Loading...
06 June 13, 2007 Commission80631 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. - PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE DATE: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chair: Terry Henderson 1' Vice Chair: Jeff Stone 2' Vice Chair: Bob Magee 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 / Brenda Sales, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Charles Grotke, City of Blythe John Chlebnik / Bill Davis, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Alex Bias / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Marc Searl, City of Hemet Patrick J. Mullany / Larry Spicer, 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 / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Gordon Moller / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Dom Betro, City of Riverside Chris Carlson / Jim Ayres, 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 Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.0 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.retc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, June 13, 2007 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. • Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members .may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 9, 2007 6.. PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2007/08; 2) Close the public hearing to receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2007/08; and 3) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2007/08. 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 Al/ matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 8A. RESOLUTION NO. 08-001, "RESOLUTION • OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION'S ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08" Page 4 Overview This item is for the Commission . to adopt Resolution No. 08-001 . "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Annual Appropriations , Limit for FY- 2007/08". • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 3 8B. REVISIONS TO INTERFUND LOANS POLICY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 10 1) Approve the revisions to the Interfund Loans Policy to permit interfund .loans from 1989 Measure A programs to 2009 Measure A programs; 2) Approve a term of the interfund loans from 1989 Measure A to 2009 Measure A programs for a period not to exceed five years (60 months) as permitted by the Interfund Loans Policy; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 07-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding a Revision to the Interfund .Loans Policy'. 8C. POST RETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS LIABILITY AND FUNDING Page 18 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve a plan to pre -fund the Commission's post retirement health benefits liability at amounts not to exceed $1.5 million in FY 2006/07 and $1 million in FY 2007/08; 2) Approve a budget amendment for a $1.5 million increase to fringe benefits expenditures in FY 2006/07; 3) Approve a policy to fund 100% of the annual required contributions; 4) Adopt Resolution No. 07-005, "Agreement and Election of Riverside County Transportation Commission to Pre -fund Other Post Employment Benefits through CalPERS'; 5) Authorize the Chair to execute the resolution on behalf of the Commission; 6) Designate the Chief Financial Officer and Accounting and Human Resources Manager to request disbursements from the CalPERS pre -funding plan; and 7) Authorize the Chair to execute the Delegation of Authority to Request Disbursements on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 4 8D. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 33 Overview This item is for. the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the third quarter ended March 31, 2007. 8E. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Page 38 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the. Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2007. 8F. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH COMARCO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR DIGITAL UPGRADE OF CALL BOX SYSTEM AND INSTALLATION OF TTY DEVICES Page 52 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-45-537-01, Amendment No. _ 1 to Agreement No. 05-45-537, with Comarco .Wireless. Technologies, Inc., for digital upgrade of the call box system and installation of TTY devices; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal ` counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 8G. APPROVAL OF FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Page54. Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-45-137-00 with the Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide overtime supervision and operation of a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 5 8H. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 56 1) Adopt the preliminary Metrolink Operating and Capital Budget for FY 2007/08; and 2) Allocate the Commission's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA or Metrolink) in an amount not to exceed $7,792,261 comprised of $6,339,600 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for train operations and maintenance -of -way and $1,452,661 for capital projects to be funded by FTA Section 5307 funds. 81. CITY OF COACHELLA DILLON ROAD/AVENUE 48 GRADE SEPARATION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION SECTION 190 10% LOCAL MATCH REQUEST Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 62 1) . Transfer $500,000 of uncommitted Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to. the Rail Program to facilitate the award of funding for the Dillon Road/Avenue 48 grade separation project; and 2) Allocate $500,000 in available Rail Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to provide a non-federal. match , to the city of Coachella for the Dillon Road/Avenue 48 grade separation project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 6 8J. AWARD AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT AT THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION TO ALAN MRUVKA COMPANY DBA BLUE SQUARE DEVELOPMENT GROUP Page 66 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) No. 07-67-154-00 for joint development at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station to Alan Mruvka Company dba Blue Square Development Group; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8K. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH INLAND VAULT AND SECURITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SECURITY SYSTEMS AT METROLINK STATIONS Page 75 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1 }. Approve Agreement No. 04-25-962-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 04-25-962, for closed . circuit television (CCTV) security systems maintenance services, to amend the term and rates of the agreement with Inland Vault and Security; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 7 8L. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH JEFFERSON •TRANSITIONAL PROGRAMS FOR A THREE-MONTH EXTENSION AND ADDITIONAL CLEANING SERVICES AT THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE PARKING LOT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 77 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-25-004-03, •Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 03-25-004, with Jefferson Transitional Programs for cleaning and grounds maintenance services for the Commission -owned Metrolink stations to include services for the new Riverside -Downtown Eastside parking lot for an amount not to exceed: $30,000; 2) Approve an extension of the agreement through September 30, •2007; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission toreceive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. Page 79 8N. CITY OF BEAUMONT TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION AUDITS. Page 87 Overview This item is for the .Commission to receive and file .the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results reports for the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2006. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 8 80. CITY OF BEAUMONT TRANSIT SERVICES Page 113 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Based on approved Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), allocate $1,080,000 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) operating funds and $140,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA) capital funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2006/07; 2) Based on approved SRTP, allocate $ 951, 300 in LTF operating funds and $1 1,000 in STA capital funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2005/06; 3) Due to excess operating expenses, allocate $28,95.7 in LTF operating funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2005/06 (balance of required operating funds of $30,400 to be paid by the city of Beaumont as farebox revenue); 4) Due to excess operating expenses, allocate $ 350, 801 in LTF operating funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2004/05;. 5) Due to excess operating expenses, allocate •$14,200 in LTF operating funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2003/04; and 6) Amend the FY 2003/04, 2004/05, 2005/06, and 2006/07 city of Beaumont SRTP to reflect the additional funding. 8P. TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDITS: FISCAL YEARS 2003/04 THROUGH 2005/06 Page 122 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Review and approve the FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 Triennial Performance Audits for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside Special Services together with Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine); and 2) Direct staff to seek formal responses from the audited agencies and incorporate the responses in the Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs). • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 9 8Q. STATUS REPORT: FISCAL YEAR 200.6/07 PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 124 1) Receive and file the third quarter status report on the FY 2006/07 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP); and 2) • Direct Commission staff to work .with transit operator staff from the city of Banning, city of Beaumont, city of Corona and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) .to jointly develop an action plan to meet the Commission approved PIP. 8R. FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Page 137 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Review and approve, in concept, the FY 2007/08 .through FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the city of Banning, city ofRiverside Special Services (RSS), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program (Commuter Rail), as presented; and 2) Direct Commission staffto obtain additional information from the RTA on its request for a Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) waiver on operating cost per revenue hour. Contingent on compliance with the PIP, review and approve, in concept, Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) SRTP. 8S. • WESTERN RIVERSIDE MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM Page 142 Overview This _ item is for the Commission to allocate $9,000 in Western Riverside . Measure A Specialized Transit funds to the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for •Seniors and. Persons with Disabilities. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 10 8T. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO PRE -FUND RETIREE MEDICAL BENEFITS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 144 1) . Allocate $2,668,182 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to pre -fund post retirement medical benefits related to the implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 45; 2) Reprogram $5,056,818 in previously allocated, unclaimed operating funds as additional funding for pre -funding the . post retirement medical benefits; 3) Amend RTA's FY 2006/07 Short Rang_ a Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional funding; 4) Amend the Commission's FY 2006/07 Budget to reflect the additional funding; and 5) Direct staff to work with RTA on waiving the, impact of the incremental costs to the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) as a result of the pre -funding the GASB 45 actuarial accrued liability. 8U. PALO VERDE VALLEY - FISCAL YEAR 2007/08UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING Page 148 Overview. This item is for the Commission to: 1) . Reaffirm the Commission's definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" standards; and 2) Make a finding through Resolution No. 07-004, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting A Finding That There Are No Unmet Transit Needs That Are Reasonable To Meet In The Palo Verde Valley Area", that based upon a review of the requests for services received through the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 11 8V.. FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 154 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Reaffirm the methodology used to -calculate therequired fare box recovery ratio; and 2) Approve the FY 2007/08 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 17.66% for Riverside .Transit Agency and 17.77% for SunLine Transit Agency. 8W. INLAND EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT CENTER PROJECT CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY FUND ALLOCATION Page 158 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-41-156-.00 with the State of California Department of Transportation for the allocation of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the amount of $6 million dollars for the construction of the Inland Empire Traffic Management Center (TMC) project; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8X. STATE ROUTE.91 COMMUTER EXPRESS BUS - ROUTE 794 Page 170 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the funding of SR-91 Commuter Express Bus - Route 794. services using Commuter Assistance Measure A funds for the second . year, FY 2007/08 of a two-year demonstration in an amount not to exceed $151,000. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 12 8Y. APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ON STATE ROUTE 86 TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT 66' AVENUE Page 175 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Memorandum of • Understanding (MOU) No. 07-31-158-00 for the funding reimbursement ; of state highway improvements by the county of Riverside on SR-86 to install a traffic signal at 66th Avenue; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8Z. APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR • THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE ROUTE 111 IMPROVEMENTS BY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AT .PIERCE STREET Page 189 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Memorandum of . Understanding (MOU) No. 07-31-159-00 for the funding reimbursement of state highway improvements by the county of Riverside to add a left turn lane on SR-1 11 at Pierce Street; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 13 8AA. EXECUTION OF COLLECTION AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF RIVERSIDE ORANGE CORRIDOR AUTHORITY BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND = USDA FOREST SERVICE, CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST FOR THE PROPOSED IRVINE CORONA EXPRESSWAY PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 205 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-65-157-00, on behalf of Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA), between the Commission and USDA Forest Service, Cleveland National Forest and based on the attached collection agreement for a total not to o exceed amount of $ 163,568 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the, agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or his designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project. 8BB. AWARD OF AGREEMENTS TO .DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES, PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, AND PSOMAS FOR ON -CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES Page 214 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) , Award Agreement No. 07-33-143-00, to David Evans & Associates, Agreement No. 07-33-145-00 to Project Design Consultants, and Agreement No. 07-33-144-00 to Psomas for on -call right-of-way engineering and surveying services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 14 8CC. AWARD OF AGREEMENTS TO EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, REAL ESTATE CONSULTING & SERVICES, AND OVERLAND PACIFIC & CUTLER FOR ON -CALL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES Page 216 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) . Award Agreement No. 07-33-151-00 to Epic Land Solutions, Agreement No. 07-33-153-00 to Real Estate Consulting & Services, and Agreement No. 07-33-152-00 to Overland Pacific & Cutler for on -call property management services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8DD. AWARD AGREEMENT TO BRYAN A. STIRRAT & ASSOCIATES, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL, BUREAU VERITAS NA, AND TETRA TECH FOR ON -CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SERVICES Page 218 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 07-31-146-00 to Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, Agreement No. 07-31-147-00 to Leighton Consulting, Agreement No. 07-31-148-00 to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical, Agreement No. 07-31-149-00 to Bureau Veritas NA, and Agreement No. 07-31-150-00 to Tetra Tech to perform on -call right-of-way Phase I and Phase II environmental assessment services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counselreview, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 15 8EE. APPROVE AMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH . METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PERRIS VALLEY PIPELINE AND THE PROVISION OF A SUBSTITUTE EASEMENT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 221 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 07-33-155-00 with Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for the construction of the Perris Valley Pipeline in the San Jacinto Branch Line rail right-of-way and for provision of a substitute easement; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel (Adorno, Yoss, Alvarado, & Smith) review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. 9. COUNTYWIDE (COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS/RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION) ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST . GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING GRANTS FOR THE TRADE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT FUND Page 223 Overview.. This item is for the Commission to authorize the development of a countywide (CVAG/RCTC) $20 million grants for Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separation preliminary engineering projects to support submittal of applications for Proposition 1 B Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TGIF) funding in 2008. 10. COMMISSION'S TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT: . FISCAL YEARS 2003/04 THROUGH 2005/06 . Overview Page 230 This item is for the Commission to review and approve the FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 Triennial Performance Audit for the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 13, 2007 Page 16 11. STATE AND. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 288 1) Approve the following bill positions: SB 375 (Steinberg, D-Sacramento) - OPPOSE SB 748 (Corbett, D-San Leandro) - OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED AB 1351 (Levine, D-Van Nuys) - SUPPORT; and 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative update as an information item. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. • 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. 14. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) • Case Nos. RSC 393352, RSC 386642 and RIC 352391 15. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held ;. at 930 a.m•., Wednesday, July 11, 2007, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • 0: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues - RCTC Agenda of June 13, 2007 The June 13, 2007 agenda ,,of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. An RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $ 250 is received in the past 1` 2 months from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No.,...F Amendment. to Agreement. with Comarco Wireless,Technologies, Inc. for Digital Upgrade for Call Box System and Installation of TTY Devices Consultant(s): Comarco Wireless Technologies, Inc. 2 Cromwell Irvine, !CA 92618-1816 Agenda Item No.8J - Award an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for Joint Development at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station to Alan Mruvka Company DBA Blue Square Development Group Consultant(s): The Alan Mruvka Company DBA Blue Square Development Group 10203 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, -CA 90067 Agenda Item No 8K Amendment to Agreement with Inland Vault;; and Security for Maintenance of the Closed Circuit Television Security. Systems at Metrolink Stations Consultant(s): Inland Vault and Security 3130 Franklin Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 r.. s�P,_.-. J Agenda Item No. SL - Amendment to Agreement with Jefferson Transitional Programs for Three -Month Extension and Additional Cleaning Servicesat the Riverside -Downtown Eastside Parking Lot �i�i � ji;.,i Jefferson Transitional Programs 1495 Columbia Avenue. Riverside, CA 92507 Agenda ltem'No. 8BB Award of Agreements to David Evans'& Associates, Project Design Consultants, and Psomas for On -Call Right ;of Way. Engineering and Surveying Services Consultant(s): David Evans &, Associates 1955 Chicago. A ve., Suite' 200 Riverside, CA 92507 + l Project Design ;Consultants . 434.60 RidgeG Park,:Dr , Suite 7 70 • Temecula, CAS 92590 ; Psomas 3187 Red Hi/l A ve. Suite 250 Costa Mesa, ..CA 192,-- } _ ° 1. �r Agenda .Item No. 8CC - Award of Agreements to Epic Land Solutions, Real Estate Consulting & Services, and Overland Pacific &' Cutler for On -Cal/ Property Management Services E is Land :Solution: 24050µMadison Torrance; Real -Estate Consulting . & :Services. ! 635 East Firs921t, it418 Tustin CA 780 Overland Pacific &'' Cutler , • 100 West Broadway,'. St., Suite Long. Beach, CA 90802 Agenda Item No. 8DD - Award Agreement to • Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, Leighton . . consulting, Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical, Bureau Venitas NA, and Tetra Tech for On -Call Right -of -Way Phase / and Phase // Environmental Assessment Services Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates 1360„Valley Vista Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Leighton Consulting 41715.Enterprise Circle N., Suite 103 Temecula,!CA 92590-5661 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical 1701 South Grove Ave., Suite J Ontario, CA 91761 . Bureau Veritas NA 1565 MacArthur Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 h Tetra Tech'' 348 W. ,Hospitality Lane, Suite-100_ San Bernardino, CA 92408-3214 it Consultant(s): r RCTC Conflict of Interest Form Purpose: This form is provided to assist members of the RCTC Commissioners in meeting requirements of Government Code Section 84308 and 87105 Commission/Committee agenda items. Instructions: Under certain circumstances, in documenting conflict of interests as related to RCTC RCTC Commissioners may be required to disclose and disqualify themselves from participating in, income, real property interests, investments, applicable, Commissioners must personally record, prior to consideration of the involved of the Board prior to leaving the meeting. influencing, or voting on an agenda item due to personal business positions, or receipt of campaign contributions. If state the following information, for entry into the public agenda items) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk I. Board Member Information Board Member Name ,City/CountypName Meeting Date I / i,' IIIeir4 d / �irvt.�sa.� 4-, /s —t7 , II. Campaign Contributions IFor contracts, permits and other entitlements only) • 1. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from , I' (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda item , Subject: . 2. I have a isqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from , and therefo e I aabstaining from participation (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: . 3. I haveialifying campaign contribution of over $250 from , and there ore I am abstaining from participation (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: 4, I have a disqualifying campaign"contribution of over $250-from • ` " ; . II and therefore I am abstaining from participation (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: . III. Financial Interest If ll • 1. 1 have a financi interest of it , from/in and therefore I absta}tl}ng (State income, real property from participation interest, investment or business position) (Identify name of company or property location) on Agenda Item , Subject: 2. I have a fina I lntere t of , from/in (State income, real property interest, investment or business position) (Identity name of company or property location) and therefore I am abs : ing fr. - participation on Ag. da Item , Subject: Mg, ii IV. Signature II u Board Member Signature: - Dater Please remember you must state the information into the1 turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board prior additional information public record prior to consideration of the involved agenda items) and to leaving the meeting. Please use reverse side of form to include any RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JUNE 13, 2007 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS Q ! X��G � _O G�Y�N C�v\ nl A YRY �f -�T avijna, a il(x) .. A/ f li�%' ,,,, � �1 Q N , i_otic A2 ,0,.. /R.. HL k`---1 13 - O .S. irt-,!"-- fR1 > G/ eos MUR A22- / > _ y; lei, �j'�Ii•. � '' � - ,' Mifie( ro.,4v.1./1--- e --- � �. C e-A\ -vm, .L� sits 11.n �Z?Z., /) Gc, � (ou 91J,Pi", / �WAIIPV a A • 4-V2e, 2-e.. L 4 , .9�E i>.cl �i3 4/G,4o / 2. ,.,�F 1ctipi-rz__ 4. 1.J1�-ur /tdbAo M/ d/'_—. /U%v.C.._,ori /,(.'�C7, r4,N ii� 5 Y P CA:n4e0R4 ( Ch v / REIN ,s -4 d fr1,61 ., c4:110 -vj r b_ (^I) 1 fSb'v \`1 w DATE: ! 1 ;) 0 7 Lpe m:;rt-AIVU-SUBMIT"TO-THE CLERK OF THE BOARD CHECK IF PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: ADDRESS: _UBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: �In I n cpfh4 Nets) y Neccl Aildcai:cm Plah SUBJECT,OF AGENDA 'ITEM: k r) 6 l� San rY\ I' q v e STREET PHONE NO.: Ci S� 7841 - 3S 26 CITY REPRESENTING;501/ ile,t4 Ca%,� j�1S5af, Cif 6-QfreYment5PHONE NO.: NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET ZIP CODE CITY ZIP CODE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Notice of Public Hearing To Adopt Proposed Final Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Plan Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:45 am Contact: Ma'Ayn Johnson 213-236-1975 SCAG Main Office 818 W. 7'" Street, 12'h Floor San Bernardino Room Los Angeles, CA 90017 Public Notice is hereby given that the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is conducting a public hearing to consider adoption of the Proposed Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan at the date, time, and location identified; above. This public hearing signals the end of SCAG's Fourth Cycle of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process to issue the Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan required by the State of California in order for local jurisdictions to prepare updated General Plan Housing Elements. The Proposed Final Regional Housing Need Allocation has been prepared in accordance with Senate Bill 12 (Lowenthal, D-Long Beach) approved by the Governor on April 10, 2007 and other applicable provisions of Government Code Section 65580 et seq., and maintains a total regional housing need, by income category, within the range approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development on November 30, 2006. The proposed Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan is available for review online at http://scag.ca.gov/Housing/pdfs/rhna/RHNA Proposed-Final-Allocation.pdf and in the SCAG offices, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m, to 5 p.m.: SCAG-Main Office 818 W. 7`s Street, 12`s Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 SCAG-Riverside Office 3600 Lime Street, Suite 216 Riverside, CA 92501 Additional information regarding the RHNA process is available at: http://www.scag.ca.gov/Housing/rhna.htm: Written comments may be submitted beforehand for SCAG's consideration and discussion at the public hearing. To ensure receipt of written comments, comments should be submitted to SCAG, attention: Ma'Ayn Johnson, at the SCAG Los Angeles office by Friday, July 6, 2007. Doc #136338v3 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK -OF -THE BOARD DATE: 6 - 3 - p 7 CHECK IF SUBJECT OF G ---� - PUBLIC COMMENTS: � PUBLIC COMMENTS: / A 3114-9 v�ite s 3 AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: NAME: tovAisq/ ('41P°14PSovt ADDRESS: 38g/ /P I% site f STREET REPRESENTING:&,/,/, „j-NCIsdrA,rtpu444,NAI)4E•6F AGENCY / ORG IZN / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: 38�1 STREET of • l PHONE NO.: q$>- 7:3J d ue r07t5`a CITY ZIP CODE PHONE NO.: CITY ZIP CODE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL JUNE 13, 2007 County of Riverside, D strict County of Riverside, District II ,County_' of_ Riverside, District>III , __ County of Riverside, District IV County of Riwersi:de, Distract V City of Banning P-7 r .- �77- .. City of=,Beaumont City of Blythe City, of' Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of:QathedrWl City City of Coachella City of Corona . F{ City of Desert Hot Springs ,City of.}Hemet.— City of Indian Wells City�oflndiot City of La Quinta City 2ofv Lake:Elsi"nore..;' City of Moreno Valley Cityof`Murrieta City of Norco 0•N O:f JPalm_Dese,1 City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City o ;Riverside City of San Jacinto City of3eme'cula2;.,_ j Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 CEO ct Present Absent 1\.kO °`' RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2007 MEETING SCHEDULE Meeting Date (Wednesday) _-- Commission Location Executive Committee Location January 10 10:00 a.m. Board Room B:30 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A. February 14 10:00 a.m. Board Room B:30 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A March 14,, 1000 a.m. Board Room CANCELLED nfa April 11 10:00 a.m. Board Room 9:30 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A May B 10:00 a.m. BoardRoom- CANCELLED nia June 13 9:30 a.:ffi. Board Room CANCELLEt. n/a July 11 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 .M. RCTC Conf Rm A August 8 g:30 a.m. Board Room 9. 00 a. " RCTC Cortf Rm A September 12 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9: 00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A October 11 (Thursday) October 12 (Friday) S: 00 p. rr. 8: 00 a.m. Embassy Suites La Quinta 2: S0 p.m nia Embassy Suites La Quinta Novernber 14 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9: 00 a. tn. RCTC Conf Rm A December 12 9:30 a. rn. Board Room g:00 a.m RCTC Conf Rm A The Commission and the Executive. Committee meetings are held on the .- 2"a Wednesday of each month: Meetings in August may be cancelled. The October Commission and Executive Committee meetings will beheld on October 11 th and the Commission Workshop on October 12' at the Embassy Suites La Quinta. LOOZ/9 Pasina8 d0 `aup.Alg haws Aempeoa8 up.aoN 58Z saagwou0 llauno.0 A110 etivki8 LOOZ 'L yoaeVV 'Aeps.nyl 'w'a O.E:Z Buh1LGH o! qnd spooN ilsueij. latuun geld' Aef eA epnA oied , .siseq ApaLienb a uo AePsirna pic ayn uo Ray aae aellIuwu,wo0 Aellod }o sOuReaw eta WO% 90119.ep00 JO% y19 ' w' e 00:0 8 L Jag0100 11100}:1 e0L1eae41100 1001d y� u r e 00:0 L 6 l AInp `d wool eouaaaluo0 0 O1:1 . w. e 00:01 'bZ AeW woou eouwaluo0 „mold yl9 `w'e '00:0 1 61. Hadb UMOU aouaa U00 a001d 419 ' w e 00.01. uo lepoi. 99 1wW00 A0110d sue.u. (Aepsintu elea Bunee -. •pallaoue9 aq >feu! Ain!'ee ufiu P e a06to 6.1e .sfiui1aagtw w y1 Z aaePa/ .Q pue y18Z �W -aWl •'y1uow Sea -�euo _ .. I/V 'P II y �o P -W _a.y __uo___play-aae=as# Iuauao0-sweafio�d-�g-rsue d--pue-=aa lulu;co--uol�e}uauaaid' -1: /g: '66pn8=aya.-jo-sfiuReew ayl -(331-13ONVO - -- �Z=_aac waoe- woopaeo8 ` u'd OC:Z I '11J'e 08:6 9Z aagwanoN wool PaeOB `w'd 06:Z ' are 08 6 ZZ aagoloo woobl paeo8 .w•d 08:Z1 ' w'e O£:6 Z Jegweldas woo8 paeog • 0.8:Z l .w.e 0£:6 LZ I.snOny woo8,paeo8. O6:Z I. .w.e 0C:6 gZ Inr wooapaeo8 eiu `w'd OE:Z l aa-1180NtL0 . w.e 08;6 131E19ONVO 5Z aunf' sZ :ell wool- paeo8 - - . cI,_08 _: .e 0E6 Ez Nciv ua0OH P eOa 'd OE:Z l C19 113ONVO 9Z yo..19W wool paeo8 433 1"130N`d0 . w' a 08:6 9Z Aaenuged wvobl pae09 C131-180NVO . w.e 08:6 ZZ Menuep uopepo aellwwo0 sweJ6w-d Is.- sue d-- -- Geiwuuo3 - uon.eluauaaidLui- le6pn (.fie# uoVV)_ °lea Bunee_IN-- RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, May 9, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Terry Henderson 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, Commissioner Michael Wilson led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Marion Ashley Alex Bias Roger Berg Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Carlson John Chlebnik Mary Craton Joseph DeConinck Eduardo Garcia Rick Gibbs Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Bob. Magee Jeff Miller Ronald Oden Ron Roberts • Patty Romo Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Steve Adams Frank Hall Gordon Moller Patrick Mullany Gregory Pettis Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS Garry Grant, Meadowbrook area resident, expressed concern for the. conditions on State Route 74. He explained that it is a major highwaythat he believes has become grid locked and environmentally unsafe, specifically the degradation between Dexter Avenue and Interstate 15. He believes that this is attributable to the utilities to create the commercial environment that benefit the area. Borre Winckel, representing the Building Industry Association (BIA)for Riverside County, stated that in May/June 2006, the BIA made a. prepayment to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program in the amount of $110 million. Currently, there is a massive expiration on approximately 15,000 TUMF permits and applications. Western Riverside. Council . of. Governments (WRCOG) has made the decision to work closely with the BIA to ensure these permits are kept active as lack of action could collapse the TUMF program. He explained that Eric Haley, Executive Director, provided great assistance in discussions with WRCOG to address this .matter. He requested that the Commissioners follow-up. with respective city staff to ensure a uniform approach to the extension of these permits 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 11, 2007 M/S/C (M. Wilson/Carlson) to approve the April 11, 2007 minutes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING .- PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager, presented the proposed Budget for FY 2007/08, reviewing the following areas: • • Budget process - Resource estimation and allocations, Commission policy goals and objectives; department- goalsand objectives, department budget development, compilation of Commission budget and review and adoption of budget; _ Guiding policies - Mobility initiatives, goods movement, improved system efficiency, environmental stewardship, economic development, intermodalism and accessibility, public and agency communications and financial and administration; Budget summary - Beginning fund balance, total estimated sources, total estimated uses, uses over sources and ending fund balance; Revenue trends - FYs 2004/05 through 2007/08; • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 3 • • • • • Revenues - Measure A sales tax, LTF: sales tax, intergovernmental, TUMF revenue, other revenue and investment income; Revenue breakdown - FY 2006/07 revised and projected budget and FY 2007/08 budget; Expenditures - Capital Highway, Regional. Arterial, Rail, Local Streets and Roads, Regional Arterials Coachella. Valley, Debt Service, Management Services, Planning and Programming, Rail, Specialized Transit, Transit, Commuter Assistance and Motorist Assistance; Expenditures breakdown by department and function - FY 2006/07 revised and projected budget and FY 2007/08 budget; Department expenditure highlights - highway, rail and regional arterial projects; Functional expenditure highlights - Personnel based on 44 full time equivalent, capital outlay related to office reconfiguration and rail property improvements; Personnel cost trends - budget and actual for FYs 2002/03 through 2007/08; Measure A administration - Salaries and benefits to 1 % of Measure A sales tax revenues and Commission policy for total administration costs not to exceed 4% of Measure A salestax revenues an Next steps - Receive input for proposed budget, finalize budget, review final budget draft and close public hearing at its June 13, 2007 Commission meeting, and adoption of final budget at the June 13tn Commission meeting. Chair Henderson opened the public hearing at this .time. No comments were received from the public and the Chair announced the continuance < of the public hearing with adoption of the FY 2007/08 Budget on June 13 2007. Commissioner Robin Lowe thanked the Riverside County voters for voting on the Measure A sales tax and Transportation Uniform Mitigation fee (TUMF). She expressed amazement for the ability of Riverside County to move transportation projects forward, especially when compared to other counties in the state. She believes that .the residents of Riverside County need to understand what they have enabled the Commission to do on their behalf. Chair Henderson suggested placing an ad in the paper thanking the residents of Riverside County. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner John Chlebnik suggested that after each project is completed and opened, the voters should receive credit for their foresight in providing the funds to complete these projects. Chair Henderson stated that she will attend the Jefferson Street Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on Friday, May 18th and will incorporate the Commission's gratitude to the voters in her remarks. John Standiford, Public Affairs Director, noted that the Commission publishes an annual report in the newspapers that often focuses on the projects themselves. He suggested that one of the messages that can be focused ,on in the coming years is the impact of the voter -approved actions on these projects. M/SIC (Lowe/Chlebnik) to continue the public hearing of the proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2007/08 to the Commission meeting on June 13, 2007. 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Bob Buster requested Agenda Items 8G and 8H be pulled for discussion. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Craton) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 8A. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 Approve the recurring contracts for FY 2007/08. 1NTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the third quarter ended March :31, 2007. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 5 8C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Report for ;the third quarter ended March 31, 2007. 8D. AWARD OF AGREEMENTS FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE 1) Award Agreement No. 07-45-133-00 to Armada Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 4 of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program at a cost of $50.25 per hour per truck; 2) Award Agreement No. 07-45-135-00 to Armada Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 8 of the FSP program at a cost of $51.50 per hour per truck; 3) Award Agreement No. 07-45-134-00 to 'Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 18 of the FSP program at a cost of $51.00 per hour per truck; 4) Award Agreement No. 07-45-136-00 to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 19 of the FSP program at a cost of $52.00 per hour per truck; and 5) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8E. SB 821 BICYCLE AND -PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Grant the city of Lake Elsinore (City) an extension to June 30, 2008 to complete the Mohr Street, Sumner Avenue and La Strada Street sidewalk improvement projects. 8F. APPROVAL OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT NO. 07-67-041-00 (FORMERLY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NATIONAL FREIGHT GATEWAY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING) 1) Approve the Partnership Agreement No. 07-67-041-00 (formerly Southern California National Freight. Gateway MOU); and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 6 81. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 8J. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: COMMUTER RAIL 1) Allocate $3,523,775 in State Transit Assistance (STA) and $567,714 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to serve as local match to previously allocated Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for the parking structure at the North Main Corona Station; 2) Allocate $180,000 in LTF funds to cover the costs of parking relocation; and 3) Amend the FY 2006/07 Commuter Rail Prog:ram's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional funding allocations for the project. 8K. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT 1) Allocate $47,030 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) as the local match for the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 program; 2) Allocate $2,690 in STA funds to RTA to serve as the local match for the FTA Section 531 1(f) grant program; 3) Authorize the reprogramming of $25,672 in STA funds to cover the operating costs of the CNG fueling station 4) Allocate $60,000 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to cover the cost of providing shuttle service due to construction on 1-215; 5) Recognize an additional $20,000 in other revenue for the Crest Cruiser program and $2.5 million in Transportation . Uniform. Mitigation Fees (TUMF) funds for the Riverside Transit Center; and 6) Amend the FY 2006/07 Short Range TransitPlan (SRTP) to. reflect these changes and include the projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), as appropriate. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 7 8L. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY — SECTION 5310 CAPITAL GRANTS PROGRAM 1) Allocate $12,400 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) as the local match for the Federal. Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 program; and 2) Amend SunLine's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional capital equipment and associated funding. 8M. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT_: CITY OF RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES 1) Allocate $230,000. in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to the city of . Riverside's Special Services (RSS) program contingent upon approval by the Riverside City Council; and 2) Amend RSS' FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to. reflect the additional funding. 8N. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL 1) Appoint Fortunato Penilla to the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation - Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC); and 2) Seek candidate names from Commissioners as to potential appointments to the CAC/SSTAC. 80. AWARD OF AGREEMENTS TO DONNA DESMOND ASSOCIATES AND DESMOND, MARCELL° & AMSTER FOR ON -CALL GOODWILL VALUATION SERVICES 1) Award Agreement No. 07-33-124-00 to Donna Desmond Associates and Agreement No. 07-33-125-00 to Desmond Marcello & Amster to perform on -call goodwill valuation services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 8 8P. AWARD OF AGREEMENTS TO LAND AMERICA COMMERCIAL SERVICES, CHICAGO TITLE, AND FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY FOR 'ON -CALL TITLE AND ESCROW SERVICES 1) Award Agreement No. 07-31-128-00 to Land America Commercial Services, Agreement No. 07-31 129-00 to Chicago Title, and Agreement No. 07-31-130-00 to First American Title Company to perform title and escrow services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. . $Q. AWARD OF AGREEMENTS TO CROCKETT & ASSOCIATES, LTD: AND DESMOND, MARCELLO & AMSTER FOR ON -CALL FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT APPRAISAL SERVICES 1) Award Agreement No. 07-33-126-00 to Crockett & Associates, Ltd. and Agreement No. 07-33-127-00 to Desmond, Marcell° & Amster to perform on -call furniture, fixtures and equipment, (FF&E) appraisal services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE John Standiford updated the Commission on the current state and federal legislation, highlighting the following areas: Sacramento Update - AB 1295 (Spitzer) approved by Assembly Transportation Committee, AB 1240 (Benoit) stalled in Committee; Next steps in Sacramento — AB 1295 to Appropriations, update to 91 Express Lanes Committee on May 18`h, working with California Transportation Commission (CTC) . on AB 1467 process, consider alternatives to design -build and assist with statewide efforts and sponsor television outreach; Television outreach for 91 — KOCE and KVCR covering "The Future of the 91"; and Washington Update — Local interests and Washington visits. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 9 Commissioner Jeff Miller offered to take the lead on organizing an ad hoc committee to start a ballot initiative process for the design -build. He believes it should be removed from the legislature and can be taken to the voters and passed. John Standiford replied that some of the business organizations are looking into this issue. He provided an overview on the court case where the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG) challenged contracting out and failed. Commissioner Lowe concurred with Commissioner Miller's comments. She stated that she will raise the issue at the next League of California Cities Board meeting. She suggested all Commissioners need. to be involved and discuss it at every policy committee that they are a member throughout the state. There are private firms that pay prevailing wages that are willing to perform risk management builds. However, due to categorization as a general law city or prohibited by state law, the cities and counties cannot participate in design -build. Commissioner Bob Buster suggested keeping up with nationwide and international experiments to expedite projects as they may offer lessons or techniques that can be useful. Eric Haley discussed the MacArthur Maze reconstruction project. He stated that it needs to be demonstrated that design -build works in a number of scenarios and can work for the Commission. In response to Commissioner Chlebnik's question regarding crafting a ballot measure for design -build for one county, John Standiford responded that it would require a statewide action as it affects state law. Commissioner Chlebnik then suggested that since the state does not oppose the use of design -build in emergency situations, the freeway congestion in Riverside County is an emergency and therefore design -build should be used. Chair Hendersbn concurred with Commissioner Chlebnik's comment regarding freeway congestion. John Standiford announced that business organizations are hosting the Inland Empire Legislative Caucus meeting on May 18t at 7:30 a.m. at the San Bernardino Hilton. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9 2007 Page 10 M/S/C (Ashley/Carlson) to: 1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update; and 2) Approve a contract with the KOCE PBS station in an amount not to exceed $ 22,000 for television production costs on a public affairs program regarding the future of State Route 91. 9. REGIONAL " PROGRAMS . SPOTLIGHT: WESTERN RIVERSIDE SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM Tanya Love, Program Manager, presented the .specialized transit outreach efforts throughout Riverside County as well as the state level, highlighting the following areas: • • • • • • Mobility Management - 82% of Americans age 65 or older worry they will be stranded and unable to get around when they can no longer drive; Chart from USA Today dated May 2, 2007, that depicts graphically risk by age group; Older Californian traffic safety - Committee Memberships and goals to raise awareness of aging, population's mobility needs and associated issues; Riverside County's senior population_ - Growth in seniors age 65 + and 85 +; Aging generation - Longevity creates socioeconomic challenges and opportunities; Challenges in providing transportation; Opportunities to meet transportation needs; County -wide activities - Continue to provide traditional funding for public dial -a -ride, working with the federal government that provides 5310 capital funds and non -emergency medical health needs for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties; County -wide specialized transit activities Roadmap for " Coordinated Transportation Innovations meeting located at the Morongo Casino May 17, 2007; Biennial call for projects Western Riverside County; FY 2007/08 Guide to Transportation Freedom; Innovative Programs - Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP), Care -a -Van Transit (San Jacinto/Hemet), City of Norco's " program and Riverside County Regional Medical Center Program; • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007. Page 11 • Western Riverside County - Measure A Specialized Transit proposed funding; and • Partnerships to increase mobility options. At Commissioner Lowe's request, Tanya Love provided clarification on the classes and income of the baby boomer generation and additional information on the demonstration project in Santa Clarita. Commissioner Lowe requested staff report back to the Commission with an update on the demonstration project in Santa Clarita. Commissioner Roger Berg discussed combining : senior housing and commercial development in a centralized location to more effectively provide transit services, citing Canada and Europe as examples. He .added that if transit is not flexible, people will not use it. At Chair Henderson's request, Tanya Love provideddetails on the TRIP program, including the process to become a volunteer. M/SIC (Busch/Roberts) to receive a presentation on the Western Riverside Specialized Transit Program. 10. STATUS UPDATE ON THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE John Standiford presented a status update on the Perris Valley Line (PVL), highlighting the following areas: • PVL service facts - $193 million project cost, 22.7 miles long, eight trips per day at start-up., travel. time of 40 minutes from Perris Boulevard, travel time of 20 minutes from Alessandro Boulevard; • Proposed Metrolink extension map; • Previous actions - 1989 Measure A authorized project and funding, purchase of tracks in 1993, Commission allocated funding in 2000, appointed ad hoc committee in 2001 and launched federal environmental process in 2004; • Recent. news - Nearing approval from Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Preliminary Engineering (PE), hosted FTA for visitand. inspection, on -going development of Perris Multimodal Transportation Center, ad hoc committee held on April 23`d, state Legislation de -railed and increase in ridership forecasts; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 12 • PVL travel demand forecast; • PVL funding shares - federal, state and Measure A funds; • Small Starts minimum eligible project in the amount of $25 million vs New Starts maximum eligible project $250 million; PVL schedule - 2007 = complete NEPA/CEQA,: receive FTA rating for PE, 2008 = complete PE and begin final .design {FD}, 2009 = complete FD and begin construction, and 2010 =complete construction and service begins; • Proposed Perris Multi -Modal Facility - Complete FD November 2007 and begin construction April 2008; • Current issues - PE, project management plan, NEPA, and ridership; • PVL cost uncertainty risk assessment; • CPUC coordination - 18 at -grade crossings along route, of which, two are proposed to close in Perris, CPUC provided comments to draft environmental assessment and sealed corridor design concept; • Stakeholder coordination and input; and • Outstanding issues - Completing the link from Riverside - Downtown station to the rest of the line, station locations, community outreach, federal funding of Small Starts Program and responding to state legislative setback.- - Commissioner Buster stated that he wanted to ensure that the Commission understood the state and federal environmental documents of the projects effects on freight train movements in the future on that corridor. He believes there will be considerable attention to the impacts and mitigation for this . project. He stated his support for planning ahead and receiving the full detailed analysis of all these issues so there is a basis to assure people there will not be a significant impact or the mitigation will be provided to reduce it. At Commissioner Mary Craton's request, John. Standiford provided clarification on the difference between the New Starts and Small Starts programs. He noted that the Commission will likely save money utilizing the Small Starts program and there is a greater possibility of receiving funding. Commissioner Ron Roberts briefed the Commission on the Sacramento trip to support AB 1240, which would authorizes the Commission to use design -build contracting in the delivery of the PVL Metrolinkextension. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 13 MIS/C (Buster/Lowe) to receive an oral report on the status of the Perris Valley Line and recent visit by Federal Transit Administration Region 9. 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Agenda Items 8G and 8H were included in the discussion of Agenda Item 11. M/S/C (Buster/Lowe) to approve the following items: 8G. PERRIS VALLEY LINE ,— UPDATE ON PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Receive and file an update ;on the Perris Valley Line (PVL) preliminary engineering contract. 8H. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH STV INC. FOR PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES ON THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE 1) Approve Agreement No. 99-33-003-1 1,: Amendment No. 11 to Agreement No. 9.9-33-003, with STV, Inc. for planning consultant services related to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) coordination, submittal of the FTA Small Starts application = for entry to Preliminary Engineering, and completion of the NEPA and CEQA environmental documents for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project, in the amount of $236,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant. to legal counsel review, to executethe MOU on behalf of the Commission. 12. COMIVIISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 13A. Commissioner Chlebnik briefed the Commission on the 1-10 interchange improvements and requested coordination with the widening improvements. Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director, responded that currently, the only project on the 1-10 within Riverside County that is proposed` for funding is . the truck climbing. lane in the 10=Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan. She explained that Caltrans is preparing the project study report for the ultimate planning for 1-10. There is no money allocated to widening 1-10. The Commission will have the opportunity to be involved in the long range planning. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 14 Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, noted that I-10 covered in the freeway study. Eric Haley added that if there is a county line road/interchange or some other major facility and Calimesa is exacting a fee to widen_ the interchanges, it should be interacting with Caltrans long range planning to ensure consistency. 13B. Commissioner Bob Magee responded to the public comment made by. Garry Grant regardingthe impacts on SR-74 at 1-15. He provided background information on steps that the city of Lake Elsinore has. been taken over ` the past three years for improvements at the SR-74/I-15 interchange and stated his commitment to continue to work'. with Ca(trans to make these improvements as quickly as possible. He proudly stated the success that the comrnercial and retail development has brought to the city of Lake Elsinore. 13C. Commissioner Miller announced he would like the opportunity to explore a design -build ballot initiative, noting that he will raise the issue at the State Route 91 Advisory Committee to receive input from Orange County Transportation Authority members. Chair Henderson stated that she will appoint an ad hoc committee to address design -build. 13D�. Eric Haley: s • Announced the Jurupa Avenue Grade Separation Groundbreaking on May 11 th at 1000 a.m.; Announced that the Inland Empire Legislative Caucus . is being held on May 18th from 7:30 a.m. — 9:30 a.m. at the San Bernardino Hilton; Announced that the TCIF Working Group on Goods Movement is being held on May 18th from 10:00 a.m. 2:00 p.m. at San Bernardino Associated Governments; Announced the Jefferson Street Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on May 18th at 10:00 a.m.; Announced the State Route 91 Advisory Committee is being held on May 18th at 9:30 a.m, at Orange. County Transportation Authority; and Briefed the Commission on the Sacramento visit on May 7th and 8th for AB 1240 design -build. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 9, 2007 Page 15 110 14. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS 14A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case Nos.: RIC 393352 and RIC 468791 14B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government. Code Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One There were no announcements from closed session items.. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration. by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 1226 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held . at 10:00 a.m., on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 9250.1. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2007/08 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2007/08; 2) Close the public hearing to receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2007/08; and 3) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2007/08. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The annual fiscal budget is the result of Commission staff determining the operating and capital needs for FY 2007/08 and identifying the resources to fund those needs. The budget process began in January 2007. The goals and objectives approved by the Commission on March 14, 2007, 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. On May 9, 2007, staff presented the proposed budget to the Commission. Subsequent to that presentation, staff updated the document as a result of the following changes: • An increase of $12,354,200 in 'Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax .revenue to reflect the total revenue estimate approved by the Commission; • An increase of $1, 556, 200 in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) reimbursements for the 1-215/1-15 to Scott Road; • An increase of $8,246,000 in federal reimbursements for the SR-91 HOV lanes, SR-60 East Junction, and SR-79 realignment projects; • An increase of $612,200 in other local reimbursements for the 1-15 Cajalco interchange; Agenda Item 6 • An increase of $3,243,800 in Measure A. highway transfers in for the SR-60 HOV lanes/Valley Way to 1-15 offset by an increase in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund .(TUMF) operating- transfers out; • An increase of $8,800 in Freeway Service Patrol (FSP)` transfers in and the related Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) transfer out for CHP overtime costs; • An increase of $1,000,000 in personnel salary and fringe. benefit expenditures to pre -fund a portion of the Commission's postretirement health benefits liability; • A $'1, 538,000 increase in right-of-way support service expenditures for various highway and rail projects; • An increase of $135,000 in SAFE expenditures for thedigital-upgrade and TTY work on the call boxes; • An increase of $8,800 in FSP expenditures for CHP overtire costs necessary .to support .the program; • An increase of $100,000 in rail capital expenditures for special studies on the Perris Valley Line; • A decrease of $9,233,200 in Transportation Development Act (TDA)_ , disbursements due to revised Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) and a duplication of bicycle and pedestrian facilities expenditures; and • An increase in interest income of $418,200 as a result of the increase in revenues and expenditures as noted .above. A public hearing to allow for public comment on the proposed budget, asrevised, is required prior to the adoption of the proposed budget. The public hearing was opened at the May 9, 2007 Commission meeting. After the public hearing is closed on June 13, 2007, adoption of the proposed Budget for FY 2007/08 will follow. In accordance with the Commission's fiscal policies, the budget must be adopted no later than June 15' of each year. Attached is the proposed Budget for FY 2007/08. This document contains the executive summary, as revised, that was presentedat the May 9, 2007 Commission meeting; the Gann Appropriation Limit; the guiding policies related to the preparation of the budget; a summary of the budget process; fund budgets; details of program revenues and other sources, personnel costs and debt; department budgets; a community profile; and appendices including: a glossary of acronyms, funding definitions, and program/general terms. Agenda Item 6 2 • • • A summary of the proposed Budget for FY 2007/08 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 2007/08 Budget S 255,978,600 42,081,600 27,250,000 23,263,000 4,407,900 17,096,700 87,000,000 77,940,600 535,018,400 7,589,400 8,370,300 2,662,200 464,981,200 942,000 42,225,900 77, 940, 600 604,711,600 (69,693,200/ 466,881,300 S 397,188,100 Attachment: Proposed Budget for FY 2007/08 - Available on the Web Agenda Item 6 3 Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2007/08 Budget Summary • Beginning fund balance = $466,881,300 • Total estimated sources = $535,018,400 ➢ Revenues = $ 370,077,800 ➢ Commercial paper proceeds = $87,000,000 ➢ Transfers in = $77,940,600 Total estimated uses = $604,711,600 ➢ Expenditures = $526,771,000 ➢ Transfers out = $77,940,600 Uses over sources ➢ (offset by beginning fund balance) = $69,693,200 Ending fund balance = $397,188,100 Revenues & Other Sources Federal State Local/Other Total Measure A $ - $ - $ 165,600,000 $ 165,600,000 LTF - - 90,378,600 90,378,600 STA 23,263,000 - 23,263,000 Ca!trans 3,200,000 9,474,500 12,674,500 CMAQ 14,879,200 14,879,200 FTA 6,448,700 - 6,448,700 Federal Other 4,247,000 - - 4,247,000 TUMF - 27,250,000 27,250,000 License Fees - 400,000 400,000 CVAG - 1,430,100 1,430,100 DMV Fees 1,460,000 - 1,460,000 FSP 2,145,300 - 2,145,300 Investment and Other 19,901,400 19,901,400 Debt Proceeds 87,000,000 87,000,000 Transfers In 77,940,600 77,940,600 Total $ 28,774,900 $ 36,342,800 $ 469,900,700 $ 535,018,400 Revenues & Other Sources Other Interest: 0 TUMF f, O Federal I"s 3 State Transfers In r` LTF CP Proceeds Measure A f I] 26000,000 46000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 120,006000 140,000,600 160,000,000 180,000,000 (In Nikons) Summary of Expenditures Management Services Regional Programs Capital Project Development and Delivery Debt Service Total Debt Service 8% Capital Project DeveognEnt and Delivery 68% Management Services 1% Regional Programs 23% FY 2007/08 Expenditures $ 5,585,300 121,255,400 357,704,400 42,225,900 $ 526, 771, 000 Exeal6ve Msnagerrterd Pdniristration Legislative Affairs and Car rru icatiors Finance Total N}anagement Services Finance 36% Legislative Affairs and Con-municatons 17% Executive Management 7% FY2007/08 Expenditures $ 376,300 2,249,100 928,800 2,031,100 $ 5,98,9,300 Adninstraton 40 % Highlights: Implementation of internal audit risk program New Administrative Support Specialist, Community Relations Program Manager, and Accounting Supervisor positions • Capital outlay for increased staff • 16.3% increase from prior year budget Regional Programs Regional Issues Planning and Programming Rail Right of Way Management Specialized Transit Transit Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Total Regional Programs Matarist Assistance 4% Commuter Assistance 5% Regional Issues 1% Transit 70% Panning and Rograrr ing FY 2007/08 Expenditures $ 749,100 8,823,500 9,034,100 1,162,500 6,323,500 83,600,600 6,450,300 5,111, 800 $ 121,255,400 Rail 7% Rght of Way Abnagenent 1% Bpecolized Transit 5% Highlights: • Continued strategic partnership efforts • Increased project and operation costs ➢ Inclusion of LTF Special Revenue Fund for transit and SB821 bicycle and pedestrian facilities program ➢ Implementation of FSP service on two new beats ➢ Geotechnical studies related to Irvine - Corona Expressway Capital Program Salaries and Benefits Professional Costs Support Costs Projects and Operations: General Highways Local Streets and Roads Rail Regional Arterials - Coachella Valley Regional Arterials - Western County Capital Outlay Total Capital Project Development Delivery FY2007/08 Expenditures $ 2,942,500 2,443,600 116,500 4,279,800 140,923,000 61,959,500 34,692,000 15,553,600 94,293,900 500,000 $ 357,704,400 Capital Program (continued) Capital Outlay 0% Support Costs 0% Professional Costs 1% Salaries and Benet its 1% General 1% Highw ay 40% Local Streets and Roads 14% Rail 1 0 % Regional Arterials - Western County 4% Regional Arterials -Coachella Valley 26% Capital Program Highlights • Significant Highway, Regional Arterial, and Rail Projects ➢ SR-60 HOV LanesNalley Way to 1-15 ➢ SR-79 realignment ➢ SR-91 HOT and Mixed Flow Lanes ➢ SR-91 HOV Lanes ➢ SR-91 Green River Road Interchange ➢ SR-91 La Sierra Interchange ➢ Mid County Parkway ➢ SR-111 City Projects D. Measure A commercial paper and TUMF pass through funding for local projects ➢ Perris Valley Line ➢ Perris Multimodal Facility ➢ North Main Corona Station Parking Structure ➢ Land mitigation Capital Program Highlights (continued) • Local Street and Roads ➢ $47 million for Western County ➢ $14 million for Coachella Valley ➢ $1 million for Palo Verde Valley • Regional Arterials in the Coachella Valley Expenditures Breakdown by Function Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations Debt Service and Costs of Issuances Capital Outlay Total Expenditures FY2007/08 Expenditures $ 7,589,400 8,370,300 2,662,200 464,981,200 42,225,900 942,000 $ 526,771,000 Professional Capital Outlay 2% D% Debt Service and Costs of Issuances 8% Personnel 1% Projects and Operations 88% Support 1% Measure A Administration Budget Projected Actual Actual 1 0.00% 0.50 % ❑ Salaries and Benefits % o Administratise Costs % 1.00% 150% 200% 2.50% • Measure A limits administrative salaries and benefits to 1% of Measure A sales tax revenues • Commission policy for total administration costs not to exceed 4% of Measure A sales tax revenues • Receive input for proposed budget today • Finalize budget and related document • Close public hearing and adopt final budget • AGENDA ITEM 8A • • • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 08-001, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Annual Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2007/08" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 08-001, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Annual Appropriations Limit for FY 2007/08". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make documentation used to determine the appropriations limit available to the public fifteen days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit. Staff has performed the calculations necessary to determine the limit. The resolution and documents supporting the calculation are attached. The Commission chose to use the percentage change in the California per capita personal income and the populations change within Riverside County as the factors in determining the appropriations limit. As required, the adoption of the Commission's Gann Appropriations Limit was posted in the local newspaper. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 08-001 2) California per capita income - California Department of Finance 3.) Population, Riverside County - California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit Agenda Item 8A • • ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 08-001 "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT" WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California Constitution places an annual limitation upon appropriations from proceeds of taxes by each local government of the State of California; and WHEREAS, in 1988, pursuant to Article XIIIB, section 4 of the California Constitution, the Riverside County Transportation Commission established its appropriations limit at $75 million for fiscal year 1988-1989 under ordinance No. 88-1; and WHEREAS, Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution byrequiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make the documentation used in determining the appropriations limit available to the public fifteen days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriationslimit; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Constitutional Amendment .No. 1 approved by the voters of the State effective June 6, 1990, beginning with fiscal year 1990-1991 and for each fiscal year thereafter, the Commission's Board of Commissioners is required to select either the percentage change in California per capita personal income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll due to the addition of localnon- residential construction, and either the population change within the Commission or the population change within .Riverside County, as the two factors to be applied in calculating the appropriations limit for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, this Board wishes to select, as factors in determining the Commission's appropriation limit for fiscal year 2007-2008 the percentage change in California per capita personal income and also the population change within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, this Commission has documented its calculations of the Commission's appropriations limit for fiscal year 2007-2008 and said calculations have been made available to the public at least fifteen days prior to the adoption of this resolution ATTACHMENT 1 NOW, THEREFORE, ' BE 1T RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission as, follows:' 1. For fiscal year 20.07/08, the factorsselected for calculating the appropriations: limit are (a) the percentage change in; California per capita personal income, and (b) the population change within the County of. Riverside, 2. The appropriations limit applicable to this Agency pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California :,Constitution for fiscal year 2007/08 are hereby established and determined to be $294,507,445 3. A copy ofthe documentation used in .the determination of the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2007/08 shall be: affixed hereto and shall be available for public inspection. 4. Pursuant to Section 7910 of the California Government Code, , any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the establishment of the appropriations limit as set forth. herein must be commenced within forty-five days of the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 2007. Terry Henderson, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST:: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County; Transportation Commission 6 • • • ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2007-2008 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 2006-2007 Appropriations Limit $ 265,455,468 2007-2008 adjustment: Change in California per capita income 7.39 percent Change in Population, Riverside County 3.31 percent 7.39 + 100 = 1.074 100 3.31 + 100. = 1.033 100 1.074 x 1.033 = 1.109442 265,455,468 x 1.109442 = $ 294,507,445 2007=2008 Appropriations Limit $ 294,507,445 Source: California per capita income - California Department of Finance Population, Riverside County - California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit • • PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME United California California %Change States °%Change %of U.S. 1950 1,874 - 1,504 124.6% 1955 2,383 - 1,907 125.0°% 1958 2,599 • - 2,109 123.2% 1959 2,743 5.5% 2,209 4.7% 124.2% 1960 2,826 3_0% 2,269 2.7% 124.5% 1961 2,881 1.9% 2,327 2.6% 123.8% 1962 3,005 4.3% 2,440 4.9% 123.2% 1963 3,102 3.2°% 2,527 3.6% 122.8% 1964 3,275 5.6% 2;672 5.7% 122.6% 1965 3,413 4:2% 2,850 6.7% 119.8% 1966 3,656 7.1% 3,062 7.4% 119.4% 1967 3,874 6.0% 3,254 6.3% 119.1 % 1968 4,201 8.4% 3,538. 8.7% 118.7% 1969 4,529 7.8% 3,836 8.4% 118.1% 1970 4,810 6.2% 4,085 6.5% 117.7% 1971 5,034 4.7% 4,342 6.3% 115.9% 1972 5,454 8_3% 4,717 8.6% 115.6% 1973 5,944 9.0% 5,231 10.9% 113.6% 1974 6,552 10.2% 5,707 9.1% 114.8% 1975 7,129 8.8% 6,172 8.1% 115.5% 1976 7,825 9.8% 6,754 9.4% 115.9% 1977 8,570 9.5% 7,405 9.6% 115.7% 1978 9,580 11.8% 8,245 11.3% 116.2% 1979 10,753 12.2% 9,146• 10.9% 117.6% 1980 11,951 11.1% 10,114 10.6% 118.2% 1981 13,175 10.2% 11,246 11.2% 117.2% 1982 13,763 4.5% 11,935 6.1% 115.3% 1983 14,5% 5.8% 12,618 5.7% 115.4% 1984 15,994 9.9% 13,891 10.1% 115.1% 1985 16,956 6.0% 14,758 6.2% 114.9% 1986 17,668 4.2% 15,442 4.6% 114.4% 1987 18,549 5.0% 16,240 5.2% 114.2% 1988 19,599 5.7% 17,331 6.7% 113.1% 1989 ai 20,585 5.0%. 18,520 6.9% 111.2% 1990 21,638 5.1% 19,477 5.2% 111.1% 1991 21,750 0.5% 19,892 2.1% 109.3% 1992 22,492 3.4% 20,854 4.8% 107.9% 1993 22,635 0.6% 21,346• 2.4% 106.0% 1994 bi 23,203 2.5% 22,172 3.9% 104.7%. 1995 24,161 4.1% 23,076 4.1% 104.7% 1996 25,312 4.8% 24,175 4.8% 104.7% 1997 26,490 4.7% 25,334 4,8% 104.6% 1998 28,374 7.1% 26,883 6.1% 10515% 1999 29,828 5.1% 27,939 .3.9% 106.8% 2000 ri 32,458 8.8% 29,843 6.8% 108.8% 2001 ri 32,859 1.2% 30,562 2.4% 107.5% 2002 ti 32,769 -0.3% 30,795 0.8% 106.4% 2003 ri 33,469 2.1% 31,466 2.2% 106.4°% 2004 ri 35,380 5.7% 33,090 5.2% 106.9°% 2005 0 36,936 4.4% 34,471 4,2% 107.2°% 2006 pi 38,956 5.5% 36,276 5.2% 107.4% a/ Reflects Loma Prieta earthquake. b/ Reflects Northridge earthquake. Note: Omits income for government employees overseas. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,: Bureau of Economic Analysis, higil/www.bea.doc.gov/ ri pi Revised pemaprta estimates for 2000-2005 and preliminary estimates for 2006 were released March 27, 2007 The next state annual personal income release is scheduled for September 20, 2007. Updated: March 27.2007 Filename: bbpercap 8 ATTACHMENT 2 • • • ATTACHMENT 3 Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Enclosure II Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions r) January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2007 and Total Population, January 1, 2007 Total County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2006-2007 1-1-06 1-1-07 1-1-2007 Riverside Banning -0.17 28,321 28,272 28,272 Beaumont 21.22 23,304 28,250 28,250 Blythe 0.29 13,610 13,650 22,625 Calimesa -0.68 7,465 7,414 7,414 Canyon Lake -0.40 11,013 10,969 10,969 Cathedral City 1.32 51,386 52,064 52,115 Coachella 8.57 35,449 38,486 38,486 Corona 0.35 145,659 146,164 146,164 Desert Hot Springs 6.23 22,163 23,544 23,544 Hemet 2.41 70,015 71,705 71,705 Indian Wells 0.88 4,899 4,942 4,942 Indio 6.94 72,142 77,146 77,146 Lake Elsinore 15.42 41,271 47,634 47,634 La Quinta 6.44 38,604 41,092 41,092 Moreno Valley 2.67 175,769 180,466 180,466 Murrieta 3.94 93,567 97,257 97,257 Norco -0.51 22,730 22,614 27,361 Palm Desert -0.25 49,879 49,752 49,752 Palm Springs 0.22 46,754 46,858 46,858 Perris 6.74 47,463 50,663 50,663 Rancho Mirage 0.96 16,783 16,944 16,944 Riverside 0.57 289,747 291,398 291,398 San Jacinto 9.80 31,280 34,345 34,345 Temecula 3.55 94,575 97,935 97,935 Unincorporated 3.65 519,243 538,171 538,288 County Total 3.31 1,953,091 2,017,735 2,031,625 (') Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters' residents in state mental institutions, and state and federal correctional institutions. Source: California Department of Finance • • AGENDA ITEM 8B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Revisions to Interfund Loans Policy STAFF RECOMMENDATION. - This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the revisions to the Interfund Loans Policy to permit interfund loans from 1989 Measure A programs to 2009 Measure A programs; 2) Approve a term of the interfund loans from 1989 Measure A to 2009 Measure A programs for a period not to exceed five years (60 months) as permitted by the Interfund Loans Policy; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 07-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding a Revision to the Interfund Loans Policy". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its April 14, 2004 meeting, the Commission approved an Interfund Loans Policy regarding temporary borrowings of cash or other assets between funds. Some of the key controls of this policy include a restriction to loans between funds within the same geographic area, requirement that loans must have an identified repayment sources, and limitation of loan amounts to cash that is idle or in excess of current needs. With the transition between the sunset of the 1989 Measure A and the commencement of the 2009 Measure programs, it is important to separately account for each program's activities. While the commercial paper program has been established to advance the project development and right-of-way acquisition for certain 2009 Measure A highway, regional arterials, and local streets and roads projects, it is not used to pay for other costs such as salaries and benefits, professional, and other support. Agenda Item 8B 10 Staff is recommending a revision to the Interfund Loans Policy to permit interfund borrowings from available 1989 Measure A funds to the 2009 Measure A program This will ensure that the Commission's Measure A transition activities are funded to . the extent that commercial paper funding is not available or may not be used for certain working capital purposes. Since these loans are expected primarily for working capital purposes and may accumulate through a fiscal year, staff also recommends that such interfund loans be reported to the Budget and Implementation Committee within three months of the end of the fiscal year and forwarded to the Commission for final approval. The Interfund Loans Policy provides for a term of the loan for a period not to exceed three years (36 months) unless approvedby the Commission Board. Staff recommends that the term for the interfund loans from 1989 Measure A to. 2009 Measure A be for a period not exceed five years (60 months) since the 2009 Measure A sales tax receipts commence in September 2009. This ;will allow for a reasonable period to repay any loans that accumulated prior to the commencement of the 2009 Measure A. Attach_ ments: 1) Interfund Loans Policy 2) Resolution No. 07-006 Agenda Item 8B 11 • weir 00.4 nty rang; pi.i4 in Nicon INTERFUND LOANS POLICY On April 14, 2004, the Commission approved Resolution 04-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing lnterfund Loans". lnterfund loans are made between two Commission funds and represent temporary borrowings of cash or other assets. Policy: • lnterfund loans may not be utilized for funds with cash deficits, except for the existence of administrative hardships when all avenues to cover the deficit have been . exhausted. lnterfund loans due to administrative hardships shall be reported to the Commission on a monthly basis. • The Commission may utilize interfund loans for specific purposes such as financing capital improvements related to any phase from project development through delivery. Such improvements shall have been approved by the Commission through approval of the budget or other Commission action. lnterfund loans are permitted between 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A programs, as long as they meet all other required criteria. Such loans are permitted to advance project development activities for the 2009 Measure A. Accordingly, there should be a proper segregation and funding of 2009 Measure A projects. Notwithstanding Section 6 of the lnterfund Loans Policy (Resolution No. 04-009), loans between 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A may be for a period not to exceed 5 years (60 months), unless approved by the Commission. • Commission approval is required for individual loans in excess of $1,000,000 or the aggregation of loans frorn or to a specific fund in excess of $5,000,000; however, such loans from the 1989 Measure A to the 2009 Measure A programs may be aggregated during a fiscal year and reported to the Budget and Implementation Committee within three months of the end of the fiscal year and forwarded to the 12 Commission for finai approval. Loans below the above thresholds do not require Commission approval. • Interfund loans are restricted to loans between funds within the'same geographic area (i.e., Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde) and exclude the Commission's fiduciary funds which are custodial in- nature (i.e., Local Transportation -Fund and Local Projects Agency Fund). . • Interfund loans are not permitted without an identified repayment source. The borrowing fund must anticipate sufficient revenues to be in a position .over the period of the loan to make the specified principal and interest payments. • The lending fund may loan only that portion of the fund's cash which is clearly inactive or in excess of current needs. Requests for interfund loans shall include a summary document supporting the loan request and shall be reviewed` and signed by the responsible director(s) and/or program manager(s) for the fund advancing' the monies and the fund borrowing the monies. The term of the loan will be for a period not in excess of three years (36 months), unless approved by the Commission. The lending fund will charge the borrowing fund a reasonable rate of interest. To reduce_ unnecessary administrative costs, interest is not required- for interfund loans with a -maturity date of less than six months. Interfund Loan Approvals will be executed for all loans, short-term or long-term, -with specific reference to .terms such as funds involved in the lending arrangement, amount of : loan, interest rate. to be paid on loan, period of loan, and repayment terms (see attached). Such documents will be approved and signed by the Executive.Director, or his/her designee, and the Chief Financial Officer. A monthly report of all outstanding interfund ;loans will be provided to the Commission. An annual report on interfund loan activity will be presented to the Commission within three months of the fiscal year end. 13 • Procedures:.. • Upon receipt of a fully executed Interfund Loan Approval, the Accounting Manager will prepare a journal entry to record the advance of monies between the funds. The journal entry shall be approved by the Chief Financial Officer and then recorded in the accounting system. • Interfund Loan Approvals with supporting documentation for the loan request shall be filed in the Finance Department Loan File, with a copy provided to the Clerk of the Board. • Interfund loan transactions, including repayments, will be recorded by the Accounting Manager on journal entries on a timely basis in accordance with the. Interfund Loan Approval. • Monthly, a listing of all outstanding interfund loans will be prepared and submitted to the Commission. • Quarterly, the Accounting Technician will perform a reconciliation of interfund loans receivable and payable. • Annually, .the Accounting Manager will prepare a summary of interfund loan activities with appropriate details. Such report shall be presented to the Commission within three months of the end of the fiscal year. Riverside County Transportation Commission Interfund Loan Approval Date of Loan Loan: Amount: Advance (Lender): Advance (Borrower): Interest Rate: From To Repayment Terms: (include amount and frequency) Name of Fund Fund/Account Number Name of Fund Fund/Account Number per Maturity Date: Amortization Schedule Attached: YES NO Chief Financial Officer Approval: Executive Approval: Director Signature Date. Signature Date of Commission Approval, if required 15 Date • • • RESOLUTION NO. 07-006 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING A REVISION TO THE INTERFUND LOANS POLICY WHEREAS, a Fiscal Procedures Manual has been createdand approved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission on April 11, 2001; WHEREAS, the Commission approved an Interfund Loans Policy_ on April 14, 2004; WHEREAS, the Commission has developed a 1989 Measure A strategic plan and 2009 Measure A Western County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan, which sets forth the transportation programs and services to be provided to the residents of the County of Riverside; WHEREAS, certain Commission funds may have the ability to advance monies to other Commission funds on a temporary basis. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners hereby revises Section 1 and Section 2 of the Interfund Loans policy as follows: Section 1: Section 1 of Resolution No. 04-009 is revised to read as follows: "Interfund loans may not be utilized for funds with cash deficits, except for the existence of administrative hardships when all avenues to cover the deficit have been exhausted. Interfund loans due to administrative hardships. shall be reported to the Commission on a monthly basis. The Commission may utilize interfund loans for specific purposes such as financing capital improvements related to any phase from project development through delivery. Such improvements shall have been approved by the Commission through approval of the budget or other 16 Commission action. Interfund loans are permitted between 1989 Measure A and 2009.Measure A programs, as long as they meet all other required criteria. Such loans are permitted to advance project development activities for the 2009 Measure A. Accordingly, there should be a proper segregation and funding of 2009 Measure A projects. Notwithstanding section 6 of the Interfund loan policy, loans between 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A- may be for a, period not, to exceed 5 years (60 months), unless approved by the Commission. Section 2: Section 2 of Resolution No. 04-009 is revised to read as follows: . "Commission approval is required for individual 'loans in excess of $1,000,000 or the aggregation of loans from or to a specific fund in - excess :of $5,000,000; however, ..such loans from the 1989 Measure A to the. 2009 Measure A programs may be aggregated during a fiscal year and reported to the Budget. and Implementation Committee within three months of the end of the fiscal year and forwarded to the Commission for final approval. Loans below the above thresholds do not require Commission approval." APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission 'at its .meeting on Wednesday, June 13 2007. ATTEST: BY: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board BY: Terry Henderson, Chair Riverside County. Transportation Commission 17 AGENDA ITEM '8 n • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Post Retirement Health Benefits Liability and Funding STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve a plan to pre -fund the Commission's post retirement health benefits liability at amounts not to exceed $ 1.5 million in FY 2006/07 and $1 million in FY 2007/08; 2) Approve a budget amendment for a $ 1.5 million increase to fringe benefits expenditures in FY 2006/07; 3) Approve a policy to fund 100% of the annual required contributions; 4) Adopt Resolution No. 07-005, "Agreement and Election of Riverside County Transportation Commission to Pre -fund Other Post Employment Benefits through CaIPERS" 5) Authorize the Chair to execute the resolution on behalf of the Commission; 6) Designate the Chief Financial Officer and Accounting and Human Resources Manager to request disbursements from the CaIPERS pre -funding plan; and 7) Authorize the Chair to execute the Delegation of Authority to Request Disbursements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission provides post retirement health benefits for eligible retirees and their dependents at retirement. Employees hired after January 1, 2007, must meet the Commission's vesting requirement to be eligible to receive health benefits paid by the Commission at their retirement date. The employer contribution payable for post retirement health benefits for each retired employee in this category will be equal to the State's _ contribution regulated by Government Code Section 22893. A minimum of 10 years of state service credit is required to receive 50% of the employer contribution, of which five of those 10 years must be performed at the Commission. Each additional service credit year after 10 years increases the Agenda Item 8C 18 employer contribution percentage by 5 % until 20 years at which time the retiring employee is eligible for 100% of the employer contribution Employees hired prior to January 1 2007, are not required to meet the eligibility criteria. The employer contribution payable for post retirement health benefits for each retired employee in this category shalt be at the rate paid for active employees, which the monthly rate is currently $600. Currently eight retirees receive postretirement health benefits, which are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, post retirement health care costs for these retirees are estimated at approximately $60,000. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has issued Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post Retirement Benefits Other Than Pensions, to address the accounting and disclosure treatment for this type of plan. Effective with the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, the Commission will be required to recognize post retirement . health care costs on an accrual basis over a period approximating the employees' years of service. It must also provide information about actuarial accrued liabilities associated with these benefits as well as the extent of progress made in funding the_. plan, if any. While GASB 45 does not require employers to pre -fund post retirement health benefits, there are some advantages for the pre -funding of these _ benefits. The advantages, as listed in roundtable discussion materials provided by CalPERS, include: • • • Earnings on assets reduce employer contributions significantly; Investment . return assumption (discount -rate assumption) will be higher, making annual expense and the unfunded liability lower; Prevents net post retirement health benefit obligation frorn becoming a significant liability on balance sheet; Enhanced security for members; Enhance intergenerational equity; and By not pre -funding, the employer's credit rating might be affected.' In May 2006, the Commission retained Bartel & Associates, actuarial consultants, to perform a preliminary calculation of the -Commission's post retirement health benefits liability as of June 30, 2006. The calculation resulted in the following: Agenda Item 8C 19 • • • Discount Rate 4.5% 6.5% Present Value of Projected Benefits $ 3,626,000 $ 2,452,000 Funded Status: Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) $ 2,170,000 $ 1,631,000 Assets 0 0 Unfunded AAL (UAAL) $ 2,170,000 $ 1,631,000 FY 2006/07 Annual Required Contribution: Normal Cost S 147,000 $ 98,000 UAAL Amortization 124,000 111,000 Total Accrual $ 271,000 $ 209,000 Accrual as a % of payroll 10.7% 8.2% The discount rate of 4.5 % assumes that the assets are invested in the General Fund and are not pre -funded, while the discount rate of 6.5% assumes that the assets are pre -funded and invested in a separate trust in diversified investments. This preliminary calculation identified a 'few matters related to benefit provisions that required Commission action in November 2006. An updated calculation as of June 30, 2007, based on the .revised benefit provisions described in the first paragraph, is underway and should be completed prior to June 30, 2007. As a result of the initial calculation and the approaching implementation requirement, staff met with the Audit Ad Hoc Committee on February 14, 2007, to review the GASB 45 implementation issues related to the Commission's post retirement health benefits and to seek direction from the Committee -regarding the decision to pre -fund any of the post retirement health benefits liability. The Committee concurred with staff's recommendation to pre -fund the liability to the extent that such pre -funding did not cause the Measure A administrative salaries and benefits to exceed the limitation of 1 % of Measure A sales tax revenues. Additionally, the Committee directed staff to continue to obtain information on the requirements to join the pool established by CaIPERS for post retirement health benefits rather than establish its own trust. While the updated actuarial valuation has not been completed, staff anticipates that the actuarial accrued liability under a pre -funding scenario will increase as a result of (1) the revised benefit provisions noted above and (2) the increase in staff. Staff recommends that the liability be pre -funded at amounts not to exceed $1.5 million in FY 2006/07 and $1 million in FY 2007/08 to the extent that such pre -funding does not cause Measure A administrative salaries and benefits to Agenda Item 8C 20 exceed the limitation of 1 % of Measure A sales tax revenues. A budget amendment would be required for FY 2006/07; the FY 2007/08 amount is included in the FY 2007/08 final budget presented to the Commission at the June 13, 2007 meeting. Additionally, beginning with the FY 2007/08 budget, staff recommends. that the Commission adopt a policy to fund 100% of the annual required contribution. Staff has attended PERS workshops regarding the pool established by PERS for postretirement health benefits. Since the Commission is a member of the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA), it may join the pool upon the completion of three requirements: • Execution of Agreement and Election of the Commission to Prefund Other Post Employment Benefits through CaIPERS (Agreement); • Execution of Delegation of Authority to Request Disbursements` (Delegation); and • Certification of OPEB Actuarial Information and Funding Policy (Certification). Legal counsel has reviewed and approved these forms. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Chief Financial Officer and. the Accounting and Human Resources Manager be designated to request disbursements from the pre -funding plan and that the Chair be authorized to execute the Agreement and Delegation, which are included as attachments. The Certification will be completed by the actuary and CFO upon the completion of the actuarial valuation. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Yes Year: FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 Amount: $1, 500,000 $1,000,000 Measure A, Local Transportation Yes (FY' Source of Funds: Funds, and Motorist Assistance Budget. Adjustment: 2006/07;; Funds only) GLA No.: XXX-XX-61005 Funds and departments to determined upon completion of actuarial valuation Fiscal Procedures Approved: N j ,��',34 Date: 6/5/2007 Attachments: 1) Delegation of Authority to Request Disbursements 2) Resolution No. 07-005, Agreement and Election. of Riverside County Transportation Commission to Pre -fund Other Post Employment Benefits through CaIPERS Agenda Item 8C 21 • Ca1PEKS DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO REQUEST DISBURSEMENTS RESOLUTION OF THE Board of Commissioners (GOVERNING BODY) OF THE Riverside County Transportation Commission .(NAME OF EMPLOYER) The Board of Commissioners (GOVERNING BODY) delegates to the incumbents in the positions of Chief Financial Officer and (TITLE) Accountin& and HR Manager (TITLE) authority to request on behalf . of the Employer disbursements from the Other Post Employment Prefunding Plan and to certify as to the purpose for which the disbursed funds will be used. Witness Date By Title OPEB Delegation of Authority (2l07) 22 • • AGREEMENT AND ELECTION OF Riverside County Transportation Couuniss ion (NAME OF EMPLOYER) TO PREFUND OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS THROUGH CALPERS WHEREAS (1) Govemment Code Section 22940 establishes in the State Treasurythe Annuitants' Health Care Coverage Fund for the prefunding of health care coverage for annuitants (Prefunding Plan); and WHEREAS (2) The; California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) Board of Administration (B)ard) has sole and exclusive control and power over the administration and investment of the Prefunding Plan, the purposes of which include, but are not limited to (i) receiving contributions from participating employers and establishing separate Employer Prefunding Accounts in the Prefunding Plan for the performance of an essential governmental function (ii) investing contributed amounts and income thereon, if any, in order to receive yield on the funds and (iii) disbursing contributed amounts and income thereon, if any, to pay for costs of administration of the Prefunding Plan and to pay for health care costs or other post employment benefits in accordance with the terms of participating employers' plans; and WHEREAS (3) -the Riverside County Transportation_ Commission (NAME OF EMPLOYER) (Employer) is a contracting agency under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) administered by the Board, and desires to participate in the Prefunding Plan.upon the terms and conditions set by the Board and as set forth herein; and WHEREAS (4) Employer may participate in the. Prefunding Plan upon 0) approval by the Board and 00 filing a duly adopted and executed Agreement and Election to Prefund Other Post Employment Benefits (Agreement) as provided in the terms and conditions of the Agreement; and WHEREAS (5) The Prefunding Plan is a trust fund that is intended to perform an essential governmental function within the meaning of Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code as an agent multiple -employer plan asdefined in Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GAM) Statement No. 43 consisting of an aggregation of single -employer plans, with pooled administrative and investment. functions; Rev. n7/2037 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT EMPLOYER HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTY AND THAT THE BOARD AND EMPLOYER AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS: A. Representation and .Warranty Employer represents and warrants that it is a political subdivision of the State of California or an entity whose income is excluded from gross income under Section 115 (1) of the Internal Revenue Code. B. Adoption and Approval of the Agreement; Effective Date; Amendment (1) Employer's governing body shall elect to participate in the Prefunding Plan by adopting this Agreement and filing with the CaIPERS Board a .true and correct original. or certified copy of this Agreement as follows: Filing by mail, send to: CaIPERS Employer Services Division P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 Filing in person, deliver to: CaIPERS Mailroom Attn: Employer Services Division 400 Q Street Sacramento, .CA 95814 (2) Upon receipt :of the executed Agreement, and after approval by the Board, the Board shall fix an effective date and shall promptly notify Employer of the effective date of the. Agreement. (3) The terms of the Agreement may be amended only in writing upon the agreement of both CaIPERS and Employer, except as otherwise provided herein. Any such amendment or modification to the Agreement shall- be adopted and _executed in the same manner as required for the Agreement. Upon receipt of the executed amendment or modification, the Board shall fix the effective date of the amendment or modification. (4) The Board shall institute such procedures and processes as it deems necessary to administer the Prefunding Plan,. to carry out the purposes of the Agreement, and to maintain the tax exempt status of the Prefunding Plan.: Employer agrees to follow such procedures and processes. Rev. 2/7/2007 ?4 • C. Actuarial Valuation and Employer. Contributions (1) Employer shall provide to the Board an actuarial valuation report on the basis of the actuarial assumptions and methods prescribed by the Board. Such report shall be for the Board's use in financial reporting and shall be: (a) prepared and signed by a fellow or associate of the Society of Actuaries who is also a member of the American Academy of Actuaries or a person with equivalent qualifications acceptable to the Board; (b) prepared in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practice and GASB Statement Nos. 43 and 45; and, -(c) provided to the Board prior to the Board's acceptance of contributions for the valuation period or as otherwise required by the Board. (2) The Board may reject any actuarial valuation report submitted to it, but shall not unreasonably do so. In the event that the Board determines, in its sole discretion, that the actuarial valuation report is not suitable for use in the Board's financial statements or if Employer fails to provide a required actuarial valuation, the Board may obtain, at Employer's expense, an actuarial valuation that meets the Board's financial reporting needs. The Board may recover from Employer the cost of obtaining such actuarial valuation by -billing and collecting from Employer or by deducting the amount from Employer's account in the Prefunding Plan. (3) Employer shall notify the Board of the amount and time of contributions which contributions shall be made in the manner established by the Board. (4) Employer contributions to the Prefunding Plan may be limited to the amount necessary to fully fund Employer's actuarial present value of total projected benefits, as that term is defined in GASB Statement No. 45, as supported by the actuarial valuation acceptable to the Board. If Employer's contribution causes its assets in the Prefunding Plan to exceed the amount required to fully fund projected benefits, the Board may refuse to accept the contribution. (5) The minimum Employer contribution shall be the lesser of $5000 or be equal to Employer's Annual Required Contribution as that term is defined in GASB Statement No. 45. Contributions can be made at any time following the seventh day after the effective date of the Agreement provided that Employer has first complied with the requirements of Paragraph C. D. Administration of Accounts, investments, Allocation of Income (1) The Board has established the Prefunding Plan as an agent plan consisting of an aggregation of single -employer plans, with pooled administrative and investment functions, under the terms of which separate accounts will be maintained for each employer so that Employer's assets will provide benefits only under. Employer's plan. (2) All Employer contributions and assets attributable to Employercontributions shall be separately accounted for in the Prefunding Plan (Employer's Prefunding Account). (3) Employer's Prefunding Account assets may be aggregated with prefunding account assets of other employers and may be co -invested by the Board in any asset. classes , appropriate for a Section 115 Trust. (4) The Board may deduct the costs of administration of the Prefunding Plan from the investment income or Employer's Prefunding Account in a manner determined by the Board. (5) Investment income shall be allocated among employers and posted to Employer's Prefunding Account as determined by the Board but no less frequently than annually. (6) If Employer's assets in the Prefunding Plan exceed the amount required to fully fund projected: benefits, the Board may retum such excess to Employer. E. Reports and Statements (1) Employer shall submit with each contribution a contribution report inthe form and containing the information prescribed by the Board. (2) The Board shall prepare and provide a statement of Employer's Prefunding Account at least annually reflecting the balance in Employer's Prefunding Account, contributions made during the period and income allocated during the period, and such other information as the Board determines. F. Disbursements (1) During any of the first three years following the effective date of this Agreement, no disbursement shall be made in a fiscal year from the 'Prefunding Plan to Employer unless Employer first contributes the full amount of its actuarially determined Annual Required Contribution during that fiscal year. If during any of the first three years following the effective date of the Agreement, Employer has contributed the full amount of its actuarially determined Annual Required Contribution during a fiscal year, Employer may receive disbursements mot to exceed the annual premium cost for post employment healthcare benefits and other post employment benefits paid during the. same fiscal year. Rene: 2t7/20Q7 Z6 • • (2) Employer shall notify CaIPERS in writing in the manner specified by CaIPERS of the persons authorized to request disbursements from the Prefunding Plan on behalf of Employer. (3) Employer's request for disbursement shall be in writing signed by Employer's authorized representatives, in accordance with procedures established by the Board. The Board may require that Employer certify or otherwise establish that the monies will be used for the purposes of the Prefunding Plan. (4) Requests for disbursements received on or after the first of a month will be processed by the 15`h of the following month. (For example, a disbursement request received on or between March 1st and March 31 st will be processed by April 15th; and a disbursement request received on or between April 1st and April 30th will be processed by May 15th.) (5) CaIPERS shall not be liable for amounts disbursed in error if it has acted upon the instruction of an individual authorized by Employer to request disbursements. In the event of any other erroneous disbursement, the extent of CaIPERS' liability shall be the actual dollar amount of the disbursement, plus interest at the actual earnings rate but not less than zero. (6) No disbursement shall be made from the Prefunding Plan which exceeds the balance in Employer's Prefunding Account. G. Costs of Administration Employer shall pay its share of the costs of administration of the Prefunding Plan, as determined by the Board. H. Termination of Employer Participation in Prefunding Plan (1) The Board may terminate Employer's participation in the Prefunding Plan if: (a) Employer gives written notice to the Board of its election to terminate; (b) Employer ceasesto be a PEMHCA participant (c) The Board finds that Employer fails to satisfy the terms and conditions of the Agreement or.of.the Board's rules or regulations. (2) If Employer's participation in the Prefunding Plan terminates for any of the foregoing reasons, all assets in Employer's Prefunding Account shall remain in the Prefunding Plan, except as otherwise provided below, and shall continue to be invested and accrue income as provided in Paragraph D. Rear, 2/7/2 4Z (3) After Employer's participation in the Prefunding Plan terminates, Employer may not make contributions to the Prefunding Plan. (4) After Employer's participation in the Prefunding Plan terminates, disbursements from Employer's Prefunding Account may continue upon Employer's instruction or otherwise in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. (5) After thirty-six (36) months have elapsed from the effective date. of the Agreement: (a) Employer may request a trustee to trustee transfer of the assets in Employers Prefunding Account. Upon satisfactory showing to the Board that the transfer will satisfy applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and the Board's fiduciary duties, then the Board shall effect the transfer within one hundred twenty (120) days. The amount to be transferred shall be the amount in the Employer's Prefunding Account as -of the. disbursement date and shall include investment earnings up to the investment earnings allocation date immediately preceding the disbursement date. In no event shall the investment earnings allocation date precede the transfer by more than 120 days. (b) Employer may request a disbursement of the assets in Employer's Prefunding Account. Upon satisfactory showing to the Board that all of Employer's obligations for payment of post employment health care benefits and other post employment benefits and reasonable administrative costs of the Board have been satisfied, then the Board shall effect the disbursement within one hundred twenty (120) days. The amount to be -disbursed shall be the amount in the Employer's Prefunding: Account as of the disbursement date and shall. include investment earnings up to the investment earnings allocation date immediately preceding the disbursement date. In no event shall the investment eamings allocation date precede the disbursement by more than 120 days: (6) After Employer's participation in the Prefunding Plan terminates and at such time that no assets remain in Employer's Prefunding Account, this Agreement shall terminate_ (7) If, for any reason, the Board terminates the Prefunding Plan, the assets in • Employer's Prefunding Account shall be paid to Employer after retention of (i) amounts sufficient to pay post employment health care benefits and other post employment benefits to annuitants for current and future annuitants, and (ii) amounts sufficient to pay reasonable administrative costs. of the Board. Rev. 2/7/2007 fe • (8) If Employer ceases to .exist but Employer's Prefunding Plan continues to exist and if no provision has been made by Employer for ongoing payments to pay post employment health care benefits and other post employment benefits. to annuitants for current and future annuitants, the Board is authorized to and shall appoint `a third party administrator to carry out Employer's Prefunding Plan. Any and all costs associated with such appointment shall be paid from the assets attributable to contributions by Employer. (9) If Employer should breach the representation and warranty set forth in Paragraph A., the Board shall take whatever action it deems necessary to preserve the tax-exempt status of the Prefunding Plan. I. General Provisions (1) Books and Records. Employer shall keep accurate books and records connected with the performance of this Agreement. Employer shall ensure that books and records of subcontractors, suppliers, and other providers shall also be accurately maintained. Such books and records shall be kept in a secure location at the Employer's office(s) and shall be available for inspection and copying by CaIPERS and its representatives at any time. (2) Audit. (a) During and for three years after the term of this Agreement, Employer shall permit the Bureau of State Audits, CaIPERS, and its authorized representatives, and such consultants and specialists as needed, at all reasonable times during normal business hours to inspect and copy, at the expense of CaIPERS, books and records of Employer relating to its performance of this Agreement. (b) Employer shall be subject to examination and audit by the Bureau of State Audits, CaIPERS, and its authorized representatives, and such consultants and specialists as needed, during the term of the Agreement and for three years after final payment under the Agreement. Any examination or audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the - performance -of the Agreement, including, but not limited to; the costs of administering the Agreement. Employer shall cooperate fully with the Bureau bf State Audits, CalPERS, and its authorized representatives,and such consultants and specialists as needed, in connection with any examination or audit. All adjustments, payments, -and/or reimbursements determined to be necessary by any examination or audit shall be made promptly by the .appropriate party. Rev. 2/7/2007 (3) Notice. (a) Any notice, approval, or other communication required or permitted under this Agreement will be given in the English language and will be deemed received as follows: 1. Personal delivery. When personally delivered to the recipient. Notice is effective on delivery. First Class Mail. When mailed first class to the last address of the recipient known to the party giving notice. Notice is effective °three delivery days after deposit in a United States. Postal Service office or mailbox: Certified mail. When mailed certified mail, return receipt requested. Notice is effective on receipt, if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt. Overnight Delivery. When delivered by an overnight delivery service, charges prepaid or charged to the sender's account, Notice is effective on delivery, if delivery is confirmed by the delivery service. 