Loading...
05 May 10, 2006 Commission• • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Marion Ashley V Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson 2nd 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 DeConinck, 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 Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director RECORDS 76759 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 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, May 10, 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 (9511 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 - April 12, 2006 6. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Discuss, review and provide guidance on the proposed Budget for FY 2006/07; and 2) Open the public hearing to receive input and comments on the proposed FY 2006/07 Budget at this meeting and June 14, 2006 with adoption of the Budget on June 14, 2006. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 10, 2006 Page 2 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there 'is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to _the attention of- the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the .Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the ` agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 8. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a singlemotion 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. 8A.. , RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 Overview Page 21 This item is for .the Commission to approve the Recurring Contracts for FY 2006/07. 8B. .QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Overview Page 25 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended March 31•,. 2006. 8C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview Page 35 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the third quarter ended` March 31, 2006. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 10, 2006 Page 3 8D. LEGISLATIVE BODY REIMBURSEMENT POLICY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 37 1) Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission Legislative Body Reimbursement Policy; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 06-008, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Riverside_ County Transportation Commission Legislative Body Reimbursement Policy" and 3) Authorize the Executive Committee to review and take action on subsequent amendments to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Legislative Body Reimbursement Policy. 8E. STATE ROUTE 91 /GREEN RIVER INTERCHANGE COST INCREASE Page 45 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve funding the $2,622,000 cost increase on the SR 91/Green River Interchange project by increasing the commercial paper fund source from $10,898,400 to $ 13,520,400. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 10, 2006 Page 4 8F. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2006 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) FINANCIAL RESOLUTION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 06-006, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING THAT RIVERSIDE COUNTY HAS RESOURCES TO FUND PROJECTS IN FISCAL YEARS 200672007 THROUGH 2011/2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND .AFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT ALL PROJECTS IN THE PROGRAM" Overview Page 47 This item is for the Commission to adopt the Riverside County 2006 Transportation Improvement Program Financial Resolution No. 06-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying that Riverside County Has Resources to - Fund Projects in Fiscal Years 2006/2007 Through 2011/2012 Transportation Improvement Program and Affirming Commitment to .Implement All Projects in the Program for submittal to .the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 8G. AGREEMENT NO. 06-45-050-00 WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY CALL BOX SYSTEM FROM JULY 1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2009 Page 51 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve .Agreement No. 06-45-050-00 with the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol, for the operation of the call box system from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 10, 2006 Page 5 8H. AGREEMENT NO. 06-45-046-00 FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 59 1) Award Agreement No. 06-45-046-00 to Tri-City Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 2 of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program at a cost of $50.00 per hour per truck; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 81. FISCAL YEARS 2006/07 AND 2007/08 CALL FOR PROJECTS: MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Page 62 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file a progress report on the Measure A Specialized Transportation Program's Request for Proposals/Call for Projects for the provision of specialized transportation services for western Riverside County residents. 8J. RELEASE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ON -CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES Page 70 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize the release of Request for Proposals (RFPs) for On -Call Right -of -Way Services in the field of: 1) Title and Escrow Services; 2) Right of Way Engineering and Surveying Services; 3) •Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural Property Appraisal Services; 4) Goodwill Appraisal Services; 5) Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment Appraisal Services; 6) Review Appraisal Services; and 7) Right of Way Acquisition and Relocation, Real Property Searches, Identification and Feasibility Studies for Replacement and Mitigation Sites, Cost Estimates, and Utilities Relocation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 10, 2006 Page 6 8K. APPROVAL OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST TRADE CORRIDOR RAIL CROSSING GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST WITH •SWITCHING IMPACT Overview Page 73 This item is for the Commission to approve the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List incorporating switching activities and operational delay. 8L.. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR INTERSTATE 15 COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Overview Page 77 This item is for the Commission to authorize the release of a Request for Proposal for the purpose of performing an I-15Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. 8M. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. 99-33-004-01 FOR THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL TRANSIT CENTER Page 85 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to amend the Perris Multimodal Transit Center Memorandum of Understanding No. 23-001 with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to incorporate additional funding of $1,050,000 of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and $1,352,472 of Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds for a total of $4,719,605. 8N. AGREEMENT NO. 03-25-032-02 WITH WESTERN AREA SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 87 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-25-032-02 Western Area Security (WASS) for a two -month extension andan increase in the agreement amount of $130,673; and 2) Authorize.. staff to bring the contract recommendationdirectly to the Commission for action in •June. . • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 10, 2006 Page 7 80. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 90 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 8P. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 06-001 TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO REFLECT CHANGES . TO THE COMMITTEES AND THE COMMISSION Page 96 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Ordinance 06-001, "An Ordinance Amending the Riverside County Transportation Commission Administrative Code", to reflect changes in the membership, time and/or location of certain committees and the Commission. 9. RIVERSIDE ORANGE CORRIDOR AUTHORITY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Page 100 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize the Chair to execute a Cooperative Agreement for the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA), pursuant to legal counsel final review. 10. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY SERVICES BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Page 113 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve $750,000 budget adjustment for Strategic Partnership Advisory Services and amendments, as necessary, to Agreement Nos. 06-66-026-00,06-66-027-00 and 06-66-028-00 with KPMG, PB Consult and Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, respectively; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. • 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 10, 2006 Page 8 1.2. 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 ITEMS A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION . Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 AAA Case No. 72 199 01006 04 VMD JAMS Case No. 1220032805 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 C. .CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners= See List of Property Owners Item APN Property Owner(s) 58.1-200-001 Alex Stamatakas 581-190-007 "United Five" 2 347 110 010 Barbara Page and Eleanor Phyllis Armstrong 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is •scheduled to be held •at .1.0:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 14, 2006, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL May 10, 2006 Presen Absent County of Riverside, District I.' County of Riverside, District II County of ;Riverside, District II!I 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, Caltrans District 8 AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: PUBLIC COMMENTS:)( AGENDA ITEM NO.: IAS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: AJ 41-/VA 7 7St, SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: NAME: Cf rfl112../Z y g/4 ADDRESS: tr% 9 , ®S eet REPRESENTING: BUSINESS A RCTC/nk 10/03 ESS: DATE: In 147 ! 0 1 a 4. TEL. NO.:4,5-'?• 513/9 • 2 s r ). grzs-.70 City Zip Code Name of Group TEL. NO.: �� A4 PAA(--X CLA-- if e.r--41'i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET May 10, 2006 AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS (� f"� �NAME L"Jd'JC�( �, re `G1Cl,\A 1s N �1Y11 �jGkY Y`Q�tG.V1l\Gt®�G YI a(j , Cir /Le-6-s YL, r E 25 � CD 6 A 1- ki C-X-x-y,' (7 .y�rrJ -( /4 ( _',[��- I� i_64 v2.___ , /r/i1; /t / '. - s'- mom /4 ife, yr3-I.0.o, RICK C W S H u 4 /L //5 11:1- R G/BBf @ Mot g i 4 -A. a R .//J 0 Gc of 05°, '4/�'O' 1 CAX e4 V l p- .Vesev-1--_' ,Te 74-74- /11.1 4e,..- 62) r--40...J."q_ - ii--A k Gt-st A t-L P1P---3 V-C(2/i-t C---A 4/,-T -S>> A 110 Sfevw% ��cun t 9..f coo/Q .....e/G /,/J ..4-4(ic. C f), ,, i► GTpr---z. l\/1 ft RI O / C 6 SOC--�^7 , /Z1 V— (- `7 23-77`4L n Id j, i -_ �w ot e 4P s o A) L ii (�c u r& ffr4 a AJ r�L e \.(C.-3 '-. ,mac%yZ�iy' ,.l o 0 r.N1,Ef3 IK-- 0A1-/MG5/9- A/ //7E� QS /�.9./UGh /%/).49G60° AepAzf' et'4z, ai _ ..e4,0 J- ♦., ,/ De, La,q,.. C' r�-�v� �.0,, � jeL./� e.rr', �,� 4-/g, e zla=s 44a>e_A Qie,cdFd G '�C BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chairman Kelly Seyarto City of Murrieta Vice Chairman Jeff Stone County of Riverside Marion Ashley County of Riverside William Batey City of Moreno Valley Dom Betro City of Riverside Bob Buster County of Riverside Chris Carlson Buydos City of San Jacinto (Larry Dressel City of Beaumont Frank Hall City of Norco Robin Lowe City of Hemet John Machisic City of Banning Eugene Montauez City of Corona' Shenna Moqeet City of Calimesa Robert Schiffner City of Lake Elsinore John Tavaglione County of Riverside Chuck Washington City of Temecula Roy Wilson County of Riverside Mark Yarbrough City of Perris John Zaitz City of Canyon Lake EXECUl IVE STAFF Tom Mullen Interim Executive Director 'Joseph Richards Deputy Executive Director Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority May 1, 2006 Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Caltrans MSHCP Obligation — East Portion of Plan Area Dear Eric: This is in response to your letter of April 20th requesting confirmation that the Caltrans obligation to secure 2,000 acres in the eastern portion of the MSHCP area has been fulfilled. We have reviewed your accounting of the purchases and our records, and concur that the obligation has been met for the east portion of the Plan. Many thanks to you and your staff for the support and cooperation we have received, and your agency's financial contributions toward our acquisition efforts. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, oseph Richards Deputy Executive Director 4080 Lemon Street, lath Floor, Riverside, California, 92501 • P.O. Box 1667, Riverside, California 92502-i605 Phone: (950 955-9700 • Fax: (950 955-8873 • www.wre-rea.org RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, April 12, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Marion Ashley at 10:02 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, Vice Chair Terry Henderson led the Commission in a flag salute. 3 ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Marion Ashley Roger Berg Alex Bias Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos John Chlebnik Mary Craton Juan DeLara Rick Gibbs Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Richard Kelly Robin Lowe Bob Magee Douglas McAllister Jeff Miller Ronald Oden Gregory Pettis Mary Roche Ron Roberts Patty Romo Jeff Stone John Tavaglione Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Robert Crain Dick Kelly Ron Meepos Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Eric Haley, Executive Director, announced that the Executive Committee has appointed Jennifer Harmon as the Clerk of the Board. He then introduced the newly hired Commission staff members — Min Saysay, Program Manager, Josefina Clemente, Staff Analyst, and Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst. Kevin Dawson, representing the University Neighborhood 'Association and Smart Neighbors for Smart Growth, expressed oppositionto any Metrolink stations being constructed in the UC Riverside area and support for a Metrolink station in the Highgrove area. R.A. Barney Barnett, Highgrove area resident, presented his proposal for a Metrolink station in the Highgrove area and submitted a handout titled "Highgrove Metrolink/Transportation Center". Commissioner Bob Buster suggested reviewing the Perris Valley connection for possible alternatives and securing significant acreage in the Highgrove area to ensure options are available in the future. Chair Ashley concurred with Commissioner Buster's and Mr. Barnett's comments and referred this issue to the Executive Director for a report to the Commission at a future meeting. Eric Haley stated his appreciation for Mr. Barnett's comments regarding the time penalties on the Perris Valley Line going to Highgrove. ' He then identified issues related to a Metrolink station in Highgrove; 1) permission for additional train slots on the San Bernardino Line without having to build new capacity, and 2), reasonable financial commitment of multiple agencies such as Grand Terrace, ° Loma Linda and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as the suggested station location is at the county line. Staff will report back to the Commission. 5, APPROVAL OF MINUTES —March 8, 2006 M/S/C (Stone/Henderson) to approve the March 8, 2006 minutes' as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, requested Agenda Item 9 - "60/91/215 Interchange Design -Sequencing Project Cost Increase, be pulled from the. agenda as this matter is being resolved administratively utilizing other funds. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 3 He also noted additional information for Agenda Item 8, "Award of Alameda Corridor East SAFETEA-LU Earmark and a revision to Agenda Item 11, "2006 State Transportation Improvement Program Priorities". M/S/C (Stone/Henderson) to approve the additions and revisions. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioners Terry Henderson and Barbara Hanna expressed support for Agenda Item 7G, "California State Rail Plan 2005/06 to 2015/16: Los Angeles To Indio (Coachella Valley)". Commissioner Henderson pulled Agenda Item 7J, "State and Federal Legislative Update", for discussion. M/S/C (Busch/M. Wilson) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-527-02, AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE STATE ROUTE 91 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 08-1152, WITH CALTRANS TO PREPARE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR ' THE STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE PROJECT (ADAMS STREET TO 60/91 /215 INTERCHANGE) 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-527-02, Amendment No. 2 to the SR-91 Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1152, to increase the Caltrans oversight costs by $100,000 that will be funded from the current Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) allocation; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7B'. CITY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAMMING REQUEST FOR THE VAN BUREN BOULEVARD, SANTA ANA RIVER TO JACKSON STREET, WIDENING PROJECT Approve the city of Riverside's- request to program $845,000 of Transportation Uniform Mitigation fee (TUMF) funds on the Van Buren Boulevard, Santa Ana River to Jackson Street, widening project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 4 7C. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 06-66-044-00 TO CIVIC RESOURCE GROUP FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A WEB -BASED PROJECT MANAGEMENT DATABASE 1) Award Agreement No. 06-66-044-00 in the amount of $48,510 to Civic Resource Group to develop a web -based Project Management Database; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7D. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S _ SECTION 5310 PROGRAM 1) Adopt the FY 2006/07 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 06-003,: "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan" to certify that the , projects _ are consistent with the local, ,area regional transportation plan. 7E. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO AMEND ITS SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN TO PROGRAM FUNDS FOR EXPANSION OF ITS CLEAN FUELS MALL AND HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE. FACILITY 1) Allocate $21,844 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to SunLine Transit Agency as an additional local match for the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5309 earmark for expansion of SunLine's Clean Fuels (Vial] and Hydrogen Facility; 2) Include the project in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP); and 3) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 5 7F. APPROVAL OF RELEASE OF STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS/ REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN STATION Approve the release of the Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) followed by the Request for Proposals (RFP)for the Joint Development of the Riverside -Downtown Station. 7G. CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN 2005/06 TO 2015/16: LOS ANGELES TO INDIO (COACHELLA VALLEY) 1) Endorse the summary of the California State Rail Plan as it relates to intercity rail service to and through the Pass and the Coachella Valley areas; 2) Formally request that the draft California State Rail Plan amend the section on Potential New Service for the Los Angeles to Indio route to include a proposed train station in the Pass Area, (Banning or Beaumont); and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 06-004, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission in Support for the Los Angeles to Indio Service." 7H. CITY OF RIVERSIDE JURUPA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION CPUC SECTION 190 10% LOCAL MATCH REQUEST Allocate $500,000 in available Rail Local Transportation Funds (LTF) funds to provide a non-federal match to the city of Riverside for the Jurupa Avenue Grade Separation project. 71. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program update as an information item. 8. AWARD OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST SAFETEA-LU EARMARK Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director, provided an overview of the recommendations allocating $21 million of the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) SAFETEA-LU earmark funds for the grade separation projects. She then discussed the remaining unprogrammed balance of $10.25 million that will be designated for construction of eligible grade separation projects designated as Tier 1 and Tier 2 crossings. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 6 M/S/C (Lowe/Henderson) to: 1) Allocate $21 million- of the $31.25 million of SAFETEA-LU Alameda Corridor East (ACE) earmark funds as presented in Table A, which represents the amount requested by the local agencies; 2) Condition the allocation of $6 million to the city of Riverside for Jurupa Avenue contingent upon the reallocation of $6 million in local funds towards the design and construction of other railroad grade separation projects in their city; 3) Authorize a 10-year loan from the commercial paper program _ for up to $1.5 million for the Sunset Avenue Grade Separation project which represents the maximum commercial paper amount available to the city of Banning; and 4) Designate the remaining unprogrammed balance of $10.25 million for construction funding for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 crossing(s) to be made available on a rolling "first come/first serve" basis. RCTC 60/91 /215 INTERCHANGE DESIGN -SEQUENCING PROJECT COST INCREASE This item was pulled from the agenda as this matter is being resolved administratively utilizing other funds. 10. REQUEST TO JOIN RIVERSIDE ORANGE CORRIDOR AUTHORITY Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director, provided an overview on the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and the invitation to join the new authority.. .She discussed the comments and concerns about the scope of the authority and how the funds will be used. Ellen Burton, Executive Director of External Affairs for OCTA, stated that the OCTA Board discussed the JPA at its meeting on April 10`" and is requesting to review alternatives to the JPA and bring back a different approach in the next 30 days, which has a focus on the geotechnical analysis. OCTA stated. that the Commission and OCTA should take the lead on this transportation project and : does not want to delegate the responsibility to the JPA, reinforcing that it is OCTA"s intent to work collaboratively with the other agencies. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 7 Brett Barbre, Chairman of Riverside Orange Corridor Authority, expressed disappointment with OCTA's response and believes that it is due to the extension of Measure M that will be on the ballot in November 2006. At the request of Commissioner John Tavaglione, Eric Haley reviewed the background of the $15.8 million allocation resulting in the Congressional Delegation dedication of the funds to Riverside Orange County Transportation Authority, an organization that then did not exist and has since been put in to place by the water agencies. Staff is willing to work with all parties recognizing that the Commission's primary relationship in so many areas is with the OCTA. Congressman Ken Mr. Calvert is very properly concerned that any dysfunctional debates and delays cease and the funds are applied for. Commissioner Tavaglione supported moving forward with this process as the funds have been allocated and the Commission has an obligation to the constituents to study the corridor and an opportunity as a coalition to make it happen. He expressed his understanding of OCTA's concern regarding Measure M, noting that politics is a constant factor. Commissioner Terry Henderson concurred with Commissioner Tavaglione's comments and supported the action. She expressed concern with elements of the JPA document and stated that it was unfortunate that the Commission did not have the opportunity to participate in the development of the document. Commissioner Robin Lowe concurred with Commissioners Tavaglione and Henderson's comments to move forward. She reminded that Commission that the CETAP corridors were meant to include utilities along with transportation. Commissioner Bob Magee expressed support for joining ROCA and requested OCTA's reconsideration as greater things can be accomplished by working together. Commissioner Ron Roberts also expressed support for joining ROCA and -requested clarification of the membership and voting. Eric Haley stated that within the 30 day period, staff can offer cooperation to OCTA resulting in an agency that reflects three transportation agencies and three water districts. He expressed concern with some of the language in the JPA document as he believes that it is unnecessary to establish a free-standing transportation agency, an executive authority and staffing, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 8 or construction authority. He believes that OCTA will offer a modified version of the JPA that removes the construction authority, full staffing and focuses it narrowly on the issues shared with the water agencies. He requested authority to strike out towards a JPA or memorandum of understanding (MOU) that includes all the entities and deals with some more egregious issues that are within the document and return it to the Commission by its next meeting. Commissioner Bob Buster concurred with Eric Haley's, comments. He stated that his understanding from a meeting he attended at the Metropolitan Water District Headquarters in Los Angeles was a strong tentative agreement that - the transportation agencies were joining together with the water agencies only for the limited purposes of doing the geotechnical borings to establish the feasibility of a tunnel project. If that combined project was feasible, the appropriate agency would be formed to reflect that. He expressed his belief that the primary association and cooperative support has to be with OCTA and Transportation Corridor Authority (TCA). He supports restructuring the JPA document to an MOU as he believes that this is misdirected at this point. Commissioner Jeff Stone supported Eric Haley's comments and believes that the Commission will abrogate its commitment by not joining ROCA. He also expressed his sensitivity to the political environment in Orange County. Commissioner Stone motioned to support joining ROCA and incorporate the comments made by the Executive Director. Commissioner Jeff Miller stressed the importance of OCTA's participation. At Commissioner Lowe's request, Bret Barbre provided background - information on the formation of JPA and expressed flexibility with the document. He noted that the construction authority was included for consistency with the language in the earmark. Also, with regard to an Executive Director, there is no intention of implementing that position at this, point. Eric Haley stated that staff will bring back to the Commission a final document at its next meeting in tandem .with OCTA. As Bret Barbre.. acknowledged, an Executive Director position is not key to this document and construction authority is limited to the ability to the borings and to be consistent with the earmark language. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 9 At the request of Commissioners Mary Craton and Doug McAllister, Eric Haley clarified the recommended action. There will be a position that the Commission will join a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to pursue the goals of the congressional language as contained in SAFETEA-LU. Secondly, staff will expedite meeting with representatives of the transportation and water agencies to address the points regarding executive staff and the construction authority to streamline the document. Staff will bring back to the Commission the final document for the Commission's review and endorsement at the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Stone confirmed the motion as outlined by the Eric Haley and reaffirmed the Commission's sensitivity for OCTA. In response to Commissioner Lowe's concern about the removal of the construction language, Eric Haley responded that he will be sensitive to that issue. There is a charge to bore four holes at the cost of $5-6 million that will leave approximately $10 million for the parties to continue work on corridor options in that area. Commissioner Lowe concurred with benefits of having a partnership with avenues of revenue to the table. Commissioner Miller requested staff the Major Investment Study (MIS). Eric Haley's comments and stated the the water agencies as they bring other include analysis of funds allocated for M/S/C (Stone/Lowe) to: 1) Support participating in a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to pursue the goals of the congressional language as contained in SAFETEA-LU regarding the Riverside County- Orange County Corridor; 2) Direct staff to expedite meetings with representatives of the transportation and water agencies to address points of concern with the proposed document, such as inclusion of executive staff and construction authority, and to streamline the document to focus work on geotechnical investigations; and 3) Bring back the final document for the Commission's consideration at the next meeting. No: Buster Abstain: McAllister Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 10 11. 2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRIORITIES Shirley Medina, Program Manager, presented the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program submittals and an overview of the lack of STIP funds and its impact on highway and road projects. In response to Commissioner Michael Wilson's concern regarding the loss of STIP funds on three interchanges in the Coachella Valley, Shirley Medina responded that Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) will work with its member agencies on funding for those projects not recommended for programming. In response Commissioner Alex Bias's concern if CVAG is unable to address the shortfall, Shirley Medina responded that staff will look at the 2008 STIP for the opportunity to obtain additional programming capacity to fund the projects. Eric Haley said the Commission will be repaid $31.4 million which was advanced to the state on the 60/91 /215 Interchange project, It is a critical statement of this relationship that the funds are going to be available and the Commission will be seeking it in July 2006. M/S/C (Lowe/Busch) to approve prioritization of projects included in the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) submittal for Riverside County. No: Pettis, M. Wilson 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 7J. , STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE John Standiford, Public Affairs Director, provided an update on SB 1812, which amends state law specifically allowing them to accept the jurisdiction of federal courts for carrying out the responsibilities assumed by the state under NEPA, and AB 2630 that will help amend and allow more flexibility on the limitations with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) funding for grade separations. He then addressed the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the State Legislative Lobbyist, Services. At Commissioner Henderson's request, John Standiford provided a brief update on Proposition 42. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 11 • M/S/C (Busch/Henderson) to: 1) Approve the following bill positions: SB 1812 (Runner, R-Palmdale) — SUPPORT AB 2630 (Benoit, R-Riverside) SUPPORT 2) Direct staff to issue an Request for Proposal (RFP) for State Legislative Lobbyist Services; 3) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Chair Ashley announced the appointment of the following Commissioners to the Public/Private Financing and Delivery Plan Ad Hoc Committee: Marion Ashley Bob Buster Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Bob Magee Jeff Miller Ron Roberts John Tavaglione Frank West Roy Wilson B. Commissioner Miller announced that the Corona City Hall Council Chambers have been offered as a meeting location for ROCA. C. Chair Ashley announced the appointment of the following Commissioners to the ROCA: Steve Adams Jeff Miller John Tavaglione Bob Buster, Alternate Bob Magee, Alternate D. Eric Haley announced that the groundbreaking ceremony sponsored by Ca!trans for the SR-60 Widening Project from Valley Way to 1-15 is being held today at 1:00 p.m. at Big League Dream Sport Park, 10550 Cantu Galleano Ranch Road, Mira Loma. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 12 14. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case No: RIC 393352 and C 05 1525 JSW CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL:. ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 No cases under this section. C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Initiation of Litigation: Potential Number of Cases — 1 D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See List of Property' Owners Item APN Property Owner(s) 279-030-003 279-030-004 279-030-005 279-030-006 Mike Kerr - Agent 1 . 279-030-008 Christine McMillan 279-190-034 Gary McMillan 279-240-001 Patricia McMillan 279-240-008 279-240-009 282-040-003 2 279-230-003 David Consani — Agent Liston Brick The Commission authorized the filing of the lawsuit for Agenda Item 14 C. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 12, 2006 Page 13 • 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at a time to be determined by the Commission, on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board i \--\cuLteNZtr--• AGENDA ITEM 6 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FRONT: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2006/07 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Discuss, review and provide guidance on the proposed Budget for FY 2006/07; and 2) Open the public hearing to receive input and comments on the proposed FY 2006/07 Budget at this meeting and June 14, 2006 with adoption of the Budget on June 14, 2006. