the County agrees to collect the Fees from time to time for the Fee Recipient's benefit. Upon collection; the County shall remit the Fees to CSCDA, to be deposited as set forth in Section 4. Section 3. Approval of Fees. The Authorized Officers of Fee Recipient, or their designees, are authorized under this Agreement to approve the financing of Fees. No Fee may be financed through SCIP except with the written approval of an Authorized Officer of Fee Recipient or his designee, which approval shall be evidenced by the signature of such Authorized Officer next to each such Fee shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. Section 4. Agreement to Fold Fees in SCIP Account. CSCDA agrees to receive or cause to be received by the SCIP Trustee the Fees collected by the County on behalf of the Fee Recipient. CSCDA shalt establish or cause to be established within the County SCIP Account a separate subaccount (the "Riverside County Transportation Commission Subaccount"). The Fees shall be deposited in the Riverside County Transportation Commission Subaccount and held there by the SCIP Trustee and segregated from all other funds within the County SCIP Account, and except for investment purposes, shall not be commingled with any other funds held by the SCIP Trustee. Investment earnings on the Riverside County Transportation Commission Subaccount shall be retained in the such subaccount for the benefit of the Fee Recipient except to the extent a portion of such earnings are requested to pay rebate or yield reduction payments to the U.S. Treasury pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. Amounts on deposit in the Riverside County Transportation Commission; Subaccount shall be disbursed only in accordance with Section 5 of this Agreement. Section 5. Disbursements from SCIP Account. CSCDA shall disburse or cause to be disbursed moneys on deposit in the Riverside County Transportation Commission Subaccount only as provided herein.. Moneys` on deposit in the Riverside County Transportation Commission Subaccount shall be disbursed pursuant to written requisitions of the Fee Recipient, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B :and executed by an Authorized Officer of the Fee Recipient, CSCDA, the SCIP Program Administrator and the SCIP Trustee may conclusively rely on such requisitions for purposes of making such disbursements. All disbursements from the Riverside County Transportation Commission Subaccount to the Fee Recipient shall be made by [wire transfer of immediately available funds/check payable] to the Fee Recipient's bank account number at a bank located within the United States on file with the SCIP Trustee, unless another method of payment is requested in writing by the Fee Recipient. Section 6. Notice of Proposed SCIP Financings. CSCDA agrees that it will cause Fee Recipient to be provided with the following notices at the following times: DOCSSF1:799240:2. 40929-317]78 (a) promptly upon receipt of an application for SCIP fmancing of any Fees payable to Fee Recipient, a description of the affected property and the Fees to be financed; and (b) upon request, an inventory of all Fees payable to Fee Recipient and all properties for which such Fees are payable. Section 7. Term of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from this date to and including its tenmination by mutual written agreement of the parties. hereto. The Authority agrees to terminate this agreement upon request of Fee Recipient upon delivery to CSCDA of an opinion Bond Counsel to the effect that the termination of this Agreement will not adversely affect the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for federal income tax purposes. Section 8. Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instnunent executed by the parties hereto; provided that any such amendment shall be conditioned upon delivery to CSCDA of an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that such amendment will not adversely affect the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for federal income tax purposes. Section 9. Successors in Interest. This Agreement and all of the provisions hereof shall be binding on the parties hereto .and their successors and assigns. Section 10.Third Party Beneficiaries. The SCIP Program Administrator is expressly declared to be a third party beneficiary of this Agreement. Section 11.Severability. If any section; paragraph, sentence; clause or provision of this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforteability of such section, paragraph, sentence, elause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Agreement. Section 12.Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 13.Execution. This Agrecment maybe. executedin any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all together shall constitute but one and the same agreement. Section 14.Notices: Any notice, request, complaint, demand, communication or other paper required or permitted to be delivered to this Agreement Shall be addressed to the appropriate party at the addresses set forth below. Fee Recipient: :M)GSSF1:7992402 -40929-317 j98 Attention: • " " County: CSCDA: Do t:x997.402 40929-31'7ps Attention: California Statewide Communities Development Authority 1100 K Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Treasurer i • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, RIVERSIDE COUNTY and THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY have caused this Agreement to be executed each on its behalf by an authorized representative as of the day and year first above written. DOCSSPI:799240,2 40929-317J7$ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Authorized Officer RIVERSIDE COUNTY Authorized Officer CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMUNITY Member I-V ad LIS-6Z606 ZVZ6994.ESDOCI am now° pazlimpnv Sq pm:Liddy lunouiv papadxa paroid am sam panoiddy V IlfEIHXH • • • " " EXHIBIT B SLIP Disbursement Form To: Bond Logistix LLC 777 'S. Figueroa St., Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Attention: Daniel Chang Fax: 213-612-2499 Phone: 213-612-2205 Re: Statewide Community Infrastructure Program The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Riverside County Transportation Conunission hereby requests a withdrawal from the RiversideCountyTransportation Commission Subaccount, as follows_ Request Date: Fee Sub -account to be drawn from: Withdrawal Amount: The undersigned hereby certifies as follows: 1. The Withdrawal is being made in accordance with a permitted use of such monies pursuant to the SCIP program documents, and the Withdrawal is not being made for the purpose of reinvestment. 2. None of the items for which payment is requested have been reimbursed previously from other sources of funds. 3. If the Withdrawal Amount is, greater than the funds held in SCIP on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; the Program Administrator is authorized to amend the amount requested to be equal to the amount of such funds. 4. To the extent the Withdrawal is being made prior to the date bonds :have been issued on behalf of SC1P, this withdrawal form serves as the declaration of official intent of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, pursuant to Treasury Regulations 1.150-2, to reimburse with respect expenditures trade from the Fee Sub -account listed above in the amount listed above. Unless amended by prior written notice to the Program Administrator, the Withdrawal Amount shall be forwarded to the financial institution and account provided to the Program Administrator as part of the County's SCIP enrollment materials. Dated: [DATE] RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By Title: DOGSSF1:669246:2 40929-317178 . B2t AGENDA ITEM 7C RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Investment Policy Review BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt the Updated Investment Policy. I BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section XIV of the Investment Policy requires an annual investment policy review and specifically states that the "Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting." Based on a review of the Investment Policy approved by the Commission on March 18, 2005 and consideration of changes to the California Government Code (Code) as of January 1, 2006, staff in consultation with the Investment Advisor hired by the Commission has determined that no technical changes are required; however, staff has made some administrative revisions to reporting requirements in Section IX. These changes relate to the deletion of information regarding amortized cost, accrued interest, and yield at market, as such information is not required to be reported under the Code. Staff is recommending adoption of the attached Investment Policy. Attachment: Investment Policy Agenda Item 7C 28 rersideConniy rzinspori lion Commission INVESTMENT POLICY I. Introduction The purpose of this document is to identify policies and procedures that enhance opportunities for a prudent and systematic investment program and to organize and formalize investment -related activities. 11. Scope It is intended that this Policy cover all funds (except retirement funds) and investment activities under the direction of the Commission. III. Delegation of Authority Pursuant to the Commission's Administrative Code, the _Board's management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated for a one-year period to the Executive Director who shall monitor and review all investments for consistency with this investment policy. Subject to review, the Board may renew the delegation of authority pursuant to this section each year. The Executive Director may delegate these duties to his designee ("Chief Financial Officer"). The Commission may delegate its investment decision making and execution authority to an investment advisor. The advisor shall follow this Policy and such other written instructions as are provided. IV. Prudence All persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the Commission are subject to the prudent investor standard. Investments shall be made with care, skill, prudence and diligence under circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and theanticipatedneeds of the Commission that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the Commission. Authorized individuals acting in accordance with this Policy and written procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal 29 responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion. V. Objective The Commission's primary investment objectives, in priority order, shall be: 1. Safety. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the Commission shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure preservation of capital in the portfolio. 2. Liquidity. The investment portfolio of the Commission will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the Commission to meet its cash flow requirements. 3. Return on Investment. The investment portfolio of the Commission shall be designed with the objective of maximizing return on its investments, but only after ensuring safety and liquidity. In order to maximize return on its investments, the Commission seeks an active rather than passive management of portfolio assets. The Commission may from time to time sell securities that it owns in order to better reposition its portfolio assets in accordance with updated cash flow schedules, yield curve optimizations, yield opportunities existing between market sectors, or simply market timing. VI. Investments California Government Code Section 53601 governs the investments permitted for purchase by the Commission. Within the investments permitted by Code, the Commission seeks to further restrict eligible investments to the investments listed in Section V1.1 below. Percentage limitations, where indicated, apply atthe time of purchase. Percentage holdings with any one non -governmental issuer are further restricted to a maximum of 10%. Rating requirements where indicated, apply at the time of purchase. In the event a security held by the Commission is subject to a rating change that brings it below the minimum specified rating requirement, the Chief Financial Officer shall notify the Board of the change. The course of action to be followed will then be decided on a case -by -case basis, considering such factors as the reason for the rate drop, prognosis for recovery or further rate drops, and the market price of the security. 30 1. Eligible Investments A. U.S. Government Issues. United States Treasury notes, bonds, bills, or certificates of indebtedness, or those for which the faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. B. Federal Agency Securities. Federal agency or United States government -sponsored enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government -sponsored enterprises. C. Repurchase Agreements. Repurchase agreements are to be used solely as short-term investments not to exceed 30 days. The Commission may enter into repurchase agreements with primary government securities dealers rated "A" or better by two nationally recognized rating services. Counterparties should also have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least A-1 /P- 1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants. The following collateral restrictions will be observed: Only U.S. Treasury securities or Federal Agency securities, as described in V.1 A and B, will be acceptable collateral. All securities underlying repurchase agreements must be delivered to the Commission's custodian bank versus payment or be handled under a properly executed tri-party repurchase agreement. The total market value of all collateral for each repurchase agreement must equal or exceed 102 percent of the total dollar value of the money invested by the Commission for the term of the investment. For any repurchase agreement with a term of more than one day, the value of the underlying securities must be reviewed on an on -going basis according to market conditions. Market value must be calculated each time there is a substitution of collateral. The Commission or its trustee shall have a perfected first security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code in all securities subject to repurchase agreement, The Commission shall have properly executed a PSA agreement with each counterparty with which it enters into repurchase agreements. 31 D. U.S. Corporate Debt. Medium -term notes, defined as all corporate and depository institution securities with a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less, issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States. Eligible investment shall be rated "AA" or better by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Investments in U.S. Corporate Debt are further limited to 30% of surplus funds. E. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper rated in the highest category by one or more nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO). The entity that issues the commercial paper shall meet all of the following conditions in either paragraph (1) or paragraph (2): (1) The entity meets the following criteria: (A) Is organized and operating in the United States as a general corporation. (B) Has total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). (C) Has debt other than commercial paper, if any, that is rated "A" or higher by a NRSRO. (2) The entity meets the following criteria: (A) Is organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company. (B) Has program -wide credit enhancements, including, but not limited to, over collateralization, letters of credit, or surety bond. (C) Has commercial paper that is rated "A-1" or higher, or the equivalent, by a. NRSRO. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 270 days maturity nor represent more than 10 percent of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. Investments in commercial paper are limited to a maximum of 25% of surplus funds. F. Banker's Acceptances. Banker's acceptances issued by domestic or foreign banks, which are eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. Purchases of banker's acceptances may not exceed 180 days maturity. Eligible banker's acceptances are restricted to issuing financial institutions with short-term paper rated in the highest category by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Investments in banker's acceptances are further limited to 40% of surplus funds with no more than 30% of surplus invested in 32 • • " " the banker's acceptances of any one commercial bank. G. Money Market Mutual Funds. Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1, et seq.) and that invest solely in U.S. treasuries, obligations of the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements relating to such treasury obligations. The Commission may invest in shares of beneficial interest issued by acompany shall have met either of the following criteria: (1) Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized rating services. (2) Retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years' experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars. ($ 500,000,000). The purchase price of shares of beneficial interest purchased pursuant to this subdivision shall not include any commission that the companies may charge. Investments in Money Market Mutual Funds are further limited to 20% of surplus funds. H. Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund ("RCPIF"). The Commission may invest in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund. As on -going due diligence, the Chief Financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below: " A description of eligible investment securities and a written statement of investment policy. " A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the portfolio. " A description of how often the securities are priced, how the securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements. " A description of who may invest in the program, how often they may invest, and what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed. " A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. " A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed. 33 " The composition of the investment fund for each reporting period. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund ("LAIF"). The Commission may invest in LAIF. As on -going due diligence, the Chief Financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below: " A description of eligible investment securities and a written statement of investment policy. " A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the portfolio. " A description of how often the securities are priced, how the securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements. " A description of who may invest in the program, how often they may invest, and what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed. " A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. " A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed. " The composition of the investment fund for each reporting period. J. Certificates of Deposit. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured or fully collateralized time certificates of deposit in financial institutions located in California. Eligible investments are restricted to those issuing institutions that have been in business at least five years and whose senior debt obligations are rated "AA" or better by one or more nationally recognized rating service. The maximum term for deposits shall be one year. Investments in certificates of deposit are further limited to 20% of surplus funds. All time deposits must be collateralized in accordance with California Government Code section 53561. The Commission, at its discretion, may waive the collateralization requirements for any portion of the deposit that is covered by federal insurance. 2. Eligible Investments for Bond Proceeds Bond proceeds shall be invested in securities permitted by the applicable bond documents. If the bond documents are silent as to permitted investments, bond proceeds will be invested in securities permitted by this Policy. 34 " " With respect to maximum maturities, the Policy authorizes investing bond reserve fund proceeds beyond the five years if prudent in the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer. 3. Ineligible Investments As provided in California Government Code Section 53601.6, the Commission shall not invest any funds in inverse floaters, range notes, mortgage derived interest -only strips or in any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity. The purchase of any security not listed in Section VI.1 above, but permitted by the California Government Code, is prohibited unless the Board approves the investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the Board. VII. Maximum Maturities Maturities of investments will be selected to provide necessary liquidity, minimize interest rate risk, and maximize earnings. Current and expected yield curve analysis will be monitored and the portfolio will be invested accordingly. Because of inherent difficulties in accurately forecasting cash flow requirements, a portion of the portfolio should be continuously invested in readily available funds. Where this Policy does not specify a maximum remaining maturity at the time of the investment, no investment shall be made in any security, other than a security underlying a repurchase or reverse repurchase agreement authorized by this section, that at the time of the investment has a term remaining to maturity in excess of five years, unless the Boardhas granted express authority to make that investment either specifically or as a part of an investment .program approved by the Board no less than three months prior to the investment. VIII. Performance Standards The Chief Financial_ Officer shall continually monitor and evaluate the portfolio's performance. A comparison of the portfolio's performance against a performance benchmark shall be included; in the Chief Financial Officer's quarterly report. The Chief Financial Officer shall select an appropriate, readily available market index to use as a performance benchmark. 35 IX. Reporting The Chief Financial Officer shall prepare and provide to the Board and the Executive Director, within 30 days following the end of the quarter, a portfolio report, which includes the following information: • Type of investment • Name of issuer • Date of maturity • Date of purchase • Par value • Original purchase cost • Call date (if applicable) • Current market value of securities • Unrealized market value gain/loss • Coupon rate, if applicable • Yield to maturity • Credit quality, as determined by one or more nationally recognized credit rating services, of each investment • Average duration of portfolio • Listing of all investment transactions during the quarter • A statement that the portfolio complies with the investment policy, or the manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance • A statement denoting the ability of the Commission to meet its liquidity requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may not be, available. X. Investment Procedures The Chief Financial Officer, as the Board's designee, is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Commission's investment policies and establishing written procedures and internal controls for the operation of the investment program. No person may engage in investment transactions except as provided under the terms of this Policy and the written procedures established by the Chief Financial Officer. The written procedures should address: delegation of authority to subordinate staff members, control of collusion, separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping, written confirmations of transactions, reconciliation of custody statements, and wire transfer procedures and agreements. An independent analysis by an external auditor shall be conducted annually to review internal control, account activity, and compliance with policies and procedures. 36 " XI. Authorized Broker Dealers and Financial Institutions The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a list of authorized broker/dealers and financial institutions which are approved for investment purposes. It shall be the Commission's policy to purchase securities only from those authorized institutions and firms. Separate lists shall be maintained for broker/dealers and financial institutions approved for repurchase agreements and those approved for the purchase of other securities. If an investment advisor is used, they may use their own list of approved broker/dealers and financial institutions for investment purposes. To be eligible, a firm must meet the following minimum criteria: (i) an institution licensed by the state as a broker -dealer, or from a member of a federally regulated securities exchange, from a national or state -chartered bank, from a federal or state association or from a brokerage firm designated as a primary government dealer by the Federal Reserve bank; and (ii) all broker/dealer firms and individuals must be properly registered with the NASD and/or SEC to transact business in the relevant geographic locations and product sectors. In addition, counterparties for Repurchase Agreements shall be limited to primary government securities dealers rated "A" or better by two nationally recognized rating services. Counterparties shall also have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least A-1/13-1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants. The Chief Financial Officer shall select broker/dealers and other financial institutions on the basis of the firm's expertise and credit worthiness. The Commission shall annually send a copy of the current investment policy to all dealers approved to do business with the Commission. Each broker dealer or financial institution that has been authorized by the Commission shall be required to submit and annually update a Broker/Dealer Questionnaire which includes the firm's most recent financial statements. The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a file for each firm approved for investment purposes, which includes the most recent Broker/Dealer Questionnaire. 37 XII. Safekeeping and Custody To protect the Commission's assets, all securities owned by the Commission shall be held in safekeeping in the Commission's name by a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for the Commission under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the Commission. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment (DVP) procedures; the Commission's safekeeping agent will only release payment for a security after the security has been properly delivered. Physical delivery securities shall be avoided whenever possible, as book entry securities are much easier to transfer and account for since actual delivery of a document never takes place. In addition, delivered securities must be properly safeguarded against loss or destruction. The potential for fraud and loss increases with physically delivered securities. XIII. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest The Commission adopts the following policy concerning conflicts of interest: 1. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. 2. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall disclose any material financial interest in any financial institution that conducts business with the Commission, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the Commission's portfolio. 3. Officers shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the Commission. XIV. Investment Policy Review The Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting. 38 • " AGENDA ITEM 7D " " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2005. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ended December 31, 2005 is also attached for review. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter ended December 31, 2005 2) County of Riverside Investment Report for the Month ended December 31, 2005 Agenda Item 7D 39 " Pert/olio invsa[mcn< Typo Investment AeFee/ne1115 Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 were in fall compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on March 18, 2005. The Commission has adequate caa��sh, 'flo-ws for six months of operations. " Signed by-f7��+��-dtGtl Chief Financial Officer 40 Riverside Gently Transp0N01cm Commission Mennen Reno% Report Paned Ended: Denrrber 2005 OPERATING FUNDS Gly Netlanel Bank Depoelto - County Tnaeunls Peeled Inneen/10 Fund Local Agency immanent Fund (LAIF) AgenryRaeaaury aecudder. Federal Nalanal Merlgage AeeeGallan (FNMA) Naanonu$aba Federal Farm Credo Bonk Noamoroalada Fednol Home Loan Bank (FHLE) NebemenaeAable Faderal Memo Loan Bank NaananuMba Federal Home Lin Bank Mortgage CekllnIemann able Federal Mona Loan Bank Noanonw8aba Maw MCMiMubel FundChM Ch rte FNMA Nolnnonwllaba FHLB Bond-namallable • RATING COUPON PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED FAIR VALUE MOODYSIFITCH/SBP RATE VALVE DATE DATE MATURITY COST VALUE GAIN (LOSS) $ 33,618 A319B154 N/A 170127.100 AurMRUAAAryeI N/A 3072.240 Not Rated NIA 2.000,000 2.056,750 1,044,260 2.064,300 3,960,150 3.079,760 61,296 AAA/AAA AAA/AAA AAA/AAA AAA/AAA AAA/AAA AAA/MA AAA/MA NIA 3.62% NIA 2050% 3 2,000000 03/20/04 00122130 2.05% 5 3,0000Cm 0 2.000000 3.500% 3,000,000 02/16/05 02115/07 3.50% 9000000 3,056,750 3115% 2.000000 02/10/06 05/18/00 3.95% 2,000.000 1084,380 HOW% 3.000,000 06/15/05 00120101 4.01% 3,000,000 2.084,300 3.750% 4,000,000 04020105 11/15/C0 3.73% 3008,413 3,086760 4,12544 9.000.000 07/1E/05 04/27107 4.13% 3,000.000 G023,750 N/A 81.236 2.01% 01,230 61,230 1040,260 AAA/MA 3,110% TOMCOD 030 T/04 03/17100 2,476000 ..AAA/AAA... 2,250 FNLMC Note.noneellaba 2471100 AAAMAA Subtotal °watag Funds 210,257,257 FUN08 NELA IN TRUST County Tnawnes Pooled Inasumenl Fund: Local Trmsporatnn Fund /Mina Fund* NNd In Treat INVESTMENT WITH CITIES ry) City of Canyon Lake 3 ubnly Inert bnnt with cltin COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE TIM American TaaeUry Ob4patloni Fund U .%Trnsury Ellls FIM AmeNcen Govern/Ten OblMallon Fund First American Treasury ObBpatlan Fund - Men In Trust Subtotal Bond Pro)nt FunGNobt Rennie TOTAL AU Cub end InWsbninto 40 008 508 Ase-MR1/AAANet 49,008,508 2,06% 051.006 2,500,000 Ot l27N5 05/16100 9.24 4a6.800 1.040.350 2,4T8 000 50% 2,500000 01/27/05 OW5/00 3,91% 2,475,060 2.471.100 N/A 628181,236 $28106270 320,023.000 3 ST% • (41,250) (15A20) (35.010) 9 TOa5) 120.250) 0 (T,850) $ (1 T0.1714 900430 N/A 4.750% $ 300.000 04102/03 00/01/00 N/A $ 300, 100 N/A N/A 300,000 18,501.401 An/AAAm NIA 13,636,113 MA'AM 1.875% 615.026,000 05124105 owov06 4.22% $15,020,L, 516,030.213 5 (200.T8T1 29,720,708 Aaa/AMm N/A 067 230 AaMAMm NIA s ma.6:1.$as InepMen. Tndoe/ona Tar the Quarter Ended Deoambar 31, 2005 P urehues: Maarlllem federal Hems Lean Mortgage Corporation Nolo Par Vain at Caupen Mannry Manny 004 Ran 5 2000,000 11116/2005 2.1359 SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks County Pool LAIR MUWal Fund,: Flnt American Treasury Obligatory! Fund. Tenet 10,818,605 First Amen., Govemmanl WUcallon Fund Sub. Tales Mutual Funds 23.720.708 $ 35,810 226,10500E 3,072,240 43,630,404 Federal Agency ceourlie5 28,022,090 U.B. Treasury Blos 15,058,219 InnelmenlAgnemena 300,000 TOTAL 310021,3021 (a InweMwl WN nee a repaned as a loan nwelwW %r Nunn! repotted purposes. 41 County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 4th Floor- Capital Markets Riverside, CA 92502-2205 www.countytreasurer.org (951) 955-3967 42 County Admmrstratrve Center Investment Objectives • Safety of Principal • Liquidity • Public Trust • Maximum Rate of Return • December 2005 Treasurer's Commentary “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times" Looking back on the past year, we see that many of the economic gains made in 2004 continued: GDP and employment growth maintained solid, if unspectacular, paces; consumer confidence rebounded quickly from oil price shocks and the horrors of Hurricane Katrina; and a series of Fed Funds rate hikes appears to have kept inflation in check. These trends are expected to continue, boding well for economic prospects in 2006. There are ominous clouds on the horizon, however, because a num- ber of monsters, some of which plagued the American economy in 2005, could rear their heads. The price of energy, skyrocketed last year and global demand continues to be insatiable; supply disruptions from natural disasters, conflict, or political instability in oil -producing regions could therefore have negative eco- nomic impact. Another possible setback to the American economy could be the end of the housing boom that has provided much of the growth since the FOMC cut rates to historical lows a few years ago. The marked decrease in new home sales in November is the latest proverbial nail in the coffin, leading to speculation regarding the consequences. Other concerns revolve around the high level of US debt: an increasing proportion of this debt is held by foreign central banks and any diversification by these parties could injure the U.S. economy. Also, an avian flu pandemic remains a possible economic and public health nightmare. Finally, the US Treasury yield curve inverted recently, with long term rotes dropping below short term rates. While an inverted yield curve does not always indicate a recession, it has been a harbinger for each of the last six recessions, causing pessimism about what the market thinks of the direction of the U.S. economy. Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector V inciage Durable GoodsOrdem-tor Dec29th 4.0%actual vs. 1.2% survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -for Decem- ber 21st 4.1% actual vs. 43%survey Consumer Confidence —Index -December 28th 103.6 actual vs. 103.0 survey Factory Orders- January 4th 2.5% actual vs. 2A%survey Unemployment Rate- for December2nd 5.0% actual vs. 5.0%survey At month's end, the Fed Funds rate was 4.25%, with a balanced bias. The 2 year T-Note was yielding 4.40% (down 1 bp.) while the 10 year T-Note was yielding 4.39% (down 9 bps.) For October, the Pool had an increase of 20 bps. in the average monthly yield. Portfolio Statistics 'Mbnth-End Book Value December Novembee October $ 4,010,003,925 t $ 3,357,203,054 $ 3,208,631,129 September $ 3,292,113,524 August $ 3,099,360,588 July $ 3,067,073,774 1. _ Month -End Market Value' $ 3,991,492,902 1 $ 3,337,365,542 j $ 3,187,968,021T$ 3,274,356,759 $ 3,086,651,772 jj $ 3,049,921,183 Paper Gain or(Loss) $ (18,511,023y $ (19,817,512)' $ (20,663,108) $ (17,756,765) $ (12,708,816)1 $ (17,152,592y Percent of Paper Gain or Loss -0.46%i-0.59%1 -0.64% -0.54% -0.41% -0.56% Yield Based Upon Book Value 3.77i 3.571 3.48 3.37 3.25 3.11 VvbightedAverage Maturity (Yrs) 0.74 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.79 M%fdied Duration 0.681 0.73� 0.74 0.75 0.73E 0.75 *Market values does not intrude accrued interest THE RIVERSIDE COUNTYTREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: Aaa/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH RATINGS 43 " Portfolio Characteristics Federal Agency_ Cash Equivalent & MMF Commercial Paper Negotiable CD's 2,656,831,626 215,000,000 590,328,359 400,002,206 Medium Term Notes 20,027,900 Municipal Bonds ( 82,547,811 Certificates of Deposit s 25,000,000 Local Agency Obligation 1,755,000 Total 3,991,492,902 - Feceral Agency ti Egwvelerl & NI M F `-^--...... 