5. Telex or facsimile Transmission. When sent. by telex or fax to the last telex or fax number of the recipient known to the party giving notice. Notice is effective on receipt, provided that (i) a duplicate copy of the notice is promptly given by first-class or certified mail or by overnight delivery, or (ii) the receiving party delivers a written confirmation of receipt. Any notice given by telex or fax shall be deemed received on the next business day if it is received after 5:00 p.m.(recipient's time) or on a.nonbusiness day. fi. E-mail transmission. When sent by e-mail using software that provides unmodifiable proof (i) that the message was sent, (ii) that the message was delivered to the recipient's information processing system, -and (iii) of the time and date the message was delivered to the recipient along with a verifiable electronic record of the exact content of the message sent. Addresses for the purpose. of giving notice are as shown in. Paragraph B.(1) of the Agreement. Rev. uirz yg • (b) Any correctly addressed notice that is refused, unclaimed, or undeliverable because of an act or omission of the party to be notified shall be deemed effective as of the first date that said notice was refused, unclaimed, or deemed undeliverable by the postal authorities, messenger or overnight delivery service. (c) Any party may change its address, telex, fax number, or e-mail address by giving the other party notice of the change in any manner permitted by this Agreement. (d) All notices, requests, demands, amendments, modifications or other. communications under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notice shall be sufficient for all such purposes if personally delivered, sent by first class, registered or certified mail, retum receipt requested, delivery by courier with receipt of delivery, facsimile transmission with written confirmation of receipt by recipient, or e-mail delivery with verifiable and unmodifiable proof of content and time and date of sending by sender and delivery to recipient. Notice is effective on confirmed receipt by recipient or 3 business days after sending, whichever is sooner. (4) Modification This Agreement may be supplemented, amended, or modified only by the mutual agreement of the parties. No supplement, amendment, or modification of the Agreement shall be binding unless it is in writing and signed by the party to be charged. (5) Survival All representations, warranties, and covenants contained in the Agreement, or in any instrument, certificate, exhibit, or other writing intended by the parties to be a part of their Agreement shall survive the. termination of the Agreement until such time as all amounts in Employer's Prefunding Account have been disbursed. (6) Waiver No waiver of a breach, failure of any condition, or any right or remedy contained in or granted by the provisions of the Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the party waiving the breach, failure, right, or remedy. No waiver of any breach; failure, right, or remedy .shall be deemed a waiver of any other breach, failure, right, or remedy, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing so specifies. Rev. 2I7t2C07 (7) Necessary Acts FurtherAssurances The parties shall at their own cost and expense execute and deliver such further documents and instruments andshalltake such other actions as rnay be reasonably required or appropriate to evidence or carry out the intent` and purposes of the Agreement. A majority; vote of Employer's Governing Body at a public meeting held on the day of themonth of 2007, authorized entering into. the Agreement. Signature of the Presiding :Officer: Printed Name of the Presiding Officer: Name of Governing Body_ Board of Commissioners -Name of Employer: Riverside County Transportation ;Commission Date: BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM BY ACTUARIAL AND EMPLOYER SERVICES BRANCH CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM To be completed by CaIPERS The effective date of the Agreement is: Rev. 2/7/2007 �Q AGENDA ITEM 8 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly • Financial Statements for the third quarter ended March 31, 2007. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the last nine months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements present the revenues and expenditures for the nine months of the fiscal year. Period closing accrual adjustments are not included for revenues earned but not billed and expenditures incurred for goods and services received but not yet invoiced, as such adjustments are normally made during the year end closing activities. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the third quarter at 58% of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure A funds and remits them to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two -month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections through January 2007. On a cash basis, the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues are 3% and 1 % higher, respectively, than the same period last fiscal year. Staff is closely monitoring this change in comparison to the UCLA Anderson Forecast and will report to the Commission by the fourth quarter if necessary action is needed to adjust the sales tax revenue budget. Federal, state and local government reimbursements and other revenues are on a reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. Agenda !tern 8D 33 The expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget. Administrative general legal services are higher due to communications with legal counsel for human resource issues, commercial paper/future financing issues, and additional Legislationneeded to implement design -build contracting. Listed below are the significant capital related projects and their status: Highway Engineering/Construction/Right-of-Way/Land • The State Route 60 East Junction to interstate 215 HOV Engineering was delayed as a result of pending decisions on the scope of the project. Engineering began in October 2006. SR-74 Curve Realignment - Engineering is pending due to possible integration of future realignment of the SR-79 project. • 1-215 Bi-County Project - Engineering is . pending due to federal approval on -scope and traffic analysis. San Bernardino„ Associated Governments (SANBAG) will proceed when approval is obtained. SR-91 La Sierra Interchange - Construction is expected to begin. in August 2007. The city of Riverside is expected to issue RFPs for construction .in June 2007. • SR-91 Van Buren Interchange - City of. Riverside is coordinating with Caltrans on alignment issues that are impacting the right-of-way acquisition and environmental process. When alignment issues are resolved, the city of Riverside will begin the acquisition process and complete design engineering, which is forecasted to be completed. by June 2008. Construction is forecasted to start in FY ,2008/09. Commercial paper proceeds remain available for right-of-way and land acquisition related to projects and mitigation as opportunities arise; the third traunche of $15 million included in the budget as bond proceeds has been spent and the Commission has subsequently issued a fourth traunche of $25 million in May 2007. Rail Engineering/Construction/Right-of-Way/Land • Perris Multimodal. Facility - Surveys are being performed to determine the need and location of the temporary construction easements. Once completed, property owners will be notified and we can proceed with completing final design. Agenda Item 8D 34 • • • • Perris Valley Line - Preliminary engineering interviews are currently in progress. Once a consultant is selected, preliminary engineering is anticipated to being in June 2007 after FTA approval is received. • North Main Corona Parking Structure - Construction was pending review of replacement parking and approval by the city of Corona counsel. Approval was granted on May 9, 2007. State and federal funding decision is pending. TUMF Engineering/Construction/Right-of-Way/Land • SR-91 Green River Interchange - The final engineer's estimate resulted in a cost increase to construction and the project could not be advertised until all funding was available. Commission action was required and approved to increase the TUMF contribution amount. In addition, a decision was to be made on whether PM2.5 was going to be required and delay moving ahead on construction. • Various Western County TUMF Regional Arterial Projects - No construction activities on approved regional arterial projects will occur until the final design phases are completed and environmental documents are approved. • Commercial paper proceeds remain available for right-of-way and land acquisition related to projects and mitigation as opportunities arise; the third traunche of $15 million included in the budget as bond proceeds has been spent and the Commission has subsequently issued a fourth traunche of $25 million in May 2007. Rail Operations and Maintenance is slightly over third quarter expectations as a result of the disbursement of the fourth quarter operating contribution to . Southern California Regional Rail Authority during the third quarter. Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority for potential office improvements and station improvements. Staff_ expects these improvements to take place in the fourth quarter or in FY 2007/08. Debt Service interest expenditures are made in December and June, while principal payments are made in June. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the Commission of any unusual events. Attachment: Quarterly financial Statements - March 2007 Agenda Item 8D 35 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DESCRIPTION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 3RD QUARTER FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED 3/31/2007 REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 170,494,203 $ 98,193,772 $ (72,300,431) 58% Federal, state & local government reimbursements 24,014,102 2,917,175 (21,096,927) 12% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 42,000,000 19,788,615 (22,211,385) 47%° Other revenues 20,605,200 13,020,673 (7,584,527) 63% Interest 12,509,000 9,942,796 (2,566,204) 79% Total revenues 269,622,505 143,863,031 (125,759,474) 53%° Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits 1,830,800 1,205,002 625,798 66% General legal services 182,600 156,092 26,508 85% Professional services 1,212,800 791,084 421,716 65% Office lease & utilities 387,300 280,916 106,384 73% General administrative expenditures 1,090,600 773,819 316,781 71% Total administration 4,704,100 3,206,913 1,497,188 68% Programs/projects Salaries & benefits 3,133,500 2,024,359 1,109,141 65% General legal services 1,295,300 724,921 570,379 56% Professional services 5,626,178 1,458,816 4,167,362 26% General projects 4,557,503 1,199,916 3,357,587 26% Highway engineering 6,703,977 3,596,613 3,107,364 54% Highway construction 48,094,556 8,459,928 39,634,628 18% Highway right of way/land 29,088,100 27,784,606 1,303,494 96% Rail engineering 8,125,000 652,106 7,472,894 8% Rail construction 3,466,500 1,439,141 2,027,359 42% Rail right of way 5,269,000 1,236,749 4,032,251 23% TUMF engineering 35,174,000 4,322,876 30,851,124 12% TUMF construction 4,848,000 1,921,484 2,926,516 '40%° TUMF right of way 109,625,000 5,569,728 104,055,272 5% Local streets & roads 59,493,300 33,929,761 25,563,539 57% Regional arterial 14,021,400 7,429,680 6,591,720 53% Special studies 2,776,414 224,832 2,551,582 8% FSP towing 1,604,200 1,045,781 558,419 65% Commuter assistance 2,782,800 1,659,581 1,123,219 60% Property management 346,300 40,247 306,053 12% Motorist assistance 1,924,300 461,755 1,462,545 24% Rail operations & maintenance 7,547,800 6,667,692 880,108 88% STA distributions 6,718,700 2,387,015 4,331,685 36% Specialized transit 7,680,800 4,696,344 2,984,456 61% Planning & programming services 92,200 40,106 52,094 43% Total programs/projects 369,994,828 118,974,037 251,020,790 32% Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay 1,364,603 974,193 390,410 71% 431,000 16,579 414,421 4% Debt service Principal 30,364,400 - 30,364,400 0% Interest 9,063,600 3,412,653 5,650,947 38% Arbitrage rebate tax - - 0% Cost of issuance 150,000 . - 150,000 0% Total debt service 39,578,000 3,412,653 36,165,347 9% Total expenditures 416,072,531 126,584,375 289,488,156 30% Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (146,450,026) 17,278,656 163,728,682 12% Other financing sourcesiuses Operating transfer in 83,053,100 26,440,172 (56,612,928) 32% Operating transfer out 83,053,100 26,440,172 56,612,928 32% Bond proceeds 80,000,000 25,000,000 (55,000,000) 31% Payment to escrow agent - - - 0% Total financing sour ,es/uses 80,000,000 25,000,000 (55,000,000) 31% Net change in fund balances (66,450,026) 42,278,656 - 108,728,682 -64% Fund balance July 1, 2006 376,727,234 376,727,234 - 100% Fund balance March 31, 2007 $, 310,277,208 $ 419,005,890 $ 108,728,682 135% 36 068'900'6LO $ 90Vb69'1,9 $ l£E'9l9'V $ L9V'OLL $ tat 9S'OSl L£ ELS'L09'ZL $ L90'8Z£'9 $ EOVLS $ get'LV9'ELl $ ELB OVO'9 S 60V $ DEZ'LZL"9LE 9CL'6Sp'OE 9ZB'890'Zl £OCLOL Ste 6l0'8EL 9ZS'Z912'S LEVLOL'll 1726'LS L791V08'E9L Ll9'LEO'S 959'8LZ'Zp ZL9'1,EZ'VZ (sev'ZVV'Ll 89VE 996'1.9ftL LVO'SpL'L (09l'ELE'E) 6ZE'9 epE'ZVL'6 95Z'6 OS£'Z6t 000'000'SZ LLO'POS'SZ 986'666'VZ 9SL'SOE L9E'9S (VEE'VZ6'Sf 1L6L'6Z6'6l) (VLO'Zl) 690'QEZ'6 000'000'SZ - 000'000'9Z - ZLl'Opp'9Z VL6'L6 Sl - vEE'Vze'S SE9'6Z0'OZ Vtr98£ ZLt'OW 9Z L66'l09'SZ 9Sl'SOE l8C'9S VVV'00L 00Z'9LE 9S9'9LZ'LL (9pE'69Z'l) (09V'ZVp'ZE) 89E'E 009'9Sr'LL 999'990'L 69t'LSS'Z 6ZE'S 9ES'LL9'6Z 69Z'LZ 09E'Z6L SEE 'v899Zl ELV'Le9'Z ZL8'6V9'ZE 99V'SOl'Zl VEZ'L9E'Z L96'l09'6l 9E0'9Z9 LSL'ZOL'ZV ZlZ6E� L'l lSE'VEZ'Zl ES9'Z lV'E ELV'2E9"Z 08l'SLL Egg 'ZtV'E ELVLE9'3 09L'SLL 6L9'9L • 0S6'LE (zes'L) (e£p'EL) E6l'VL6 £6l'VL5 LEO'VL6'Bll LOV'OZS'LC 98p'90l'Zl petie 'z LS6'105'6l 9£0'9Z9 LO9'0L9'ZV VOL'1709'l owesS'e 90l'OV 90L'OV ovC'9691, OV L'9L£'e VOV9LE' L SLO'L9VZ SLO'L9E'Z Z69'L99'9 Z69'L99'9 SSL'19P SSL'L9V LVZ'OV LVZ'OV l9S'6S9' L L 89'699' l LBL'SVO'L L9L'91,0't - ZE9'DZZ E90'OE • 8L6'EOl 111'06 099'6ZV'L 099'6ZV'L l9L'6Z6'EE - LZL'609'L 8L9'SZ9 9Sl'V69'5Z 9ZL'69S'S 9ZL'69S'S pBV' LZ6't VBV' l Ze't 9L9'ZZE'V 9L9'ZZE'V - 6pL'9EZ' L 6VL'9EZ' l Lot'6f7'L - 13,1: it 90L'ZS9 L96'ZE9 S7l'et 9091V9L'LZ 009'658'9Z • Z08'VZ6 9Z6'6917'2 000'000'4 £66'9Z0'L SE6`0EV'e Et 9'96S'E - 6E8'LL VLL'82S'E 9L6'66L'L 69L'Z9 LE9'8Z 9LL'60L'l • - 9t9'9SD'L E09'099 69S 6 L Z VSL'E9E OEE'91 LVE'LLV tZ6'ttZL 6LS'LL 669'1. E99'09S 66nL L90'99 6SE'DZO'Z 866'9Zl ZVZ'L 09l E6L'LZ9 6£5'L9 LZ9'961'L C L 6'90Z'E . setrse etweLL 9t6'08Z • V80'l6L • 09Z'09Z Z60'9S t SZO'pO L Z00'90Z't - - 0170'LEt L99'91.L'Z 909'L£ 0IZ'9EL 895'EL 9Ve'L92 9EZ'SZ 995'SLS 90VZ 6SS'64 81.1'99 099'91,L' L LOOZ'Le 4aen eoueleq pun j 900Z'L Ain(' eoueleq punj seoue)eq punj ul e6ua40 teN sesnLseanos 6uloueuq totol NO60 meow of tuewAed speeooad puog lno Jopuett &inla ed° ul JeLeueLt Buneied0 soon/seanos Buloueus i0410 scntlpuedxe (1epun) Zeno senuenel 48e0x3 samppuedxe tool eolniss 1geP Idol worms! to too° xet wool el3omq.tV lsaelul ledlouud 90l11e13lgs0 'Woo lellda0 u oiinciptsl p low eww en o6Jetu I stoe(cdjswaiBcd letol cool/ties 6ulwww6ad g Buluueld 11sue11 ponotoeds suolingplelp dis eoueuetulew s svolleLedo 11ea eouomotts )sprolon tuewe8euew Apedcd eouetelsse, Jetnwwo0 8.1.01 dSd selpnts moods lopetie leuoj6ea spec 9 slmls leool Aemto'1481-1 diNnl uogonllsuoo jnnnl Buuseul6ue Awnl At m jo 14131.1 Ilan uollorutsuoo Ilea eulieeul6ue flea Puel/Aem )o Nap Aem481H uononitsuoo Aem4BlH 8ul�eeut6ue Atuml l stoa(ad leieue0 seolaes leuoleseAd seolmos to6ot leieuep sllteueq 9 sepolos stoefad/awaJBad uoll umulwpe latol eeinppuedxe engeLtslulwpe!muse eegllltn 8 essel 00910 8e0vues leuassatoid MINOS 10601 le/eue0 s OWN g sepoieS uolleilslulwPV soompuedxg LEO'E99'EVl 8Zl'B9E'L Z6E'LOZ 99E'E 99Z'Z99'EZ 006'9[9'6 2L'CSO'ZZ L9E'LC9 96Z'pLE'ZL ZWO9C1 LOL'9ZV'ZL senuenatletol 96L"Z1,6'6 BZl'29E't Z6E'LOZ 95E'E LL9'ELL'E SI.9'OEZ L49'Z0Z 69V'9 EOL'SZ8'E 6ZL'9lI. V99'60Z {selelul 'EL9'OZO'El 98V9172'6 6lV'OLl 6Z6'6LL'E061'9l ose'894 senueneJJe410 Si. 9'88L'6 L 9l9'99L'6 L (dnnl) .es u011e611In ...pun uvniodsusil SL 1'L L62 ESL'9E t't E9S'LZ9'L 65171,9l sluewss,ngwlei luelutuen081e001 V atom yeiopej • ZLL'E61'96 $ $ • $ $ • $ $ S50'00L'lZ $ 9L9'SZ9 $ LLL'V£Z'V9 $ $ 9Z1'£65'll $- xelseleS senuene11 1V101 301/ 113S wVVOOad N0110na1SN00 dWnl 30NV1SISSV A9 11VA A311VA A1N1100 34VS ONnd N011dla0830 03NI9W00 1930 NadVd A1Nn00 33d N011V0111W lISNV211 V113H0V00 aaNan Na3193M IdSA '1V93N30 1V01213WW00 Na31S3M waosiNn NOI1V1210dSNV211 31V1S OIVd V 32111SV3W LOOZ/L£!£ 030N3 SHINOLN 3NIN 90d NalaVno 011E ONnd A9 sivn10V Alt431aVno NOISSIlNW00 NOILVla0dSNV211. A1Nn00 301993Ala • AGENDA ITEM 8E • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2007. 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, 2007, is also attached for review. Attachments: 1 } Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter ended March 31, 2007 2) County of Riverside Investment Report for the Month ended March 31, 2007 Agenda Item 8E 38 • Portfolio Inv. stm<nt Ty P. T raasury Bills O.4t% G or porate Notas_ 0.21 % County Pool/Cash_ 83. g3% Fsderal Agancy Noss 3.33 % -- Certifica[a of osPos it 0.82 _ LAIF utual Funds 7.38^/. _�_ lrivssim aril Agreem 3.27% Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on April 11, 2007 The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. Signed by - Chief Financial Officer 39 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Invesbnenl Portfolio Report Period Ended: March 2007 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) OPERATING FUNDS City National Bank Deposits $ 21,526 A3/BBB+ N/A N/A County Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund 338,105,598 Aaa/MR 1/AAAN +1 N/A 5.06% Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 3,246,857 Not Rated N/A N/A Agency/Treasury Securitiea: FHLB Note-noncallable 2,990,640 AAA/AAA 4.010% 3,000,000 06/15/05 06/29/07 4.01% 3,000,000 2,990,640 (9,360) FHLB Note-noncallable • • 3,000,000 AAA/AAA 4.125% 3,000,000 07/15/05 04/27/07 4.13% 3.000.000 3.000.000 Money Market Mutual Funds - CNI Charter 2,336,501 AAA/AAA N/A 2,336,501 4.72% 2,336.501 2,336,501 - FHLB Construction Bond-noncallable 1,993,120 AAA/AAA 3.025% 2,000,000 10/07/05 06/20/07 3.60% 1,975,210 1,993,120 17,910 Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) Note -callable 2,243,678 AAA/AAA 4,750% 2.250,000 11/15/05 11/09/07 ' 5.20% 2,242,575 2.243,678 1,103 US Treasury Note•noncallable 1,990,780 AAA/AAA 4.375% 2,000.000 02/02/06 12/31/07 ' 5.00% • 1,992,734 1,990,780 (1,954) FHLMC Reference Note-noncallable 1,990,620 AAA/AAA 4.000% 2.000,000 02/02/06 08/17/07 4.00% 1,975,974 1,990,620 14,646 FNMA Note -callable 1,998,760 AAA/AAA 5.125% 2,000,000 02/02/06 01/18/08 5.20% 2,000,000 1,998,760 (1,240) FHLB Note-noncallable 1,995,620 AAA/AAA • 4.850./0 2,000,000 02J06/06 02/06/08 5.10% 2.000,000 1;995,620 (4,380) General Electric Capital Corp Med Term Note-noncallable 1,008,350 AAA/AAA 6.500% 1,000,000 02/06/06 12/10/07 5.20% 1.026,850 1,008,350 (18,500) RABOBANK Negotiable•CD 3,997,880 , A'AA/A+1 5.310% 4,000,000 02/15/07 02/15/08 5.38% 4,000,000 3,997,880 (2,120) Subtotal Operating Funds 368,919,930 $ 25.586,501 $ 25,549,844 $ 25,545,948 $ (3,896) FUNDS HELD IN TRUST County Treasurer's Pooled investment Fund: Local Transportation Fund 70,272,149 Aaa-MR1/AAAN+1 N/A 5.06% Subtotal Funde Held in Trust 70,272,149 INVESTMENT WITH CITIES (1) City of Canyon Lake 125,405 N/A 4.750% $ 300,000 04/02/03 06/01/09 N/A $ 300,000 N/A N/A Subtotal Investment with titles 125,405 COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE First American Treasury Obligations Fund Investment Agreement First American Government Obligation Fund First American Treasury Obligations Fund • Held in Trust Subtotal Bond Project Funds/Debt Reserve TOTAL All Cash and Investments , 30,474,028 Aaa/AAAm N/A 15,798,114 N/A 6.000% $ 15,926,000 05/24/05 05/31/07 4.94% $ 15,926,000 $ 15,798,114 $ (127,886) 2,381,715 Aaa/AAAm N/A 608,089 Aaa/AAAm N/A 49,281,926 $ 488,579,409 Investment Transactions for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2007 Purchases: Highlighted in shaded areaS above. Par Value at Coupon Maturities: Maturity Maturity Date Rate Federal Farm Credit Bank Note (FFCB) Note-noncallable $ 3,000,000 02/15/07 3.500% Federal.Home Loan Bank (FHLB) Note.noncallable $ 5,000,000 03/13/07 5.050% Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) Note-noncallable $ 7,000,000 02/28/07 5.375% Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) Note-noncallable $. 1,950,000 03/02/07 4.900% FNMA Discount Note-noncallable $ 996;700 01/26/07 4.700% SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks $ 21,526 County Pool 408,377,747 LAI F 3,246,857 Mutual Funds: CNI Charter 2,336,501 First American Treasury Obligations Fund- Trust 31,082,097 First American Government Obligation Fund 2,381,715 Sub - Total Mutual Funds 35,500,313 Federal Agency securities Certificates of Deposit U.S. Treasury securities Corporate Note/Commercial Paper Investment Agreements 16,212,438 3,997,880 1,990,780 1,008, 350 15,923,519 TOTAL 486,579,409 (1) Investment with cities is reported as a loan receivable for financial reporting purposes. 40 • • Federal Agency 60% Federal Agency Negotiable CDs Negotiable CDs 40% Market Value $5,990,640 $3, 997, 880 Total $9, 988, 520 a '�.. Market Value Federal Agency $5,990,640 Negotiable CDs $3,997,880 Totes 1 $9,988,520 Portfolio Statistics Month -End Book Value Month -End Market Value* Paper Gain or (Loss) Percent of Paper Gain or Loss ;Yield Based Upon Book Value Weighted Average Maturity (Yrs) Modified Duration March 2007 10,000,000 $ 15, 000,000 $ 21,000,000 9,988,520 $ 14,984,770 $ 20,983,140 (11,480) $ (15,230) $ (16, 860) -0.11 % -0.10% -0.08% 4.60 4.75 4.66 0.45 0.37 0.32 0.43 0.36 0.31 *Market values does not include accrued interest 30 days or Less 30 - 90 Days 90 Days - 1 Year 1-2Years 2 = 3 Years Over 3 Years Total Month End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION FHLB - FED HOME LOAN BANK LtVW»AWNSWOONC:M300 3133XCAU7 3000000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc1Yr1X 6,000,000.00 NCD - NEGOTIABLE CD AV VWCAWAAVI 4,000,000.00 TOTAL 10,000,000.00 Market Value 3,000,000 6,988,520 9,988,520 COUPON 4.01 1. The Market value and yield of short-term money market securities are based on purchased price. 2. Average Life is the number of years until principal is returned at maturity, weighted by market value. 3. Modified Duration. The percentage price change of a security fora given change in yield. The higher the modified duration of a security, the higher the risk. MATURITY BOOK VALUEI. PRICE M. VALUE1 � War. 39262 3000000 99.688 2990640 6,000,000.00 5,990,640.00 GAIN/LOSS YLD MATT -9360 4.01 (9,360.00) 4.07 M Dur.3 Avg. Life2 0.24236 0.249 0.16 0.16 4,000,000.00 3,997,880.00 (2,120.00) 5.38 0.84 0.88 10,000,000.00 9,988,520.00 (11,480.00) 4.60 0.43 0.45 County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 4th Floor - Capital Markets Riverside, CA 92502-2205 www.countytreasurer.org (951)955-3967 41 • • Pall! M6Doonell Treasurer/Tax Collector Don Kent Assistant Treasurer' ion Christensen Chief Deputy Treasurer Giovane p zano f.nvestrl' ent Manalter Investment Objectives • Safety of Principal • Liquidity • Public Trust • Maximum Rate of Return County Administrative Center L "The Ides of March" As we wrote about in last month's commentary, oil continues to be a drag on the economy. In late March, geopolitical forces were at play again in the markets as 15 Royal Navy personnel were captured by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces in disputed Gulf waters. This action boosted oil prices almost 15% last month. Hopefully this situation will be resolved without bloodshed and prices can move into a normal trading range and take some of the inflationary pressure off the markets. High prices coupled with gasoline.inventories down almost 10% in the last two months due to the usual spring time driving season, fires, and power outages at U.S. refineries have put a strain on the energy consumer. The FOMC met on March 21 and left rates unchanged at 5.25% with an inflation risk bias, but, they changed their policy statement and removed the language of further rate hikes. As the economy continues, to cool this bias may change to that of rate cuts. The FED seems more concerned with inflation at this point rather than a slow down or recession. Consumer prices have been growing at about 2.4% in the last year and should continue slow and drop further, helping to ease the FED's inflation concem. New housing continues to slow, but existing homes sales are up slightly. We expect this trend to change somewhat as the sub -prime fallout spreads; more borrowers will not be able to make their payments or buy new properties and lenders will tighten up on their credit standards. We have already seen large layoffs in Orange County as. the mortgage lenders layoff staff; thousands have already been let go. Moreover, as variable rate mortgage payments increase, people cannot spend as much on consumer items as they have in the past. This should cool inflation further. In the Treasurer's office, we are geared up for April property tax collections and are looking forward to . our joint venture with the Assessor -County Clerk - Recorder's office. Our new and improved- Interactive Voice Response (IVR) phone system & Interactive Web Response (IWR) website with shopping cart technology will greatly enhance customer .service delivery to the taxpayer; this integrated system will be operational in the fall of this year for FY '07-'08 collec- tions. In conjunction with our recent reorganization and newly added phone staff, we are striving to offer a new level of service as the County continues its record growth. �C Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector Durable Goods Orders -released on March 28th 2.5% actual vs. 3.4% survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -released on March 29th 2.5% actual vs. 2.2% survey Consumer Confidence— Index- released on March 27th 107.2 actual vs.107 survey Factory Orders -released on April 4th 1.0% actual vs. 1.7% survey Employment Situation- released on April 6th Unemployment 4.4% actual vs. 4.6% survey Nonfarm payrolls M/M . change 180,000 actual vs. 135,000 survey Consumer Price Index- released on March 16th .4% actual vs..3% survey; core CPI .2%actual vs..2%survey At month's end, the Fed Funds rate remained at 5.25%. The 2 year T-Note was yielding 4.58% (down 7bps) while the 10 year T-Nate was yielding 4.65% (up 9bps). For February, the Pool had an increase of 4 bps. in the average monthly yield. Portfolio Statistics March :.. Nbnth-End Book Value $ 4,700;110,339 February. $ 4,552,435,696 _January . $ 4,534,811,540 December . $ 4,973;386,716 November: $ 4,080,915,202 October . $ 4,033,662,823 IMonth-End Market Value* F i $ " 4,697,880,401 $ 4,550,957,799 -- $ 4;528,343,596 $ 4;967,698,616 1 $ ^ 4,078,187,050 $ 4,028,318,358 Paper Gain or (Loss) i $ (2,229,938) $ (1,477,897) $ . (6,467,944) $ (5,688,099) $ (2,728,152) $ (5,344,465) !Percent of Paper Gain or Loss -0.05% .. j -0.03% -0.14% ' 2-0.11%; -0.07% -0.13% . ...... _ .. _ ...... ... ... =Yield Based Upon Book Value - 5.09 ..... .. 5.05 .... _ 5.02 ,.,..,... .. 5.01A _ 4.91 .. i 4.88 Weighted Average Maturity (Yrs) t 0.96 0.94- 0.95 0.781 0,86 0.91 !Modified Duration 0.88 G.87 0.88 0.73' 0.67 0.72 *Market values do not include accrued interest THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND 1S CURRENTLY RATED: Aaa/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH RATINGS 42 Portfolio Characteristics SECTOR , ' Market Value Federal Agency 2,479,514,525 Cash Equivalent & MMF 99,000,000 Commercial Paper 1,216,831,587- Negotiable CDs 700,005,323 Medium Term Notes 168,400,499 Municipal Bonds 9,413,467 Certificates of Deposit 20,000,000 Local Agency Obligation, 4,715,000 Total 4,697,880,401 30 days or Less 30 - 90 Days r 1,349,290,951 90 Days - 1Year 1,227,240,077 683,674,968 972,443,095 4,658,540 4,697,880,401 !•"2Only 12 Month Gross Yield Trends CREDITQUALITY Market Value Federal Agency AAA 2,479,514,525 205,813,966 A-1/ P-1 or better 1,916,836,910 N/R 95,715,000 Tota I - 4,697,880,401 0.10% • 30 - 90 90 Days - 1 - 2 2 - 3 Over 3 Days 1 Year Years Years Years *- Treasurer's Institutional Money Market Index (TIMM) is compiled and reported by the Riverside County Treasurer's Capftal Markets'cliviSion. it is A a composite index derived from the average of three multl-billion dollar AAA rated Prime (funds that invest in a diversified portfolk) of U.S. dollar denominated money market Instruments including 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 Page 1 43 Market Data -" 03/30/07 1' 02/28/07 ailA 12,354.35 ,12,26&6 S&P 500 1,420.86 ;; 1,406.82 NASDAQ 2,421.64 i: 2,416.15 Crude Oil (barrel) 64:14 61.79 Gold (ounce) 663.50 676.15 Prime Rate 8.25% ::: 8.25% 3-Month LIBOR 5.35% : 5.35% Fed Fund 5.25% : 5.245% Futures (for Q4/07) •,,t, 03/30/07 02/28/07 . Diff. 3 M 5.04 5.16 ' -:12 6 M 5.06 5.12 : -.66 2 Y 4.58 4.65 -:67 5 y • 4.54 '. 4.52 1 .02 10 Y 4.65 4.56 . .09 • 30 Y 4.84 4.68 .16 • • • • • Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund March 30, 2007 -:.- Month End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP PAR' DESCRIPTION CASH - UBOC DEPOSIT ACCOUNT 25000 .00 25,000,000.00 CLTR - CALTRUST SHORT TERM FUND ::40,900000.00.CALTRUST5HORT.'fERM,FLl[YD" - 46,000,000.00 CPD - COMMERCIAL PAPER - DISCOUNT T43TilR?.5` : .::.15,000,000.00 RABOBAAIK AI+IP:1'. ::. • 74977LRB5 25,000,000.00 RABOBANK Al+/P1 1.7307SRQT.:..:: • :.. .. 0,0 .....::::.:,. _..... .. 5t� 000,000.00.:CITiGRC1DP AT )Q:1.:.:a.:;; .:..:• 073898RT0 50,000,000.00 BEAR STEARNS A1/P1 7.. ... ...,..50,000,00000..BARCLAYSCL1Pt7f1L.A1.lP1_...:.:,,... 78009BSF0 25,000,000.00 ROYALBANK OF CANADA A1+/P1 B 50,000,000.00. ROY''A€:BANK•OFGAriADAAt4:iPr.1 ::=` 83365SSP9 25,000,000.00 SOCIETE GENERAL A1+/P1 2521E1Sf''i•.::: 40410TSP2 50,000,000.00 HBOS TREASURY SERVICE Al+/Pt . 17307SSO6 50,000,000.00 CITIGROUP At+/P1 0660fi�15R3 , ....:....,_.....,._. ...............:.....50,Ot30,OD[3:00 BA13ls;OFAMER[GAStlP:1:>:;.....,.,::.>:-::;:::.:�.':;.::. 0556N1SW4 • 50,000,000.00 BNP PARIBAS A1+/P1 74081KT69 50,000,000.00 HARVARDUNIVERSITY At+/P1 "SC)�'fEGGEN��A RAL1+iia : 90262DTJ4 50,000,000.00 UBS FINANCE A1+/P1 ....._......- .: �5,QOQ;09(1:OU.<BRNFt?02=:tSMF"f.#Eill:fi3+/P•„);,,V,.;; 47816GTL3 29,330,000.00 JOHNSON 8, JOHNSON At+/P1 931:14FTS3`e;i1::;a_' ,..., .:....:O0i' .:.,.:. ,...,.,.:..;. ". , iP e-r:i"kr>`:.�: -_" . ,.50,(Hf0,0(10.00 WALtutAF2TAta/P1. • COUPON 0660P1TV3 25,000,000.00 BANK OF AMERICA A1+/P1 3967)51TV.0;::...`.; ..:.....:fsOUDD;000;017.::GR...EECaitfiiCFt,CAPI.'EAL;Rt 83365SU27 50,000,000.00 SOCIETE GENERALE A1+/P1 05560t088 �_ ,,;..-.:..:.,,,.,':.:;.:....>::..:...:.....:,::.;...;::;,„.:;�`:,:._: .1Q,721.400.00 BNP-pARIBAS. Fl;«t A'Gt!)71:....:....:: 89233HUJ1 20,000,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR Al+/Pt 89233HVF8 50,000,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR A1+/P1 3 _ . . .... 50' `1 " .. .::_._ . , ....:.. :OO:.GIw:�A . 3�... /PRINi�: �-«E-,:::.:.;a -5;::.::."..:,. MATURITY 5;t7: 'A4j' BOOK VALUE' ?5;,OOil;TfQ' , 100,00: 25,000,000.00 5.29 . 04/30Y1067. ` ° , ;46,TI00Op0:tYb .app.00: ' • 46,000,000.00 5:40'= t74102SIG1T:;;_:;<7f9$:625ttfl0:':.::';9998:.;:':.' 5.12 04/11/2007 24,331,555.56 97.33 5.24 04/27/2007 49,672,500.00 99.35 5;13 .::'O544f/,2 0t;N::.:;::A9:353573;89i <:;::.9$.71;: 5.22 05/15/2007 5.22 05/23/2007 5.2Z ;h5Y�3/20(IT 5.23 05/2,3/2097 24,673,750.00 98.70 "7. 24,644,750.00 98.58 49,346,250.00 98.69 5.24 05/24/2007 49,184,888.89 98.37 "40,3,7:6;50€J.FI0. c , 5.19 05/30/2007. 5.02 06/06/2007 48,724,083.33 97.45 5.21 06/18/2007 49,117,194.44 98.23 2..0043.25(1... t.... 5.20 06/20/2907 .28,923,290.67 98.61 522 06/29/2007 S.20720 /2:9C200:1,t ii 5.20 07/02/2007 5.19 07/18/2007 5.19 08/15/2007 48,890,986.11 97.78 24,510,625.00 49,220,750.00 7ijif 19,521,366.67 48,575,500.00 1,235,051,000.00 1,215,308,364.42 FFCB - FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3f4 1$MEt1s= :.,. . 5 occiAtedx`1 I i 6,•FARm: 31331VXT8 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK1YrNc .::, 313315.. =;: :, 00;00:::: CFt .tnB. 31331SYD9 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YrNc 3133.1 YN79"`'.......:.::.._.....,..::::....._..: ,_;.:..;..,,..:< .. 31331SZF3 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDITBANK2YrNc1 31331VM37 10,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK1YrNc J.�02.0ikyf6' 5.05 04/25/2097 3.75 05/25/2007 31331SLK7 8,365,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2.5YrNc6Mo 3.56 -31 Mf13"::.::..:..... : zS.. � T11ANt< a 31331SSV6 10,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2.5YrNc3M ......:.>.:.:...:_"..... _....5;>. bt1.FE73FARM::eitED�?• ' <: ,it;.. 31331XGV8 10,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 1Yr,Nc i,...,, 31331SRM7 98.69 5,000,000.00 100.00 4,996,875.00 ;ktrl s 06/07/2007 5,000,000.00 100.00 0,7/0�3/„2�0K0�7 10,001,800.00 , 100.03 07/27/2007 8,361,732.42 99. 09/24/2007 10,000,000.00 99.50 10400I � � no s -.m a /2/11/2007 9,978,800.00 99.72 6 885 000.00 FED FARM CREDIT 8ANK2.92YrNC3M_ . 4.13 02/14/2008 > 31331XCK6 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT B_ANK1.5YrNc3Mo 5.22 05/02/2008 31331SXB4 - x 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNc3Mo . 31331VLG9 8,000,00020 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2 4-NC 313316R39 10,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNc6Mo : :.. .. :. 31331SZ63 10,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNc1Yr 31331S4V2 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNewr IX .xv:a:u .,w::.< ' w �,'�» - . . .. ftfiar ..a.n' q a.'a War- 31331XES7 7,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc1Yr 31331XCL4 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2.5YrNc3Mo 31331XMB5 � R j 5,000.000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3YNc1Yr1X 222,750,000.00 FHLB - FED HOME LOAN BANK 3133XB5Z4 10,000000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc6Mo1x 5 000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc1Yr1x - 3133X92U3 5 000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc6Mo 3133X5TL2 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3MoStep •.:1Yg.ta, 4.34 05/19/2008 yx'Y 4.70 05/23/2008 4.44 07/18/2008 4.55 08/04/2008 ' 5.10 11/28/20[18 5.35 05/06/2009 525 01/25/2010 4.00 04/05/2007 4.15 04/17/2007 325 04/25/2007 325 04/27/2007 4�998,800.00 6,885,900 Y00 „ v99.16„ 4 997,800.00 99.94 5,000,000.00 99.22 Weri 8„i 38 ;w 7,996,250.00 ' 99.63 �> . �Fr 10,000.000.00 • 99.22 9,987,500.00 99.34 -,t 5 000 000,00 99.41 .R. 7,000,000.00 99.78 99.84 5 000 000.00 ~ 99.84 222,678,301.17 9 995,312.50 99.95 5,000,000.00 100.00 5 000 000.00 100 00 5,000,000.00 100.00 44 M.VALUE' • 25,000,000.00 46,000,000.00 7d9fi$?5Q';':;= 24;331,555.56 49,(SE37;00E1:0D'.. ' ; . •• 49,672,500.00 24,673,750.00 • 4 3,f0t;$1.1A i; :`fir:`:;, 24,641,750,W 49,346,250,00 • 49,184,888.89 48,890,986,11 48;724,083.33 49,117,194.44 28,923290.67 49;3�R;LXH�Eiii 24,68t,000.00 49,344,000.00 19,691,400.00 49,032,500.00 1,216,831,587.27 5,000,000.00 4,996,875.00 5 000 000:00 10,003,100.00 8,317,988.70 (43,743.72 :... EO. 9,950,000.00 50,000.00) .. AOKI � 170,375.60 /20 33343 123 50.00 2 170,033.33 s2;121. tle ::-:::.. „ 457,000.00 • 5.34 1,523,222_85 529 5.17 0.08 0.08 5.29 0.08 0.08 5.26 0.03 0.03 5.28 0.07 0.08 5.29 0.12 0.13 5 20;'s:iatk 14`-a- wca4`i': 5.30 0.14 0.15 5.30 0.14 5.33 0.15 5.30 > 0.16 5.15 0.18 5.30 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.17 ;°1y- ,r. 0.19 0.22 5.27 0_22 0.22 9,971,900,00 (6,900.00) 6,890.60 M,109.40) ry( J" 4,996,900.00 (900.D0 5.25 4tt960,950.00 - �39,050.00) 4.34 • 1.08 1.14 26,250.00) 4.72 1.09 1.15 (78,100.00 . 4.44 1.24 5.32 0.24 0_25 5.28 0.25 5.32 029 0.26 4304 0_30 0.37 0.15 41a4=;`RAO I' 0.18 0.18 5.05 0_07 0.07 3.78 0./5 0.15� 7,970,000.00 9,921,900_00 9,934,400.00 4,070 300.00 6,91 4,670.00 4,992,200.00 4 992 200.00 221,907,793.05 9,995.312.50 5 000,000.00 5 000,000.00 5,000,000.00 3.94 0.18 0.19 5.48 0.25 0.26 z01ad1:Ate4MM 3.58 0.32 0.33 4.20 0.47 0.49 �-t .5.10 0.67 • 0.70 4.13 0.84 0.88 1.02 1.09 1.30 60 1.28 1.35 4.62 1.37 1.45 5.10 1.55 1.67 5.36 1.92 2.10 (7,800.00) 5.25 2.57 (770,508.12) 4.54 0,90 2.83 0.92 4.02 0.01 0.02 4.15 0.05 0.05 3.25 0.07 0.07 2.82. 0.07 0.08 Treasurer's Pooled investment Fund Month End Portfolio Holdings Report Cl/SIP PAR DESCRIPTION' 3133X62Z8 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3MoStep GMX61458; S., ', f0,00D 00000 Flit ii0irl0 1...O.AN"BANK3Yi1.101 i. 3133X6H25 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Mo 3183X6S56.','',1 "6.996,000.1Q:FEblibiAELOAi}°BMK4Y04011rW 3133X9HC7 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc3Mo 3133519Mt0;; , :'.: 009.00i0:0,:iFEt3310ME LOAN BASit2.SYr4c6* 3133XA3B1 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc6Mo 31.3(tDEt'; 3133X8WD0 5,750,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.75YrNc3MoS 3133X0G02 3133XCHQ9 10;090,60009:W01:1614E k.OAN;BWWrry :.:_ 10,1300;000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc11,./o 3133,4445i'::"' . 5 QQb4,FF }i E;i9N4;BANIORtlt► 3 o, 3133XCQCO 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc3Mo 3133XAO26'.. 8;18 5;d00.Ot1 F. HCOE4_0Af tBAIKIAi!40Yr t :. 3133XCVT7 • .. .5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc3Mo 3*3.1XERL5,,,;; S.i?iiEltk30siR`'Plg timEtiDAlif'BANit'ka5V--3 3133XCY31 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr1X 3133,f00,T1:::, :, ":•;5i , R :FEES Ht3S4iE't 3AN BA I bSt : 10,090,000.00 "FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc1Yr .:b`;flK,fffl�ij300::.F�]T-IQ#�3El�fANBAf�iKz4';rN44Y�ix=s'z::�'<':� ; 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Mo 3133XDGC9 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr1X 3141.03GC9 5;g00;FNJ0`.1i0 FEtf_H11 % iF4#FFfI#iK`Yrl`kSlSfrf ;"<.; ;r': 3133XDGC9 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr1X 31**F146 3133XDGB1 GOO* 3133XCJS3'. 31:11s"' 3133XD2D2 3134A4VF8 5,000,000.00 FED'HOMELOAN BANK 1YrNc 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5YrNc6Mo COUPON 3133XAY27 81.XfsB.•F32.N; 3133XD6G1 :.::...:.......:...„.. "w .. ,.,.....,...,_..:,::.... .fig �s,,�i0 :0000 iY14t31i1" LOAf�i BA14 074:t 1,000,000.90 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Mo 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.25Nc6Mo 7001 ., tigr bik4 i%AT B,FtiT 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.25Nc3Mo • 5,000.00300. F€OHOMEx.E3WBANKiyiNc MATURITY BO OK VALUE' PRICE M. VALUE' ' GAIN/LOSS 4.00 04/30/2007 ; Otivi o97:: ••. 3.21 05/11/2007 1.47 ,0,5/18/2007; 3.51 06/01/2007 4 00:.; 08/15/2007 = . 3.60 07/13/2007 '5.50 Ol./20/2007 4.00 07/26/2007 2007 4.30 08/02/2007 „5;30: 08/16/24107; 9,998,437.50 99 98 10,000,000t00 100,00 10,000,000:00 100-00 10,000,000.00 6,800;000:00 106.00 :;:8;506 0600 5,000,000 00 100.00 5,000,000.00 -'f5;000;900,00'; 5,000,000.00 99:53 4,99000.00 .:JOG .: 5,749,101.56 99.59 i0;0090,06808 ` 1FJD 03 `' 10,000,000.00 - 99.69 5,009,0000a;•: ?0009,: 4.50 .08/23/2007 5,000,000.00 3 75'•". t4 .4/2007;; , 8;155008* 4.25 09/06/2007 5,0.00,000.00 ";2007',-.• 5 000,000 E10 09/14/2907 5,000,000.00 00/14f,20Q7 � 009a.„- 4.00 09/24/2007. 10,1300,000.00 4 85 fi.09122007':: s. 4:98828125:- 4.35 09/28/2007 5,000,000,00 '; ; it0,000:t3t7St 430: 4.50 10/12/2007 4,996,093.75- 4 E4 ' 10r1 0t3 ; • 5.000000;00. 4.50. 4.63 10/2.5/2007 :33T 3:59122007' 4.30 11/09/2007 31333GAYA9 10 000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.75 YrNc1Y 405' 12/24/2007 «$; r. ; 3133X9TN0 5.000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Mo 4.00 12/28/2097 3133XJMP0 13,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1YrNc 5.13 01/16/2008 � „ tiw t3....,:_�.�:�-«_..�..,..'.. !���:..:�"0�+1t€;`(7J41!i: �;Kr`2;8fil;fi'�t�>:_::�:«<f >....3:',,.>:;-t 3133XAE86 10,000.000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3133XDVA6 100-.40:4s. 3133XASM0 >y AWOL 3133XBGR0 M#K04 3133XGRV8 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK225YrNc3Mo ` T k Er 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3Mo 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN'BANK1.75YNc1Yr1X <:aYssif 3133XJ6E3 : 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANKI.5YNc1MBerm 4"0M:'; �:=< 09 4i r . ,=F1C?fti t OA ; 003. 01V _.__ 3133XC7D9 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Mo AINKVOYM ,. :,..,., 3133XJM96 5 000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1.5Y14c6Mo1X � Mat 3133XCK36 5,000,000.00FED HOME LOAN 3133XCJ20 5,000,000.00 FED BANK3Yrt4c314.4o ME LOAN BANK3YrNc6Mo 3133XGH49 5,000.000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc MAMMYIAM 3133XCS61 5 000 00,3.00 3133XCUH4 5,000,000.00' 3133XGTT1 5,000,000.00 3t33XJS25 5,000,000.00 3133XBXT7 5,000,000.00 3133XJNJ,3 10,000,000.00 3133XJPV4 5 000 000.00 3133XK5U5 10 000 000.00 3133XFSN7 ' 10 000 000.00 3133XFZW9-. 5,000,000.00 ' 4.00 02/04/2008 5.00 02/28/2008 03/14/2008 4.60 04/11/2008 5.35 06/13/2008 AM' „5.38 06/18/2008 4.45 07/08/2008 • 5:30 07/17/2008 4:0KLOON' 4.52 07/28/2008 4.45 08/01/2008 -0401N0-7001fr 5.13 08/08/2008 • FED HOME' LOAN BANK3Yr14c8M0 ' 4.75 FED HOME LOAN BANK3Nc6Mo FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc1Yr1X 5.40 M FED HOME LOAN BANK1.75-nc3berm 5.30 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3.5YrNc1Yr 425 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc3 40 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Yr1X FED HOME LOAN BANK 21114ciMo FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrI4c2Yr1X FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Yr1X 08/15/2008 09/02/2008 09/18/2008 11/07/2008 12/01/2008 .50 01/23/2009 02/05/2009 03/19/2009 08/30/2009 10/12/2007 5,000,000.00 6090000,00,; 1,00foo0.00 5,000,000.00 99.69. '; r41 99.88 9,998,437.50 i0;ao0,0130,0 i , 4,976,550.00 5;00E00009 5,726,655.00 .10003,1bQcflfY „ 9,968,800.00 (23,450.00) 4,85L? (iiQs m (22,446.56) µH(31,200.00 4,984,400 00 115, 600,00 ) 6;1005100' > ;+ ;t48,+' 4- `ifl) ' 4,993,750.00 (6,250.00 99.41 9,940,600.00 99.56 99.63 „ 4,981,250.00 9. 99.63 4,981,250.00 , 99.66 996,560.00 99.47 5,000,000.00 99.16 12,996 ,100.00 99.97 10,000,000.00 99.09 5,000,000.00 99.84 4,973,450.00 YLD MAT' M Avg, Dur.s Life2 3.07 0.08 0.08 ci.tteN¢' 3.21 0.11 0.12 . 3.51 0_17 0.17 3b9 . "•:0;Si ,V�,90 3.60 0.28 0.29 3.30, 0.32 '. 0.32 -"037` 'L13 t T t 3 4.30 0.33 0_34 4.50 . 0.39 0.40 3:75<: :3;.0f-..s:isi113> 4.25 <.. 0.42 ,. . u0.44. (18,759.00) 4.38 ' (59,400.00) 4.00 21,850 00) 0.46 0,48: 9.49 WO; 9.5o Zik 04,843.75)> 4.54 0.51 0.54 4:50- fir SSE%; �: � . 18,750.00} 4.50 t 0.51 0.54 VOW.' (6'0I7 «(3,440.00 0.47 4.35 0.48 (26,550.00) .' 4.30 555061D 2 j2Q,325.D0)< 4.45 0.59 0.61 • LY:�.251�;i� �'�:'- 0.60 0.63 • 4,975,000.00 («1y4,�95L�0..00) 4.48 0.60 0.63• aW 4,968,75o:00:mtlic N_(31;150.00)<F Nob4.26M�kY0.66$ 0.69 9,918,vvir 800.00 81,200.00 4.05 0.71 0.74 'J{l.�'yillf�95ri':: Ti k 1�La�s.'�5�" wsw«•:Sa .. 4,957,800mo 42,200.00) 4:00 0.72 0.75. y�� 43111t` ryf c s14�Z%f1.RaI 12,995,970.00 1130.00} 5.16 '0.76 A0100e4 . 0.80' -: �9^,9r'y0(•7�9,'400.00 (90;600.00) «+ 4.00 ( 0;82 , Mr• < 0.,85" _ 4,992.280.00 • (7,800.00) 5.00 ' 0.88 :>,t� ,:fit::;= ,�-a,.-... s;i'� k1� . t0,000,D00.00T,�. 99.03 M�9,903,t00.00 96,900.00} 4.02 0.93. 0.96 s- <-ifi <, ;,ii dLL,��� �3:`;r100i ' �'""x•�;�Kk =�€z r 0' L`�'y��i ,zz� ` ;��'" ... J. 2,"Fi..t.... „'. ,.. ,...,. ".<�...� �.,.....: `�:1,:';�fi, ,."S"�"..`�.,,,n���...�aMi:em�v..Y'���L.,���ASIM 4,969,306.66 99.56 ' ' 4,978,150.00 8,843.34 5.03 • 0.97 1.04 Wiz• O 5,000,000.00 100.06 5,003,150.00 3,150.00 5.35 • 1.13 1.21 t0,000,000.00 1,500.00 5.39 1.15 . 1.22 „, z. 4;964,05 a� 35,95 J00 9,998,500.00' 100.00 5,000,000.00 . 99.28 4,9,38,100.00 1.00.03. Ei�$S,?u:�. '+�,...i..+f,�Y+,.,1`.m.i. w:"ln%z`ww 5,000,000.00 99.34 W.M' 5,000,000.0o .99.25 �ALrdiffifintlaraF 4,993,900.00 10022 . 5,,0�00,0g0�0,.00 .: 99.53 5,000,000.00 100.09 5,000,000.00 99.94 5,001,550.00 4,967,200.00 f 4,962,500.00 5,010,950.00 4,97.3,450.00 4,970 550.00 0.92 4.45 1.21 128. 3 450.00 5.33 1.23 1.30 32,800.00 37,500 00 4.45 1.28 1.34 17,050.00 5.19 129 1.36 4.52 1.27 1.33 4.77 1.31 t.38 23,450.00) 4.75 .1.38 1.43 5,004,70000- 4,700.00 _ _ 5.40 1.39 1.47 97 4,948,450.00 ' 100.00 ,000 000.00 99.97 10,00000.00 10,000,000.00 100.00 • 10 0000013.00 �• i i.? is �, 7 ��s:t(3�',i3"yF",',i�.:?'�-'� R,6$4, 1: 51.550.00 a `0 5.30 1.49 1.61 4.25 5.50 1.57 1.69 1.88 1.82 5.30 1.73 1.88 5.55 1.84 t.97 10,000 000.00 100.19 10,018 800.00 18,800.00 5.42 2.07 ' 2.25 5,000,000.00 100.09 5,004.700.00 45 4,700.00 5.75 2.07____ 2.27 • • • Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund- ' , Month End Portfolio Holdings Report DESCRIPTION 3133XGBF0 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3-NC2 1X 3133X4BF#;' ;:....54 Ei6t1.00: gtItt ii4.43.L 6:N:BANK3-t tX:' 3133XHDJ8 30,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.75YrNc3Mo 31 CfJCEi 100004' 0,-- 0410,40: 444.4.C'f04.kj.".zY04.0. Mo, ,- 3133XJYC6 3133XGSL9 3133jCF12I,5 3133XH3F7 31.33Xtt2M3 3133XH2M3 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5YN6MBerm 1(000:000 1`O 'EED TLQiit '(: AN B7 NK31.0rNc2Y:1X 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc2Yr1X ', 30,f 06, 00.;00 ;FE000.0,: i4 R.1APYit40,4YrIS. 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1.5Yr1X 13 OOit t :QEt: FMN0MtitT11t0ANK 3'lAki;SYr. -`r 5,00.9,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1.5Yr1X 4133*306'., .`;: 5,t3p0>f?Od OE?• }2 f P T8�4#9K;3Yr1 2,iCr1jC>;: 3133XHFA5 3133Xi [FAS;:- = 5k6,3.6 0 00:: F,E04011Ek:0A10Af• KS i ic2Y.,r1X'' : 3133XHFA5 3T33 " 3133XHE57 31:31IEfC4 3133XHFA5 3133XHMV 1 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc2Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc2Yr1X 00 0E l 0i,405541H%iNK:SYilVc2Yr27X 30,000,000.00 FED HOE LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo1X tE> Q4a ODf1 tI0 f : #' .010Yi44A-YrTX...` :.. 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc2Yr1X - i 000*:FariF t 4Off=sirs IWNO4,401*, 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc2Yr1X ,3133X0114' '. 7Q 30;0011 OO F k 4t Lf1J41it %3f�iiS .Y_.ti1 1;:5Xr1X`: : 3133XHNL2 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc2Yr1X 5,>Se E):Ott E1 3 f371 T 3Y:"- 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc6Mo 3133X1-INX6 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc6MoBerm }/*** fE7 * 13A61966',00 FE€ 44.04k40M;SAT iF3YE+ti3tuhsBC 3133XJ2E7 30,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Mo m.4?Pt:wz,n,`•.; 3133XJHL5 15,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo ;1: 5') i"">n".,-w 5. OO::F 41406. 00)4(3 .i.)445Ff: `, 3133XK4F9 37'.33.$4EI ;:: 3133XHHN5 15,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Mo 5;iX113;Q011.09TEt3^HgMg #Ostf%1410YotaivYo< 3133XJYE2 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc6Mo 933,190,000.00 FHLC - FHLB - MORTG. CERT. _ 14T 8 t x i,<; f . ( 1 iE$ : 7t GEkxT Y it )1'rF 3128X24D4 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3YrNc1YrSte *WA 3128X3AY9 3128X47A3 33Z#�tt 3128X4W80 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 3YrNc3Mo 10,000,000.00 FHLB-MORTG. CERT.1YrNc3Mo1X 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.12YrNc6Mo1 3128X4CK5 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 2YrNc6Mo 3108)40-Agai x 4 tU kkig-W 3.':�, Witfit �,tlylicGCii��'; 3128X4AT8 5,000 000.00 FHLB - MORTG_ CERT.2.25YrNc1Yr s 12$ OA4'g E!!� WC: AEU t4. -` .... _ice:_ ,.�,�•.xTr�'Y>t�„ 3128X4HM6 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc1Yr1X 3128X4GX3 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MOf2TG. CERT.2YrNc1Yr 3128X4J44 ~^ 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.1.5YrNc8Mo COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE' . 5.63 07/21/2009 "0712f/2". 5.40 07/24/2009 98/20t2009 5.50 09/04/2009 5.33 =.+09J08/2QO9 : 5,000,000.00 100.50 5,025,000.00 �5oS3d;0q�:L1EF�`�.4�.�tir:?:'; . • `'°: � 5 025;(i00 FKI' 30,000,000.00 99-88 29 962 500.00 f6,006,9 0°tiEk' 90_.84 5,000,000.00 99.97 01 5.26 09/09/2009 10,000,000.00 100.13 5.32 09/26/2009 5,000,000.00 99.94 5.30 0,9/28/2009 09/29) 5.00 10/ 16/2009 atitssi20os: '; 0/ 16/2009 �t11�Efi12Q(K 10/16/2009 tOt1412009 5.00 10/16/2009 5.20 10/30/2009 5.25°- •9Ia 5.25 11/03/2009 41/63J2009> 5.50 11/03/2009 5.60 50 5.32 12/22/2009 ,' 5.08 �''V2/342 , ,11.g.: 5.50 01/26/2010 15,000,000.00 5.50 03/05/2010 ''63412(ii.03- -a >`'-' 5.50 03/12/2010 10,000,000.00 932,946,205.10 11/18/2009 ;1 100 04/12/2007 3.00 04/30/2007 5.28 05/24/2007 064:90' 5.08 05/29/2007 i5,000,00, .00 fiiD.N: K,F.'!x;00�:i'z�',^.:<m^','?"'u'$'S^.!!!`iz 4.00 06/29/2007 5,000,000.00 1.:.:. it 4.00 08/10/2007 4.50 08/22/2007 4.40 _08/22/2007 5,000,000.00 9,990,000.00 99.78 7 „Yr;DOp,00Q4t0=; ""99.7i}'rz' 5,000,000,00 4,000,00,0:f i 30,000,000.00 €iis' 4,988,300.00 99.78 99.91 99.78 99,97 5,D00,000.00 100.13 ��obsnoBi�=; �v;388� 5000,000.00 100/2 4,999,218.75 95;OOCkiiO 5,000, 000.00 100.03 30.000,000.00 99.78 99.94 15,000,000.00 99.94 99.94 5 000 000_00 #T'100.00 tia `Y€tt? 5,000,000.00 100.00 5.02 08/24/2007 99.69 5,000,000.00 98.57 99.67 99.64 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 99.89 GAIN; LOSS - "„ 9,984r400.00, : • 4,998,450.00 :40,021;900.00 ' 10,012,500,00 ';:;1t,9BiYB0Eir?)Qi. r 4,996,900.00 9,036;6io:OQ. ,. 4,995,300.00 5;00;806_i00 9,978,190.90 4,0130,050:00 • 4,989,050.00 29,990,700.00 4,989,050.00 5,006,250.00 • 5,010,950..00 4,998,450 00 :4>998s` &9:60 ' 5,001,550.00 29,934,300.00 9;"97 ,901). 14,990,700.00 ....................... . s:4; 14,990,700.00 >5 Q04000 9,993,800.00 931,273,047.43 5,000,000.00 5,000,000,00 10,000,030.00 5,000,000 00 4,984,550.00 4,978,550.00 4,983,700.00 4,982,150.00 4,994,650.00 31 , �,^,.,, .._.. „, ,'10 3 . ...... �;. .'' 3128X4KE0 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc6Mo ,4.75 09/27/2007 5,000,000.00 99-76 4,987,850.00 AMC,...w„i`-._ :. , s: '-'a?x�, f;.>�r<szx'4u [r ,., ,ice :F -.,, ...,..,nxi'',a��=• Hz ,.,r-"`'....wk.'it.wF>���•��»�,xl.�.., ..-.�4;it�# n,w 00�#� :3r........,.<.....,. M. fail ..... aeAb� : i .....d^:r^f.+*�fi�'.`x4 ` "2^�(�iR�CwFtlf!-"�U 3128X4RL7 5,000,000.00. FHLB - MORTG. CERT2YrNc6Mo1Xff. _ 4.71 10/11/2007 5,000,000.00 iVW9912 itV4,986,050.00 ,�y (��. iy >�{�, Ea�.F",r .,,;,. ,... �.:rm> . :,' vs�yw'r,»m., x ,:90 �' i. '``�`�'C .3 blet ...11.!„ '��'A.i4S#.�.'�, � .,itik 1 .�. M'''x�i���i�`.`�b a�Y t' `t .