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has completed the initial budget preparation process. The executive summary for the proposed FY 2006/07 Budget is attached. The goals and objectives approved by the Commission on March 8, 2006 were the basis of this budget. The goals and objectives considered during the preparation of the budget relate to mobility initiatives, goods movement, improved system efficiency; environmental stewardship, economic development, intermodalism and accessibility, and public and agency communications. Staff is seeking review and input of the proposed FY 2006/07 Budget. Today, the proposed budget is presented for public hearing and for the Commission's review. As a result of input received from the public and the Commission, staff will make any necessary changes to the budget document for final presentation at the May 22, 2006 Budget and Implementation Committee meeting_ It will then be forwarded for the Commission's final review and adoption on June 14, 2006 immediately following the close of the public hearing period. The executive summary document contains a summary of all departmental budgets and summarizes the information for the entire Commission. The department budgets present the goals and objectives, the resources needed to accomplish the goals, and the appropriations required to accomplish the tasks. Staff has also. Agenda Item 6 1 included the fund budgets, which provide the budgeted revenues and expenditures from a fund perspective. At the May 22, 2006 Committee meeting and the June 14, 2006 Commission meeting; staff will present the entire budget with detailed narratives. A summary of the Proposed Budget for FY 2006/07 is as follows: Revenues and other financing sources: Sales taxes -Measure A and LTF Reimbursements (federal, state, and other) TUMF State Transit Assistance Other revenues Interest on investments Commercial paper proceeds Transfers in Total revenues and other financing sources Expenditures and other financing uses: Personnel salary and fringe benefits Professional services Support services Projects and operations Capital outlay Debt service (principal, interest and costs of issuance) Transfers out Total expenditures and other financing uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance FY 2006/07 Budget 167,122,400 19,707,800 42, 000, 000 6,924,300 3,648,600 12,499,500 80,000,000 83,052,600 414, 955, 200 4,615,200 7,781,800 2,397,000 348,655,100 695,000 39,5.78,000 83,052,600 486,774,700 (71,819,500) 310,406,800 238,587,300 Attachment: FY 2006/07 Proposed Budget Executive Summary Agenda Item 6 2 • Executive Summary Introduction The budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/07_is presented to the Board of Commissioners (Board) and the citizens of Riverside County. The budget outlines the projects the Commission plans to - complete during the year and appropriates expenditures to accomplish these tasks. The budget also shows the revenues and fund balances that will be used to complete these projects. This document will serve as the Commission's monetary guideline. To provide the reader a better understanding of the projects to be completed, staff has included descriptive information regarding each department and major projects. The discussion in each department includes a review of major initiatives and key assumptions. ` Staff used the goals and objectives approved at the Commission meeting on March 8, 2006, to prepare the budget. to addition to the Commission's long-term goals and strategic plan, the short-term factors listed below were used to guide the development of the budget: Operational • Complete the prioritization of Measure A highway projects covering the two expenditure plans from 2006 through 2019. • Maximize the use of innovative financing strategies to support the 2009 Measure A 10-year delivery plan. • Work closely with local jurisdictions to implement the FY 2006-2009 Transportation Uniform Mitigation fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program and facilitate the delivery of arterial improvements in western Riverside County (Western County). • Continue work on the project level environmental document for the Mid County Parkway, a new Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridor. • Initiate the next steps on the Riverside County -Orange County CETAP corridor as outlined in the Major Investment Study's (MIS) Locally Preferred Strategy. • Continue to work with the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to implement the MSFICP and provide funding for land mitigation. • Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving the County. • Support innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders with special transit needs. • Promote program efficiency and harmony between transit operators. • Maintain effective partnerships among commuters, employers, and government to increase the efficiency of our transportation system by encouraging and promoting transportation alternatives. • Continue to provide a motorist aid system that ensures safety and convenience to freeway motorists. • Maintain close communication with Commissioners and educate policy makers on all issues of importance to the Commission._ 3 Financial • Maintain administrative program delivery costs below the policy threshold of 4% of Measure A revenues. The current Management Services budget is 2.28% of Measure A revenues. • Maintain administrative salaries and benefits at less than 1% of Measure A revenues. The current administrative salaries and benefits is .91 % of Measure A revenues. • Continue to maintain prudent cash reserves to provide some level of insulation for unplanned expenditures. • Maintain current positive bond ratings with rating agencies. • Move forward on Measure A projects for highways and regional arterials using sales tax revenues, TUMF revenues, and state and federal funding as well .as financing alternatives such as commercial paper and innovative financing strategies. • Look for opportunities, funding sources, and innovative approaches to address transportation needs that extend beyond Measure A. • Leverage and protect past Measure A investments in rail to obtain state and federal funding for additional rail improvements, including the Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension project (Perris Valley Line). Budget Overview Chart 1 - Revenues: Major Categories Other Revenue 1% TUMF Revenue 17% Intergovernmental 11% Investment Income 5% MeasureA' Sales LTF Sales Tax ' Tax 4% $2% Total revenues are budgeted at $251,902,600 which is an increase of 13.2% over FY 2005/06 projected revenues and a 4.1 % decrease over the FY 2005/06 budget. The projected fund balance at June 30, 2006 available for expenditures (excluding reserves for debt service of $31,631,800 and loans receivable of $36,349,600) is $242,425,400. Total funding sources available for the FY 2006/07 budget, including commercial paper proceeds of $80,000,000, amount to $574,328,000. 4 Chart 2 - Commission Revenue Trend $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FISCAL YEARS FY 06/07 a Investment Income ■Other Revenue ❑ TUMF Revenue 171ntergovernmental ■ LTF Sales Tax OMeasure A Sales Tax The State Board of Equalization has provided cities and other agencies its projections for statewide taxable sales over the next fiscal year to increase 5%. Riverside County continues to experience significant growth due to population increase, available and affordable housing, and a wider base in its economic engine. After taking these economic factors and the state of the local economy into consideration, staff has projected a 6% increase in Measure A sales tax revenues compared to the prior year budget. On behalf of the County, the Commission administers the LTF and receives allocations for administration, planning, and programming in addition to funding for rail operations included in the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). This LTF sales tax revenue is budgeted to decrease by 11.9% based on the initial LTF sales tax revenue projections, which are adjusted at mid -year based on actual receipts. The budgeted LTF sales tax revenue is sufficient for Commission administration, planning and programming, and rail operations. The majority of LTF funding received by the County and available for allocation is distributed to all transit operators in the County; however, it is not included in this budget as it is an unbudgeted special revenue fund. Intergovernmental revenues are expected to decrease 43.3% compared to the prior year budget; however, only 16.1 % of the prior year budget amount is projected to be realized as revenue in FY 2005/06 as a result of specific capital project activities. The decrease is primarily related to federal reimbursements for the final design of the SR-91 HOV lanes in Riverside, as this project did not reach the final design stage in FY 2005/06. For FY 2006/07, federal sources will partially fund rail capital projects including the Perris Valley Line, Perris multimodal facility, and North Main Corona station parking structure and highway capital projects including the SR-79 realignment study, SR-60 East Junction to I- 215 HOV lane connector, and Corona/I-15 Cajalco interchange TUMF regional arterial project. State funds will reimburse a portion of the costs on the North Main Corona station parking structure. As a result of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Westem Riverside Council of Govemments (WRCOG), the Commission will receive 48.1% of TUMF through June 30, 2009, and, in accordance with the 2009 Measure A, thereafter at 100%, after deduction of an administrative fee, up to an aggregate of $400 million. TUMF represents fees assessed on new residential and commercial development in western Riverside County. FY 2006/07 5 TUMF fees are expected to decrease 8.3% compared to the FY 2005/06 budgeted revenue based on a softening of the housing market. Other revenue consists of miscellaneous revenues and is projected to increase 4.3% from the prior year's budget. Investment income is anticipated to increase 129.2% in FY 2006/07 as a result of higher cash and investment balances due to increased sales tax revenues, the issuance of commercial paper, and continued higher yields on investments. Staff continues to actively manage its resources and make`appropriate investments to maximize the return to the Commission without sacrificing security and affecting short-term cash requirements. Table 1 — Revenues FY 2004-2007 FY'03104 FY 04/05 FY 05106 FY 05/06 FY 06107 Donar Percent Actual Actual - Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Measure A Sales Tax $ 120.564,800 $ 138,921,300 $ 147,300,000 $ 147,300,000 $ 156,150,000 $ 8,850,000 6.0% LTFSales Tax 7.812,500 7,693,400 12,453,400 12,453,400 10.972,400 (1,481,000) -11:9% Intergovernmental 27,610,800 30,131,000 49,521,800 7,958,800 28,057,100. (21,464.700) -43.3% TUMF Revenue 35,615,200 46,325,300 45,825,000 45.266,900 42,000,000 (3,825,000) -8.3% Other Revenue - 3,976,700 3,118,000 2,132,400 3,866,200 2,223,600 91,200 4.3% Investment Income - 2.934500 4,540.600 5 453 600 5.610.100 12.499.500 7.045.900 129.2% TOTAL Revenues $ 198.514.500.E$. 230.729c600 $ 262.5.$5200 $ 222A55.40Q 5'251.:NZ= $ 0-07030001 -4--1% Chart 3 — Expenditures: Major Categories Regional Issues 0% Management Services 1% Debt Service 10% Regional Arterials - Coachella Valley Motorist Assistance 3% 1% Planning and Programming 2% Rail Operations 2% Property Management 0% Specialized Transit 2% Transit 2% Commuter Assistance 1% . Local Streets and Roads 14% Capital Highway, Rail and TUMF 62% Total expenditures are budgeted at $403,722,100, an increase of 14.6% from the prior: year budget amount of $352,404,000. Program expenditures totaling $359,626,200 represent 89.1% of total budgeted expenditures in FY 2006/07. Program costs have increased 15.8% from $310,487,400 in FY 2005/06. This increase is primarily due to a 16.8% increase in the 6 • • • Capital Highway, Rail, and TUMF programs. Significant highway projects include SR-79 realignment, Mid County Parkway right of way acquisition and engineering, and construction on the SR-91 Van Buren, La Sierra, and Green River interchange improvements. Additionally, as a result of the commercial paper program, advance funding for projects included in the 2009 Measure A may begin. Significant projects include land acquisition for the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) in Western County and Coachella Valley as well as Mid County Parkway right of way acquisition. Approved TUMF regional arterial projects will be in various phases of engineering, construction, and right of way. Right of way acquisition and preliminary engineering for the Perris Valley Line will be a significant rail capital project in FY 2006/07. 'Debt Service of $39,578,000 has increased slightly as a result of the issuance of additional commercial paper. Management Services expenditures of $4,517,900 are comparable to the FY 2005/06 budget. Table 2 - Program Expenditures FY 2004-2007 FY 03r04 FY 04/05 FY 05106 FY 05I06 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change 5 2,903,100 $ 3.260.200 $ 4,501,900 $ 4,006,600 $ 4,517,900 $ 16,000 0.4% -69,100 67,900 70,700 161,200 353,000 282,300 399.3°% 2,563,000 2,331,000 4,444,700 2,656800 6409,000 1,964,300 - 44.2°% 4,900,400 5,330,400 7,559200 7,341,100 8,053,500 494,300 6.5% 338,40D 580,200 628,800 535,900 1,060,500 431,700 68.7% 4,294,400 4,875.300 5,172,000 4,757,500 7,824,800 2,652,800 51.3% 2,164,300 2,268,800 6,201,500 4,164,700 7,118,600- 917,100 14.8% 2,943,900 2,643,700 3,782,900 3,342,800 3,841,300 58,400 1.5% 1,978,400 2,191,000 4,006,100 2,477,700 3,628,900 (377200) -9.4% 42,513,B00 59,314,600 213,521,100 61,575,500 249,298,900 35,777,800 16.8% 46,206,300 53,330,700 55,106,500 55,106,500 58,318,300 3211.800 5.8% 8,244,200 10,053,70(1 9,993,900 8,563,700 13,719,400 3,725,500 37.3% 35,508 600 38208 700 37 414 700 36 414 100 39.578.000 2.163,300 5.8% $ 15:1121900 ;-ir, 456,200 ,$ 357404000 $-191 106100 A 403722100 $. Cif 31$ 100 - 14.Q$4 Note: Management Services include Executive Management, Administration, Legislative Affairs and Communications, and Finance. Management Services Regional issues Planning and Programming Rail Operations Property Management Specialized Transit Transit Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Capital Highway, Rail and TUMF Local Streets and Roads Regional Arterials - Coachella Valley Debt Service TOTAL Commission Personnel The Commission's salary and fringe benefits total $4,615,200 for FY 2006/07_ This represents an increase of 18.6% or $722,700 over the FY 2005/06 budget of $3,892,500. The Commission has set aside a poolof 4% for salary increases in FY 2006/07. Additional personnel costs are related to the recently filled staff positions for three program managers and three staff analysts as well as a new staff position for an administrative assistant. The Full Time Equivalent (FTE) has increased by 3.5 FTE positions from the prior year, for a total of 31 FTE positions. Fringe benefit increases continue to relate primarily to Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and workers' compensation costs. 7 Table 3 Staff Summary by Department FY 2004-2007 FY 03/04 FTE Executive Management 1.7 Administration 4.3 Legislative Affairs and Communications 1.5 Finance 5.0 Regional Issues 0.5 Planning and Programming 3.6 Rail Operations 2.4 Property Management 0.7 Specialized Transit 0.3 Transit 0.9 Commuter Assistance 2.2 Motorist Assistance 1.0 Capital Project Development and Delivery 0_9 TOTAL 25.0 Department Initiatives FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FTE FTE FTE 1.3 1.4 1.4 4.1 3.9 4.7 1.3 2.5 2.6 5.5 5.5 5.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 3.9 3.8 4.2 2.4 1.9 1.9 0.8 0.8 2.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.6 1.5 2.5 2.1 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 1_8 2_7 3_8 26.0 27.5 31.0 The preparation of each department's budget was based on key assumptions, accomplishments in FY 2005/06, major initiatives for FY 2006/07, and department goals and related objectives. Following are the key initiatives and summary of expenditures for each department. Executive Management Continue project development and delivery as the key Measure A priority. • Explore creative financing opportunities due to the impact of the State's general fund and budgetary issues on transportation funding. • Maintain regional cooperation and collaboration as a significant effort consistent with the philosophy and mission of the Commission. • Continue to expand communications with media, business, and civic groups. • Maintain public education efforts regarding the growing transportation financing needs of the Commission's projects and programs. • Maintain and improve administrative efficiency and fiscally sound practices. • Strengthen the depth of staff resources. Table 4 - Executive Management Program FY 03/04 Costs Actual Personnel Professional Support TOTAL Administration FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 05/06 Actual Revised Budget Projected $174,400 $ 204,300 $ 250,000 84,200 114,300 86,000 63,300 60,800 59,100 $321,900 $ 379,400 $ 395,100 $ 251,200 60,100 74,700 $ 386,000 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change $ 274,600 $ 24,600 9.8% 65,000 (21,000) -24.4% 55,100 (4,000) -6.8% $ 394,700 $ (400) 9�L • Provide high quality support to the Commission and to intemal and extemal customers. • Continue to update the electronic document management system to improve the Commission's recordkeeping capabilities. 8 • • • Continue efforts to expand the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) mailing list and to provide support to staff regarding the DBE program for federally funded capital construction projects. • Continue to provide timely communications to Commissioners with greater utilization of electronic mail. • Utilize available technology to streamline processes and provide easier access to Commission Tecords. • Support and develop a motivated workforce with a framework of activities and practices that are in compliance with employment laws and regulations. Table 5 -Administration Program FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05106 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Revised Budget 'Projected Budget Change ' Change Personnel $ 359,000 $ 362,400 $ 445,300 $ 448,300 $ 460,200 $ 14,900 3.3% Professional 84,800 85,500 177,700 74,600 64,400 (113,300) -63.8% Support 667,100 925,300 1,242,600 1,114,600 1,191,700 (50,900) -4.1% Capital Outlay 8,000 119,800 189,000 90,000 100,000 (89,000) 47.1% Debt Service 31,400 31,400 31.500 31.500 26.200 (5.300) -16:8% TOTAL $1.150.30Q $ 1.524.400 $ 2.086.100 $ 1.759.200 $ 1.842.500 $ (243.600) -11.7% Legislative Affairs and Communications • Participate in efforts to seek greater state and federal investment in transportation infrastructure. • Promote and maintain interregional cooperation with consideration of the Commission's interests and ongoing commitments. • Play a 'key role in the administration of the Regional 'Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC). • Advocate positions in the State Legislature and Congress that advance the County's transportation interests. • Continue to develop a broad public information program regarding the Commission's responsibilities and accomplishments through a variety of media formats. • Continue to place an emphasis on providing communications support related to major project development efforts. • Create a new branding for all of the Commission's services. • Provide new Commissioner orientation meetings and other continuing education opportunities for Commissioners. Table 6 - Legislative Affairs and Communications Program FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 202,500 $ 191,900 $ 342,400 $ 204,300 $ 355,900 $ 13,500 3.9% Professional 163,400 139,700 365,000 293,300 428,000 63,000 17.3% Support 107.000 111.500 178,300 218,500 153,100 (25,2001 -14.1% TOTAL $ 472,900 $ 443 100 $ 885.700 $ 716.100 $ 937 000 "$ 51.300 alai 9 Finance • Continue appropriate uses of commercial paper to advance 2009 Measure A projects of the Commission, CoachellaValley Association of Governments (CVAG), and local jurisdictions. • Apply the sales tax revenue forecast update to the 10-year delivery plan, the analysis related to a recommended increase in the $500 million 2009 Measure A bonding cap, and planning considerations for a long-term debt issue in 2008 or 2009. • Initiate an intemal audit risk assessment program. • Continue to keep abreast of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) technical activities affecting the _ Commission's accounting and financial reporting activities. Table 7—Finance Program FY 03/04 FY 04105 FY 05I06 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 408,400 $ 494,100 $ 570,300 $ 615,100 $ 678,800 $ 108,500 19.0°4 Professional 557,200 428,800 559,000 510,700 628,500 69,500 12.4% Support 23,800 21.800 37,200 51000 62,600 25,400 68.3% TOTAL $ 989.400 $ 944.700 $ 1.16E 500 $ 1.176.800 $ T_3&UM $ 2n,3 400 17.4% Regional issues • Focus on interregional concerns and maintain effective working relationships involving various bi-county transportation issues. • Continue to work closely with member agencies on the development of a new transportation management center (TMC). • Continue to address airport issues with emphasis on the March Air Reserve Base (March ARB) plans to develop air freight services. • Support transit oriented development initiatives. Table 8- Regional Issues Program FY 03l04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 05106 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 42,300 $ 41,500 $ 57,500 $ 29,800 $ 95,900 $ 38,400 66.8% Professional 25,900 25,500 11,000 127,500 252,500 241,500 2195.5% Support 900 900 2,200 3.900 4.600' 2,400 109.1% TOTAL $ 69.100 $ 67 900 $ 70.700 $161 200 $ 353.000 $ 2E12.300 399.3% Planning and Programming • Monitor increased funding authority and responsibility related to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and impacts on the, STIP caused by the state budget issues. • Ensure STIP funded projects are administered and implemented consistent with California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans policies. • Continue to strategically program projects and obligate funds in an expeditious manner for the maximum use of all available funding. • Monitor and track the TUMF regional arterial projects. 10 • Identify and evaluate innovative financing strategies through strategic partnership efforts. • Work with member agencies by coordinating project submittals for inclusion in the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. • Work cooperatively with member agencies to continue the work efforts on the new CETAP corridors. • Continue the Congestion Management Program (CMP) update and traffic monitoring along urban and rural highway systems. • Administer the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. • Develop a web -based project management database for the monitoring of project schedules and funding as well as access by local agencies. Table 9- Planning and Programming Program FY 03/04 FY 04/05 Costs Actual Actual FY 05/06 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnet $ 424,100 $ 388,400 $ 515,200 $ 438,500 $ 680,500 $ 165,300 32.1% Professional 102,000 140,800 341,200 166,800 2,943,000 2,601,800 762.5% Support 15,000 8,600 17,200 17,800 57,000 39,800 231.4% Projects and Operations 2,021.900 1,793,200 3.571.100 2,037,700 2,728.500 (842,600)-23.6%' TOTAL $2-$63 OQQ $ 2.331 yg0 $ 4.444 70Q Si 2,BELII00 LOAM MO Q ' 1.964 300 A4 2% . Rai! Operations • Continue capital improvements at the commuter rail stations in Riverside County. • Seek preliminary engineering for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Perris Valley Line. • Work with the Orange County Transportation Authority;(OCTA) and the San Bemardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to transform the summer weekend service into a year-round service and to advance additional 1E0C and 91 Line train service by 2010. • Seek capital and operating funds for intercity passenger rail • Continue to play a proactive role in the development of a statewide, high-speed passenger rail system. • Oversee commuter rail station operation and maintenance. Table 10 Rail Operations Program FY 03/04 Costs Actual Personnel Professional Support Rail Station Operations Special Studies Transfers Out TOTAL $ 236,200 224,000 93,600 4,346,600 192,200 $ 5.092.600 Property Management FY 04/05 FY 05/06 Actual Revised Budget $ 281.000 220,200 100,300 4,642,400 86,500 400 $ 5.330.800 $ 216,300 415,000 181,100 6,496,800 250,000 $ 7 559.200 FY 05106 Projected FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change $ 254.200 $ 319,200 $ 102,900 47.6% 270,000 285,500 (129,500) -31.2% 145,400 206,400 25,300 14.0% 6,262,700 7,142,400 645,600 9.9% 408,800 100.000 (150,000) -MO% 0.0% $ 7.341 10Q 5 8.053.500 - $ 494 3nn 6.5% • Develop a commuter rail station rehabilitation and strategic plan for the long-term maintenance of the Metrotink stations. • Maintain the order, safety, and security of Commission -owned properties. 11 • Generate a revenue stream to support the costs of maintaining Commission -owned real property: • Provide support for property acquisitions and conveyance of capital project rights of way. Table 11- Property Management Program FY 03/04 Costs Actual Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations TOTAL Specialized Transit FY 04/05 Actual $ 71,600 $ 73,000 226,100 413,700 13,800 41,000 26.900 52.500 $ 30,400 $ 560= FY 05/06 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change $ 87,900 $ 85,300 $ 2134,200. $ 196,300 430,600 354,400 450,000 19,400 8,700 3,500 10,700 2,000 101,600 92,700 315600 214.000 $ 6281100 $ 535.900 $1.060.500 $ 431:700 223.3% 4.5% 23.0% 210.6% 68:7% • Support innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs and monitor funding of these programs. • Provide availability for local matching funds to Western County applicants seeking FTA Section 5310 federal capital grants. Table 12- Specialized Transit Program FY 03/04 Costs Actual FY 04/05 Actual Personnel $ 23,400 $ 21,800 Professional 1,800 3,300 Support 900 4,100 Projects and Operations 4.268,300 4.846.10Q TOTAL $4294400 $ 4.875.3n11 Transit FY 05/06 Revised Budget 43,700 24,000 9,300 5,095,000 5 172 non FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Projected Budget Change Change 17,800 $ 81,500 $ 37,800 86.5% 42,700 62,500 38,500 160.4% 2,900 14,100 4,800 51.6% 4.694.100 7,666.700 2.571.700 50.5% 415.7 59Q $ 7.824 Rnn .4, 9 c.47 ftrin Ci1.3% • Continue implementing the recommendations resulting from the FY 2000/01 through FY 2002/03 triennial performance audit and review transit operator performance and annual progress reports through TransTrack and the SRTPs, respectively. • Engage an audit firm to conduct the state triennial performance audit for FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06. • Discuss, develop, and submit policy directions relating to transit matters through the Transit Policy Committee (TPC). • Begin the development of conceptual programs for the 2009 Measure A transit funds. Table 13-Transit Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations TOTAL FY 03/04 Actual $ 126,400 72,700 7,000 1.958.200 $ 2.164.300 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 05/06 Actual Revised Budget Projected $ 138,100 76,300 4,200 2.050.200 2.268.800 $ 190,600 $ 147,600 30,400 163,200 13,500 16,000 5,967,000 3,837,900 $ 6 201.5n0 $ .164.700 12 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change $ 188,900 $ (1,700) 190,400 160,000 20,600 7,100 6.718.700 751.700 17.118 600 $ 917.100 • • 526.3% 52.6% 12.6% • 14.8 • • • Commuter Assistance • Continue rideshare incentives and support services in partnership with commuters, employers, and other governments. • Perform a programmatic analysis of the Commuter assistance program and develop the Program Tracking and Performance Measurement Tool (Program Measurement Tool) to foster improved service delivery and greater constituent participation as well as to more efficiently implement the Commuter Assistance program. • Seek increased opportunities for cross marketing of transit and rail services. • Maintain and operate a five -county ridematching database system with partner agencies. • Assess, develop, and implement a Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Program to serve Inland Empire employers. • Participate in regional decisions relating to the implementation of 511 and the dissemination of traffic and traveler information services. Table 14- Commuter Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations Capital Outlay TOTAL Assistance FY 03/04 FY 04/05 Actual Actual $ 187,500 $ 591,600 486,000 1,678,800 $2 943,914 $ Motorist Assistance FY 05/06 Revised Budget 289,600 $ 258,700 351,600 519,200 316,000 644,300 1,626,500 2,120,700 60.000 240.000 2.643.70Q $ 3.782.900 FY 05/06 Projected $ 267,900 488,100 641,000 1,558,800 387,000 3 342 800 FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change $. 199,500 $ (59,200) -22.9% 895,000 375,800 72.4% 572,700 (71,600) -11.1% 2,079,100 (41,600) -2.0% 95,090 (145.0001 -60.4% $ 3841 300 $ 58.400 1"5% • Continue implementation of the recommendations included in the 5-Year Strategic and Financial Plan (5-Year Plan) for the call box program, including the modification of approximately 670 call box sites. • Complete the implementation of an Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system for the FSP tow trucks as well as the use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) to collect the data. • Keep abreast of and evaluate all technology to improve call box service to hearing and speech impaired motorists. Table 15- Motorist Assistance Program FY 03104 Costs Actual Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations Transfers Out TOTAL FY 04/05 Actual $ 02,990 $ 101,800 45,300 61,700 31,700 18,100 1,808,500 2,009,400 248.300 254.100 $2.226 790 $ 2 ausp FY 05/06 Revised Budget $ 88,100 216,700 26,700 3,674,600 262,800 $ 4.268.900 FY 05/06 Projected FY 06/07 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change $ 91,700 $ 124,600 156,800 54,300 25,500 27,100 2,203,700 3,422,900 253 000 375.200 $ 2.730.710 $ 4,004100 $ 36,500 41.4% (162,400) -74.9% 400 1.5% (251,700) -6.8% 112,400 42.8% $ (264 6001 -6.2% Capital Project Development and Delivery • Expand the Eastside parking lot at the Riverside Downtown commuter rail station. • Complete preliminary engineering and begin final design of the Perris multimodal facility. 