66.% 5.39% 39days orLess ; 833,630,051.65 30-90Days ��.. 959,158,843.31 90 Days - 1Yeari..��- 1,054,253,398.30 24 Month Gross Yield Trends Page'2 44 Market Data 12/30/05 11/30/05 Gift 3 M - 4.074 3.931 .1425 6 M 4.369 4.298 .0715 2 Y 4.400 4.407 -.0072 5Y 4.350 4.411 -.0612 10 Y 4.391 4.484 -.0929 30Y 4.535 4.693 -.1579 * Treasurer's Institutional Money Market Index (TIMMI) is compiled and reported by the Riverside County Treasurer's Capital Markets division. It is a composite index derived from the average of three multi -billion dollar AAA rated Prime (funds that invest in a diversified portfo/io of U.S. dollar denominated money market instruments includ- ing U.S. Treasuries, government agencies, bankers' acceptances, commercial paper, certificates of deposits, repurchase agreements, etc.) portfolios that the Treasurer tracks. Further details available upon request. Month End Portfolio Holdings Report S a 8 U1 N 8 5 c f U d 5='!6 d,�a�e I g • g g n R A a ;,yYa�y3 n w R�"8 _8i S 8 >`x 8 g g ry s;, a x a 8 50000,000,00 CITIGRO g 5s a Q 50,000,000.00 NES z e C c}r e%P a . e 8 8 8 8._ Sri. 3°Y8 8 -; 8 8 '8 g I 'b w 0,000.00 FED FARM CRE Y 8 8 8 8"0 • aP k5 3 ir:3 10,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDd Z N 10.000.000.00 FED FARM CREDIT B 5 5,110000:00 FED FARM CREDIT RAN opP ' e d a 8, 8 'R 8 ,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BA F: i g�Q 8 6 0 7 8. 8 g C • I; S g 8 2 -; S, 8 8 8 :'8 8 8 :5 a g'c 8 8 8,;8 i g g iE S Sg S 8 g_g g / 844�j u.� ryY iNiY$ 2 gr'm:'g rc lK0 a U � j U'�: U a sa 'W 2 og::a LLw 8 8 =8 g:r'g g:.`g Q.) e Na� g h g 8 0 a e g S 8 8 N g 8 c 4 S a g 8 n 2 a U f u 8 S a 0 U ry N S 8 R 2 w 8 8 8 ry N ♦ 8 8 8 8 8. 3 t 3 N 9,915,000.00 (11.900.00)_0.00 8 8 a 8 U 8 g R 8� I. L♦ w O 0 9 8 Y u 8 8 S e 8 8. 8 6 S g 8 8 8 8 8 N e 8 8 8. ry i w 8 O 8 8 ff 8 h 5:o e e N 8 8 d 8;:8 g 8-p g,s 8 'g N 2 a a ee Y ry A 8 5 A 0 e 8, O 8 8 a r e 5 8 8 8 N a 8 8 8 • aa:o�a o, a e N ry '. N 5 g g a 7 8, 8 8 8 8 .A R ag g o 0 n g 8,:8 g° S MontD End Portfolio HOIdin • a a 3m 8 88 0 6 eg 88 g e ei n M,8. N '' N F eq 8 i<8 8 8 8'8 Vl w� 8 2. 8 8 8$ 8 "8 s 8 �$g= gi g; g a b r a g�E E 1 g E E. g pp xi�i �yq � rye, a Wi'ii b C r e '*� N '3 Y.S nq„ wz xi .. k8' X. 3] ssgsgsgsss s:, sus gas={$ V E.g $r $r g, g N g ,8+Sw �8 S 10.000.000.00 FED H { i W, Wj W W�'W,AW S.' 3 3 72 +3 o.Y'o:»w 2ryo LL 2 2 88888 .8�i8 8. 8 s 8 8 8, 8, 8 B 8 S s 8 8 2#W 8 s Hi ,g 5.000.000.00 FED HOME 8 8 0 1 5,000,000.00 g - 88Q a;� S i O .., z Yu Y g oa w 8 Y • Wy w ^ i e mo 8 S ;I 8 8 g 8 a S gE d�A 2`n 2j{ m d �a wW o 2 8 8 g g ^ 8•A 8 8 �mS 8"8 9 8 zj� T m>� WSW 3'•.3 2 2 4.T 2 8y 8 ❑gg E S ; 3 F 8 8 $ 8 G a 0 :ark 2 2 w -2%'u $ g:@ g g 8 �1 6'U'IC m N .O g a O A 8 8 g a 518 a g 8 8 6 s B B g a S • io Holdings Report Month End Po o a a: s g a<a N NY: g Y+„ Y • s'^t .nod m 8 8„Pu8:18�.8 8 8 s 'g is BJ I A, 8 8„8 8 `2 8 8.-8 8 :8 Y .Ia d, "' x } Yt"Y 2,? a 1`sa gt OO g4:0 � a':: xxa°x i :i ai,_o;o o:,w 8 848 :8 8 �y.g$ $ $. E U U 1,009, 1.029420,509.15 R 8 mro ,ss E g tl 8 $ m r.:.6 4.926050.00 (23.450.001 3.10 8 8 8 s.� 2- Pigv8 8 8 8 8 A 8 8 s 4,930,050.00 439,050.001 9.35 2 8 A 8 4,a3e,99ao9;,,_.._(ge,isaa9).. s,39 ',2 U`�U tl%�:U U F o¢.¢ aopoy.a 2 a a �ta yp¢o EE Z3.. i1 i 14'::x x'.x x z x x x 8858:88 �j 8 $0 8E8 8 :8E„1 8 8 81;8 8 ry tl N g a 8 8 �4 St g P n�" 2 6 U r r ' 0 0 gG 8 8 8' 8 :g 8 .8 g'..s 8 o 0 N r • g 8 ' g 8 8 1< 1 8 m�. 8'8 g:g g g 3 P P. 8 8 S 8 3 a 8 g 8 g o 8 8 8 8 8 5, 5$ N - - 3 N 8 3 g§$4 S g A 8 8 8 8 8 S ffi Y qN P O $ $ 8 •E. :— N N U ¢ ¢ W W W UW U U A U 8 8. 8 8 8 'g -g g g a ,g :s g g C E R B 8 N'r N 0 N 8.8 8 ,8 $-s 8 8 g g°8 Nw n 8-8 8` 8 8 I 5 s 5 8 8 s N 8 0 N S 8 a s s i x N N 8 5 8, 8 8 g 8 8 g Si x =a N+N 0,902,701100 (14,175.001 5.11 a, s aN 2 S S O^ 3:4$ $ N 8 >8 8 8 5 :g g g ,g r8 L 1 0 8 8 8 x 35. n 8 A r � 4� 2 2 E'"E 8 8 8 8 g'g g g $:g g a3 F 3 U a O 8S o g4ff 0, 8W ffi $ 8 8 2:.. T U 5::g a'« o ��LL 8'= 8, g g g 4 8 8 8 8 8 g 8 e 0 3 6 od i ry x F 8 g 8 N a A 8 8 8 8 s8 g N a tl f a 5 2 2 g g g e d e a 8 M 0 8 c N } V 8 d 4p06.2sa00 (iimiso00) _2.13 1 tY " " Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund November 30:2005 Month End Portfolio Holdings.Report CUSIP 136F5M D0 DESCRIPTION 0,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC3YrN YrSte H 36F7E13 5.000,DOO.00 Feb HAT MDRTG ASSOC.21rNc3Me 1130F7LT2 S.000,DOD.00 FED NAT MDRTG AS5002YrNc3Mo D3Toviyr2 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORM AS5002YrNc1Yr1X {136F]PE1 ��.M 5,I100,OW.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrN71Yr1X 3136F7FE2 10.000,000.00 FED NAT ORTC ASSOC.2.SYrItc1Yr 3136F7N70 t0,000,000.00 FED NAT MDRTG ASSOC.37 11/PIX 3t36F7PP6 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MDRTG ASSOC.221117 YrIX 31%F]PP6 FED NAT MDRTG ASSOC .3YrNc1Yr1X 36F7ONO 10000,00000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc1101X 289,625,00900 FNMD- FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 3135895G9 59000,00000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313509XE8 48,021, 000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 189,000,000.00 FRMC- FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 39971726 50.000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 9%7SN2 50.000.000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORO CORP DI 33911132 30.00000900 FEDERAL itOME LOAN MORO CORP DI MORO CORP 01 339712G4 20,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN 615,000,000.00 LAO - LOCAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONbt 630 000.00 US DIESTRIGT COURTHOUSE 1,755,000.00 MTNO-MED TERM NOTES 2038 10,000,000.00 WAL MART 41a471 MUNI- MUNICIPAL BONDS 982980008 t.000,00900 YOSEMITE CAC 130911 D49 19.000.000,00 CSCDA AAA/Aae NT COLLEGE AA/VA 168909E518 1.000,00000 RIVERSIDE CRT/ ASSET Aaa/AAA 98T3B8BD6 ,360,000.00 YOSEMITE CA C 27COLLEGE444/44a 76586PAV5 1,545000,00 RCC GO BONDS 2004E 44-21a9 63,035,00009 NCD- NEGOTIABLE CD WE 59000,000.00 WELLS FARGO % 50.0W,000.00 RBS GREENWICH WI 50.000.000.00 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA COUPON MATURITY BOON VALUE' PRICE 250 __. 6It 2/2007 10,030,000.00 9209 4.25 7272007 4.995.912.50 99.10 4.75 1D25I2007 5,000,000.00 9900 4.90 11/28/2001 5,000,000.02 99.94 488 122W200] .'5,DOO,C0900 99.94 0.90 '- 1282008 10000,000.00 99.% 5.00 h 11/2612005 10,000.000.00 99_111 M. VALUE' . GAIN LOSS 9,755,800.00 (231,200.0D 4,950,400.00 (%,912.50 4,982800.00 1T,200.00 i75 1.75 1.82 4090,900.00 53.10000) 490 184 191 4990.900.00. f3.100.00)4.86':.. 1.92 1.99 9,900,300.00 - 93,700.00 '. 6.30. 197 208 9,993000.00 (8200.00) 5.00 2T3 2.91 LEI MAT MAT' Ava Lrfe 1.20 1.28 5.10 12/i 942008 5,000,000.00 100.09 5,004,700.00 510 1vlwiaoe 10 0.96 2.97 5,000.000.00 100.09 5,024,700.00 4,700.00 1D 0.96 2.0] 5.10 1220/2008 10,000000.00 9B91 9,990000.00 (0,400.00) 5.19 282 300 289,507,107.50-258,046,323.81 3.58. 124 422 4.19 1/282006 49,T14,84722 9943 49,7484722 4.21 0.07 0.07 6% 5242000 47,152.032.00 95.27 47.169.500.00 17,558.00 443 0.40 0,40 158,895.74323 0.23 023 4.06 1/t 91'2006 49,639,111.11 99.28 49,639,111.11 - 4.09 0.05 0.05 4.11 2/12008 49,572,395.83 99 4 49,572, 305.83 - 4.14 009 O.OB 4.24 2282028 29899,383.33 9900 290 9 512006 19,797,686.09 9999 - 19,]9],800.89 6/152020 332264,259-44 820,000_00 100.00 1,755,06006 392,284259.41 1,755,016300 429 IL 6 -0.16 4.92 -0.20 - 0.20 4.18 0.10 0.10 4.37 10.62 14.47 4]] - 7A0 10.25 71 6/12OM 10 182 400.00 100.26 10,027900.00 (154500.00/ 3.72 0.43 20,162,40060 20,027,90600 2.86 0.25 025 372 8/12006 40000)S6e 8948 1,074,176.80 5,890.130 3.70 - 957- -0.56 4.00 11/1520DB 19,000,000.00 92.36 18,881.820.00 118,18900 4.00 0.87 0.86 3.% 611/2007 B90,39900 BB.1T 081,660.00 (8,680.00 3.93 8/12007 1,650,218.00 98.86 - 1,331,54250 (15,87350) 3112 1.52 1.59 363 8/12p0T 1550 8T100 63,064,052.20 98.26 1,518,17800 (32,692.20) 3.49 -159 1.59 82,547,810A9 3.69 9.69 0.69 4.14 /13!}008 50,00000000 10023 50,00000000 4.40 3/162000 50 000 1951 79 100. DO 50 000 691.72 - 4.40 - 0.21 0.2 8996P02F0 50.000.000.00 SOCIETE GENERALE 441 320/2008 50 GOO 719.93 100.00 - " 50000,719.93 - 4,40 - 0.24 0.24 400.000.000.00 " - - 400,ea22o6A4 - 400,002,20044 - 4.32 REPO- REPURCHASE AGREEMENT 0.14 0.14 40.000,000.00 TCD-TIME DEPOSITS _40,000200.00 40.41011.000.00 418 0.01 0.01 5,000,000.00 CITIZENS BUSINESS BAN( 4.18 3/15/2008 5000,00000 100.00 25,000.000.00 Total e,olegleam.00 1 T1m mutat Om 44 Hold .IvFMm Homy 270e1 secular �Mead on Me matew plow 2/arps Cv rumba A poem oAA principal F rolta H" MIIY.'Hagntea INMvlllf. J local lgly OLLpSan lore aahFl rptwyvgya ad bPpq. 4 I4441" " 4 &tam ie pcoW ige al a security b a tlup w 242 Tb lid.. 2e. ,m6YE Jn bn el a mow*. Ile hide M'bY 25.000,OOO.DO 4,010.03A2400 48 3,092,492A01.91 t8 0.20 0.20 27 O.t0: '0.19 - 0.00 5.74 Summary of Authorized Investments The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in FULL COMPLIANCE with the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy. The County's Investment Policy is more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. California Government Code Investment Category Maximum Maturity Authorized & Lean Coun Investment Polic Quality S&P/ IMaximum Matcr- Mcody"s 3 iry: . Authorized °G Umit . Quality S&P/ Moody's Actual Rive side Portfolio ti LOCAL AGENCY BONDS 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 15%/ y150MM A/A2/A 2.07% CALI AGE ORNIA LOCAL CY DEBT 5 YEARS . NO LIMIT 3 YEARS t 2.5% I INVESTMENT GRADE 0.04% BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270 DAYS 40% 0.) REVERSE REPOS 92 DAYS 20% Ca1TRUST SHORT TERM FUND N/A N/A N/A SECURED BANK DEPOSITS 5 YEARS 180 DAYS 60 DAYS 30% 10% MAX DAILY LIQUIDITY Al/P3/F1 0.00% 10.65% Al/P1/F1 Board Approved 0.00% 0.63% NO LIMIT 1YEAR 2% 0.00% LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS N/A NO LIMIT 0.00% + No more than 30% or thk Category may be invested with any one commercial bank 4 Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as we✓ghted average maturity not exceeding 90 days 3 Or must have an Investment advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $semooO,000. Proiected Cash Flow The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cashflow model. Based upon projected cash receipts and matu- rating investments, there are sufficient Funds to meet future cash flow disbursements over the next 12 months. . Monthly Monthly Month • Receipts Disbmts Difference Required Mat. Invest Balance Actual Inv. Maturities Avail. To Invest> 1Yr. 1/2006 18.3 02/2006 04/2006 06/2006 6/1 3 1,008 1 599.8 655 2 735.1 882.5 (119) 303.0 (2827) 119 222.2 414.1 354.8 80.0 243.5 08/2006 688.1 699.5 (114) 10.0 107.7 10/2006 612.2 735.6 (123.4) 123.4 45.0 Totals 9,0822 9,054.6 27.6 784.4 19. +; Z863.5 71.41% 3,225.6 80.44% THIS COMPLETES THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 Page 3 " AGENDA ITEM 7E " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Funding Assistance for the Western Riverside County Special Area Management Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to allocate $133,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to assist in the completion of the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Western Riverside County Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) is a comprehensive plan for protecting and enhancing aquatic resources in the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita River Watersheds while providing for the permitting of reasonable economic development and public infrastructure/maintenance activities. The SAMP is part of the Riverside County Integrated Project and is being completed by the Army Corps of Engineers with active participation from many Riverside County departments. A SAMP has the following benefits: " It will establish the equivalent of a nationwide Corps permit, which is not available within the Santa Margarita and San Jacinto watersheds. " There would be more certainty in the process and most projects (public and private) would not be required to obtain individual Corps permits. " State water quality and streambed alteration permits would also be covered by the SAMP. The Corps has had to put work on hold due to funding shortfalls. It is estimated that the plan could be completed in 12-18 months at a cost of $532,000. The Regional Conservation Authority has been working with Congressman Calvert's office and the county of Riverside to develop a program to complete the SAMP. The Commission has been requested to assist by contributing $133,000. Other agencies expected to participate in the funding of the SAMP include Riverside County Flood Control, the Regional Conservation Authority and the County's Transportation and Land Management Agency. Congressman Calvert is pursuing a repayment of the funds as part of the 2007 Federal budget. Agenda Item 7E 50 The Commission previously approved use of STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) funds for Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) activities, specifically for the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridor work. There are western county PPM funds available for use in FY 2005/06 which staff proposes be used to support the SAMP. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: s No Year: FY2005/06 Amount: $133,000 Source of Funds: STIP PPM Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 106 65 81501 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ` ,,, Date: Attachment: Letter from Congressman Calvert Agenda Item 7E 51 • 75908 CB • CoMa@nTEE ON SCIENCE CHAIRMAN 011000M10177E0 DN 5PAM AND AERONAUTICS OOMMIME-ON ARMED SERVICES SURC:261uR3'770 PROJECTION FORCES TACTICAL AIR AND LANDED/ICES COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES St19tOBeNITTEF, WATER AND POWER jSDp;6nlvw00000107.71vert Cong a% of the President George W. Bush The White }louse 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Bush: niteb *tees' Abouse of Atprdentatibel allagington, 205t5-0544 January 11, 2006 KEN CALVERT MTn DIsTNt,, CActrowN4 2201 RAveuryN KNAVE Oerme %JADING WA.000/07, DC 20515-0514 I2021225-1696 DISTRICT MICE& USD CENTRN. AVENUE Sum WO 1100/000, CA 02500 0511 R344300 26111 ANToN1D PAN[WAY LAN FLAMN, GA s2ses pEVERVEN FEB23 MN I TRANSRitiEliSiDE PORTATON�OUNTY COM v1JSSJON As a Member of the California Congressional Delegation, I greatly appreciate the support that your Administration has given to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), and I look forward to your continued support for the Corps and the District in your upcoming FY 2007 budget request. Specifically, I respectfully seek your support for S532,000 in FY 2007 for the District's Special Area Management Plans (SAMP) for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita River Watersheds to continue implementation of this important project. The SAMP is part of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RC/3?) and completing this project in a timely manner is crucial for the development of these communities and the surrounding region. The RC1P is an effort by the County to determine how to best balance the region's future transportation, habitat, open space and land-use/housing needs. In 1999, work was initiated on the RCIP to determine the best way to balance these factors. When complete, the project will create regional conservation and development reserves that will protect entire communities of native plants and animals white streamlining the process for compatible economic development in other areas. This funding is critical for the Corps to continue work on the SAMP for both the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds in order to qualitatively identify existing and future water resources requirements in each area and to achieve a balance between aquatic resources protection and economic development. This comprehensive planning effort will be used to assist Federal, State and local agencies with their decision -making and permitting authority to protect, restore and enhance aquatic resources while accommodating various development activities. The implementation of these plans will set a blueprint for responsible growth fbr the region and an example of good community planning for the State of California and the nation. While much work has been completed, the efforts are not yet final and more work remains to be done. Thank you Ibr your consideration of this request, and I look forward to working with you in the future to advance this important project. Since KEN CALVERT }Member of Congress PRINTED ON RECYLtED PAPER 52 AGENDA ITEM 7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Administrative Policy (TUMF) Programming BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the TUMF Programming Administrative Policy. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its September 8, 2004 meeting, the Commission approved a five-year Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program that covers FY 2005 - FY 2009. A total of $71.3 million was allocated to 23 projects for various project phases. In addition to the above, the Commission directed staff to administratively amend the project status, cost and revenue figures based on actions taken by Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) in amending the TUMF 10-Year Strategic Plan and Nexus Study. As with other funding programs, staff has identified additional administrative actions and is seeking approval to implement an administrative policy to cover such actions that may not require Commission approval. These following actions pertain to individual projects and include: 1) the reprogramming of funds within allocated amount; and 2) cost increases up to 10% for the construction phase only (the Commission's September 2004 approval did not include contingency). The proposed policy will allow staff the flexibility to work with the cities and in assisting with project delivery. TUMF Programming Administrative Po/icy Per the TUMF Project Implementation Administrative Policy, RCTC staff may approve project amendments within the following parameters: Agenda Item 7F 53 1) Updates to the approved project status, cost and revenue figures pursuant to any actions or amendments taken by WRCOG regarding updates to the TUMF 10-year Strategic Plan and Nexus Study. 2) Reprogramming of funds, not to exceed the allocated amount, including: a) Programming funds from one phase to another b) Advancing funds from one phase to another c) Delaying funds from one phase to another 3) Allowance of an additional 10% increase for the construction phase if requested. Staff anticipates reprogramming requests in the near -term and the proposed policy would result in timely processing and implementation of TUMF projects. Programming requests outside of the above parameters will be brought forward to the Commission for approval. Agenda Item 7F 54 AGENDA ITEM 7G • " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Advisory Committee Transportation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Renew Sherry Thibodeaux, Andrea Puga and Mary Venerable's memberships to the Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC); 2) Appoint Michelle Anglin as a new member to the CAC/SSTAC; and 3) Approve the membership roster for CAC/SSTAC effective January 2006. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides direction for administering both Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. Both fund types are used to support operating and capital costs for public transportation. Section 99238 of the TDA requires that the Commission have a Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee consisting of categorical memberships as follows: 1) One representative of a potential transit user who is 60 years of age or older; 2) One representative of a potential transit user who is handicapped; 3) Two representatives of the local social service providers for seniors, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists; 4) Two representatives of local social service providers for the handicapped, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists; 5) One representative of a local social service provider for persons of limited means; and, Agenda Item 7G 55 6) Two representatives from the local consolidated transportation service agency, designated pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 15975 of the Government Code, if one exists, including one representative from an operator, if one exists. As further identified in Section 99238, members of the social services transportation advisory council shall be appointed by the Transportation Planning Agency (TPA). Candidates shall be recruited from a broad representation of social service and transit providers representing the elderly, the handicapped, and persons of limited means. RCTC is the TPA for Riverside County. In appointing council members, the TPA shall strive to attain geographic and minority representation among council members. Initial appointments to the CAC/SSTAC are staggered with members appointed to one, two and three-year terms. Once initial appointments are made, subsequent renewals are for a three-year term. Appointments for Sherry Thibodeaux, Andrea Puga and Mary Venerable need to be renewed. Staff contacted these members and all have indicated that they would like to have their appointments reconfirmed. In addition, there is a categorical opening for a "local social service provider for the handicapped, including one representative of a social service transportation provider" (categorical membership number 4 above). Staff recommends that Michelle Anglin, city of Norco employee, be appointed to fill this vacancy. The city of Norco operates a specialized transportation program for seniors, disabled and low income population for medical, nutrition and shopping excursions. Ms. Anglin has expressed an interest in being a member of the CAC/SSTAC. For the past several years, staff has requested CAC/SSTAC's participation in reviewing the testimony of the Commission's Unmet Transit Needs Hearing, the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program and the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 program. Following is a brief description of each program: Unmet Transit Needs Hearing State law requires that prior to making any allocations of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) not directly related to public transit, the Commission must identify the unmet transit needs in the area and determine those that are reasonable to meet. At least one public hearing must be held to solicit comments on unmet transit needs. The only area that this determination of unmet needs is applicable to is the Palo Verde Valley where it is anticipated that not all funds will be needed for transit. In the western county and the Coachella Valley, all available local transit funds are being used for transit services. This year, the Unmet Transit Needs Agenda Item 7G 56 " " Hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in Blythe, California. SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Each year 2% of the LTF revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 Program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. There are three steps to carry out the program: 1) All cities and the county are notified of the SB 821 program estimate of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals. (All school districts in the county are also notified and asked to coordinate project submissions with either their local city or the County Transportation Department.) The Commission's SB 821 program policies, project application, and selection criteria are also provided with the notification; 2) The Commission's SB 821 Evaluation Committee, comprised of members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens' Advisory Committees (3 each), meets to review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the Commission for approval; and 3) The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves a program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. Staff has tentatively set the meeting of the Evaluation committee for the week of June 12t'' or June 19t", 2006, depending on the availability of the committee members. FTA's Section 5310 Program The FTA Section 5310 Program provides capital grants for the purpose of assisting private, non-profit corporations and public agencies, under certain circumstances, in providing transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate. The program provides funding for approved projects on an 88.53% federa1/11.47% local match basis. This year the Local Review Committee is scheduled to meet on March 14, 2006. Agenda Item 7G 57 In addition, members of CAC/SSTAC review the draft Short Range Transit Plans from the eight public operators providing services in Riverside County. Attachment: CAC/SSTAC Membership Roster Agenda Item 7G 58 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER ROSTER (Proposed) Effective: January, 2006 Name/Area Represented j Categorical Membership I Term Date I Qualifications Michelle Anglin Norco Social service provider for senior citizens/disabled Expires 1/07 Provides senior/disabled services Peter Benavidez Riverside Potential transit user who is disabled Expires 1/07 Previous CAC/SSTAC member Jim Collins Indio 1 Potential transit user who is 60 years of age or older Expires 1/07 Previous CAC/SSTAC member Eunice Lovi SunLine Transit Agency Coachella Valley Consolidated Transportation Service Agency Expires 1/07 SunLine Transit Agency staff Judy Nieburger Moreno Valley Social service provider for senior citizens/disabled Expires 1/07 Past RCTC and Metrolink member Mike Pistilli Pass Area Transit Social service transportation provider for the disabled/ limited means Expires 1/07 Works for the City of Beaumont transit service, participates in the Pass Area Transit Study Andrea Puga Ilona Community member Expires 1/08 Past member of RCTC, RTA and Metrolink Scott Richardson-RTA Western Riverside Consolidated Transportation Service Agency Expires 1/07 Riverside Transit Agency staff Cindy Scheirer Pedley Community member Expires 1/07 Involved in community issues and has attended Transportation NOW meetings Sherry Thibodeaux Riverside Social service provider for persons of limited means Expires 1/08 Interested in transit issues. Works for the Community Access Center. Hosts support groups for women with disabilities and domestic violence cases. Mary Venerable Perris Social service transportation provider for elderly Expires 1/08 Involved in community issues and a member of Lake Elsinore Transportation NOW 59 AGENDA ITEM 7H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Programs Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director - SUBJECT: New Year -Round Inland Empire — Orange County Weekend Service STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve implementation of year-round Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) weekend service; 2) Amend the RCTC Commuter Rail SRTP to include the new IEOC weekend trains; 3) Allocate $120,000 in Local Transportation Funds for operations and promotion of the IEOC weekend service for FY 2005/06, and amend the Commuter Rail Budget by $120,000; and 4) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On what would have been the 11' year of the Beach Train service, ROTC, OCTA, and SANBAG have tentatively agreed to start year round IEOC weekend service. The cooperation on this project is a first step in implementing the transit enhancements as part of the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study. The bi-county agreement identifies expanding Metrolink commuter rail service as one of the transit improvements in each of the strategic alternatives. For Riverside County this is a testament to the demand and success of the long running Beach Train program. In 2005, the Beach Train was transformed to SummerLink with multiple round trips and new ticketing procedures on a seasonal basis. After the success of that service, staff is requesting authority to implement year round IEOC service starting in May 2006. The proposed service would provide for three round trips on Saturday and two round trips on Sunday operating between San Bernardino and Oceanside. The proposed Saturday and Sunday schedules would have two trains departing San Bernardino for Oceanside in the morning with afternoon -returns. The additional train on Saturday will depart Oceanside in the morning going to Riverside Agenda Item 7H 60 and returning in the afternoon. The exact schedules are being developed by Metrolink staff. The new service is planned to start in May 2006 but may be delayed due to issues with the contractor's ability to hire and train operating crews in time. This service would require an amendment to the RCTC Commuter Rail SRTP FY 2005/06. The plan will need to update the Operating Service Assumption to include 6 IEOC Saturday trains and 4 IEOC Sunday trains. In addition, staff requests an additional allocation of $120,000 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to operate and promote this new service in FY 2005/06. The operating funds will be used for labor costs for train crews, fuel, and equipment maintenance. The new service will be promoted using a marketing plan that includes newspaper and web advertising, seat drops, station banners, brochures, mass mailings, and public event outreach. Should a delay in service occur due to the previously mentioned staffing requirements, the LTF funds will be placed in reserve. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line 5,200 5,000 a 4,800 4,600 0 4,400 4,200 4,000 Passenger Trips Riverside Line 4 1��\ PJ� g�O6` �°, pec'� Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of January averaged 4,518 which is up 270 (+6%) from the month of December. The Line averaged an overall decrease of (-2%) from a year ago January 2005. Agenda Item 7H 61 100 a) 95 • 90 a: w 85 • 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line Month January on -time performance averaged 76% inbound (-21 % from December) and 76% outbound (-18% from December). There were 60 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of January. The following were the primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other Riverside Line On Time Performance Follow Up The Riverside Line on time performance has improved due to better dispatching from the UPRR. The 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 second half of 2005. However the Union Pacific major track replacement program has impacted train service starting in January. It anticipates that train service will not travel through from Riverside to Los Angels 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. Currently the bus connections are carrying only a handful of riders and most people are driving to alternative stations. Agenda Item 7H 62 There will also be a half price monthly passes for Riverside Line users for the months of April and May to compensate for the disruption. Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 4,400 4,200 c 4,000 r 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 ph ph p� d3 p`� ph 04' Oy ph Oh Oh O� OHO lac�a� C sJ� PJ� hex oc, �o� Oec Sao Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of January averaged 4,281 an increase of 629 riders or (+17%) change from the month of December. The line has increased -17% from a year ago January 2005. 100 95 m 90 rn .a c 85 d 12) U Q 80 75 70 Agenda Item 7H On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line ph 0' `0° `ph 0r) p) \0) 0) Oh Oh Ah 0° � �a QQ• 4a\ 1 Qom°' y�Q Oc';` �o4 oeo Sao Month 63 • " January on -time performance averaged 92% southbound (+2% from December) and 86% northbound (-4% from December). There were 38 delays greater than five minutes during the month of January. The primary causes were: 99 Line 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 Passenger Trips 91 Line (0 oy o`' <0 o��' o`' o�� 0`9 0`' 5�� oh o6 sc e a�� Qc a�� o�� o�� A N o.= o� c Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of January averaged 1,991 an increase of 190 riders or (+11 %) from the month of December. The line has averaged an increase of 10% from a year ago January 2005. Agenda Item 7H 64 On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 100 95 as eIn 90 85 u i 80 a 75 70 ac0 z�0 a`0 Q`0 a�0 J�0 oh �0 doh Ah o oh 5'06 06 ,a Month January on -time performance averaged 90% inbound (+3% from December) and 90% outbound (+1% from December). There were 18 delays greater than five minutes during the month of January. The primary causes were: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $120,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 103-25-86101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: `/4„/,,d,, Date: 2/21 /06 Agenda Item 7H 65 " AGENDA ITEM 71 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Public Affairs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Public Outreach Services Contract for Perris. Valley Line Metrolink Extension STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to award: 1) Three-year consultant agreement No. 06-25-034-00 to O'Reilly Public Affairs in an amount not to exceed $140,000; and 2) Three-year consultant agreement No 06-25-035-00 to Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $140,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project continues to progress through stages of environmental clearance, station planning, and preliminary engineering, community outreach and public information will become increasingly important to the success of extending Metrolink into additional portions of Riverside County. Recognizing that, the Commission approved the issuance of a Request for Proposals at its September 14, 2005, meeting. Staff did additional analysis of the public affairs needs for the project, and an annual budget of $100,000 was established within the project budget for public relations and outreach. The needs for this project include outreach to communities adjacent to the line, outreach to neighborhoods and schools located near the line and near stations, interaction with other agencies including municipalities and work with the business community and with employers to develop support for aline when it becomes operational in 2008. Given these requirements, a detailed Request for Proposal was sent out in December with the Commission receiving nine qualified responses from the following firms and the cities in which they are located. Agenda Item 71 66 " Adler Public Affairs, Long Beach " Consensus Planning Group, Diamond Bar " Hogle-Ireland, Inc., Irvine " Jones & Stokes, San Diego " MBI Media, Diamond Bar " Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG), Pasadena " O'Reilly Public Relations, Riverside " Pacific Municipal Consultants, San Diego " TMG Strategic Communications, Corona All nine firms provided excellent proposals to provide public outreach activities which were evaluated by a four -person committee comprised of three representatives of RCTC and an outside staff representative form the Orange County Transportation Authority. The Committee short-listed four firms for an interview to determine a contract award. The four short-listed firms were: " Consensus Planning Group " Jones & Stokes " MIG " O'Reilly Public Relations Once again all of the firms performed admirably and were well -represented and prepared for their interview. Staff would be quite comfortable in working with any of the firms to advance the project. Facing such a tough decision and having the advantage of multiple qualified firms, the evaluation committee and Commission staff recommend that the work be split between O'Reilly Public Relations and Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. O'Reilly Public Relations has an extensive and successful history of public relations work within Riverside County and in the area of transportation. The firm played an important role during the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) process and currently provides public relations work as part of the Mid -County Parkway as a sub -consultant. The firm will provide needed support on this project with local, state, and federal government agencies, the news media and the business community. Moore lacofano Goltsman, commonly referred to as MIG, is also no stranger to RCTC and was the primary outreach consultant on the Major Investment Study for RCTC. They have also worked on projects such as the Mid -County Parkway and were a primary consultant for the city of Riverside during the city's general plan update. The firm has extensive experience in working on public transit projects. Their expertise will be helpful in working with neighborhoods on station design and Agenda Item 71 67 " addressing local concerns. A key staff member also speaks fluent Spanish and has extensive experience working with Latino communities. The overall public outreach effort will be directed by the Commission's Public Affairs Director John Standiford in close cooperation with Stephanie Wiggins, RCTC Regional Programs Director. One of the first orders of business will be to develop a comprehensive public outreach program for the rest of this year and 2007. Later this year and early next year, the environmental clearance process should be completed leading to preliminary engineering and design work. Staff will return to the Commission later this spring from Commission input and approval on outreach efforts. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $80,000 Source of Funds: STA and Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 221-33-65520 P3800 Fiscal Procedures Approved: 9 ��1,2,07 Date: 2/23/06 Agenda Item 71 68 AGENDA ITEM 7J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 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: AB 2025 (Niello, R-Fair Oaks) — SUPPORT AB 2028 (Huff, R-Diamond Bar) — SUPPORT; and 2) Receive and file the update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update — Washington Visits The months of February and March tend to be quite busy in Washington with the release of the federal budget and the subsequent appropriations request process. For that reason, RCTC Commissioners recently made visits to Washington. Chair Marion Ashley, Second Vice Chair Jeff Stone, Executive Director Eric Haley and Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director visited Washington on the week of February 13 and held a number of productive meetings with every member of the Riverside County Congressional Delegation, Senator Feinstein and the staff of Senator Boxer. The trip took place during the same time that Riverside's Monday Morning Group and . the city of Lake Elsinore (with Commissioner Bob Magee) were also making Capitol visits. Due to ongoing budget constraints and ,the ongoing lobbying scandal that has enveloped Washington, the issue of Congressional earmarking of projects has come under close scrutiny. Unlike- in past years, there will be less money available to individual members_for local projects. Projects that are a high priority, ready for construction and of regional importance will be favored. One subject area with significant needs and that has widespread support is investment in goods movement -related infrastructure such as railroad grade Agenda Item 7J 69 separations. Last year, Congress approved funding for the Alameda Corridor East and for specific grade crossing projects in Riverside and Banning. Commission staff is working with Congressional offices to obtain additional funding for goods movement projects and will also provide support to local jurisdictions seeking funding for local projects such as the I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange in Lake Elsinore and the I-15/Cajalco Interchange in Corona. Another rail project that is continuing to advance through the federal process is the Perris Valley Line extension of Metrolink in Riverside County. The issue of goods movement was the main topic of conversation during a Washington trip organized by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) during the week of February 6. The SCAG contingent included RCTC representation by Commissioner Ron Roberts. Commissioner Roberts was joined by SCAG President Toni Young of Port Hueneme and additional elected representatives from Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura and Imperial counties. Meetings were held with the Chairmen and staff of both the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as well as with Congressman Jerry Lewis and representatives from the United States Department of Transportation and the ports industry. One message heard in the SCAG meetings was that now might be the time to start talking about the next major federal transportation bill. SAFETEA-LU was passed during the latter half of 2005 but it actually expires in 2009. These multi -year authorization bills take years to take shape, and the message regarding goods movement infrastructure is gaining traction. Should the state make a major investment on goods movement as part of a bond measure, it will also send a clear message to Washington regarding California's commitment to the issue. Another message that was sounded repeatedly during the SCAG trip is there will need to be an increase in federal revenue for transportation. This wasn't seriously considered in the deliberations for SAFETEA-LU but will need to be in 2009 because the federal trust fund is bound to run out of money about that time. State Update: Infrastructure Bond — March? November? March 10 is considered the practical deadline for the Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger to reach agreement on a bond proposal to appear in time for the June 2006 ballot. At the time of the writing of this staff report, it's not clear whether that deadline will be met which could push the issue back to the November ballot. Agenda Item 7J 70 s " " As part of the Legislative process, a number of hearings have been scheduled to consider the details of the Governor's proposal as well as other " infrastructure proposals introduced by Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. RCTC has been well -represented at these hearings by its Sacramento lobbyist Mark Watts and in two cases, RCTC representatives have actively participated by providing testimony. One such example occurred on February 15 when Vice Chair Terry Henderson appeared before a hearing of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. The hearing was held at Chula Vista City Hall and focused on the issue of infrastructure needs in the state's border area with Mexico. Commissioner Henderson provided information on goods movement issues in the Coachella Valley with special emphasis on impacts to State Route 86S and Interstate 10 that are affected by trucks that cross the border and that also travel east from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. CVAG Executive Director John Wohlmuth also testified and provided details on growth in the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley and the need for additional truck capacity. Executive Director Eric Haley also testified at another hearing of the same committee that was held in Sacramento on February 7." The focus of :the Sacramento hearing was on how projects should be selected for state funding. The key policy issue that has emerged that separates the Administration and the legislative proposals is how to select projects. The Governor's Strategic Growth Plan relies on guidelines and criteria to be developed over the next several months and which are based on the principles of the GoCalifornia template of making smart, targeted investments, white the legislative authors tend to rely on the existing allocation approaches the transportation community is comfortable with. There is a lot of legislative staff work under way at the present focusing on developing allocation approaches for the goods movement and the Corridor Improvement/Focus Route categories. It would appear that, for both of the Governor's new major expenditure categories, the goal of the staff is to elevate the standing of regional and county agencies to a level on a par with the state in making allocation requests and recommendations, with the likely role for the ultimate determination to be at the California Transportation Commission. Senator Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga is the Senate sponsor of the Governor's proposal and has actively sought out local input on the particulars of the legislation. The Senator has had regular meetings of the local business and transportation community which has included participation from RCTC staff. The Senator represents a significant part of Riverside County and has been successful in communicating local transportation needs to many other legislators. Staff will keep the Commissioners apprised of ongoing developments regarding this legislation. Agenda Item 7J 71 Assembly Republicans have also added a number of bills to the infrastructure deliberation process with some opposed to a major bond effort. Two bills of interest to RCTC are AB 2025 authored by Roger Niello and AB 2028 by Robert Huff. AB 2025 would broaden the state's authority to use design -build contracting and is similar to other bills that RCTC has already supported. AB 2028 is likely to be amended but would enact into law that it would be the state's intention to repay previously -diverted Proposition 42 dollars by FY 2007-08. The current budget proposed by the Governor would repay $920 million of previously diverted Proposition 42 funds and it is unclear how it will fare during the legislative process. Proposition 42 Fix An important component of the Governor's Strategic Growth Plan is reform. This includes reform of the state's contracting procedures to allow for Design Build contracting, greater flexibility for private sector investment and greater protection for Proposition 42. The Governor's call to fix Proposition 42 is embodied in ACA 4 (Plescia) which eliminates the suspension clause presently in the constitution. RCTC has already taken a SUPPORT position on this bill. There is growing support in the legislature to support this approach, although there are rumors floating out of the Assembly that the leadership there would like to see an approach that would combine a Proposition 42 "fix" with elimination of the ,suspension clause in Proposition 98. In recognition of the long-standing goal that addressing Proposition 42 is critical to stabilizing transportation funding, the California Alliance for Jobs, Transportation California and the League of California Cities are sponsoring an initiative that eliminates the suspension clause and calls for repayment of outstanding General Fund loans over a 10-year period. This initiative is in the signature gathering phase and is on target to submit the necessary signatures in a timely manner to qualify for the November 2006 ballot. Attachment: Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 7J 72 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION — UPDATED February 17, 2006 HOV lanes on as mixed -flow approvals on a state 24-hour lanes of the Bill is dead. n SUPPORT CONCEPT &9 IN yry� �y a L 4/13/05 AB 426 (Bogh) This bill would require Ca!trans to convert all highways in Riverside County that currently operate basis into part-time HOV lanes that operate except during peak periods, subject to any required federal government. AB 453 This bill would extend the time limit that is currently in place under 9/22/05 — Signed by SUPPORT 4/13/05 (Benoit) state law for state funding of railroad grade crossings. Governor. AB 850 This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to enter Bill is dead. SUPPORT WITH 4/13/05 (Canciamilla) 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. AMENDMENTS 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. Bill is dead. SUPPORT 4/13/05 AB 1699 This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to authorize certain 7/5/05 Hearing SUPPORT IN 5/11/05 (Frommer) transportation authorities to use a design -build process for bidding on one highway construction project within the jurisdiction of the applicable transportation authority. postponed by Senate Trans & Housing Committee. CONCEPT AB 1714 This bill would require the construction of the more affordable skyway Bill is dead. SUPPORT 5/11/05 (Plescia) 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. AB 2025 This bill would authorize the department to contract using the design- 2/1 5/06 From Printer. STAFF (Niello) build process, as defined, for the design and construction of May be heard in RECOMMENDS: transportation projects. Committee 3/17/06. SUPPORT AB 2028 This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to provide an 2/1 5/06 From Printer. STAFF (Huff) appropriation in the Budget Act of 2007 or in related legislation during May be heard in RECOMMENDS: the 2007-08 fiscal year to repay fully all funds which would have been transferred to the Transportation Investment Fund in previous fiscal years. Committee 3/17/06. SUPPORT ACA 4 (Plescia) This measure would delete 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 /10/06 and referred to Appropriations. SUPPORT 1/12/05 ACA 9 (Bogh) This measure would change the vote requirement to 4/5 of the membership of each house of the Legislature in order to enact a statute suspending in whole or in part the transfer of motor vehicle tax revenue from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund, specific to Proposition 42. Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee on 1 /10/06 and referred to Appropriations. SUPPORT 3/18/05 ACA 11 (Oropeza) This measure would delete the provisions authorizing the transfer of revenues from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund to be suspended. The measure would authorize the Legislature to loan funds in the Transportation Investment Fund to the General Fund or any other state fund or account, or to local agencies, under 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. Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee on 1 /10/06 and referred to Appropriations. SUPPORT 3/18/05 ACA 22 (LaMalfa) Proposed Constitutional Amendment would severely restrict the use of eminent domain. 1 /31 /06 Re -referred to Committee on Housing and Community Development. SEEK AMENDMENTS 9/14/05 ACA X 1 4 (Keene) This measure would, on and after July 1, 2006, prohibit the transfer of funds from a special fund to the General Fund as a loan, with specified exceptions. Any funds that were transferred prior to that date from a special fund for the purpose of making a loan to the 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. Amended. Re -referred to Committee on Budget Process 4/12/05. WATCH 4/13/05 SB 371 (Torlakson) This bill would allow state, regional, and local transportation authorities to try design -build contracting under specific criteria and for these projects to be audited to determine the success or failure of use of design -build by these transportation entities. 1/31/06 In Assembly. Read first time. Held. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 5/11/05 SB 427 (Hollingsworth) Originally, this bill would exempt from CEQA requirements the construction of any overpass, onramp, or offramp that is built on an existing .State Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) right -of -Resources. way. It has now been amended to make changes to the environmental scoping process and additional amendments are likely. 2/16/06 To Committee on Natural SUPPORT 4/13/05 74 • " as a B:- re ,a ,,.'�� , M ,, ��..�� "'e " 6. me. eF ,' SB 561 (Runner & Torlakson) This bill would provide additional transportation options in allowing for toll facilities, but does so in a manner that eliminates the inherent unfairness to the public from the imposition of non -compete clauses. 1 /31 /06 Returned to Secretary of Senate. SUPPORT 7/13/05 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. 2/1 /06 Returned to Secretary of Senate. SUPPORT 4/13/05 SB 1024 Torlakson & Perste) 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. 1/31/06 In Assembly. Read first time. Held. 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 75 AGENDA ITEM 8 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Policy Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2006/07 Budget BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2006/07 Budget. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The initial step in the budget process is to develop policy goals and objectives for the fiscal year. These goals and objectives are to be consistent with the Commission's overall strategic direction. This year's goals and objectives reflect the continuation of the transition planning efforts related to the current and new Measure A and the delivery of promises made to the citizens of the County of Riverside. Using the Commission's guiding principles, staff has updated the attached Goals and Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2006/07 Budget. Attachment: Proposed Goals and Objectives for FY 2006/07 Budget Agenda Item 8 76 " Commission Policy Goals and Objectives The following material outlines the Commission's adopted policy goals, objectives and financial policies that serve as the framework for the work plan presented in the FY 2006/07 Budget. Mobility Initiatives The Commission, in cooperation with local, state, and federal agencies, will strive to create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the County and regionally. This effort will increase in its intensity in the upcoming fiscal year with the completion in early 2006 of a 10-year delivery plan program and updated Measure A revenue projections. With the new federal transportation act, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), in place and the state funding picture improving with the addition of Proposition 42 funding, the Commission faces a year of selective strategic opportunities as well as continuing challenges. " Complete the prioritization of Measure A highway projects covering the two expenditure plans from 2006 through 2019. " Maximize the use of innovative financing, including public/private partnerships, to support the 2009 Measure A 10-year delivery plan. " Continue to work with state and federal agencies to program and construct projects in the STIP, the Measure A program, and other high priority projects. " Maximize the effective application and use of TUMF funds to deliver eligible Commission priority projects. " Continue work on the project level environmental document for the Mid County Parkway, one of the CETAP corridors. " Initiate the next steps on the Riverside County -Orange County CETAP corridor as outlined in the MIS's Locally Preferred Strategy. " Actively participate in the SR-91 Advisory Committee to facilitate near and long- term improvements to SR-91; enhance intercounty public transit options and foster the development of a new corridor between the two counties. " Work closely with local jurisdictions to implement the FY2006-2009 TUMF Regional Arterial Program and facilitate the delivery of arterial improvements in Western County. " Advocate streamlining efforts at the state and federal levels to facilitate timely project reviews and approvals. " Coordinate and provide public access to commuter information to foster the use of alternate modes of transportation such as ridematching for car/vanpooling, transit through the provision of a regional trip planner, and real time traffic information for congestion avoidance. " Play an active role in shaping state infrastructure bond proposals that will likely be placed on the November 2006 ballot. 77 Goods Movement The Commission will work with federal, state, and local governments to facilitate the movement of goods and services to, within, and through the County, recognizing the vital role mobility plays in the economic health of the County, the state, and the nation. • Seek funding and implement the Commission's approved, high -priority railroad grade separation priority list to mitigate the impact of increased goods movement demands on the transportation system. • Promote the use of rail corridors (including the Perris Valley Line within funding constraints) as an alternative to trucks for the movement of freight within the County and the region. • Work with county transportation commissions, local jurisdictions, SCRRA (or Metrolink), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the private railroad companies toward the implementation of a coordinated regional approach to increase rail and highway capacity for goods movement that includes environmental and community impact mitigation. Improved System Efficiency The Commission will select projects and allocate funds in a manner that will improve safety and reduce congested traffic corridors. • Advocate the development and use of advanced technologies for transportation applications that are affordable and practical. • Work with public and private interests to apply real time technology to disseminate commuter information that will support the use of alternate modes and improve efficiency of the regional transportation system. • Assure the effectiveness of transit planning through the annual SRTP process with a goal toward promoting program efficiency and effectiveness. • Provide innovative commuter rideshare programs to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and coordinate with other regional rideshare service providers to address intercounty commute trips. • Through the use of technology, make real time traffic information available to commuters for the purpose of trip planning and congestion avoidance. • Work with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to continue providing a motorist aid system which includes a call box program and an FSP program including temporary services in freeway construction zones. • Continue development, in partnership with Caltrans and SANBAG, of the Inland Empire TMC. Environmental Stewardship The Commission will achieve its mobility goals while promoting environmental stewardship and protecting the area's natural resources and quality of life. 78 " Continue working with the Regional Conservation Authority to implement the MSHCP and provide funding to assist in the assembly of the reserve system. " Work with SLAG, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), sub -regional agencies, and local jurisdictions to develop and implement an RTP that meets regional air quality goals and conformity guidelines. " Support outreach and educational programs that promote the benefits of ridesharing and availability of help through www.CommuteSmart.info and 1-800- COMMUTE. " Facilitate private/public use of clean fuels technology. Economic Development Transportation decisions will consider the economic benefits derived from any improvement, and, where feasible and practical, will pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development. " Support local agencies in the design and construction of interchanges that are in proximity to regional economic centers and developments. " Support local projects, consistent with countywide transportation goals, which enhance business development, local employment, and area tourism. " Foster the development of transportation technology research, education, and training efforts of public institutions within the County. Intermodalism and Accessibility County residents will be served, where economically feasible, through the development of transportation alternatives that consider the needs of a wide range of citizens. " Work with transit providers and local social service agencies to provide specialized transit service to meet a broad spectrum of socio-economic transit needs. " Integrate commuter assistance programs and marketing with transit in order to foster the use of alternative commuting modes. " Implement the Commission's commuter rail SRTP and the SCRRA long-range strategic plan for expansion of the commuter rail system benefiting Riverside County constituents with an emphasis on the Perris Valley Line, an extension from Riverside to Perris via Moreno Valley. " Participate in the study of high-speed rail options and support efforts for eventual implementation of a statewide high-speed rail system with emphasis on the pilot project being in Southern California and including the integration of existing rail passenger services. Public and Agency Communications The Commission will provide timely, informative, and accurate information to encourage informed public and agency participation in the Commission's decision -making processes. 79 Promote a close working relationship with news and civic entities to increase interest in and understanding of transportation and related issues. • Enhance the provision of public information through various forms of communication (e.g., website, television, Speakers Bureau, print media, radio, etc). • Maintain an ongoing effort of informing Riverside County's Congressional and State Legislative delegations regarding County transportation issues. 80 " Financial and Administration Policies Operating Budget Policies " The Commission shall budget no more than one percent (1 %) of Measure A sales tax revenue for administrative salaries and benefits. " Administrative program delivery costs will be budgeted at whatever is reasonable and necessary, but not to exceed four percent (4%) of Measure A sales tax revenues (inclusive of the one -percent salary limitation). " Amounts will be budgeted by fiscal year for multi -year projects based on best available estimates with the understanding that, to the extent actuals vary from those estimates and the project is ongoing, adjustments will be made on an ongoing basis. " The fiscal capital budget should be consistent with the strategic plan and deviations appropriately noted, explained, and justified. Revenue Policies " Sales tax revenue projections will be revised semi-annually to ensure use of current and relevant data. Staff may adjust annual amounts to reflect the most current economic trends. " Federal and state matching funds will be used where possible and available to supplement the use of local funding sources. " Exercise fiduciary responsibility regarding TUMF revenues and allocate revenues pursuant to Commission direction and the approved 2009 Measure A. Debt Management Policies " The Commission will maintain 2.0x debt ratio coverage on all senior debt. " Debt issuance will be for major capital projects including engineering, construction, and right of way. Operating requirements must be from current ongoing revenues. " Costs of issuance including the standard underwriter's discount will not exceed two percent (2%). " While it is the intent of the Commission to establish a cash debt reserve for long term bond issuance, obtaining surety bonds can be obtained when beneficial to the Commission. " The commercial paper program will provide advance funding for projects included in the expenditure plan of the approved 2009 Measure A. " The Commission will consider actions to lessen the restriction of the $500 million 2009 Measure A bonding cap, which could include the possibility of a ballot measure in 2008 to increase the cap. 81 Auditing, Accounting, and Financial Reporting Policies • The Commission will issue a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in accordance with the GASB Statement 34 new financial reporting model. • An audit is to be conducted annually on the Commission's accounting books and records. As long as the Commission has outstanding bonds, an independent accounting firm must conduct the audit. • The Commission is responsible for ensuring that audits of Measure A and TDA funding recipients are completed and reviewed for compliance and other matters in a timely manner. • An internal audit risk assessment program will be implemented to identify improvements in controls and procedures as well as best practices. Capital Planning and Programming Policies • Established priorities will be reviewed annually via a series of workshops and/or policy maker workshop. Reserve Policies • The Commission will maintain a cash reserve at least equal to five percent (5%) of annual revenues (exclusive of reimbursements and matching funds). • The Commission will establish and maintain a transit operator's reserve of ten percent (10%) for the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley. Additionally, a ten percent (10%) reserve will be established and maintained for each of the Western County transit operators (public bus and commuter rail). Cash Management/Investment Policies • Where possible, the Commission will encourage receipt of funds by wire transfer to its accounts. • Balances in the bank operating account will be maintained at the amount necessary to meet monthly expenditures. • Idle funds will be invested per the Commission's established investment policy emphasizing in order of priority: 1) safety, 2) liquidity, and 3) yield. • Cash disbursements to local jurisdictions and vendors/consultants will be completed in an expeditious and timely manner. Human Resources Management Policies • Commission staffing levels will be consistent with the intent of its enabling legislation, which envisioned a small, but effective staff. • Consultants will be used to augment staff efforts as much as possible to support programs or work loads, which do not appear to be of a permanent nature. 82 " " Information Technology Policies " Significant effort will be made to maintain efficient and cost-effective technology infrastructure by continuously upgrading network equipment and software to ensure performance, productivity, and connectivity among staff, other agencies, and the public. Network security will continue to be a top priority to maintain the integrity of the Commission's network and information. 83 Goals gandjF Objectivesga • Sets Stage for Budget Discussion in May • Establishes Strategic Direction • Articulates Upcoming Goals • Incorporated in Approved Budget 1 Substantive Changes n+, "� S, �i +sa '���..iHx$da� "lei • Mobility Initiatives — Formerly classified as Mobility • Improved System Efficiency — Formerly classified as Congestion Relief and Safety Improvements with combination of elements of Technological Innovation • Environmental Stewardship — Formerly classified as Air Quality • Support the Measure A 10-year plan with use of innovative financing, including public/private partnerships • Help shape the state infrastructure bond proposals for the November 2006 ballot • Streamline efforts with state and federal agencies to deliver projects in the STIP and Measure A program • Deliver eligible TUMF priority projects through effective relationships with local jurisdictions 2 Mobility Initiatives continued �p +�¢� F;!,`iRw1�+8t�F. ��tlrz w"�a, { 1 �44h ._ E{ "s*?�� , 321 • Continue work on the Mid County Parkway and initiate the next steps in the Riverside County -Orange County corridor • Prioritize Measure A highway projects covering the 10-year delivery plan • Participate in the SR-91 Advisory Committee to develop and foster intercounty public transit and a new corridor between the two counties • Coordinate and provide public access to commuter information Improved System Efficiency .EE4 i • Through the use of technology, make real time traffic information available to commuters for the purpose of trip planning and congestion avoidance 3 Environmental Stewardship Ts 4•r;¢�r*duKM.,.:4._ !%>a.+..�'�8 r..:'s{ h.EY.r�,�'+'x"xe,*. • Work with the RCA to implement the MSHCP and provide funding to assist in the assembly of the reserve system Intermodalism & Accessibility • Integrate commuter assistance programs and marketing with transit in order to foster the use of alternative commuting modes 4 Financial and Administration;;: Policies 1��n wn n i41 i y tT Ig l�a�u �.' �uln�..i • Debt Management Policies — Consider increasing the $500 Measure A bonding cap million 2009 • Auditing, Accounting, and Financial Reporting — Implement an internal audit risk assessment program to improve controls and procedures • Information Technology — Maintain efficient and secure infrastructure by continuously upgrading network equipment and software in a cost effective manner Next Steps 7i • April 24 —B&I Committee review of Proposed Budget • May 10 —Open public hearing for Proposed Budget • May 22 —B&I Committee review of Final Budget • June 14 —Commission adoption of Final Budget 5 AGENDA ITEM 9 " " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Amendment No. 3, Agreement No. 02-31-043-03 to CH2M Hill for the Performance of Preliminary Engineering Services for the Preparation of an Administrative Draft ,Project Report and Environmental Document for the State Route 79 Realignment Project BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award of Agreement No. 02-31-043-03, Amendment No. 3; to CH2M Hill based on the negotiated project scope, schedule and cost that is attached to this agenda item for the Realignment of SR-79 in the vicinity of the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet for the development of an Administrative Draft Project Report and Environmental Document (PR/ED) (the Project). This Amendment will not increase the currently approved not to exceed amount for this consultant services contract. The revised scope of services will be funded by rescoping the Project back from the completion of a final PR/ED to the completion of the Administrative Draft PR/ED by taking the actions noted below in recommendations 2 and 3; 2) Authorize the use of the contingency funds in the amount of $1,807,873 that were established by Amendment No. 2, Agreement No. 06-31-516, to fund a portion of the attached newly defined scope of services that will be 'required to take the Project to the Administrative Draft level of the PR/ED; 3) Authorize the reallocation of the existing scope of services that are currently valued at $1,428,639 from approved Amendment No. 1, Agreement No. 05-31-532, to fund the remainder of the revised scope of services defined in Amendment No. 3 to take the Project to the Administrative Draft level of the PR/ED; Agenda Item 9 84 4) Authorize staff to work with the consultant team to develop a revised scope of work that will move the Project from the Administrative Draft level to the final PR/ED; and 5) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 