�. °; .. � 3�i7i 3"w 3 9 #L , , n:,wr : 'i C u 3128X4F'K1 5 000,0(10.00 FHLB - MORTG. 4.75 10/19/2007 99.86 . Cc6Mo v800.00 F 000 000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc6Mo,ffe4M _ 5.00 12/05/20(37 5 000 000.00' 4 992 150.00 /7.5 �� f�.. a"'^�,%itJ'ff tearAVD3 .M"^., F>%,GCS'EaTYf'£iAx31% .�`rcW�,. . lo,Ot10000.00 FHLB-MORTG. CERT.2YrNc6M01X 5.00 01/113/2008 10,000,000.00 99-89 3128X4UK5 3128X4XW6 5 3128X4Y88 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.1.75-NC3M0 5.30 01/31/2008 5,000,000.00 . , r,.,. s .,.. NC1 .1 ;�8 10,000,000.00 CLORWErifiltiblMiA3128X40B1 t0,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT2-NCt BERM 5.13 _ 03H7/2008 3128X4AS0 5,000 000 00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3YrNc1Yr 4.30 05/05/2008 5,000 000.00 3128X45U1 5,000000.00 FHLB MORTG.CERT2YrNc1Yr1X 3128X42E0 3128X4V57 3128X4DW8 3128X4HK0 3128X4G54 3128X4NG2 10 000 000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.21YrNc6Mo 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2.5YrNc6Mo1 5,000 000.00 FHLB MORTG. CE_RT.3YrNc6MoSte 5,000,000.00 FHLB MORTG. CERT.3YrNc1Yr1X 10,0000,000.00 FHLB- MORTG. CERT2.5YrNceMo1_ 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3YrNc6Mo !�55�.38 05/15/2008 5.35 05/22/2008 5.00 OW16/2008 4�.50 07/11/2008 '4.63 08/15/2008 5.05 08/22/2008 4.75 . 09/29/2008 100.01 99.93 99.25 4,997,65625 100.04. t0,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 _5,000,000.00� 5,000,000.00 10�000,000.00 5,000,000.00 46 100.00 100.02 99.68 99.59 100.16 99.52 tr' 9,989400.00 5,000,650.00 YLD MAT' M Dur Avg, Life` 25,000.00 5.63 2.12 2.31 25;000.00 "•' 5.63 2 2'. „' ; 2_31 (37,509.90) 5.40 2.13 2.32 06,600.00) ' S.36 .: 2.23- • 2.42 (1,550.00) 5.50 2.24 2.44 21,900:00 , ' 5.33 12,500.00 . 5 26 2.26 2.45 (7,058:25) 529: 230 2.46 (3,100.00) 5 32 2.31 2.50 • (9,400,00) (4,700,00) 5.30 2.31 2.50 .-7,800.00' 5.26 . (11,900.00) 5.04 2.31 2.55 ,(10;950.00) 5:00 (10,950.00) 5.00 2.31 2.55 2,55: (9,300.00) 5.52 2.29 2.55 06;10(00) S: Q:c`:'2 f ::': "^ ;55: 750.00 • 5.09 2.31 2.55 (28,10otio): .;5;05-: "2 °'.• 5i,: 6,250.00 5.20 (12;506.90), , .:' S:23; 10,950.00 5.25 (768,75) (1,25000) : 1,550.00 5.60 (65,700.00) ,... 5.32 -28.100MT- (9,300.00) ''(4366100) ;; (9,300.00) 5.51 (i0,95i%40)' .5.OF3•>,-231= 2.34 2.34 2.33 2.37 5.50 2.56 5.50 2.66 (6,200.00) 5.50, 2.68 (1,673,457.67) 4.81 1.37 1.48 2.59 2;60a 2.60 2.60 2.64 2.93 (15,450.00) 2.95 2.56 0.03 0.04 fox 0.08 5.28 0.15 5.08 0.16 0.16 4 0 �:41fy, OZT .00 0.24 0.25 0.08 0.15 21,450.00 4.00 0.35 0.36 (16,300.00) (46:4r (5,350.99 . 4.50 4.40 0.39 0.39 5.02 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 ( 4.00 0.48 0.50 (13,95Q.00�; ., 47i _Q.51 0.53 M�4iy...:..Yrs`3o«qyf..?!'��i4��a�.�.. yi. 7 200.00} 4 60 0 53 0.56 4 (7 850.009), 5.00 0.65 0.66 gE (10,800.00) 5.00 0.77 0.81 �J. 650.00 12,150.00) 5.30 0 80 0.84 9,993,300.00 6,700.00 5.13 0 93 0.97 4,962,450.00 (37,550.00.)4. .10 a - ; .. 5,001,750 00 4,093.75 5.40 1.06 1.13 9,999 900.00 _ 100.00 5.35 1.08 1.15 10 QOt 600.00 1,600.00 5.00 4.15 1.22 4.983,900.00 1600000 4.67 1.22 1.28 4,979,550.00 20,450.00 4.63 1.31 1.38 10,015,600.00 15,600.00 5.05 1.32 1.40 4,976,150.00 (23,850.00) 4.67 1.43 1.50 Treasurer's Po01ed Investment Fund Month End Portfolio Holdings Report 3128X5RE0 1126i5064 PAR DESCRIPTION At0467.0.1 B: f 01.01VM, tit(T ' S25.:: ff/07,,FDIl8'." `'..10,009900JtO.`" `£KJ-98,.;`; _ 5,25 12/11/2008 5,000,000.00 1 0�k0,tKyk[yam fV fiW,4M1Eigil4 3128X4G70 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3YrNc2Yr1X 1144090. 3128X5J90 3128X5RG5 3128)f5�3Q 3128X5HN1 �11r4�7t��,MSd; 3128X50D3 3128X5TU2 3128X5VT2 3128X5UB2 Sig 3128XSVX3 10- 4 , r4ti"' 15,9000006 Fitt,b' Iih('3RTG05.WWm <.�....:iiP' .,:: 3128X5XV5 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 2YrNc6MolX 5.50".:` 02113/YL108: 11i,000:fl00p0' 5.02 02/27/2009 40,000,000.00 :6;990;9Ht:L16VAL;B:='t16h.1''br`,: r 31Lkr . 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 2YrNc3Mo 3128X5C55 3128X5T40 10,000909.90 FHLB - MORTG. CERT3YrNc1.YrBe •m 5k1104k000�00'•Ftif.$.,-:,MOITTf:'G�F�'T`2=5YIc�.�' ".. . 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3YrNc2X 10990:00096:4618`=JuiORTGi: tFit�h r1X :::,, `.. ; 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT3YrNc6MoBerm 10 106996 FHLE 4.1t1RTG;OEkTi3liKtijijitX'`.` 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT3YrNc4.5Yi4X '10;0©0;60(iOG3:0110. ` 0G':Wit4 �iaaki'. " ; 10,000,000:00 FHLB-MORTG. CERT.3NC-2Yr 45 0(Ni fG i7Gi l 3lEB;fi17i CrC:1rFTt�s a 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG CERT 3YrNc1.5Yr1X 10.00:00.Ei0i1C8`=f4t4lR G- i�.C,.- t_' q''" 20,000,000.00 FHLB,- MORTG. CERT 3YrNc3Mo 99.62 4,981,150.00 6.90' - ,i2.46i.069 1090090090 99.94 ; " . ' =' 9;904 400:00', 5.04 01/06/2010 10,000,000.00 99.94 9;993,800.00 149709*1 5.07 01/11/2010 10,000,000.00 99 68 9,967,800.00 0 ' 61112/291 : 0,900900.90, `,- 99.65', . 5.52 01/12/2010 20,000,00000 99.87 . 19;974,800.90 5 5i3; 93 05l2CO3 ` „ 5,00 ,09096 5.50 03/05/2099 5,000,009.00 ss0';;`03106/2009" 10900,00600 5.10 G6/26/2099 10,000,000.00. 530 08/13/2999 < 5,000,00690 5?41 08/28/2009 10000000.00 GAIN/LOSS 000001 4,998,35090 (1,650.00) 5.25 9,967,40600 (32,600.00) 4991000i1Ek YLD MAT 4,999,900.00 9,998 6W 9,961,,3yt0.0-..�w 10,024,100.00 11/03/2006 . 10,000,00090 • 99 95 •9.994,800 04. 5.40 11/24/2009 10,000,000.00 99.82 9,982,000.00 5.0.7r° #2/1812809;' • . 10,000000400 99.ti2 :.` '9;962,300.00;.. 5.05 12/18/2009 5,000,000.00 t/2812010 ,4 ,000,000:00 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 3YrNc3Mo 5.50 01/26/2040 • 10,000,000.00 99.91 8OEff f-6o6f611@8Fii ?74G;O`iyEtiiiii)i A2:=,I - =, w;-: `• 5u '�2#li;�' :.1fl0000rik30• �-- � ' 99.ss::..,. 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 3YrNc6Mo 5.50 03/05/2010' 5,000,000.00 99.93 114EI0406';( #iLH' %YbFkfCx EF1f;3YiiaT l r f►J£ _%: •10,t6090690' `. 9977 ;' 10,000,000_00 FHLB,- MORTG CERT 3YrNc1.5Yr1X 10,000,000.00 • 99.77 -='�rQ�fi1;'. :00:':i-7:iE6:r;AfiCi 4147..thirx'trib`;;;';§;%`";5,006,flOCitP6. ":.99;89:;'..: 99.97 { 99.67 99.98 99.9B'• 99.61 99.86 10024 •5:.05.,.''2f2010' 5.05 03/22/2010 0312wit21?t0" 580,000,000.00 579,918,008.25 FNMA - FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 3136F7EB9 5,000,000.00 31359MG31 ' 4: 31359MZB2 31359MK�51,y 31359M2H5 :$ N; 31359MZK2 YiriatyxIXY:." ,::.`' :4:15`" 077f31200t...'' 5,000;080.1X# FED NAT, MORTG.ASSOC.2YrNc3Mo - 4.25 07/27/2007 4,995,312.50 , 5,000,000.00 FEDNAT MORTG ASSOC.1.5YrNc3Mo 5.00 08/24/2007 5,000,000.00 :5«:;;ik?A:EIv;<.�.Fitf4'�1Ri_k�::�;1`i�`">"`<:<.,:x>x.t..>.`....:;;`�r;:;�t�i20i37`'.`: }1;,1'. 5,000 D0090 FED NAT MORTGASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X 4.38 09/07/2007 :5;1 io00._: iF :iY.10s!•HSc0t; :'k.° �'rgii4. 5i�.; ::20`- 004.0400i , 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.1.5YrNc6Mo 5.20 �09/28/2007 >,n.; :.yam, 10,000,000.00 FED NAT "MORTG 'ASSOC.1YrNc 5.15 11/21/2007 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X 4.90 11/28/2007 ;3�' . ................:'f���=���#lt)fK#k,.:.:?.. .. .:_ rt4,....f.,,. .:.. ::fit;:=UitY2 31359MP58 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.1.5Yrt4c - 5.25 12/03/2007 3136F7PE1 ' 5 000.000.00 FED NAT MORTG'ASSOC.2YrNclYr1X A.saxk,:�; r,�s�f r,. z, <:ay.>:x: s:..« . v x. 31359ME66 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTGASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X fiS< .: ,' u}"2 11 a�''�:)Y'1 T1F1 tliM.4�4 .WATOm7�.'i i . , 3136F7FE2 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG'ASSOC.2.5YrNc1Yr 31359MF65 5,000,ODO.DO FED NAT MORT6ASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X 5,000,00600 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 1.5YrNc 31359MG49 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG',ASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X.. • rw. :rz��,,.. ,,..y. _.. .,.awxu.�.• , r.• ,..,�•.,.. , � sue 31359MB93 u 7,995�000.00 FED NAT MORTGASSOC,1.5YrNc 3138F7TC1 31359M2L8 31359MU27 3138F7S32 31359M2G7 31359M4F7 31359M4H3 3128X5ZR2 3136f7sx6 3136F7XS1 3136F7XS1 3136F7d40 3138F7S99 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2.25YrNc6M AROfT 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORT ASSOCI.5YNc8MBerm • �a 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X 15,008,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNclYriX 5,00 .0000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc3Mo' 5 000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG' ASSOC 2YrNc1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2Yri4c8Mo 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3-Nc3mo 5,000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC-3YrNc8Mo 5 000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc6Mo 10 000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc2Yr1X 15,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc2Yr1X 4.88 12/28/2007 4.88 01/11/2008 4.30 01/28/2008 4.75 02/01/2008 400;988. 4,997,600_00 99.50 5,9901.00:01- 4,090250.00 10,006,400.00 r 99.9T "- ' . .4:08105Q Q0 9,990,700.00 E9,300.00) 4,996,550.00 a (3,450,09) 9,976,700.00 ii88+t;.i*t>: • 579,063,652.0D :`A�904�1013:0d1 09.69 4;084,400.00 M Dur.° 1.58 (1,000.00) 5.50 1.80 5.02 1.79 1.92 t.93 a. 4 (38.700,00) 5.10 2-06 „2.4,100.00 V;V5.41 2.23 2.42 "°'(5;400.00} 08,000.09 5 40 08,850.09 5.05 :8w'ri (6,2.00.00) 110,! 99.88 6,000,000.00 -6;; 4,998,250.00 99.97 JB�07 99.81 K'asy 100-03 5,000,000.00 99.78 4,(jf3D;tlt3tf iftlz 5900,00090 10,000,000.00 99.34 99.78 5,000,000.00 99-66 6.40 D2/01/2008 5,/02211,900.00 100.22 '';< 5.00 02/27/2008 10,000,000.00 99.91 4.30 05/05/2008 7,907 859.04 99 25 4.92 05/16/2008 10,000,000.00 99.91 5.25 06/11/2008 5,000,000.00 99.97 f ....sf.>-r._-",. -,x;�y�q-,:,.: MOW s 5.70 07/17/2008 5,000,000.00 100.16 5.50 08114/2008 15. 00 000.00 190.13 n SS'i 525 11/20/2008 5,004,900.00 ' 99.97 5.40 5.35 525 5.50 5.50 Ot/28Y2009 N 10,000,000.00 01/29/2009 _ _ 4 998,100.00 02/06/2009 4,998,600.00 02/17/2009 5,000,000_00 04/20/2009 5 000,000.00 04/20/2009 4.995.500.00 99.97 99.94 99.90 99.81 99.97 90.97 06/30/2009 10900,000.00 100.28 5.40 08/26/2009 15,000,000.00 100.22 47 4,993,750.00 4,979,700.00 w¢... (32,200.00) 1_rTtlk04 (25,400.00) • 2.24 • 2.86 2.48 2.72 w,:� 2.77 a't8=' • 2.79 ?WV 5.52 • 2.52 2.79 5.50 2.56 2.83 f t..,._ . 59:t.. . 2.93 2.39 5-04 2.52 5.50 2.66 (23,300.00) :. , x5.05�� 2.73 �2.98 $ ' 7, . ot5fifi (854,356.25) 4.93 1.42 1.54 15s13" < (19,912.50) (6,260.09 ifF 47,900.00) `Y ^ 4.30 0.32 0.33 0*'f-0 5.00 0.39 0.40 ma3:;m : «::.A:... 5.2T .. 4.40 ' 0.43 0.44 99.97 4:998,450.00 _(800..00) 1 ,"5,21 0.48 0.50 l 9,996,900.00 (9,500.09 5.08 0.61 «.0:65 ^'rs4';;3.;<.'.<:w"'r,�ro" »;,Ii��si�.. ,..�u,, •fsa` . 4,990,650.00 ' (9,350.001 » „ a,�'" 4.90 0.63 y}.f sw�ra.^3 t all 5,0ri0,,1x,55��0{..�00 4,989,050.00, 4,989,050.00 9,934,400.00 5,300.00 5.30-• 0.65 . 0.67 10,950.00} 4.88 0.72 0.75 .,.::'.:is+^,.'f,'SwT.>FRY:b`d'N::P:vfnF✓ 00,s50.00� _ K J65'6w.99.) 4.30 u�:._ �1 (1.7;200.001 4.75 0.81». , . 0.84.. f,. 4,982,800,00 5,010,950.00 ' 9;990,606.00li'' i= lr667.11A.0 7 935,037,50 ..............r...:.... 9,990,600.00 4,998,450.00 5,007,80000 15 018,750.00 4,998,450.00 9,996,900.00 4,996,900.00 4,995,000.00 W - 4,990,650.00 4,998 450.00 4,098 450.00 10,028 100 00 15,032,850.00 t0,950.00 si:ie�w5-rsw 9,400.00 27.178.46 9,400.00 4.88 0.75 0.79 0.80 0.83 yC 5.05 0.80 0.84 5.00 0.87 0.92 5.07 1.04 1.10 4.92 &4 11550.005.25 1.07 1.13 1.13 0 7,800.00 5.70 1.22 1.30 18,750.00 (3,450.00) 521 1.52 1.65 .50 1.30 1.38 3,100.00i 5.40 1.70 4,290.00 3,600.00 1.83 . 527 1.71 1.84 5.37 1.73 1.86 9,350.00) 5.25 1.78 .1.89 5.50 1.87 2.08 2 950.00 5.53 1.87 2.08 28100.00 5.50 2.08 225 32,850.00 5.40 2.22 2.41 • • ' 525 09/29/2009 5.20 11/20/2009 fi::• _ _. 5.50 5.25 12/11/2009 5:3732t14/2009'- 5.00 12/18/2009 5:00:.:1268/2009 5.13 12/18/2009 '12j 0009 •.,< 12/21/2009 ' M.VALUE' ' 5,000,000-00 100.06 5;00Q a70FFjiiO' �.; 0a.'43 ;: 5,000,000.00 99 88 . 5,000,000.00 99.94 10:000,000. 5,000,000.00 45;64060.' t0 10,000,000.00 99.78 99.59 �997,2t1t0,04:: •. •:9s56: ', • 4,999,218.75 8;698 43. 1$0 • 4,999,218.75 5,000,000.00 ";;5F0000)0 ()fl, 5.25 12/28/2009 5,000,000.00 4.26-i',: 3 1X1) F.: ; Y 995`,650 3.0, 5.50 12/28/2009 6,284,937.15 99.91 0.0WQOQE}U0 9,991,000:00 100.00 5,000,000.00 100.00 5.05 01/08/2010 o1ia 5.25 01/22/2010 5.25 02/22/2010 5.50 x0."51 5.20 03/26/2010 5.30 06/14/2010 4 0S 6,0EEO:tKf E rii4%4'i ,0i 3"klt-/ dddb3 ii14Wit. PM3tg � aE3 f��Y=�: 3136F8GE9 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2YrNc6Mo 748,035,000mo LAO - LOCAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONS :3`r ,...., ZNXi- �� , .. .. .OP=iCOF�PiL A Srs 2009- „ 935,000.00 MARCH JPA 5.59 M_....._...: r: US DIST _ . „ ,.•::.::. ....::. : •.....::.:.�;T :{1!040q RiCT.CbURiHOF;3SE- :...;;. f :<;r < ��-: a> <�:559= 4,715,000.00 MMF - MONEY MARKET FUND s ^7 :G 28,000,000.00 MTNO - MED TERM NOTES 14'01,�hAR1; =` ;= q¢ t3DE> 0Q4 UA " ABOIEP NK 89233PZV1 15,000,000.00 TOYOTA MTR CREDIT Aaa/AAA/AAA !..,,. ...=..001000.60;GE�CAP:0001*=�Saall%�IV,?:: 36962GZZ0 5,000,000.00 GE CAP CORP Aaa/AAA/AAA 40411A6Y7 15,000,000.00 HBOS TSY SVCS NY Aa2/AA 5.25 11/14/2007 4' � a3?17't5i2 425 01/15/2008 10,000,000.00 100.06 15,000,000.00 t00A9 5,000,000.00 '' $ 0044:k 5,099,990.99 2,950,000.00 99.78 5 000 000.00 99.75 747,603,271.87 35 900.00 100.00 24: 4,715,000.00 Irv; 6-060 28,000,000.00 15,000,000.001~ > 99.89 9 4,954,550.00 dMr' 5.38 01/30/2008 r t5,008,203.13 x� s }� M: «�Nr 90261XCX8 15,000,000.00 UBS AG STAMFORD AA+/Aa2 5.40 949746.105 10,000,000.00 WELLS FARGO AA+/Aa1 c 74977ENS8 10,000,000.00 RABOBANK Aaa/AAA/AAA _ 526 084664AC5 1yj0�2000,000_00 36962GN34 5,000,000.00 55266LFC5 Treasurer's Fooled Investment Fund Month End Portfolio Holdings Report E CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION 3136F72R7 $139045175 ;. 31359M2A0 31359M2A0 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc2Yr1X 15:006,000_oiY):EDNAT: MORTt ASSOC3YrN0Yr 5(- ;'' 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORT ASSOC3YrNc1.5Yr1X 5.000,000,00 FED NAT MORT ASSOC3YrNa1:6WPC--;: 3136F77F8 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc3Mo 3'138F77 37 .10;1500,000.00 "FEtiNAT MORT ASSOC3YrNc1.5Yr1X • €: 3136F8AB1 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORT ASSOC3YrNclYrBerm ,3136F8AR8 3133XJBM9 3136F813S3 31359M2M4 313 0136O, 3136F8BG9 3138F8CJ2 . 15:000,00!1 30 FED NATMORT4 ASSOC.3YrNa1Yritlt :: , 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORT ASSOC3YrNc1.5Yr1X t0;000000.00`FEDNATMORT-0AS50C3Yr1V01.:.5 r;,-:'- 5,000,000,00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc1Yr1X 40;000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC:3YrNc1Yr;;€:- 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNclYrBe 5.000,000-00:FED NAT MORTG ASSOC .3YrPk3tNrr E . 31359M2U6 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc1YrIX 3136F8BZ7 • 5',090 000:00• :FED NAT .40RTG ASSOC 3YNa1YBeri1: , 3136F8BZ7 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YNc1YBerm .000000.08 FEONAT.MORTG ASSOC:3Y4I14t7Yei <; 6,285,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc3Mo i0;000:00000;;FEONAT'MORtG ASSOC.3YrN01 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc2Yr1X 5,000,0iX(00 :.FED [+NAT MORTG ASSOC:"3Y0441lfr4X,: : 5,000,00o:00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YNc1.5Y1X 0,000,000_ FED NAT MORTGASSOC 3YNef.5y* 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc2Yr1X .10,000,0013.a6 FE€i'NAT MORTGASSOE';3YrMc1.5Yr 31359M4W0 35,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc6MoIX 3130;1403•• 5,800,000.0.041E3NAT.MORTGASSOC314441 ig, €. 3136F8FA8 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORT ASSOC 3YNc1.5Yr1X 5,000,060.00:.F.-DNATt€tORTG m5i1C 15,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc3Mo COUPON MATURITY 313506018 3136F8CJ2 3;t$6F809; 3136F8DF9 3'1:3*P.43X9 31359M4L4 31359M4X8 At88N04 31359M5[y9 3136F8JG1 31359M6B4 31359I 0134 31359M6B4 •,`a'F�y1100�P4.OB��(?i1`.A�Di�T�'ASsOI:` 3YtN�3luliPi;t: 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNe1YrIX 10,000,000AtaF#O}±AT:AAt*TG ASS003 NCi*R:> 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc1Yr1X *40.0 B4 ;y;, ;000]*(:Eta,iVAt'1.4 00.'405.t;3Y 1Y4 =::',:• 31359M6B4 313<',i,&1f+113G3 :'`� :; :� ��s;Dlb'ODQ:U(iF�f3�fPFT��tt{3FE3G �4biSOC=.3Y4t�'1YT1�C�.�;:�;% 3136F8AM7 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNelYr1X 2,950,000-00 FED NAT MORT ASSOC3.5YrNc9MBer 5,000,000.00 169,200,000.00 MUNI - MUNICIPAL BONDS 768903E38 1,000,000.00 98738813136 1,350,000 4.13 5.00 03/12/2009 • 99.75 9919 99-66 99.88 99.78 02/01/2008 15,000,000.00 99.96 imixflimoriorgroat 03/10/2008 9,905,400.00 98.87 �G �r `�i 05/06/2008 10,000,000.00 99.80 9,980,400.00 GAIN/LOSS 5,003,150.00 15;0134;650:00:' ...: 4,993,750.00 (6,250.00) 4.993f66:00 • (8 25f1 4,996,900.00 (3000.00) 4,989,050.00 (10,950.00) 9,959,400.00 • 066;360 00 4,987,500.00 9,982;50:600`: : 4,982,800.00 4,993,750.00 4,989,050.00 6,279,092,10 10,000,000.00 12 nv 60 5,000,000.00 IF1�1i00;(lEi;� , 5,018,750.00 35,043,750.00 10,006,300.00 3. 10,000,000.00 2.943,539.50 4,987,500.00 747,270,032_05 935,000.00 4,715,000.00 28,000,000.00 BERKSHIRE HATH Aaa/AAA/AAA 3.38 10/15/2008 •-: ,, ^rfeSW •: •:: : ,.. ....,y,....,<. craaw.sa,nX:ftrua>:,.ryg�..: ffit5>�:aixfis:•.ak•.....q., GE CAP CORP Aaa/AAA/AAA MBIA GLOBAL FOG Aaa/AAA/AAA RIVERSIDE CNTY ASSET Aaa/AAA 00 YOSEMITE CA CMNTCOLLEGEAAA/Aaa 76886PAV5 1545 000.00 9,455,000.00 NCD - NEGOTIABLE CD 8336P17L8 50,000,000.00 SOCIETE GENERALE A1+/P1/F1+ 5.34 01/23/2009 14,983,950.00 4,965,050 ,00 100.05 15,008,205.00 14 993 550.00 9,88B,700.00 y 3 t 9�701,200.00 97.35 ` <... m. 9x734,600.00 4,857,500-00 97.40 4,870,200.00 A ORINIXWM. 5 000 000.00 100.33 5 016 250.00 168,486,869M 168,400,499.00 3.35 06/01/2007 990,340.00 99.03 3.93 08/01/2007 1,350,210.00 99.56 3.63 00101/2007 1,550,871.00 99.44 9,449,006.60 48 990,340.00 1,344,100.50 1,538,301.65 9,413,466.95 3,150.00 (40,600.00) . (11,718.75) 16,4/8.76 i'1�00;00,} (6,250-00) =:- 410-1150 i1>0k,' (10,950.00) ` ^ 5.25 (5,845.05) 5.50 f°'' y 1`9,000.00 5.08 2.53 YLO MAT' M Dun' 5.25 2.31 Avg, Life' 2.50 5.20 2.39 2.65 $:204,' s07k 5.50 2.41 >> 2.68 5.25 2.45 2.70 5.00 2.48 6.300.00 (12 500.00) (333,239.82) 16,050.00 10,500.00 _ _1,87. 2.72 5-13 2.47 2.72 5.16 2.48 2.73 2.75 5.25 2.49 2.49 2.75 2.75 2.70 2.48 5.25 2.56 2.82 5.23 2.58 2.84 5.25 2.64 2.90 Mkt 2.71 2.98 5.20 2.73 2.99 5.20 2.73 2.99 5.20 2.73 2.99 2.87 3.21 5.33 1.83 0.00 5.17 1.82 1.97 5.59 4.48 5:y.y3y0p 5.35 3.06 3.95 5.26 0.08 0.08 5.25 0,59 0.63 x. ,. 4.74 0.76 0.80 NAM W n 5.32 0.80 0.84 6,450.00} 5.40 0.80 0.84 /8,700.00 5.17 0.91 0.95 001 5.26 1.03 2.82 33,400.00 5.21 1.45 1.55 12,700.00 1.49 1.59 16,250.00 5.34 1.69 (86,370.13) 5.25 0.92 1.08 1.82 0,00 3.86 0.17 0.17 8,115.50} 3.92 0.33 0.34 14,569.351 3.49 0.33 0.34 (35,539.65) 4.02 0.39 0.41 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund March 30, 2007.:- Month End Portfolio Holdings Report DESCRIPTION I COUPON I MATURITY di�l1 40:400007 74977FEG1 50,000;000.00 RABOBANKAI+/P1/F1+ �x5.27 05/09/2007 404W.14: 3 SIt*-tt 00F! 00 FiEIW,tF itjit::argF( ..._: ._ ..., g.2trgttfr 1ir-' 0673PLVG6 50.000,000.00 BARCLAYS'CAPITAL AI+/P1/F4+ 5.32 . 05/23/2007 78010FXK1 50,000,000.00 RBS GREENVVICH Al+/P1 5 28 06/20/2007 0i9tO ti xk 50;t .E R1 �l tR[ A i�IP,'t,.... «. �.. ,. ,... .,. 25213EZE2 50,000,000:00 DEM BANK NY BRANCH A7+/P1 5.28 07/13/2007 x 25153GKX3 50,000,000.00 DEUTSCHE BANK'AA/AA 5.31 07/31/2007 700,000,000.00 TCD - TIME DEPOSITS 10,000,000.00 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK 20,000,000.00 TOTALS 4,721,396,1100.00 1. The market value and yield of short-term money market secmaifies are based on purchase price. 2. Average life is the number of years until principal is returned et maturity, weighted by market value. 3. Local Agency Obligations have variable rate coupons, spread to Poot. 4. Modified Duration. The percentage price charge of a securiy for a given change. The higher the modified duration of a security. the higher the risk. 5.21 09/12/2007 BOOK VALUE' 50,000,000.00 100.00 50,000 000.00 50,000,73�1<.57 50,001,085.50 700,005,312.43 10,Of}Q.El�O 10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 4,700,110,338.97 49 00.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50,000,000.00 00 6.040: j� . . 50,000 000 00 50,000,750.00 50,001,100.00 700,005,322.87 . '10;L#ttOtStf� t1d . . 10,000,000.00 20,000,000,60 4,697,880,400.62 18.43 5.27. 0.11 5.32 0.14 5.28 0.22 5.28 m 0.28 14.50 5.3i 0.32 10.44 5.29 0.15 5.21 0.44 0.11 0.15 0.22 ti 28' 0.29 Q 3@; 0.34 0.16 0.45 0.23 0.24 . (2,229,938.35) _ 5.09 0.89 0,96 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund Mares 2067 Summary of Authorized Investments The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in FULL COMPLIANCE with the more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed County Board of Supervisors. Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy. The County's Investment Policy is annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the California Government Code investment Maximum Authorized Quality Maximum. Category.. Maturity %Limit S&P/ Moody's Maturity CA AGENCY BONDS 5 YEARS NO LIMIT t; TREASi;RY• 5 YEARS ' Nfl lll1i LOCAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONS 5 YEARS NO LIMIT OtoERAt AGF-Op S 5 YEARS.: NQ (1.tthIT- BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270 DAYS 40% (1) 0B0:64 ;PAPEf 2701QAYS CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS 5 YEARS 0.3 REVERSE REPOS 92 DAYS 0.2 �13.,-'��#;�lilt;lT).5°• '.'' :.;;, .... ".:- ��>l`E,4RS. ; :. ; 0:3;,; . CaITRUST SHORT TERM FUND N/A N/A AL FUNp SECURED BANK DEPOSITS 15100,140 "' LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS pt. t Arco., County Investment Policy Authorized j Quality % Limit it S&P/ Moody's 15%/ $150MM A/A2/A INVESTMENT GRADE A1/P1/F1 A1/P2/F1 N/A AaZt. . Board Approved Actual Riverside Portfolio 0_20% 0.98% DAYS 5 YEARS NO LIMIT N/A NO LIMIT N/A kSE 3 YEARS 3 YEARS 0.025 180 DAYS 0.3 1 YEAR 25% MAX 60 DAYS 10% MAX DAILY LIQUIDITY 0.01 1 YEAR 3 YEARS 0.02 0% MAX w 1 No more than 30% of this category may be invested with any one commercial bank 2 Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days 3 Or must have an investment advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500,000,000. 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. Month Monthly Receipts Monthly' Disbmts Difference Required Mat. Invest 1,172.3 (537.2) 983.1 (254.8) 671.1 (129.0) Balance Actual lnv. Maturities Avail, To Invests 1Yr. w Totals 10,270.0 10,510.2 (240.2) 336.7 7.16% 3,048.1 64.85% 4,363.4 92.84% 50 THIS COMPLETES THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 M'arnh nO • • Treasurer's Pooled Investrn ri F ,..._...,.,, ti County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 4th Floor - Capital Markets Riverside, CA 92502-2205 capitalmarkets@coxiverside.ca.us www.countytreasurer.org (951) 955-3967 51 n�` AGENDA ITEM 8F • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Comarco Wireless Technologies, Inc. for Digital Upgrade of Call Box System and installation of TTY Devices STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-45-537-01 Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 05-45-537, with Comarco Wireless Technologies, Inc., for digital upgrade of the call box system and installation of TTY devices; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, through its : capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), operates approximately 682 call boxes on freeways and highways in Riverside County. The call box system allows motorists to call for assistance in the event of an accident or mechanical problem. Each call box is a battery powered solar charged roadside terminal with a microprocessor and built-in cellular telephone. At its February 9, 2005 meeting, the Commission entered into Agreement No. 05-45-537 with Comarco Wireless Technologies, Inc., (Comarco) to upgrade the call box system from analog to digital- technology as recommended in the Riverside County SAFE CallBox Program Five -Year Strategic and Financial Plan approved by the Commission at its February 11, 2004 meeting. The contract amount was for $1,302,400 to upgrade approximately 1,100 call boxes' at a unit cost of $1,184. However, on April 1.4, 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Commission for alleged violations of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and California's anti- discrimination statute. The suit alleged that •"the call boxes roust be equipped with Agenda Item 8F 52 TTY's, or comparable two-way communication devices, to provide full and equal access to deaf and hard -of -hearing persons under applicable federal and California law." Subsequently, Commission staff directed Comarco to delay the digital upgrade work until the outcome of the suit was known so that no unnecessary costs were incurred: Furthermore, due to the continuing decline in the number; Of calls, Commission staff directed its call box consultant to develop a reduction plan to meet the declining system :need while continuing to provide a.' safety netto motorists in remote regions of :. the county. On December 14, . 2005, . the' Commission entered into Agreement No. 99-45-002-01 to reduce the number of call boxes throughout the .system by 422 boxes. Legal counsel has advised Commission staff `that a settlement agreement has been. . executed and final approval of the class settlement will be ordered by the court on or about July 27, 2007. Therefore, staff is proposing to amend and approve Agreement No.. 05=45-537-01 to :upgrade the call boxes from analog to digital technology and to install TTY devices as required in the soon -to -be -approved settlement. Although the settlement agreement would allow the Commission up to three years to comply with the directive, an estimated $107,800 in labor . costs will:.be saved by combining the two tasks. The cost of the TTY kit is $1,0.14.06 per unit or $691,590 for the 682 call boxes in the system. Also, due to_ increase in _labor and parts costs over the two plus years since the .digitalupgrade;; agreementwas originally approved, the unit cost for the digital upgrade has: increased $104 (from► $1,184 to $1,288). However, as previously noted, the total number of boxes in , the system is less_than the. approximate 1,100call boxes in the original agreement. The proposed FY 2007/08 Motorist Assistance budget includes sufficient funds to cover the costs of the digital upgrade and TTY installation so a budget: adjustment is not required. Financial Information In. Fiscal Year, Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $1, 570, 200 . Source of Funds: SAFE DMV Fees Budget Adjustment: No GLA No:: 202 45.73301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Agenda [tern 8F :. 53 Date: 6/5/2007 AGENDA ITEM 8G • • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Funding Agreement Between the Department of California Highway Patrol and Riverside County Transportation Commission STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-45-137-00 with the Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide overtime supervision and operation of a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalfof the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FSP program is operated as a joint venture between the California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans), CHP, and the Commission, in its capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). The Riverside County SAFE is responsible for administering the program and the CHP provides daily field supervision to ensure service performance. The CHP has assigned and staffed for the dedicated purpose of supporting the Riverside County FSP program with two full-time traffic officers. However, the nature of the FSP program (5':30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) may require the CHP officers to work overtime. Also, any time .one of the two officers is on vacation, sick leave, or state mandated training, another officer must work overtime to cover the shift. The attached funding agreement provides for the reimbursement from the Commission to the CHP of those reasonable overtime expenses necessary to support the FSP program. The agreement provides for a maximum of 880 overtime hours for FY 2007/08, 960 overtime hours for FY 2008/09, and 1,040 overtime hours for FY 2009/10 at the state established rate of $70.64 per hour. The agreement also provides for Agenda Item 8G 54 overtime hours for construction FSP projects, which are fully funded by Ca[trans. and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The total amount of the agreement for both regular FSP overtime and construction FSP overtime shall not exceed $62,163 for FY 2007/08, $67,814 for FY 2008/09, and $73,466 for -FY 2009/10. In the event the CHP is granted a rate increase by the state, the Commission would be required to reimburse the CHP at the new hourly rate, but in no event shall the total amount exceed the maximum contract amount for each fiscal year. The proposed °FSP .program budget for FY 2007/08 : includes $62,163 for CHP . overtime: It should be noted that not less than 8 0 % of the cost of this agreement will be financed by state FSP funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $62,163 Source of Funds: State of California Budget Adjustment: No . GLA No.: 201 45 81016 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \j,fC„ Date: 6/5/2007 Agenda Item 8G 55 1, 4 AGENDA ITEM 8H • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Program Manager Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Metrolink Budget for Fiscal Year 2007/08 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the preliminary Metrolink Operating and Capital Budget for FY 2007/08; and 2) Allocate the Commission's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA or Metrolink) in an amount not to exceed $7,792,261 comprised of $6,339,600 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for train operations and maintenance -of -way and $1,452,661 for capital projects to be funded by FTA Section 5307 funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: By virtue of the Joint Powers Agreement, the five member agencies, which comprise the Metrolink, must formally commit to fund their proportionate shares of commuter rail operating and capital costs. Each member agency must approve the budget before adoption of a final budget by the Metrolink board, no later than June 30, 2007. Service and funding levels are limited to the policy and budget constraints of the member agencies and are negotiated each year. FY 2006/07 Notable Accomplishments • Continued growth on the Inland Empire Orange County Line (IEOC) with the latest April 2007 ridership 9%, higher than April 2006; • Successful implementation of year round IEOC weekend service. With strong cooperation from OCTA, SANBAG and Metrolink the new weekend service provided riders with the opportunity to travel to Orange County year-round for entertainment or to visit family and friends and Agenda Item 8H . 56 • Successful outreach and passenger information that allowed for completion of additional track restoration projects with significant service disruptions along the Union Pacific's Riverside Line without a. net loss of riders based on April 2007 ridership. Riverside County Service Impact Proposed for FY 2007/08 Three Metrolink <commuter rail lines traverse Riverside County; the Riverside Line, the IEOC Line, and the 91 Line. The preliminary FY 2007/08 Metrolink Budget proposes the following; , • Riverside Line: no changes in regular weekday service or weekend service via extensions on the San Bernardino Line; • 1E0C Line: no changes in regular weekday service, no change to the year-round weekend service that currently has three round trips on Saturdays and two on Sundays; • 91 Line: no changes in regular weekday service,• and • 3.5 % average fare increase due to restructuring of fares from zone to distance based calculation and rising diesel fuel costs. The primary reason for no changes in service is that the current passenger car fleet is maximized and there are no opportunities for additional weekday service with the existing equipment. There is a current order for 107 new passenger cars that are planned to arrive and be put -into service in 2009. Commission's FY 2007/08 Operating Subsidy to Increase 1.5% The Commission's proposed funding obligation to SCRRA includes $6,339,600 subsidy for operations and maintenance -of -way which represents an $830,900 increase over the FY 2006/07 budget. This is due primarily to two factors outlined below: Cost Allocation Formula Change 0679,800) The Metrolink cost allocation formula was revised in 2006 through a series of negotiations with all of the member agencies. The cost allocation formula is the mechanism by which the expenses for the system operations are attributed 'to each member agency based on specific performance `criteria. This previous formula did not accurately represent the appropriate factors as it related to.the addition of expanded service or increased frequencies. This was addressed in the new formula; currently when a new service is added .or. frequencies are expanded the benefiting member agencies will be responsible for the additional expenses. Over time the Commission has benefited from Agenda Item 8H 57 • the previous formula after the expansion of the 1E0C and 91 Line trains. The new formula is now more equitable and will allow member agencies with available financial resources greater opportunities to expand Metrolink service in their areas. • Operating Cost Increases 0151,100) The overall FY 2007/08 Metrolink Budget for operating is $10.3 million or 7.65 % greater than the previous year. The following five elements represent 67 % of the increase: • Operating crews are increasing due to both annual contractual increases and to additional weekend services on the San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Lines - $1.5 million increase; • Equipment maintenance expenses are increasing both as a result of contractually mandated cost escalation as well as the addition of new staff to support the maintenance of new locomotives expected this year - $1.9 million increase; • Increase in the cost of fuel as a result of both increased price assumptions as well as additional service miles - $1.0 million increase; • Increase in the cost of Metrolink sheriff's contract both as a result of annual cost escalation and additional deputies to cover added weekend service - $1.0 million increase; and • Increased indirect administrative . costs due to increase in administrative costs with the addition of three new authorized positions (buyer, mechanical compliance officer, and lead customer service representative) and six formerly frozen positions needed for the information technology and engineering and construction departments. Also, included in this category are the administrative costs associated with the additional software Licenses for the Maximus database and other: software upgrades $1.3 million increase. Capital Contribution The Commission's new capital and capital renovation obligation for FY 2007/08 is projected at $1,452,661. Projects include rehabilitation and renovation of rolling stock and track projects, initial funding for a new centralized maintenance -of -way facility, passenger sign rehabilitation, and improvements to the passenger communication plan. Agenda Item 8H 58 Summary Financial Subsidy Impact to Commission The Commission operating subsidy proposed of $6,339,600 represents 4% of the $145.1 million operating budget. The resulting capital project subsidy , of $1,452,661 represents 0.3% of the $437.5 million capital budget. System -wide In FY 2007/08, Metrolink will celebrate its 15' year providing Metrolink commuter rail service in Southern California. Opening with three lines and 12 stations in October 1992, the SCRRA today operates over 512 route miles .on seven lines, serving 54 stations in six counties. The 55' station in Buena Park is expected to open in the summer of 2007 which will serve the 91 Line. Average weekday ridership is projected to total over 43,000 one-way trips. The resulting fare box revenue is projected at $67.2 million or 13.3% over the current year budget, due to the combination of a proposed average fare increase -of 3.5 % as well as the increase in ridership. Fare revenues represent 44% of total operating expenses. Member agency contributions of $61.2 million for operations representapproximately 46% of total operating expenses resulting in revenue recovery in the budget of 54%, one of the higher revenue recovery ratios among commuter rail properties nationwide. In 2004, the SCRRA board approved a 10-year fare restructuring program that began July 1, 2005 and changed the method for calculating fares to one based on the driving mileage between stations. The 10-year fare restructuring program included an underlying average annual fare increase of 3.5%. Accordingly, for FY 2007/08, a 3.5% increase is proposed effective July 2007. The Preliminary FY: 2007/0.8 'Metrolink Budget is $582.6 million The operating budget is $145.1 million, an increase of 7.7 % from the `'current year budget, comprised of $ 122.4 million for train operations and maintenance -of -way at $22.7 million. The capital budget is $437.5 million made up of rehabilitation and renovation at $60 million and a new capital projects budget of $377.5 million. Approximately 54% of the capital budget, or $235.6 million, represents resources to procure additional rolling stock: Agenda Item 8H` 59 • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $6,339,600 1,452,661 Source of Funds: LTF $6,339,600 FTA Section 5307 $1,452,661 Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 103 25 86 101 P4199 $6,339,600 221 33 86 102 P3812 $1,452,661 Fiscal Procedures Approved: 1 414,44:4 ,1" Date: 6/5/2007 Attachment: SCRRA FY 2007/08 Budget Operating Subsidy Allocation by County Agenda Item 8H 60 SCRRA FY 2007-08 Budget TABLE 3.8 OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY ($000s) Total FY 07-08 LACMTA Share OCTA Share RCTC - Share SANBAG Share VCTC Share Expenses Train Operations & Services $91,917.8 $47,621.8 $20,151.1 $8,172.4 $11,378.1 $4,594.3 Maintenance -of -Way 22,671.5 13,578.6 4249.1 652.9 2,863.7 1,3272 Administration & Services 18,165.5 9,145.3 3,323.6 1,856.7 1,925.7 1,9142 Insurance 12,350.0. 6,783.5 2,396A 1,078.8 1,548.8 542.5 "Total Expenses Incl. MOW $145,104.7 $77,129.1 $30,120.3 $11,760.8 $17,716.3 . $8,378.2 Revenues Gross Farebox 67,169.1 35,469.8 14,548.8 5263.0 9,662.9 2,224.6 Dispatching 3,000.1 1,520.7 952.9 29.4 110.7 386.5 " Other Operating 1,134.2 539.9 231.1 128.7 152.9 81.6 Maintenance -of -Way 10,022.7 6,451.7 2,058.7 988.2 524.2 Natal Revenues $81,326.1 $43,982.0 $17,791.5 $5,421.2 $10,914.7 $3,216.8 Total County Allocation $63,778.6 $33,147.2 $12,328.8 S6,339.6 $6,801.6 $5,161.4 FY 2006-07 Budget 61,506.0 32,922.9 11,465.6 5,508.7 6,852A 4,756.4 Increase/(Decrease) 2,272.6 224.3 863.2 830.9 (50.8) 405.0 Percentage Change 3.69% 0.68% 7.53%0 15.08% (0.74%) 8.51% 61 • AGENDA ITEM 81 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Coachella Dillon Road/Avenue 48 Grade Separation, California Public Utilities Commission Section 190 10% Local Match Request STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Transfer $500,000 of uncommitted Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to the Rail Program to facilitate the award of funding for the Dillon Road/Avenue 48 grade separation project; and 2) Allocate $500,000 in available Rail Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to provide a non-federal match to the city of Coachella for the Dillon Road/Avenue 48 grade separation project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its September 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved the policy to support successful California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Section 190 grade separation projects that are included in the Commission approved Alameda Corridor -East (ACE) Grade Crossing Priority List by funding the 10% local share match requirement of the CPUC if funding sources are available. The first Commission award under this policy was made to the city of Coachella for the Avenue 50 grade separation project for $500,000 in 2002 and last year, an award was made to the city of Riverside .for the Jurupa Avenue grade separation project for $500,000. The city of Coachella has submitted an application to the Commission for the 10% local share of the Dillon Road/Avenue 48 grade separation project, located on the Union Pacific Railroad's Yuma Subdivision. The Dillon Road/Avenue 48 overpass grade separation project meets the Commission's eligibility requirement of having been awarded CPUC funds and listed on the Commission's approved ACE Grade Crossing Priority List. The CPUC award is $5,000,000, Commission staff recommendation is to award the maximum amount of $500,000. Agenda Item 81 62 Transfer of Funding. The Commission's grade separation funding policy approved in 2001 is subject to the availability of funds. The Commission staff has identified $500,000 in uncommitted federal STP funds resulting from an increase in actual receipts over original estimates. Eligible projects for STP funding include, but are not limited to, safety construction activities, hazard elimination, rail -highway crossings, and transportation enhancements. The CPUC requires the "local match" be a non-federal funding source. In order to facilitate the allocation, Commission staff is recommending a "swap" of STP for rail LTF funds by transferring $500,,000 of STP to the Rail Program for the Perris Valley Line project. The Rail Program will remain the claimant for the LTF funds. Impact to the Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects At its May 9``' meeting, the Commission adopted the Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects report. The staff recommendation is consistent with the Blueprint Strategy: • • The Dillon Road/Avenue 48 grade separation project is included in the Priority A funding group (projects that area under design and must be completed prior to reauthorization of the federal transportation bill); and As a high priority project, it is partially funded by a $2.5 million Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ACE earmark. The additional allocation of $500,,000 will complete the funding plan for the project, currently estimated at. $16,107,000; and Construction is anticipated to begin_ August 2007. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $500,000 Source of Funds: ' LTF Rail Capital Funds Budget Adjustment: Yes 221 33 40101 P4008 GLA No.: 221 33 81301 P4008 601 62 86102 P2210 Fiscal Procedures Approved: D���� Date: 6/5/2007 Attachment: RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need List Agenda Item 81. 63 RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation. Need List, April 2006 Rail Line Cross Street Jurisdiction Overall Weighted Score* Priority Group UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County 4412 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside 4330 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside County 4250 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 4010 1 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 3950 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av (BNSF) Riverside 3950 1 UP (LA SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside 3880 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning 3800 1 UP (LA SUB) Riverside Av Riverside 3785 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av (BNSF) Riverside 3770 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 3665 1' BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 3638 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 3625 2 UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County 3535 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 3263 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 3110 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 3100 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 3100 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/Dillon Road Indio/Coachella 3075 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside County 3008 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Banning 3000 2 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 2965 2 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Ave Riverside 2925 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Palmyrita Av (UP) Riverside 2835 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St (BNSF) Riverside 2695 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 2690 2 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2650 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 2640 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 2590 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 62 Riverside County 2544 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 2475 3 UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd Riverside 2465 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 2400 3 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Riverside County 2348 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 Riverside County 2265 3 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 2265 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 Coachella 2258 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av Beaumont 2200 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 2100 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2080 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Apache Trail Riverside County 2052 I 4 UP (LA SUB) Rutile St Riverside County 2046 1 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 2030 i 4 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 2025 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Miele Av Beaumont 1983 ;` 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Cota St Corona 1938 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside County 1904 4 UP (LA SUB) Mountain View Av Riverside 1650 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Drive Riverside County 1592 4 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside County 1531 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 1330 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 1267 4 BNSF. (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 1250 4 j BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1120 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Tipton Rd Palm Springs 1100 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Radio Rd Corona 1075 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Jane St Riverside 1060 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 Coachella 767 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 58 Riverside County 688 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St Corona 663 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Riverside 520 5 64 * Seven factors were considered in determining the overall score and resulting priority group; they were identified in consultation with technical staff of the affected jurisdictions, and approved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The factors include: • Safety — Accident Score (combination of frequency & severity) 20% of total score • Delay — 2005 Daily Vehicle Delay 20% of total score • Delay — 2030 Daily Vehicle Delay 20% of total score • Emissions Reduction 10% of total score • Noise Reduction 10%'of total score . • Adjacent Grade Separations; and 10% of total score • Local Priority Ranking 10% of total score RCTC established a Priority List in March 2001. The List was updated in April 2006. Between March 2001. and April 2006, one grade separationproject was completed: Avenue 50, Coachella in January 2004. 65 AGENDA ITEM 8J • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Property "Committee of the Whole" Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for Joint Development at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station to Alan Mruvka Company dba Blue Square Development Group PROPERTY "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) No. 07-67-154-00 for joint development at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station to Alan Mruvka Company dba Blue Square Development Group; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its April 2006 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to work with the city of Riverside to develop a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)/Request for Proposals (RFP) for joint development at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. Working in close coordination with the city of Riverside -Redevelopment and Planning, staff developed the RFQ and RFP. Selection Process The RFQ was released on April 13, 2006 with a mailing to 115 interested parties. The RFP was also posted on the agency website and public notices were advertised in the Press -Enterprise, Orange County Register, and Los Angeles Times. The Commission received eight Statements of Qualifications (SOO) by the deadline of May 12, 2006: • BRE Properties • Forest City • Blue Square Development Group & RNM Design • Lincoln Property Company Agenda Item 8J 66 • Floyd Company • Dynasty Land Development • Phelps Development & Lankford & Associates • Niemann Properties, Inc & Polls Builders, LTD Dynasty Land Development withdrew its submission from consideration prior to review by the Evaluation Committee. The remaining SOQ's were reviewed by the Evaluation Committee comprised of representatives from the city of Riverside -- Planning, - city of Riverside -Redevelopment, the Southern California . Regional Rail . Authority, and Commission staff; Chief Financial. -Officer and . Right -of -Way Manager. The Evaluation Committee pre -qualified five firms out of the seven for an invitation to propose. The five pre -qualified firms, identified below, were invited on July 14, 2006 to submit a joint development ° proposal for the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station Site. • • BRE Properties, Inc Forest City Development Blue Square Development Group and RNM Design Niemann Properties, Inc and Polls Builders, LTD Phelps Development and Lankford & Associates All teams were represented at the non -mandatory pre -proposal meeting held. July 26, 2006. Forest City Development and Niemann Properties Inc. advised that they would not be submitting proposals prior to the deadline. The BRE Properties proposal wasreceived after the deadline, and thus disqualified BRE Properties from further consideration. Their proposal was returned to the development team. Two development teams, .Blue Square Development Group and Phelps Development submitted proposals at the 2:00 p.m. deadline on September 14, 2006. The financial pro-formas of both proposals were analyzed by Keyser Marston and Associates, a real estate financial advisor for the Commission through two rounds of extensive analysis. Interviews of both firms were held on April 20, 2007 with a panel consisting of representatives from the city of. Riverside -Planning, city. of Riverside -Redevelopment, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Keyser Marston Associates, and Commission staff; Chief Financial Officer, and Right -of -Way Manager. Evaluation Committee Recommendation The Evaluation Committee recommends the selection of Alan Mruvka Company dba Blue Square Development for the ENA at the Riverside -Downtown 'Metrolink Station contingent upon the following: Agenda Item 8J 67 • • • • Commission staff is not prepared to recommend to the Commission Board a joint development proposal for the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink site that relies on any of the following: o charging Metrolink riders for parking; o tax increment financing from the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Riverside; and O other public financing mechanisms such as special sssessment districts, community facilities districts, etc. • The Developer's joint development proposal must absorb the cost of the 1, 500-space Metrolink parking structure. It will be the Developer's responsibility to either: o modify its private development proposal to improve its overall financial feasibility; and o seek third -party financial assistance through state or federal programs. • The Commission is willing to consider development proposals requiring that some portion or all of the development site be conveyed to the developer in fee. • The Commission and the city of Riverside will provide feedback to the Developer regarding the current project design, which may include matters such as: o parking ratio for private components; o treatment of the Metrolink garage component; O other considerations - specifically, the city of Riverside will be requiring that a certain percentage of the units be "for sale"; and o all of the apartments must be built per condominium standards. Alan Mruvka Company has accepted the above conditions as outlined in Attachment 1. The proposal submitted by Blue Square Development Group: • incorporates a parking structure supporting the future parking expectations of the rail station; and • incorporates retail and mixed housing types consistent with the city of Riverside zoning and general plan as well as allows expanded use of adjoining properties owned by Blue Square; and • proposes a financial return to the Commission. The ENA allows for the Commission to negotiate with Blue Square Development Group. During the term of ,the ENA, the Commission will not approve any other Agenda item 8J 68 proposals for the Riverside -Downtown Station site. Upon execution of the ENA, Blue Square Development Group will be required to provide a $25,000 good faith deposit. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount:. $25,000 is Source of Funds: Private Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 106 67, 42003 P4001 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ \1 duvita v Date: 6/5/2007 Attachments: 1) Letter from Alan Mruvka Company dated May 2, 2007 2} Excerpt from the Commission's Station Joint Development Guidelines Agenda Item 8J . 