13 • Complete final design of a parking structure at the North Main Corona commuter rail station. • Complete alternative studies and environmental clearance and initiate right of way acquisition for the FTA New Starts Perris Valley Line. • Continue environmental and preliminary design for the Bi-County Interstate (I) 215 project. • Complete the realignment and widening of SR-74 from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the city of Perris (Segment II). • Continue the environmental and preliminary engineering services for the SR-79 realignment project as well as acquire right of way. • Continue development of a project report and environmental document for the Mid County Parkway project as well as acquire right of way. • Complete final design of the SR-60/I-215 East Junction HOV lanes connector. • Acquire land as mitigation for the cumulative and direct impacts associated with construction of future highway and regional arterial projects. _ • Provide Measure A funding and support to Western County local jurisdictions for interchange construction at 1-15 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road and SR-91 interchange improvements at Van Buren, La Sierra, and Green River. • Provide Measure A funding and support to Coachella Valley local jurisdictions for construction of operational improvements along SR-86 and SR-111. • 'Provide TUMF funding for regional arterial project engineering, construction, and right of way acquisition. • Provide advance funding of 2009 Measure A projects in Hemet, Indio, and Blythe. Table 16- Capital Project Development and Delivery Program FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 Costs Actual Actual Revised Budget Personnel Professional suPpart Projects and Operations Capital Outlay Debts Paper Transfers Out TOTAL FY05/06 FY06107 Dollar Percent Proiected Budget Change Change $ 232300 $ 378,000 $ a26,5oo $ 476,100 $ 871,4130 $ 44,900 982,200 1,2771,600 1,787,000 1,241,100 1462,700 (324,300) 50,800 83,800 108,300 7,000 21,300 (87,000) 95,639,000 120,965,600 275,419,700 123,521,500 318,481,200 43,061,500 - 480,000 - 500,000 20,000 1,900.000 899,400 4,076,900 2176,900 41.082.600 36.795.600 46298,70Q 35.483.200 82,677.400 36.378.700 5139.0462a) $ 159 424 222 $ 326.820 200 $.21.6283nn S 408 090.900 S 91.279, 1 5.4% -18.1% -80.3% 15.6% 4.2% 114.6% 78.6% 24.9% • • 14 Table 17— Projected. Fund Balances by Program and Geographic Area at June 30, 2007 Reserved: Commuter Assistance Debt Service Highway Loans Receivable Local Streets and Roads Planning and Programming Services Property Management Rail Regional Arterials Specialized Transit Transit TUMF Unreserved, designated: Motorist Assistance Unreserved, undesignated TOTAL Fund Balance Measure A Western County Coachella Valley Palo Vero Other $ 12,699,400 $ 47,497,000 32,514,200 109,400 44,332,300 7,692,200 $ $ 6,779,700 74,300 52,700 1,540,500 13,300 31,436,600 1,265,600 1,460,400 455,100 1,481,500 5,137,100 4,410,500 33,376,800 3,697,500 2,561,200 $ 144 844 $90 r$ ___13,407,800 $ 52,700 $ 5 282 340 Total $ 12,699,400 31,436,600 55,542,300 33,974,600 236,400 455,100 1,481,500 49,469,400 1,540,500 7,705,500 4,410,500 33,376,800 3,697,500 2,561,200 $ 587 300 15 Chart 4 �fojected Fund Balances by Governmental Fund Type and Program at June 30, 2007 Riverside County Transportation Commission $238,587,300 General Fund $9,634,000 Management Serv100a $4564300 — planning an0 programming Saralee$454100 �— property Management$1,461,500 Rail OperetIons $5,137,100 Special Revenue Funds $1$4,769,600 _ — W m County$170,231,300 Capital Projects Fund $1,265,600 Camta uter Aaalstance $12,699,400 Highway$47,497,000 Leans Receivable $32,514,100 Local Streets and Roads $109,400 Ran $44,332,300 Spedalhed Tmnsn $7,692.300 TUMF $33,376,000 Coachella Valley $6,407,800 — Mghway$6,779,700- - Local Streata and Reads $74,300 — Regional Arterials 31,S40,500 — SpxMlhed TraaaR$13,300 p lo Varea Valley local Streets and Roads $52,700 - M tars% Assistance S3,697,500 State Tenalt Assistance $4r410,500 Debt Service Fund $32,697,000 Debt Service 331,430,600 Junior 0onds Loans Receivable $1,460,400 • • TABLE 18 - BUDGET COMPARATIVE BY SUMMARIZED LINE REM FY 2004 - 2007 Pt 03/04 FY 04/05 Aclst Actual REVENUES Measure A Sales Tax $ 120,564090 $ 138.9.21.300 $ 147.300,000 $ 147.300,000 $ 156.150.00E $ 8.850,000 6.0% LTF Sales Tax- Manning and Administration 2,307.000 2.497,800 3,343,400 3,343,400 2,995,500 (347,900). -10.4% ITF Sales Tax- Transit Allocation 95055013 5,195,600 9110,000 9,119000 7,976,900 (1,133,100) -124% STA TrarsB Allocation 2,839100 30(8,700 5.913000 3.1399700 9924,300 1,010.700 17.1% Vehicle Registration Fees -. - - 1,439100 1,541230 9425000 1,425000 1,425,000 - 0.0% Reimbursement 23276.600 25241,100 42.163,200 2,642,100 19707,800 (22,475.400) -63,3% Other Revenue 3,976,700 3,118;000 2,132,400 3,866200 2,223,600 91,20E 4.3% TURF Revenue 35,615,293 46,325,300 45825,000 45266,900 42,000.000 (3,025,000) -93% Investment Income 2 934 500 4 510600 5.453 600 5 610100 12.499 509 7,045,900 129.2% TOTAL Revenues 198,514,500 230.729.600 262,686,200 222,455.400 261,902,600 (10.789600) -4.1% FY 05/06 FY 05/06 FY 05/07 Dollar Percent Revised Budget Projected Budget Charge Change EXPENDITURES 'Personnel Salary and Benefits 2,587,00E 2,965900 3,892.50E 3.327,800 4,615,200 722,700 18.6% Professional and Support • General Legal Services 1,010.700 1,313,50E 1,649800 1,381,100 1,309,8E9 (331,000) -202% i Financial Services 46,900 52300 559000 75600 100.000 (450,000) -81.8% Sent ries 520,600 356,50E 378.00E 345,900 520,000 142,000 37.9% Professional Services -Other 1.583 00E 1608 700 2 394 000 2 166 900 5 B52 000 3 458.00E 144.4% nTOTAL Professional Curls 3,16120E 3,110.06,962,80E 3,919,50E 7?81,BW 2,81 D,OOD 56_e% Support Costs i5W 9W W 1696400 2528500 23218W W2397o-(131500) S.2% TOTAL Professional and Support Casts 9722.100 5,029,400 7,491,3W 6271,300 10,175800 2.687.500 35.9% Projecs and Operations: Projects -General 2,403,000 1,892,300 2.960.200 1.765,000 3,377,400 417,200 14.1% Rai Operations 9178,600 4,427,600 9546,300 1,346,600 1,590,600 44,30E 2.9% SAFE Operations 578,5W 565,300 2.227,100 767,200 1,838,600 (389500) -17.4% Towing 1222.OW t,438,fa10 tA315W },429,8W t,573,OW 142,00E 9:9% Commuler Assistance t;638,8W 9588,500 2,020,700 1,517000 2,0E14,100 (16,600) -0.8% Highway EnBtrreer'rg 1070,900 4,234,80E 24930,871,00E BA52.1W 8.327,OW (24544,WD) -795% Rao Engineering 53860E 257,700 7,450,000 174000 2A% TURF 6egtdedng ,00 5.898.100 7,276,000 28,032.29125,400 12.736,600 33,418,00E 7,290,600 279% /fgtvay Construction 37,6t92W 15,822,80E 45841,40E 82222W 21.9%.. ' Roll Construction 3,295.700 856,400 2,089,000 443,500 1.738500 (350500) -16.8% TURF ConsSndion - 3,600 16212.100 3.145.000 4,848,000 (11,364,100) -70.1% l6gturay RigM of Wayland 1954.700 1.877.700 59572,700 8,735000 745,100 (54,627,600) -98.7% I Ralf Rj9M of Way/Land 3,025,500 - 5,050000 63,800 5,075E00 25000 0.5% TUMF Right of Wayland - 13,357.700 26020,000 9,615300 137.422,930 111,302.000 426.1% SCRRA Contribution 3,167.800 3214,600 5,317,7W 5.530,000 6,051.800 734.100 13.8% Special Studies 1,129,(IW 2,426,800 2.186.6W 1,075.600 1,890,700 (295,900) -135% Special TransporlalWn7Dansit 4,268,30E 4.846,100 9095000 4,694,100 7068.700 2,571,700 50.5% Local Streets and Roads46206,300 53.330.700 55,106,500 55,106,500 68,318,300 3,211,800 58% Regional Agenda -Coachella Valley 6,24420E 10,053,700 9,993,900 8,563,700 13.713,400 3.725.500 37.3% LTF OSOosernerNs 750.2W 70820E 1,90B,1W 1.911,30E 1,042.00E (886,300) -45.4% • STA Pisbosaients 1.968200 2OM 200 5967.00E 3837.90E 6.718,7W 751 TW 126% TOTAL Project and Operating Costs 111;6E62W 138,OT1,IW 302.596500 144,6175W 348,855,100 45,958,800 15.2% Debt Service Principal Payments 26,318,800 27.228,200 28.66850E 28,669,50E 30,361,40E 1.694.9W 59% Interest Payments 9.191,80E 8.400,3W 8,316,20E 7,T44,6W 9,063,60E 718,40E 8.6% Arbitrage Rebate Tax 2,141,60E Coslof issuance d388W d00,000 _ 150.00E (250000)-62.5Yq TOTAL Debt Service 35508,60E 36208,7W 37A71.7W 36A14,iW 39,578,00E 2,1G3,3W 5.6% Capital Outlay B.pOQ 17980p 909,OW 477.00E 6959W 1214.0001 -23.5% TOTAL Expenditures 154827,90Q 184A56,200 352104000 191 108.100 403,722,100 51,310100 14.6% Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 43.886000 46273,400 (69.717.800) 31,347.300 051,819000) (52,101,700) 69.2% Other Finsnorg Sources Braes) Transfers In 41,529100 3755020D 46561500 15.736200 830.52000 38.491.100 78.4% Transfers Out (41,529100) (37.050200) (46061.500) (35,736200) (83,052,600) 39491.100 78.4% Debt Proceeds - 30.005600 55.000.000 - 60.000.000 25,000,000 45.5% Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sopces(Uses) 43,866,6130 76278A00 (34,7170003 31,347,300 (71019,500) (37,101,700) 106.9% Bcginring Furl Balance ENDING FUND BAANCE 156094,560 202.761,100 279,059,500 279,059,500 310,406.800 31,347,300 11.2% s 202 7131100 $ 2799.59.521 $ 244 341,70E 3 310.406.800 $ 238 587.3W $ 15754 4003 3.41E 17 • Table 19- Budget Expenditures and Other Uses Summarized by Governmental Fund Type FY 2006/07 Personnel Salary and Benefits General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Debt Service Total $ 3,252,700 $ 1,362,500 $ - $ - $ 4,615,200-- Professional and Support Expenditures General Legal Services 369,400 940,400 1,309,800 Financial Services 95,200 4,800 100,000 Audit Services 495,000 25,000 520,000 Professional Services - Other 4,290,100 1,134.500 - 427,400 - 5,852,000 TOTAL Professional Services 5,249,700 2,104,700 427,400 - 7,781,800 Support Costs 1,691 200 705 800 2.397.000 TOTAL Professional and Support Services 6,940,900 2,810,500 427,400 - 10,178,800 Project and Operations Expenditures Program Management - 2,575,500 400,000 2,975,500 Projects - General 315,600 86,300 - 401,900 Rail Operations 1,590,600 - 1,590,600 SAFE Operations - 1,838,600 1,838,600 Towing 1,573,000 - - 1,573,000 Commuter Assistance 2,004,100 - 2,004,100 Highway, Rail, and TUMF Engineering - 47,193,000 - 47,193000 Highway, Rail, and TUMF Construction 43,927,900 8,500,000 52,427,900 Highway, Rail, and TUMF Right of Way/Land - 103,217,100 40,025,000 - 143,242,100 SCRRA Contribution 5,551,800 500,000 6,051,800 Special Studies 1,785,700 105,000 1,890,700 Special Transportation/Transit - 7,666,700 7,666,700 Local Streets and Roads - 58,318,300 58,318,300 Regional Arterials - Coachella Valley - 13,719,400 13,719,400 LTF Disbursements 1,042,800 1,042,800 STA Disbursements - 6 718,700 - 6.718.700 TOTAL Project and Operations Expenditures 10,286,500 289,443,600 48,925,000 - 348,655,100 Capital Outlay 95,200 599,800 695,000 Debt Service Principal and Interest Cost of Issuance TOTAL Debt Service Other Financing Uses: Transfers Out 25,000 25,000 TOTAL Expenditures and Other Financing Uses $ 90 600 300 1,200 3,926,900 35,474,900 39,428,000 150,000 - 150,000 1,200 4,076,900 35,474,900 39,578,000 39,180,000 43.872.600 83,052,600 $ 3$3.397 SOQ $ 97 301 90Q $ 35 4Z4 90Q ,$ 486 7Z4.700 18 Table 20 -Highway, TUMF, and Rag Programs FY 2008/07 Description Projects General Program Management and Contract Administration (Bechtel Corp_) TOTAL PROJECTS GENERAL Highway Engineering SR-60 East Junction to 1-215 HOV SR-74 Wasson Road to 7th Street Highway Widening SR-74 Crave Realignment SR-74 G Street to 1-215 SR-111 City Projects (La Quinta, Indio, and Cathedral City) 1-215 Bi-County Project General SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY ENGINEERING TUMF Engineering SR-79 Realignment Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Mid -County Parkway Corridor Phase II Various Westem County TUMF Regional Arterial Projects SUBTOTAL TUMF ENGINEERING Rail Engineering Perris Valley Line Preliminary Engineering - Perris Multimodal Facility Survey and Material Testing Perris Multimodal facility Engineering Riverside Downtown Station Parking Lot Expansion - Eastside Riverside Downtown Station Parking Lot Expansion - Eastside Survey and Material Testing North Main Corona Station Parking Stmcture SUBTOTAL RAIL ENGINEERING TOTAL HIGHWAY, TUMF, AND RAIL ENGINEERING Highway Conrstmciion 1.15 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Interchange SR-74 Wasson to 7th Street Widening Project SR-86 County of Riverside Project SR-91 Green River Interchange SR-91 La Sierra Interchange SR-91 Van Buren Interchange SR-111 Magnesia Falls to Fairway SR-111 City Projects (La Quinta, Indio, and Cathedral City) Hemet/Sanderson Bridge (Commercial Paper) IndioNarious Local Street and Road Rehabilitation Projects (Commercial Paper) BlytheiLovekin Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation and Chansiorway Pavenrerd Overlay (Commercial Paper) General SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION TUMF Construction Various Westem County TUMF Regional Arterial Projects SUBTOTAL TUMF CONSTRUCTION $ 2,575,500 2,575,500 2,500,000 85,000 800,000 482,000 1,450,000 1,000,000 10,000 6,327,00D 8,030,000 10,000,000 15,386,000 33,416,000 5,000,000 125,000 1,000,000 50,000 175,000 1,100,000 i,45o.Doo 47,193,000 2,734,000 2,300,000 271,000 7,006,500 15,700,000 7,600,000 1,000,000 699,900 3,000,000 4,000,000 1,500,000 30,000 45,841,400 4,848,000 4,848,000 Rail Construction Riverside Downtown Station Parking - Eastside 1,738,500 SUBTOTAL RAIL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL HIGHWAY, TUMF, AND RAIL CONSTRUCTION Highway Right of Way and Land SR-60 HOV Lanes between 1-215 and Redlands Boulevard SR-60 HOV Lanes Right of Way Support Services SR-74Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street Right of Way Acquisition SR-74 Wasson Canyon Read to 7th Street Right of Way Support Services SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND TUMF Right of Way and Land SR-79 Realignment Right of Way Acquisition 17,500 000 SR-79 Realignment Right of Way Support Services 30,000 Mid County Parkway Right of Way Acquisition 72,500.000 MSHCP Land Acquisition - Westem County (Commercial Paper) 25,000,1300 MSHCP Land Acquisition - Coachella Valley (Commercial Paper) 15,025.000 Various Westem County TUMF Regional Arterial Projects 7,387 000 SUBTOTAL TUMF RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 137,422000 Rail Right of Way and Land Perris Valley Line Right of Way Support Services 75,000 Perris Valley Line Right of Way Acquisition 5,000,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 5,075,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY, TUMF, AND RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 143,2 100 GRAND TOTAL HIGHWAY, TUMF, AND RAIL PROGRAMS $ 245,438,500 1,738,500 52,427,900 25,000 100 700,000 20,000 745,100 19 00E'd059E2 Y 009'909'014 S 009'690'6[Z $ 005[687C $ 005IOW l£ $ 00S196BZ $ 009'292• P 0099949l S 601999SS 9 OOL'696'961 $ 008898'153 9 009'686112 Y 000'520'8 $ 005'DIE '01 S 0090259 Y 00e 90001E 60S'650'622 00119L'202 009129'IC 00S'198'62 COO '15L'06 009'45481 001'98S'SZ 002802'2 0066L0142 009'205012 OOL'996191 00501001 005=9'9 002156'L (009'690'11.) 005L6E'.1C 004'9/Z91 002194'1 00C'OSO'L (COS'ZLZ) (000614'01) (009'BL0'8) 006'SS£'CZ (00Z'001'29) 009'998'9$ 001'040'29 (0059L9) 000'09L'1 000'991'1 0011,11901, S 006969'BZL $ 004'005122 $ 008'919'SE S :002699'59 9 009'58292 $ 00610520 $ 009'e0ZO $ 000491/6 $ 009'6655ED 30111alye ONfld ONI0013 9tette Wnd OuluuAee senopla013 (men) [ono 9anuensy 10 I1e9966941mama OOL ESL'99l $ exulo4'L91 $ 00E'009'04 f C01190'bl $ 0011,99' 11 $ swan onousuld Pelteetwd T1101 000'ZSO'C9 _ 002'99L'S0 002'02026 - 009ZL9'C6 - 004 tee OM 091'CC 00Z'6CL'0C 009991'40 • 006 NO L%tu611 000'001 - 009'909 000'091- 009999 - • 90990991109100 - 009'161z - - 009'111'Z - - • del 9190941909010nd 000'94YBC 001'419.90 000'9Z9'S$ 008'424'90 002'C9t5C 001'596'08 008'949'6 006'859 0091-11 Orre1 COW 009'1 COO'SZ 000'06 009OZ 9090099160 000'989 ODO'LL4 000'6LG 009'009 00516E 1009'09 MVOS 00e99 0009l1 Ae110191093 099'Zr0'l 00C110'1 002'90L • - - - - 000'210'1 009'118'1 00410L 961e1949619610 ill 00Y611'61 00L'69919 00L'69001 - - D06'8GL'C1 00L'£9S'9 001'609'01 490en t09Wso0. 919999ry 99996001 006360'95 00590095 002'O0C'CS 00081C'99 000'901'99 00L'06509 $0909 Cot t�l��19001 OOL911V 00eLE9'0 002'090'4 • - 001'014'9 008'191'C 00Z'0902 • 909919199y Nw9Ll� *Ma - 00L'998'L 001'660'6 0Ol'969'6 OOC909'L 001.1d3W9 001'949'4 • 91991Lu00999tl9u911 Roads 00L'089't 009'9101. 009'92YZ 009'8C 030'001 009'005 Otela'1 00L'S9L'L 00Z190 009101'1 9atelS POWS 000'100'9 000'0C9'9 009'421 - -•- 000'009 COB'£19 - 009109'0 001'0 0'4 009.41-re s996191000 y9a1pS 001'Lb2'E9L COW6W91 006'994'91 OW020'04 DOZ1659 COZlLe1 ODL'Lt5W1 00L'E98'8 00Y196'91 - WtVA9Mle AMU 000'4ZVZS 001.11-Vel 009'01662 - 0050056 0011328'89 001'll2'61 061'91692 9016M9u00 005E60[9 00094•91 D06286'01 - 005660L1 004'941'01 009'29501 - 68999u1963 000900'2 009319'1 005'9851 - - - 0009052 002'219'1 009'9951 e99elh0y e95168900 000'£LS'L 009'849'1 000'6014 - - - 000'CL91 000%263 0001SY1 0u}eo1 009'9E51 COL'L9L 009'999 - - - 000'099'1 00eL9L 00e099 - se009rotl09det 009'060'1 C059001 009'LWI- - 009'0801 009'96C3 000'129'1 890091900 IMO 009'1159 000'951/1 0087891. - 000'006 - 0051652 0052293 001329'1 009116 009'28 009b4 MOUSD•Mated 000'LBSL 0001-99'4 006960'1 009'601 009'e4L 00e9L9 005111W1 000'9L9'1 00l'OZL'1 R90000094 009'19L'L 009'048'e 0003£55 - - OOYLZP ooe'99L ON 00L'401'L OOWSOL'L 001'6ZZ1 004'094'9 004'5L51 000'9091 aseteass 19901999101d 000'010'6 $ 005LZe'C $ 000'500'4 $ $ S • $ $ S S 0054951 $ 005'046 $ 000369 $ 00[9966 9 006'004'2 9 008'9102 9 9109689 e6119dP9e NEWS 11w0910d 99811 Winne/NW 002'990141 S 00918C902" $ 0094,13L'SZ S CO1'09L'96 f 000'9SL'L9 S 000'C13'06 $ 00$'200120 f 009'679 Y 000'91Zee $ 00110L'8LL $ 009'eel COL $ 004920e1Z f 'OOB'PL6'81 $ 00L'009'9/ Y 0044911 Li $ 9900105 19109199i P91910P319101 009'490'69 00ZOCL'99 005090'LC 009'40'59 013'996's; 00C'ZLL'C6 - - - 001'909'16 000'C04 008'491'C 001C99'Z 001'Oel 914esoests 000'000'09 • 000'50e0C 000'000'09 000'000'09 1Pewaded MO 000'000'Z9 C08'99Z'S/ 006'061W 00500524 006'992'91 005946'90 - enuonay dr1111 C05064'41 COl'OL9'S 009'014'4 0OC'S94'1 -000'0901 00e005'1 0080480'Z 0055E5 000'90Z 000/191/3 009191-'9 COB'9591 00610C 000'411 000'9% 919001.9 Wswlwwl 000'52'6'1 000'046'1 0021991. 000'SZ6'1 000'9ZY1 CO21941 teed 9PR9RIelel Meier 009'91-4'4 002'998'C 000'911'0 - 00919L6'I 00411S'C DOWCL6'L 000'Lll 00416E 001'44L enueM0101410 009'94et 001'/86'C 001109'C - 006'126'9 004'001 001'9161 - 90090009'.weal ea 009'CCE 009'89Z 009'5E0'1 - - 001-'495 00619 0051103 DOL'leL 001'56Z 000'106 saluleung9lae sew OOBOE1'1l 009'60L'l 000'0991 - - - 009'9E16'6S 000'9LL 008'LEZ'91 00000 005L04 001114 aoasomo1911I99 tweed 00V/CW4 0081et'L 00£'091'9 - - - 004'0897 00.1'161'1 008'046'4 000'L16'L 005CS 0091C2 Ouewaeln9uosis 91t19 006'4L601 004'956'Z1 004100'1 - - 004'944 0092 00C14C01 001199'41 009'06a'2 041 ten in 000'09100s $ 000605141 P 0051Z0961 Y $ • $ - $ • $ • $ - $ 000'009'491 S 000'014'191 9 000.001101- $ 000005C f 000'000'S 9 000'000'C 9 a9199RS y 0+01e911 930er106 1VIONYNId POPn9 DoPafvd Itnpy IaOPn9 OPPo.169 .loopy pOPoe - P9P01md lenPy 190909 091,040.1 10010y 100009 - Peperoad nee LOW Ad 90150 Ad 60IP0 Ad 10/90 Ad 90/S0 Ad 50/10 Ad -- L0/90 Ad- ---90/90 Ad— 90/90 Ad- L0/90 Ad 90/90 Ad WM Ad =SO Ad 90/00 Ad Se/SO Ad 91t101 Wnd 091N691680 Pun d 61.9996.1 lt9tl90 'Pend enueete l90909 Wnd Cowan • • se8O pale se01002 le)0ueu),1 p919101103 SO L66Z • 900Z Ad IS el4el Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2006/07 Budget Process � —Zf' a"��i+�IE.,...L.,��'i4f" ali?..+3'dd�.k� s.�`';3p 9tl�.. u. •.s.e.._, • Resource Estimation and Allocation • Commission Policy Goals and Objectives • Department Goals and Objectives - Determine key assumptions - Assess current year accomplishments - Identify next year's initiatives • Department Budget Development • Compilation of Commission Budget • Review and Adoption of Budget 1 Guiding Policies REZETER • Mobility Initiatives • Goods Movement • Improved System Efficiency • Environmental Stewardship • Economic Development • Intermodalism and Accessibility • Public and Agency Communications • Financial and Administration Budget Summary • Beginning Fund Balance = $310,406,800 • Total Estimated Sources = $414,955,200 - Revenues = $251,902,600 - Commercial Paper proceeds = $80,000,000 - Transfers in = $83,052,600 • Total Estimated Uses = $486,774,700 - Expenditures = $403,722,100 - Transfers out = $83,052,600 • Uses over Sources - (offset by beginning fund balance)= $71,819,500 • Ending Fund Balance = $238,587,300 2 Revenue Trends $300, 000,000 $250, 000, 000 $200, 000, 000 $150,000,000 $100, 000, 000 $50, 000, 000 $ s ✓' :.i!'..�:. �wm � k `�`'-icy �. �l3 q,.j`�'�.yIN FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FISCAL YEARS FY 06/07 o Investment Income ® Other Revenue ❑ TUMF Revenue ❑ Intergovernmental o LTF Sales Tax o Measure A Sales Tax Other Revenue 1% TUMF Revenue 17% Intergovernmental 11% Investment Income 5% Measure ASales LTF Sales Tax Tax 4% 62% Revenue Breakdown Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax Intergovernmental TUMF Revenue Other Revenue Investment Income TOTAL Revenues FY 05/06 Revised Budget $ 147,300,000 12,453,400 49, 521, 800 45,825,000 2,132,400 5,453,600 $ 262,686,200 FY 05/06 Projected $ 147,300,000 12,453,400 7,958,800 45,266,900 3,866,200 5,610,100 $ 222,455,400 FY 06/07 Budget $ 156,150, 000 10,972,400 28,057,100 42,000,000 2,223,600 12,499,500 $ 251,902,600 Expenditures Regional Issues 0% Management Services 1% Debt Service 10% Regional Arterials - Coachella Valley 3% Local Streets and Roads 14% Planning and Rail Operations Programming 2% 2% Property Management 0% Specialized Transit 2% Transit 2% Commuter Assistance 1% Motorist Assistance 1% Capital Highway, Rail and TUMF 62% Expenditures Breakdown by Department Management Services Regional Issues Planning and Programming Rail Operations Property Management Specialized Transit Transit Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Capital Highway, Rail and TUMF Local Streets and Roads Regional Arterials - Coachella Valley Debt Service TOTAL FY 05/06 Revised Budget $ 4,501,900 70,700 4,444,700 7,559,200 628,800 5,172,000 6,201,500 3,782,900 4,006,100 213,521,100 55,106,500 9,993,900 37,414,700 352,404,000 FY 05/06 Projected FY 06/07 Budget $ 4,006,600 $ 4,517,900 161,200 353,000 2,660,800 6,409,000 7,341,100 8,053,500 535,900 1,060,500 4,757,500 7,824,800 4,164,700 7,118,600 3,342,800 3,841,300 2,477,700 3,628,900 61,575,500 249,298,900 55,106,500 58,318,300 8,563,700 13,719,400 36,414,100 39,578,000 $ 191,108,100 $ 403,722,100 Expenditures Breakdown by Function Personnel Professional Support Projects & Operations Debt Service & Cost of Issuance Capital Outlay FY 05/06 Revised Budget FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Projected Budget $ 3,892,500 $ 3,327,800 $ 4,615,200 4,962,800 3,949,500 7,781,800 2,528,500 2,321,800 2,397,000 302,696,500 144,617,900 348,655,100 37,414,700 36,414,100 39,578,000 909,000 477,000 695,000 TOTAL Expenditures $ 352,404,000 $ 191,108,100 $ 403,722,100 Capital Outlay 0% Cost of Issuance 0% Debt Service 10% Personnel 1% Professional 2% Support 1% Projects and Operations 86% Department Expenditure Highlights • Program expenditures represent 890/0 of total expenditures - 150/0 increase from FY 2005/06 budget • Highway and Rail Projects - SR-79 realignment ROW and engineering - Mid County Parkway ROW and engineering - Perris Valley Line ROW and preliminary engineering - Land acquisition for WC/CV MSHCP - Measure A and TUMF pass through funding for local projects Functional Expenditure Highlights n rtt rama}p,arc y 2mat • Personnel based on 31 FTE - 4% salary increase pool - Continued increases in PERS and workers compensation costs • Professional costs to increase 57% for strategic partnership efforts • Capital outlay related to Commuter Assistance mobile information center and Rail property improvements 1 it l:N9. a Ri�t9�fi$#�th���"a,�e Lf.��i".i211aF6. Y; •°.t4� 7P+.k+9. „,v,, v� sa W4„ x3 (�Y3. �I �+,' `�44,+ra��., 'bus � ��`• O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U) o U0 o un o o �n ui vi N N r6'7 69 69 69 69 EA- 69 63 69 69 i Ef} r, >- c) I _ co a O U_ ul O / O u C3 CD u- M O M O LL N O %00'£ %0S7 %007 %0S'6 % s;soo angeilsluppy % s}gaua8 pue saueles %On %00'0 ienpv lenpv lenpv papefom la0pn8 uonealiqui upd d amseaw Measure A Administration Policy kCEM 1's ."�z�:�'MRT '4' • Measure A limits administrative salaries and benefits to 10/0 of Measure A sales tax revenues • Commission policy for total administration costs not to exceed 4% of Measure A sales tax revenues Next Steps .�. "#^^fi*m" A�?' �r�n .u+a�i ve • Receive input for proposed budget today - open public hearing • Finalize budget and related document • Review final budget draft at May 22, 2006 Budget & Implementation meeting • Close public hearing at June 14, 2006 Commission meeting • Adoption of final budget at June 14, 2006 Commission meeting 1 Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2006/07 Budget Process i _1 ,x , i.� _y, R e • Resource Estimation and Allocation • Commission Policy Goals and Objectives • Department Goals and Objectives - Determine key assumptions - Assess current year accomplishments - Identify next year's initiatives • Department Budget Development • Compilation of Commission Budget • Review and Adoption of Budget Guiding Policies r • Mobility Initiatives • Goods Movement • Improved System Efficiency • Environmental Stewardship • Economic Development • Intermodalism and Accessibility • Public and Agency Communications • Financial and Administration ,: , , 1111 I r� R'T , Budget Summary • Beginning Fund Balance = $310,406,800 • Total Estimated Sources = $414,955,200 - Revenues = $251,902,600 Commercial Paper proceeds = $80,000,000 - Transfers in = $83,052,600 • Total Estimated Uses = $486,774,700 - Expenditures = $403,722,100 - Transfers out = $83,052,600 • Uses over Sources - (offset by beginning fund balance)= $71,819,500 • Ending Fund Balance = $238,587,300 Revenue Trends $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 $- FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FISCAL YEARS FY 06/07 "t7 [1 �! . ^'. 1 I I{ II177, o Investment Income p Other Revenue p TUMF Revenue ❑ Intergovemmental p LTF Sales Tax p Measure A Sales Tax Other Revenue 1% TUMF Revenue 17% Intergovernmental 11% Investment Income 5% Measure A Sales LTF Sales Tax Tax 4% 62% Revenue Breakdown Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax Intergovernmental TUMF Revenue Other Revenue Investment Income TOTAL Revenues FY 05/06 Revised Budget $ 147,300,000 $ 12,453,400 49,521,800 45,825,000 2,132,400 5,453,600 $ 262,686,200 FY 05/06 Projected 147,300,000 $ 12,453,400 7,958,800 45,266,900 3,866,200 5,610,100 $ 222,455,400 $ FY 06/07 Budget 156,150,000 10,972,400 28,057,100 42,000,000 21223,600 12,499,500 251,902,600 Expenditures Regional Issues 0% Management Services 1% Debt Service 10% Regional Arterials - Coachella Valley 3% Local Streets and Roads 14% Planning and Programming 2% r 4111 S rC5`.' Rail Operations 2% Property Management 0% Specialized Transit 2% Transit 2% Commuter Assistance 1% Motorist Assistance 1% Capital Highway, Rail and TUMF 62% Expenditures Breakdown - by Department Management Services Regional Issues Planning and Programming Rail Operations Property Management Specialized Transit Transit Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Capital Highway, Rail and TUMF Local Streets and Roads Regional Arterials - Coachella Valley Debt Service TOTAL FY 05/06 Revised Budget $ 4,501,900 70,700 4,444,700 7,559,200 628,800 5,172,000 6,201,500 3,782,900 4,006,100 213,521,100 55,106, 500 9,993,900 37,414,700 $ 352,404,000 FY 05/06 Projected FY 06/07 Budget $ 4,006,600 $ 4,517,900 161,200 353,000 2,660,800 6,409,000 7,341,100 8,053,500 535,900 1,060,500 4,757,500 7,824,800 4,164,700 7,118,600 3,342,800 3,841,300 2,477,700 3,628,900 61,575,500 249,298,900 55,106,500 58,318,300 8,563,700 13,719,400 36,414,100 39,578,000 $ 191,108,100 $ 403,722,100 spa[oad leaoi aoj 6u!pun) Onann ssed AMU. pue d aanseaw - d31-ISW /0/311A ao) uomsinbae puel - 6upeaui6ua kieuitugaad pue aun AaHen swag - 6uiaaaul6ua pue Removed ICiun03 - 6upaau!6ua pue luawuNeaa 6L-2!S - spa[oad Heti pue Aen LAH la6pnq 90/SOOZ Ad wcuj area ou! %ST - saanmpuadxa MN 10 0/068 luasaadaa sa mmpuedxa wea6oad • • sIy6iR16iH aanmpuadx3 wauipedad Expenditures Breakdown by Function Personnel Professional Support Projects & Operations Debt Service & Cost of Issuance Capital Outlay FY 05/06 Revised Budget $ 3,892,500 4,962,800 2,528,500 302,696,500 37,414,700 909,000 TOTAL Expenditures $ 352,404,000 Capital Outlay 0% Cost of Issuance 0% Debt Service 10% Personnel 1 aka Professional 2% Support 1% Projects and Operations 86% . AUV e'ts. FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Projected Budget $ 3,327,800 $ 4,615,200 3,949,500 7,781,800 2,321,800 2,397,000 144,617,900 348,655,100 36,414,100 39,578,000 477,000 695,000 $ 191,108,100 $ 403, 722,100 Functional Expenditure Highlights • Personnel based on 31 FTE - 40/0 salary increase pool - Continued increases in PERS and workers compensation costs • Professional costs to increase 570/0 for strategic partnership efforts • Capital outlay related to Commuter Assistance mobile information center and Rail property improvements Personnel Cost Trends $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- i i i FY FY FY FY FY 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 • il�l If Lam: tri Ito! a ice,.•-. p Budget p Actual Measure A Administration Policy .11,a��i..A�. [�..� • Measure A Limits administrative salaries and benefits to 10/0 of Measure A sales tax revenues • Commission policy for total administration costs not to exceed 40/0 of Measure A sales tax revenues r %00*s %097 %00'z ^leas• 1 %00' I ova sisoo and;ei;slunupy o % s;gauge pue saueles o %09'0 7000'0 o len}ay 0 o A len}ad O a N a oa[oa P 3 d o o oY I� 1a6Pn9 o 0 d PIF uoi;emiuiwpd d aanseaW 6uneauu uoissRuLoop 900Z `VT aunt ie la6pnq pug Jo uondopd • &meow uoissRu Loop 900Z 'VT aunt 6upeay Nicind asolD • &loam uogeluatuaidtui � �a6pn8 900Z 'ZZ Aew ijeap la6pnq pug nnainam • luaLt nop pue la6pnq azueum • 6upeay 3ilgnd uad° - Itepo� la6pnq pasodoad lndui ania3am • AGENDA ITEM 8A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2006/07 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Recurring Contracts for FY 2006/07. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Nine years ago, the Commission evaluated all recurring contracts to determine when and if to hold a competitive process. As a result of that review, most contracts were rebid. In addition, the Commission required that recurring contracts be approved at the beginning of each year. All other contracts are bid on a periodic basis ranging from three to five years. The following is a listing of recurring contracts proposed for FY 2006/07. Schedule of Recurring Contracts Consultant Name Description of Services Budget FY 05/06 Budget FY 06/07. Dollar Change Percent Change Advanced Data Transcribing Center Ridematching Data Entry Services $48,000 $48,000 $0 0% Advanced Marketing (dba Inland Mailing Services) Processing RideGuides and Ridesmart Tips for Distribution N/A 25,000 N/A N/A Bechtel Infrastructure Program Management 2,749,700 2,588,900 (160,800) (5.896) Best Best & Krieger General Legal Services 1,106,800 1,309,800 204,000 18.4% Caporicci & Larson TDA/Measure A Audit Services N/A 200,000 N/A N/A Cingular Wireless Call Box Analog Cellular Service N/A 35,000 (13,000) (27.1%) Agenda Item 8A 21 Comarco Wireless Technologies Call Box Maintenance N/A 244,200 (129,900) (34.7%) Inland Transportation Services Commuter Assistance Program Management 1,418,000 1,386,000 (32,000) (2.3%) MHV Enterprises, Inc. Ridemaster Software N/A' 25,000 N/A N/A Public Financial Management Investment Advisor 15,000 5,000 (10,000)- (66.7%) Ray Gorski Air Quality Technical 20,000 20,000 0 0% SANBAG Call Box Call Answering N/A 64,300 N/A N/A Trapeze Ridematching Software 162,000 370,000 208,000 128.4% VRPA Technologies Congestion Management 70,000 50,000 (20,000)_ (28.6%) The contract for Advanced Data Transcribing Center (Advanced Data) was awarded in 2002 following a competitive bid process. The original contract expired June 30, 2005. The other four local county transportation commissions also have contracts with Advanced Data. Based on the five -county partnership for ridematching services, it would be ineffective to rebid and award a new contract to another vendor at this time. The Advanced Marketing contract expires on June 30, 2006. The contract was awarded in July 2005 following a competitive bid process, for which Two proposals were received. These proposers were the same two firms who responded to prior years' proposal opportunities. Advanced Marketing has been the successful proposer each time based on experience and qualifications as well as cost. The nature of the work consists of processing RideGuides and Ridesmart Tips for distribution, including folding, stuffing, and inserting. Due to the lack of interest and competition for this service, it would be more efficient to classify this contract as recurring. The Bechtel Infrastructure contract cost for FY 2006/07 reflects a decrease of $160,800 as a result of the nature of the project development activities related to the following major projects: Mid County Parkway, SR-79 realignment, Perris Valley Line, North Main Corona Station parking structure, Downtown Riverside- Eastside parking expansion, Perris multimodal facility, the 10-year Delivery Plan, and 60/91 /215 interchange project. The Commission will be reimbursed approximately $62,000 by Caltrans for the continued support services provided on the design sequencing project for the 60/91 /215 interchange project. This demonstrates the flexibility of outsourcing such program management services. Agenda Item 8A 22 • • The Best Best & Krieger contract for FY 2006/07 reflects an increase of $204,000, which is primarily attributable to general legal services for capital project delivery and implementation activities related to Measure A highways and rail and TUMF. General legal services related to management and regional programs are comparable to the prior year. Caporicci & Larson has performed the Transportation Development Act and Measure A local jurisdiction financial and compliance audits. These services were competitively procured in 2003, and the term of the agreement was for three years through June 30, 2006. The Commission's financial and compliance audit has been performed by another audit firm that was selected during the same procurement process; however, that agreement expires June 30, 2007. It would be more effective and efficient to have both audit firms with the same term through June 30, 2007, and conduct an audit procurement in January 2007 or February 2007. The Caporicci & Larson audit fees are similar to FY 2005/06 fees, The Comarco Wireless Technologies contract expires December 31, 2006 and provides for routine corrective and preventive maintenance of call boxes, including knockdowns and vandalism. Comarco Wireless Technologies was selected as a result of a competitive procurement in 2001, in which it was the only responsive . bidder, and has provided these services since the inception of the call box program. A request for proposal process is not anticipated immediately upon contract expiration, and Comarco has been includedasa recurring contract for the last six months of FY 2006/07. As a result of delays in the call box removal project, the conversion of call boxes from analog to digital service by Cingular Wireless has not been completed. Any expenditures incurred for analog service will be offset by a savings in the digital service contract. Accordingly, the contract related to analog service should be extended through FY 2006/07. MHV Enterprises, Inc. owns the copyright of the Ridemaster software used in the Commuter Assistance program. It has licensed the software to three local transportation agencies, including the Commission. The software tracks client support, commuter participation, and other data as necessary to monitor program performance and protect against fraud. Due to the proprietary nature of the ongoing support, maintenance, and enhancement of the software, MHV Enterprises should be added to the recurring contracts. Staff intends to release a request for proposal for investment advisory services by the end of May 2006. Public Financial Management (PFM) has provided these services since July 1999 and will be required until the transition with the selected investment advisor is completed approximately September 2006. PFM's contract is based on the average assets managed, which increased significantly during FY 2005/06. Agenda Item 8A 23 The Commission entered into an agreement with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for call box call answering services which expires June 30, 2006. SANBAG has contracted with Professional Communications Network (PCN) for these services. The agreement with SANBAG :requires the Commission to pay its share of costs based on actual call volume. SANBAG intends to extend the contract with PCN for two additional years. Accordingly, this agreement should be added to the recurring contracts. Proposals were solicited for a ridematching software program for the Inland Empire and a contract was awarded to Trapeze in 2002. Subsequently, the software/license agreement was expanded to include Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties functionality. The software also has been custornized over the past years in response to the unique regional air quality requirements. As a result of the customization and five -county regional partnership, this contract should was added to recurring contracts beginning with FY 2005/06. The $208,000 increase in the contract for FY 2006/07 is due to the receipt of a Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee grant of $225,000 for the integration of transit schedules within the regional rideguides. This work is in addition to the regular maintenance of the software. The revenue related to the grant has been included in the FY 2006/07 budget. As the Congestion Management Program is not required to be updated in FY 2006/07, there is a 29% decrease in fees related to the VRPA contract. These contracts have already been included in the FY 2006/07 Proposed Budget, and, as such, no budget adjustment is required. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $6,306,900 Source of Funds: Measure A, TDA, TUMF, FSP, SAFE Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: . i \\ji.9 Date: 4/24/06 Agenda Item 8A 24 AGENDA ITEM 8B • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 24, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Committee FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy 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 March 31, 2006. 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 March 31, 2006 is also attached for review. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter ended March 31, 2006 2) County of Riverside Investment Report for the Month ended March 31, 2006 Agenda Item 8B 25 Nnturo of Irvcc[m�nts o,i% ery /— t].3H o Port/olio InVYSterint Typc County Pool/coal, LAIF Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on March 8, 2006. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. Signed by Chief Financial Officer 26 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Investment Pm6olio Raped Period Ended: March 2006 OPERATING FUNDS City National Bank Deposits County Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund Local Agency Investment Fund(LAIF) Agency/Treasury Benoi tlee: Federal Farm Credit Bank Note-nonceliable Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) Note-noncallable FHLB Note-noncallable FHLB Mortgage Cedldcate-noncallable FHLB Note-noncallable 2Lp» ° 2 IIio r� ',Moneyy Market ` F51�CNI ., Bon rcatiai Money Mantel Mutual Funds nd-non CNI Charter FHLB Construction Bonbnoncallable FHLB Bond-noncallable Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) Note -callable FHLMC Reference Note-noncellable tee#-811@O- WI&9Y��kli¢ah�fi F Subtotal Operating Funds FUNDS HELD IN TRUST County Treasurers Pooled Investment Fund Local Transportation Fund Subtotal Funds Held In Trust INVESTMENT WITH CITIES (1) City of Canyon Lake Subtotal Investment with cities COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE First American Treasury Obligations Fund U.S. Treasury Bills-noncallable First American Government Obligation Fund First American Treasury Obligations Fund • Held in Trust Subtotal Bond Project Funds/Debt Reserve TOTAL All Caah and Investments RATING COUPON PAR PURCHASE - MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED FAIR VALUE. MOODYS/FITCH/S&P RATE. VALUE DATE. DATE MATURITY ...COST VALUE GAIN (LOSS) $ 55,871 A3/BBB+ N/A 194.927.566 Aaa/MR1/AAAN+1 N/A 3.100,304 Not Rated NIA 2.958.750 AAA/AAA 3.500% 1000.000 02/15/05 1,988,120 AAVAAA 3.375% 2,000,000 02/18/05 2.957.820 AAA/AAA 4.010% 3,000,000 06/15/05 3.966,520 AAA/AAA 3.750% 4,000,000 04/26/05 2,967180 AAA/AAA 4125% 3000.000 07/15/05 a Zri a 40 .S8 `; I -I ) I3 000.091) 167,948 AAA/AAA N/A 1,965,000 AAA/AAA 3.625% 2,492.200 AAA/AAA 2.250% 2,225,385 AAA/AAA 1.750% 2,479,700 AAA/AAA 2750% 243,960,220 34,617,384 Aaa-MR7/AAA/V+1 N/A 54,617,384 167,948 z,omo96 2,500,000 2,250,000 2,500,000 $. 46.367,948 10/07/05 01(27/05 11/15/05 01/27/05 -arg21Q8" Ps 021/5/07 08/18/06 06/29/07 11/15/06 04/27/07 N/A 3.87% NIA 3.50% 3.38% 4,01% 3.78% 4,13% 3.95% 06/20/07 4.39% 05/15/06 3.24% 11/09/07 493% 08/15/06 3.31% 3.87% 3.000.000 2,958.750 2,000,000 1,988,120 3,000,000 2,957,820 3,998,425 3, 966,520 3,000,000 2,967,180 6,008,800 -T ,41990.4$5q „z, Gp-o3.614 4 BSB.$T8 °@ 65$4Qa 187,946 167,948 - 1,975210 1.965,000 (10,210) 2,468,808 2,492,200 23,393 2,242.575 2.225,385 (17,190) 2478.950 2479,700 750 1954:"oe I1 1 s os8i200 (41.250) (11,880) (42,180) (31,905) (32,620) 45.876,479. $ (212,316) 300,000 N/A 4.750% $ 300000 04102103 06/01/09 N/A $ 300,000 NIA N/A 300,000 27,914,736 Aae/AAAm N/A 15,809,421 AAA/AAA 1,875% $ 15,926,000 05/24/05 06/01/06 4.62% $15,926000 $15,809,421 $ (116,579) ' 19,029,628 Aaa/AAArn N/A 965,943 Aaa/AAArn N/A 63,719,728 $ 362,597,332 Investment Transactions for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2006 oot *Air 4o;ImA1 17)SIIIi'I iilti`"s"s a ol;j, PVT, Par Value at Coupon Maturities: Maturity Maturity Date Rate FNMA Note-noncallable $ 1,950,000 3/17/2006 2.110% FNMA Note-noncallabla 2,000,000 3/29/2006 2.050% (1) Investment with cities b reported ass ben receivable for financial reporting purpoeea. 27 SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks County Pool LAIF Mutual Funds: First Amercan Treasury Obbgabcns Fund First American Government Obligation Fund Sub - TOtal Mutual Funds Federal Agency securities U.S. Treasury Bills U.S. Treasury Note Corporate Note Investment Agreements TOTAL 28,880.679 19,029,628 $ 55,871 249,544,950 3,100,304 47,910,307 42.873.009 15,809,421 1,984.060 1,019.410 300,000 362,597,332 County Administrative Center Investment Objectives • Safety of Principal • Liquidity • Public Trust • Maximum Rate of 'Return March 2006 Treasurer's Commentary "A Tale of Two Central Banks" March 28, 2006 marked Ben Bernanke's debut as chairman of the Federal Reserve. This momentous occasion became anticlimactic, however, as FOMC public statements leading up to the meeting made a rate hike glaringly obvious. In .addition to the rate increase, the Fed implied that more "firming" awaits, although exactly how much remains to be seen. - The import of Chairman Bernanke's first FOMC decision overshad- owed another significant occasion for fixed -income markets: the impending end of the Bank of Japans "quantitative easing" policy. This five -year -old policy was designed to help bring Japan out of the economic doldrums in which it has been mired since the late 1980's. Japan's overnight bank rate of below .1% was insufficient to combat periods of recession and deflation, so the Bank of Japan forcibly pumped yen into banks and bought securities in return. Many of these purchases were long-term US Treasuries: the Bank of Japan has a portfo- lio of approximately $668 billion in US Treasuries (for comparison, the FOMC has approximately $750 billion for its open market operations to oontrol the Fed Funds rate). foreign central banks' thirst for Treasuries, along with that of pension funds, may be one reason for depressed long-term bond yields and the subsequent inverted yield curve: - - Bond markets responded predictably to both revelations:long term rates rose on anticipated 'lower demand when word of the Bank of Japan's policy change leaked ouC unlnverting the Treasury curve, and all rates crept up as the Fed meeting approached and continued to rise afterwards. 7Yfa.ate Paul Mc DonneO Treasurer -Tax Collector k ir Durable Goods Orders -for March 240. 2.6%actual vs. 1.5%survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -for March 30th 1.7% actualvs. 1.7% survey Consumer Confidence- Index -Match 28tk 107.2 actualvs.102.0survey factory Orders- March 6th -4.5% actual Vs. -5.4%survey Unemployment Rate- for March 10th 4.8%-actual vs. 4.7% survey; At month's end, the Fed Funds rate was 4.75%, with a balanced. bias. The. 2 year T-Note was yielding 4.82% (up 14 bp.) while the 10 year T44ote was yielding 4.85% (up 30 bps.) For Feb- ruary the. Pool had an increase of 11 bps. in the average monthly yield. Portfolio Statistics March Month -End Book Value $ 3,747,481,599 February $ 3,709,956,618 . January $ 3,686,186,292 December $ 4,010,003,925 November $ 3,357,203,654 , October $ 3,208,631,129 Month -End Market Value' $ 3,727,832,699 - $ 3,690,904,657 . $ 3,668,478,601 $ 3,991,492,902 , $ 3,337,385,542 $ 3,187,968,021 Paper Gain or (Loss) € $ _ (19,646900) $ (19,051.961)i $ (17,707,691) $ (18,611,023b $ (19,817,512) $ (20,663,108) Percent of Paper Gain or Loss 0.52% -D.51%; -0A8313 -0.46%i -0.59%! -0.64% Yield Based Upon Book Value -._.._..._. 4_10 3.99 _-_..._..._.. 3.90 -- - 3.1771 _--.. -. -- 3.57; --.._.__-... . 3.48 Weighted Average Maturity (Yrs) , 0.82 0.82 0.80 0.74 0.771 0.78 Modified Duration 0.761 0.79 0.77 0.681 - 0.73! 0.74 'Market values does not include accrued interest THE RIVERSIDE COUNTYTREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: Aaa/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH RATINGS 28 Portfolio Characteristics SECTOR '..M arketadalue Federal Agency ' Cash Equivalent & MMFi Commercial Paper 2,420,760,745 60,000,000 612,576,357 Negotiable CD's Medium Term Notes 500,001,294 30,005,500 Municipal Bonds I Certificates of Deposit Local Agency Obligation. Total Noobt'iaikico'i 73.41% Commercial Papa.. - 16.43 Cash Equivalent & P4 fA F 1E1S; 1 82,733,803 20,000,000 1,755,000 CREDIT QUALITY Federal Agency AAA A-1/ P-tor better N/R 3,727,832,699 Total -'222,3 Loc3144.V3y Obligation , Certificates of Deposit • 0 Sd4i , Market Value 2,420,760,745 112,739,303 1,112,577, 651 81,755,000 3,727,832,699 Federal Agency 64.94% MATURITY 30 days or Lessu- r — -- 9-_. 0D._- ays -.--1 - 3 6- Days iYear 1-2 Years 2-3Years Over 3 Years i- Total 3,727,832,699 `. Market Valli 614,069,250.96 878,520,987.96 014,645 033.45 762,626,445_05 456,215,981.10 1,755,000.00 24 Month Gross Yield Trends 30 days 30-90 90-Days - 1-2 2-3 Over or Less Days 1 Year Years Years Years — 1 ,-Pool YieldAP -- e5dE4i J� s� . 32 _ 2.7 22 1.7 12 ✓ Page 2 29 Market Data 3/31/06 2/28/06 Diff. 3M 4.602 4.616 -.0133 6M. 4.804-'4.732 .'.0719 _2Y 4.816 4.675 :1415 5 Y 4.81 4599 .21-14 10 Y 4.847 4551 30 Y 4.890 4.508 .2962' .3823 * Treasurer's institutional Money, Market Index (71MM1) 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 portfolio 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 • 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 Imestment Category LOCAL AGENCY BONDS U $, TREASUR CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT FEDERALAGENCI BILLS OF EXCHANGE COMME401A4A.pgR CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS IREP()RCHASE AGREEMF,NTS- REVERSE REPOS MED. TERM NOTES'' CaITRUST SHORT TERM FUND MUTUALFUNDS . SECURED BANK DEPOSITS MORTGAGE'PASS Tl f30U0'HSECBRITIE5 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS CAS I/DEPOSIIT ACCOUM Conn Investment Poli Maximum Maturity Authorized % Limit Quality S&P/ Maximum Matur- Authorized % Quality S&P/ Moody's 5 YEARS ( NO LIMIT 5_ 5 YEARS I NO LIMIT EAR S. *, ND U 270 DAYS 270:DAYS- 5 YEARS t.,1 YEAR$R DAYS EIaTfS N/A I N/A t 90-DAYS al. 5 YEARS YEARS_ -N/A ' NO LIMIT - 3YEARS j 0%MAX NSA N/A NO LIMIT N/A ity 3 YEARS 3 YEARS 2 Limit I Moody's 15%/ $150MM . A/A2/A Y 2.5% INVESTMENT GRADE t DAILY LIQUIDITY i 1% 20% No more than 30%of this mtegorymay be invested with anyone commercial bank Mutual Funds maturity maybe Interpreted as weighted average matunTy not exceeding 90 days a Or must have an investment advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500,000,000- tAB2/A4 Board Approved 0.94% Actual Rivers'de Portfolio'/ 13.95% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% Projected Cash Flow The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. Based upon projected cash receipts and matu- rating investments, there are sufficient Funds to meet future cash flow disbursements over the next 12 months. Merin Monthly Monthly Receipts Dishmts Difference Required Mat. Invest Balance Actual Inv. Maturities Avail. To Invest, 1 Yr. 4/06 04/2006 1,038:1 {T C : 06/2006 599.8 08/2006 735.1 303.0 882.5 (282.7) 699.5 (11..4) r ma's t 10/2006 612.2 735.6-(123.4) 12/2006 1,375.9 02/2007 613,0 . 03/2007 787.4 871_5 693.8 6821 806.3 (188.3) (84.1) 59.2 362.2 615.0 243.5 107.7 95.0 830.3 105.2 109.7 25.6 82.4 62.0 Totals 9,045.2 9,507.5 (452.3) 428.7 114% 2,521.5 3,318.3 67.29% 88.55% THIS COMPLETES THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 Page 3 • 01Mbn[s 7 LL G C w a N N h N 0 F- s. st g$�$i888 s4$14s$§§ 8 84 B ,11§ R,Q§�+44g Q�Q 8p§p §.5�q$QRp g�g:p�pV;8 h- 8 z . Sg Month End Portfolio H • • • E CM Month End Portfolio Holdings Report • gy[x Xyg� $O X i! X♦ k":�X X.. X X �%! X` X'lf �i x. N� U O, �.iV 5',12 5�3�i�S Y����.S E�S+Y �Si2,d212}@�3,py2i G l�O�� _O[y�y�,O jy��O.'j�]Y�Qy yLQ��"'O�Ip Y52Q Ts9'2Q2Q yp��,��ytlW�y�µT ��y ty Qi'pY �� W �W B::,XU Y,Wfl1 LL'p9LLLL MkIL �W�LLii4u K(4 �LL��'-1aW�Br'. �LL!LL LL= • • • AGENDA ITEM 8C RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2006. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the third quarter ended March 31, 2006 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at March 31, 2006 is $345,765. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of March 31, 2006 Agenda Item 8C 35 • CONSULTANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2005 SCAG Advanced Marketing MHV Enterprises, Inc. MBI Media ERA lei ly 110 AMOUNT USED SINGLE SIGAll E AUTHORITY AS OF MARCH 31, 2006 ORIGINAL CONTRACT REMAINING DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT $500,000.00 Amendment # 1 for travel demand analysis 12,235.00 for San Jacinto branch lineil-215 corridor study Commuter assistance mail -house fulfillment 25,000.00 services Amendment # 3 software development programming 8 support services Video Services - RCTC Video Riverside County Land Value Trends Less return of remaining contract value due to expiration: AMOUNT USED, net of adjustments AMOUNT REMAINING through March 31, 2006 Towa Reabroi-DeMorsl Michele Cisneros Prepared by Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the third quarter. 36 24,000.00 40,000.00 28,000.00 154,235.00 154,235.00 $345,765.00 0.00 12,235.00 14,227.99 10,772.01 24,000.00 0.00 8,917.64 26,555.00 I g bl �a 98,700.63 31,082.36 1,445.00 55,534,37 AGENDA ITEM 8D RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Legislative Body Reimbursement Policy STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission Legislative Body Reimbursement Policy; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 06-008, A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Riverside County Transportation Commission Legislative Body Reimbursement Policy;" and 3) Authorize the Executive Committee to review and take action on subsequent amendments to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Legislative Body Reimbursement Policy. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2005, the Governor approved AB 1234, which imposes ethics training and compensation and reimbursement requirements on cities, counties, and special districts. This legislation took effect on January 1, 2006. Since Commissioners are appointed by their respective city councils or represent the County's Board of Supervisors, the required two hours of ethics training is expected to be met at each Commissioner's local jurisdiction from where he or she is elected. Although not required under AB 1234, the Commission will offer the ethics training to members of the Citizens Advisory Committee. AB 1234 also places certain limitations on how legislative body members may be compensated for attending meetings and reimbursed for travel, lodging and meals. It also restricts the manner in which they are reimbursed. Additionally, AB 1234 requires legislative body members seeking reimbursement to file an expense report and make a report on the meeting or conference attended. Agenda Item 8D 37 Staff has prepared a legislative body member reimbursement policy that complies with the 'provisions of AB 1234. Legal counsel has reviewed and approved the reimbursement policy. Attachments: 1) Legislative Body Reimbursement Policy 2) Resolution No. 06-008 Agenda Item 8D 38 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LEGISLATIVE BODY REIMBURSEMENT POLICY I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Reimbursement Policy ("Policy") is to set forth policies governing the reimbursement of members of any RCTC "legislative body" as that term is defined in Government Code section 54952 ("Legislative Body Members") for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties. The term "Legislative Body Members" shall not apply to the Technical Advisory Committee. Whenever issues of remuneration and reimbursement of RCTC's Legislative Body Members arise, RCTC shall adhere to this Policy and Government Code sections 53232.2 and 53232.3. H. COMPENSATION FOR MEETINGS AND CONFERENCES Legislative Body Members, exclusive of members of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), shall be entitled to receive compensation for attendance of any of the following`. (i) a meeting of the legislative body; (ii) a meeting of an advisory body; (iii) a conference or organized educational activity conducted in compliance with Government Code section 54952.2, including but not limited to ethics training required by Government Code section 53234. III. TRANSPORTATION A. Use of Personal Vehicle. RCTC shall reimburse Legislative Body Members for mileage incurred when they use their vehicles to attend meetings of a legislative or advisory body, conferences, or other meetings in furtherance of RCTC's affairs. RCTC will reimburse mileage for travel to and from the destination based upon the approved Internal Revenue Service mileage reimbursement rate in effect. Whenever a Legislative Body Member uses his or her vehicle, it shall be fully insured. B. Rentals. RCTC shall reimburse Legislative. Body Members for actual and necessary vehicle rental expenses when there is no other economical and convenient transportation available. When there are multiple attendees consisting of Legislative Body Members and/or staff at the same meeting or conference, attendees are encouraged to share car rentals to minimize RCTC's expense, when feasible. RCTC shall only reimburse economy or compact rate vehicles unless (i) such class of vehicle is unavailable; or (ii) such class of vehicles do not accommodate a disability. When a Legislative Body Member rents a vehicle, he or she shall obtain insurance for the vehicle at RCTC's expense. Fuel charges for car rentals shall be reimbursed at actual costs. C. Shuttle, Bus, Taxi, and Public Transportation. Shuttle, bus, taxi, and public transportation may be used between an airport, hotel and conference site whenever it is available. Legislative Body Members are encouraged to use the most efficient mode of transportation available. Actual costs, including gratuities, shall be reimbursed. 39 D. Air Travel or Other Common Carrier Transportation. As necessary for the performance of their official duties, Legislative Body Members may use air travel or other mode of common carrier transportation to and from the destination. Legislative Body Members are encouraged to use the most efficient means available. Air travel shall be at coach accommodations, unless the cost differential between upper class and coach accommodation is less than $10, or single class service. Selection of carrier, reservations, and ticketing should be arranged as early as feasible to obtain the greatest discount. If personal travel is combined with RCTC business -related travel by a Legislative Body Member, documentation of the RCTC business -related travel expenses shall be submitted. The Legislative Body Member shall only be reimbursed for the RCTC business -related portion of the travel IV. LODGING Lodging costs shall not exceed the maximum group rate published for standard accommodations at single occupancy rates by the conference or activity sponsor, provided that lodging at the group rate is available. If a group rate is not available, the government rate of the provider of lodging shall be used. If neither the group nor governments rates are available, the most economical rate shall be obtained. Pre/post-conference or pre/post-meeting lodging is available for regional and national travel requiring extensive travel time and adjustment: Pre-conference/pre-meeting lodging shall be offered for regional travel if such conference/meeting starts at or before 9:00 a.m. Lodging for local travel will be permitted if the length of the conference/meeting is more than one day and the distance is more than 60 Endes from RCTC's offices or the Legislative Body Member's residence, whichever is more, or if the Legislative Body Member's presence is necessary for RCTC business -related activities before or after the regular conference hours. . MEALS The actual costs of meals incurred while attending conferences or other meetings in furtherance of RCTC's affairs are reimbursable provided RCTC staff is given a receipt. Meal costs shall be reimbursed at an amount not greater than $50 per day. The meal rate of $50.00 per day shall be - deemed the reasonable rate of reimbursement for meal expenses and may be increased to $60 for certain urbanized areas (e.g., New York; Washington, D.C.; San Francisco; and Chicago). In the event submitted receipts are less than $50.00 per day, Legislative Body Members shall only receive reimbursement equal to the actual amount spent on meals as reflectedin his or her submitted receipts. When a Legislative Body Member is traveling with RCTC staff, the meal rate of $50.00 per day shall be reduced by the cost of a meal(s) for a Legislative Body Member paid for by RCTC staff. 40 • • VI. INCIDENTAL EXPENSES Incidental expenses incurred related to parking fees and toll charges are reimbursable provided RCTC staff is given a receipt. Other incidental expenses related to miscellaneous gratuities, which were not previously noted, shall not exceed $10 per day. VII. PERSONAL EXPENSES AND OTHER EXPENSES NOT REIMBURSABLE RCTC shall not reimburse the cost of transportation, lodging, meals, or other costs of travel when such costs are of a personal nature incurred in conjunction with the performance of RCTC official duties. Personal costs, not reimbursable by RCTC, shall include, but not be limited, to the following: (i) alcoholic beverages; (ii) parking and traffic violations; (iii) entertainment; (iv) services provided by the provider of lodging; and (v) expenses incurred on behalf of a spouse, dependent, or traveling companion. VIII. CONFERENCES AND OTHER MEETINGS Legislative Body Members shall only receive reimbursement of travel, lodging, and meals for conferences or other meetings in furtherance of RCTC's affairs. No other occurrence will be reimbursed unless approved in advance by the RCTC Board of Commissioners in a public meeting. IX. EXPENSE REPORTS RCTC shall not reimburse any expense until an Expense Claim Form is submitted to RCTC within a reasonable time after incurring the expense. Reimbursable expenses shall be limited to actual and necessary expenses incurred in attending conferences or other meetings in furtherance of RCTC's affairs. Expense Claim Forms shall be accompanied by receipts documenting each expense. Furthermore, upon returning from a conference or educational event, where expenses are reimbursed by the RCTC, the Legislative Body Member will either prepare a written report for distribution to his or her legislative body, or make a brief oral report during the next regular meeting of his or her legislative body. X. EXPENSES NOT INCLUDED WITHIN POLICY Expenses which do not fall within this Policy or the Internal Revenue Service reimbursable rates must be approved by the RCTC Board of Conunissioners in a public meeting before the expense is incurred. XI. CANCELLED (RAVEL If expenses are prepaid by RCTC and are not used, RCTC shall require reimbursement unless the reason for not attending was due to personal illness or an event that impeded good faith efforts to attend. The RCTC Executive Director or designee will review all cancelled travel and determine whether reimbursement is due. 41 XII. MODIFICATIONS The forgoing provisions may be reviewed and amended by the RCTC Board of Commissioners. 42 i RESOLUTION NO. 06-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LEGISLATIVE BODY REIMBURSEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") currently retains the authority to add, delete or otherwise modify the Commission's policies and procedures; and WHEREAS, the Commission is required to establish a legislative body reimbursement policy in accordance with AB 1234. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, that the Riverside County Transportation Commission has adopted a legislative body reimbursement policy in accordance with the provisions of AB 1234. The Executive Committee is also granted the authority to add, delete or otherwise modify the Commission's legislative body reimbursement policies and procedures. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10t' day of May, 2006. Marion Ashley, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board 43 I, Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 06-008 was duly and regularly adopted by the Executive Committee at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10`h day of May, 2006, and that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of said Resolution. Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board ' 44 AGENDA ITEM 8E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 91/Green River Interchange Cost Increase PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve funding the $2,622,000 cost increase on the SR 91/Green River Interchange project by increasing the commercial paper fund source from $10,898,400 to $13,520,400. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Recently, Caltrans prepared the Final Engineer's Estimate for the SR 91 /Green River Interchange project resulting in a cost increase of $2,622,000 for a total construction cost of $20,752,000. The project is ready to go to construction and all funds must be committed prior to advertisement. At its January 23, 2006 meeting, an item was presented to the Commission regarding the cost increase on the SR 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project based on bids received. The agenda item also addressed future funding needs for the SR 60 HOV and SR 91 /Green River Interchange project. A master funding agreement between Caltrans and RCTC was developed to memorialize previous AB 3090 commitments on the SR 60 HOV and SR 91/Green River Interchange projects, and stipulated how future cost increases would be funded. The January 23, 2006 agenda item identified the funding of the SR 91/Green River Interchange construction as follows: $10,898,400 Commercial Paper $ 3,1 14,600 TUMF Funds $ 4,1 17,000 Federal Demonstration Funds $18,130,000 Total Construction Cost (based on the Engineer's estimate in Dec 05) As outlined in the master funding agreement, the Commission will provide funding for any cost increases on the SR 91/Green River Interchange project and Caltrans Agenda Item 8E I I will repay its share by programming future Interregional .Improvement Program (HP) funds on the 60/215 East Junction Connector project or any other 'project the Commission designates. The funding split for Ca'trans and the "Commission is 72% and 28%, respectively. This funding split will apply to all cost .increases that may occur over the duration of the project. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the increase of $2,622,000 by increasing the Commercial Paper fund source from $10,898,400 to $13,520,400. This cost increase results in Ca!trans programming an additional $1,887,840 (72% commitment) of future IIP funds on the 60/215. East Junction Connector project or other: project designated by the Commission. Financial Information In fiscal Year Budget: Yes No Year: FY 2005/06 FY 20©5/06 Amount:' $10,$98,400 $2,622,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Adjustment: Yes. GLA No.: A303 31 81301 P8100 80 $2,622,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved:\144,1"..matimiti c Date: 4/20/06 Agenda Item BE 46 AGENDA ITEM 8F • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County 2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Financial Resolution and Adoption of Resolution No. 06-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying that Riverside County Has Resources to Fund Projects in Fiscal Years 2006/2007 Through 2011/2012 Transportation Improvement Program and Affirming Commitment to Implement All Projects in the Program" PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt the Riverside County 2006 Transportation Improvement Program Financial 'Resolution No. 06-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying that Riverside County Has Resources to Fund Projects in Fiscal Years 2006/2007 Through 2011/2012 Transportation Improvement Program and Affirming Commitment to Implement All Projects in the Program", for submittal to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) be adopted and included in federally approved statewide documents before receiving federal funds for transportation projects. The RTIP must be updated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) at least every two years, or within six months after adoption of a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. The RTIP implements projects identified in the first six years of the long-range RTP. SCAG, as the MPO, adopted the 2004 RTIP Update in August 2004 with federal approval occurring in October 2004. Therefore, the RTIP is required to be updated and approved by SCAG prior to October 2006. Federal regulations require SCAG to determine that the RTIP 1) conforms to the adopted air plans in the region; 2) is financially constrained; and 3) affirms project commitments. The attached Agenda Item 8F 47 resolution must be included in the 2006 RTIP Update to "certify that the Riverside County portion = of the RTIP is financially constrained and to affirm the Commission's commitment to implement its projects. "financial Constraint" and "Project Commitment" is defined as follows: A. financial Constraint: The Commission must certify that the Riverside County TIP is financially constrained (projects are not programmed in excess of fund levels) and that the funding may be reasonably expected to carry out the program. B. Project Commitment: The Commission must affirm that their highest priorities for funding are the projects in the 2006 RTIP. The affirmation is specifically targeted to enforceable Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). TCMs are strategies/projects employed to reduce emissions • from on -road mobile sources. Over the past nine months, staff has reviewed projects submitted by Ca!trans, local agencies, and transit operators in Riverside County to ensure that each project ;has a clearly identified funding source and schedule. Projects that completed construction were identified and removed from the RTIP, while other projects were . added or modified. All project programming was accomplished with the concurrence of each project sponsor. The end result is that Riverside County projects are consistent with the financial constraint and TCM implementation' requirements of SAFETEA-LU. The 2006 RTIP Update is scheduled for approval by the SCAG Regional Council in August 2006. SCAG subsequently will pursue the necessary state and federal approvals for the 2006 RTIP. These approvals are anticipated to occur in October 2006. Attachment: Resolution No. 06-006 Agenda Item 8F 48 • RESOLUTION 06-006 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING THAT RIVERSIDE COUNTY HAS RESOURCES TO FUND PROJECTS IN FISCAL YEARS 2006-2007 THROUGH 2O11-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT_ PROGRAM AND AFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT ALL PROJECTS IN THE PROGRAM WHEREAS, Riverside County is located within the metropolitan planning boundaries of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); and WHEREAS, the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires SCAG to adopt a regional transportation improvement program for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the SAFETEA-LU also requires that the regional transportation improvement program include a financial plan that demonstrates how the transportation improvement program can be implemented; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is the agency responsible for short-range capital and service planning and programming for the Riverside County area within SCAG; and WHEREAS, as the responsible agency for short-range transportation planning, the RCTC is responsible for developing the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), including all projects utilizing federal and state highway and transit funds; and WHEREAS, the RCTC must determine annually the total amount of funds that may be available for transportation projects within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the RCTC has adopted the FY 2006-07 through 2011-12 Riverside County TIP for FY 2006-07 through 2008-09 for funding purposes and has adopted the TIP for FY 2009-10 through 2011-12 for programming purposes and to allow environmental work on approved projects to proceed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission that it affirms its continuing commitment to the projects in the FY 2006-07 through 2011-12 Riverside County TIP; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FY 2006-07 through 2011-2012 Riverside County TIP Financial Plan identifies the resources which may be reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the program, and that the RCTC certifies to the following: 49 1 The projects in the FY 2006-07 through 2011-2012 'Riverside County TIP remain the highest priority for funding by the RCTC, 2 All projects in the State Highways component of the FY 2006-07 through 2011-12 Riverside County TIP have been included in the County's projects for inclusion in the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that is scheduled to be approved by the California Transportation Commission in April 2006, and as requested by state laws and amended by SB45, 3 All projects in the State Highways component of the FY 2006-07 through 2011-12 Riverside County TIP have complete funding for each programming phase identified in the Federal State Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP), 4 Riverside County has the funding capacity :in its county Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air 'Quality (CMAQ) program allocations to fund all of the projects in the 2006-07 through 2011-12 Riverside County TIP, 5 Local Matching funds for projects financed with federal STP and CMAQ Program funding have been identified in the Financial Plan, and 6 All the Federal Transit Administration funded projects are programmed within SAFETEA-LU Guaranteed Funding Levels: APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at its meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 ATTEST: BY: BY: Marion Ashley, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board 50 AGENDA ITEM 8G • S • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, 'Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 06-45-050-00 with the Department of California Highway Patrol for Operation of the Freeway Call Box System from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-45-050-00 with the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol, for the operation of the call box system from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), and the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), previously entered into agreements to reimburse the CHP for all costs associated with the implementation and operation of the call box system in Riverside County. Legislation required the CHP to answer all call box calls and provide central dispatching services for SAFE call box motorist aid systems in areas of CHP jurisdiction and within Caltrans right-of-way. However, SB 396, enacted July 21, 1997, authorized the SAFEs to contract with private call answering centers (CAC), with the coordination and approval of the CHP. Subsequently, the Riverside County call box program entered into an agreement with San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to share the costs of a CAC. The CAC began answering all of the call box calls on February 9, 2002, and only true emergencies calls are sent to the CHP. All other non -emergency calls are either routed through a remote message system (similar to e-mail) to the CHP for its information or are handled by the CAC. The Commission is still required to reimburse the CHP for its proportionate share of the CHP SAFE Coordinator position. Agenda Item 8G 51 The attached agreement is for a three year period from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009, along with a one-year option. The total amount of the agreement shall not exceed $19,700 with the annual amounts payable to CHP at $6,300, $6,600 and $6,800 per fiscal year. The additional one year option through;; June 30, 2010 is at an amount not to exceed $7,100. Financial Information In Fiscal. Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $6,300 Source of Funds: SAFE DMV Fees Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 202-45-81016 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \l'fblidzaJt U7�to' Date: 4/24/06 Attachment: Agreement No. 06-45-050-00 Agenda Item 8G 52 CHP Agreement #6R047000 SB AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of California acting by and through Department of California Highway Patrol, hereinafter called CHP, and Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, hereinafter called SAFE, under provisions of California Vehicle Code Sections 2421.5 and 9250.10, and Streets and Highway Code Section 131.1 and Chapter 14 (conunencing with Section 2550) to Division 3. WITNESSETH: By and in consideration of the covenants and conditions herein contained, CHP and SAFE do hereby agree as follows: 1. The term of this agreement shall be July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009. 2. This Agreement is for services and assistance provided by CHP in accordance with the "CHP/Caltrans Call Box and Motorist Aid Guidelines," as they may be revised from time to time, attached hereto as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference, and shall be referred to as the "GUIDELINES". 3. This Agreement shall not become. effective until (1) SAFE has submitted to CHP a copy of the resolution, order, motion, or ordinance from SAFE approving execution of this agreement and identifying the individual authorized to sign on behalf of SAFE, and (2) that this Agreement isduly signed by both parties. 4. That SAFE shall notify CHP in writing, no later than January 31, 2009, that SAFE wishes to extend the services and assistance rendered by CHP pursuant to this Agreement for one (1) additional year. If CHP is so notified, this Agreement shall be in effect through June 30, 2010, and the total amount payable to CHP for this additional year of service shall not exceed $7,100.00, unless otherwise determined by CHP cost analysis to be greater. 5. This Agreement may be modified in writing and signed by both parties, and shall be modified by the parties to conform to any future changes to federal or state law which affect the terms of this Agreement. 6. Because of the time and expense early termination would entail to both parties, either party may terminate this agreement before the expiration of its term, or any extension, upon six (6) months prior written notice to the other party. 53 CHP Agreement #6R047000 S13 7. Notwithstanding subparagraph 6, CHP or SAFE may terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to SAFE should SAFE be financially unable to reimburse CHP for services under this Agreement. 8. For services and assistance herein, SAFE agrees to reimburse CHP quarterly, in arrears and upon receipt of an itemized invoice, for charges identified in Section 20 Item f. Upon receipt, payment shall be made to CHP as invoiced within sixty (60) days. If payment is not submitted because of a dispute, SAFE shall submit the reasons for the dispute to CHP within sixty (60) days of receiving the invoice charges. a: Payment shall be made to: Department of California Highway Patrol Fiscal Management Section P.O. Box 942900 Sacramento, CA 94298-2900 b. Invoices shall be sent to: Riverside County SAFE P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 9. The maintenance of the call box system (outside of CHP communications center), including telephone service and line costs, shall be the sole responsibility of SAFE. 10. The SAFE may contract with the CHP to perform duties as mutually agreed by the parties. As long as SAFE operates a private Call Answer Center that initially answers motorist aid call box calls, CHP and SAFE agree that no CHP operator positions shall be charged to SAFE during the term of this Agreement. However, if billing is necessary, Annex FI of the GUIDELINES shall be used for the billing purposes if a residual worldoad can be substantiated. 11. The SAFE shall pay for its proportional share of the actual wage rate for one (1) CHP SAFE Coordinator position, and SAFE's proportional share of computer equipment costs (including software), when applicable, for one (1) CHP SAFE Coordinator. The SAFE Coordinator position, as well as the reimbursable computer equipment (including software), shall be used exclusively for SAFE related business. 12. Each SAFE's proportional share billing "factor" shall be determined at the beginning of each fiscal year by comparing the number of motor. vehicles registered within each SAFE'S boundaries to the total number of motor vehicles registered in all counties who have entered into SAFE agreements with CHP: This proportional share shall be billed 54 CHP Agreement #6R047000 SB over four. (4) fiscal quarters. The CHP shall include an estimation of SAFE Coordinator's personnel and computer equipment costs in the annual staffing estimation. 13. Call box calls shall be handled by CHP communications centers as third level priority - after 911 (first priority) and allied agency (second priority) calls. The CHP statewide standard level of service for the handling of call box calls is as follows: a. Call box calls shall be handled as rapidly as possible, however they should be' handled ideally no longer than sixty (60) seconds after the first ring at the communications center. Experience has shown that when emergency • communications traffic becomes unusually heavy, call box traffic also increases. At these times, motorists may be required to wait several minutes for service. b. Call box calls should be handled ideally within a 3.5 minute (210 seconds) total call handling time. However, it is understood that the use of such services, as the Translation Service Contractor, shall increase total call handling time to levels above this standard. . 14. The CHP shall be responsible for the procurement, installation, and maintenance of all communications center equipment related to the call box/motorist aid system. All systems procured for CHP dispatch operation shall be designed by CHP. No equipment shall be installed in a CHP facility which does not meet all CHP operational and technical specifications. 15. All communications center equipment purchased under this agreement shall become the sole property of CHP. 16. If CHP ceases to provide freeway call box dispatching services, CHP shall pay to SAFE that proportion of the fair market value of all equipment purchased for CHP in whole or part with SAFE funding. The current fair market value shall be determined by Telecommunications Division, Department of General Services, at the time of cessation of service. 17. The CHP shall review SAFE's plans and specifications for upgrading or modifying SAFE'S call box system, and provide written comments within sixty (60) days of submittal by SAFE. If the sixty (60) day time frame cannot be met, CHP shall notify SAFE, in writing, specifying the reasons and indicating the additional time required. It is understood that all upgrades or modifications to SAFE's system shall be in accordance with the GUIDELINES. 18. The CHP shall submit an itemized invoice quarterly to SAFE which may include the following ongoing charges: 55 CHP Agreement #6R047000 SB a The SAFE Coordinator personnel costs shall be based on the actual step of the wage scale for SAFE Coordinator position at the time of invoicing. These costs are subject to change according to increases and/or decreases in State of California salary and benefit rates, which are beyond CHP control. b. Indirect Costs shall be applied to monthly personnel costs in accordance with California State Administrative Manual Section 8752 and 8752.1. The indirect cost rate is determined by CHF and approved by the California Department of Finance and is subject to change each state fiscal year. The re-evaluation of staffing requirements shall include an explanation of the projected upcoming fiscal year indirect cost rate. c. Computer equipment costs (including software), when applicable, associated with CHP SAFE Coordinator position. Telephone system costs (if applicable) The state shall provide a standard communication center telephone system which shall also be used to handle incoming call box calls. Any agreed upon changes above the standard phone system design, specifically requested by SAFE Program shall be funded by SAFE. e. The total amount of this agreement shall not exceed $19,700.00. FY 06/07 (7/1/06 through 6/30/07), not to exceed $6,300.00 FY 07/08, (7/1/07 through 6/30/08), not to exceed $6,600.00 FY 08/09 (7/1/08 through 6/30/09), not to exceed $6,800.00 19. The CHP agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless SAFE, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, suppliers, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this agreement, and from any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature,. accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by any negligent act or omission by CHP in the performance of this agreement. Indemnification by CHP includes, without limitation, the payment of all penalties, fines, judgments, awards,decrees, attorneys' fees, and related costs or expenses, and the reimbursement of SAFE, its elected 56 CHP Agreement #6R047000 SB . officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers for all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them. The CHP's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by SAFE, its elected officials; officers; employees, agents, or volunteers. The SAFE agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless CHP, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from any and all claims,_ losses, demands, causes ofaction, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, suppliers, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying .work services; materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this agreement, and from any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action, liabilities, obligations, judgments; or damages, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by any negligent act or omission by SAFE in the performance of this agreement. Indemnification by SAFE includes, without limitation, the payment of all penalties, fines, judgments, awards, decrees, attorneys' fees, and related costs or expenses, and the reimbursement of CHP, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers for all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them. The SAFE'S obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by CHP, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. 20. Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this agreement which is not disposed of by mutual agreement of the parties may be submitted to an independent arbitrator mutually agreed upon by CHP and SAFE. The arbitrator's decisions shall be non -binding and advisory only, and nothing herein shall preclude either party, at any time, from pursuing any other legally available course of action, including the filing of a law suit. Pending a final decision of a dispute hereunder, both parties shall proceed diligently. with the performance of their duties under this agreement, and such continuedperformance shall not constitute a waiver of any rights, legal or equitable, of either party relating to the dispute. 21. All services under this Agreement shall be coordinated by: Department of the California Highway Patrol Telecommunications Sections 860 Stillwater Road West Sacramento, CA 95605 (916)375-2901 The contact person shall be CHP SAFE Coordinator. 57 CRP Agreement #612047000 SB 22. This agreement, and any attachments or documents incorporated herein by inclusion or. . reference, constitutes the complete and entire agreement between CHP and SAFE and supersedes any prior representations, understandings, communications, commitments, agreements or proposals, oral or written. 23. Under no circumstances shall SAFE or its subcontractor(s) use the name California Highway Patrol or CHP to promote a product which is part of the call box system without the written consent of CHP. STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY Department of California Highway Patrol Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies R. O. VARGAS Chair Administrative Services Officer Date Date Department of California Highway Patrol Business Services Section Contract Services Unit P.O. Box 942898 ,Sacramento, CA 94198-0001 58 Legal Counsel, Riverside SAFE Date Riverside County SAFE P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 • AGENDA ITEM 8H • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Brian Cunanan, Staff Analyst Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 06-45-046-00 for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-45-046-00 to Tri-City Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 2 of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program at a cost of $50.00 per hour per truck; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the . agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission; acting in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), released a Request for Proposal on September 29, 2005 for tow truck service on Beat Nos. 2, 25, and 26 of the FSP program. On December 14, 2005, the Commission awarded agreements to Pepe's Towing for Beat No. 25 and Hamner Towing for Beat Nos. 2 and 26. Hamner Towing was scheduled to start Beat No. 2 (Figure 1.0) on July 3, 2006, upon expiration of the current provider's contract. However, on April 5, 2006, staff received the attached letter from Hamner Towing expressing that it could no longer carry out the tow service commitments for Beat No. 2. It cited increasing fuel and insurance costs and recruitment difficulties as reasons for this decision. Staff and members of the original evaluation committee from the San Bernardino Associated Governments, Inland CHP, and Ca[trans District 8 met on April 17, 2006, and recommend awarding Beat No. 2 to Tri-City Towing, the only other tow provider to bid on this beat. Tri-City towing is the current tow provider for Beat No. 2 and has agreed to lower its rate from $52.75 per hour as originally proposed in its bid to $50.00 per hour. This rate aligns more closely to the rates for Beat Nos. 25 and 26, Agenda Item 8H 59 which are $48.50 and $49.50 respectively. If awarded, the agreement with Tri-City Towing for tow service on Beat No. 2, will be for a three-year term with two one -.year options.. Figure 1.0: Freeway Service Patrol Beat No. 2 Description_ SR-91, Lincoln Avenue to Magnolia Avenue (5.6 miles) Hours of Operation: 5:00a.m. to 8:30a.m.; 3:00p.m.to 7-00p.m. Current FSP Provider: Tri-City Towing Recommend Award to: Tri-City Towing All obligations incurred by the Commission under the terms of this award are funded 80% from state funds and 20% from local SAFE fees and are subject to continued funding from the state of California for the Riverside County FSP program. Financial Information In fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $93,700 Source of Funds: State of California - 80% SAFE DMV Fees - 20% Budget Ad ustment: g N GLA No.: 201-45-81014 1 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \p etiotta Date: , 4/24/06 Attachment: Letter from Hamner Towing Agenda Item 8H 60 Graovi er ✓ �xrir �a fsio. Corona, California 4/5/2006 R.C.T.C. 4080 Lemon St, 3"1 Floor Riverside, Ca. 42502-2208 RE: Freeway Service Patrol Beat #2 Dear Jerry Rivera & Brian Cunanan: 76312 AM/JR/BC I regret to inform you that we are declining to take the responsibility of performing under contract for Beat #2 of the F.S.P. program. I apologize for timing and inconvenience of this decision. However, with our current business situation I am not comfortable performing on this additional beat and running it effectively for your organization. As you may recall at the time when the bids were being reviewed, we informed you that we anticipated being awarded only one of the three beats despite bidding on each one. When we received word that we were to be awarded Beat #26, we have continually worked to get a head start finding qualified drivers to operate on Beat #2_ The results of our efforts have been extremely disappointing. These efforts have generated a high cost in time spent interviewing and training prospects that haven't worked out; not to mention the costs of frequent advertisements that we have done to attract potential applicants. The disappointment from failing to hire good prospects is not the only basis for this decision. You are aware of the ever increasing costs of fuel and insurance that is affecting every business and individual especially in Califomia. Specifically, the profitability of this industry is in jeopardy and our company is no different. This up coming year is going to be very difficult. Due to these negative forces, our company must make other difficult decisions and redefine the coarse we are to head in if we are to return to a profitable direction and cope with our costs of doing business. Once again we sincerely apologize for the action we must take. The last thing we at Hamner Towing wish to do is hurt the performance of our team of organizations (R.C.T.C., C.H.P. and Caitrans). We realize there is never enough time to complete the contract award process let alone start over again with the same deadline. Hopefully we have left enough time to find a suitable contractor to still meet the July start date_ We will continue to operate on the two beats we are currently under contract on. We are totally committed to their successful operations until their respective termination dates. Please feel free to contact me anytime. Regretfully Yours, Dennis Horvath, President Hamner Towing Inc. • 61 V.27.05.01 • AGENDA ITEM 81 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2006/07 and 2007/08 Call for Projects: Measure A Specialized Transportation Program: Western Riverside County PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION; This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the requests for Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in western Riverside County for Beaumont Adult School, Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County, Care A Van Transit, Inc., City of Norco, Friends of Moreno Valley, inland AIDS Project, Operation Safe House, Partnership to Preserve Independent Living, and Riverside County Regional Medical Center in an amount not to exceed $1,248,515 in FY 2006/07 and $1,286,196 in FY 2007/08; 2) Authorize RCTC's Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to enter into funding agreements as appropriate; 3) Direct staff to work' with Blindness Support Services, CASA, Care Connexxus, Inc., Department of Mental Health Riverside County, Volunteer Center of Riverside County, and Whiteside Manor, Inc. to seek additional information/clarification on project requests; 4) Authorize an interim payment to Blindness Support ($16,336), Care Connexxus ($32,500), and Volunteer Center of Riverside County ($22,752), based on FY 2004/05's funding agreements, covering the months of July through September so that their services continue without interruption. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. In July 2005, the Commission authorized staff to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the western Riverside County Measure A Specialized Transportation Program for the provision of non -emergency medical transportation services If staff's recommendation is approved, it is anticipated that additional information/clarification from the various applicants can be reviewed within a 90 day period. Agenda Item 81 62 i INEMT). The RFP was designed to include, but not be limited to, the provision of non -emergency medical transportation for: 1) Medical appointments to veterans' administration facilities; 2) Inter -regional transportation for medical ,appointments; and 3) Dialysis, chemotherapy and/or radiation medical appointments. The RFP/Call for Projects was released in February 2006 and was mailed to approximately 280 potential applicants. The RFP also included the two-year call for projects that is traditionally conducted for the provision of specialized transportation services as part of Ordinance No. 88-1 (the original Measure A half -.cent sales tax initiative), which set aside funding for niche -market specialized transportation services that benefit seniors, persons with disabilities or the truly needy residents of western Riverside County. " The 'Commission received applications from 162 non-profit and public agencies requesting funding in the total amount of $3,012,460 for FY 2006/07 and $2,659,295 for FY 2007/08. A six member Evaluation Committee consisting of a former transportation coordinator for the Inland Regional Center, the County of Riverside's_ Director of Veterans' affairs, two members from the Commissions' Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, and two Commission staff members met with Measure A applicants on Friday, April 28, 2006 to review the applications, Each grant applicant made a brief presentation to the Evaluation Committee followed by a question and answer session (approximately 30 minutes per applicant). Among other things, the application process required that agencies .,identify the dollar amount of funds requested, the amount and source of match funds, the overhead allocation and the dollar amount of "in -kind services proposed to be provided. The attached spreadsheet provides an overview of funding requested together with a summary of proposed services. The spreadsheet is separated into two parts: 1) Projects Recommended for Funding; and 2) Projects Recommended for Further Review. Projects Recommended For Funding Of the 15 projects submitted, the Evaluation Committee recommended that funding be provided for the following projects: Beaumont Adult School requested funding for the provision of bus transportation specifically to pick up low-income families with small children, transportingthem to the Family Literacy Program at Adult School; 2 One proposal was submitted late and as a result was disqualified from the review process. Agenda Item 81 63 • Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County for the provision of transportation to and from schools located in Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Temecula for low-income children between the ages of 6 and 18 years old. Some recreational and educational field trips will also be provided. On average this target population is 40% below the Riverside County poverty threshold; Care A Van Transit, Inc. primarily provides specialized transit services to seniors, disabled and low-income population within the city limits of Hemet including recreational, medical as well as grocery shopping shuttles. Proposed services include the expansion of a non -emergency medical shuttle to medical facilities located in Loma Linda, California; City of Norco for the provision of specialized transportation services for elderly and disabled population residing in the city of Norco and the Swan Lake area for medical, nutrition, entertainment and shopping trips; Friends of Moreno Valley for the provision of specialized transit services (within a 35 mile radius) to seniors, disabled and low-income population for medical, nutrition and shopping excursions; Inland AIDS Project provides specialized transportation services for persons with HIV/AIDS to medical, dental, social service and other health related appointments; Operation Safe House is dedicated to the safety and well being of children in crises by providing a 24-hour emergency shelter in Riverside County for runaway, homeless and at -risk youth ages between the ages of 12 and 18; Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities operates a volunteer driver program which provides mileage reimbursement to transport frail seniors and persons with disabilities that otherwise would be homebound and unable to access health services or provide for their daily needs. Program also provides information to seniors and persons with disabilities on the availability of transportation, including brochures and schedules for all specialized transit services; and Riverside County Regional Medical Center provides door-to-door non -emergency medical transportation to low-income population including seniors and disabled clients for clinic and dialysis appointments as well as medication pick-up. Escort services to clinic appointments are also provided. At the time of writing this agenda item, Commission staff is continuing to review overhead calculations, match funds and productivity levels presented in the applications. If additional information is required from the grant applicants, staff Agenda Item 81 64 will seek clarification and will make appropriate adjustments to the funding levels prior to entering into the contract process. Projects Recommended For Further Review Prior to recommending funding, the Evaluation Committee recommends that additional information/clarification be obtained from the following ,agencies: Blindness Support Services provides fixed route travel training to blind/visually impaired disabled western county residents. The agency has been a long-time recipient of Measure A Specialized Transit funding and staff continues to be in _ support of its travel training program; however, proposed program costs have significantly increased (103%) while the projected performance goal has remained at 60 participants; CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) is seeking funding to reimburse community based volunteers to transport the needy, low-income, abandoned and neglected children to medical, social and court appointments. The overall concept of this program has merit; however, concern relates to several areas including: 1) no priority on what trips will be reimbursed; 2) tracking mechanism for actual mileage reimbursement was not fully described; and 3) connection between dollar amount requested and "truly needy" was inadequately defined; Care Connexxus, Inc. provides specialized transportation services for participants in its adult day care programs. The agency specializes, in the care of the frail elderly with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders as well as providing support for their caregivers. Requested funding has significantly increased over current year (68%)• Overall, the Evaluation Committee believed that the request for funding. had merit; however, several areas of the application requires further development including performance goals, projected delivery date of identified equipment, coordination with public operators, as well as clarification on vehicle depreciation; Department of Mental Health - Riverside County is seeking funding to provide specialized transportation services for seniors, persons with disabilities and the truly needy or low-income populations who experience serious mental or emotional disabilities including substance abuse disorders. The Evaluation Committee had. numerous concerns with the proposal including:. 1) the proposed- use of electric vehicles that are non-ADA compliant; 2) the number of vehicles requested (20) compared to the number of proposed staff which was identified as 13; and 3) the low -productivity of each vehicle. Lastly, overall the proposed program did not identify theprocess of scheduling trips and/or the coordination of .trips which would greatly enhance productivity; Agenda Item 81 65 • Volunteer Center of Riverside County has been a long time recipient of Measure A Specialized Transit funding to distribute bus tickets and passes through various social service agencies to assist seniors, disabled and truly needy clients of social, educational and health agencies. for FY 2006/07 and FY 2007/08, the Volunteer Center is proposing to develop and implement an expanded travel coordination service that will examine and marry the needs of consumers, health and social service providers with existing and yet -to -be identified transportation sources. Concern regarding this program includes: 1) the FY 2004/05 Measure A audit is delinquent; 2) the costs for the bus ticket distribution program has significantly increased over prior years (132%); and 3) the expanded travel coordination service needs further development including, at a minimum, the types of data to be collected, reasons for the data collection as well as a plan for coordination/partnering with existing transportation providers to ensure non -duplication of data collection; and Whiteside Manor, Inc. is seeking funding to provide non -emergency medical transportation for its clients including veterans, seniors, disabled and truly needy. Whiteside Manor clients suffer from mental illness, the disease of alcoholism and/or drug addiction. While the overall concept of this application has merit, the proposed transportation service did not clearly identify program goals over and above what Whiteside is currently providing. By practice, the Commission does not supplant an agency's existing funds. If the recommendation is approved to seek additional information/clarification, staff will work with the applicants over the next 90 days. Information received will be distributed to the Evaluation Committee for review and further consideration prior to submitting to the Commission. Staff recommends that the following interim payments be provided so that current Measure A services can continue without interruption: Blindness Support Care Connexxus, Inc. Volunteer Center Agenda Item 81 $16,336 $ 32, 500 $22,752 Total: $ 71, 588 66 Financial Information In Fiscal Year ;Budget: Yes Year: 2006/07 Amount: $1,320,103 Source of Funds: Western Riverside Measure A Specialized Transit Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 225-26-86101 225-26-86102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14144.,d401. Date: 05/03/06 Attachment: Project Funding Recommendations Agenda Item 81 67 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM FY 2006/07 AND FY 2007f08 PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING: Recommended Funding "Up To" Pending Fina Review of Overhead, Match and Performance Goals Applicant - Geographic Location Proposed Services - FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 © ah� of Agency Beaumont Adult School Contract No: 06-26-051-00 City of Beaumont Transportation for low-income families with small children to attend the Family Literacy Program. $ 32,933 $ 36,266 �69,19�3': .; X t� v Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County Contract No.06-26-052-00 City of Temecula Specialized transportation (Temecula & Murrieta area) for school age children between6-18�� years old. $ 130,245 $ 74,896 r 2D531 .1 P„ Care -A, -Van Transit, Inc. Contrat No. 06-26-053-00 City of San Jacinto Specialized transportation services (primarily within Hemet City limits) to seniors, disabled and low income population. $ 233,000 - $ 245,025 $ : 478,D25: `> st City of Norco Contract No. 06-26-059-00 City of Norco Specialized transportation services for elderly and disabled population for medical, nutrition, entertainment and shopping. $ 72,484 $ 75,724 `° kj82UT ` i Friends of Moreno Valley Contract No. 06-26-054-00 City of Moreno Valley Specialized transportation services for seniors, disabled and low income population for medical, nutrition, shopping, in g, etc. $ 43,600 $ 47,773 $ a,3f7 #s x =- N Inland AIDS Project Contract No. 06-26-055-00 City ofRiversideSpecialized transportation services for persons with HIV/AIDS to medical, dental, social service and other health related appointments. $ 107,500 $ 100,000 �$ �x iFi $It0 d4" i Operation SafeHouse, Inc. Contract No. 06-26-056-00 City of Riverside Provides 24-hour emergency shelte in Riverside County for runaway, homeless and at -risk youth ages 12 to 18. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 cif U0d •� -: k � 2 Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Contract No. 06-26-057-00 City of Riverside Program provides incentives to encourage volunteer drivers to transport frail seniors and persons with disabilities that otherwise, would be home bound and unable to access health services or provide' for their daily needs. $ 386,998 $ 416,598 �� 8i€359& �z - �r Riverside County Regional Medical Center Contract No. 06-26-058-00 City of Moreno Valley Program provides non -emergency medical transportation to clinic appointments, dialysis appointment: and medication pick-up. $ 236,755 $ 284,915 �• A m '> b-p"-: r asa ® TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED/RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING: 68 Mikieittagital' $ 1,248,515 $ 1,286,196 $ 2,534,711 5/2/2006 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 Specialized Transit Measure A Call for Projects PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER REVIEW: Recommended Funding "Up To" Pending Fina Review of Overhead, Match'and Performance Goals Applicant Geographic Location Proposed Services FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 , gf %tai of Agency Blindness Support' Services City of Riverside Fixed route travel training to blind/visually impaired/disabled westem Riverside county residents. $ 128,311 $ 131,4655$ 7 6 �•72� C A S A (Court Appointed Special Advocates) for Riverside County, Inc. City of Indio Volunteer driver/mentor program for children (birth to 18 years old). Children have been removed from their homes by Child Protective $ 30,000 $ 30,000 6q 000; S v Care Connexxus, Inc. City of Riverside Specialized transportation services for participants in Adult Day Care programs. $ 210,000 $ 227,000 tF 7 080 L „' " �s 1 Department of Mental Health, County of Riverside - City of Riverside - Specialized transportation services for seniors, persons with disabilities and. the indy needy or low-income populations who experience serious mental or emotional disabilities" including substance abuse disorders. $ 1,120,113 $ 719,735 �.9,ti4i3: ?, r �' s Volunteer Center of Riverside County City of Riverside Distribution of bus tickets and passes through various social service agencies. Seniors, disabled` and truly needy clients comprise the program's target population. $ 203,438 $ 212,151 d $3r n x �� s Whiteside Manor, Inc. City of Riverside Specialized transportation program for veterans, nutrition and medical+ appointments.? $ 72,083 $ 52,748 e '3 r � � mm,Wfff K iM {1 V" TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED/RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER REVIEW: 69 $ 1,763,945 $ 1,373,099 $ 3,137,044 5t2r2oos FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 Specialized Transit Measure A Call for Projects AGENDA ITEM 8J RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Program Manager THROUGH: Eric 'Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Release Request for Proposals for On -Call Right -of -Way Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize the release of Request for Proposals (RFPs) for On -Call Right -of -Way Services in the field of: 1) Title and Escrow Services; 2) Right -of -Way Engineering and Surveying Services; 3) Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural Property Appraisal Services; 4) Goodwill Appraisal Services; 5) Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment Appraisal Services; 6) Review Appraisal Services; and 7) Right -of -Way Acquisition and Relocation, Real Property Searches, Identification and Feasibility Studies for Replacement and Mitigation Sites, Cost Estimates, and Utilities Relocation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Right -of -Way services are necessary to support current Commission projects and future Measure A highway and rail projects. These services are currently being procured as sub -consultant services and managed by consultants currently under contract with the Commission. In order to meet project schedules, control costs, and assure compliance with Federal and State regulations relating to right of way acquisition, staff recommends that the Commission approve the release of the following RFPs for On -Call Right -of -Way Services to be managed by Commission staff: 1) Title and Escrow Services Agenda Item 8J Title companies will provide preliminary title reports on all property and property interests to be acquired by the Commission. Preliminary title 70 reports provide the necessary information to ensure that the;. Commission is acquiring clear title to properties being purchased. Legal` owners of the property, 'liens and encumbrances, as well as existence and locations of utilities lines are some of the information contained in those reports. Escrow services are necessary to ensure -compliance vwith all conditions of purchase and sale agreements. 2) Right -of -Way Engineering and Surveying Services Right -of -Way engineering and survey companies provide boundary_ - maps, monumentation maps, survey control maps, records of survey, parcel or appraisal maps, lot line adjustments, subdivision maps, legal descriptions, and marking of the right of way for appraisal and utility potholing purposes. Preliminary title reports and right of way engineering and surveying services are essential elements of the appraisal process. 3) Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural Property Appraisal Services 4) Goodwill Appraisal Services 5) Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment Appraisal Services 6) Review Appraisal Services Appraisals are the basis for offers of just compensation to property owners whose property is being acquired for public use. Appraisal of properties to be acquired by public agencies is a highly specialized field. Appraisers performing this -service have to demonstrate knowledge and experience in complying with the requirements of. the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,.as amended and implemented by 49 CFR Part 24; the State of California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition -Guidelines (Title 25, California Code of Regulations Ch 6, Art 1, Section 6000 et seq.); and the California Code of Civil Procedure. Appraisal reports have to be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and insome cases, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. Agenda Item 8J 71 • • 7) Right -of -Way Acquisition and Relocation, Real Property Searches, Identification and Feasibility Studies for Replacement and Mitigation Sites, Cost Estimates, and Utilities Relocation. Consultants will provide services required for the. Commission to purchase right of way necessary to construct highway and rail projects. Services include acquisition of property, relocation of displaced individuals and businesses, real property searches, identification and feasibility studies for replacement and mitigation sites, right of way cost estimates, and the right of way component of utilities relocation. Selected consultants will be required to comply with federal and state regulations in the delivery of these services. One or more consultants will be selected for each right of way service based on established Commission policies and procedures. Cost will be based on time and materials and the term of each contract is three years with two one-year contract extension options, to be exercised at the sole discretion of the Commission. Work and assignments will be awarded to consultants on a rotating basis. Scopes of work and RFPs are currently being prepared and will be released by the end of May 2006 following approval of this item. Agenda Item 8J 72 AGENDA ITEM 8K RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Alameda Corridor East Trade Corridor Rail Crossing' Grade Separation Priority 'List with Switching Impact PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List incorporating switching activities and operational delay. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2005, the Commission approved the updated ACE Grade Separation Priority List. The prioritization of crossings is weighted in favor of safety and current and forecast delay. Additional factors in ranking include air quality, noise, nearby grade separations, and local jurisdiction preference. A request was made at that meeting to analyze whether switching activity and/or observed operating train speeds has a substantial impact on the list for the priority tiers. Over the last three months, Kimley-Horn and Associates has performed the additional analysis incorporating observed speeds and switching activity. Results of the Switching/Operating Delay Analysis Switching activity occurs when freight trains serve local businesses on spur tracks or industrial leads. The analysis identifies the majority of switching activity occurring on the Union Pacific (UP) (Los Angeles Subdivision). The most impacted crossing in Riverside County due to switching activities is the Jurupa Road grade crossing located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County on the UP LA Subdivision. 2005 Gate Down Time per Day (excluding switching) is 1 hour and 12 minutes; with switching it increases to 2 hours and 6 minutes. Table A summarizes measures of delay designed to illustrate the impact to Riverside County. Gate down time is a measurement that depends on the number, length, and speed of trains passing through the crossing. In general, the majority Agenda Item 8K 73 of the gate down time is experienced in the evening/night hours (between 7 p.m. , and 5 a.m.). TABLE A: Grade Crossing Impact by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Number of ACE Crossings 2005 Gate Down Time per Day _ 2030 Gate Down Time per Day Banning 4 6 hrs, 57 min 13 hrs, 34 min Beaumont 3 5 hrs; 3 min 10 hrs; 2 min Calimesa 1 1 hr, 41 min 3 hrs, 20 min Coachella 3 3 hrs, 48 min 7 hrs, 9 min Corona 8 14 hrs, 4 min 27 hrs, 12 min Palm Springs 1 1 hr, 41 min 3 hrs, 20 min Riverside 28 57 hrs, 53 min 114 hrs, 31 min Unincorporated 13 22 hrs, 33 min 43 hrs, 48 min TOTALS 61 113 hrs, 48 min 223 hrs, 5 min Change from October 2005 Update The actual observed train counts were lower and operating speeds were higher than those assumed in October 2005. These adjustments coupled with the switching delay impact results in the revised recommended Priority List, which is attached. Four crossings moved up to Priority Group No. 1: • Jurupa Road (County) • Magnolia Avenue (Riverside) • Sunset Avenue (Banning) • Riverside Avenue (Riverside) Five crossings moved up to Priority Group No. 2: • 22"d Street (Banning) • San Gorgonio Avenue (Banning) • Palmyrita Avenue (Riverside) • Spruce Street (Riverside) • Brockton Avenue (Riverside). Three crossings moved up to Priority Group No. 3: • Panorama Road (Riverside) • Bellgrave Avenue (County) • San Timoteo Canyon Road (Calimesa) Agenda Item 8K 74 • Five crossings moved down in priority group due to actual observations of lower train counts, train lengths and higher operating speeds: • Washington Street (Riverside) • Jefferson Street (Riverside) • Cridge Street (Riverside) • Radio Road (Corona) • Jane Street (Riverside) Attachment: October 2005 RCTC-ACE Grade Separation Priority List with Switching Agenda Item 8K 75 Total Priority Comparison Ref No. Rail Line Cross Street Jurisdiction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 UP (LA SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (LA SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) Jurupa Rd Chicago Av Magnolia Av 3rd St McKinley St Columbia Av (BNSF) Magnolia Av Sunset Av Riverside Av Iowa Av (BNSF) Adams St BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (LA SUB) Hargrave St Clay S BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/Dillon Road BNSF 8& UP (SB SUB) Center S UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Ave BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Palmyrita Av (UP) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) Spruce St (BNSF) Madison St Brockton Av BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce S UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 62 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St UP (LA SUB) Bel[grave Av UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 UP. (LA SUB) Palm Av UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) Washington St Apache Trail UP (LA SUB) Ruble S BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St UP (YUMA MAIN) Viele Av BNSF (SB SUB) Cota St UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway UP (LA SUB) Mountain View Av UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Drive BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St UP (YUMA MAIN) Tipton Rd BNSF (SB SUB) Radio Rd BNSF (SB SUB) Jane St UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 58 BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Change in priority group from October study Change in priority group due to switching Riverside County Riverside Riverside County Riverside Corona Riverside Riverside Banning Riverside Riverside Riverside Corona Banning Riverside County Corona Riverside Riverside Banning Indio/Coachella Riverside County Banning Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside County Corona Riverside Riverside Riverside County Riverside County Riverside Coachella Beaumont Calimesa Riverside Riverside County Riverside County Riverside Riverside Beaumont Corona Riverside County Riverside Riverside County Riverside County Riverside Beaumon Corona Riverside Palm Springs Corona Riverside Coachella Riverside County Corona Riverside 76 October Study Overall Weighted Score 3462 4380 4525 4060 3950 4000 3380 3500 2810 3820 3665 3438 3425 3235 3613 3135 3500 2375 3325 3283 2300 Group by percentile Update - Base Assmp. Overall Weighted Score Group by percentile 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2515 3 not included in study 3010 2845 3340 2400 3465 3090 2525 2925 1290 2800 2048 2158 1965 2233 1500 2100 2580 1727 1746 2380 2650 1983 2113 1604 1450 1892 1681 1805 917 1525 1545 1100 1400 1310 767 638 813 695 3512 4330 4250 4010 3950 3950 3355 3590 3238 3625 3535 3263 2910 3075 . B 8 2875 2808 2265 2700 2640 2250 2640 2590 2544 2475 1365 2400 2065 2040 2033 1983 1938 1904 1450 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Update - Switching Overall Weighted Score 4330 4250 4010 3950 3950 3770 3665 3638 3625 3535 3263 3110 3100 3075 2690 3 Group by percentile 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 2640 2590 2544 2475 2400 1983 1938 1904 1650 1592 1531 1330 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 AGENDA ITEM 8L • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Programs Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for interstate 15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize the release of a Request for Proposal for the purpose of performing an 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Commuter rail service has been a growing success in Riverside County since its inception in 1993 with the Riverside Line to Los Angeles. In 1995, the Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line began providing service to Orange County, followed most recently by the start of peak -period service on the SR-91 (Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles) Line in 2002. Also in 1993, the Commission acquired the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) with the eventual goal of providing passenger rail service. Upon completion of a commuter rail feasibility study in 2000, the Commission authorized staff to develop commuter rail service on the SJBL to Perris, known as the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project. Currently, the PVL project is in the environmental review phase and awaiting FTA approval to advance to preliminary engineering once acceptable modeling forecasts are produced. In November 2005, RCTC completed the Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility study which evaluated several commuter rail corridors throughout the county. The project studied extensions of existing or proposed rail routes to the Coachella Valley, Hemet/San Jacinto, and Temecula via both the 1-215 and Winchester Road. The analysis supported advancing two scenarios for inclusion in the next SCAG RTP update, the Perris Valley extension to Hemet/San Jacinto and the extension to Temecula along the 1-215. In May 2005, the Commission directed staff to evaluate a new commuter rail line from Temecula to San Diego to accommodate the large number or Riverside County residents who commute south along the 1-15. The proposed 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility study will examine this segment. In addition, given the Agenda Item 8L 77 growth forecast in the 1-15 corridor, the project will include a study of a conventional commuter rail corridor between Temecula and Corona on the 1-15 corridor, maximizing use wherever possible of the former Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way between Lake Elsinore and Corona. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to perform an objective evaluation of the potential for commuter rail extensions along the 1-15 corridor from Temecula to Corona and Temecula to San Diego, The study will: • Examine operations, ridership, and costs to determine the feasibility of implementation of the service; and • Establish estimates for the physical, operational, and financial feasibility of a major capital investment and operating subsidy projections. Findings from this study will allow public officials and area residents to better understand the general issues and cost estimates of potential extensions of commuter rail to directly serve these communities. The study will consider a 30-year window of transportation demand and be used as input to the Commission's Long Range Rail Plan for the next SCAG RTP update. Each service alternative scenario will be evaluated based upon eight criteria that measure its feasibility to satisfy the goals of the study. The matrices developed to rank and compare each alternative are based upon the following approved evaluation criteria: 1) Ridership, 2) Institutional Issues 3) Mobility Improvements — General 4) Mobility Improvements — Access to Low Income Households 5) Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile 6) Farebox Recovery 7) Capital Cost (Track; Stations & Equipment) 8) Capital Cost Per Passenger GOALS & OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The intent of this effort is to answer the following major policy questions for each geographic area: • Is ,a commuter rail extension viable and effective, as part of a multi - modal transportation system to maintain or enhance mobility and contribute to improving the quality of life? Agenda Item 8L • 78 • • If viable: • • • Is there sufficient available right of way to design and build a new rail infrastructure? What. service levels are appropriate to meet forecasted demand? How much will it cost (capital and operating) to provide potential rail service levels? How should the service and capital projects be phased -in over time? In addition, 'RCTC will create a technical advisory committee that will include SANDAG and local governments to support this process. The Commission will seek consultant assistance to perform this work over a six-month period with a budget not to exceed $100,000. Source of funding identified for the planning study is Western County Rail Local Transportation funds. The anticipated schedule for retention of a consultant firm is as follows: May 10, 2006 June 12, 2006 June 19, 2006 July 12, 2006 Release of Request for Proposal Deadline for Receipt of Proposals Evaluation Committee Selects Firm Award of Contract by Commission Attachment: 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Scope of Work Agenda Item 8L 79 SCOPE OF WORK I-15 COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBLITY STUDY BETWEEN TEMECULA AND SAN DIEGO AND BETWEEN TEMECULA AND CORONA 1. BACKGROUND The Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) has just completed an evaluation of five potential commuter rail routes within Riverside County. That study recommended that two of those five routes be examined in greater detail as possible candidates for future public investment. Those two routes are 1) an extension of the proposed Metrolink 91 Line service from Riverside to South Perris at the I-215, continuing eastbound through to Hemet and San Jacinto, and 2) an extension of the proposed Metrolink 91 Line service from Riverside to South Perris at the I-215, continuing southbound near the I-215 corridor to Temecula and Murrieta. A second study is a statewide high speed ridership study directed by the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). That study is examining the potential for long distance intercity trips between regions within the state as well as the potential for long distance intraregional commuter trips using the high speed rail network. One of the corridors specifically under examination in the MTC study is one linking Temecula and Murrieta with Downtown San Diego, following the route of the proposed high speed rail network. RCTC is participating in the MTC study. As a comparison to the MTC study, RCTC wishes to examine the ridership potential of a conventional commuter rail service as well as the costs related to additional stations on this conventional commuter rail alternative. In addition to examining conventional commuter rail between Temecula and San Diego via the high speed rail corridor, RCTC also wishes to examine the operational feasibility and potential ridership of a conventional commuter rail service between Temecula and Corona along the I-15 freeway, connecting with existing Metrolink routes in Corona. To the extent feasible RCTC wishes this expanded examination of high speed and conventional commuter rail services south and west from Temecula-Murrieta to be compatible with the analysis conducted in the 2005 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study on the other five corridors, all with an orientation to either Orange or Los Angeles Counties and all operating at typical commuter rail speeds of 79-90 MPH. At the same time RCTC wishes to take full advantage of the statewide ridership research being conducted on the potential for high speed intraregional trips. Based upon this objective RCTC is proposing a Scope of Work with three principal service alternatives: a) A study of commuter rail feasibility assuming conventional commuter rail technology between Temecula-Murrieta and Downtown San Diego using 80 the preferred alignment selected by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA); and b) a study of commuter rail feasibility assuming high speed rail technology between Temecula and Downtown San Diego also using the preferred alignment selected by CHSRA; and c) a study of a conventional commuter rail corridor between Temecula- Murrieta and Corona on the I-15 corridor, maximizing use wherever possible of the former Santa Fe Railroad right of way between Lake Elsinore and Corona. All three projects —the conventional commuter rail corridor on the high speed rail alignment, the high speed commuter/intraregional rail corridor, and the conventional commuter rail corridor between Temecula-Murrieta and Corona —will be evaluated using the eight criteria developed to assess the commuter corridors in the recent RCTC study. The Low Income criterion included in the eight criteria will be examined by others _ outside this Scope of Work. 2. COMMON ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALL THREE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Alignment The CHSRA has adopted a preferred alignment between Temecula and Downtown San Diego for its statewide high speed rail system. This mute commences adjacent to the I-15 freeway corridor in Temecula, continues south through Escondido, Rancho Bernardo/Poway, thence southwesterly to University City where it joins the existing coastal rail corridor currently used by Coaster commuter rail, Amtrak intercity service, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight for the balance of the route into Downtown . San Diego. Both Service Alternatives will assume this alignment. Stations For the two service alternatives between Temecula-Murrieta and San Diego, all stations included in the statewide high speed study will be assumed. In addition, a station convenient to Rancho Bernardo will also be assumed for both the conventional and high speed alternatives. In Escondido the CHSRA station site will be assumed, not the new light rail terminal For the service alternative between Temecula-Murrieta and Corona, stations will be assumed at Temecula-Murrieta and North Main Corona, as well as a station near the Dos Lagos development in southeast Corona and near Lake Elsinore. Additional stations will be included upon the recommendation of the consultant and approved by the Technical Advisory Committee. Ridership Data Source Land use and population data for 2030 shall be used to determine ridership for the conventional commuter rail options. For service levels there will be six southbound trains during the morning peak period, with six northbound trains during the afternoon peak. This peak period service will be supplemented by two midday round trips between the two end points. Each train will serve all stations in each direction. Each destination 81 • • station shall be assumed to have an extensive feeder bus network to distribute passengers within a 2.5 mile radius of the station, but the specific routes do not need to be identified. Ridership on the statewide high speed system will use the same data base developed by MTC for its study. To the extent feasible the MTC intraregional ridership forecast will be used without additional modification by the RCTC consultant. Train Speeds For the conventional commuter rail top train speeds will not exceed 90 MPH, but shall be reduced based upon any alignment or gradient restrictions. In the existing rail segment between University City and San Dicgo the estimated train speeds shall correspond to existing train speeds. For the high speed alternative, train speeds assumed in that service will be assumed (the MTC study will likely reflect travel time in its ridership estimate). 3, CONVENTIONAL COMMUTER RAIL ANALYSIS: TEMECULA TO SAN DIEGO The CHSRA proposes four stations along its route: Temecula, Escondido, University City and Downtown San Diego. For both the conventional commuter rail service and the high speed service RCTC is assuming an additional station for commuters only at Rancho Bemardo/Poway, located between Escondido and University City. For the conventional commuter service RCTC is assuming use of the existing commuter rail station at Old Town San Diego, a few miles north of Downtown San -Diego. The existing Coaster commuter rail service between Oceanside and San Diego likewise uses this station at Old Town. Parking is constrained at the Old Town Station; nevertheless the consultant will conduct an unconstrained ridership analysis. For purposes of estimating capital costs, the conventional commuter rail corridor shall be assumed to be primarily single track with a single, two-mile long passing siding spaced midway based upon travel time —between Temecula and San Diego. To the extent possible the unit capital costs for the high speed rail guideway developed by CHSRA, adjusted for single track construction, shall be used. The design solution recommended by CHSRA in a particular location shall be used. Thus, all tunnels and viaducts shall be included in the base conventional commuter rail analysis. Station unit cost at the Rancho Bernardo station shah be based upon available CHSRA costs for stations with four tracks. Equipment costs shall assume 7 trains of six cars each operated in a push-pull manner, requiring that 9 cars of the 42 car fleet consist of cab cars to direct the operation of the train. The assessment of Operating Costs shall use the average of Metrolink systemwide operating costs. For track maintenance, average systemwide Metrolink costs shall also be used. For revenue, average monthly ridership shall be multiplied by the Metrolink monthly pass cost for the equivalent trip. Both revenues and costs shall be based upon the same year, either in constant current dollars or inflated future dollars. 82 4. HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMUTER RAIL ANALYSIS This analysis will assume the completion of the high speed rail line between Temecula and San Diego. Stations in operation for the statewide intercity service are: Temecula, Escondido, University City and San Diego. In addition, for the RCTC commuter service, a new station will be assumed at Rancho Bernardo/Poway: Because of the substantial "footprint" required for high speed stations; no additional station at Old Town is assumed, as is the case in the Conventional Commuter Rail Analysis. For purposes of estimating capital costs, the high speed rail double -track network shall be in operation. The Rancho Bernardo/Poway station shall be considered the responsibility of the commuter operator and shall be built to the standards of the CHSRA and include run-through tracks for the express intercity service and two tracks for the commuter service. At Temecula, Escondido and University City —if additional station tracks are not already provided in the basic system plan by CHSRA 'there shall be two station tracks for the commuter service. For passenger equipment, three trainsets shall be assumed to protect the commuter service with the balance of the train requirements met by existing intercity equipment , staged at San Diego: This is an optimistic assumption but under a scenario in which the CHSRA would integrate these commuter trains into the intercity operation it might even be possible to implement commuter service without any additional trains set aside for that service. Thus the assumption of the need for three high speed trainsets might be too conservative. Unit operating costs developed by CHSRA shall be used to determine high speed commuter rail operating costs. Additionally, a pro-rata share of track maintenance costs shall be derived from information available from CHSRA. On the revenue side, revenue shallbe estimated using the 2030 average monthly ridership forecast multiplied by the Metrolink monthly pass cost for the equivalent travel distance. Revenue estimates shall be based on the same time frame as cost estimates. 5. CONVENTIONAL COMMUTER RAIL ANALYSIS: TEMECULA - CORONA This route will operate between Temecula-Murrieta along the'I-15 corridor to Corona, and will utilize to the extent feasible both the abandoned and active railroad right of way between Lake Elsinore and Corona. Six trains of six cars each are assumed to provide eight daily roundtrips, six during the peak period and two during the midday. In the morning, the six trains will provide three trains to Metrolink IEOC destinations (supplementing IEOC frequencies between North Main' Corona and Orange County and three trains to Metrolink 91 Line destinations (supplementing 91 Line frequencies between North Main Corona and downtown Los Angeles). The pattern will be reversed in the evening and both the IEOC and the 91 Line will have a single midday round trip traveling to Temecula-Murrieta on this new corridor. 83 • • For purposes of estimating capital costs this conventional commuter rail corridor shall be assumed to be primarily single track, with a single, two-mile long passing siding spaced midway —based upon travel time —between Temecula and Corona. The capital improvements for this new alignment shall be limited to those which would permit a commuter train to operate between Corona and Murrieta-Temecula at an average speed of 40 MPH, including all station stops. 6. EVALUATION Listed below are the eight criteria used to evaluate the five commuter rail scenarios in the 2005 RCTC commuter study. These criteria will also be used to evaluate these three service options. Each is discussed in somewhat more detail below. 1) Ridership 2) Institutional Issues 3) Mobility Improvements — General 4) Mobility Improvements — Access to Low Income Households 5) Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile 6) Farebox Recovery 7) Capital Cost (Track, Stations & Equipment) 8) Capital Cost Per Passenger Ridership refers to total daily ridership on the trains. For the conventional Temecula — Corona altemative it excludes ridership between Corona and other end -point destinations on the IEOC and 9l Line. Institutional Issues focuses on issues, while not easily quantifiable, can affect the ability of RCTC to implement a corridor, such as traversing a sensitive environmental area. Mobility Improvements — General reflects the value of time savings and air quality improvements. Mobility Improvements — Access to Low Income Households identifies areas needing access to transportation. Operating Cost per Passenger — Mile enables routes to be compared when some riders travel greater distances on one route than another. Farebox Recovery is the amount of fare revenue received from passenger fares to cover total operating expenses. Capital Cost refers to the total cost of constructing all improvements and purchasing equipment. Capital Cost per Passenger will be expressed in total capital cost divided by estimated daily ridership in 2030. 7. SCHEDULE The consultant will prepare and provide a schedule for the completion of all three scenarios. It is anticipated that the projection should take six months to complete. 8. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT RCTC will create a Technical Advisory Committee to work with the consultant team at significant milestone points. 84 AGENDA ITEM 8M RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Programs Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding No. 99-33-004-01 Multimodal Transit Center for the Perris BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 99-33-004-01, Amendment No. 1 to MOU 23-001, with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the Perris Multimodal Transit Center to incorporate additional funding of $1,050,000 of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and $1,352,472 of Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds for a total of $4,719,605. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 2003 meeting, the Commission approved MOU No. 23-001 for the pass through of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding from RTA to fund the Perris Multimodal Facility. The original MOU was for $2,317,133. The Commission was designated as the lead agency for the facility development. A contract for the design was awarded to Pountney Consulting Services Inc., and it has been working on the preliminary design and environmental clearance. The project was approved by the city of Perris Planning Commission on April 5, 2006 and was forwarded to the city council for final approval. As part of the design process, it was determined that additional funds would be needed for the project to include the city required conditions of a storm water treatment system and other unanticipated requirements. RTA has authorized $1,050,000 in TUMF funds to cover some of the additional construction costs of the project. At the same time, RTA applied for a TE grant and was awarded $1,352,472 for custom designed bus shelters, landscaping, and decorative pavers on the platform and pedestrian walkways. In order for these funds to be applied to the project, the original MOU must be amended to incorporate these new funds. Therefore, it is requested that the Commission authorize staff to amend the MOU amount to include the additional $1,050,000 in TUMF funds and $1,352,472 in TE funds. With these changes the new total amount for the MOU will be $4,719,605. The RTA Board approved the Agenda Item 8M 85 amendment to the MOU with the Commission to incorporate these changes at its March 23, 2006 meeting. The transit center is anticipated to be completed in 2007. Financial Information FY 06/07 $1,245,000 In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 07/08 Amount: 1,157,472 Source of Funds: RTA s TUMF and TE Budget Ad ustment: N 221 33 41404 P3816 $1,352,472 GLA No.: 221 33 41204 P3816 $1,050,000 221 33 81301 P3816 $2,402,472 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ; �' \�1��� ji Date: 4/24/06 Agenda Item 8M 86 AGENDA ITEM 8N • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Claudia Chase, Property Administrator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 03-25-032-02 with Western Area Security Guard Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-25-032-02 Western Area Security (WASS) for a two -month extension and an increase in the agreement amount of $130,673; and 2) Authorize staff to bring the contract recommendation directly to the Commission for action in June. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its April 2001 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to enter into an agreement for security guard services with WASS to provide security services for four Metrolink stations located in Riverside County. The original term of the agreement was for a period of three -years from May 1, 2001. The original term included an option to extend the agreement for two successive one-year periods (extended terms) upon the written consent of both parties prior to the expiration of the original term or the first extended term, as applicable. In November 2002, the agreement was amended to include the provision of professional security services for the North Main Corona Station. The total amount of the WASS agreement is $786,255. All terms of the original agreement remained in full force. In May 2006, the extended terms of the original and amended agreement will expire. Station security is an important component in attracting and retaining Metrolink riders. The security guards conduct foot patrols of their assigned areas, assist passengers with information and prepare a daily Station Activity Report. These reports assist the Rail Department in monitoring and tracking the number of incidents that occur at each station. The reports of vandalism and criminal incidents have been reduced significantly with the presence of station security guards. Agenda Item 8N 87 139 Criminal Incidents -All Stations 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Security Guard Services on April 12, 2006. The scope of service of the new RFP includes 24-hour guard service at the five commuter rail stations, requiring 20 guards of which three are armed guards for the trains stored overnight at the 'Riverside Downtown Station. The cost of the armed guards is reimbursed quarterly by Metrolink. The agreement will be for three-year term with two one-year options. Staffing level revisionswillbe made with the implementation of the Closed Circuit TV — surveillance equipment. In addition, two guards will be necessary when the new parking lot is constructed at the Riverside Downtown Station and for the parking structure at the North Main Station. Staff's goal for the station maintenance agreements is to execute the term of the agreement on a fiscal year basis. To meet this schedule, staff is requesting a two -month extension of the current agreement with WASS, for a revised termination date of June 30, 2006. This will require a contract adjustment amount of $130,673 for FY 2005/06 to cover this two month extension. The FY 2005/06 budget includes the contract adjustment. Following is the schedule to select a new security guard company. Release of RFP: RFP Posted on Web Site: Deadline for Bid Package Submittal: (30 days) Short List Firms based on qualifications: (5 days) Interview Firms: Commission Approval: Wednesday, April 12,2006 Monday, April 17, 2006 Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Monday, May 22, 2006 Wednesday, May 31, 2006; Wednesday June 14, 2006 Due to timing, staff is requesting to bring the recommendation directly to the Commission meeting in June 2006 for action. Agenda Item 8N 88 • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $130,673 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Budget Ad ustment: N 103 25 81006 4001 $41,664 103 25 81006 4002 $22,252 GLA No.: 103 25 81006 4003 $22,252 103 25 81006 4004 $22,252 103 25 81006 4006 $22,252 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \_442,a,:ivo Date: 4/24/06 Agenda Item 8N 89 AGENDA ITEM 80 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Henry Nickel, Commuter Rail Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION_ Riverside Line Passenger Trips Riverside Line 5,200 5,000 4,800 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 534' o``' ,o`� o`' o�' o`' o<' o`' oh oo prO o0 �a� PQt 0\ 1 J� PJ� enoq O�w �•o " O6 ,ate o ��c Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of March averaged 3,887 which is up 776 (+25%) from the month of February. The Line averaged an overall decrease of 492 (-11 %) from a year ago March 2005. This indicates a rebound in ridership following recent drops during the period of Union Pacific's track repair operations. Agenda Item 80 90 100 d 95 as 90 d 85 u `m 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line (oh . fr oh oh \oh oh o<' doh ,oh oh o`o 06 pro �m PQ ��� ��� P�� ��� 0�' �° p� 4°so Month March on -time performance averaged 88% inbound (+5% from February) and 72% outbound (+5% from February). There were 53 delays greater than five minutes during the month of March. The following were primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other TOTAL 17 32 1 3 34 % 62% 2% 2 % Riverside Line On Time Performance Follow Up The Union Pacific major track replacement program has significantly impacted train service on the Riverside Line in February and March causing a temporary migration in ridership to other routes and a drop in on time performance. Train service was disrupted between Riverside and Los Angeles for about 20 service days over the two months. Metrolink's plan to accommodate the passengers with bus bridges and additional cars on parallel service along the 91 Line was successful, which helped to minimize disruption for the passengers. The bus connections carried only a handful of riders and most people drove to alternative stations: The on time performance was poor for March at 75% and on one day there were significant delays of up to two hours due to the UP congestion and track work. Agenda Item 80 91 • Metrolink's -Quality Service Pledge provided compensation for those riders who endured the multiple hour delay. To compensate riders for the inconvenience, Metrolink is offering a 50% off discounted Riverside Line only monthly pass for the month of May. Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County tine 4,600 4,400 o. 4,200 F 4,000 O 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 Off' Off' 04' O<' OG' 04' O� Off`' Off' Oh O� OCo Oro 4-6 PQ9 0:\ boo )o� Qoo' °� o6ke • O r )moo °o fat Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of March averaged 4,384, a decrease of 191 riders or (-4%) change from the month of February. The Line has increased 12% from a year ago March 2005. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line 100 95 R 90 Y a) 85 2 d 80 a 75 70 O4' 0 0 0 0 4' o('' Os' o`O o6 O`O lac PQc tSm� )J� )J QJo' goQ O°� �°, AG p�)ao ��d Month Agenda Item 80 92 March on time performance averaged 88% southbound (-2%o from February) and 87% northbound (-2% from February). There were 46 delays greater than five minutes during the month of March. The following were primary causes: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other TOTAL 7 20 2 17 15% 43 % 5% 37 %. 91 Line Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,600 2,400 N 2,200 a F 2,000 c 1,800 It 1,600 1,400 1,200 lac PQi NS`i°�J� �J\ P�� g� 0C., 0 ,a0 lac ��a lac Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of March averaged 2,179, a decrease of 304 riders or (-12%) from the month of February. The Line has averaged an increase of 16% from a year ago March 2005. Agenda Item 80 93 100 95 - a, 90 85 a`) 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 0 0 ph 0 00 0 0 0O° p0 03 OHO '0 Month March on time performance averaged 85% inbound (-9% from February) and 92% outbound (no change from February). There were 23 delays greater than five minutes during the month of March. The following were primary causes: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other Riverside County Metrolink Ridership Continues to Grow Despite a recent decline in Metrolink ridership on the Riverside Line due to Union Pacific's extensive track upgrade construction, Riverside County as a whole has experienced consistent growth. Since 2001, total daily ridership throughout the county has increased 64%. Though a temporary setback, recent improvements to the Riverside Line will reduce the delays that have plagued the route and will likely result in better on time performance and ultimately increased ridership. The chart below illustrates year on year average combined daily Metrolink ridership from all Riverside County stations. Agenda Item 80 94 3,500 3,000 2;500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Agenda hem 80 Average Daily Metrolink Ridership From Riverside County Stations TOTAL IEOC _,_Riverside Line 91 Line 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 95 AGENDA ITEM 8P • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA T/ON- COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Executive Committee Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 06-001 to Amend the Administrative Code to Reflect Changes to the Committees and the Commission STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Ordinance 06-001, "An Ordinance Amending the Riverside County Transportation Commission Administrative Code", to reflect changes in the membership, time and/or location of certain committees and the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Changes made to the Commission's Administrative Code require adoption through Ordinance to reflect those changes. Over the past few months, there have been a number of changes made to the membership, time and/or location of certain committees and the Commission. Membership of the Transit Policy Committee At its February 8, 2006 meeting, the Executive Committee discussed the augmentation of the Transit Policy Committee and recommended increasing the membership to 11 members to better represent the transit areas. Day and/or Time of the Policy Committees and the Commission In December 2005, the Commission adopted the 2006 Commission and Committee Schedule that changed the time of the Budget and Implementation Committee to 8:30 a.m., the Transit Policy Committee to 10:30 a.m. and the Plans and Programs Committee to 12:30 p.m. After the first meetings of the Committees in January 2006, Budget and Implementation Committee members expressed concern Agenda Item 8P 96 with the new start time. Also, the Transit Policy Committee expressed interest in a new day for its meetings: Therefore, staff polled the respective Commissioners, which resulted on the following changes: • New Meeting Time of 9:30 a.m. for the Budget and Implementation Committee • New Day and Time of 3rd Thursday at 10:00 a.m. on a quarterly basis for the Transit Policy Committee At its February 8, 2006 meeting, the Commission requested staff poll Commissioners for a later start time for the Commission meetings in an effort to reduce traffic congestion at peak hours. The polling resulted in a new meeting time of 10:00 a.m. for the Commission and 9:30 a.m. for the Executive Committee. Location The Administrative Code has been updated to reflect the current location of the Commission and Committee meetings. Attachment: Ordinance 06-001 Agenda Item 8P 97 • ORDINANCE NO. 06-001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that it is now necessary to amend its Administrative Code to reflect changes in the membership, time and/or location of certain committees and the Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Article III, Section H.1:(a) of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "(a) The Budget and Implementation Committee. This Committee shall be composed of fourteen regular members of the Commission selected by the Chair to provide adequate representation from the western and desert areas of the County. Subject to supervision by the Commission, the jurisdiction of the Committee shall be as follows: annual budget development and oversight; countywide strategic plan; legislation; Measure A implementation and capital programs; public conununications and outreach programs; competitive grant programs; TEA 21 (CMAQ & STP); transportation enhancement; SB 821 (Bicycle & Pedestrian); SAFE/freeway service patrol; Property Management; TUMF program, and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. Meetings shall beheld at 9:30 a.m. on the fourth Monday of the month at the offices of the Commission, unless otherwise determined by the Committee or the Commission. At any regular meeting not yet convened because of the lack of a quorum, the committee members who are present may constitute themselves a "Committee of the Whole", for purposes of discussing agenda matters or any other matter of interest to the members present. The Committee of the Whole may act to take recommendations to the Commission but may take no final actions. Any recommendation presented to the Commission from a Committee of the Whole and not the whole committee and should state the number of votes for, against and abstaining in reference to the recommendation. The Committee shall automatically cease to exist if a quorum of the Commission is present at the meeting. Section 2. Article III, Section H.1.(b) of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) The Plans and Programs Committee. This Committee shall be composed of fourteen regular members of the Commission selected by the Chair to provide adequate representation from the westem and desert areas of the County. Subject to supervision by the Commission, the jurisdiction of the Committee shall be as follows: State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP); new corridors; intermodal programs: transit, rail and ridesharing; air quality and clean fuels; regional agencies/regional planning; Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) planning and programs; Congestion Management Program (CMP), and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. Meetings shall be held at 12:30 p.m. on the fourth Monday of the month at the offices of the Commission unless otherwise directed by the Committee or the Commission. At any regular meeting not yet convened because of the lack of a quorum, the committee members who are present may constitute themselves a "Committee of the Whole", for purposes of R V PU B\SDEB AUN\708449. 98 discussing agenda matters or any other matter of interest to the members present. The Committee of the Whole may act to take recommendations to the Commission but may take no final actions. Any recommendation presented to the Commission from a Committee of the Whole and not the whole committee and should state the number of votes for, against and abstaining in reference to the recommendation. The Committee shall automatically cease to exist if a quorum of the Commission is present at the meeting. Section 3. Article III, Section H.1.(d) of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (d) The Transit Policy Committee. This Committee shall be composed of up to eleven (11) members of the Commission selected by the Chair. Subject to the supervision by the Commission, the jurisdiction of the Committee shall be as follows: provide policy direction to the preparation of the transit vision; monitor transit implementation; review the performance of operates; and bring regional perspective to transit. Meetings shall be held at 10:00 a.m. on the third Thursday of the month on a quarterly basis at the offices of the Commission or at such other location determined by the Committee. All actions of the Committee shall be subject to final approval by the Commission. Committee members shall serve at the will and pleasureof the Commission. Section 4. Article IV, Section B of the Administrative Code is hereby amended, to read as follows: B. REGULAR MEETING. Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California in the Board of Supervisors Chambers or at such other location set in public meeting by the Commission on the second Wednesday of each month at 9:00 a.m. unless such day is a holiday, in which case the meeting shall be held on the next business day. Regular meetings may be canceled by majority vote of the Commission at a regular or special meeting prior to the meeting to be canceled. A regular meeting may also be canceled by the Chair for lack of a quorum. The Executive Director shall endeavor to mail or deliver notice of such cancellation to each regular member and alternate member at least twenty four (24) hours prior to the time of the meeting. Section 5. This Ordinance shall be effective on , 2006. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this loth day of May, 2006. ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board RVPUBISDEBAUPn708449. t 99 Marion Ashley, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission AGENDA ITEM 9 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, .Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside Orange Corridor Authority Cooperative Agreement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize the Chair to execute a 'Cooperative Agreement for the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA), pursuant to legal counsel review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Last year, Congress approved an earmark as part of SAFETEA-LU authorizing S15.8 million to "study and construct highway alternatives between Orange and Riverside Counties, directed by the ROCA working with local government agencies, local transportation authorities, and guided by the current 'MIS". As discussed at the April Commission meeting, staff has been working with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA), and Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to develop an agreement which outlines responsibilities and institutional arrangements to advance the geotechnical feasibility studies for a potential transportation and utility corridor linking Riverside and Orange Counties. One of the approved recommendations in the recently completed Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study was to conduct a detailed study to consider the technical feasibility of a tunnel between Corona and Irvine. A number of meetings have been held over the last few weeks with representatives from each of the agencies to discuss the document to be used to outline the cooperative working relationship. A meeting was also held with Congressmen Calvert and Miller to discuss this agreement and the ROCA. At the meeting, it was agreed that the ROCA would be formed using a cooperative agreement. Legal counsels from the agencies have worked together to develop the attached agreement. The purpose of the cooperative agreement is to jointly exercise the common powers of its parties to manage geotechnical studies regarding the Riverside Orange Corridor, which is defined as the potential corridor through the Agenda Item 9 100 Santa Ana Mountains, extending westerly from the vicinity of I-15/Cajalco in Riverside County to Orange County as specified in the Major Investment Study. In summary, the agreement: . • Focuses feasibility studies on geotechnical efforts; • Clarifies that ROCA would not be a separate legal entity; • identifies RCTC as the party responsible for the administration of the Agreement, and for the receipt and expenditure of federal and state funds to accomplish the purpose of the agreement; • Identifies voting members as three RCTC members, three OCTA members lone of whom must be an OCTA Board Member selected by the TCA)„and six Metropolitan Water District Board Members; • Includes two non -voting members from the TCA Board as well as the district directors of Districts 8 and 12; • Requires local matching funds in proportion to voting membership (25% match from ROTC); • Requires that all voting actions pass by a two-thirds vote and • Clarifies that federal funds cannot be used to reimburse expenses prior to federal approval. Staff is supportive of the institutional arrangement agreed to by the parties and recommends the Commission approve execution of the Cooperative Agreement. Attachment: ROCA Cooperative Agreement Agenda Item 9 101 • • May 1, 2006 RIVERSIDE ORANGE CORRIDOR AUTHORITY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 102 This Agreement between the parties of the "Riverside Orange Corridor Authority" is made and entered into on the date when the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the Orange County Transportation Authority have executed this Cooperative Agreement. RECITALS A. The object of the Authority is to manage geotechnical studies regarding a proposed additional transportation and utility corridor linking Riverside County and Orange County. B. The parties to this Agreement have the common power to conduct such planning, financing, testing, and sharing of geotechnical data. C. It has been determined by the parties hereto that it is in the best interest of the respective parties to join together to administer the funds necessary to study the geotechnical feasibility of a cost-effective and efficient construction of a transportation and utility corridor or to cooperate in the alignment of such public facilities. D. Each of the parties is authorized to contract with each other for the joint exercise of any common power under Article I, Chapter 5. Division 7, TitIe 1 of the Government Code of the State of California. E. The parties hereto recognize that, in order to serve the purpose stated herein, funding from external sources must be obtained. Each party has agreed to cooperate in obtaining such funding, including but not limited to, contributions, gifts, and other forms of govemment grants-in-aid. F. The parties hereto entered into this Agreement with the express understanding that the purpose of this Agreement shall be accomplished at minimum expense to the parties hereto. G. The parties hereto have entered into this Agreement with the express understanding that the capital project needs of the various parties differ in timing, the generation of environmental and other planning issues, and anticipated costs of geotechnical studies and delays in completing studies, and that such differences may result in termination of the joint efforts of the parties, or may result in the coordinated, but not joint, use of staffing, contractors, and shared data. H. The parties hereto recognize that in accordance with the principles of sound community planning, future land use decisions should not upset the balance between land use intensity and adequate infrastructure facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 2 103 I. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Agreement, the following words shall have the following meanings: a. "Agreement' means this Cooperative Agreement, as amended from time to time. b. "Authority" means the RIVERSIDE ORANGE CORRIDOR AUTHORITY. c. "Board Members" or "Members" means those persons serving as members of the Board of the Authority. d. "Board" means the goveming body of the Authority. e. "Party" means each public entity which becomes a signatory to this Agreement, including any public entity executing an amendment of the original Agreement as hereinafter provided. f. "Riverside Orange Corridor" means the potential corridor through the Santa Ana Mountains, extending westerly from the vicinity of Interstate Highway 15 in Riverside County on the east and traversing westerly through the Santa Ana Mountains and the vicinity of the Cleveland National Forest, as specified in the Major Investment Study completed in December, 2005 by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Orange County Transportation Authority, and the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, to provide a jointly aligned right of way for the transportation of vehicles, mass transit facilities, utility facilities, and water, or any combination thereof. II. CREATION OF THE AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND POWERS 2.1 CREATION The Authority is hereby formed by the provisions of this Agreement, and Chapter 5, of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, beginning with Section 6500. The Authority is not a separate legal entity. 2.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to jointly exercise the common powers of its Parties to manage geotechnical studies regarding the Riverside Orange Corridor. 3 104 2.3 POWERS The Authority shall have the power, in the name and through one of the Parties as agreed to by the Board, to: a. Study the geotechnical feasibility of the Riverside Orange Corridor; b. Apply for appropriate grants under any federal, state, or local programs for assistance in accomplishing its purpose; c. Adopt rules, regulations, by-laws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority. III. ORGANIZATION 3.1. Parties The Parties to the Authority may be the Riverside County Transportation Commission, . the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. 3.2. Board Members The Board shall consist of the following: Three members of the board of directors of the Riverside County Transportation Commission appointed by that board. b. Three members who shall be members of the board of directors of the Orange County Transportation Authority. Two of the members shall be appointed by that board. One of the members shall be appointed by the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. c. Six members appointed by the board of directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California if the MetropolitanWaterDistrict of Southern California becomes a Party to this Agreement. The six members maybe, but shall not be required to be, members of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. d. Two members of the board of directors of the FoothilUEastern Transportation Corridor Agency, appointed by that board, if the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency becomes aParty to this Agreement. The two members of the board of directors of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency shall be nonvoting members of the Board. e.. The district directors of Districts 8 and 12 of the California Department of Transportation, who shall be nonvoting members of the Board. 4 105 • 3.3 Board Meetings The time and place of regular meetings of the Board shall be determined by the Board. Regular, adjourned, and special meetings shall be called and conducted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et. seq., as amended. 3.4 Quorum A simple majority of the Board Members shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of the transaction of business relating to the Authority, except as expressly set forth herein or as otherwise provided by law. 3.5 Board Powers and Limitations Thereon Unless otherwise provided herein, each Board Member shall be entitled to one vote and the affirmative vote of no less than two-thirds of all Board Members shall be required to adopt any motion, resolution, or order and take any other action they deem appropriate. 3.6 Minutes The secretary of the Authority shall cause to be kept minutes of regular, adjourned regular and special meetings of the Board, and shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each Member and to each Party. 3.7 Rules The Board may adopt from time to time rules and regulations for the conduct of its affairs consistent with this Agreement. 3.8 Officers There shall be selected by the Board from its membership, a chairman and vice chairman. The Board shall appoint a secretary who may be a Member. The chairman and vice chairman shall hold the office for a period of one year commencing July El of each year. Any officer or agent of the Board may also be an officer, employee or agent of any Party. The appointment of the Board of such person shall be evidence that the two positions are compatible. IV. STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING Each Party to this Agreement agrees to use its best efforts to assist the Authority in the securing of funding from both the State of California and the federal government to obtain grants, matching funds, or loans to underwrite the costs of the gathering of geotechnical data regarding the feasibility of the Riverside Orange Corridor. Each Party agrees to contribute funds for the local match as may be required as a condition of receiving funds from the State of California or the federal government. Responsibility for funding the local match shall be divided among the Parties to this Agreement based on the percentage of the voting Members appointed by each Party as compared to the 5 106 voting full membership of the Board, provided, however, the Foothill/Eastem Transportation Corridor Agency and Caltrans shall not contribute funds for the local match and the appointment of a Member by the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency shall be considered an appointment by the Orange County Transportation Authority for purposes of this Article IV. The Parties acknowledge that a federal requirement for funding the geotechnical studies provided for in this Agreement is that federal funds shall not be used to reimburse or otherwise pay for services provided prior to the approval of federal funding by the applicable federal agency. V. ADMINISTERING ENTITY The Parties agree that the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall be responsible for the administration of this Agreement, and for the receipt and expenditure of federal and state funds as may be necessary to accomplish the purpose of this Agreement. Staff work by other Parties shall be the sole responsibility of each Party. VI. LIABILITIES Each Party hereto agrees to indemnify and hold the Authority and the other Parties harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, suits, judgments, costs, penalties, fines, damages, losses and liabilities, including any injury to or death of persons or damage to or loss of property, including attorneys', accountants' and expert witness fees and costs incurred in connection with the enforcement of this indemnity, arising out of, relating to or resulting from any negligent or intentional act or omission of the indemnifying Party or its employees. Such indemnity shall not inure to the benefit of an indemnified party so as to impose liability on an indemnifying party for the active negligence of the indemnified party. VII. WITHDRAWAL OF PARTIES While it is fully anticipated that each Party hereto shall participate in the Authority until all the purposes set forth in Section 2.2 above are accomplished, the Parties recognize that any Party may determine that withdrawal from this Agreement will be in its best interest to enable it to provide its services in the most timely, cost-effective, qualitative and quantitative manner. Thus, each Party reserves the right, which will be continuing, to withdraw from this Agreement whenever such Party, in its discretion, so determines. In the event of withdrawal of a Party, the withdrawing Party shall remain obligated to pay its share of the local match funds. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS 8.1 Amendments This Agreement may be amended with the unanimous approval of all Parties_ 6 107 • 8.2 Notice Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the Parties, shall be deemed to have been received by the Party to whom the same is addressed at the expiration of seventy-two (72) hours after deposit of the same in the United States Post Office for transmission by registered or certified mail as aforesaid. 8.3 Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective at such time as this Agreement has been executed by the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the Orange County Transportation Authority. 8.4 Partial Invalidity If any or more of the terms, provisions, sections, promises, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, sections, promises, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall not be effected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 8.5 Assignment The Parties shall not assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement without consent of the other Parties. 