02-31-043-03 on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its February 13, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No.02-31-043 to CH2M Hill. The scope of work for this contract included preliminary engineering services for the preparation of a Project Report and Environmental Document for the State Route 79 realignment project. The authorized amount for Agreement No. 02-31-043 was $1,994,497 and the anticipated contract duration was 24 months. A notice to proceed was issued on April 18, 2002. In December 2003, collectively, the resource agencies agreed to the final purpose and need and in June 2004 they also agreed on the final project criteria and alternatives selection for preliminary agreement to finally move the SR-79 Realignment Project into the Project Report and Environmental Document (PR/ED) phase. Public involvement has been maintained through information meetings and the required scoping meetings that were held in both the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet as well as the community of Winchester. Riverside County residents within the project limits, but outside of the city limits were also invited to participate in the various meetings. Through the end of November 2004, CH2M Hill had expended approximately $1,400,000 of this contract over a period of 31 months. The project had achieved preliminary agreement from the resource agencies on the alternatives to be analyzed in the environmental document. However, significant work remained because of the intense development pressure that has impacted the project area and the fact that the locally preferred alternative impacts a sensitive vernal pool complex. Because of the above issues, changes to the alignments continued. To date, there is still no consensus on what would be acceptable to the resource agencies for the city of Hemet's locally preferred alternative that generally follows the east side of the San Diego canal. To address this issue, the Project has agreed to study a larger area along this portion of the alignment to allow for future adjustment without requiring additional technical studies to be performed. At its January 12, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved_ Amendment No. 1 for $13,158,654 bringing the total contract value to $15,153,151. Amendment No. 1 included new tasks to be completed that were not contemplated after the completion of the Project Study Report (PSR). When the PSR was completed, only Agenda Item 9 85 " two alignment alternatives were anticipated to be studied and carried forward into the development of a PR/ED. When the technical studies were launched during the winter of 2001, the resource agencies requested that additional build altemative(s) be included in the environmental document such that several paths through each area would be evaluated. From this request, additional segments, alternatives and alignments were added to the project to create a more robust suite of alternatives to broaden the choices available in the alternative selection process and include several avoidance alternatives to the sensitive vernal pool area that would be impacted by the locally preferred alternative. Amendment No. 2, Agreement No. 06-31-516, was approved on September 20, 2005 and authorized $331,100 from contingency to update 'aerial mapping and conduct cultural studies. Amendment No. 2 did not increase the contract's not to exceed value of $15,153,151. The project continues to conduct the requisite technical field studies and work with the local land use agencies to accommodate anticipated development. The early results of the technical studies and feedback from the cities and County of Riverside have provided assistance in fine-tuning the alignment alternatives. The result of this collaborative effort is shown in Attachment 1. A significant amount of alignment refinement has been required in order to address all of the project constraints. The result is that the scope of service that was originally negotiated in Amendment No. 1 must now be adjusted to address the new alignments, as they are currently defined. This will require additional field studies to be performed as well as additional engineering efforts to be completed in order to be consistent with the current suite of alternatives. Due to the significant change in conditions that has occurred between the approved contract/amendment awards and the present, staff is bringing back the scope of work to the Commission for review and authorization to continue with the necessary engineering and environmentalstudies to keep the approval process moving forward. There are still uncertainties that may impact the final cost to deliver the final PR/ED. Because of these uncertainties, staff is recommending that the contract not be increased at this time. Instead, staff recommends use of the currently authorized funding and rescope the work back to the delivery of an Administrative Draft of the PR/ED. At a later date, staff will bring back an item that will carry the approval process to the delivery of the final PR/ED. It is unknown at this time what any additional effort will cost; but, it is likely to be approximately $3-4 million to replace the amounts that are being taken from items that are currently proposed to be funded. Taking the remaining work elements for the Project to the final PR/ED is estimated to take approximately two more years from February 2006 through December Agenda Item 9 86 2008. This time frame will be achievable if weather conditions are satisfactory in order to allow the consultant team to collect the right environmental and technical information to take the project through completion of a Record of Decision and receipt of a Section 404 permit. In order to achieve this, sufficient rain is necessary so that staff will be able to perform much needed wet season surveys, soil lithology surveys, plant surveys and additional general biological surveys. All of these surveys are necessary specifically in the areas of the new alignments throughout the city of Hemet and in the other subtle line shifts that have occurred on the current approved alignments (see attached map). While all of this crucial information is being gathered, staff will continue to work with the county of Riverside and both the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto with their locally preferred alternatives. Staff recommends that the Commission approve Amendment No. 3 to CH2M Hill for the continuation of the engineering effort to obtain a Project Report and Environmental Document for the Realignment of SR-79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road. A Scope of Work Summary for the State Route 79 Realignment Project is attached that will take the project to the completion of the Administrative Draft of the PR/ED. Amendment No. 3 will authorize the use of $1,807,873 that is currently identified as project contingency. This cost will be transferred from the contingency cost that the Commission has already approved as part of Amendment No. 1 for this project. In addition, staff recommends that the Commission also approve the reallocation of currently approved tasks in the amount of $1,438,279. The total request for reallocation of funds is for $3,246,152 (see attached spreadsheets). The total not to exceed contract amount that the Commission approved on January 12, 2005 for the project will remain the same at $15,153,151. After the winter season surveys are completed, staff will return with an update on the status and progress of the project. By that time, staff will be able to determine if sufficient wet season survey information was collected or if there will be a need to perform a dry season survey to complement the current available data. A final scope of work and cost will be brought back for Commission approval at that time. Agenda Item 9 87 " " The RCTC model consultant amendment will be used pursuant to legal counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $5,000,000 Source of Funds: TUMF Regional ArteCal $3,499,000 TEA-21 Demo funds $1,501,000 Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 222 31 81101 P3003 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ite,uite�� Date: 2/27/06 Attachments: 1) SR 79 Current Realignment Map I 2) SR 79 Realignment Project Scope of Work and Budget Transfers 3) SR 79 Realignment Project Cost Spreadsheets Agenda Item 9 88 " " " Winchester E GRAND AVE ENEWP,ORTRD THE S CERRITOS AVE DEMON SHIR EAYE SR MkL OMA AVE .SIM?SOM R��  RANIONAE%PY RECORD Rp w i�� ��4 o a _. o z BYRD ST SEVENTH ST - ESPLANADE AVE COTTONWOOD AVE MENLO FD SR 74.FLORIDA AVE San Jacinto ()MILANO AVE e �� Hemet -STETSON AVE Channel Aerial Date: March 2005,AirPhotoUSA Aalt yis2Votc.',1 71 t4612006%.0iatsi.mtg1.gen'tp '2006 LEGEND - January 2006 Centerlinec' - January 2006 Segment Match Linec" ( i Potential Utility RelocationAreac" EDPotential Borrow ImpactAreac" Old Project Riqiit-of-Way February 2005 - New Project Right -of -Way January 2006 Unchanged Project - Right -of -Way and Borrow Area February 2005 and January 2006c" 0 5,000 0 Feet 1,000 Meters Attachment 1 State Route 79 Realignment Project Comparison of Project Study Segments February 2005 and January 2006 Preliminary - Subject to Change Source: CH- CH2M HILL 1:60 p00 ptrnum DD D.p , State Route 79 Realignment Project: Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road Budget Transfers for Project Report and Environmental Document Amendment No. 3 Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Commission February 2006 Submitted by 3550 Vine Street, Suite 320 Riverside, California 92 89 " Amendment No. 3 The proposed Amendment 3 for the State Route 79 Realignment Project (Project) reallocates budgets from specific tasks (contingency tasks, completed tasks, and future tasks) to existing tasks that require additional budget. This budget is being allocated for out of scope work based on changes to the proposed Project. It is estimated that this funding will provide for a portion of the required work. A subsequent amendment (future Amendment 4) will also be required to complete this work. The specific reasons for this additional budget can be summarized based on the following items. 1) Change in the Project description: " The removal of the previous "Eastern Alternative from the Project " The addition of a new Project alternative, described as the "Mid Western Alternative' " Shifts of existing Project alternatives to new locations not previously analyzed " New features have been added to the Project including a utility relocation corridor, construction haul routes, and detour locations for use during construction 2) Based on the changes in the Project description described in item #1, biological and cultural resource surveys need to be initiated immediately in the locations where previous survey were not conducted. 3) Tasks that support the field survey effort are also required. This includes coordination with the landowners (Task 1.8) to gain access to their property, as well as to our technical support for GPS and GIS tasks (Task 1.9). 4) Additional effort is required by the federal resource agencies to update the Project description in the Updated Preliminary Agreement document (Task 2.3). 5) Additional effort is required to coordinate with the public related to Project Scoping. 6) Additional effort is required to update the onsite drainage studies based upon the changes to the Project description. 7) Additional effort is required to update the existing utilities information and identify utility conflicts and relocations based upon the changes to the Project description. 8) Additional effort is required to convert the new aerial mapping from English units to metric units. We originally scoped to do the mapping in English units, which we will need later in the project, but have identified that we will also need the mapping in metric units to complete work that is already in progress. 9) Additional effort is required to update the right of way data sheets based upon the changes to the Project description. 90 10) A new task has been identified to perform field exploration work related to, the Hemet Landfill near the intersection of Warren Road and Esplanade Avenue. This was requested by Caltrans at a recent meeting. This document will first describe the tasks from which budget is being taken, and then describe the tasks to which budget is being allocated. 91 z • " " " Existing Budgets to be Transferred Contingency Tasks The following tasks were placed in Contingency in Amendment 1 and removed from the scope. Amendment 3 will move the budgets for these tasks from the Contingency and allocate these budgets to existing tasks. Task Number Task Name Existing Budget 1.9 GIS $567,316.11 3.13 Aerial Mapping $16,786.08 3.18 Geometric Approval Drawings $485,953.12 5.04 Cultural Resources Site Testing $372,000.00 6.03 Draft EIS/EIR Preparation $182,652.12 6.6.4 Final EIS/EIR Preparation $124,764.15 N/A Other contingency $58,401.42 TOTAL $1,807,873.00 Note 1: The Aerial Mapping task (3.13) originally had $122,886.08 assigned to contingency. Under Amendment 2, $106,100 of this was transferred from contingency to our contract, leaving $16,786.08 in contingency. Note 2: The Cultural Resources Site Testing task (5.04) originally had $597,000 assigned to contingency. Under Amendment 2, $225,000 of this was transferred from contingency to our contract, leaving $372,000 in contingency. Completed Tasks The tasks listed below are in our existing contract. These tasks have been completed and there is budget remaining that will not be needed. We are proposing to take the remaining budgets for these tasks and allocate it to other existing tasks that require additional budget. The completed tasks from which we propose to take budget are as follows: Task Number Task Name Existing Budget 3.11 Value Engineering $2,249.23 4.1 Development of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical Reports $7,391.05 TOTAL $9,640.28 92 3 Future Tasks The tasks listed below are in our existing contract, but will not need to be performed in 2006. We are proposing to take the existing budgets for these tasks and allocate it to other existing tasks that require additional budget. The future tasks from which we propose to take budget are as follows: Task Number Task Name Existing Budget 3.14 Final Engineering $163,542.94 3.15 Advance Planning Studies $162,656.54 3.19 Final Project Report $97,988.10 6.3 Draft EIS/EIR Preparation $180,426.94 6.4 Draft EIS/EIR Circulation $151,682.68 6.5.3 Draft EIS/EIR Public Noticing $24,767.34 6.5.4 Public Hearings $61,604.29 6.6.1 Response to Comments $272,713.53 6.6.4 Final EIS/EIR Preparation $125,511.26 6.6.5 Final EIS/EIR Circulation $143,034.59 6.8 Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan $44,710.63 TOTAL $1,428,638.84 A summary of the budgets to be transferred for the three categories of tasks is as follows: Task Type Budgets to be Transferred Contingency Tasks $1,807,873.00 Completed Tasks $9,640.28 Future Tasks $1,428,638.84 TOTAL $3,246,152.12 93 4 " " Allocation of Budgets The following table lists the tasks that will have new or additional budget allocated to them under Amendment 3. Task Number Task Name Existing Budget 1.1 Project Management $30,000.00 1.8 Landowner Access $350,000.00 1.9 GIS $947,328.96 2.3 Updated Preliminary Agreement $82,663.16 3.2 Onsite Drainage Studies $60,000.00 3.4 Utility Coordination $137,815.00 3.6 Traffic Analysis $25,000.00 3.13 Aerial Mapping $7,000.00 3.17 Right of Way Data Sheets $30,000.00 3.20 (new) Hemet Landfill $56,345.00 4.2 Modification of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical Reports $200,000.00 5.4 Cultural Resources $225,000.00 5.12.1 Wetland Delineation Report $215,000.00 5.12.2 Burrowing Owl Advanced Reconnaissance Survey Report $40,000.00 5.12.3 Rare Plant Advanced Reconnaissance Survey Report $495,000.00 5.12.4 Riparian Bird Focused Survey Report $40,000.00 5.12.5 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Focused Survey Report $100,000.00 5.12.6 Mammal Focused Survey Report $60,000.00 6.2.2 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts $80,000.00 6.5.1 Scoping $65,000.00 TOTAL $3,246,152.12 94 5 Summary There are two spreadsheets that accompany this Amendment 3 request. One spreadsheet lists all of the tasks on the project with the updated budget amounts shown. This spreadsheet incorporates all of the changes described in this document. It provides a breakdown by task of the budgets that will remain for each task. The second spreadsheet is a summary of our contract cost proposal. This spreadsheet incorporates the changes described in this document. It depicts the labor, overhead, and net fee changes as a result of Amendment 3. 