69 • The Alan Mrnvka Company May 2, 2007 Stephanie Wiggins Regional Programs Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Subject: Riverside TOD Dear Stephanie: We are responding to your email of April 25, 2007. We are pleased to learn that you have selected our team's proposal for the development of the land adjacent to the Riverside Metrolink Station. The purpose of this letter is to confirm our interest to engage in an ENA with the RCTC. This letter will also specifically respond to the items discussed in your email. The Developer should enter into an ENA with RCTC with the following understandings: (1) RCTC Staff is not prepared to recommend to the RCTC Board a joint development proposal for the Downtown Metrolink site that relies on any of the following: (a) charging Metrolink riders for parking As you know, the Pro forma submitted with our proposal assumed commuter parking at $40 per month. The Developer will agree to not charge the Metrolink riders for parking. This concession will require a redesign of the site plan and a revision to the financial structure of the deal between the RCTC and the Developer. We will provide a revised site plan, Pro forma and deal structure as our next step in the ENA process. (b) tax increment financing from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Riverside (c) other public financing mechanisms such as Special Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, etc. The Developer will agree to not request grants, subsidies, tax increments or other funds from the City of Riverside (the "City") or the ROTC. The Developer will likely use some project specific public finance mechanism to finance all or some portion of the development. However, the City or the RCTC will not be required to be the issuing authority for any such public financing mechanism nor will such financing be a General Obligation of the City or the RCTC. 10203 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90067 310.270.8800 The Alan Mruvka Company (2) The Developer's joint development proposal must absorb the cost of the 1,500-space Metrolink parking structure. It will be the Developer's responsibility to either: (a) modify its .private development proposal to improve its overall financial feasibility; and/or (b) seek third -party financial assistance through State or Federal programs. The Developer intends to do both (a) and (b) above in order to absorb the. cost of building the Metrolink parking structure. (3) RCTC is -willing to consider development proposals requiring that some portion or all of the development site is conveyed to the Developer in fee. Conveyance of legal title to some or all of the site Will likely be necessary in order to obtain private sector capital to finance the project development cost. (4) RCTC and the City of Riverside will provide feedback to the Developer. regarding the current project design, which may include matters such as: (a) parking ratio for private components (b) treatment of the Metrolink garage component (c) other considerations - Specifically, the City: will be requiring that a certain percentage of the units be "for. sale" Also, all of the apartments must be built per condominium standards. The Developer.. will agree to the above provisions. Conclusion: . We look forward to continuing our discussions and negotiations to create a.project that is. beneficial to the City, the RCTC, and the Developer. Our objective is to create a project that meets the. RCTC's goal to promote access to public transit and the City's objectives for the _development of downtown Riverside that also generates a return that is adequate to attract private sector capital to this public/private development. We are 'flexible and willing to work within the constraints articulated by the RCTC: Sincerely yours, 1020,3 Santa .Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, CA9.0067 31 0.274.8800 • • ATTACHMENT 2 Excerpt from the RCTC Station Joint Development Guidelines: Exclusive Negotiations Agreement Upon recommendation and approval of the Commission, the Executive Director may enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA) with the selected developer for a period of 180 days or such other term that is mutually acceptable to the parties. A. Requirements of proposer/developer under the ENA: 1. Developer shall provide the Executive Director with a "good faith refundable deposit," in the amount of $25,000 in the form of cash or certified check or an alternative amount determined by the Executive Director or his designee. The amount shall be sufficient to cover reasonable expenses incurred by the RCTC in carrying out the analysis of the proposal. 2. Developer shall have 120 days to provide the Executive Director with the following information: a. A preliminary site plan showing building layout and dimensions, parking, landscaping and access. b. Project development schedule including milestones for site control, financing commitments, design and environmental clearances, entitlements, construction and completion. c. Cost estimates and project data for the proposal in sufficient detail to permit adequate financial analysis. d. Evidence of a firm commitment from key managerial members or tenants of the proposed projects. e. A comprehensive list of previous experience in the specific project area and of like projects for both construction and operation of the said project type, as well as disclose full credit and litigation history under penalty of perjury. Evidence of a firm financial plan, including: a. Evidence of construction financing. b. Evidence of long-term financing. c: Evidence of other financial sources necessary to carry out the project. 72 Evidence shall consist of a letter of commitment .from a financial institution or any reasonably acceptable party - providing development capital. The financial plan shall include a proforma statement of project return adequate to enable the, Commission to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed project. 4. Developer shall provide a written offer to the RCTC for fee purchase of land, purchase of lease rights',or other`development. rights as appropriate to the proposal. Evidence of control of any properties not owned by RCTC but considered essential to the project. Evidence shall . be in the form of letters of intent from each of the owners stating commitment of land, economic terms andcosts basis as well as a detailed action plan and schedule relating to the acquisition of the properties. Responsibilities of the RCTC under the ENA: 1. The RCTC shall approve no other joint development proposals for the land in question during the period of the ENA. The ENA shall serve as proof of control of land for acquiring letters of financial commitment by the developer. 2. The Executive Director shall place the "good faith" deposit in an interest -bearing; account, and shall have the right to draw down from the account payment for .reasonableexpenses incurred by the RCTC for such items as land and development rights appraisals, materials, data and other information costs, and other administrative and consultant costs expended in the evaluation of the proposal. 3. The RCTC shall provide the developer with an appraisal for the fair market value of the fee interest or leaserights or other development rights appropriate to the project. 4. The RCTC shall deliver, within 30 days of receipt of written request, any existing RCTC-owned information, studies, reports, site and construction plans or other documents requested by the developer to facilitate project design at cost to the developer. 73 • 5. Upon completion of the 120-day period referenced above in Section A, the RCTC will evaluate and negotiate with the Developer in close coordination with the local jurisdiction for a period of up to 60 days. 6. lf, at the conclusion of the ENA period, the proposal is terminated, the Executive Director shall return any remaining balance of the "good faith deposit, including any interest accrued thereon to the developer. 7. lf, at the conclusion of the ENA, a Development Agreement is entered into, the remaining balance of the "good faith deposit," including interest accrued thereon, shall be subtracted from the cost of land, lease or other development rights conveyed to the developer by the ROTC. Extension of ENA Either the developer or the Executive Director may request from the Commission an extension of the 180-day exclusive negotiation period. The Commission will determine whether sufficient progress has been made toward fulfillment of the above requirements in their consideration of extension. AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 8K • • I! • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Program Manager Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Inland Vault and Security for Maintenance of the Closed Circuit Television Security Systems at Metrolink Stations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-25-962-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 04-25-962, for closed circuit television (CCTV) security systems maintenance services, to amend the term and rates of the agreement with Inland Vault and Security; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June 2004, the Commission entered into an agreement with Inland Vault and Security (Inland Vault) to provide periodic professional inspections and maintenance services of the CCTV security systems at the five Metrolink commuter rail stations. Inland Vault is a professional contractor, experienced in providing maintenance services to public clients and is licensed in the state of California. In 2005, the term of the agreement was amended to include an additional period of one year, to the original agreement. A second amendment was issued in October 2006 that extended the term for the contract for an additional year with two one-year options. This new amendment would enact the first of the two option years and increase the contract amount to cover needed repairs. Inland Vault is extremely knowledgeable and experienced with the existing CCTV equipment at the Metrolink stations. Inland Vault provides labor, materials, tools, equipment, services and incidental and customary work necessary to adequately maintain the CCTV security systems. Amending the agreement with Inland Vault retains its historical knowledge of the equipment and its understanding of the needs of the Commission to provide maximum security at the station properties. Agenda Item 8K 75 During this past year, it was determined that additional repairs and upgrades are needed to keep the system. fully functional and to maximize the security benefits of the system. Staff isvery satisfied with the performance of Inland Vault and recommends authorization the additional annual contract authority to $60,000 to allow for the needed repairs and upgrades. Financial Information In fiscal Year. Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $60,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 103 25 73301 P4001, 'P4002, P4003, 103 25 73315 P4001, P4002, P4003, P4004, P4006 $30,000 P4004, P4006 $30000 Fiscal; Procedures Approved: ' Juth, Date: 6/5/2007 Agenda Item 8K 76 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Program Manager Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Jefferson Transitional Programs for a Three -Month Extension and Additional Cleaning Services at the Riverside -Downtown Eastside Parking Lot STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-25-004-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 03-25-004, with Jefferson Transitional Programs for cleaning and grounds maintenance services for the Commission -owned Metrolink stations to include services for the new Riverside -Downtown Eastside parking lot for an amount not to exceed $30,000; 2) Approve an extension of the agreement through September 30, 2007; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 10, 2002, the Commission approved Agreement No. 03-25-_004 with Jefferson Transitional Programs (Jefferson) for cleaning and grounds maintenance services for the four existing Metrolink stations owned by the Commission. The approved agreement with Jefferson was for a not to exceed amount of $70,370. The term of the agreement was for a period of three years (original term). The - original term included an option to extend the agreement for two successive one-year periods (extended term) upon written consent of both parties prior to the expiration of the original term or the first extended term, as applicable. On March 1, 2003, the agreement was amended to include the provisions of cleaning and grounds maintenance services for a parking lot adjacent to the Riverside -Downtown station and an additional parking area at the La Sierra station for a new total contract not to exceed amount of $73,672 annually. On July 1, 2004, the agreement was amended a second time for a new total Agenda Item 8L 77 contract not to exceed amount of $76,368 annually. The total amount of the agreement is $373,146. The extended terms of the original and amended agreements will expire on July 10, 2007. This amendment would also include the additional cleaning services required for the new Eastside parking lot at the Riverside -Downtown :station. The 320 space parking lot and adjacent passenger access walkways were recently completed and now .need to be included in the cleaning contract. Staff will release a request for proposals (RFP) for cleaning and grounds maintenance services on June 26, 2007. To allow sufficient time for the selection process, staff is requesting a three -..month extension of the current agreement with Jefferson, for a revised termination date of September 30, 2007. The scope .of service of the new RFP includesall five Metrolink stations and the parking .areas adjacent to the Riverside -Downtown station. Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP June 26, 2007 Deadline for Bid Package Submittal by 2:00 p.m. July 24, 2007 Short List Interviews Consideration by Plans & Programs Committee Commission Approval of Selection August 14, 2007 August 27, 2007 September 12, 2007 Approval of this amendment in the amount of .$30,000 will increase the contract value to $403,146. A budget adjustment for FY 2007/08 is not required since there is sufficient budget authority to cover these expenditures. Staff willinclude the necessary amount in next fiscal year's budget to cover the amendment. Additionally, staff recommends approval of an extension a agreement with Jefferson through September 30, 2007. = Financial Information _. In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes, Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $30,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 103 25 73317 P4001, P4002, P4003,.P4004: Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ \4,, . Date: 6/5/2007, Agenda 'Item 8L 78 AGENDA ITEM 8M i • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Inland Empire -Orange County f lEOC) Weekend Service Cumulative Passenger Trips IEOC Weekend Service 48,000 40,000 a 32,000 F- 24,000 Q - 16,000 8,000 0 ,\b (15 Q�\,t5b N P Daily passenger trips on the new year-round IEOC Metrolink weekend service have remained consistent through April. To date, the IEOC weekend service has provided 42,575 passenger trips since commencing July 15, 2006. This constitutes 23,643 additional trips resulting from year-round service compared to 2005's 18,932 Summerlink seasonal trips. Growth of the service reflects ongoing marketing efforts coordinated among the Commission, Orange County Transit Authority and San Bernardino Associated Governments. Agenda Item 8M 79 Riverside Line 5,400 5,000 4,600 4,200 3,800 3,400 3,000 2,600 Passenger Trips Riverside Line UP Track Work • : 5:3' 'rfa oo off` 00 0b d° o� 0- o� o� �o) Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of April averaged 4,998, an increase of 69, 1 % more than the month of March: Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily increase of 474 passenger trips.. This is nearly 9% more than a year ago, April 2006. 100 m 95 90 y 85 as 80 D.. 75 . 70. On Time Performance .(95%: Goal) RiversideLine Oro Al OA oA c O p ) ( . P Month April on -time : performance. averaged 99% inbound' ( + 1 % from March) and 98% outbound (no change from March). There were three delays greater than five minutes during the month of April. This is a substantial improvement over previous months thanks to the Union Pacific's. completion of track repairs and greatly improved performance. The following are .primary causes: ' Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 0 1 0 2 0% 33% 0 %. 67% TOTAL Agenda Item 8M 80 • • • Inland Empire -Orange County (1E0C) Line 5,000 4,800 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line Qib Q$21 Q$) 6 6 6 PQc es\ < 4' 0' '0' - CP 0° 'e Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's inland Empire -Orange County (1E0C) Line for the month of April averaged 4,791, a decrease of 57 trips, 1% less than the month of March. The line has increased by 423 daily trips or 9% from a year ago April 2006. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line 100 • 95 90 cn 85 0 it; 80 IL 75 70 qz. qa Cc. qo co bbAAAA (,s5ppgo ssp es\ s.§.- .s3 09 c",,' e,c, 4' \--\\ 0 0 Month April on -time performance averaged 92% southbound (-2% from March) and 93% northbound ( +2% from March). There were 34 delays greater than five minutes during the month of April. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW - Dispatching Mechanical Operations TOTAL aY 9 8 4 13 „ 26% 24% 12% 38% Agenda Item 8M 81 91 Line 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 Passenger Trips 91 Line r 00 ©o 00 00 00 00 0o SP Pic 4\ P\> �Q 0 �°3 Oe' �� \-\\q�' Phi Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of April averaged 2,315, an increase _ of 94 trips, 4% more than the month of March. The line' has increased by 62 daily trips or 2 % from a year ago April 2006. On Time Performance (95%°Goal) 91 Line 100 m 95 90 m 85 80 a 75 70 o`er A`O A ,Ao : o � Per �a� �J.: �� PJo; co°Q Month Aqz) A,` 4,` Off. Ok c k \.va QQ April on -time performance averaged 100% inbound (+8%: from March) and 98 % outbound ( + 3 % from March) . There were two delays greater than five minutes during the month of April. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 0 1 0 1 0% 50% 0% 50% TOTAL Agenda item 8M 82 • • • Connecting Transit Service Performance The Commission's role facilitating interconnectivity between Metrolink and connecting transit services is essential to ongoing viability of system. Such services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as helpmitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at the Commission -owned stations. The Commission is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit connections. In order to meet these requirements, the Commission has worked with Metrolink and local transit operators to offer connecting services to and from the Riverside County Metrolink stations at no cost for those with valid Metrolink tickets. Within Riverside County, services include free transfers to routes operated by 'Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), RTA's Commuter Link service and Corona Cruiser. The following graphs show total monthly Metrolink transfer passenger trips on each of the three services. Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route 5,000 a 4,500 i I- 4,000 3,500 3,000 O tc" Ocr\°, 0` `aS <<4 \-\\a?' of Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's connecting fixed routes (1, 1.5, 16, 21, 26 (206), 2.9, 3, & 38) totaled 4,327 for the month of April, a decrease of 220 trips, 4.84% less than the month of March. Monthly trips have increased by 1,959 or 82.73 % over the past fiscal year. This increase is attributed primarily to the addition of Route 26 in August, following the same route as commuter link route 206. Agenda Item 8M 83 4,000 a 3,500 I F- 3,000 1- 0 2 500 Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link L ,. 2,000 i r me �o�o ' O� ��tco 4�No ��4," PQ� Month Monthly Metrolinktransfer trips on RTA`s commuter link routes totaled 3,642 for the month of April, a decrease of 27 trips, 0.74% Less than the month. of March. Monthly trips have decreased by 13 or -0.36% over the past fiscal year. 600 500 o_ 400 F- 300 0 200 100 0 Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on the Corona Cruiser totaled 544 for the month of April, an increase of 96 trips, 21.43 % more than the month of March. Monthly trips have increased by 300 or 122.95 % over the past fiscal year. This is partially attributed to the development and distribution . of a promotional brochure in December. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary — Weekday Service Agenda Item 8M 84 %V %Z %6 %Z %6 %V %£ %•a %Z 90 Jdy sn LO .idV e6ueu J %0 %b %0 %S- %Z- % !- LO JgW SA LO .�dy a6Ueyo % °/a0 MeV/ Sl£`Z l6L`b 68t`9 866'tr 919 011'Zl £t7£`L an/ LOadv . % I. £L6`Z17 LZZ`Z 9178`17 Z61719 MI? £lL L9£'2! 66Z'L .b01't LO-MW ' %£ V 96£`Zt, 96Z`Z 10l'17 L917'9 -l£17'9 9Z8't S19 ZZl`ZI. 8Ll'L S£l'V LO 48d %6 S60` lb LtVZ lOL'b 99017 1.89 L£6` 1.l - 096'9 Z961£ LO uer %0l- Z179`L£ £98'l 170Z1V 11819 °en 9L9 9L6`01. 1?98`9 US`£ 90 aaa %l- 991.`Z17 Z60'Z 9Z1'V ZL9`9 OZO'9 Lt9 450'Zl ZtIll S£6`£ 90 AaN %°0 0£S`Zb 9VZ'Z S£9'b l9S'9 096'tr 011 1.6Z`ZL LSI'1 Oa 90100 %Z LS£`Zt �VZVIZ Slt''Z 999`V 91.V9 SOL'V -LOS'b -n9 Z99 eon l ZL!`L !£0'1, 90 OS % L - 06£' 14 969'b 96£19 £89' l l SLZ'L 0t6`€ 90 Bnd %0 906' 14 £8tr'Z vet,'b 9/9'9 BLt'tr L£9 l88' L 1 +69Z'L 0001, 90 Inr %Z- 060'Zb Z$£'Z 'LLV't b$£'tr ££9'9 9Z9'tr 999 996` 1. l ' Z6Z'L ' Z91.'b 90 unr %V P9L`Zt, 9Zt'Z OSS19 991`V £99 8Z£`Z l nth ta'b 90 XiW %£ 961.114 6LZ4Z 96£'V 98£'9 6LS't +1179 s' 9991. ! -9tO'L 9664£ 90 AV ,ix"'•'V• • j, ,2 iA r:1'•j• 1•� ':1 di"J. A $ . rn 1. na 6 •f:: i ....0 .S � ru• c Yt �. .a a JJFF CY•�_ �.cv.�y;'.:. t ?"ly.r �;7 t.. w;. a� tkr �_�..a�.S+`� V��:' d<�� i. .iy., t'. }r} srs- r ."f: c,j` f��J�.y_-r.i sI-.• ,a,,,..T<.,y.. er.w .... F. ,,.,,,� �. .. � Y- •d1• ,y� -,p .}' • jn..Y•:�P .i. �..` Vr. p h y4 s^. °i1 Yi ^•'�'.:.:A. .d.i•• •. .� .+r.� 'g t $ ���` " •w• lie • 9 :�.0 Y77 �..: �.• d •» ri tt ;.C.S. .i .e .�.; .g t di:'�' R . �f �rM.. 'p�'..9' 'i' '� i . �. .. kJ t Rea --.:45 s{,+'•:tt'tt:.•s�•a.. .:C '}!� a+� ? '/.� k.�. y .ta �!r$',.{n .�'r• -u, v....{..:•i}{..��ar .,,> <�`�! x 1,..r.s �x .� . �'. 1 'p` .F. �t ;: y�� ;�:�i"DILr;`r: _ S3 � ,.ryfir,},..'- T a 9 . •e. YSt7a J ^i. l�:. � i ~. }�Y }� t. ;Yi�i.a*..lti :t?:P�JI c•3 x , of x �. � ;` ,; A "� 7 ,XS• rl i r y A [fir aasnrad Avanow - MOaNIM H1NOW N331211H1 SdINI N3JN3SSVd AVON33M 39VN3Ab >1N1102 1.31V11 • • •uopelnoleo euip•uo 941 ui pepniounou'a�e suleq papnuuy •uopeulu,uel Jo mod le ewp-uo egem Asia 11,L0 paleplsuoo eie suleq peleu,uuel •sotelep emenellei 10 epees ueeq eneq slueuonfpe ON °%96 %96 %L6 %OOI- °%001 %b6 Vot6 %S6 °fo96 %OOl °%001 %001 %66 %ZS %66 %176 %Z6. %176 %96 supi Emled �d •} v I:'�!�tl'sus• $+._�Ne i��" �E5..: .,. .. ...... �?�." ,:7,ja:��f _:'...� M1 ,�s'' 1�:ms r..�af: � _ .. t �"�'ti;>3 1,:. x::+ ..- .M1V .. �'' <_ ".�,._r!j,,° .`-..1. �•� 9 ..�j�' ;sr`` . � 4 :;:�! ,�}\^.i' ."i �'4 LO JCIV slum petnpatio8lo serum S ul4a1M Buinlily poped.mead . %96 '1%96 %L6 %86 %OOl '%£6 %Z6 %96 %96 %86 %66 %L6 %66 •%L6 '%96 %96 %66 %£6 %£6 %L6 %66 LO Jdy. %46 %96 °%176 °%96 %Z6 %16 %b6 %96 %£6 %86 %96 %L6 %l6 %98 %E8 %66 %L6 LOiaW 1%96 %°S6 %96 °%OOl °%P6 %96 %P6 %86 %S6 %09 °%88 %Le %001 °fo96 %16 %96 %1.6 %L6 %Le LO gad %S6 %Se %Se c/o 001 %Le °fo96 %06 %L6 %Ze _%48 %16 °%86 %96 %a %L6 %£6 °%96 %96 %66 LO Uef %56 %4fi %96 %96 %86 °%b6 %96 % V 6 ' % % % 9 9 _%L6 °%86 �%96 %L6 %176 %96 °%96 %L6 .. 90 08a %16 %1.6 % %E6 %C6 % L 8 °%ee °%68 %99 %16 %06 °fo96 °%96 % 1 6 °%16 4.-%Z6 °%l6 %68 % 9 9 90 AoN CO m %96 °fo96 %L6 %96 %46 %96 °fo96 -To96 %S6 %66 %L6 °fo96 %00 L %t6 %96 %176 °fo96 %96 %001 90100 %56 %t76 %oS6 %56 %96 %98 °%88 %86 °foZ6 °fo96 %86 %Ze %66 %176 %96 °fo96 %96 V %86 %86 90 daS %b6 %96 %46 %S6 %Z6 °foZ6 %Z6 %96 %16 '%96 %SS %96 %66 %96 °fob6 °%£6 . %£6 %96 %L6 90 &IV %S6 %Se, %96 %96 %176 %Z6 . %b6 %b6 %06 %L6 %96 %96 °%86 %P6 %96 . °%176 %46 °fo96 %86 901nf %£6 %£6 °%46 %L8 %Se %LS %b8 °%69 %46 %PS %96 °fo 16 %86 %96 °fo96 %96 %L6 %E6 °%96 90 unf °oS6 %96 %96 %96 %£6 % £6 %96 °%L6 %b6 4 %6 %b6 °% 96 °%96 %P6 °fo96 %96 %L6 %96 %86 r 90 Awl ' %176 °%£6 %96 %68 °AO6 %99 %96 °fob6 %06 %Z6 %86 %66 % 00 1. %96 %66 %16 °%b6 %996 %86 90 gdH .0.R. .eo0�i y� ,v i. �- 3'� ��' � %i�./�'. �'-��sp.y, yy.Yy3.� C�w3Pi�� +` iW,"''F.`.•t4' .%W ni (c,ti«Y:' .. '�' ' „1 '"GY.;1:* y i, y'C,+ ..41iPyd i�' ,•r$�`, . ''t$`C '9k'4y a� fP•-. .a•fiyiA . �t ' ,„ .•r .S.L'.."1'9 M #:^:;, -' , kB•`. t 'a w .i:-., • SH1NOW £1.1S31.1f 1 Oulu peinpeupS do selnum S 6u!npAy sum." efSetueoted 30In213S AdOIMM ~ Ativu NnS 33N3N3HaV 3-ma3Hos )1NI1011J,3IN • • AGENDA ITEM 8 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Beaumont Transit and Transportation Audits AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results reports for the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2006. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2003, Caporicci & Larson (C&L) was selected to perform the audits of Riverside County's TDA claimants and Measure A recipients, except for the Riverside Transit Agency, which elected to select its audit firm. In October 2005, the city of Beaumont was notified by the Commission to engage an audit firm to perform the financial and compliance audits of its transit and transportation funds commencing with FY 2.003/04. The FY 2003/04 audit was received by the Commission in September 2006; the FY 2004/05 and FY 2005/06 audits were received in March 2007 and April 2007, respectively. Staff has reviewed the audit reports and updated the TDA and Measure A audit results reports for receipt of the city of Beaumont for FY 2003/04, FY 2004/05 and FY 2005/06. The audit results reports pertaining to the city of Beaumont transit and transportation funds are included as attachments with the city of Beaumont audit results highlighted. The city of Beaumont is now considered in compliance with. the TDA and Measure A requirements to submit timely financial and compliance audit reports. Agenda Item 8N 87 Attachments: 1) Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule -June 30, 2004 2) Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule and Comments June 30, 2004 3) Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule —June 30, 2005 4) Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule and Comments— June 30, 2005 5) Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule -June 30, 2006 6) Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule and- Comments -- June 30, 2006 Agenda Item 8N 88 LOOZ/0£/9 ;ayy ;alnl nueowoouot. ;airy laW u11su0 noes, :p; 6�a 68 09Z66 uolloag •(aouelldwoouou }o Jeer(;41) one) me; y;lm aauelldwoo }o Noel 6ullue6eJ pe;ou Bulpug euo:Aqua%) llsueJl AelleA epJeA °led Z •sluawned yons }0 6uniew eyl uo pellne}ep lou pet; Oss pue sluewned eovues;gap my;uow ay; anew o; pasn uaaq ;ou aney spun} y eJnseali pue yay 'b00Z '0£ Junto syellayoeo0 ay; u! konpu! lxel ay; o; selolyen ONO epooJd o; weJ6oid a o; peme.; Oss Jo} ueo! e pau!elgo noua6y;!sue4 aul-luns mu; 6u!pug Jean .!opd }o uonenul;uoo (Z) '000'Zbl' 3 }o omen ne} a y;lm suogeledo;lsueJ; fill!;gauaq s;esse Ogg uppao }o Ja}sueA p m:wide uolsslwwo° 'b00Z 'bl nlnf u0 1700Z '0£ eunr }o se 6817'699$ 6unebei8Be dnoJO seopues aurlunS woJ} enp slunowe }o;ueugedwl (1) 'pelou alam seulpug PAL :Aoue6y llsue4 eurluns l :soulpuld }o mewwns '9661. tienueE ul uo!ss!wwo0 ay; nq pa;;es sluawaJlnbaJ ey; law yo!ym wJy 6upun000e olignd;uepuedepul sll !Dales o; pep* Z e;oN slueiuele;S leloueuld b00Z :eoJnos sn;els emelldwoo op) eJed leW %ZO'81 %91'61 %08'1 %OL'OL %04'SZ %Ob'LL %1l'91 %00'01. %00'01 %00'0Z 00, %09.11 %On L Z9$'06L'9 $ 9917L99'Z $ 9bL'bZ $ LOU $ L 1b'b0b $ ,.eattav.. $;: ZOb'LL L $ Z99'06b'Z L99'61 VZ EOZ'1Z L69'EE 190'99 601 ; 9Z8'b6 000'00£'b $ 126'L9L $ SbS'£ $ • $ 09£'91£ $ $, LL$'Z8 $ OZO'OLVEE $ 6E1.'611'L $ 146'06E $ LL8'696 $ Z81'66E' L $ 3$V00.0 bEZ' 190' 1$ 0£5'Les'EE 998'LL9' L £09'99 L 49'E£E' l 906'661' 4 69EV.._......;.: 699'88Z 89$'LZE'E Z99'09 91b'lLE (019'L11) 90£1,1l'Z ZE1'E9Z (bEL'£bE) 9LZ'661 w � 9r v i 617Z'1.0b 1.09'999'8£ $6$' 409'L L Z L $'6b 1' 4 £917'99L' 1 Z991bLb' L it S,". fi?' ,.:„ 1Z$'90£' l LOS'£Z (Z£9) ELL'£S Oi�6'S t=_,. _.,aa. (90b'6Zb) ZOZ'Z4 (80E'EZ) 969'LS Nei en; lenloy °Rei m; paJ!nbeZl Jean }o pue;e anuanaJ pauelap leloi lelideo 6u!leJedO :Jean }o pue;e enueAm pauelea (bE 9SYL0) JeeA }o pug) le slesse 19N Jean }o 6uluul6aq le s6ulwee peulela melesse l9N Jean }0 60uul6aq le Fymbe s;ueJ6 !elide° luewlsn(pe polled lam (eseenep) eseenui leN (esuedxa) enuener 6u!;eJedouou le;ol Jay1O Apedoxl }o eles uo (not) Limo u! sus}sueJl (S947'Z49) (EEL'£6) esuedxelseJalu! LSZ'ZEL £OL'91 LbL'9 9LE'8 66E'9 ewoou!;swap! 000'9E 91717'96$'Z 000 qb - Je410 SZE'Z$P 19E'ZZO'£ F llsueJ; pezlie!oads y emseen E96'bbZ'01 9L4'91,9'l 106'99 990'1lE - impel E£S'SLO'E 0476'LEb 999'Z6Z Z6L'9 E9E'$1 $fib 13 01.. »: 8Ze$1 eouelslssy llsueii ale;S 908'Eb9'$Z 199'690'01 8917'L99 89$'64,9't 660'ES0'1 b6£'E9Z'1 spund uogepodsue4leoo-; :slueJO :(sasuedxe) senuaneJ 6ulleJedouoN (14E'b8L'9£) (06Z'18b'94) (08L'999) (2.91'001'Z) (9LE'SLZ'l) (i5).' � Y.,..„. (Z121706) sec)! 6upeJed0 LC9'94E'bb E9E'ZZ9'91 90£'b16 619'98n 16b'EL17'1 166Z 'i,' ! 662'ZOO'4 sasuedxe6u!;eiedole;ol 699'£LO'L£ EbS'ZbE'91 L LE' 1E9 6E17'996' 4 SZ 1' LEVI. Zt.9 6 9LS'EE9 sesuedxe Bowed() Je410 89L'bbZ'L OZ9'6LZ'Z 696'n 090'0SE 99E'Zb1 $ £` b ,...: bZZ'69L uogezipowe pue uogeloaidea :sesuedxe 6u!leJed0 9ZE'b£$'S $ EL0'9Et'E $ 9Z9'817 $ Z££'$81. $ 944'961 $ EbS'65r;$ ) LZ2'96 $ senueneu Bumedo lelol y.ia (Z eloN) L 1N9WHOd1IV • aul-luns V.LN1d aplsJaniN euwoo 6uluueg VOOZ `0£ aunp papug JesA empayog b envy loy;uawdop/tea uoimpodsueii Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2004 Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A SB 821 Grant Reimbursement Developer contribution CMAQ reimbursements State Traffic Congestion Relief reimbursements Reimbursements from other governmental agencies Reimbursements from regional arterial program Other revenues Interest income Total revenues Expenditures: Construction and maintenance Engineering and administration Regional arterial improvements Debt service: Principal Interest ATTACHMENT 2 Banning Western Count Calimesa Corona Hemet Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta $ 622,218 331a18 $ 156,988 $ 3,864,040 $ 1,704,855 $ 893,594 $ 3,538,845 $ 1,407,711 154,801 497,790 - 67,064 - 834,024 3,500 45,207 - 4,590 7,439 5,677 72,108 39,253 3,762 138,389 14,267 629,657 92i~i,1;8 162,665 4,659,303 1,789,315 897,356 4,515,848 1,421,978 924,125 • 3,258 5,417,891 2,602,671 206,328 7,053,659 397,350 151,348 380,441 399,225 137,591 23,505 Total expenditures 924,125 3,258 6,087,271 2,602,671 629,058 7,053,659 397,350 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (294,468) (489,65a 159,407 (1,427,968) (813,356) 268,298 (2,537,811) 1,024,628 County loan Transfers in (out) (198,433) -` -' . - 149,930 (80,000) Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures (492,901) Prior period adjustment Fund balances at beginning of year 1,036,930 Fund balances at of year $ 544,029 Measure A LSR 159,407 (1,278,038) 325,745 7,681,815 $ 485,152 $ 6,403,777 90 188,298 (2,537,811) 1,024,628 - (700,294) 1,408 3,077,042 309,686 8,893,783 3,310,070 $ 2,263,686 $ 497,984 $ 5,655,678 $ 4,336,106 (813,356) 5/30/2007 LOOZ/0£/9 L6 g0W (Z e10N) ssaoxa }o (Z e10N) d/N 191AI leW asn yl!M leW laW d/N �� .3s .. leW d/N 617'66L'LI. $ 991.'91.1.'1 $ 61.8'6£1.'9 $ ZLL`85b'ZZ $ d/N 89Z'OZI; $ 898'LbZ'.Z $ 901'9££'b $ 819'S59'S $ b86'L6b $ 989'£9Z'Z $ LLL'£Ob'9 $ Z9L'98b $ ';hn 6Z0'b1,5 Z9 L'LL£ b6Z`L LL6'1.£0'L L98'6£6 566'b05'L 0£8'6£l'L - LL£`171L17 b117'17bL`L 90£'SLL 816' L Zb' L $ 8b8'9 L 5'b $ 1786'16b $ 5l £'68L' L $ £0£'699`b $ 999'Z9 L $ 901.'9££'b $ 8L9'559'4 $ b96'L6b $ 989'£9Z`Z $ LLL'£Ob'9 $ Z91'4817 $ a 901'9££'b 68£'986 1786'2.£b 990'LOL (£OS'I.) ZgCset £8b'£69'Z - - - b6b'£9b'L - 99S`01.6'9 - $ 908'SL0'.Z $ 000'0.9 $ LOZ'£6 $ 17LL'b6b $ - elalJrnW A911eA ouaaoW woulsla lawaH A;unoo welsem euoroo esewllso 6Z0'bb5 6Z0'bti5 6Z0'bb5 6quueg I �151 y (unseal/I . sweweielS le!oueuld b00Z :eornos snms eoue!ldwoo 301M ieeA }o pus le joky sseoxa }o wnowy mei( }o pue le 01021 0l elgeAed seloN pemeoar react Aq seoueleq pun} lelol 9661. 000Z 1.00Z ZOOZ £OOz b00Z :peAleoar reap( Aq eoueleq pund wauodu,00 Aq seoueleq pun} lelo 1 peleu6!sepun 'panraseaun doidde woo ro sperord arnln}ppeds Jo} peleu6!sea seouenpe ro} penreseN suonepdordde 6u!nulwoo ro} pemeseN sloaford oveds io} penrese� seouergwnoue ro} pemaseN :seoueleq pun} o sweuodwo0 b00Z `0£ aunt pepue reaA elnpa log speoa pus sleal}S wooly arnseeby LOOZ/O£/9 Z6 bS1 y einseeW 909'9£8 $ L£9'609 $ 91.9'696'n V90'99917 $ 89Z'8££'Z $ £OL`90Z`L£ $ 8L£'LLO`£ $ 99Z'OL9'b $ aeeit to pus le seoueleq paid 9179'17S9 L9Z'b08 Zbb'6ZL'Z ' 096'Z6£'b 0£8'8Z9' l 68Z'Z6£'9£ OZ9'617L'Z Zb6'ZZZ'b aeait jo Bu!uul6eq le seoueleq pund (6L l' l) - (88Z'9) (Z68'ZOZ) - - - 6Z8' l0Z' l ' luemsnipe popad aoud 0170'Z8Z 099'9 1.917'9bZ 9Z0'99£ 8£b'60L blb'968'1. 898'LZ£ (9091799) saanl!puedxa (iepun) nano u! saajsueal pue senuenaa jo Voue!ollap) sseox3 �000'0Z8' l) - (019'117) (000'oe) (£b9'Sbb) (lno) u! saa sueal 000'000' l - ueol AlunoO 0170'Z8Z 089'9 1.9b'917Z 9Z0'981.`Z (Z99'06Z) b86'198' L. 898'LOb (Z96'80b) samllpuedxe (aapun) aano senuenaa jo (Aouepgep) ssaox3 91.17'17 08£'OL£ £L8'96l' l 99Z'999 OZZ'9L6 LZ017199'9 Z££'669 >rbb'861.' l saanllpuedxe lelol - - - 006'££l ne'.b£ - 006'09 68£'b9 lsaaelul 99£'Z£b 91.17'Zll £9£`1791. 9170'£lZ led!ou!ad :eovues lgaCl - sluawanoadw! RAVE leu01601:1 - uogeals!uppe pue 6upeeupug 9lb'b 08£'OL£ £L8'96l'1 - 986'8Z8 LZO'bb9'9 6L0'b8b 600'lZ6 eoueuelulew pue uogonalsuo0 :seAvpuedxg 9917'99Z 096'9L£ b££`£bb`l l8Z'1.9L'Z 899'999 ll0'ZOb'e 06l'L0l'1. 1.8b`681 sanuanai pp' bZb'8 6b9`9 91. 1.'917 ea' l9 £6019Z £6b'b99 tee' i.e ZZ6'9£ awoou! Isamu' - - 9£l'L - bL0'Lbl 000'9Z - sanuanaJ .191-110 - - - - wei6ad lepepe leuo!6ei wag sluawasangwla�l - sepue6e leluewwano6 Jew. wag swewasangw!al swewesangw!ei lauej uonse6u00 °Weil alelS swewesangwlaa OVNIO 000'0Z - uogngpiuoo Adolenea - 0On/ - luewesangwlall lueie 6Z8 9S Z£0'81Z $ l.l£`OL£ $ £80'06£'l$ £00'069'Z $ 1.617'£l9 $ 81.9'ZZ8`L $ 99£'996 $ 699`£9L $ yaanseeW :suoneoone lewewuJeno6a91u! :senuene s6uuds ellayoeoO Al!O elnoewei olupe0 ues ep!s.lan!shied ooaoN ..loii�asA 1e�ay}g� AelleA el1940e30 Alunoo uaalsem 1 t►OOZ `0£ eunp pepue aeeA alnpauos speoN pue %ems leooi d eanseew • • • LOOZ/O£/5 C6 aow ssaoxa 0 (Z aloN) asn 4llM laW laW WI b/N MI PIN laW MAI Z06'0Z£ $ Zbb'Sb£' L $ ZZ£`L917' L $ WN 896'95b'L $ LOZ`£96`01. $ £9L`8617`ZL $ 017n6L'Z $ $ - $ $ 0LL`6Z17'Z $ LSL'L£9 $ $ 999`ZZ6 $ 1791'886 -$ aSl d arnseavi s;uetuelelS leloueuld 1700Z :aomos sn;e;s eouendwoo aow real( to pua 30N ssaox3 }o ;unowy rew(pua oioN o; eiciaAed sa;oN 905'9£8 $ L£8`608 $ Sl9'696'Z$ 1780`599'17 $ 89Z'8££`Z $ £OL'80Z`L£ $ eL£`LLO`£ $ 99Z`OLS'b $ pameoar aeeit Aq saoueleq puns le;oi - - 8Z0'L£17' L 9661 9£8'9017`£ - - 000Z 5£L' L t7SZ`LZL`8 0517`L£9 LOOZ 95L'SbZ - - 9517`£90' L L96'696`2. t/Zl'b£L 170Z'S65 ZOOZ 65S'L0£ Ll8`££tb L8Z'9Z5`L £08`£0e'L 175L'665 Ltb9'80£'6 179b'S£Z'L £0L'I.LL'L £OOZ 9517'99Z $ 096`SL£ $ b££'£bb`L$ L8Z`15L'Z $ 999'999 $ LLO`ZOtb'8 $ 06L'LOL'L $ L9V68L $ 1700Z :pemeoei JeaA MI adueleq pund ;uauodwoo Aci saoueleq puns lepl palauBpapun 'panrasaiun dordde WOO ;ro spa(oud aminowoads rod peleuBlsaa seouenpe rod panrasaa suoppdadde.Bulnupuoo roi pemasaa s;oaford ppeds poi panuasalj saouerqunoue Jo; panrasa� :saoueleq punt p slueuodwoo ` 905'S£8 $ L£8`609 .$ 9L9'696`Z$ 1780'955'b $ 89Z'8£€`Z $ £OL'80Z`L£ $ 8Le'LLO'£ $ 99Z'OLS'17$ 99b`£59 L£8'609 5L9'696`Z b80'S55'b 89Z`8££'Z 968`Z917'9 eL£'LLO'£ Z8b`L8S'£ Lb6`56Z`SZ 0170'Z8Z $ - $ - $ 998`617V9 $ b8L'886 . saupds ellaypeoo asA �(allen ellauoeoo _le�auL3 �. L elnoawai ()piper ues aplsraAN shred ooJoN A;unoo ungsam ti00Z `0£ aunt pepue me), elnpayog speob pue spoils pool V einseew Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2004 Coachella Valley -RanMo rlgr6 Verde r I Valley Indian Wells Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs Mirage Blythe County of Riverside (Note 1 B) Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure $ 181,074 $ 1,135,897 $ 2,260,912 $ 1,508,298 $ 710,022 $ 849,409 $11,633,611 SB 821 Grant Reimbursement - - - - - Developer contribution CMAQ reimbursements - State Traffic Congestion Relief reimbursements - Reimbursements from other governmental agencies - 1,091,870 2,629 - - Reimbursements from regional arterial program 315,318 1,685,537 Other revenues - - 300 - - Interest income 5,167 69,921 60,651 42,913 (6,376) 29,493 101,186 Total revenues 186,241 1,205,818 3,413,733 1,869,158 2,389,183 878,902 11,734,797 Expenditures: Construction and maintenance 1,268,651 6,668,206 935,188 2,211,941 2,296,426 7,023,527 Engineering and administration - Regional arterial improvements 268,436 Debt service: Principal 270,054 Interest - Total expenditures - 1,538,705 6,668,206 1,203,624 2,211,941 2,296,426 7,023,527 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures 186,241 (332,887) (3,254,473) 665,534 177,242 (1,417,524) 4,711,270 County loan Transfers in (out) Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) • expenditures 186,241 (332,887) (3,254,473) 665,534 177,242 (1,417,524) 4,711,270 Prior period adjustment - (54,720) - - Fund balances at beginning of year 585,658 4,443,288 7,181,669 3,884,214 2,206,240 2,487,921 8,777,678 Fund balances at end of year $ 771,899 $ 4,055,681 $ 3,927,196 $ 4,549,748 $ 2,383,482 $ 1,070,397 $13,488,948 Measure A L.SR 94 • 5/30/2007 laIN laW }aW laW laW d/N L£5'9Z8'Z $ Z61.'99£'bZ $ £OZ`41.17'61. $ 990`8ZZ'£9 $ 8171.'168'ZI. $ $ $ $ $ $ - 81,6'8817'£1.$ L6£'OLO' L $ Z817'£8£'Z $ 8bL'6b.917 $ 96l'LZ6'£ $ 1.89'990'b $ 669' LLL $ 1.98'LZ£ l66'0L L - - LbL'0L8 996'90Z'L 1.Z9'L81. 1.9 L'b9L' L 9617' l61 - £b8`608' L £917's l8 9b0'91.£' L 9b0'LZZ L6L'b£L' l L $ Z06`9L8 $ Z817'£8£'Z $ 89 L'699' L $ ££L'£ Lb'£ $ 81-8'90Z' I. $ 1.bZ'981. 8176'8817'£ L $ L6£'OLO' l $ Z817'£8£'Z $ 8171.'6179'17 _. $ 961.'LZ6'£ $ 189'990'17 $ 668' LLL $ 16£`010` L 8£9`98 1.89`990`17. 669' L11 £b9'b9Z sluawetels leloueu1d 1700Z minoS snle;s eouelldwoo SOW aeoA pua;e SOW ssaox3 }o lunowv Je9AJo pua e 01011 of algeiced saloN. pomace.' Jeeit !q saoueleq pun} mai 9661 000Z L00Z ZOOZ COOZ bDOZ :panlaoai Je9A Aq aoueleq pund wouodwoo Aq saoueleq pun} lel•ol poieu6lsapun `pomasaiun doudde woo Jo spafoad ann}/offloads ao} paleuBisa© saouenpe ao} pemesa)l 8176'8817'£ l - £6L'091.'Z 6£17' L8Z'£ 8Zb'Z0e'Z suolleudoidde Bulnunuoo Jo} pomosalj sloafoud °woods Jo} pan ase - $ 689'ZZZ $ 419` L8 L' L $ 9Z l'098 $ $ $ seoueiciwnoua petuosal :saoueleq pun} }o swauodwo0. I apIsJoiod I agVig aBem sBuudS weed pasab wlsd olpul sllaM ualpul }o Awno0 ouueu. AelleA ellayoeo0 l J ap.1816 °1Ed_I bZ `t apaeaAy ainpayoS spe00o�{ pue0£auns;aa�P;Sua leoo� amseaw 2.00Z/OC/9 • 96 s}uawwoo aanseaW '000'£Zti Ala}ew!xoadde u! play yseo ay} peonpaa yo!ynn i7003 Ain(' u! apew sem }uawasmgw!aa }ueowtAs y •ooaoN ao; ism} u! play aae s}unowe yseo gown `aouenss! y aanseaW L66 6 }sn6ny woa} speaooad puoq pepuedxeun o} sa elea uol!!lw t• Alalew!xoaddy •sanuanaa o smaA ssaoxa u! aoueleq pun} }o uoneinwnooe a6ael a sey ooaoN to aoaaa s!y} 1981100 o} apew uaaq sey }uew}snipe ue lag pa}eolpu! sey `aanannoi! hq parbaa lou seen uo4081100 pue }ueowu6!s }ou aaann s}unowy. •ueld }uewenoadual le}!deo y aanseaW aeeA 9 s,A10 ay} u! papn!ou! you eJeM yolynn gzz$ }o satin}!puedxa y amseeW bulpae6ea bu!pulj a pey Apo leapay}eo. •ueld }uewanoadw! le}!deo y amseaW aea,k g. siAln ay} u! papnlou! }ou }oafoad a aoueu!I o} pun; Alp e 01 0001092S }o spun} y aanseaW }o as}suea} 6u!pae6aa 6u!pull o} puodsaa o} pa}senbaa ueeq sey ejnoewel to R}!� •aseyd 6u!uueld an!}oe ay} u! s}oafoad o} sa}elaa uo!!!!w 5•ZI.$ pue t0/0£/9 aou!s paaagwnoue ao quads uaaq sey uo!!!!w Ala}ewlxoaddy •senuenea smeif sseoxe u! aoueleq pun} J.o uovinwnooe ay} ao} asn papualu! ay} 6ulpae6aa uoReueldxa ue pap!noad sey ap!saanN;o }!� b sdu!pu!d pue.suoRenaasgp }o naewwns •886L aagwenoN u! penoadde sem d aanseaW aapeleaodaoou! Alp se Aldde you saop luewarbaa aoW z a}oN •pa}aldwoo uaaq you sey Ione ap!saaAN Alunoo 8 eioN. t700Z `0£ eunp pepu3 aeaA alnpeuos speoN pue y aanseaW • 61,RPM -Mk • LOOZ/O£/S 1eW L6 09Z66 uopas �s....,..,z�..z4:,1 L.xaaF-a� •aouelldwoouou 10 4 issA sl sly.L luewei)nbei aue; mew }ou plp 11sueu eplsienwjo 49 4 :soulpuu luewwris '9661 tienuer ul uolssiwwo0 e41 Aq ypo; ;as swewalinbeJ ay} law yoNAn 'unit 6unun000e oHgnd wepuedepul s}l }ogles o} pa}oele b'.L8 Z s}oN 0 gINIPAMBLV. OVA Ia01 1011 10N }alnl 4e00ke = }a161 £a}rsol�jk� � %40'OZ %99'L 4 %Z£'L4 %09'04 %06.6 %00'0Z %2Z'L4 %00'01. %00'04 %00'OZ ,Q �1c#1 %0Z'O l %00'04 00£'ZS4'b $ 1.9£'09b'Z $ 141'91 $ 069'91.4 $ 9/0'00£ $ Z 4b'0£9'Z Z9Z'e9b' L SOL'Z 4 069'96 696'£L 4 999'4ZS'l $ 6L0'ZL6 $ 9£0179 $ 000'0Z $ ann. $ 644'L6L17£ $ 0££'9L6'L $ bZ0'Z9£ $ 9179'Z69 $ OZO'OLb'££ 6£L'64L'L 11.6'06£ (b90 660'LZE'4 469'999 (6£b'9Z) (Z£Z'L6Z) 476[9LVOV 9£9'4Z£'L4 £96'6LL 40£'£90'Z 09'1.04 - SLO'£ SLO'S 696'L99 (SZ4'9Z9) (999'£) (9L9'479) (SL9'99b) (£96'99) L9l'£9Z 0917'ZL 4SL LL9'gb9 £E4'9 00g'LZ 9L£'bZ9 99Z'ZO£'£ 404'6447'44 999'S9b'E 6Z£'494 69917£I. 9£9'Z9b OL9'S4£ 9Z9'64 09Z'6Z 91.9'ZZ ELO'L69'LZ 909'6S£'6 609'9ZL SSS'Z46'4 9ZS'960'4 (S69'696'9£) (17bZ'E9b'9I.) (NV9059 (E£9'09£'Z) (b94'blb'4) LOS'b661747 66Z'9b1'64 9LL'£99 176b'09S'Z L00'949'4 ZL9'S9S'9E 99L'9ZZ'14 b£0'17LL LSg'6SZ'Z 9£9'0S17'1. S69'9Z47'9 £E9'61.Z'Z bbL'69 £b6'00£ 99079l ll0'91Z 4 $ ago L/9'696 Z94'66£ l 6l£'44l $ 999'£9 4S9'LZ $ £z9'919 _ $ b£Z'l90'L 9 s}uewe)e}S leloUeyld SOOZ :eainoS sn>e}s eouelldwoo of}ei eyed onei eye; levy Nei aye; pemnbea iea/S;o pue }e enuenei pa.uelep lelol le}lde0 Bupeued0 :AGAjo pue }e enuenel pauelea JeaA pue }e slesse )eN JeaAjo 6uluul6eq }e s}esse }aN }uew}snfpe pored Joud (LLl'2 4) Aiq :6fl>} (64b'bbZ) (eseaaoep)eseeioul}eN £L0'£6Z 4 ( .910V LL0'969 (esuedxe) anuenei Buge.redouou le}ol 494'bL ) J LPO slew o} pap peq;o kenooetl 0g9'£ Apadoid;o ales uo (ssol) ule0 94Z'94 .<; a :0(000.0g) (}no) ul see;sued esuedxe }sera}ul E9L'9 S6S s bZ9'£ ewooul }saga}ul JeU30 }lsue�} pezgeloeds y einseew 'eloped OZZ'S£ eoue}slssy }'sued e}ejs LLS'906 spund uogepodsue4 leool :swei0 :(sesuedxe)senuene,BugeJedouoN (06b'Zb4'1-) ssol Bugeie00 ZbL'OVV l sesuedxe Buwedo je}ol £b9'Z96 sesuedxe 6uneiedo Je410 669'LLZ uoge powe pue uonelosudea :sesuadxe 6ugeie00 Z 49'1700'9 $ SSO'£96'Z $ 9L£'99 $ 1.96'664 $ L l9'OOZ $ 3L ' i $ ZSZ'96 $ yla aununs yid episaenlj euao0 }u6wl a, L 81oN 6uluueg 900Z'OE eunp pepug JeeA elnpeuos b elopy }oy luawdolenea uonepodsue�l C 1N3INHDd1..1d senuenei 6uneiedo le}ol • Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A SB 821 Grant Reimbursement Developer contribution CMAQ reimbursements State Traffic Congestion Relief reimbursements Reimbursements Reimbursements from regional arterial program Other revenues Interest income 'Total revenues Expenditures: Construction and maintenance Engineering and administration Land Regional arterial improvements Debt service: Principal Interest . • e ATTACHMENT 4 Western County Banning tuiatCalimesa Corona Hemet Lake. Elsinore Moreno. Valley Murrieta 688,316 ..j._.,..3t3~3... $ 176,383 $ 4,790,754 $ 1,841,621 $ 1,202,503 $ 4,117,231 $ 2,150,022 726,646 1,525 - - 749 8,063 xz ,°, ,.. 10,383 146,248 62,479 14,215 174,279 110,203 696,379 x,"� x{.,. 186,766 4,938,527 1,904,100 1,216,718 5,018,905 2,260,225 571,038 120,084 1,528,596 634,958 68,063 5,771,391 482,509 242,343 - - 591,500 Total expenditures 571,038 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures 125,341 Transfers in (out) (11,4.18) Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures Prior period adjustment Fund balances at beginning of year 544,029 Fund balances at end of year $ 657,952 Measure A LSR 113,923 120,084 66,682 400,817 117,215 2,880,471 2,058,056 66,682 2,058,056 173,526 2,611 634,958 244,200 5,771,391 482,509 1,269,142 972,518 (752,486) 1,777,716 (483,000) 250,000 - 1,269,142 489,518 (502,486) 1,777,716 7,933 - - 485,152 6,403,777 2,263,686 _ 497,984 5,655,678 4,336,106 4Q'O,OW $ 559,767 $ 8,461,833 $ 3,532,828 $ 987,502 $ 5,153,192 $ 6,113,822 98 5/30/2007 LOOZ/O£/S 66 (Z 910N) 301/1 ssaoxa (Z aloN) d/N law law }o asnim law laW d/Na l laW d/N 96£'449`94 $ 669`64£`9 $ 906'2.S6'b $ 609'999`£Z $ d/N LBV£Z€40b'Z9£'Z $ $ - $ SOOZ-i}o"pd - ZZ9'£44'9 $ Z64'£S4'S $ ZOS'2.86 $ 9Z9'Z£S'£ $ ££9'49b'9 $ L9L'6S9 $ bZ9'9Z6 L60'LZ S66'bOS' 4 - - 90£`SL 4 92.6'4Zb'4 L9Z'b£4 - 9ZL'9Z9'4 90£'£ZS'£ 969'0/4 SZZ'09Z'Z $ S06'940'S $ ZOS'L96 $ 004'b06`4 $ LZ9`9£6`b $ 992:924 $ ZZ9'£.44'9 $ 364'£94'S $ ZOS'L96 $ ZZ9'£ 4 4'9 SZb`8L2' 4 ZOS'LZ6. 999'9L£'Z - 9Z9'Z£S'£ $ ££9'49b'9 $ LW:M $ £££'8Zb'£ Z6£`OL4'S L9L'6SS Lb0'ZL8'Z $. Z06'S6b' 4 $ 000'09. $ 96b'1704 : $ t76£'64b . elapinw Aellen ouaiow aJoulsig a)lei lawaH euolo0 esawlle0 Aluno0 we;sem .11.1 .. ZS6'LS9 $ ZS6'LS9 $ Z96'LS9 ZS6`LS9 Buwueg I 21S1 d-ainseaw: swawalels leloueuld SOOZ .:aomos snlels eouendwoo 301/1 aeait }o pus le 30W sseoxg }o lunowy Jew( }o pua of eme/ed saloN. wpm aeaA !q saoueleq pun} lelol 9664 4o0Z ZOOZ £OOZ b00Z SOOZ :panlaoaa aeaA aoueleq pund luauodwoo saoueleq.pun} lelol paleu6lsapun 'pamasaaun dadde woo Jo sloafoad ainln}/owoads ao} paleu6pea saouenpe ao} pamosall suogeudoudde Bulnwluoo Jo} panaase d sloafoad owoads ao} pamasaN seoueagwnoua ao} panaasa�l :saoueleq pun} jo slueuodwo0 900Z `o£ aunt pepue me), alnpayoS speotl pue Ieoo7 d eanseew Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 Norco T Western County I Coachella Valley. " "CMIT6dcar 7deser17-17t- Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula City Coachella Springs Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A $ 883,118 $ 1,145,171 $ 8,827,615 $ 644,190 $ 3,155,455 $1,615,093 $ - $ 334,053 SB 821 Grant Reimbursement - Developer contribution CMAQ reimbursements State Traffic Congestion Relief reimbursements - Reimbursements - - - Reimbursements from regional arterial program - Other revenues 195,862 - 128 - - - Interest income 117,611 84,336 680,759 21,915 115,599 56,646 11,142 14,811 Total revenues 1,196,591 1,229,507 9,508,502 666,105 3,271,054 1,671,739 11,142 348,864 Expenditures: Construction and maintenance 732,060 254,007 12,034,932 1,882,953 - 1,579,210 549,990 Engineering and administration - - - - Land - - Regional arterial improvements Debt service: Principal 190,974 17.1,663 117,416 451,584 Interest 46,846 43,692 - 29,885 114,938 - Total expenditures 969,880 469,362 12,034,932 2,030,254 566,522 1,579,210 - 549,990 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures 226,711 760,145 (2,526,430) (1,364,149) 2,704,532 92,529 11,142 (201,126) Transfers in (out) (10,000) 4,975,000 - (2,546,000) - 100,000 Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures 226,711 750,145 2,448,570 (1,364,149) 158,532 92,529 11,142 (101,126) Prior period adjustment - - - - - Fund ,balances at beginning of year 4,570,266 3,077,378 37,208,703 2,338,268 4,555,084 2,969,615. 809,837 835,506. Fund balances at end of year $ 4,796,977 $ 3,827,523 $ 39,657,273 $ 974,119 $ 4,713,616 $3,062,144 $ 820,979 $ 734,380 Measure A LSR 100 • 5/30/2007 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances. Reserved for specific projects Reserved for continuing appropriations Reserved for advances Designated for specific/future projects or cont approp Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component Fund balance by year received: 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 1998 Total fund balances by year received Notes payable to RCTC at end of year Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2005 financial Statements Western County Norco Perris T Coachella Valley ""C'Efhedrar 77eserTH t— Riverside San Jacinto Temecula City Coachella Springs $ $ 5,757,075 $ 24,582' $ 797,810 - 22,868,370 3,999,167 3,827,523 11,031,828 949,537 4,713,616 3,062,144 820,979 734,380 $4,796,977 $ 3,827,523 $ 39,657,273 $ 974,119 $ 4,713,616 $3,062,144 $ 820,979 $ 734,380 $ 1,196,591 $ 1,229,507 $ 9,508,502 853,870 1,107,190 8,402,011 1,117,103 1,235,464 9,308,641 595,204 255,362 7,969,961 657,521 4,468,158 376,688 $ 4,796,977 $ 3,827,523 $ 39,657,273 $ 797,810 $ 751,003 $ $ 407,201 $ 3,271,054 $1,671,739 1,442,562 1,390,405 566,918 $ 974,119 $ 11,142 375,960 433,877 $ 348,864 286,456 99,060 $ 4,71.3,61.6 $3,062,144 $ 820,979 $ 734,380 - $ 514,335 $ 1,978,126 $ - $ $ 2,904,550 $ 12,750,688 $ 9,879,338 $ 9,122,140 Met Met Met w/use of Met excess MOE N/A $1,625,992 $1,275,779 $ 295,467 N/A Met Met w/use of Met w/use of (Note 2) excess MOE excess MOE 5/30/2007 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 • T FraToTerdeT -1 Coachella Valley I Valley I I rancho—" i County of I Indian Wells Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs Mirage Blythe t Riverside Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A $ 215,025 $ 1,361,672 $ 2,385,026 $ 1,698,369 $ 880,844 $ 894,487 $ 11,646,429 SB 821 Grant Reimbursement - - Developer contribution - CMAQ reimbursements State Traffic Congestion Relief reimbursements - Reimbursements 554,830 37,085 2,387,689 Reimbursements from regional arterial program - 483,906 Other revenues - - 7,295 - - - Interest income 18,321 92,144 76,519 122,256 50,336 26,382 317,763 Total revenues 233,346 1,453,816 3,023,670 2,341,616 3,318,869 920,869 11,964,192 Expenditures: Construction and maintenance 415,927 1,003,437 1,110,423 847,233 3,627,376 701,112 8,008,569 Engineering and administration - Land - Regional arterial improvements 500,426 - Debt service: Principal - - Interest - Total expenditures 415,927 1,003,437 1,110,423 1,347,659, 3,627,376 701,112 8,008,569 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (182,581) 450,379 1,913,247 993,957 (308,507) 219,757 3,955,623 Transfers in (out) 753 Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures (182,581) 451,132 1,913,247 993,957 (308,507) 219,757 3,955,623 Prior period adjustment - - - - Fund balances at beginning of year 771,899 4,055,681 3,927,196 4,549,748 2,383,482 1,070,397 13,488,948 Fund balances at end of year $ 589,318 $ 4,506,813 $ 5,840,443 $ 5,543,705 $ 2,074,975 $ 1,290,154 $ 17,444,571 Measure A LSR 102 5/30/2007 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2005 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances Reserved for specific projects Reserved for continuing appropriations Reserved for advances Designated for specific/future projects or cont_approp Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component Fund balance by year received: 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 1998 Total fund balances by year received Notes payable to RCTC at end of year Coachella. Valley I Valle_ y -I '75n7tr6 " Indian Wells Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs Mirage - Blythe i T FaTo'Trde I County of Riverside $ 412,774 $ 1,282,166 $ 2,074,975 $ 2,541,335 6,425,029 I I _ - 2,886,334 17,444,571 589,318 4,506,813 - (2,163,490) - 1,290.,154 - $ 589,318 $ 4,506,813 $ 5,840,443 $. 5,543,705 $ 2,074,975 $ 1,290,154 $ 17,444,571 233,346 $ 1,453,816 $ 3,023,670 $ 2,341,616 $ 2,074,975 $ 920,869 $ 11,964,192 186,241 1,205,818 2,816,773 1,869,158 - 369,285 5,480,379 169,731 1,315,046 1,332,931 532,133 $ 589,318 $ 4,506,813 $ 5,840,443 $ 5,543,705 $ 2,074,975 $ 1,290,154 $ 17,444,571 $ Amount of Excess MOE at end of year $ 17,285,374 $ 18,234,908 $ 61,899,569 $ 20,738,046 $ 26,305,581 $ 2,534,639 N/A MOE compliance. status Met Met Met Met Met Met w/use of N/A excess MOE Source 2005 Financial Statements Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2005 Summary of Observations and Findings 1 Indio has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 2 Norco has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 3 Calimesa has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 4 Coachella had not submitted 5 yr CIP until 12/05 and it was approved at 1/06 RCTC meeting. Additionally, city had not completed its state controllers street report required for MOE calculation and amount for MOE was shown as $0. City used excess MOE carryover, which was sufficient to meet current year requirement and will be sufficient through the end of Measure. A. 5 Murrieta has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 6 Norco and San Jacinto have unexpended investments from 1997 bonds issued by RCTC for local projects. 7 Riverside has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 8 Perris has accumulated over 3 years of revenue in fund balance. 9 f..> � a�f :. r 7 WfAn no direct c tt were iricurra� Measure A LSR Comments 104 5/30/2007 LOOZ/O£/5 9 1 N 1dlld 501. 09Z66 uollooS _. •luewelinbel one., awl ell 4Am eouelldwoo palaa;ye anal lou mom sesuedxe pue senuenei to uoge6eu6as;o 4oel pew peupielap seen •uopeinoleo ogeJ we; ow way uolsnloxe 1o; yyenb ley) selnol mope pue mau 10; sesuedxe pue senuene, ele6eJ6es of Amicieu! sAoue6y al gems) sem Z-9o0Z 6ulpuld •sluewemnbei abvues igap pue lepdeo;o ssaoxa ul spun; lepdeo to ldleoel of mem! sem 1-90oZ 66lpuld 's6ulpug ppne oml pey vimd £ •lenoldde pue luawpuewe Bupsenbel;o sseomd u! 'lenoldde 9108 pue luewpuewe dills inowm seoueleq enuena! 6ulleiedo pe.uejep lsu!de palidde.Buleg salnl!puadxe Bugeledo ssaoxa ,s1e0/11040 yo•Z94'06$ of pemei sem 4-900Z 664puld lipn`d ePlsienw Z •swlep ya1;o Bu!!y a Bu!wq of enp ewooul lselelul ou peplooel epislenla pue esuedxe lselelul pennoul Buluueg L :sBulpuld;o AmuEwng '8664 luenue£ a uolssiwwo0 Ay; Aci oo; les sluewelmbel all lew yolym 'w1y Bullun000e Nod wepuedepul sll loeles o} peloele rilellteKON:VDM 1901 laW leW lalry leW %17£'64 %L6'1.Z %00'44 %On', %0£'0Z %£L'L L %ZZ'L 1 %o0'OL %00'OL %oo.OZ ° 9,„ leW E o. 1 • %00'0l. 9L17'17887 $ 6987017'9 $ L56'08 $ 90Z'6ZZ $ bLe'OLZ $ ''<? 8170'LL1,7 17L4'04S'S 59L'69 822'SZ6 166714 BZb'LOL $ 5617768 $ ZOZ'44 $ 8Z6'£04 $ £88'L5L $ 89Z'L5l $ L£5'90 L L LL'bb $ 6L6'990'8£ $ 965' L8£' L 4$ 5L L'9££ $ 489'96L $ 91.17'994' L $ (6 `#k `9 : _,� 17017'069 $ 61L'L6L'17£ 0££'8L6'L VZ079£ 9179769 LLO'SLZ'L 8i 6£ x8` �} £Z8'91.8 099'69n 99Z'£017'£ (6178'SZ) 6£0'906 Sb£'8L6 {9 `)F Zll s (614'9ZZ) ZL0'9££'1717 L P:1799'0Z 5 L L'LLL ZZ9'5817 Z65'96S' 4 > x`s k ' OL0'6Z6 179S'8£6'1 (ZVL'b£) ez[z (£Z4'6) 409'1 (Z0Z75l) - (90Z) £SL'S F=r? <_ p:961 008'Zl - beL'OZ 95V'ZZ5 - (00£'L9b) (66S7£) - a;#"` ' (17£L'9) £46'17174 6£8'Lb6 Z0£'9 Z06'ZL Z£9'690' 4 000'0 L 6L6'V9L'£ 65Z'968'11. 69£'Z5l'S 989'044 690'817£ 0£ 6'9 L£' L 565'808 69Z7L NOV 005'906 `° 3 3j . r 0£17'6 £L£'9Z6'8Z 669'65£'01 998'0LL L8b'617Z7 17£8'S0l'L ^fit '; � 8LS'SZ6 (Z4Z'17L0'1.17) (1.5L'85L'L4) (17967013) (£8S'6L97) (LVZ'OZb'4) (9Z `Li Z 6 *'' (6817'951'6) 960'0ZZ'84 804'49£'0Z 540'998 1.0L'Ll.6'Z 1.85'£99'6 5ZZ'LBZ'4 175£'6817'Lb 1,18'2.94'81 L86'911 LSZ'l1.5'Z 6££'91,5'l 89 ` f3f E 94£1740'L 1717L'0£L'9 V£Z'£98'l 8Z8'06 OSb'9017 ZVZ'LVL 69 606'9£Z 988'917L'L $ LS£76l'£ $ l50'£9 $ 861.'8£Z $ b££'£bZ $ 9£L'SZl $ b'12! (Z el0N) eununS d1Md ep!slenla euomo L eloN Buluueg 900Z'0£ sun' mu] leeA einpe os b ei0IPV lay luawdolenea uopepodsuell Z eloN sluewele4S leloueuld 900Z :ealn0S. snlels eouelidwoo ollel Bred opal eley lenloy Nei ere) pelinbea 1ee,1 jo pue le enuenel pelle;ep ie;o1 !Wes eulleled0 ueei(;o pue le enuenel pelleyea reed yo pue le passe leN mei(;o 6uluul6eq le slesse leN (eseeloep)eseelou!leN (esuedxe) enuenel Bulleledouou lelol 1ey10 eleinge of lgep peq;o flenooea Apedo1d Jo ales uo (ssol) tiles (lno) ul sisIsuell (6 el0N);!Hume!;o luewelges esuedxe 1se191U! ewaaul iselelul 1aW10 1lsue11pezlieloeds y elnseew ieleped ebuelsissv psued ems spund uogellodsuel1 leoo-1 :sluel0 :(sesuedxe) senuenel 64e1edouoN ssol Bulleledo sesuedxe Bugeledo lelol sesuedxe Bulleledo 1e4110 uollezlllowe pue uollelowdea :sesuedxe Bugwed0 ' senuenel Bulleledo ielal L00Z/0£/9 901, 909'L8£'8 $ bLL'0£8'L $ ZZL'1.66 $ 94b'91.9'b $ b9£'b9b`Zl $ ZL4`L89 $ ZZ8'£44'9 Z64'£91.'9 Z09'L86 8Z8'Z£S'£ ££8'1.9b`8 192.