8.6 Execution r 7 108 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public agency APPROVED AS TO FORM: By DATED 8 By Marion Ashley, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission 109 • ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY DATED ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public agency APPROVED AS TO FORM: By DATED 9 By Arthur C. Brown, Chairman Orange County Transportation Authority 110 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DATED APPROVED AS TO FORM: By DATED METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a political Subdivision of the State of California By Wesley M. Bannister, Chairman MWD Board of Directors 10 111 • FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY DATED FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY, a joint powers entity APPROVED AS TO FORM: By DATED 216918.3 • By Ken Ryan, Chairman Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency II 112 • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Public/Private Financing and Delivery Plan Ad Hoc 'Committee Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Strategic Partnership Advisory Services Budget Adjustment PUBLIC/PRIVATE FINANCING AND DELIVERY PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION_ This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve $750,000 budget adjustment for Strategic Partnership Advisory Services and amendments, as necessary, to Agreement Nos. 06-66-026-00, 06-66-027-00 and 06-66-028-00 with KPMG, PB Consult and Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, respectively; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its February 8, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved the list of pre -qualified firms for On -call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services. The assistance of experts, knowledgeable in the area of transportation economics, federal transportation funding tools and corporate equity investment evaluation, is critical to the success of the Commission's Strategic Public/Private Partnership program. It is likely that the 2009 Measure A 10-year Delivery Plan will identify a significant gap between funding readily available through conventional governmental finance techniques and project needs. Private and public financing, including the development of strategic public/private partnerships, could bridge a significant portion of the funding gap in order to construct the needed projects. Upon Commission approval of the selections, staff and the advisory teams held scoping sessions to analyze opportunities and program criteria. A strategy has been developed and tasks identified to develop a program and project assessment including recommendations. Agenda Item 10 113 Additional tasks could be required in the future depending on intermediate results. The estimated cost to implement the strategy is $1,250,000. The Commission previously approved a budget of $500,000, therefore an additional budget adjustment of $750,000 is needed to complete the identified tasks. An oral report on the status of the Strategic Partnership was presented to the Public/Private Financing and Delivery Plan Ad Hoc Committee at its April 24th meeting Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $750,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: A303-66-65302 P8100 80 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Vo Date: 04/19/06 Agenda Item 10 114 LATE BREAKING ITEM RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 10, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Plan and Proposed Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level for Federal Fiscal Year 2006/07 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt 2.95% as its Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) for Federal FY 2006/07 from October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007; 2) Approve Resolution No. 06-012, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting the Caltrans Race -Neutral Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan"; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the DBE Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies and the Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form on behalf of the Commission for submission to Caltrans; and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve modifications required by Caltrans to the Commission's model federal - aid construction contract and model federal -aid professional services agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On May 9, 2005, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the State of Washington (Western States Paving Co. vs. Washington State Department of Transportation), established new evidentiary standards necessary to constitutionally support the use of race -conscious DBE goals on federal -aid contracts. In response to this ruling, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued Guidance FY 2006 DBE Goal Setting Approval Process and DBE Program Plans "which advised each state transportation agency to assess if it had sufficient evidence of discrimination or its effect on transportation contracts in order to support a Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) race -conscious program. Absent sufficient evidence, the state transportation agency must revise its DBE Program to request approval to implement a wholly race -neutral program while it undertakes a more detailed assessment." To comply with this guidance and direction from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) gathered and considered past disparity studies, comments, and written evidence received during a 90-day public comment period which ended on March'20, 2006. Caltrans reviewed the information and concluded the data lacked sufficient evidence to satisfy the newly -established evidentiary standards as set forth by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to justify continuance of the race -conscious DBE Program. Therefore, on May 1, 2006, Caltrans adopted a DBE race -neutral program to remain in compliance with regulations of the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 49 CFR Part 26. To remain in compliance with 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26, the Commission must adopt the Caltrans race -neutral DBE program as a condition to receive a commitment for federal financial assistance from DOT and FTA. As part of this requirement, the Commission must enter into a "DBE Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies" with Caltrans and submit it to the Caltrans' District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE). This agreement is attached and is currently under review by Legal Counsel. In addition, RCTC must develop an Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) which must be submitted to the federal agencies and Caltrans by June 1, 2006. For Federal FY 2006/07, it is proposed that the AADPL be 2.95 %. Statistics were . based on the U.S. Census Bureau "County Business Patterns" for 2003, using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). As in previous years, staff used statistics within the four -county areas — Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino — areas that the Commission draws bids from. The analysis attached to the report details the formula utilized in developing the overall annual goal for the next federal fiscal year. For FY 2005/06, the Commission set an annual DBE goal of 6.46%. To date, the total percentage of DBE award is 5.98%. The DBE goal was not achieved since only one of the four projects that were included in the calculation was awarded. RCTC did not attain the goal that it set for FY 2005-2006 but was able to achieve over the base figure percentage of 2.54%. In its calculation last fiscal year, an adjustment was made wherein the difference between the annual goal and the actual percent of DBEs award (3.927%) was added to the 2.54%. i i For information, the federally -funded projects awarded were: 1) North Main Corona Parking Structure - Amendment No. 2 for PS&E Design. The award and the percentage of DBEs attained for the project are listed below: FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 TOTAL DBE CONTRACT AWARD AND DBE DOLLAR AMOUNT Federal -Aid Project No./ Contractor Total Project Bid Amount Dollar Amount DBE % DBE Contract No. 06-31-548 $ 915,815 Amendment No. 2 (to Master Agreement 03-31-014) North Main Corona Parking Structure Design Melendez $18,395 2.01 % O'Conner Construction $36,400 3.97% Management TOTAL $915,815 $54,795 5.98% For FY 2006/07, there are two federally -funded projects: 1) Perris Valley Line - Preliminary Engineering and Right -of -Way; 2► State Route 60 East Junction to 1-215 HOV Lanes - Final Design. It is estimated that the total cost of the two projects is $12,660,000 ($10,341,250 federal funds). All of the projects are for consultant services. A report on the methodology used to determine the proposed goal and the anticipated projects is an exhibit to the Resolution. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 06-012 2) DBE Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies 3) Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form RESOLUTION NO. 06-012 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING THE CALTRANS RACE -NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM PLAN WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission adopted its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in 1999; WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision regarding the Washington State Department of Transportation, determined that sufficient evidence must exist to support the use of race conscious measures on federal -aid contracts; WHEREAS, Caltrans conducted an assessment of its DBE program, including an extended public comment period, and determined that the use of race conscious programs and goals could violate the Ninth Circuit ruling, which is controlling authority for California; WHEREAS, as of May 1, 2006, Caltrans adopted and began implementing the "California Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan" ("Caltrans DBE Program") to institute a soley race -neutral DBE program at both the state and local level; WHEREAS, the Caltrans DBE Program replaces the existing Caltrans race -conscious DBE program as well as all existing local agency DBE programs, unless a local agency program has been directly approved by a federal agency; WHEREAS, local agencies no longer have their own separate DBE programs, but must instead complete a "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement" between the local agency and Caltrans; WHEREAS, rather than establishing their own DBE goals, local agencies are now required to calculate their Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) based on factors set forth in the Local Programs Procedures, which revise the Local Assistance Procedures Manual to provide for a solely race -neutral program, and to submit the AADPL to Caltrans via the "DBE Annual Submittal Form" for the relevant Federal Funding Year; WHEREAS, in order to comply with the new Caltrans DBE Program, local agencies must also make certain changes to all federal aid contracts, including the addition of certain boiler plate provisions for all federal -aid construction contracts, and the inclusion of new exhibits to all federal -aid consultant contracts. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the Caltrans DBE Program and authorizes the Chairman to take the following actions: A. Execute the "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement" on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to Legal Counsel review; B. Execute the Local Agency "DBE Annual Submittal Form" on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to Legal Counsel review; C. Approve modifications required by Caltrans to the Commission's model federal -aid construction agreement and model federal - aid professional services agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. SECTION 2. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts 2.95% as its Annual Anticipated DBE participation Level (AADPL) for the Federal Funding Year 2006-2007, based on the methodology set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution. ADOPTED this 10th day of May, 2006. Marion Ashley, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission EXHIBIT A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) RCTC is required to calculate the level of DBE participation and utilization that RCTC expects can be achieved on contracts that are to be awarded within its jurisdiction in the following federal fiscal year. This information must be provided to Caltrans, for Caltrans' use in establishing the statewide overall DBE goal. I. GOAL METHODOLOGY The following methodology was used in establishing the AADPL for FY 2006/07: • NUMERATOR - DBE firms in the four -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange) DENOMINATOR — Total number of construction firms, the work category identified within the four -county area based on the more recent available date from the U.S. Census Bureau — 2003 Under the Construction/Consulting Categories, the following lists the number of DBEs in each of the four county areas: CONSTRUCTION CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY CODE COUNTY NO. OF FIRMS 19 037 Los Angeles 12,300 30 059 Orange 6,373 33 065 Riverside 3,938 36 071 San Bernardino 3,142 TOTAL 25,753 Of the 25,753 firms, there are 552 identified available DBE firms in the Caltrans DBE directory of firms in the construction work codes that operate within the four -county areas. CONSULTING SERVICES CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY CODE COUNTY NO. OF FIRMS 19 037 Los Angeles 27,664 30 059 Orange 12,184 33 065 Riverside 2,502 36 071 San Bernardino 2,057 TOTAL 44,407 Of the 44,407 firms, there are 1,341 identifiedavailable DBE firms in the Caltrans DBE directory of firms in the consultant services work codes that operate within the four -county areas. The following lists the total amount of contracts in each of the Work Category and the projected federal funds for FY 2006-2007." Please note that for this fiscal year, there are no construction awards. WORK CATEGORY AMOUNT OF FY 06-07 CONTRACTS ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS % OF FEDERAL FUNDS Consultant Services $12,660,000 $10,341,250 81.68% Construction (Including Materials and Trucking) $0 $0 0% The formula that is provided to determine calculation of DBE goal is as follows. The weighted Base Figure is calculated by first determining the number of ready, willing, and able DBEs in the four counties for the work category shown above, divided by the number of total firms in the category. Using this method determines the availability by the number of firms that have directly participated in, or attempted to participate in, past federally - funded assisted contracting efforts. The application of the formula yields the following baseline information: Number of Ready, Willing and Able DBEs Number of All Ready, Willing and Able Firms Base Figure The Base Figure resulting from the calculation is as follows: A. Construction 552 = 2.14% 25,753 B. Consulting Services 1,341 = 3.02% 44,407 C. Base Figure Using the percentage of federal funds projected to be available for FY 2006/07 and the percentage of available for each DBEs for each work category, the result is a base figure of 2.47% 0.0 ( 552 ) + 0.8168( 1,341 ) = 0.0247 25,753 44,407 II. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BASE FIGURE: Staff reviewed and assessed other known relevant evidence to determine what additional adjustments, if any, were needed to adapt the Base Figure to the four -county area marketplace. Several factors as outlined in the Local Programs Procedures process for establishing the AADPL were considered to see if there was a need to adjust the base goal. In reviewing last year's goal, the Commission set a 6.46% annual goal based on the DBEs available in the four -county area. In awarding its federally -funded projects for this fiscal year, the Commission awarded 5.98% to DBEs. Staff is recommending that an adjustment be made to the base figure using the difference of its FY 2005-2006 annual goal and the attained percentage to date, which is 0.48%. With the adjustment, the base figure and proposed AADPL for FY 2006/07 is 2.95%. III. ANTICIPATED PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 The following projects represent the projected federally funded contracts for DBE Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007. A. Perris Valley Line Scope of Work - Preliminary Engineering and Right of Way Acquisition for the San Jacinto Branch Rail line from the City of Perris to Downtown Riverside for the extension of Metrolink Commuter Rail Service. Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $10,160,000 Estimated Federal Funds: $ 8,128,000 B. State Route 60 East Junction to 1-215 HOV Lane Scope of Work - This is for Final Engineering Design for the extension of the HOV lanes from the East Junction to the 1-215. Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $2,500,000 Estimated Federal Funds: $2,213,250 IV. ESTABLISHMENT OF AADPL Based on the information presented in the report, it is proposed that the Commission's overall AADPL for federal FY 2006/07 be established at 2.95%. i Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies Exhibit 9-A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE RACE -NEUTRAL IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR LOCAL AGENCIES LPP 06-01 Page 9-27 May 1; 2006 EXHIBIT 9-A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE RACE -NEUTRAL IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT For the City/County of , hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT." I Definition of Terms The terms used in this agreement have the meanings defined in 49 CFR § 26.5. II OBJECTIVE/POLICY STATEMENT 026/1. 26/23) The RECIPIENT intends to receive federal financial assistance from the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and as a condition of receiving this assistance, the RECIPIENT will sign the Califomia Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Implementation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as Agreement). The RECIPIENT agrees to implement the State of California, Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, Plan (hereinafter referred to as the DBE Program Plan) as it pertains to local agencies. The DBE Program Plan is based on U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR, Part 26 requirements. It is the policy of the RECIPIENT to ensure that DBEs, as defined in Part 26, have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT -assisted contracts. It is also their policy: • To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. • To create a level playing field on which DBE's can compete fairly for DOT -assisted contracts. • To ensure that their annual overall DBE participation percentage is narrowly tailored, in accordance with applicable law. • To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR, Part 26 eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs. • To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT -assisted contracts. • To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the market place outside the DBE Program. III Nondiscrimination (§26.7) RECIPIENT will never exclude any person from participation in, deny any person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR, Part 26 on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. In administering the local agency components of the DBE Program Plan, the RECIPIENT will not, directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the DBE Program Plan with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin. Page 9-28 May 1, 2006 LPP 06-01 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies IV Annual DBE Submittal Form (§26.21) The RECIPIENT will provide to the Caltrans' District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) a completed DBE Annual Submittal Form by June 1 of each year for the following Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). This form includes an Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL), methodology for establishing the AADPL, the name, phone number, and electronic mailing address of the designated DBELO, and the choice of Prompt Pay Provision to be used by the RECIPIENT for the following FFY. V Race -Neutral Means of Meeting the Annual DBE Goal (§26.51) RECIPIENT will assist Caltrans to achieve its Overall Statewide DBE Goal by race neutral means that may include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Advertising solicitations, scheduling bidding periods and opening times, and packaging quantities, specifications, and delivery schedules in ways that facilitate DBE and other small business participation. 2. Providing assistance to DBE and small businesses in overcoming limitations such as inability to obtain bonding or financing (e.g., by such means as simplifying the bonding process, reducing bonding requirements, and providing services to help DBEs and other small businesses obtain bonding and financing). 3. Providing technical assistance and other services to DBE and small businesses. 4. Providing information and communication programs on contracting procedures and specific contract opportunities (e.g., ensuring the inclusion of DBEs and other small businesses on recipient mailing lists of bidders; ensuring the dissemination to bidders on prime contracts of lists of potential subcontractors including DBE's and small businesses; providing the information in languages other than English; where appropriate). 5. Implementing a supportive services program to develop and improve immediate and long-term business management, record keeping, and financial and accounting capability for DBEs and other small businesses. 6. Providing services to help DBEs and other small businesses improve long-term development, increase opportunities to participate in a variety of kinds of work, handle increasingly significant projects, and achieve eventual self-sufficiency. 7. Establishing a program to assist new, start-up firms, particularly in fields in which DBE participation has been historically low. 8. Assisting DBEs and other small businesses to develop their capability to utilize emerging technology and conduct business through electronic media. 9. Implementing or developing a mentor -protege program. LPP 06-01 Page 9-29 May 1,2006 EXHIBIT 9-A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual VI Quotas (§26.43) RECIPIENT will not use quotas or set -asides in any way in the administration of the local agency component of the DBE Program Plan. VII DBE Liaison Officer (DBELO) (§26.25) RECIPIENT has designated a DBE Liaison Officer. The DBELO is responsible for implementing the DBE Program Plan, as it pertains to the RECIPIENT, and ensures that the RECIPIENT is fully and properly advised concerning DBE Program Plan matters. [Specify resources available to the DBELO; e.g., the DBELO has a staff of two professional employees assigned to the DBE program on a full-time basis and two support personnel who devote a portion of their time to the program.] The name, address, telephone number, electronic mail address, and an organization chart displaying the DBELO's position in the organization are found in Attachment to this Agreement. This information will be updated annually and included on the DBE Annual Submittal Form. The DBELO is responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring the RECIPIENT's requirements of the DBE Program Plan in coordination with other appropriate officials. Duties and responsibilities include the following: 1. Gathers and reports statistical data and other information as required. 2. Reviews third party contracts and purchase requisitions for compliance with this program. 3. Works with all depattinents to determine projected Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level. 4. Ensures that bid notices and requests for proposals are made available to DBEs in a timely manner. 5. Analyzes DBE participation and identifies ways to encourage participation through race -neutral means. 6. Participates in pre -bid meetings. 7. Advises the CEO/governing body on DBE matters and DBE race -neutral issues. 8. Provides DBEs with information and recommends sources to assist in preparing bids, obtaining bonding and insurance. 9. Plans and participates in DBE training seminars. 10. Provides outreach to DBEs and community organizations to fully advise them of contracting opportunities. Page 9-30 May 1, 2006 LPP 06-01 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies VIII Federal Financial Assistance Agreement Assurance (§26.13) RECIPIENT will sign the following assurance, applicable to and to be included in all DOT -assisted contracts and their administration, as part of the program supplement agreement for each project. The recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract, or in the administration of its DBE Program, or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR, Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE Program, as required by 49 CFR, Part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.). [Note — this language is to be used verbatim, as it is stated in §26.13(a).] IX DBE Financial Institutions (§26.27) It is the policy of the RECIPIENT to investigate the full extent of services offered by financial institutions owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in the community to make reasonable efforts to use these institutions, and to encourage prime contractors on DOT -assisted contracts to make use of these institutions. Information on the availability of such institutions can be obtained from the DBELO. The Caltrans' Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program may offer assistance to the DBELO. X Directory (§26.31) RECIPIENT will refer interested persons to the Unified Certification Program DBE directory available from the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program's website at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep. XI Required Contract Clauses (§§26.13, 26.29) RECIPIENT ensures that the following clauses or equivalent will be included in each DOT -assisted prime contract: A. CONTRACT ASSURANCE The contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirementsof 49 CFR, Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy, as recipient deems appropriate. [Note — This language is to be used verbatim, as is stated in §26.13(b). See Caltrans Sample Boiler Plate Contract Documents on the Internet at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms under "Publications."] LPP 06-01 Page 9-31 May 1, 2006 EXHIBIT 9-A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual B. PROMPT PAYMENT Prompt Progress Payment to Subcontractors A prime contractor or subcontractor shall pay to any subcontractor not later than 10-days of receipt of each progress payment, in accordance with the provision in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code concerning prompt payment to subcontractors. The 10-days is applicable unless a longer period is agreed to in writing. Any delay or postponement of payment over 30-days may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of Section 7108.5 shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies of that Section. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. Prompt Payment of Withheld Funds to Subcontractors The local agency shall include either (1), (2), or (3) of the following provisions [local agency equivalent will need Caltrans approval] in their federal -aid contracts to ensure prompt and full payment of retainage [withheld funds] to subcontractors in compliance with 49 CFR 26.29. 1. No retainage will be held by the agency from progress payments due to the prime contractor. Prime contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from holding retainage from subcontractors. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. 2. No retainage will be held by the agency from progress payments due the prime contractor. Any retainage kept by the prime contractor or by a subcontractor must be paid in full to the eaming subcontractor in 30-ays after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the Califomia Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. Page 9-32 May 1, 2006 LPP 06-01 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies 3. The agency shall hold retainage from the prime contractor and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the agency of the contract work and pay retainage to the prime contractor based on these acceptances. The prime contractor or subcontractor shall retum.all monies withheld in retention from all subcontractors within 30-days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed and accepted including incremental acceptances of portions of the contract work by the agency. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the . agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating prime contractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of: a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor; deficient subcontractor performance; and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. XIV Local Assistance Procedures Manual The RECIPIENT will advertise, award and administer DOT -assisted contracts in accordance with the most current published Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). XV Bidders List (§26.11) The RECIPIENT will create and maintain a bidders list, consisting of information about all DBE and nori=DBE firms that bid or quote on its DOT -assisted contracts. The bidders list will include the name, address, DBE/non- DBE status, age, and annual gross receipts of the firms. XVI Reporting to the DLAE RECIPIENT will promptly submit a copy of the Local Agency Bidder -DBE Information (Exhibit 15-G or Exhibit 10-0 of the LAPM) to the DLAE at the time of execution of consultant or construction contract award. RECIPIENT will promptly submit a copy of the Final Utilization of DBE participation to the DLAE using Exhibit 17-F of the LAPM immediately upon completion of the contract for each consultant or construction contract. XVII Certification (§26.83(a)) RECIPIENT ensures that only DBE firms currently certified by the California Unified Certification Program will participate as DBEs on DOT -assisted contracts. LPP 06-01 Page 9-33 May 1, 2006 EXHIBIT 9-A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual XVIII Confidentiality RECIPIENT will safeguard from disclosure to third parties, information that may reasonably be regarded as confidential business information consistent with federal, state, and local laws. Date: [Signature of Local Agency Recipient's Chief Executive Officer] Phone Number: [Print Name of Local Agency Recipient's Chief Executive Officer] This California Depai lment of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan Implementation Agreement is accepted by: Date: [Signature of DLAE] [Print Name of DLAE] Distribution: (l) Original —DLAE DBE Race -neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies (05/01/06) (2) Copy -local agency after signing by DLAE Page 9-34 May 1, 2006 LPP 06-01 LOCAL AGENCY DBE ANNUAL SUBMITTAL FORM TO: CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 District Local Assistance Engineer The amount of the Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) and methodology are presented herein, in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, and the State of California, Department of ;Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Plan. The Riverside County Transportation Commission submits our AADPL information. We have established an AADPL of 2.95 % for the Federal Fiscal Year 2006/07, 'beginning on October 1 through September 30. Methodology RCTC followed the methodology as out lined in Chapter 9 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). The base figure for the relative availability of DBE's was determined by using DBE Directories and Census Bureau Data. This base figure was adjusted based on the current capacity of DBEs to perform work on RCTC 'projects as measured to the volume of Work DBE's have performed in recent years. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Liaison Officer (DBELO) RCTC's DBELO is Jennifer Harmon — Clerk of the Board; Mailing Address: 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor, Riverside, California, 92502;. Phone: (951) 787-7141 Fax: (951) 787-7920; email: jharmon@rctc.org Prompt Pay Federal regulation (49 CFR 26.29) requires one of three methods be used in federal -aid contracts to ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage, kept by the prime contractor or subcontractor, to a subcontractor. On the attached page RCTC has identified the Prompt Pay method that will be utilized. Submitted by: Marion Ashley, Chair Date Riverside County Transportation Commission Print Name Phone Number Reviewed by Caltrans: Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer IDLAE] Date 1 of 2 LOCAL AGENCY DBE ANNUAL SUBMITTAL FORM Prompt Payment of Withheld Funds to Subcontractors Federal regulation (49 CFR 26.29) requires one of the following three methods be used in federal -aid contracts to ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage kept by the prime contractor or subcontractor to a subcontractor. Please check the box of the method chosen by the local agency to ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage. ❑ No retainage will be held by the agency from progress payments due to the prime contractor. Prime contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from holding retainage from subcontractors. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or. subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors ❑ No retainage will be held by the agency from progress payments due the prime contractor. Any retainage kept by the prime contractor or by a subcontractor must be paid in full to the earning subcontractor in 30-days .after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. ® The agency shall hold retainage from the prime contractor and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the agency of the contract work and pay retainage to the prime contractor based on these acceptances. The prime contractor or subcontractor shall return all monies withheld in retention from all subcontractors within 30 days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed and accepted including incremental acceptances of portions of the contract work by the agency. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall, subject the violating prime contractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of: a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor; deficient subcontractor performance and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. 2 of 2