95 s • " COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 HILL LABOR Project Manager Senior Consultant Environmental Task Leader Senior Engineer Project Engineer Project Planner/Scientist Associate Engineer Associate Planner/Scientist Rate $71.16 $62.50 $56.77 $63.18 $47.05 $50.33 $52.97 $37.79 Hours -85 842 1,858 -446 - 527 587 174 121 Labor Cost ($6,048.60) $52,625.00 $105,478.66 ($28,178.28) ($24,795.35) $29,543.71 $9,216.78 $4,572.59 Engineer Planner/Scientist Technical Editor Word Processor GIS/Graphics CADD Administration Reprographics $39.57 $24.43 $36.46 $23.56 $36.78 $22.24 $23.93 $24.31 -381 688 209 193 6,224 - 817 370 658 ($15,076.17) $16,807.84 $7,620.14 $4,547.08 $228,900.18 ($18,170.08) $8,854.10 $15,995.98 Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem SUBTOTAL 2.896 9,668 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor 163.3% 10% $43,743 $64,929 $391,894 $639,962 $103,186 $1,135,041 SUBTOTAL SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) David Bramlet (Rare Plants) Earthworks (Rare Plants) Engineering Resources Fred Roberts (Rare Plants) Dr. Herb Huddleston (Wetland Delineation) Michelle Balk Consulting (Rare Plants) Ninyo & Moore O'Farrell Biological Consulting Peter H.Bloom (Burrowing Owl) Scott White Biological Consulting SMJ Biological Consulting 2/22/2006 10:10 AM $108,672 $70,000.00 $120,000.00 $135,815.00 $60,000.00 $15,000.00 $23,000.00 $48,345.00 ($40,000.00) $40,000.00 $22,000.00 $70,000.00 SUBTOTAL $564,160 TOTAL REQUEST AMENDMENT 3 $1,807,873 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT AMENDMENT NO. 1 AMENDMENT NO. 2 $1,994,497 $10,537,171 $331,100 GRAND TOTAL CONTRACT $14,670,641 96 LJ.06 900ZIZza 00'0$ E9'916'31$ 00'0$ 3'916'33 00'0$ Lo 3916'33 3'91633 uoday wewssassy gpenp Ppm eS 00'0$ £1•9££'86$ 00'0$ £1'9EE'96$ 00'0$ El'93'86$ £1'9386$ uodey uopenlen3 uleldpoold 9'6 00'0$ 46'0304.3 00'0$ - enES'01N$ 00'0$ 46'0E9'043 46'03'0173 uodea uopeopa6 le0180101u0eled S'S 00'0$ 00'000'9Z3 00'0S 00'000'33 00'0$ 00'000'SZZS 00'000'SZZ$ (6upsel en) sewnosed Ieunll o y9 00'0$ 66317'9/8$ 00'000'33 693e'9/13 00'000'9ZZ$ 3$0b'0949$ - 69'904.099$ - - - seamosea leu mo 4'9 00'0$ 96'996'943 00'0$ 3'996'943 00'0$ 9636'941$ 9636'943 - pewsseseyloedue Iene9\£'9 00'0$ 9b`699'6E3 00'0$ 91/'69$'6£3 00'0$ 84'699'6E3 84'699'6E3 podeg pedwl uopeooleil Z'S 00'0$ LL4L17Z793 00'0$ LL'GPZ'ZSL$ 00'0$ - LL'LbtZ91.$ LL'LbZ793 - wewssassy pedwl Rpunwwo01'S 00'0$ 09'969'33 00'000'003 09 93Z9Z$ 00'000'003 - OS'S6S'Z9$ OS'S6S'Z9S - spodea powu0al{eluewuwlnu3 uo; uoptllosea senpewel�y;0a(wd p uopeoplpon Z' b, 00'0$ 69'9Z0'93. 90'13'3- 69'9Z0'89$- 90'1.6E'L$- 179'914'99$ e9'9Lb'99$ spodea poenpel pluewuounu3 JO; U011dpSea senpewepy lOelwdp wewdOleneO. VP 00'0$ 00'Sbe'99$ 00'269'93 00'94E'99$ 00'94£'93 00'0$ 00'0$ - ;-IWpuellewaj{(ueu)OZ'E 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ - 00'0$ 0l'986'L6$- 00'0$ 01'996'L6$ - 1.10dea gelwd lewd 8CE 00'0$ 00'0$ 00•0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ - s6u44eia lenwddy opedwoe9 9ve 00•0$- 6£'93£69$ 00'000'03 393e69$ 00'000'03 6£'93£99$ 66'93£99$ - spey$sit%)XeM-)0-{y61y LL'£ 00'0$ 00'LeV9Z$ 00'0$ 00'Lbl'93 00'0$ 00'L41'93 00641'9Z$- swaweenbey 6eM-p-eAki 91'E 00'0$ 00'0$ - 00'0$ 00'0$ 69'999'31$- 00'0$ 1,5'93'33 sees 6uplueld peouenpy 9 ve 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 46'3.9'£9 LS- 00'0$ 1,6'Z3£93 6uueeupu31euld eve 00'0$ 00'000'33 00'0003 00'000'LE3 00'000'1$ 00'000'0E3 00'000'0£3 - Weldon puey eve 00'0$ 94'031Z LS 00'0$ 94'0333 00'0$ 94'031Z L$ 96'03'33 - podey MOM 14NCl Z L'.E 00'0S 0E113'011 3643'3- 0E'849'04$ - EZ'64Z3- £926CZ4$ £S'L6L'Z'F$ - 6uueeul6u3 anleA l L'E 00'0$ 00'LL9'63 00'06 00'LL9'63 00'0$ 00'LL9'63 00'LL9'6Z$ - elewps3 3s00 0VE 00'0$ 39179'9E9$ 00'0$ 98'91,9'9$9$ 00'0$ $8'849'9E9$ 9914$'9E9$ weweupaa enpewelly et 00'0$ 98'Z6631$ 00'0S 99762E93 00'0$ 9976631$ 9976631$ dill pue sldeouo0 11011011030 a6e1S 9'£ 00'0$ 9139$3$ 00'0$ 91'099'98$ 00'0$ 91'0399$ 91'0399$ ueld edeospuel lenadeou00 L'E 00'0$ '4E03'4E3 00'000'3$ 48'009173$ 00'000'SZ$ - 48'009'603 - be'009'60Z$ - - spApuy op;eul 9'8 00'0$ L43£'69 LS 00'0$ dbZEE'691$ 00'0$ Lb'ZEE'681$ L673'683 popyoape9 S'£ 003 0011917'91,3 00'9114/3$ - 00'990343 00'918'1E3 00'£99'011$ 0039'011$ uolleup poO.Lu19n bE 00'0$ Se' 8£L'69$ MOO 9431'69$ 00'0$ 9431'69$ 94'83'69$ podaa gala Alm uuois E'e 00'0$ 3'93'LOU 00000'09$ 18'93'103 00'000'09$ L8'919'143 L9'91.9'141$ selpnlS eBeula,0 epsu0 Z'E 00'0$ 12169'4Z0$ 00'0$ 1.Z'L69'4Z4$ ' 00'0$ LZ'169'1,Zb$ 3169'4Z4$ - LpnlS opne.pdH Alexi ye 16'41Z'L9$ 00'0$ 000$ 16•1LZ'L9$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 12113'19$ eouelldw0o(1)(9)eoe uopoaS p weweeu6y 6ueuempud 9'Z 3/96'99$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 3196'93 00'0$ 00'0$ 3L86'3$ lab' IOe1wd yda3llPewe4e1d Ea lewd 5'Z S9'1S l'69$ 00'01 00'0$ SWL91'3$ 00'0$ 00'0$ S9'LSl'69$ 'MY 2'eue1u0'peeN pue esodund auaweeu62, mild e'Z 00'0$ £Z ZLE'9016 9l'E99'31$ £ZZLE'903 9l'E99'Z8$ 10'60L'EZ$ L0'60/'£Z$ weweee3y Neupleud pelepd11 E'Z 00'0$ 00'0$ 30$ 00'0$ 00'0$ - 00'0$ 00'0$ luewnooa uol10ele$ senpewelly pue euelPO laefwd Z'Z 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$- 000$ 00'0$ 00'0$ peeN 9 esodund L'Z 00'0$ 00'0$ 00.0$ 000$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ uopeollddy 6u14111@ ulS lewewuwlnu3 1.1.'1 00'0$ 00ELE'64$ 000$ 00•ELE'6b$ 00'0$ 00•ELE'614 00'EL£'64$ e11scaM laefwd 01:1 00'0$ 81'4393'3 96'93L46$ 81'17E939'3 923E'L46$ ZZ'SOZ'80L$ 390e90L$ SIO 6'1 00'0$ 0034'33 00'000'09£$ - 00'E9439$ 00'000'093 00'36'603 0034'603 sseooy ueuMopueg sea LL'L06'91$ 51'098'£Z$ 00'0$ Z6'L9L'6E$ 00'0$ 303E3 Z6Y9L'6£$ OOMO L'L 310Z'6$ 9Z'908'9£$ 00'0$ Z9'100'94$ 00'0$ 9Z'909'9E$ 3L00',94$- 6uppnul g 6ppoded ssau6wd 9'1 6L'991'9£$ 91 L99'0113 00'0$ L6'E3SL3 00'0$ 9r/99'003 L6'££8'94.1$. - - s6ugeeN ueployeeeIS 6't a vzsro'E t$ 99'S9b'91$ 00'0$ 98'L46'68$ 00'0$ 99'994'93 98'L46'68$ sBupesly Jey104'1 9613'61$ E9'03601$ 000$ 64791'31$ 00'0$ 3'03603 61,791'6Z1$ saupeely 6oue6y ewnosea E'1 90120'81$ SP'61.1'301$ 00'0$ ES'Ob COZ LS 00'0$ 9b'61.1'31$ £S'041'0Z3 s6upeeyy wealluewdolenea pekud Z'l Z917,ZL'EE$ 6931'13$ 00'000'03 11'0E8'33 00'000'03 6$'90 1'163 1l'0317Z3 wewe6eue41 walaud l'1 00'0$ SL'616'31'LS 00'0$ 9E616'31'3 00'0$ 9L'616'121'1$ 3616'1.Z1'3 - pepuedx3 alloy-1eseyd 6ululewab le6png palewpeun £wewpuewy y6nmyl pezua4lny may £ luewpuewy Joy lunowy £ d1N ;e6png WW1 peslnea Ewewpuewy Jepun pezuoylny pue povelsueul ;GBPng peuol:IPPV Z d1N yBnayl pezuoylny poi ieBPgB Iglol Msgl - 6LNS 3.1.921 - 86 • eZ1Z 2/7/242699 Bululewell le8png pezpoylneun 1 ere8£'81L'4L4 1N00Wy 03ZNONlOV WM 1V101 82'181'2214$ (Buseued) d1N C luewpuewyloypezpoyley lunowy 0030'13'3 • Z dlN l luewpuewy'q pezp0glny lunowy 00'0014E3 d1N Z luawpuewy'ol papaw'', lunowy 00'££wness 1 d1N l luewpuewy'o; pezpoylny lunowy 00'34176614 d1N yBnayl pezpoyiny loenuoo Isu18110 00'149'03'914 1NEIOWV 1oV211NOo 03ZIHONlfIV ONION3d 1V101 - 00'E3'38'14 (6ulpued) CIO oN luewpuewy - 00'00VICES (9LS-14,901uewee.i6V) ZpoN luewpuewy 00'LL4'L49'014 • (ZCS•LC-901uewaelBy),1p oN luewpuewy 0034'486'4 - uunowy loe'luoo MEI 1e401 214212164$ 82'990811.`413 82'1.8L'22 L'E$ 00'199'01.9'914 00'EL8'108'14 0039.$50'1. 1S 00'89L'298114 SlVl01 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ E9'0 LL'44$- 00'0$ E9'01.111$ ueld 6u!podey g'6uuoli uopeBSIW loe(old B'9 L£'OSG'B£$ 00'0$ 00'0$ LE'OSL'8£$ 00'04 00'0$ LE'OSL'93 uopeul O Supplied'elem l'L'9 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 69'4E0'843- 00'0$ 69'4E0'33 -uope!nol!0111902leuid 5'9'9 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 92'I. L9'9214- 00'0$ 92'I L9'9214 uope'edeld 2J13l313 leu!d 4'9'9 141.91 C9$ 00'0$ 00'0$ - 14'181.'E9$ 00'0$ 00'0$ - LE'l8l49$ - uopenlen39)4 uopeeS E'9'9 L9'9/9'214 00'0$ OTOS L94L8'24$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 19'8L8'213 8ulpuld e14e0110e1d pup luewgoeolou3 Lees:0001d 2'9'9 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ ES'EL1'2G3- 00.0$ ES'6LL'2L2$ siueww0o of esuodsey iss 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 62'409'la' 00'0$ 62'409'14$ • seuueeii Wind 4'91 00'0$ S6'9E6'9$ 4E'L91'43- 96'986.9$ 4£31143- 62'40L'0E$ 621i0L'O£$ BupioN mild 2113/SI3 seta es's 00'0$ 04£6L$ 00'0$ 0E33 00'0$ 0£'863 08'863 Bupeeyl leuopeuuoyul opgnd Z'S'9 00'0$ ti V969423 00'000'99$ 91.464'82 1S 00'000'99S 8V96444$ 91;964'99$ _ &pose pug 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 99'289'1414- 00'0$ 89'299'1914 u01101=110 2113/S13 8e10 449 OTOS 02'0093 22'E96'88$- 09'009'2$ 46'929'091$- ZL'£94'l6$ 44'LZ6'28L$ - uopelede'd2113/5138u10 E'9 00'0$ 3LEL'E61$ 00'000'08$ 3LEL'E6IS 00'000'09$ 22'LEG'S1.3 314L'E 1.14 medic!' enpelnwno;o slsAleuy 27'9 00'0$ 94456'148$ 00'0$ 94496'L6E$ 00'0$ 84'896'163 94'896'13 uone'ede'd 2!I31S13884 enpe4s4wpy pris 00'0$ Et' IOL'9EL$- 00'0$ E4'LOL'8EL$ 00'0$ EV'LOL'8E1$ Et'LOL'9EL$ selepdN uogoes le0!uyoel L'9 00'0$ 6S'L00'29$ 00'0S 69100'29$ 00'0$ 59'100'29$ 6S'1.00'29$ spileuy AOuelenln09 dOHSW E I'S 00'0$ 8E169'68LS 00'000'09$ 9E39'6E3 00'000'09$ 98'1.69'63 94L69'63 - podeN Aeons peened lewium nil 00'0$ 69"EE6'9L£$ 00'000'0014 694£6'8/3 00'000'001$ 69'££6'9L2$ 694E6'8L2$ podea Leans pesnood dwuyS Ailed 100d leaven 9'21.'9 00'0$ 99'600'9£1S 00'000'On 99'600'8E13 00'000'04$ 99'600'96$ 99'600'96$ pedal; Aeons pesnooj pns upeclINv2'S 00'0$ 91'906'869$ 00'000'964S SL'906'E69$ 00'000'964$ • 9V906'863 9l'906'9614 podaa Aeons aouessleuuyoey peouenpy lueld ale2l 8'2I'5 00'0$ 26'690'853 00'000'013 Z6'690493 00'000'044 26'65041.3 26'690'913 podea Aeons eouassleuu00ea (issue/pi/ pAo 6u!moung ups 00'0$ 99'940'0913 00'000'92$ 99'940'094$ 00'000'91.3 99'940'993 99'940'993 podea uopeeupe0 possum C2L'9 00'0$ - 62'908'6I2$ 00'0$ 62'908'6 LZ$ 00'0$ 62'908'61.3 62108'62$ Apnis luewu0Mu3 RAVIN LL'9 00'0$ E0'206'£9E$ 00'0$ E0'206'E9E4 00'0$ 80'206'89ES 80'206'898$ spistuy snip 'snivel 0 I'S. 00'0$ 09'49l'8914 00'0$ 09'1,91'991.$ 00"0$ 02'49L'99L$ 09'991'993 podea Isoluyoel A3peno IN 6'9 00'0S LS'14$'96$ 00'0$ 339'96$ 00'0$ 339'96$ L9'L49'96$ • luewsseeey ellS leslol 9'S 6ululeweN le8png . peleOolleu0 Cluewpuewy yBnayl Pazuoelny lelol E luewpuewy 'o; lunowy C d1N ;Opus lelol pawing CluewPuewy 'spun pezpo4lny pue pe"eyeue'l le8png Isuoisppis 2 d1N y6na41 pezpoyiny 10301 le8png lgol - genl 6LaS 01021 AGENDA ITEM 10 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Acting Clerk of the Board THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Selection of a Representative to the Executive Committee STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula to select their representative to the Executive Committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Election of a Representative to the Executive Committee The membership of the Executive Committee shall be as follows: 1) The Chair of the Commission; 2) The Vice Chair of the Commission; 3) The Second Vice Chair of the Commission; 4) Past Chair of the Commission; 5) A regular member of the Commission representing one of the following cities: Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley; 6) A regular member of the Commission representing one of the following cities: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula; 7) A regular member of the Commission representing the following cities: Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage; and, 8) Three members of the Commission who are members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Such members shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors. With the exception of the Chair, Vice Chair, and the Second Vice Chair, the term of the Executive Committee members shall be two years. Due to a change in the Commission representative for the city of San Jacinto, a vacancy now exists on the Executive Committee. The following group of cities will need to appoint a new representative: Banning; Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. The term for this position will expire in December 2006. This is in accordance to the provision, under Section H3(b) of the Commission's Administrative Code. Agenda Item 10 99 AGENDA ITEM 12 HANDOUTS FOR COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Commissioner Ron Roberts SUBJECT: SCAG Consensus Trip To Washington BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The recent passage of Senate Bill 1234 requires a report on trips that are made by an elected official on behalf of a public agency. The purpose of this report is to provide you with information on the recently -completed SCAG Consensus Trip to Washington D.C. that I attended during February 6 through February 9, 2006. On an annual basis SCAG gathers representatives from every county transportation agency in its jurisdiction to visit Washington in order to advocate for the region's transportation needs. All too often, unity among all six counties regarding transportation issues can be hard to find, but the goods movement issue has become so pervasive that this year's Washington trip focused exclusively on goods and freight movement. ATTENDEES: The following officials participated: Toni Young, SCAG President and Councilwoman, Port Hueneme Ron Roberts, RCTC Yvonne Burke, LA County Supervisor John Proctor, Moorpark Councilman and Member VCTC Judy MikeIs, Ventura County Supervisor Harry Baldwin, Mayor of San Gabriel Art Brown, Mayor of Buena Park and Chairman of OCTA and Metrolink Victor Carillo, Imperial County Supervisor Roger Snoble, CEO of MTA Ginger Gherardi, Executive Director of VCTC Mark Pisano, Executive Director of SCAG Art Leahy, Executive Director of OCTA David Solow, Executive Director of Metrolink John Standiford attended for RCTC and was also joined by government relations colleagues from SANBAG, MTA and OCTA. Agenda Item 12 MEETINGS: Our meetings in Washington D.C. included the following: Congressman Jerry Lewis Congressman Don Young Congressman Thomas Petri Senator James Inhofe Congressman John Mica Staff members for Senators Feinstein and Boxer Committee staffs from the Senate and House Transportation Committees Esera Finken of the Waterfront Coalition Representatives from the Federal Transit Administration CONCLUSIONS: While it might sound hard to believe, now might be the time to start talking about the next major federal transportation bill. SAFETEA LU was passed during the latter half of 2005 but it actually expires in 2009. These multi -year authorization bills take years to take shape and given our remarkable transportation needs in Southern California, we need to act now to ensure we get the needed level of investment in the future. Among the facts to keep in mind is that 1 out of every 75 jobs in the United States depends on the goods movement industry and specifically the industry that is served by the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. One out of every seven jobs in Southern California depends on our industry as well. Our current rail capacity is expected to run out in 2010. Any disruption in the goods movement system, could throw the nation into a recession. One conclusion that many speakers have is that there will need to be an increase in federal revenue for transportation. This wasn't seriously considered in the deliberations for SAFETEA LU but will need to be in 2009 because the federal trust fund is bound to run out of money about that time. The main message is that the Commission will need to continue to press for federal and state investment on goods movement projects for the next few years. We certainly have a wide variety of transportation needs but the overall quality of life in the region is being impacted by freight demands. As a result, we must continue to press for dollars for grade separations, rail improvements and truck lanes. Agenda Item 12 75877 EH/SW eMETROLINK® SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY February 15, 2006 Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. BOX 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 1�©r.Fri `ir FEB 2 i 2006 ' 101i.tA E irJi:,riy �M1A' Qr i; N r , Mi'. e.� 11Y1iY�� C'Itf}:,I:�.,. v��di:M;il�iUi{ RE: UC Riverside Metrolink Pass Dear Mr. Haley: Member Agencies: Los Angeles County Mel ropolitan Transportation Authority. Orange County Transportation Authority. Riverside County Tranvortatinn Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments. Ventura County Transportation Commission. Fx Officio Members: Southern California Association of Governments. San Diego Association of Governments. State of California. In response to your request, Metrolink staff has reviewed the feasibility of establishing a University Pass (UPass) for the University of California at Riverside (UCR). Given the current trip demand for the University students, Metrolink would like to initiate discussions with the University concerning the details of a demonstration program. Since we expect to sell nearly $45,000' in Corporate Pass Program fare media to UCR customers this year, Metrolink would suggest the first year initial demonstration program be limited to students only, and that the initial flat fee be set at $125,000. To facilitate seamless implementation and use, Metrolink recommends that the guidelines for the UPass program include: • Inclusive eligibility: Since Metrolink does not have a discount program for employees, consider extending program beyond students to include faculty and staff after the first -year demonstration program provides better information on the actual ridership and distance -based revenue; • Allow UCR students access to all Metrolink trains (i.e.: this would be a systemwide pass with no restriction to off-peak trains); • Since Metrolink assumes that RTA will also enter into a UPASS agreement with UCR , the UCR Student ID would not include transfer privileges from Metrolink to connecting transit during the initial demonstration period; and • Validity period: UPass validity period would be the same as Student ID. The Student ID must allow visual inspection of an expiration date or the University would have to issue Semester/Quarter stamps for the ID badges with expiration dates. Because Metrolink fares are distance based, in order to better project the potential travel distance and fare revenue requirements for UPASS riders, _Metrolinkneeds to understand the current'origns and destinations, of. the UCR students, .faculty, and staff. To complete that analysis; Metrolink is requesting theaggregated. anonymous home zip code for the three potential rider categories: UCR students, faculty and staff. Prior to initiating the 70 , s. Flower Street 26th Floor Los Angeles CA 90017 Tel [213] 452.0200 Fax [213] 452.0425 www.metrolinktrairts.com