`699 £89'£LZ'Z Z89'LL9'Z OZZ'b L89'£80'4 4£9'Z0017 9017'LZ 099'999 L£0'171.L'3 669'bOZ`4 968`££4'1. Z£Z`171.8'17 906'£64 999'96 bLb'ZZb 000'99 6b6'99£ 099'999 L£0'blL'Z 669'bOZ'4 968'££4'4 1.9Z'99$'£ 906'£64 £bZ'Z£8'Z 61.9'46£`9 646'90Z'4 £8b'Ll.Z'Z £9L'948`8 44£`4ZZ 1.L4'90Z 984,`Z94 £64'0£ £4L'09 998'99Z n9`94 8Z8'Lb Z961760`£ 000`OOL ZL0'9Z9'Z $ £0£' 48b'b $ 9ZL'8L4' 4 $ 021`994'Z $ £b6`b917`9 $ £L9'90Z $ e;alrrnw Aallen ouaroW aroupG aNe-1 ;awaH euoroo esawlleo Awnoo ura;saM 9 _LN31AlH iLLY £8b'4Lb $ Z96`L99 (69b'994) 640`£64`l 640'£64'4 099'900' 4 46Z'bl 949'094 bb9'448 $ 6uluuea i I 1 • y arnseaW react jo pus le seoueleq pund reeA 6u uu!6eq ;e seoueleq pund wemsnfpe pouad rood sarn;lpuedxe (aapun) rano senuanar Voualoyap) sseox3 sarn;lpuedxe le;ol ;sara;ul ledpupd :aolnres ;gat0 swewanordw! lepape leuolBal: Aegno le;ldeo uol;er;slulwpe pue Bupeaul6u3 eoueuepew pue uol;onr;suoo :sern;lpuedx3 senuenea le;ol awoou! ;sara;ul sanuenarray;p wer6ord lepaue leuolBer word swewasrngwla�l swewesrngwlalj y arnseeW :suonepolle le;uawweno6ra;ul :senuena)l 900Z'OS aunt pepue reeA alnpayog speoa pue slams pool y arnseew LOOZ/0£/5 LOL 301/1 ssaoxe _ (ZaloN) (Z310N) b'/N laW 191A1: jo asn/m laW laW - d/N r laW WN £ZZ'Z6Z'OZ $ ££Z`L8L'e $ S90'LLO'b $ tb9b'£Z9'bZ $ d/N `6L9` r, tb99`2.29`Z $ $ $ _ $ $ 06L'b8b' L. $ $ 505'L9£'9$ bLL'0£9'L $ ZZL'1.66 $ 5L17'91.9'b $ b9£`17917'ZL $ ZLL'L94$ b90`99£ 566'b09' L L6b'9 9/6'LZb'L - Z€9'176b - 969'0LL 9ZZ'09Z'Z 9SL'6£b'Z - 00L'b06'L 1.09'L179'£ 992'991. £17Z'Z£9'Z $ 61.9'L6£'9 $ ZZL`1.66 $ £9b'LLZ'Z $ £91'91.9'9 $ LL£'LZZ$ 509'L9£'9 $ bLL'0£9'L $ ZZL'1.66 $ 91.17'91.9`b $ b9£1791:,'ZL $ ZLL'1.99 $ 909'18£`9 - 999`ZL6 bZ£'99Z17 6Z6'L9Z'9 ZLL'L99 bb£'ZZO'b Lt7L'£Z9'9 $ 0£17'909'£ $ 999'91. $ L60`9Z£ $ 999'9L£ $ $ eiaumW AalleA ouaioW eJouls13 eNe-1 ieweH eualoa esewllea £sb' LLb $ £9b' LLb 0 £9t7' LLb £9b` LLb 6uluueg . Aluncoa welsem 2:1S1 y amseaW_ swewelelS lepueuu 900Z :aomoS snlels eouenclwoo 301/sl mei( jo pue le 3pW sseox3 .lunowy matt jo pue le 01.021 of ameAed saloN penleoai yea! Aq saoueleq punj lelol 9661. ZOOZ £OOZ b00Z 500Z 900Z :penlaoaa JeeA Aq aoueleq pund - lueuodwoo /q seousleq punj jelo� paleualsepun 'pemesaiun doadde woo ao sloafold am;n}/o01oeds Joj peleu6lsea seouenpe Joj panJasaj suovpdoadde 6ulnupoo ao} pemesco3 spefoid ouloads Joj pemesa�l seoueiquanoue ao} penaasa� :saoueleq pun} sluauodwoa 900Z'0£ aunt pepue iveA alnpeuog speoa pue moo, y ainseew L00Z/0£/9 201. Lb9'1.9£ $ Z£9'862.'4$ 049'901'3$ 69£1746'9 $ Ob£'OLZ'4 $ Z94179b`6Z $ £tr9`£8£`Z $ .b8£'L98'£$ 08E'b£L 6L6'0Z8 bbL'Z90'E 949'ELL'b 64l'bL6 E12'L99'6£ EZ9`228`E L2,6'961'17 (Zb4'6b) (169'LL£) 19l'69L L dS� y ainseeW legit jo pug;s seoueleq pund mei(6uluul6aq;e seoueleq pund ;uew)snjpe poled iopd £99'116 (17££'99£) £bL`OOZ'4 LZZ'96Z (4Zl'£OZ'04) (086'£trb`4) (£69'6Z6) sam;lpuadxe (Jepun) J2no senuenealo Vouelogap) sseox3 OZZ'48Z'Z 909'4bL'Z Z9Z'009 944`2.99'0Z 179£'L9tr'£ E08`004'Z samppuedxale;o' 4Zb'b6 099'bZ - £68'9£ 6tr9'6£ ;saJa;ul 9£ l ` L Lb 009' ZZ 4 960'6/ 4 2.£8`L6 4 ledpupd :aolnJes ;qao s;umenadwl !Bustle leuol6eld - - Aegno le;lde0 - - - uol;a;sluppe pue 6upoeul6ua L94'691 OZZ'48Z'Z 096'9L4`Z ZOZ`E9E 944`L89'0Z 99E'ZbZ`£ LLE'£98`4 eoueue;ulewpue uol;ona;suo0 :samppu9dx3 92.9'131, £99'12.6 98917Z6'l 617Z'Zb6'£ £2.b'96L b66'E8b'04 bL£'£40'Z OLZ'LLL'4 sanuanaJ le;ol ZZO'OZ 4£1-'8Z £L£'98 Z48'Eb4 LL£'bb L06'99L 89£`Z£4 960'994 awoouw;sa1a;ui 2.49'2.4 94Z'9b 999 9 04Z`16b - sanuan9J191/10 - - weAcud lepepe leuol69.1 wail wewesmgwlad - s;uewesmgwlall LEO'bOb $ ZZ9'6176 $ 86Z'Z6L' 4 $ 1£b'86L'£ $ 0£9' 491 $ 2.80'L 4L'6 $ 908'E8£' 4 $ L 4 4'996 $ b emseeN :suol;eoolle le ewwano6Je;ul :senueneb s6uuds ell91-19e00 AH0 elnoewai o;uper ues aplsianN spJad 0=N _UFLIJesA .1.e43.911120 . Aallen ellayoeo0 ( Aluno0 wapem 1 900Z'0£ eunp pepue meA alnpayos speob pue spans leaoi d eanseew Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2006 T Western County I Coachella Valley "4.'Caiherar i esert Hrit— Norco Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula- City Coachella Springs Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances $ $ - $ 3,187,517 $ - $ $ $- - $ Reserved for specific projects - - = Reserved for continuing appropriations Reserved for advances Designated for specific/future projects or cunt approp Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component 599,972 - 10,088,608 - - 3,267;412 2,383,543. 16,178,027 1,270,340 5,914,359 2,705,810 1,798,632 367,647 $ 3,867.,384 _ $ 2,383,543 $ 29,454,152 $ 1,270,340 $ 5,914,359 $2,705,810 $1,798,632 $ 367,647 Fund balance by year received: - 2006 $ 1,171,210 $ 2,013,374 $ 10,483,994 $ 683,930_. $ 3,942,249 $1,924,886 $ 977,653 $ 367,647 2005 1,196,591 370,169 14,508,502 1,972,110 780,924 11,142 2004 853,870 - 4,461,656 - 375,960 2003 256,073 - - 433,877 - 2002 - - 1998 389,640 586,410 - - - Total fund balances by year received $ 3,867,384 $ 2,383,543 $ 29,454,152 $ 1,270,340 $ 5,914,359 $2,705,810 $1,798,632 $ 367,647 Notes payable to RCTC at end of year Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2006 Financial Statements Measure A LSR • $ 599,973 $ 571,908 $ - $ 391,835 $ 1,506,991 $ $ - $ $ 3,297,231 $ 12,527,070 $ 25,448,703 $ 9,885,871 N/A $2,442,384 $2,226,720 $ 298,643 Met Met w/use of Met Met N/A (Note 2) Met Met Met excess MOE 109 5/30/2007 LOOZ10£/9 0Si b eanseaW Z881880'£Z $ 084'£bn $ 49Z`98£'Z $ 48£'£40'9 $ Z99'9Z8'L $ 96b'£941Z $ £££`96£ $ 4L9'17bb`L4 b94'06Z'4 9L6'17L0'Z 90L'£b9'9 £bb'Ob8'9 £48'909'b 84£`689 (bZ 4'b9b) - - (£06'99£) 9£b'860'9 9Z0`£9b 9LZ`44£ 62.9'9£8 60Z`986`4 (84£'£9£'Z) (986'Z64) £8£'686'L 080'b9b £OZ`98b'£ L 49' 48b' 4 b89' 49Z' 4 Ob£`OL£'b 000'09b Z£9'Z84 £8£'686'L 080'b9b £OZ'98b`£ 988'86Z' 4 b89` 49Z' 4 Ob£'OL£`b 000`09b 848'186b4 904'L06 62.17'96L'£ 960194n £68`1.£Z'£ ZZO'2.404Z 940'2.9Z 440'6L9 604'09 498'4Z /09'8174 99£'684 96L'494 ZOL'44 - - - - - £60'Z94 ` b6Z'994 - 68b' 4 48`Z OZ£'Z 9££'£ZZ - L08`80b'£4 $ L66'968 $ 6Z4'£96 $ 9L6'000'Z $ ZOZ'9Z8'Z $ ££4`£On $ £4£`917Z $ i eplsaenqj 1 aypiil8 a6eJ11W s6uudg wled pJasaa wled olpul si�aM uelpul I jo npuno0 I oyoue I I AelleA j � _. italleA ellayaeoa L. 112"th oleji 1. Jean pue le sedueleq pund Jean to 6uluul6eq ;e seoueleq pund ;uawisnfpe pOped Jopd se.mpuadxa (Japun) Jan° senuaneJ jo (noualogep) ssaoxj saan;lpuedxe !Bpi ;saJa;ul ledhupd :eolnJas plea spuawanoJdwl lepepe leuol6ab nel;no !e;lde° uoReJ;slulwpe pue 6upeeuleu3 • eoueuapulew pue uonon.;suoa :saanilpuedx9 senuanaJ lepoi ewooul psaJapul sanuanaJ J9410 weZoJd lepape leuol6ai woe} s;uewesangwlaa spuewesangwla�l y aanseew • :suoneoolle lewewweno6Je;ul :senuenalA 900Z'0£ Jun` pepue JeaA alnpeuos speoN pue swans !cool d einseew LOOZ/O£(S `d/N l8W loW. leW leW ;aW leW b/N ZLL'bb9'Z. $ 999`8£9'LZ. $ £90'b£6'LZ $ b9£'ZLZ'£L $ LZL'86L`ZZ $ L09`ZOL`8L $ $ $ $ Z89'880'£Z$ 08l'£bL'L $ L9Z`98£'Z. $ L8£'£LO'9 $ Z99`9Z8`2. $ 96b`£91.'Z $ E££`96£ $ 699`£9£' L 690'999' L - b90'L00'6 bL0'9£8 - 9L9'Lb£`Z OL9'£ZO'£ £Lb'9£L 81.£'6£L 81,8'L801,1. $ 90L'L06 $ 1.9Z'98£'Z $ 960'81£`Z $ £68`L£Z`£ $ ZZO'LLO`Z $ 9L0'L9Z $ swewe;eiS leiousulA 900Z :apgnoS sn;s;s aoueudwoo 301A1 �ea�t to pus) le 301ry sseox5 }o wnowy mai( pue le 0102 o; seloN pemeoei mei( Aq seoueleq punj_le�o1 9661. ZOOZ £ooZ b00Z 900Z 900Z :panleoem yea! Aq eouelsq pund - Z88'880'£Z $ 08Vet/L. L $ L9Z'98£'Z $ L8E'£LO'9 $ Z99`9Z8`L $ 96b`£91.'Z $ ££E`96£ $ weuodwoo Aq seouelsq punk le;o 08 L'£bL' L - (969'038' 0 - 96b`£9 CZ £££`96£ pe;eu6lsepun 'pemesalun 99.8'9Zb doidde woo Jo s;oefoid ein;nyowoeds col peieu6lsea _ seouenps Jot pemesa�l Z88'880'£Z - LOL'176Z'Z 8L0'Z99'9 ZLO'Z66'9 suonspdoidds 6ulnunuoo col peruese� - s;oefoid °woods:Jo; peiuesa)1 $ $ bb L'Z6 $ 969` 1.22' L $ b8L'LDb' L $ - $ $ seoueaquanoue aol pameseld :seoueleq punj jo swauodwo0 aplsJanpd 1 aptis abeiM s6uuds wiled uesaa wied to Aiunoo — — — - — r — ouou I 1 AaileA ( AelleA slleyoe00 L?PJeM.Led 1 silent Uelpul 900E'0£ eunr pepue gee elnpeypS spent! pure gems moo, y emseew • Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2006 Note 2 Calimesa, Murrieta, and Temecula were incorporated subsequent to the 1989 Measure A. Therefore, the maintenance of effort requirement is not applicable to these cities. Summary of Observations and Findings 1 Coachella Measure A revenues includes amounts not paid in FY 2005 due to not submitting required documentation (MOE certification and 5 2 Cal[mesa, Murrieta, Norco, and Coachella have accumulated more than three years of revenue in fund balance. 3 Norco and San Jacinto have unexpended investments from 1997 bonds issued by RCTC for local projects. Norco has requested balance of its funds ($389,640) for reimbursement of Yuma -related ROW acquisition; reimbursement pending RCTC approval of amended 5 Year CIP at 2/14/07 Commission meeting. San Jacinto funds of $586,410 are to be expended for Ramona Expressway rehabilitation projects, Lyon Avenue widening; and various street improvement projects. . Otter direct , were charges Measure A LSR Comments 12 5/30/2007 AGENDA • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric. Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Beaumont Transit Services TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is for the Commission to: 1) Based on approved Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), allocate $1,080,000 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) operating funds and $140,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA) capital funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2006/07; 2) Based on approved SRTP, allocate $951,300 in LTF operating funds and $1 1,000 in STA capital funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2005/06; 3) Due to excess operating expenses', allocate $28,957 in LTF operating funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2005/06 (balance of required operating funds of $30,400 to be paid by the city of Beaumont as farebox revenue); 4) Due to excess operating expenses, allocate $350,801 in LTF operating funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2004/05; 5) Due to excess operating expenses, allocate $14,200 in LTF operating funds to the city of. Beaumont for FY 2003/04; and 6) Amend the FY 2003/04, 2004/05, 2005/06, and 2006/07 city of Beaumont SRTP to reflect the additional funding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Under Public Utilities Code 99245, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that all claimants who receive an allocation of TDA submit an annual certified fiscal audit within 180 days after the end of the fiscal year or that an extension of up to 90 days be granted. The audit report shall include a certification that the TDA ' Excess operating expense for FY 2005/06 is $59,357; staff recommendation is to allocate $28,957 in LTF operating funds; balance of $30,400 operating deficit to be paid by the City as farebox revenue. - Agenda Item 80 113 funds allocated to the claimant were expended in conformance with applicable laws and regulations. Furthermore, the California Code of Regulations Section 6664 specifies that "no allocation shall be made to any claimant that is delinquent in its submission of a fiscal and compliance audit report." As previously reported, the. Commission had not received the city of Beaumont's (Beaumont) annual financial and compliance audits related to TDA for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2004 through 2006. As a result, no TDA allocation's and/or disbursements related to fiscal 2005, 2006 and 2007 have been made since March 30, 2005. In October 2005, staff was directed to advise Beaumont to engage an audit firm to perform the financial and compliance audits of Beaumont's transit TDA Article 4, Transportation TDA Article 3., and Measure A funds commencing with the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004. Since that time, Beaumont retained Moss, Levy and Hartzheim to perform the financial and compliance audits: Commission staff is pleased to report that the outstanding audits have been completed and submitted to the Commission; accordingly, staff will present these reports at the next Audit Ad Hoc Committee meeting., which Commission staff is in the process of scheduling. The following chart provides an overview of Beaumont's ridership, operating expenses and passenger fares for FY 2003/04 through FY 2006/07: City of Beaumont: Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares FY 2003/04 - FY 2006/07 1,200,000.-...-__.. 1,000,000 - 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 6 FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Actual) .71 0 Ridership (Actual) 113,682 .. 118,268 118,618 0 • Ridership (Projected) 125,000 121,000 120,152 /07,367 - O Total'°pending Expenses(Audited) 3870.842 51,042,453 51,082,567 51,085,608 O Passenger Fares(Audited) - 350,543 568,576 371,911 577,178 *Note: FY 2006/07 annualized based on third quarter actuals (July /06- March/07) Agenda Item 80 114 • • • State Mandated Farebox Recovery During FY 2003/04 through FY 2004/05, the transit service was exempt from the state -mandated farebox return of 10% due to restructuring its routes; however, in FY 2005/06, only the fixed route remained as an exempt service. Based on the FY 2005/06 financial audit results, Beaumont obtained a farebox recovery ratio of 3.7 % and therefore did not meet the state mandate. Based on FY 2006/07 third quarter actual data (July 2006 through March 2007), it appears that Beaumont will again not meet the farebox requirement as data indicates that Beaumont's transit services will obtain an 7.28% ratio. The TDA law (PUC Section 99268.9) holds that if an operatorfails to meet the minimum fare ratio for two consecutive fiscal years, the second year becomes the non-compliance year and the operator's eligibility for TDA funds is reduced in a future cycle by the difference between the fare revenues required to meet farebox and actual fares .during the noncompliance year. The TDA statute graphically displays compliance with farebox as follows: One Time Grace Year (FY 2005/06) Non-compliance Year (FY 2006/07) Determination Year (FY 2007/08) Penalty Year (FY 2008/09) Missed minimum farebox Missed minimum farebox TDA manual assumes the recipient meets farebox, (if not, next year penalties sanctioned) Reduced TDA eligibility (funding) Commission staff will continue to monitor Beaumont's compliance with the state -mandated farebox recovery. Based on the above table, Beaumont would therefore need to meet farebox in FY 2007/08 or, by statute, funding would be reduced in FY 2008/09. To avoid being out of compliance with the state farebox mandate, Commission staff recommends that Beaumont contribute $30,400 of its funds as its share of the farebox requirements for FY 2005/06. Productivity Improvement Program The Commission reaffirmed its commitment to the Productivity improvement Program (PIP) in September 2005. The PiP was designed to be used as a tool to review transit services to ensure compliance with farebox recovery ratio and to provide effective transit services. The PIP includes eight performance indicators; Agenda Item 80 115 two of the indicators are mandatory for all operators and the remaining six are discretionary. The transit operators (bus) must meet at least three of the six discretionary targets'. Attachment 1 provides the Service Provider Performance Targets Report . for FY 2006/07 for Beaumont. Per review of information submitted by Beaumont, it appears that it fails to meet two of the mandatory PIP targets for FY 2006/07. It is, however, on target to be in compliance with four of the six discretionary targets. For FY 2007/08, based on preliminary data contained in the draft SRTP, it appears that Beaumont . plans to meet the mandatory target of operating cost per revenue hour but projects it will not meet the farebox recovery ratio. It is, however, on target. with meeting three of the discretionary targets. Attachment 2 provides the FY 2007/08 SRTP performance report for Beaumont. Based on the adopted PIP policy, Commission staff will work with Beaumont staff to develop a plan to come into compliance with PIP targets as part of its FY 2007/08 SRTP. Short Range Transit Plans As a matter of practice, the Commission has a three -step process for operators to. obtain TDA funds: apportionment, allocation and payment. The following chart provides a summary of allocations required based on Beaumont's approved SRTPs for the last four fiscal periods: FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 Total: TDA Funding Required Based on Approved SRTPs . LTF STA $ 935,000 $ - 621,481 951,300 1,080,000 $ 3,587,781 212,000 11,000 140,000 $ 363,000. Total 935,000 833,481 962,300 1,220,000 $ 3,950;781 Of the $3,950,781 funding, $3,427,781 was approved through the SRTP process for operating and $523,000 was approved for capital. 2 The Commuter Rail Program has two additional discretionary targets and must also meet three discretionary targets. Agenda Item 80 116 • • Allocation of Funds Based on Approved Short Range Transit Plans and Compliance with TDA Previously the Commission approved LTF operating allocations in the amount of $775,000 for FY 2003/04 and $621,481 for FY 2004/05 in addition to the capital allocations of $160,000 in LTF for FY 2003/04 and $212,000 in STA for FY 2004/05. Although Beaumont's SRTPs for FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07 were approved, based on TDA, no additional allocations were made pendingthe completion of the outstanding audits. With the completion of the outstanding audits, a funding allocation needs to be made for FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07. At this time, staff is requesting LTF operating allocations of $951,300 and $1.08 million for FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07, respectively in addition to the STA capital allocations of $1 1,000 for FY 2005/06 and $140,000 for FY 2006/07. Actual Operating. Expenses (Based on Financial Audits) Although the Commission was prohibited from allocating TDA funds to cover transit services in FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07, Beaumont did continue to incur both operating and capital costs. Through review of the audited financial statements for FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 and PIP information for FY 2006/07, the actual and estimated operating costs subject to TDA funding compared to planned SRTP operating expenses are as follows: TDA FUNDING REQUIRED BASED ON FINANCIAL AUDITS Actual/Estimated Fiscal Year Operating Expenses 2003/04 $ 789,200 2004/05 972,282 2005/06 1,010,657 2006/07 1,080,000 Total $ 3,852,139 Planned Operating Expenses $ 775,000 621,481 951,300 1,080,000 $ 3,427,781 Less Recommended City Contribution Due to Lack of Farebox Compliance Additional Funds .Required Operating Deficit $ 14,200 350,801 59,357 0 $ 424,358 ($ 30,400) $ 393,958 Farebox Compliance Yes Yes No Not Likely The FY 2003/04 operating deficit of $14,200 was primarily related to farebox revenue shortfalls and vehicle maintenance and fuel cost increases; the FY 2004/05 operating deficit of $350,801 was due to underestimating operating expenses as well as increases to salaries based on negotiated memorandum of Agenda Item 80 117 understanding (MOU) agreements, health benefits, and vehicle maintenance and fuel costs; the FY 2005/06 operating deficit was a result of farebox revenue shortfalls and salary and benefit increases. These operating deficits may be funded with additional LTF operating allocations and/or other' local revenues such as Beaumont contributions. Staff recommends additional LTF funding of $393,958 with a contribution of $30,400 related to the FY 2005/06 amount that would be necessary to: meet the farebox return. Additionally, staff recommends amendments of the respective SRTPs to reflect the additional funding. Staff, further suggests that Beaumont staff be advised that future operating deficits may be the responsibility of Beaumont, especially when the transit services do not meet the farebox return requirement. City of Beaumont's Escalating Costs Beaumont transit staff is requesting assistance from the Commission in reviewing its escalating operating costs. To provide this assistance, Commission staff is discussing various approaches that can be taken including the possibility of amending the contract with Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC), the triennial performance auditor as auditstaff is familiar with Beaumont's operating environment. Pass Area Transit (City of Beaumont and City of Banning) Previously, the Commission approved funds to evaluate the development of a regionalized transit system in the Pass Area based on geographic rather than city boundaries. The concept was based on the idea that the Banning Municipal Transit System and the Beaumont 'Municipal Transit Agency (two independent transit systems) would be coordinated to present the appearance of a single transit system to customers and the public. The coordinated service area of Pass Area Transit includes the cities of Banning and Beaumont, the unincorporated areas of Cabazon and Cherry Valley, and the commercial area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Reservation. Both fixed route and dial -a -ride services are provided throughout the pass area. A result of the Pass ' Area Transit Study is the closer coordination of service between the .Banning Municipal Transit System and the Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency. As; the Pass Transit System continues to evolve,: it is anticipated that adjustments intended to improve service will continue and be reflected in future plans. While the new Pass Transit System is a single seamless transit system to the public, it is two independent transit systems operated by two different Agenda Item 80 118 • • administrators and overseen by two different policy boards. When the Pass Area Transit Plan was adopted, it was anticipated that at some future date, the two systems would combine into a single system (single administrator and single policy board). With the completion of the financial audits, during FY 2007/08, transit staffs will continue researching and developing the proposal to combine the two transit agencies into a single agency. During FY 2006/07, both transit managers retired and as a result, cities of Banning and Beaumont staffs have been managing the transit programs. Currently a request for proposal is being developed to hire a transit manager for both agencies. It is anticipated that the position will be filled on a contract basis as the potential merger continues to be reviewed. During FY 2007/08, Commission staff anticipates seeking additional funding to pay for the contract staff position as well as funds to pay for the transit study. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $2,425,258 - LTF $ 151,000 - STA Source of Funds: Transportation Deve opment Act FY 2006/07:. Budget Adjustment: Yes $1,080,000 - LTF - Operating Funds $ 140,000 - STA - Capital Funds FY 2005/06: $ 951,300 - LTF - Operating Funds $ 11,000 - STA - Capital Funds FY 2005/06: $ 28,957- LTF - Operating Funds FY 2004/05: $ 350,801 - LTF - Operating Funds FY 2003/04: $ 14,200 - LTF - Operating Funds GLA No,: 106 62 86101 P2210 $2,425,258 241 62 86102 P2201 $ 151,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: t1 - y142, Date: 6/5/2007 Attachments: 1) Service Provider Performance Targets Report for FY 2006/07 for Beaumont 2) FY 2007/08 SRTP Performance Report for Beaumont Agenda Item 80 119 wrfiivr Ciao Table 7 -- service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of Beaumont Data Elements FY 2006/07 Plan FY 2006/07 Target FY 2006/0.7 Year to Date Through March Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 125,500 Passenger Miles 278,652 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 21,000.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 278,652.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 283,000.0 Total Operating Expenses $1,200,095 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $120,000 Net Operating Expenses $1,080,095 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $57.15 <= $58.28 $67.82 Fails to Meet Target 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio 9.99% >-, 10.00% 7.28% Fails to Meet Target Discretionary: ` v 1. Subsidy Per Passenger $8.61 >= $6.89 and <= $9.32 $9.25 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile _ $3.88 >= $3.18 and <= $4,30 . $4.ails 38 F to Meet Target 3. Subsidy Per Hour $51.43 >= $44.50 and <= $60.21 $62.88 Fails to Meet Target 4. Subsidy Per Mile $3.88 >= $3.12 and <= $4.22 $4.11 Meets Target 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6.0 >= 5,5 and <= 7.4 6.8 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.45 >= 0.38 and <= 0.52 0.44 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Do not meet 2 of 2 Mandatory indicators. Meets 4•of 6 Discretionary indicators. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager'" 5/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 • 110 FY 2007/08 - SRTP Performance. Report Service Provider: City of Beaumont Performance IndicatorsFY 200fi/07 Period Mid -Year -to -Date FY 2007/08 Plan FY 2007/08 Target Plan Performance Scorecard Passengers 54,175 103,020 None Passenger Mlles 114,386 218,016 None Revenue Hours 7,882 19,500 None Total Hours 8,317 19,656 None Revenue Miles 122,890 256,431 None Total Miles 127,085 263,172 None Operating Costs . $615,907 $1,200,095 None Passenger Revenue $42,689 $68,819 None Operating Subsidy $573,218 $1,131,276 None Operating Costs Per Revenue Hour $78.14 $61.54 <= $71.21 Meets Target Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile $5.01 $4.68 None Operating Costs Per Passenger $11.37 $11.65 None -.Farebox Recovery Ratio 6.9% 5.7% >= 10.00/0 Fails to Meet Target Subsidy Per Passenger $10.58 $10.98 >= $7.86 and <= $10.64 Fails to Meet Target Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $5.01 $5.19 >= $3.72 and <= $5.04 Fails to Meet Target Subsidy Per Revenue Hour $72.73 $58.01 >= $53.45 and <= $72.31 Meets Target Subsidy Per Revenue Mile $4.66 $4.41 >= $3,49 and <= $4.73 Meets Target Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6.87 5.28 >= 5,78 and <= 7.82 Fails to Meet Target Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.44 _ 0.40 >= 0.37 and <= 0.51 Meets Target - TransTrack ManagerT" sliwoo7 Page 1 of 1 • AGENDA ITEM 8P • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Triennial Performance Audits: Fiscal Years 2003/04 2005/06 Through TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Review and approve the FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 Triennial Performance Audits for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside Special. Services together with Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine); and 2) Direct staff to seek formal responses from the audited agencies and incorporate the responses in the Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with Public Utilities Code 99246, the Commission is required to designate an entity other than itself to conduct a performance audit of its activities and the activities of each transit operator to whom Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are allocated. The audits are required to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the Commission and the public transit operators. The audits must be conducted in accordance with the guidelines set by the State Comptroller General's Office. The audits are required every three years and this triennial audit must be completed by June 30, 2007. At its December 13, 2006 Commission meeting, approval was given to hire Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) to conduct the Triennial Performance Audits'. The audits covered FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 and included the seven public transit operators consisting of the city of Banning, city of Beaumont, city of Corona, city of Riverside Special Services, PVVTA, RTA and SunLine. The Commission's Commuter Rail audit is part of SCRRA's Triennial Performance Audit review. Agenda Item 8P 122 Draft copies of the audits are provided to each of the public operators for their review prior to being finalized. That process enabled the operators to make factual corrections to their agency's audit prior to the results `presented to the Transit Policy Committee (TPC). If applicable, comments provided by the operators were incorporated into the audit prior to issuance of the final reports. Staff is requesting approval to distribute the final audit reports to the transit operators requesting that the agency provide written responses to each of the audit recommendations. For monitoring and compliance issues, transit operator responses will be incorporated into the annual SRTP process. Based on the TPC's prior direction to transit staff, an 'analysis _ of ridership and operating costs covering FY ' 2000/01 through FY 2005/06 as detailed on the following tables was provided during the TPC presentation. Ridership: Transit Operators City of Banning City of . Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside PVVTA. RTA SunLine Total FY 2001 240,318 83,866 88,146 141,561 21,814 6,827,695 ' 3,872,553 11,275,953 FY 2002 244,974 91,704 109,381 156,306 27,337 7,102,762 3,830,999 11,563,463 FY 2003 222,183 97,690 170,236 160,472 30,085 7,146,680 ' , 3,552,536 11,379,882 FY 2004 222,764 113,682 210,200 157,828 36,046 7,588,864. 3,561,765 11,891,149 FY 2005 201,964 118,268 228,904 152,752 43,173 7,357,581 3,422,896 . 11,525,538 FY 2006 189,421 118,618 205,875 145,223 51,071 7,381,949 3,552,860 11,645,017 Percent Change 2003- 2006. -15% 21 % 21 % -10% 701)/0 3% 0% 2% Percent Change 2001- 2006 -21 % 41 % 134% 3% 134% 8% -8% 3% ; - Audited Operating Costs: Transit Operators . City of Banning City of . Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside PVVfA . RTA SunLine Total', FY 2001 $ 673,764 $ 537,626 ` $ 848,639 $ 1,428,965 $ 213,798 $ 28,248,626 $ 15,324,576 $ 47,275,994 FY2002" $ 733,211 $ 621,787 $ 998,510 $ 1,529,206 $ 316,657. $ 30,325,078 $ 16,282,299 $ 50,806,748 FY 2003 $ 739,049 $ .745,181 $1,154,925 $ 1,856,404 $ 368,998 $ _32,456,317 $ 17,550,914 $ 54,871.,788 FY2004 $ 833,575 $ 879,642 11,331,125 $ 1,955,439 $844,025 $ 37,073,869 $ 16,653,467 $ 59,571,142 FY"2005 $ 962,843 $1,042,453 $1,450,636 $ 2,259,550 $ 774,034 $ 38,565,612 $ 17,226,321 $ 62,281:449 FY2036 $1,044,316 $1,082,568 $1,516,339 $ 2,511,251 $ 775,187 $'41,489,354 $ 18,487,845 $ 66,906,860 P200 cent 200 Change 41% 45% 31% 35% 110% 28% 5% 22% Percent Change 2001 2006 55% 101% 79% 76% 263% 47% - 21% 42%` Attachments: Available on the Web Agenda Item 8P 123 AGENDA ITEM 8Q • 11 REVISION T,, AGENDA ITEM 8Q Additions are noted by Bold #dics, Deletions are noted by :StriketlIfetigh RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPO i R TA TION COMMISSION DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH SUBJECT: June 13, 2007,, Riverside County Transportation Commission Transit Policy Committee Tanya Love, Program. Manager Eric Haley, Executive Director Status Report:; fiscal Year 2006/07 Productivity Program TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the third :quarter status report on t Productivity Improvement Program (PIP); and 2) Direct Commission' staff to work .with transit operator staff from the city of Beaumont, city of Corona and . Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) to jointly '' develop an action plan to meet the Commission approved PIP., mprovement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission oversees transit sesrvice in Riverside County pr.irnarily through the, , approval of Short- Range Transit Plans (SRTPs), which details the operating and capital costs that are planned ;for transit services. Public Utilities Code Section 99244 requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze and ;recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operations (public bus and commuter rail) through the SRTP ! process. This process requires the transit operators to: 1) Address recommendations made through the Triennial Performance Audit;and 2) • Comply with state PUC requirements for state -mandated farebox recovery and cost efficiency. At the February 15, 2007 Transit Policy Committee, Commission staff provided a status report on compliance with the. FY '2006/07 PIP based on second quarter data. FY 2006/07 is the first full year for implementation of the PIP and TransTrack - the web based performance monitoring software system that the Commission purchased to assist; with data analysis. Commission staff believes that both systems will continue to assis with monitoring performance but, recognizes Agenda Item 8Q ;k 'k i a �1 e' Commission's PIP that;was adopted as part The SRTPs were developed ed to meet tile' of a comprehensive ;effort to work with :the Riverside Countyeight ' s ei public transit `operators to provide ;better service and Jimprove efficiency... Under: state law, the Commission is tasked; with the. responsibility to identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity . improvements for, Iran it, operators The process requires the transit operators!! to, address recomrnendations that are made by regular performance audits N 14 The performance '' indicators that are !evg � aluated through the! `PIP: consist of the following two m 'Mandatory , 'I i that: there is a learning curve associated with new program implementation. As ii f` JC� ' such, staff was directed to continue closely with the transit operators to IIrI analyze third quarter data to determine compliance. {; Productivit 'YImprovement Pro ram _t9 Iy -- I �.. . Mandatory ,Targets Operatingu costs per revene,::hour,f:and {. Farebox 'recovery ratio..�.. a . �� " i • . Additionally, there Discretionarry Targets: s • Subsidy per passenger .(+4 15 % Variance) • Subsidy per passenger mile, 6- ; 15 % Variance); • Subsidy per -revenue hour (+/ I5% Variance); • Subsidy ;per revenue mile' (+% ri5 % Variance) ,Past ,e''ngers per revenue hour_:(+/ 15% Variance); land Passengers 'ers per revenue mile,: +� `- '15° Variance) ,9. P /� /o a ce1 ;; y. 1. 1.1 I s r� Additional Discretionary Targets for Rail , Prog"ram II j,� .; t [i a Ridershi ' growth: ° g p g goal of 2 �/o=growth; and , are six discretionary targets,: i Passenger miles per revenue car: , goal of u ' Bus operators should. meet a minimum of three of # the six discretionary targets. Two additional performance targets were approved for the Commuter Rail Program, and as! a result, the Commuter Rail Program should meet three of eight discretionary !targets. ll �I Agenda Item 8Q 30 passengers per revenue i The performance indicators are critical in ensuring that service can bemaximized in an efficient manner. More importantly, the PIP is a cooperative process between the Commission and the transit operators to work together. on approaches to improve mobility in an environment fraught :with: rising costs : for fuel, labor and insurance. Analyze Results of First Nine Months. of: Fiscal Year 2006/07 Productivity • Improvement Program Targets Transit operator staff actively !participated in the development of the FY 2006/07 PIP performance targets, which a:re based on FY 2005/06 third quarter actual` performance data2. The PIP targets were subsequently approved by the Commission at its June 14, 2006 meeting. Attached to this agenda .item is. a system -wide performance report . (scorecard); by operator, identifying . the Commission approved mandatory; and discretionary performance targets for FY 2006/07 together with a nine -month performance scorebard. The following provides a summary of the PIP analysis: Fiscal Year 2006/07 Mandatory Target Scorecard Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Based on the Service Provider Perfonnance Targets Report (attached); six of eight operators meet the operating cost' per revenue hour targets established for their agency. Operators that Fail to Meet Target The city of Beaumont's target was approved at $58.28; however, the year-to-date performance indicates actual cost of $6`7.82, which represents an increase of 16.37 % over the approved target. The city of Corona's target was approved at $53.65; however, the "year-to-date performance indicates actual `cost ;of $59.03, which represents an increase of 10.02% over the approved target. 2 Through this collaborative process, Banning, Corona, Commuter Rail and Riverside Transit. Agency. requested an increase in their Operating Cost per 'Revenue Hour calculation: The Commission approved increase ranged from 4.10°A! to 11.90%. _ The FY 2006/07 performance targets for, these four `agencies were subsequently increased., Agenda Item 8Q ill °n i� K fr !i fi 1, E I f . Based on TransTrack . data, six of eight tfan'sft.: operators "afc on target to meet the �� � l , I � � , :'. '1 all P 9 , 1 ,�. ,1 a mill, li 1 r 1 1,, 111,11 that: the agencies will not be its compliance witil the state mandated firebox recovery ratio,, hewevcr, Trans.Track s c of farebox recovery does not i► I 1, I!I III!" take into consideration local revenges and ether farebox „exclusions. In all II ! I ,' , , , (r Ili ! IINIII . ' required target; as they arc currently 3Ch,i V�ng a return of 7.28%. G �- �Il 6 , �� i 11 .� ' i �I: Seven of eight; transit operators are on + target to meet the state mandated farebox recover ratio At; the time of writing this st11aff report, the city ' y g p y Hof Beaumont s year; to -date :performance indicates that it will, not; be in corilli mpliance with this target and in all likelihood will not meet the 10% 'requirement as it is currently, achieving a 1' p l��llu - in return of 7.28%; It should be noted ;that Riverside Transit Agency (RTAI conditionally meets farebox;,:however, Tran�sTrack's ca/culationp of farebox. recovery,. does not take ?into! consideration local revenlues and other farebox exclusions and as a result are identified as conditionally meeting the target. , t. rid i Fiscal Year 2006/07 'Discretionary Target' Scorecard Y As previously 1,stated; bus operators need !to meet a minimum of three of the discretionary, t`ar�gets. Seven of the: eight j; operators are ;in Compliance.. with the discretionary, targets.: PVVTA's scorecard ndicates that it will meet two of the targets and has is result, fails to meet the disc] ietionary target indicators. 1 I {i r While reviewing and. analyzing indivtdua{I route productivity will remain with the. transit operator and their governing , bo.a' ds, the Commission, as part of its oversight responsibilities, 'must ensure that t'1 ansit operators are utilizingTDA funds efficientl and ire feetivel. FY 2006/07 'is the first full year for implementation of Y Y �, y p the PIP and TransTrack performance monitopng system. Commission staff believes 1, Iii l � that both systems; will continue to assist with monitoring performance but 114 recognizes thaat there is a learning curve associated with new program 1 irnpelementation. } 1 i� 1111 Farebox Recovery Ratio l Next Steps in ;the Productivity Improvement IProgram Analysis At this time, based upon the Commission's�approved PIP document, the following needs to occur prior. to the following 'fiscal year's SRT.P being presented to the Commission for adoption: l r 3 The Commission LpProved PIP definition of Total definition to support transit industry best practices. r, , Agenda Item .8Q h i� Passenger Fare Revenues was based on PUC ' I 1) A meeting will be scheduled with transit operator and Commission staff to jointly develop an action plan to meet the PIP targets; 2) . The agreed upon action plan, together with the transit operator's performance report, will be presented to the Commission for approval and 3) The approved action plan/methodology to come into compliance with the PIP will be included as part of the following fiscal, year's SRTP4.: Should the Commission approved action plane fail to achieve compliance with the . PIP within 12 months of the approved plan, staff from the transit operator :and the Commission will jointly develop a status report and identify progress as well . as proposed modifications to the action plan. The revised action . plan will be . submitted to the Commission for approval. The worst -case scenario would be if a transit operator refused to. take. any action to improve p performance relative to a specific PIP recommendation and ';performance continued to decline or remained ;well below that of similar services.- In such instance, the Commission may :;determine that a "reasonable efforts" was not made'. If this should occur, TDA funding increases would be set aside until such time that the transit operator took action: deemed . "reasonable" by the Commission. Summary of FY 2006/07 PIP Compliance As a result of not meeting the FY 2006/07 PIP targets, the city of Beaumont, city of Corona and PVVTA will need to develop an action plan prior to their FY 2007/08 SRTP being submitted to the Commission. Attachment: FY 2006/07 - Service' Provider. Performance Targets. Report a FY 2007/08 SRTPs will include the action ;plan/methodology to come into compliance with the PIP. 5 Reasonable effort to include meeting(S) :.and open, continuous communication,- between the Commission and the transit agency to address concerns identified in the Triennial Performance Audit, or in .the case of non-compliance with the 'PIP, development of: an action plan: to achieve compliance. Agenda Item 8Q Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review Riverside Transit Agency. Data Elements FY 2006/07 Plan . FY 2006/07 Target FY 2006/07 Year to Date Through March Year To Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 7,1.42,589 • - Passenger. Miles 48,614,046 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 600,414.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 9,638,781.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 11,152,919.0 $43,665,697 Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue $7,447,919 Net Operating Expenses $36,217,778 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1 Operating: Cost Per.. Revenue. Hour __- --- -- ---_-- -.- -- - --- ----- --- $72.73 <.= $72.73 $72.34 :Meets Target 2, Farebox RecoveryRatio o o Fails to Mcct Targct •_ 17.05 /o >= 17.65 /0 o. 17,09 /o Conditionally Meets Target Discretionary: - .. . - 1. Subsidy Per Passenger $5.07 >= $4.07 and <= $5.50 $5.34 Meets Target 2. Subsidy. Per Passenger Mile ; - $0.75 > _ $0.60 and '<= $0:81 $0.79 _ . . Target 3. Subsidy Per Hour $60.32 >_ $46.45 and <= $62.85 $59.98 .Meets Meets Target 4. Subsidy PerMile $3.76 >= $2.88 and <=`$3.90 $3.73 Meets Target 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 11.9 >= 9.7.and <= 13.1 11.2 Meets Target 6: Passengers. Per Revenue Mile _ 0.74 >= 0.60 and <= 0.81 0.70 Meets Target Note:Must meet at IPASt 3 ruff. of A ntcrrafinrizh, orfnrmmnre, T",ao,.ft«.,..� Productivity Performance Summary: • Meets 1'of 2 Mandatory indicators, however., RTA is planning to meet farebox ratio target once all local revenues have been included and accounted for. Meets 6 of 6 Discretionary indicators. Conditionally meets RCTC PIP Program. TransTrack Manager' T 6/12/2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Status Report: Fiscal Year 2006/07 Productivity Improvement Program TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION.. This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the third quarter status report on the FY 2006/07 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP); and 2) Direct Commission staff to work with transit operator staff from the city of Beaumont, city of Corona and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) to jointly develop an action plan to meet the Commission approved PIP. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission oversees transit service in Riverside County primarily through the approval of Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs), which details the operating and capital costs that are planned for transit services. Public Utilities Code Section 99244 requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operations (public bus and commuter rail) through the SRTP process. This process requires the transit operators to: 1) Address recommendations made through the Triennial Performance Audit; and 2) Comply with state PUC requirements for state -mandated farebox recovery and cost efficiency. At the February 15, 2007 Transit Policy Committee, Commission staff provided a status report on compliance with the FY 2006/07 PIP based on second quarter data. FY 2006/07 is the first full year for implementation of the PIP and TransTrack — the web based performance monitoring software system: that the Commission purchased to assist with data analysis. Commission staff believes that both systems will continue to assist with monitoring performance but recognizes Agenda Item 8Q 124 that there is a learning curve associated with new program implementation. As such, staff was directed to continue working closely with the transit operators to analyze third quarter data to determine compliance. Productivity Improvement Program The SRTPs were developed to meet the Commission's PIP that was adopted as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the Riverside County's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency. Under state law, the Commission is tasked with the responsibility to identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators. The' process requires the transit. operators to address recommendations that are; made by regular performance audits. The performance indicators that are evaluated through the PIP . consist of the following two mandatory targets: Mandatory Targets • Operating costs per revenue hour; and • Farebox recoveryratio. Additionally, there are six discretionary targets': Discretionary Targets • Subsidy per passenger (+/- 15% Variance); • Subsidy per passenger mile (+/- 15% Variance); • Subsidy per revenue hour (+/- 15% Variance); • Subsidy per revenue mile (+/- 15% Variance); • Passengers per revenue hour (+/ 15% Variance); and • Passengers per revenue mile (+/- 15% Variance) Additional Discretionary Targets for Rail Program • Ridership growth: goal of 2% growth; and • Passenger miles per revenue car: goal of 30 passengers per revenue car mile. ' Bus operators should meet a minimum of three of the six discretionary targets. Two additional performance targets were approved for the Commuter Rail Program, and as a result, the Commuter Rail Program should meet three of eight discretionary targets. Agenda Item 8Q 125 The performance .indicators are critical in ensuring that service can be maximized in an efficient manner. More importantly, the PIP is a cooperative process between the Commission and the transit operators to work together on approaches to improve mobility in an environment fraught with rising costs for fuel, labor and insurance. Analyze Results of First Nine Months of Fiscal Year 2006/07 Productivity Improvement Program Targets Transit operator staff actively participated in the development of the FY 2006/07 PIP performance targets, which are based on FY 2005/06 third quarter actual performance data'. The PIP targets were subsequently approved by the Commission at its June 14 2006 meeting. Attached to this agenda item is a system -wide performance report (scorecard), by operator, identifying the Commission approved mandatory and discretionary performance targets for FY 2006/07 together with a nine -month performance scorecard. The following provides a summary of the PIP analysis: Fiscal Year 2006/07 Mandatory Target Scorecard Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Based on the Service Provider Performance Targets Report (attached), six of eight operators meet the operating cost per revenue hour targets established for their agency. Operators that Fail to Meet Target The city of Beaumont's target was approved at $58.28; however, the year-to-date performance indicates actual cost of $67.82, which represents an increase of 16.37% over the approved target. The city of Corona's target was approved at $ 53.65; however, the year-to-date performance indicates actual cost of $59.03, which represents an increase of 10.02% over the approved target. 2 Through this collaborative process, Banning, Corona, Commuter Rail and Riverside Transit Agency requested an increase in their Operating Cost per Revenue Hour calculation. The Commission approved increase ranged from 4.10% to 11.90%. The FY 2006/07 performance. targets for these four agencies were subsequently increased.. Agenda Item 8Q 126 Farebox Recovery Ratio Based on TransTrack data, six of eight transit operators are on target to meet the farebox recovery ratio targets. At the time of writing this staff report, the city of, Beaumont and Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) year-to-date performance indicates that the agencies will not be in compliance with the state -mandated farebox recovery ratio; however, TransTrack's calculation of farebox recovery does not take into consideration Local revenues and other farebox exclusions'. In all likelihood, RTA will meet the farebox recovery requirement when local revenues are included in the calculation. Beaumont will in all likelihood . not meet the 10% required target as they are currently achieving a return of 7.28%. Fiscal Year 2006/07 Discretionary Target Scorecard 'As previously stated, bus operators need to meet a minimum of three of the discretionary -targets. Seven of the eight operators are in compliance with the discretionary targets. PVVTA's scorecard indicates that; it will meet two of the targets and as a result, fails to meet the discretionary target indicators. Next Steps in the Productivity Improvement Program Analysis While reviewing and analyzingindividual route productivity will remain with the transit operators and their governing boards, the Commission, as part of its oversight responsibilities, must ensure that transit operators are utilizing TDA funds efficiently and: effectively. FY 2006/07 is the first full year for implementation of the PIP and TransTrack performance monitoring system. Commission staff believes . that both systems will continue . to assist with monitoring performance but recognizes that there is a learning curve associated with new program implementation. At this time, based upon the Commission's approved PIP` document, the following needs to occur prior to the following fiscal year's SRTP being presented to the Commission for adoption: 1) A meeting will be scheduled with transit operator and Commission staff to jointly develop an action plan to meet the'' PIP targets; 2) The agreed upon. action plan, together with the transit operator's performance report, will be presented to the Commission for approval; and 3) The approved action plan/methodology to come into compliance with the PIP will be included as part of the following fiscal year's SRT134. 3 The Commission approved PIP definition of Total Passenger Fare _ :Revenues was based on PUC definitionto support transit industry best practices. a FY 2007/08 SRTPs will include the action plan/methodology to come into compliance with the 'PIP. Agenda Item 8Q 127 • Should the Commission approved action plan fail to achieve compliance with the PIP within 12 months of the. approved plan, staff from the transit operator and the Commission will jointly develop a status report and identify progress as well as proposed modifications to the action plan. The revised action plan will be submitted to the Commission for approval. The worst -case scenario would be if a transit operator refused to take any action to improve performance relative to a specific PIP recommendation and performance continued to decline or remained well below that of similar services. In such instance, the Commission may determine that a "reasonable efforts" was not made. If this should occur, TDA funding increases would be set aside until such time that the transit operator took action deemed "reasonable" by the Commission. Summary of FY 2006/07 PIP Compliance As a result of not meeting the FY 2006/07 PIP targets, the city of Beaumont, city of Corona and PVVTA will need to develop an action plan prior to their FY 2007/08 SRTP being submitted to the Commission. Attachment: FY 2006/07 - Service Provider Performance Targets Report 5 Reasonable effort to include meeting(s) and open, continuous communication between the Commission and the transit agency to address concerns identified in the Triennial Performance Audit, or in the case of non-compliance with the PIP, development of an action plan to achieve compliance. Agenda Item 8Q 128 Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Parebox Recovery Ratio Distretion:ar° : 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile r FY 2006/07 Plan . 205,000 15,396.0 260,965.0 270,883.0 $1164,742 T $143,840 $1,020,902 $75.65 12.34% 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers .Per Revenue Mlle Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance Indicators $4.98 $66.31 T $3.91 13.3 0.79 Tabu i SEND Provider Petfortliance Targets FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit PlanReview City of Banning FY 2006/07 Target = $75.65 > = 10 00%0 >= $4.03 and <-_$5.45. None FY 2006/07 Year to Date Through march . Year to Date Performance Scorecard $7316 Meets Target 10.$3% Meets Target $5,87 Falls to Meet Target cV > $52.66 and <= $71.24 >= $3.26 and <- $4.41 >= 11.1'and <= 15.0 >= 0.69 and <-= 0.93 $65,24 Meets Target $395Meets Target` 11.1 Meets Target' " 067 Faits to Meet Target Productivity Performance Summary: Meets 2 of 2 Mandatory indicators. Meets 3 of 6 Discretionary indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Prram. TransTrack Managertm s/3z/zoo7 le RCTC P4vgisifi (anti Table a ice Provider Pehrormatice Report FY 2006/07 Short Range'Transit Plan Review City. of Beaurnont Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare` Revenue Net Operating Expenses Performance Indicators FY 200.6/07 Plan 125,500 278652 21,000.0 278,652.0 283,000.0 $1,200,095 $120,000 $1,080,095 FY 2006/07 Target FY 2006/07 ......... ....... Year to Date Through March Year to Date' Performance Scorecard Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretion rat: $57.15 9.99% <= $58.28 >= 10.00% $67.82 7.28% Fails to Meet Target Fails to Meet Target 1, Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour. 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile Note: Must meet at least 3'out of 6 Discretionary Performance Ini tcators $8.61 $3.88 $51.43 $3.88 >-$6.89and <=$9.32 >= $3.18 and <= $4.30 >= $44.50 and <= $60.21 >= $3.12 and <= $4.22 6.0 >= 5.5 and <= 7.4 0.45 Productivity Performance Summary: Do not meet 2 of 2 Mandatary. indicators. Meets 4 of 6 Discretionary indicators. Does not con* with RcrC PIP Pragrarn. Service Provider Comments TransTrack Managers"' 5/31/2007 > = 0.38 and <.= 0.52 $9.25 Meets Target $4.38 Fails to Meet Target $fit 88 Fah th Meet Target" " $4.11 Meets Target 6.8 Meets Target 0.44 Meets Target tilevititt Um' impttiotfotil Table 7 Serif/4x Provider Petformance Targets Re FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of Corona Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips 'Passenger Miles FY 2006/07 Plan 217,400 943,490 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles -33,596.0 433,220.0 460,740.0 Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue' Net Operating Expenses Performance indicators Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Ho6r 4. Subsidy Per Mile $1,802,500 $234,100 $1,568,400 FY 2006/07 Target FY 2006/07 Year to Date Through March ',MOW ‘summouppolomminp Year to Date Performance Scorecard $53.65 12.980/0 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour Passengers Per RevenUe Mile Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Disaetionary Performance Indicators $7.21 $1,66 $46.68 $3.62 6.5 0.50 <= $53.65 >= 20.00°/0 >= $5.41 and <= $7.31 $1.64 and <=•-• $2.22 $35.75 and <= $47.85 >. $2.64 and <= $3.57 - ›.= 5.6 and <= 7.5 >= 0.43 and <= 0.59 $59.03 Fails to Meet Target 20.06% Meets Target $7.06 Meets Target •:$1..76 M.e.etS Target'. .$47;19''' Meets:Target: . FairStrilvieerrarget:: ,Meetnarget. 0.54 !;Meets Target:' Productivity Performance Summary: Do not meet 1 of 2 Mandatory Indicators. (Note: City General Funds and other permitted revenues are used to make-up the difference to meet mandatory 20% Farebox Recovery ratio.) Meets 5 of 6 Discretionary indicators. Conditionally meets ROTC PIP Program, Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager?'" ill 5/311 2007 • Data Elements FY 2006/07 plan Unlinked Passenger_ Trips Passenger. Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 'Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses Performance indicators Mandatory: 1. Operating; Cost Per Revenue Hour 2, Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretiona y:' 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour- 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile Note: Must meet at least 3 out or 6 Discretionary`Perfoi 156,899 647,955 39,138.0 662,706.0 692,925.0 $2,626,840 $263000 $2,363,840 nc Indicators $67,12 :. 1001% $15,07 $3,65 $60.40 $3.57— 4.0 0.24 Table 7 --service Provider Performance Targets Re FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of .Riverside FY 2006/07 Target $67.98 >= 1a000/0 > - $12.49 and <= $16.90 >'- $3.17 and <= $429 >= $50.09 and <= $67.76 >= $3.03;and <- $4,10 >= 3.4 and <= 4.6 >=0.21and <=0.28� FY 2006/07 Year to Date Through March $67,09 pate an �r d Meets Target 12.84%4 ;Meets Target. 8 Meets Target $3.52 Meets Target $58.47 $4:22 balks to Meet Target Meets Target 0.30 Better Than Target 4.2 Meets Target r- Productivity Performance Summary: Meets 2 of 2 Mandatory indicators. Meets 5 of 6 Discretionary Indicators. ,Meet Rcrc PIP Program: TransTrack Manager'?" 5/31/2007 tontsiarkri Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total'Actua Vehicle Revenue Hours ,Total Actual Vehicle: Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expenses FY 2006/07 Plan 54,292 211,392 13,953.0 211,392.0 237,450.0 $810,575 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $84,500 t Net Operating Expenses Performance. Indicators $726,075 Table 7 ervIce Provider Pe o e Targets � r FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency`; FY 2006/07 Target FY 2006/07 Year to Date Through March Yea lra bete Perlxor=rnante d Mandator;: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2, Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per Passenger $58.09 <= $59.58 $59 02 `Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mule 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance Indicators 10.420/0 $13,37 $3.43 $52.04` $3.4.3 , 3.9 0.26 >= 10.00°/0 > $8.23 and <= $11.1.3 , >= $1.71 and <= $2.32 > = $43.86 and <= $59.34 >= $2.53 and <= $3.43 >_ `4.5 and <= 6.1 >=`0.26 and <= 0.35 10.46°/a $12 78 Meets Target 'Falls to Meet Target $2 •52 $52 84Meets Target $2.92 Fails to Meet Target 4.1 0.23 fallsto. Meet Target Meets Target `;Falls to. Meet" Target 1 .i* ... .................. Productivity Performance Summary: Do not meet 2 of 2 Mandatory indicators. Meets 2 of 6 Discretionary indicators. . Does not meet,RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Managerrm 5/31/2007 Data. Elements Unlinked PassengerTrips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Train Hours :Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Car Miles Total Actual Vehicle -Train Miles Total Operating Expenses } Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses Performance Indicators , Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Farebox. Recovery Ratio Discretionary 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 7. Unlinked Passenger Trips 8. Passenger Miles per Rev. Car Mies Note: Must meet at least 3; out of :815iSC etionary P Productivity Performances Summary Meets 2 of 2 Mandatory indicators, Meets 8 of 8 Discretionary indicators. Mew R� FY 2006107 Plan 2,874,486. 99416,3.13 54,858.0 2,885,249.0 $33,191,600 $15,121,400 n $18,070,200 $605.05 45.55% $6.29 $0.18 Tal)le ? -- Service Provider ce Targets Rom, FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit :Plan Review RCTC Commuter Rail FY 2006/07 Target $605.05 > = 40.00%' >= $5.69 and <= $7.69 >. $0.17 and <= $0.23. $329.40 >= $246,93 and <= $334.08 $6.26: >= $5.97 and <= $8.08 52.4 >=36.9:and <= 49.9. >= 0.89'and: <= 1.21- 1.00 2,874,486 orraa rice Indicators C PIP Program. 34.46 None None FY 2006/07 Year to Date Through March $471.89: rMeets Target Meets Target 4$ 92% $5.79 Meets•Target Meets Target *tter 'Rail T'arg , Better Thed Target Meets Target b 99` Meets Ta °et 2x196�425 :• . $0.18 ate TransTrack Managers" 5/31/2007 Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Mlles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1, Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2, Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per. Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4, Subsidy Per Mile 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile FY 200.6/07 Plan 7,142, 589 48,614,046 600,414.0 9,638,781.0 1.1,152,919.0 $43,665,697 $7,447,919 $36,217,778 $72.73 17.05% $5.07 $0.75 $60.32 $3.76 11.9 0.74 Table 7 -- Service Rre)vider etfor 7aryets FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan >Review Riverside Transit :Agency FY 2006/07 Target <= $72.73 >= 2.7.65% >= $4.07 and <= $5.50 >= $0.60 and <= $0.81 >= $46.45 and <= $62.85 >_ $2.88 and <= $3.90 >= 9.7 and <= 13.1 >= 0.60 and <= 0.81 FY 2006/07 ' Year to Date Through March $72.34 17.09% $534 $00 79 $59.98 $3.73 . 11.2 0.70 - Meets -Target. Falls to Meet Target Meets Target Meets Target Meets Target: Meets Target Meets Target Meets Target Note: Must meet at least .3>out of 6 Discretionary Performance Indicators ProOluctiv ty Performance Summary: Meets 1 of 2 Mandatory indicators, however, RTA is planning to meet farebox ratio target once all local revenueshave been included and accounted for. Meets' 6 of 6 Discretionary indicators:. Conditionally meets R c PIP Program. Service Prov%oer Corn ents: TransTrack Manager"" 5/31/2007 le Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles :Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total. Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue I Net Operating Expenses Performance Indicators Mandatory; L Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretiona 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per:Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4, Subsidy Per Mile 5, Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile FY 2006/07 Plan 3,500,429 21,767,841 181,314.0 2,436,818.0 2,718,264.0 $19,090,505 $3,299,998 $15,790,,507 $105.29 Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance Indicators r 17.28% , $4.51 $0.73 $87.09 $6.48 193 1.44 Tad10 7--• FY 2006/07 Short Rarilge Trainsit Plan ReYtew := Su nLine l7iransit Agenty; ; FY 2006/07 Target <=, $110.72 `^ >- 17.14% >= $3,74 and <- $5.06 >= $0.44 and <= $0.60 >- $76.44 and <= $103.42 > $5.61 and .$7.60 >= 17.4 and <= 23.5. > zr. 1.28 and <- 1.73 17 39% u FY 2006/07- Year to Date Through March $95 97 , Meets Target Meets Target �4.19 ' Meets Target $0 +e8;falls' to Meet Target' $79.28> t Meets Target '$6.12:: Meets Target 18.9 : Meets Target 1:46' Meets Target Productivity Performance Summary. Meets 2 of 2 Mandatory indicators. Meets 5 of 6:Disdretiona indicators. Meets RCi"C PIP Pr - ran°y. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager"'` 5/31/2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2007/08 Through Fiscal Year 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plans TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE, CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Review and approve, in concept, the FY 2007/08 through FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the city of Banning, city of Riverside Special Services (RSS), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program (Commuter Rail), as presented; and 2) Direct Commission staff to obtain additional information from the RTA on its request for a Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) waiver on operating cost per revenue hour. Contingent on compliance with the PIP, review and approve, in concept, Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) SRTP. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FY 2007/08 through FY 2009/10 SRTPs include plans for the city of Banning, RSS, RTA, SunLine, and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program. Staff is requesting that the SRTPs be approved in concept only as requests for financial allocations will be made at its July 11, 2007 Commission meeting. Additionally, RTA is requesting a waiver on operating cost per revenue hour over and above the 5% increase based on the Consumer Price Index. As a result, staff is recommending that RTA's SRTP be approved contingent on obtaining additional information as to why the increase is necessary. Agenda Item 8R 137 As reported in a separate agenda .item, the SRTPs for the city of Beaumont, city of Corona and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) will ;be presented at a later date d:ue to third quarter non-compliance with the FY 2006/.07 Commission approved PIP. The SRTPs provide detailed information about existing services and facilities, ' financial forecasts .and plans, as well as planned and proposed.. improvements to be implemented in FY 2007/08. The Commission oversees transit service in Riverside County primarily through the approval of SRTPs that detail the operating , and capital costs that are planned for transit services. Each operator adopts such a plan and then provides data to the Commission :on performance. Productivity Improvement Program. With the .exception of RTA,: the SRTPs were developed to meet the Commission's PIP that was adopted as part of a comprehensive effort to work: with the Riverside County's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency. Under state law, the Commission is tasked with the responsibility to identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators. The process requires the transit operators to address recommendations that are'made by regular :performance audits. Operating, Capital and Ridership Data To assist the Commission with review of the SRTPs, the :following :data is provided on operating, capital :and ridership for all eight transits operators: FY 2007/08 Operating Capital and Ridership AGENCY/APPORTIONMENT AREA Operating Capital. City of Banning $ 1,189,294 $ 915,000 City of Beaumont $ 1_,202,819 $ 125,000 City of Corona $ 1,928,813 $ 50,000. Riverside Special Services; $ 3,016,719 $ 500,000 Riverside Transit Agency. $ 54,272,469 $ 9,05,1,321 Western County: Bus $ 61,610,114 $ 10,641,321. Western County: Rail $ 8,695,550 $ 17,514,861 WESTERN COUNTY: TOTAL $ 70,305,664 $ 28,156,182 SunLine Transit Agency $. 20,369,283 $ 14,281,089 COACHELLA:VALLEY: -TOTAL $ 20,369,283 $ 14,281,089 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency - $ 873,489 $ 538,259 PALO VERDE VALLEY: TOTAL $ 873,489 $ 538,259 TOTAL: ALL AREAS $ . 91,548,436 $ 42,975,530 Total Costs $ 2,104,294 $ 1,327,819 $ 1,978,813 $ '3,516,719. $ 63,323,790. $ : 72,251,435 ' $ 26,210,411 ..$ 98,461846 $ 34,650,372. $ 34,650,372.' $ 1,411,748 $ 1,411,748 $ 134,523,966 *Commuter Rail's costs include RCTC's share of approximately $8.7.M plusLAMetro, OCTA and SANBAG's share of approximately $31 M (consists of $13,473,900 - Additional Commuter Rail operating subsidy plus.$17,522,700 —Commuter-Rail Farebox) Agenda item 8R 138 Ridership 178,500 103,020 210,000 163,750 7231,939 7,887,209 2,996,389 10,883,598 3,979,324 3,979,324 52,772 52,772 14,915,694 • Fiscal Year 2007/08 Draft Short Range Transit Plans The following information is provided as a summary of each operator's proposed SRTP: City of Banning The city of Banning works closely with the city of Beaumont to provide a seamless transit system serving residents of Banning, Beaumont, the unincorporated areas of Cabazon and Cherry Valley as well as the commercial area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Reservations. Both dial -a -ride and fixed route services are provided. Following are the highlights of services planned for FY 2007/08: • During FY 2007/08, the city will begin an outreach program to schools; • Route schedules and system maps will be posted at bus stops to make the transit system easier to use; and • As part of the city's adoption of landscape standards, bus stop benches, waste containers and shelters will be installed. City of Riverside — Special Services RSS operates a 24-hour advance reservation dial -a -ride for seniors and persons with disabilities. Service is provided within the Riverside city limits. The special services program functions as an alternative to RTA's fixed route system for seniors and persons with disabilities unable to use fixed route service. All services operated by RSS are closely coordinated with RTA Following are the highlights of services planned for FY 2007/08: • In an effort to market its program, a new brochure will be distributed educating and promoting service to senior centers and various housing complexes; • During the year, six new dial -a -ride vehicles will be received as part of the bus replacement, program; and • Due to a shortage of drivers, the city of Riverside Human Resources and RSS have created a video titled "Live, Work, and Play". This video advertises the need for drivers. The video is displayed at all council meetings and on the city's web page. Agenda Item 8R 139 Riverside Transit Agency The RTA provides both local and regional transportation services. RTA is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency for Western Riverside County and is responsible for coordinating transit services throughout the approximately 2,500 square mile. service area, providing driver training, and assistance with grant applications. The following are highlights of RTA's proposed service for FY 2007/08: RTA will continue to monitor ridership and projects an increase of 3% in FY 2007/08 based on service enhancements; • The agency's comprehensive operational analysis, is projected to be completed within a couple of months. Once finalized, additional service enhancements may occur; • 7.4% increase in the use of the taxi over -flow program; • Operating budget reflects an 11.4% increase (excluding the GAS'B pre -fund); and • Capital budget of $9,051,321 has been identified. SunLine Transit Agency SunLine provides both local and regional transportation "services with 12 fixed routes and demand response dial -a -ride services known as SunDial. SunLine is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency and is responsible for coordinating transit services in the Coachella Valley. SunLine's service area consists of approximately 1,120 square miles. Following are the highlights of SunLine's proposed. FY 2007/08 SRTP: • Service improvements will be implemented as a result of the agency'. s completed comprehensive operational analysis;. • SunLine will continue to replace and expand its fleet. During FY 2007/08, a total of 43 vehicles will bepurchased through its capital program; • Additional bus shelters and bus benches will be installed throughout the service area to improve and enhance service; • Continue working with local jurisdictions on bus stop issues; • Continue work on environmentalassessment, preliminary and final engineering for new administrative building; and • Examine the feasibility of conducting a site selection study to potentially select locations throughout the valley for a transit center, transfer locations and sites for park -and -ride lots: Agenda Item 8R 140 • • • Regional Commuter Rail The Southern California Regional Rail Authority operates seven commuter rail lines with 39 locomotives and 155 commuter rail cars. Three routes, the Riverside to Los Angeles Line, the inland Empire to Orange County Line (1E0C), and the Riverside to Los . Angeles via Fullerton Line (91 Line) directly serve Western Riverside County with connecting service available to destinations on the other four lines. Following are the highlights of the Commuter Rail's FY 2008/09 SRTP: • Continued implementation of the revised fare structure with an average 3.5% fare increase in FY 2008/09; • Preliminary engineering and environmental clearance of the Perris Valley Line (Riverside — Moreno Valley — Perris) Metrolink extension project; • Construction of the Perris multimodal transit center; • Final design and construction of a parking structure at the North Main Corona Metrolink station to meet passenger demand; • A 15.39% or $847,800 increase in RCTC's operating subsidy primarily due to an updated cost allocation formula that more evenly distributes the costs among member agencies; and • Improved FY 2007/08 operating revenue hours forecast to more accurately account for previously added services and adjust for potential train delays. The SRTPs were reviewed and approved by the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council at its May 15, 2007 meeting and by the Transit Policy. Committee at its May 24, 2007 meeting. Attachments: Short Range Transit Plans for FY 2007/08 - Available on the Web 1) Riverside Special Services 2) Riverside Transit Agency 3) SunLine Transit Agency 4) Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Agenda item 8R 141 II AGENDA ITEM 8S RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Western Riverside Measure A Specialized Transit Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to allocate $9,000 in Western Riverside Measure A Specialized Transit funds to the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Commission's biennial call for projects for the Western Riverside Measure A Specialized Transit program, the Partnership. to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities was allocated $386,998 for its Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP), which provides escorted travel and access to medical and other services for the disabled and frail senior citizens who have no other form of transportation, public or private, available to them. The program provides incentives to volunteer drivers who assist eligible program participants with their transportation needs. The TRIP program also provides information about existing programs through which seniors and persons with disabilities can obtain discounted or free bus tickets for use on public transit. The TRIP program continues to increase in the number of participants who are unable to use other means of transportation and who request specialized escort assistance of the Measure A Specialized Transit program. At the end of April, 136 new TRIP applicants have been approved for program participation resulting in mileage reimbursements projected to exceed available funding. As a result, TRIP is requesting an additional allocation of $9,000 to cover the increased program participation. If approved, the additional funding will cover the cost of mileage reimbursement payments for Measure A participants through the end of June 2007. There are adequate Measure A Specialized Transit funds available to cover the additional costs. Agenda item 8S 142 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $9,000 Source of Funds: Western Riverside Measure A Specialized Transit Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 225 26 86101 Fiscal Procedures; Approved: ` Date: 6/5/2007 Agenda Item 8S 143 AGENDA ITEM 8T • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager Theresa Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH Erin Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency's Request to Pre -Fund Retiree Medical Benefits TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $2,668,182 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to pre -fund post retirement medical benefits related to the implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 45; 2) Reprogram $5,056,818 in previously allocated, unclaimed operating funds as additional funding for pre -funding the post retirement medical benefits; 3) Amend RTA's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit . Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional funding; 4) Amend the Commission's FY 2006/07 Budget to reflect the additional funding; and 5) Direct staff to work with RTA on waiving the impact of the incremental costs to the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) as a result of the pre -funding the GASB 45 actuarial accrued liability. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In addition to its retirement benefit plan administered through CaiPERS, RTA has a retiree medical plan, which expenses on a pay-as-you-go basis approximate $453,000 for FY 2006/07. As. RTA's retiree population grows, the pay-as-you-go expenses also increase. GASB has issued Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post Retirement Benefits Other Than Pensions. As a result of GASB 45, RTA must recognize post retirement medical benefit costs on an accrual basis over a period approximating the employees' years of service. It must also Agenda Item 8T 144 provide information about actuarial accrued liabilities associated with these benefits as well as the extent of progress made in funding the plan, if any. GASB.45 does not require employers to pre -fund post retirement medical benefits. RTA would be permitted to continue reporting the costs on a pay-as-you-go basis; however; it would then be required to record a liability for the difference between its actuarially required contribution and costs paid. Based on an actuarial valuation completed in June 2006, RTA's actuarial accrued liability .is approximately $21.8 million using a 7% discount rate over a 30-year amortization period that assumes assets are pre -funded and invested in a separate trust in diversified investments. RTA is requesting funding to pre -fund its retiree medical plan, as this strategy would result in a reduction of .the annual required. contribution which currently approximates $1.75 million. The annual required contribution Tep'resents 3.9 % of the projected FY 2006/07 operating expenses . budget, while pay-as-you-go expenses represent 1.0% of the budget. RTA has applied for and received approval to request a credit frorn the Internal Revenue Service for Federal Excise Tax (FET). The credit is a result. of the 2006 federal highway bill in which consumers of alternative fuels such as CNG can apply for a $ . 50 per gasoline gallon equivalent against the FET pool. Despite being a tax-exempt entity, RTA qualifies for this tax credit due to the utilization of CNG buses. The. tax ,credit is currently legislated to cover the period of October 1.,. 2006 through September 30, 2009. This three-year span covers three-quarters of FY 2006/07, one -hundred percent of FY 2007/08 and 2008/09, and one -quarter of FY 2009/10,. It is not known at this time whether the tax credit program will be extended beyond its current end date. Since RTA does not pay FET, the tax credit to be received .under this program has . been determined to be other local revenue versus being considered an offset against an expense. This determination is crucial as; it: has tremendous positive effects on RTA's state -mandated farebox recovery ratio.: Accordingly, RTA has an opportunity to pre -fund a significant portion of its actuarial accrued liability for its retiree medical plan without having a drastic impact on its farebox recovery ratio. Based .on recent prior years' CNG consumption, 'RTA is likely to generate $3 million of FET credit over the life of the. program. Assuming_ _an 18% farebox recovery ratio, the FET :credit allows RTA to fund approximately $16 7 million of the. $21.8 million actuarial accrued liability over the four affected fiscal years. RTA is requesting_ a FY 2006/07 budget adjustment for the pre -funding of a portion. of the actuarial accrued liability in order to takeadvantage of the 'first nine months of the FET credit revenue. RTA estimates that the FET credit impact in FY 2006/07 will be $775,000 of additional local revenue. At a farebox,:recovery ratio target of. 18%, RTA estimates that it can absorb a pre -funding expense of Agenda 'Item 8T 145 • • • approximately $4.3 million in FY 2006/07 without an adverse impact on its farebox recovery ratio or a minimum three of six discretionary targets for the PIP. Focusing only on farebox recovery ratio compliance, RTA estimates that it can absorb as much as $8.5 million of pre -funding expense in FY 2006/07 and still achieve its target ratio. Regardless of the pre -funding amount, RTA projects that it would not meet its mandatory PIP target for cost per revenue service hour. Since the impact of the implementation and pre -funding of GASB 45 is an unusual and infrequent event, RTA has requested that the incremental cost of pre -funding above the annual required contribution be an excluded expense from the PIP computation. The basis for this exclusion is a balance of the pre -funding strategy's long-term positive impact on the financial condition of RTA with the basic intent of the PIP. This approach provides an optimal short-term solution to a long-range issue by following the strategy of maximizing the pre -funding of the actuarial accrued liability of the retiree medical plan while still achieving the state -mandated farebox recovery ratio. Further, the strategy aims to maintain compliance with the other seven PIP metrics _during this period by excluding the incremental pre -funding costs. This strategy also secures the future retiree medical benefits promised to RTA employees, both past and present, and minimizes the future cost outlay to provide for the retiree medical benefits. RTA can also maintain its focus on providing focused, productive service growth while containing costs when possible. Additionally, RTA's financial condition and credit worthiness is greatly bolstered by having mitigated the vast majority of this substantial liability within three years. RTA's strategy and plan is supported by Commission staff as the Cornmission shares the goal of mitigating . its actuarial accrued liability as rapidly as possible. Commission staff also supports RTA's request that the incremental pre -funding cost be excluded from PIP compliance and, if approved by Commission action, will work with RTA to finalize the incremental exemptions to the PIP. RTA's compliance with PIP continues its ability to bring much -needed bus transportation services to the citizens of Western Riverside County. The Corfimission's support is contingent on RTA's receipt of the first FET credit payment, which is anticipated approximately June 1, 2007. For FY 2006/07, staff recommends a funding allocation of $8.5 million as follows: RTA's Allocated, Unclaimed. LTF Operating Funds Western Riverside LTF Apportionment (Bus) Total LTF Funds FET Credit Total FET Credit and LTF: funds Agenda Item 8T 146: $ 5,056,818 2,668,182 7,725,000 775,000 $ 8, 500, 000 As part of the Commission's fiduciary oversight responsibility, a 10% reserve policy was established in January 2005. For FY 2006/07, $4,200,960 was set aside as RTA's 10% rainy day reserve and are not expected to be utilized through the end of the' ° year. For FY 2007/08, RTA's 10% rainy day reserve was established at $3,758,902. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget:. N/A _ Year: FY 2006/0.7 Amount -: $7,725,000 Source of 'Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: 60162 86101 P 22.10 Fiscal Procedures' Approved:. Date: 6/5/2007 Agenda Item 8T 147 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Palo Verde Valley - Fiscal Year 2007/08 Unmet Transit Needs Hearing CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Reaffirm the Commission's definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" standards; and 2) Make a finding through Resolution No. 07-004, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting A Finding That There Are No Unmet Transit Needs That Are Reasonable To Meet In The Palo Verde Valley Area", that based upon a review of the requests for services received through the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State law requires that prior to making any allocations of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds not directly related to public transit, the Commission must identify the unmet transit needs in the area and determine those that are reasonable to meet. At least one public hearing must be held to solicit comments on unmet transit needs. The only area where this determination of unmet needs is applicable is the Palo Verde Valley where in prior years not all funds have been needed for transit. in the Western County and Coachella Valley, all available LTF funds are being used for transit service. For FY 2007/08, Commission staff projects a total of $1,115, 589 in available LTF funds for transit services; of that amount, transit staff has identified the use of approximately $926,616 towards operating and capital costs. Agenda Item 8U 148 The Commission held a public hearing in Blythe on March 1, 2007. Commissioners Joseph DeConinck, Charles Grotke, Terry Henderson and Roy Wilson and Les Nelson, City Manager, city of Blythe and General Manager, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) acted as the hearing board. Notice of the hearing was advertised in the Desert Sun, Palo Verde Valley Times and Press -Enterprise. Notices of the hearing were delivered and posted at the Blythe Police Department, PVVTA office, city of Blythe administrative offices, Palo Verde College and the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services. Flyers in both English and Spanish were posted on the transit vehicles and made available to the riders. Orie person testified at the hearing and no written statements were received regarding transit service needs in the area. Attachment 1 is a summary of the comments received. Staff worked with the city of Blythe to determine what improvements were reasonable to meet based on the projected productivity. Based on the public hearing, the following information provides an update as to possible implementation of additional transit services in the Palo Verde Valley. Request for Fixed: Route Deviations Without One -Half Hour Advance Notice One individual requested that the agency's 'requirement for advanced notification for the fixed route to deviate be eliminated. At the time of the unmet transit needs hearing, riders were required to notify the agency one-half hour in advance of their trip if they wanted the transit vehicle to deviate from the fixed route. • As a result of .the testimony, on March 5, 2007 PVVTA implemented an operations policy .to accept deviations. from passengers on the bus. The deviation .request is then radioed to the dispatcher. Approval is determined by the safety and schedule time of the request. In 90% of cases, since the policy was implemented, a deviation requested on the bus has been approved. Prior to allocating any Transportation Development Act funds for street and road purposes, the Commission must adopt by resolution, a finding that there are .no unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met by existing or proposed service contained in the Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside County. The Commission previously adopted a _definition of "Unmet Transit Needs and "Reasonable to Meet." The definitions are as follows: Agenda Item 8U 149 • • • "Unmet Transit Needs are, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded." • "Reasonable to meet shall include the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required fare box ratios." Information on the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing was presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) at its May 15 2007 meeting. After review of PVVTA's Short Range Transit Plan, members of the CAC/SSTAC recommended approval of this item and concurred that there were no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley. Attachments: 1) Summary of Testimony 2) Resolution No. 07-004 Agenda Item SU 150 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FY 2007/08 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Blythe City Hall March 1, 2007 Summary of Oral Testimony and Staff Responses NAME/ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS SUMMARY OF COMMENTS PVVTA STAFF RESPONSE Mary Davenport Deviated Fixed Route: Need On March 5, 2007, an P. O. Box 1 to notify transit agency in operations policy was Blythe, California advance if you want the fixed implemented to accept route to deviate. Problem: deviations from Passenger's do not always passengers on the bus know in advance. when they board the bus. The deviation request is then radioed to the dispatcher for approval. Approval is determined by the safety and schedule time of the request. In 98 % of cases since implementation of this policy, a deviation requested on the bus was approved. Passengers were notified of this new policy by the transit advisory meeting and fliers. Ms. Davenport was informed in person and travel trained on how to make her request. 151 • • RESOLUTION NO. 07-004 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING A FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA WHEREAS, the Commission has identified the transit needs of residents in the Palo Verde Valley area, including the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities and the transit dependent; and WHEREAS, the Commission has held a properly noticed public hearing on March 1, 2007, and solicited written comments, to gather information to assist in identifying unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area; and WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "Unmet Transit Needs" as, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded; and WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "reasonable to meet" as including the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required fare box ratios; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code section 99401.5, the Commission has consulted with the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council regarding the transit needs of the Palo Verde Valley area; and WHEREAS, an analysis of the existing public transportation services (Dial -A - Ride and Fixed Route) in the Palo Verde Valley has been completed, and with the planned improvements that will be included in the FY 2007/08 — FY 2009/10 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan, was found to be adequate to meet the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, the transit dependent .and the general public. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves: 152 That the Commission adopts the finding that there are no unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area of Riverside County that are reasonable to meet. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2007. Terry Henderson, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 153 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA TION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Fina Clemente, Staff Analyst Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/08 Minimum Fare Revenue Ratio for Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required fare box recovery ratio; and 2) Approve the FY 2007/08 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 17.66% for Riverside Transit Agency and 17.77% for SunLine Transit Agency. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) serve both urbanized and non -urbanized areas of Riverside County. Therefore, as required by state law, these agencies' minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio would between the 10% requirement for non -urbanized area services and 20% requirement for urbanized area services. Since the Commission is responsible for calculating the intermediate ratio, a methodology was developed by the Commission to calculate the required minimum ratio. This was consequently approved by the state. Per Transportation Development Act, Section 99270.1, Ca!trans must review and approve the methodology on an annual basis. Ca!trans staff concurred -in writing on May 10, 2007, that the methodology is still applicable. The formula used is as. follows: R=.1Cn+.2Cu Cn + Cu R = required ratio Cn = operating cost in non -urbanized areas Cu = operating cost in urbanized areas Agenda Item 8V 154 The costs for new or expanded services are exempted from the calculation for the year of. implementation plus two full fiscal years of operation. For FY 2007/08, RTA has :four new routes that are exempt from the fare box recovery requirement. SunLine does not have any exempt routes. Using the above formula and the Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs), the FY 2007108,minimum required ratio for RTA is 17.66% and;, 1`7.77% for SunLine. Thus, passenger fares for RTA and SunLine should cover ,at least, 17.66%..and 17.77 %, respectively, of the actual cost to operate' ,services. The balance remaining of the operating cost is covered by state, federal and local funding. The fare box recovery ratios for FY 2007/08 have been reviewed ;and approved by RTA and SunLine staff. Upon adoption of the required ratio by the Commission, the ratios are then fixed for the year and cannot be changed even though actualrevenues and .expensesma'y differ :from the SRTP- estimates. Attachment: Rules and Regulations for Determining Required !Fare ;Revenue Agenda Item 8V 155 • • RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DETERMINING REQUIRED FARE REVENUE TO OPERATING COST RATIOS FOR TRANSIT OPERATORS SERVING BOTH URBANIZED AND NON -URBANIZED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY Based on the latest annually adopted Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for Riverside County, the Commission with the cooperation of the transit operators will determine separately the operating costs of those transit services provided in non - urbanized areas and the operating costs of those services in urbanized areas. • For the purpose of this calculation, the operating cost in the urbanized areas shall include the cost of fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within an urbanized area. The operating cost in the non -urbanized area shall include the cost of all fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within a non -urbanized area. • For fixed route lines operating partly within an urbanized area and partly within a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to the urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the route miles in the non -urbanized area and the route miles in the urbanized area. • For demand response systems serving both an urbanized area and a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the population of the urbanized area .served and the population of the non -urbanized area served. • The costs of extension of public transit service pursuant to Section 99268.8 of the Public Utilities Code. (PUC) shall not be included in any of these calculations. The required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost in compliance with PUC Sections 99268.3 and 99268.4 shall be calculated as follows: R=.1Cn+.2Cu Cn + Cu R = required ratio Cn = operating cost in non -urbanized areas Cu = operating cost in urbanized areas 156 Annually, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Commission shall calculate the required revenue to operating cost ratios for each transit operator serving both urbanized and non -urbanized areas and submit this calculation to Ca!trans. Ca!trans shall approve the methodology used to calculate the blended fare box ratio prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Once approved, the ratiois not subject to change. 157 ` " 0 0 0 , " ` AGENDA ITEM 8W � " : ` " " " ` • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Inland Empire Transportation Management Center Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Fund Allocation Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-41-156-00 with the State of California Department of Transportation for the allocation of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the amount of $6 million dollars for the construction of the Inland Empire Traffic Management Center (TMC) project; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. DISCUSSION: At its September 14, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved an allocation in the amount of $6 million dollars in CMAQ program funds to be made toward the construction of a TMC. for Ca!trans District 8. The proposed facility is nearing completion of the 95% design phase and site work is expected to begin sometime in the next fiscal year after the appropriate plan approval and procurement processes occur. Given that construction work is imminent, staff is now requesting approval of Agreement No. 07-41-156-00 to complete the allocation process. - The agreement is a Local Assistance Contribution Agreement wherein the Commission would relinquish its obligation authority to the state for the obligation and expenditure of these funds specific to the TMC project. These funds are also designated specifically for the construction of the center. There is no effect on the Commission budget with this action as the funds have already been set aside through the programming process for this purpose. Agenda Item 8W 158 Financial Information n Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $6,000,000 Source of Funds: CMAQ Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No. N/A Local Assistance Fund Contribution Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 6/5/2007 Attachments: 1 } Draft Agreement No. 07-41-156-00 2) September 14, 2005:Commission Report Agenda Item 8W 159 • • 08-SBd-15 (L5506) Construct IETMC EA 08-377041 District Agreement No. 8-1347 R('TC Agreement No 07-41-156-00 LOCAL ASSISTANCE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into effective on , 2007, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE," and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as "COMMISSION." RECITALS 1. STATE and COMMISSION, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code. Section 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State Highways within the County of San Bernardino. 2. STATE contemplates the construction of the Inland Empire Transportation Management Center (IETMC) at the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 15/State Route 210 Interchange, referred to herein as "PROJECT." 3. COMMISSION desires to contribute $5,400,000 using Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program funds, referred to herein as "FUNDS," to be matched, by STATE, with non-federal State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds, referred to herein as "MATCH FUNDS," to be applied toward allowable PROJECT costs as shown on EXHIBIT A (cost summary), EXHIBIT B (Letter of Finance) and EXHIBIT C (Contribution Letter); attached to and made a part of this Agreement. 4. The Parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be partially financed by the contribution of FUNDS from COMMISSION. District Agreement No. 8-1347 SECTION I STATE AGREES: 1 _ To undertake and complete PROJECT. 2. To construct PROJECT by contract, in accordance with plans and specifications of . STATE. 3. To process all Federal authorizations, State allocations and/or State application of FUNDS on behalf of COMMISSION as applicable under Federal and State law for the contribution of FUNDS and MATCH FUNDS toward PROJECT. SECTION II COMMISSION AGREES: I. STATE may encumber FUNDS and/or MATCH FUNDS, as shown on EXHIBIT A and EXHIBIT B, towards PROJECT. 2: To authorize STA 1'E to administer, process and encumber FUNDS. 3. To program, or cause tote programmed, FUNDS for PROJECT in the appropriate Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) documents and to process all programming amendments thereto which may be required for any PROJECT funding changes., 4. In the event a change to the amount or source of the FUNDS is necessary, to promptly notify STATE to determine if an amendment to this Agreement should be executed to reflect said change(s). To enter into a separate cooperative agreement or an amendment to this Agreement with STATE when funds other than FUNDS that are under the direct control of COMMISSION are to be contributed towards PROJECT. SECTION III Deleted: and apply for obligation oVauthorization' of FUNDS through the Federal Highway Administration' (FHWA) at least ninety (90) days prior to bid advertisement for the construction project. District Agreement No. 8-1347 IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. All obligations of STATE under. the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, State Budget Act authority. The allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and the encumbrance of those FUNDS and MATCH FUNDS to PROJECT. 2. STATE's expenditure of FUNDS, under the sole control of COMMISSION, and/or STATE controlled MATCH FUNDS is subject to the earlier programming and appropriation of FUNDS by COMMISSION and MATCH FUNDS by STATE, and these will not be unreasonably delayed by either Party. 3. STATE and COMMISSION agree that COMMISSION's contribution of FUNDS toward PROJECT construction capital costs is a lump sum contribution and any additional funding amount required to complete PROJECT, pursuant to this Agreement, will be borne by STATE. 4. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment and appurtenances installed will automatically be vested in STATE. 5. Neither COMMISSION nor any officer or employee is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon STATE and arising under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless COMMISSION and all its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation and other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under this Agreement: 6. This Agreement shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT by STATE or on November I, 2011, whichever is earlier in time. SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE: 3 District Agreement No. 8-1347 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WILL KEMPTON By: DirectorERIC HALEY Executive Director By: Attest: - MICHAEL A. PEROVICH Legal Counsel District Director BEST, BEST AND KRIEGER CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: By: District Budget Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE: By: Attorney, Department of Transportation CERTIFIED AS TO PROCEDURE: B 4 163 District Agreement No. 8-1347 • • • Accounting Administrator EXHIBIT "A" PROJECT COST SUMMARY TYPE OF FUNDS STATE (SHOPP) SANBAG (CMAQ) RCTC (CMAQ) FEDERAL (DEMO) TOTAL Construction Engineering $1,838,000 $0 $0 $1,838,000 Construction Capital $19,782,000 $5,400,000 $5,400,000 $1,200,000. $31,782,000 TOTAL $21,620,000 $5,400,000 $5,400,000 $1,200,000 $33,620,000 SANBAG's contribution covered under separate Agreement No. 8-1345 Federal DEMO funds shown are Construction Capital Funds earmarked for this Project and available for the Project's sponsors (State) use. 5 164 • • • ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Allocation of CMAQ Funding for the Inland Empire Transportation Management Center Project PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to allocate and program $6 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program funds (SAFETEA LU) for construction of the Inland Empire Transportation Management Center. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the last several years, significant progress has been made towards the development of an Inland Empire Transportation Management Center (TMC) by the staffs of Caltrans District 8, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the Commission. The three agencies have been working collectively to select a site, environmentally clear, design, fund, and ultimately build a TMC. The Inland Empire is the last of the Caltrans Districts in Southern California to develop an "essential services" facility that meets state standards to provide emergency response during times of disaster, highway incidents and non -recurrent traffic congestion. The proposed TMC facility will be located at the southeast quadrant of the I-15.and SR 210 interchange in the City of Fontana. While a number of sites throughout the Inland. Empire have been evaluated in the past, the 1-15/SR 210 location was finally selected based on several factors including; 1) the property was owned by Caltrans as excess right of way, 2) microwave communication paths were unobstructed, 3) Caltrans fiber optic lines could be easily accessed, and 4) there was low environmental risk given that the property had been partially cleared as part of the interchange project. 165 ATTACHMENT 2 Progress made towards development of the proposed TMC has periodically been reviewed with the Commission with the understanding that ultimately, both the Commission and SANBAG would each become funding partners in an amount not to exceed $6 million for construction of the facility. The new facility is currently projected to cost $37.4 million. SANBAG has committed an addition •$1 million to supportthe construction of a park and ride lot in the vicinity of the TMC. In addition, Commission and SANBAG staffs worked, to secure funding through the federal legislative process and secured an additional $ 1..2 rnillion for the project. The balance of funds to construct the facility will be provided by the state through its State Highways and Operations Protection Program (SHOPP). The Project Report and Environmental Document for the ,proposed TMC were approved in March of this year. In May, the California Transportation Commission took action to approve $1.65 million in SHOPP funds for the first phase of project design. Prior to this action, Ca!trans District 8 staff worked, with the Department of Finance (DOH for over two years to seek their approval to move .the project forward. The DOF spent considerable time in challenging all aspects of the proposed facilityto ensure its reasonableness in scope and cost effectiveness. In June, the Department approved the transfer of SHOPP funds to the Department of General Services (DGS) who will be managing the design and construction of the facility. Ca'trans and DGS are currently in the process of selecting a consultant to design the facility. Given the current schedule, the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E): is expected to be completed by July 2006 with construction beginning in October 2006. In order for Ca(trans District 8 to continue its efforts in securing. SHOPP funds for the ultimate construction of the facility, action by the Commission is -required to formalize its support position of' the project over the past decade. Action is also required in order for Staff to program any Commission funding in the upcoming 2006 Federal Transportation Improvement Program to ensure the funds are available at the start of construction. Staff is recommendingthat the Commission ' approve the allocation of up to $6 million dollars in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program • funds recently rnade; available to the Commission with the approval of the federal highway bill, ` SAFETEA LU (HR3). The RCTC allocation shall be restricted to construction costs only and contingent upon Caltrans securing full funding for the proposed TMC prior to beginning construction of the project. 166 • • • ATTACHMENT 2 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: N/A Amount: $6,000,000 Source of Funds: CMAQ Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: ,14,, Date: 8/22/05 Attachments: 1) Fact Sheet 2) Vicinity and Project Location Map 167 ATTACHMENT 2 • • • Fact Sheet Inland Empire Transportation Management Center CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL This Fact Sheet provides an overview of the current status of the project to construct the District's Transportation Management Center also known as "The Inland Empire Transportation Management Center (IETMC)". Background The District's Transportation Management Center has evolved over the last decade from a primitive joint traffic operations center established in 1991 at the Inland Division CHP facility, to the existing interim TMC facility housed in the basement of the Government Center Building in downtown San Bernardino, since February of 1999. Existing Facility: The existing interim TMC is the command and control center for the District's traffic management system with supporting functions scattered throughout the District Office and offsite locations. The TMC houses Maintenance Dispatch staff, TMC Operations staff, CHP Liaison Officer, and District Traffic Management staff. The existing TMC operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Government Center Building is not an "Essential Services Facility", and therefore continuous operation at this location under a serious natural disaster is uncertain. The Inland Communication Center (ICC) is the. CHP's dispatch and 911ca11 center and is currently located within the Inland Division office building in San Bernardino. The Inland Division building was constructed in 1985 and is not an Essential Services Building. The ICC occupies approximately 3,000 square feet of the 20,000 square foot Inland Division office building. The CHP and the District currently operate separate dispatch centers. Proposed Facility: The proposed TMC facility would be located at the S-E quadrant of the I-15/SR-210 Interchange in the City of Fontana. The structure would have a total floor space area of approximately 45,000 sq. ft, and be able to withstand large magnitude earthquakes. The TMC complex will occupy approximately 8 acres within a 35-acre state-owned parcel adjacent to the interchange. The facility will be designed to meet the requirements of the Essential Services Act of 1986. The facility will accommodate a future workforce of approximately 175 employees, which includes staff from the CHP and Caltrans. The main control room will house the dispatch functions of both agencies to better manage traffic on the state highway system. The proposed facility will also bring together the separate Caltrans functions, which are currently housed throughout the District. See attached site plan for project location. Funding Partnerships: The San Bernardino County Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) have expressed support for the development of the IETMC. SANBAG and RCTC have each committed to fund 1/6 of the project up to $6 million. SANBAG has also committed an additional $ I million for the development of a park -and -ride facility in the vicinity of the proposed TMC. Project Schedule/Cost/Funding: Proposed project schedule, cost, and funding sources are as indicated below. The Department of General Services will design and construct the building. Milestone Date SSPSR 10/01 * PANED 3/05 * PS&E 7/06 Begin Construction 10/06 Complete project 6/08 * = Complete 168 Element Preliminary Plans Working Drawings Construction/Sup. Total Cost $ 1,647,000 $ 2,349,000 $ 33,408,000 $37,404,000 .CO1 m.[ :970S. pE 41; az it =Lim m.o... as tasts»..* ats .ss .:..12ral • Z .1.NlAJHOVJG „ de ysi uopoo 69 ovionoti 010-Id Al!uPtA • 1121N3a 2430011M 14011Y111041SN41/ 'ON rus 316 • • AGENDA ITEM 8X • d A li n • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 91 Commuter Express Bus = Route 7.94 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the funding of SR-91 Commuter Express Bus — Route 794 services using Commuter Assistance Measure A funds for the second year, FY 2007/08 of a two-year demonstration in an amount not to exceed $ 151,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 12, 2006 meeting, :the Commission approved a not to exceed amount of $120,000 in Specialized Transit/Commuter Assistance Measure A funds to cover the Commissions' share for the first year of a two-year demonstration with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) of commuter express bus routes along the SR-91 freeway corridor. With that action, the Commission agreed to contribute 100% of the Riverside County's share, which picked up the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) share of the demonstration project. The Commission action also included a requirement for RTA to report back to the Commission on a regular basis and to provide a recommendation for continuing funding the second year of the project. Lastly, the Commission action reaffirmed that the project is in fact a two-year demonstration project and that should RTA consider the route a success at the conclusion of the demonstration period and wishtocontinue operating the service, that it would fund its operations through its traditional transit related allocations. DISCUSSION: Working in partnership with the OCTA and RTA, Commission staff has participated in the design and preparation of the new route. The Route 794 express bus service is intended to primarily serve business commuters traveling from Riverside County into Orange County, and those whose destination is along the Sunflower Corridor. Service began on September 11, 2006 and has been successful (RTA report attached). The service operates weekdays, with five departing morning trips from Agenda Item 8X 170 the Galleria at Tyler, along with two additional morning trips departing from the Crossroads Community Church in Corona. Given that this project was designed as a two-year demonstration ,project and in consideration of RTA's recommendation to continue the demonstration for the second year, staff's'recommendation is for the Comrnissionto approve this action. RTA shall beresponsible for billing and reporting project performance back to the Commission . on a quarterly basis as well as the providing a final report at .the conclusion of the demonstration. Consistent with the original Commission action, RTA shall have satisfied itself with the performance parameters of the route. If upon . finding the performance acceptable, RTA shall then fund the on -going operation of :the, route out of its traditional transit operating allocation with no additional Measure A funding coming from the Commuter Assistance Program. For FY 2007/08, and based on county traveled mileage, the Riverside County's share of the project cost, including RTA's share, is approximately 1 /3 of the total projected .service cost or $151,000. The additional funds over that which vvas approved' previously are due to the second year, of service :operating for one full year. The first' year of service covered only 10 months.: The 'balance of the project costs are to be' funded by, OCTA. In Fiscal Year Budget: Source of Funds: GLA No: Yes Financial Information Year: FY 2007/08 Measure A Commuter Assistance 226 41 86101 P2199 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Attachment: RTA Letter dated April 26, 2007 Agenda Item 8X 171 Amount:' 1151,000 . Budget Adjustment: Date: No 6/5/2007 • ears service April 26, 2007 �C� GC�6'MC APR 27 2001 .� RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Mr, Robert Yates . Commuter Assistance Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside CA 92502-2208 SUBJECT: RTA Route 794 Performance Analysis Dear Mr. Yates: 80159 RY litivorside Thansit Agency 1825 Third Street. P.O. Box 59968 Riverside. CA 92517-19643 Phone: (951) 565-5000 Fax: (951) 565--5001 RTA staff has analyzed ridership figures for Route 794 from inception in September 2006 through February 2007, the Iasi full month of representative data. The Route 794, service that originates in Riverside County, is proving to be one of OCTA's most productive 700-series express routes. The highlights of the service is graphically depicted in Attachment A and summarized below: s A comparison of OCTA 700 series express routes indicates the Route 794 outperforms the others in boardings per revenue hour by 28 percent or hoardings per revenue mile, • In comparison of revenue miles for OCTA 700 series express routes, the Route 794 outperforms the others by nearly 14 percent, • The total ridership, 6,492 is 87 percent higher than average monthly hoardings for 700 series routes, • The most recent data from February indicates Route 794 ridership_: remaining robust at over 70 percent of the 700 series average. Total year one contract; September 2006 to September 2007, cost for 247 days of service is $145,930. The cost :per hour is $86 43 for short- trip service (trips originating and ending at Canyon Community Church) and $92 68 for long trip (trips originating and ending at Galleria at Tyler Mall)..Year two contract cost for 255 days of operation is $1.50,657. The cost represents no increase in the hourly rate or change in service levels; Fiscal Year 2008 cost is estimated to cost $151,000. Route 794 performance meets or exceeds service expectation to this pt3int. The existing service structure continues to warrant the use of Measure A Commuter Assistance 'Program funds that supplernent cost for the approximately 30 percent of service operated in Riverside County:'} _ _ Mr. Robert Yates Commuter Assistance {Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission April 26, 2007 Page Two RTA staff will continue to keep ROTC abreast of the service progress. If you need additional clarification or if I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 951 565-5130 or mstanleyariversidetransit.com. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AG CY r lark Stanley Director of Plan ng MSlmh Attachment A: 700:Series Ridership Analysis • Attachment A: 700 Series Ridership Analysis OCTOBER 2006 Boardings 701 2363 721 6490 757 1,196 758 806 794 6492 Avg 3469.4 87.12% FEBRUARY 2007 Boardings 701 1915 721 5115 757 856 758 665 794 4501 Avg 2610.4 72.43% Rev Hrs 193 535 144 193 397 292.4 35.77%Q Rev H rs 175 495 131 175 361 267A 3.5..00% Rev Mlles 5474 16254 2,821 4,170 11,763 8096.4 45.29% Rev Miles 4981 15032 2,540 3,791 10,693 7407.4 44.36% 174 Board/Hr Board/Mile 12.2 0.4 12.1 0.4 8.30 0.40 4.20 0.20 1 6.40 0.60 11.87 0.43 38.22% 40.02% Board7Hr Board/Mlle 10.9 0.4 10.3 0.3 6.50 0.30 3.80 0.20 12.50 040 9./6 0.35 28.05% 13:.51 % • II P. III it AGENDA ITEM 8Y ' • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Memorandum of Understanding for the Funding and Joint Development of State Highway Improvements by the County of Riverside on State Route 86 to Install a Traffic Signal at 66t' Avenue STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1 i Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 07-31-158-00 for the funding reimbursement of state highway improvements by the county of Riverside on SR-86 to install a traffic signal at 66`h Avenue; and 2} Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 9, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved $ 12 million for the Coachella Valley Measure A state highway program of projects and cash flow. As a result, nine projects were programmed for funding under the Measure A Tier II State Routes 86 and 111 projects. The county of Riverside, as the lead agency for the project, has submitted its request for funding of the eighth of the nine projects, which is along SR-86 at 66t' Avenue to install a traffic signal. Staff recommends approval of the MOU with the county of Riverside, consistent with the approved list of Tier II SR-86 and SR-111 project improvements. Agenda Item 8Y 175 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $271,.000 .. Source of Funds: Measure A Coachella Valley Highways Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 253 31 81301 P3418 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Pti,,,42:4,11, Date: 6/5/2007 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding for County of Riverside Agenda item 8Y 176 • STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) Agreement No. 07-31-158-00 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE ROUTE 86 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66th AVENUE (Traffic Signal) 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this day of , 2007, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ("COUNTY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "Tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan provides twenty million dollars. ($20,000,000.00) for the construction of improvements along State Route 86 in the Coachella Valley (the "State Route 86 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to provide the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The County, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements along State Route 86 with the County. 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify for State Route 86 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to provide State Route 86 Funds for the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. RVPUBTKNOX1727979.1 17 7 STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to provide State Route 86 Funds for design, construction and other services for authorized portions Of the State Route 86 improvements currently being planned on State Route 86 at 66th Avenue within the County (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the County and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld_ It is understood and agreed that the County shall expend State Route 86 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and. only for the Project. To this. end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to, the review and approval of RCTC_ 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to provide to the County, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the maximum sum of Two Hundred and Seventy One Thousand Dollars ($271,000.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs for the Project ("Total Funding Amount"). It is also understood and agreed that 100% o of the proposed improvements will be installed within the existing State right-of-way. The Total Funding Amount represents one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated -Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3 14.1 below, and the maximum amount of funding to be provided by RCTC for the Project. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the County and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of theProjectand any responsibilities of the County or RCTC may be requested in writing by the County and are subject to the approvalof RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Tenn/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the County provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or Until June 30, 2009, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's .Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC forall purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the County's work as it progresses. RVPUB\PKNOX\727979.1 128. STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) 3.6 The County's Representative. The County hereby designates Scott Staley, Engineering Division Manager or his designee as the County's Representative to RCTC. The County's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the County for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the County's responsibility. The County shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The County and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The County and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and County's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. .3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or County may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the County, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with State Route 86 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination by RCTC or the County, RCTC shall provide State Route 86 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. The County shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the County of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The County and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The County or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The County shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation RVPUBTKNOX1727979.1 139 STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq_ 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its record copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1; County Responsibilities. The County agrees to indemnify and hold . harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the County or its sub -consultants. The County will reimburse RCTC for any expenditure, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be dueto negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the County.. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the. County, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from, or connected with all activities .governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the County for any expenditure, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the County, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The County and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. One party's review, acceptance or funding of any ;services performed by. the other party or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a - waiver of any rights :the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons, or entities, performance. Further, the County shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in . accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC, caused by the County's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided. to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the County, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to the County caused; by RCTC's negligent performance, of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. . R V PU BIPKN OX1727979.1 140 STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) • • • 3.13 Insurance. The County and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and County. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, . or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a generalaggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and County, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or County, their officials, officers, employees, agents; and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.14 Payment of Total Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Reimbursable Project Costs. Reimbursable Project costs ("Project Costs") shall include the following items: (1) funds expended in preparation of preliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the County, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction RVPUBWKNOX1727979.1 151 STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) contract approved by the County and RCTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by RCTC and the County towards completion of the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Project Costs. Project Costs shall not include the following items which shall be borne solely by the County without reimbursement: (1) County Project coordination costs; (2) County costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (3)-any County and/or RCTC fees attributed to the processing of the Project. 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. [Not applicable.] 3.14.4 Payment. RCTC shall pay for Project Costs as they are incurred and invoiced for design work, right-of-way services and any other servicesunder its responsibilities, which payments shall serve as a credit towards the Total Funding Amount. The County shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under this responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced. Payment requirements for the County shall include backup documents for all charges requested for reimbursement. 3.14.5 SB 300 Reimbursements. [Not applicable.] 3.14.6 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.7 Reimbursement for Expenses. The County shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,00000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and County. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the County or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the County or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the County's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report; such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of County or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by County for the Project or for the construction of the Project. 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or RVPUBTKNOX17279.79.I 1 62 • • STATE ROUTE.86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to the disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect toany such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The County and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any .provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Riverside County Transportation Department 4080 Lemon Street, 8`f' Floor P.O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502-1090 ATTN: Lawrence Tai, Traffic Engineer RCTC Riverside County Transportation 4080 Lemon, 31-a Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the RVPUBTKNOX\727979.1 1$3 STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire. Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or. understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of . this Agreement shall not void Or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities' retained by the County or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and! shall not be employees of ROTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the County or consultant, whichever is applicable. The County or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Project and as required by law. The County or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to:. social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. [Signatures on Following Page]. RVPUBWKNOX1727979.1 1 84 • STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT By: By: — Terry Henderson, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By. Best, Best & Krieger County Counsel Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission RVPUBTKNOX\727979.2 1 05 STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES STATE ROUTE 86 @ 66TH AVENUE (Traffic Signal) Project Description: The project consists of installationof a traffic signal at the intersection of State Route 86 and 66th Avenue (Exhibit-"C" _ Project Location Map) with some additional work (i.e., curb return, ADA access ramps and some widening) in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. Project Scope: This project is intended to prepare environmental documentation, ,Plans, Specifications, Estimate (PS&E), right of way acquisition, preparation of a utility plan, preparation of rights of way map ` including legal,. description and plot map, right of way acquisition services, site plan, construction plans, a cost estimate and specifications for installation of a traffic signal. The project will provide a controlled progression for both vehicle and pedestrian traffic at the State Rout 86 and 66�h Avenue with some other associated improvements: The .following services will be provided, as necessary to complete the improvements: 1 Completion of Project development activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. Selection of a contractor, (advertising, bid opening and award). 4 Construction of improvements. RVPUBTKNOX\727979.1 Exhibit A 186 STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse County for Project Costs up to the Total Funding Amount, as set forth in Section 3.2 of the, Agreement. Arrive at appropriate funding for overall Project up to Total Funding Amount in conjunction with the County prior to award of construction contract by the County. COUNTY SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all construction activities including inspection, survey and material testing. Arrive at appropriate funding for overall Project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the County. Ensure that funding in excess of the Total Funding Amount is available, as may be necessary, to complete the Project, and provide such information and assurances to RCTC upon RCTC's request. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the County as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. RVPUBWKNOXt727979.1 Exhibit B 187 RVPUB\PKNOX\727979:1 STATE ROUTE 86 AT 66TH AVENUE (TRAFFIC SIGNAL) EXHIBIT "C PROJECT LOCATION MA.P [Attached behind this age Exhibit C 188 AGENDA ITEM 8Z • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager . Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Memorandum of Understanding for the Funding and Joint Development of State. Route 111 Improvements by County of Riverside at Pierce Street STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 07-31-159-00 for the funding reimbursement of state highway improvements by the county of Riverside to add a left turn lane on SR-111 at Pierce Street; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 9, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved $12 million for the Coachella Valley Measure A state highway program of projects and cash flow. As a result, nine projects were programmed for funding under the Measure A Tier II State Routes 86 and 111 projects. The county of Riverside as the lead agency for the project has submitted its request for funding of the seventh of the nine projects, which is for intersection improvements on SR-111 adding a left turn lane at the Pierce Street intersection. Staff recommends approval of the MOU with the county of Riverside, consistent with the approved list of Tier 'II SR-86 and SR-111 project improvements. Agenda Item 8Z 189 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $100,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Coachella Valley Highways Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 253 31 81301 P3417 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \l ,.14e Date: 6/5/2007 . Attachment: ; Memorandum of Understanding for County of Riverside 190 STATE ROUTE 111 AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) Agreement No. 07-31-159-00 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE ROUTE 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE ROUTE 111 AT PIERCE STREET INTERSECTION 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this day of , 2007, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ("COUNTY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1 /2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "Tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan provides twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00) for the construction of improvements along State Route 111 from Ramon Road to Indio Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "State Route 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to provide the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The County, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements along State Route 111 with the County. 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify for State Route 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to provide State Route 111 Funds for the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. RVPUB\PKNOX\727978.1 191 STATE ROUTE I I I AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to provide State Route 111 Funds for design, construction and other services for authorized portions of the State Route 111 improvements currently being planned on State Route 111 at Pierce Street within the County (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the County and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It isunderstood and agreed that the County shall expend State Route 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of "RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to provide to the County, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the maximum sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) for project development, right of way acquisition; and construction costs for the Project ("Total Funding Amount"). It is also understood and agreed that 1.00% of the proposed improvements will be installed within the existing State right-of-way. The Total Funding Amount represents one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated Total Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 below, and the maximum amount of funding to be provided by RCTC for the Project. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the County and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the County or RCTC may requested in writing by the County and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative; which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the County provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or Until June 30, 2009, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this :Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under; this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and.give approval, as needed, to the details of the County's work as it progresses. RVPUBWKNOX\727978.1. [ 22 STATE ROUTE 111 AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) • 3.6 The County's Representative. The County hereby designates Scott Staley, Engineering Division Manager or his designee as the County's Representative to RCTC. The County's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the County for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the County's responsibility. The County shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The County and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The . County and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and County's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination: 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or County may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the County, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with State Route 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination by RCTC Or the County, RCTC shall provide State Route 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date Of termination. The County shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the County of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The County and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The County or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The County shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation R VPUBIPKNOX1727978.1 193 STATE ROUTE 111 AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its record copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this . Agreement. 3.12. Indemnification. 3.12.1 County Responsibilities. The County agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the County or its sub -consultants. The County will reimburse RCTC for any expenditure, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately - determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the County. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County, its:officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and:all claims, demands, costs . or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities; due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willfulmisconductof RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the County for any expenditure, including . reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the County, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The County and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. One parry's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by: the other party or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons, or entities, performance. Further, the County shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the County's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the County, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to the County caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of;any services. provided to complete the Project. RVPUBTKNOXV727978.1 1$4 STATE ROUTE 111 AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) 3.13 Insurance. The County and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain; and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and County. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and County, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or County, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured :provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit`of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.14 Payment of Total Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Reimbursable Project Costs. Reimbursable Project costs ("Project Costs") include the following items: (1) funds expended in preparation of preliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) costs associated with right -of --way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the County, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the RVPUB\PKNOX\727978.1 1 95 STATE ROUTE I 1 l AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the County and RCTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by the County towards completion of the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Project Cost. Project Costs shall not include the following items .which shall be borne solely by the County without reimbursement: (1) County . Project. coordination costs; (2) County costs: attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (3) any County and/or RCTC fees attributed to the processing of the. Project. 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. [Not applicable.] 3.14.4 Payment. RCTC shall pay for Project Costs as they are incurred and invoiced for design work, right-of-way services and any other services:under its responsibilities, which payments shall serve as a credit towards the Total Funding Amounts The County shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under its responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced. Payment requirements for the County shall include backup documents for all charges requested for reimbursement. 314.5 SB 300 Reimbursements. [Not applicable.] 3.14.7 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform ;it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.8 Reimbursement for Expenses. The County shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and County. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the County or RCTC, during the term ofhis or her service with the County or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the County's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report; such condition or activity to the responsible parry or otherwise`make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of County or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by County for the Project or for the construction of the. Project. 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain. complete, accurate, and.clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees RVPUBTKNOX1727978.1 1 06 STATE ROUTE 111 AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) any and all ledgers and books .of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to the disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The County and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Riverside County Transportation Department 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502-1090 ATTN: Scott Staley, Engineering Division Manager RCTC Riverside County Transportation 4080 Lemon, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached RVPUMPKNOX1727978.1 197 STATE ROUTE 111 AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that .the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this. Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the Original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relatingto the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the County or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all timesibe under the exclusive direction and control. of the County or consultant, whichever is applicable. The County or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Project and as required by law. The County or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: . social security.taxes;income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. [Signatures on the Following Page] RVPUBWKNOX1727978.1 188 STATE ROUTE 1 I I AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) RIVERSIDE COUNTY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT By: By: Terry Henderson, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Best Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission RVPUB\PKNOX\727978.1 199 County Counsel STATE ROUTE 1 l 1 AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES STATE ROUTE in cr PIERCE STREET Project Description: The proposed turn lanes with associated. proposed improvement will be on State Route 111 at Pierce Street (Exhibit "C" - Project Location Map) in the unincorporated County of Riverside. Project Scope: This project is for preparation of environmental documentation, Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) and Construction of turn lanes on SR-111 at Pierce Street. Especially during the harvesting season, a number of local farmers and residents along Pierce Street south of SR 111 use the intersectionin addition to many other road users commuting between the desert communities (i.e., Thermal and Mecca) The Route 1.11 currently operates under heavy .delays during peak travel hours.Heavy traffic volumes and short intersection spacing create severe congestion in the morning and afternoon commute hours. Therefore, the project is to enhance the operations of the intersection by allowing the through traffic passing the intersection without queuing up behind those who making a left turn on Pierce Street. This project is also expected to reduce the number of accidents (i.e., rear -end and others) and improve the overall operation of the intersection. Most of the new pavement widening is within the existing dirt shoulder but requiressome additional earthwork and . grading to accommodate the needed widening. The following services will be provided, as necessary to complete the improvements: Completion of Project development activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards. and Project Development' Guidelines. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with State and Federal statues. 3. ' Selection of a Contractor- (Advertising, Bid Opening and Awarding) RVPUBI13KNOx\727978.1 Exhibit "A" 200 • • STATE ROUTE 111 AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse County for Project Costs up to the Total Funding Amount, as set forth in Section 3.2 of the Agreement. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall Project, up to the Total Funding Amount, in conjunction with County .prior to award of construction contract by the County. COUNTY SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way. acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all construction activities including inspection, survey and material testing. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall Project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the County. Ensure that funding in excess of the Total Funding Amount is available, as may be necessary, to complete the Project, and provide such information and assurances to RCTC upon RCTC's request. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the County as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. RVPUMPKNOX1727978.1 Exhibit "B" 201 RVPUBWKNOX\727978.1 STATE ROUTE 111 AT PIERCE STREET (INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT) EXHIBIT "C" PROJECT LOCATION MAP [Attached behind this page] Exhibit "C" 202 • EXHIBIT "C" PROJECT LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT "C" • • • • AGENDA ITEM 8A • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Execution of Collection Agreement on Behalf of Riverside Orange Corridor Authority Between Riverside . County Transportation Commission and USDA Forest Service, Cleveland National Forest for the Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-65-157-00, on behalf of Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA), between the Commission and USDA Forest Service, Cleveland National Forest and based on the attached- collection agreement for a total not to exceed amount of $ 163, 568; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or his designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2006, the Commission executed a cooperative agreement with the. Orange. County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/E TCA) to develop and manage geotechnical feasibility studies for a potential transportation and utility corridor linking Riverside and Orange Counties. The purpose of the agreement is to jointly exercise the common powers of its parties as the "ROCA". The Commission ischarged with administering the cooperative agreement and is responsible for the receipt and expenditure of federal and state funds to accomplish the geotechnical studies. This project was named in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) as a high priority project and received earmarks totaling $ 15.8 million to "study and construct highway alternatives between Orange and Riverside Counties, directed by the ROCA Agenda !tern 8AA 205 working with local government agencies, local transportation authorities, and guided by the current Major Investment Study." The first two years of available funding have been obligated totaling $5,426,502; the balance will be available over the next couple of years. 4n January 26, 2007, the Commission submitted a special use permit application to USDA forest Service, Cleveland National Forest (Forest Service) to conduct supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing services, and technical evaluations for the proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway. The Forest Service is responsible to ensure that adequate environmental studies, analysis,, and documentation are completed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 'before implementation of the supplemental geotechnical testing and evaluation. A collection agreement is needed to fund Forest Service staff, special use administration, _overhead, and consultant time required to review the proposal and application for :the project. The cost, as estimated by the Forest Service staff, is. $163,568. This estimate may be adjusted up or down depending on the accessibility and the existing natural environment at the five boring .locations. It is anticipated that the special use permit will be . issued by fall of 2007. The feasibility' study and finalreport will be completed approximately 12 months after receipt of the permit. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $163, 568 Source of Funds: SAFETEA-LU Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 106 65 81501 -P2310 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1 , +:4.,4 , Date: 6/5/2007 Attachment: Collection Agreement Agenda item 8AA 206 • • • Agreement No. 07-65-157-00 COLLECTION AGREEMENT Between USDA FOREST SERVICE, CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION This COLLECTION AGREEMENT is hereby entered into by and between the USDA Forest Service, Cleveland National Forest, hereinafter referred to as the "Forest Service", and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Cooperator under the provisions of the Cooperative Funds Act of June 30, 1914 (16 U.S.C. 498). A. PURPOSE: The Cooperator has submitted a proposal for a Special Use Authorization to conduct economic feasibility geo-technical and groundwater studies and monitoring activities on the Cleveland National Forest, Trabuco Ranger District, in the Counties of Orange and Riverside, California, hereinafter referred to as the "Project". The purpose of this COLLECTION. AGREEMENT is to fund Forest Service staff, special use administration, overhead, and consultant time required to review the proposal and application for the Project, perform and review National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation and associated environmental and technical studies and analyses, to administer any related Special Use Authorization(s), and to monitor the Project and review the resulting data. The Cooperator voluntarily contributes monies to fund personnel to perform the above listed activities. B. STATEMENT OF MUTUAL INTERESTS AND BENEFITS: The Forest Service is responsible to ensure that adequateenvironmental studies, analysis, and documentation are completed in accordance with NEPA, before irnplementation of the Project. Therefore, the Forest Service will complete or review all NEPA related studies and documentation. The Cooperator must meet the NEPA requirements, as they apply to the Project, prior to consideration for issuance of the Special Use Authorization(s). The Cooperator has critical timelines for completion of the Project and will, therefore, benefit from the Forest Service adjusting priorities, workloads, and personnel in an attempt to meet these timelines. The Cooperator will further benefit from the expertise of Forest Service administrators and specialists in adhering to regulation and policy pertaining to pursuit of the Special Use Authorization(s). The Forest Service will benefit by receiving funding to produce relevant documentation, studies and analysis, perform reviews, complete NEPA 207 Agreement No. 07-65-157-00 documentation, issue a decision, and if appropriate, issue and administer the Special Use Authorization(s) for the Project. C. FOREST SERVICE SHALL: Review the Cooperator's proposal for Special Use Authorization and initiate environmental analysis for the Project under NEPA Regulations::' The Forest Service administrative and specialists cost estimates are displayed in Exhibit A. Receive from Cooperator all documents, including, but not limited to field. survey documents, initial studies from contracted work on, plants., wildlife, archaeology, and public responses to the Project ('if applicable). Forest Service, specialists will review and, if adequate, 'approve applicable documents. Deposit all cash funds received under the terms of this Agreement to a Forest Service Cooperative Work Fund to be used for the purpose for which they were contributed, including related overhead expenses. 4. A Forest Service representative will attend Cooperator -scheduled public and committee meetings, as well as meetings with the consultant(s) for this project, when appropriate. 5 Issue- Bill of Collection : to the Cooperator immediately for $ 163,568 to complete analysis and administer and monitor the Project, after approval: The billing includes a 13 % burden rate. When significant changes ° in Project activities occur, the Forest Service shall revise its work program and related costs and submit to Cooperator for appropriate action as provided for in this agreement. Upon receipt of payment from the Cooperator, perform the mutually agreed -upon work as described in this COLLECTION AGREEMENT. - Deliver .to the Cooperator, within ninety daysafter the end of each fiscal year (September 30) a detailed accounting report documenting all cost charged to the Cooperator's contributions pursuant to this agreement. If the Cooperator :does not question, in writing, this accounting withir. ninety days of its delivery, it shall be deemed accepted and correct. 208 Agreement No. 07-65-157-00 • • • D. COOPERATOR: 1. Provide the Forest Service all relevant documents, which the Cooperator possesses or can obtain, and are necessary for analysis, review, and approval of the project. Provide meeting schedules where Forest Service presence is necessary. 2. Make voluntary advance payment of $163,568, as requested by the Forest Service to cover the cost of mutually agreed -upon work. The estimated amount of work to be accomplished under this agreement is described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. It also specifies the estimated cost of such work. Amounts shown in Exhibit A include Forest Service administration costs. E. iT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY ALL PARTIES THAT: 1. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER The Cooperator shall furnish their tax identification number upon execution of this instrument. 2. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA). Any information furnished to the Forest Service under this instrument is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). 3. MODIFICATION. Modifications within the scope of the instrument shall be made by mutual consent of the parties, by the issuance of a written modification, signed and dated by all parties, prior to any changes being performed. Any material modifications to this Collection Agreement shall, as applicable, be submitted to the Cooperator for approval. The Forest Service is not obligated to provide services for any changes not properly approved in advance. 4. ACCESS TO RECORDS. The Forest Service or Comptroller General, through any authorized representative, may have access to and . the right to examine all books, papers, or documents related to this instrument. 5. REFUNDS. Contributions authorized for use by the Forest Service, which are not spent or obligated for the project(s) approved under this instrument, will be refunded to the Cooperator or authorized for use for new projects by the Cooperator. The Forest Service shall provide documentation of actual expenses annually. 6. PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS. Improvements placed on National Forest System land at the direction of either of the parties, shall thereupon become property of the United States, and shall be subject to the same regulations and administration of the Forest Service as other National Forest improvements of a similar nature. No part of this instrument shall entitle the Cooperator to any share 209 Agreement No. 07-65-157-00 or interest in the project other than the right to use and enjoy the same under the existing regulations of the Forest Service. 7. LEGAL AUTHORITY. The. Cooperator has the legal authority to enter into this instrument, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay nonfederal share of project costs) to ensure proper planning, management, and completion of the project. 8 PARTICIPATION IN SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. This instrument in no way restricts the Forest Service or the Cooperator(s) from participating in: similar activities with other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals. 9. RESTRICTION FOR ,DELEGATES. Pursuant to Section 22,, Title 41 United States Code, no member of, or Delegate to, Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this instrument, or any benefits that may arise there from. 10. COMMENCEMENT/EXPIRATION DATE. This instrument is executed. as . of the date of last, signature and expires January 1, 2009. 11. TERMINATION. Any of the parties, in writing, may terminate the instrument in whole, or in part, upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other party:. No parties shall : incur any new obligations for the terminated portion of the instrument after the effective date and shall cancel as many obligations as possible. Full credit shall be allowed for Forest Service expenses and all non -cancelable obligations properly . incurred up to ,the effective date of termination. Excess funds shall be refunded within 60 days after the effective date of termination. 12. PRINCIPAL CONTACTS. The principal contacts for this instrument are: 210 • • • Agreement No. 07-65-157-00 Forest Service Project Contact Cooperator Project Contact Keith W. Fletcher Cathy Bechtel District Ranger Project Development Director Corona Ranger Station 1 147 E. Sixth Street 4080 Lemon Street Third Floor Post Office Box 12008 Corona, CA 92879 Riverside, CA 92502 Phone: (951) 736-181 1 Phone: (951) 787-7141 FAX: (951) 736-3002 FAX: (951) 787-7920 E-Mail: kwfletcher@fs.fed.us E-Mail: cbechtel@rctc.org Bonnie Harris, Grants and Agreements Coordinator bharris@fs.fed.us 626-574 5246 FAX 626 574 5363 13. ADVANCE BILLING. The Forest Service will bill the Cooperator prior to commencement of work for a deposit sufficient to cover all estimated costs (including overhead) for $163,568. Burden rate will be assessed at the rate of 13%. Billings shall be sent to: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, CA 92592 Attn: Accounts Payable If payment is not received to the satisfaction of the Forest Service by the date specified on the Form FS-6500-89, Bill for Collection, the Forest Service shall exercise its rights regarding the collection of debts owed the United States, including conditions specified in associated payment bonds guaranteeing such payments. 14. ENDORSEMENT. Any Cooperator contributions made under this instrument. do not by direct reference or implication convey Forest_ Service endorsement of the Cooperator's products or activities. 211 Agreement No. 07-65-157-00 Terry Henderson, Chair Date Riverside County Transportation Commission Forest. Supervisor Date Region 5, Cleveland National Forest APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Forest Service Use Job Code: 212. Agreement No. 07-65-157-00 • • • EXHIBIT A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ECONOMIC FEASABILITY GEOTECHNICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL STUDIES FOREST SERVICE COST ESTIMATE SPECIALIST Days COST PER DAY TOTAL Project Manager 80 $300 $ 24,000 Special Projects Manager 1 $351 $ 3,510 NEPA Specialist 10 $222 $ 2,220 Hydrologist / Soils 20 $558 $ 11,160 Wildlife Biologist 20 $280 $ 5,600 Botanist 20 $279 $ 5,580 Heritage Resources 20 $390 $ 7,800 Geotechnical Engineer 20 $386 $ 7,720 Geologist 20 $468 $ 9,360 Fire Mgmt. 20 $305 $ 6,100 Lands Specialist 20 $335 $ 6,700 Mileage 20, 00 0 $ 0.50 $ 10,000 Hot Shot Crew 10 $3,900 $ 39,000 crew transport 4,000 $1.50 $ 6,000 SUB -TOTAL $ 44,750 Burden 13 % $ 18,818 TOTAL $163, 568 Additional travel expenses may need to be added. 213 AGENDA ITEM 8B • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Agreements to David Evans & Associates, Project Design Consultants, and Psomas for On -Call Right -of -Way Engineering and Surveying Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 07-33-143-00 to David Evans & Associates, Agreement No. 07-33-145-00 to Project Design Consultants, and Agreement No. 07-33-144-00 to Psomas for on -call right-of-way engineering and surveying services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its May 10, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to release a request for proposals (RFP) for on -call right-of-way engineering and surveying services to support current Commission projects and future Measure A projects. Right-of-way engineering and surveying companies provide boundary maps, monumentation maps, survey control maps, records of survey, parcel or: appraisal maps, lot line adjustments, subdivision maps, legal descriptions and deeds. Calendar of. Events Distribution of RFP Proposals were delivered to Commission prior to 2 p.m. Evaluation Committee review of proposals Interview of short-listed firms Staff recommendation to Commission Agenda Item 8BB 214 March 6, 2007 April 12, 2007 April 18, 2007 May 07, 2007 June 13, 2007 Selection Process Staff received nine proposals and a selection panel was assembled, that consisted of representatives from the Commission, Caltrans and. Bechtel Engineering. The selection panel reviewed the proposals in accordance with the criteria stated in the RFP and the Commission procurement procedures. After review, the panel recommended five firms for interview. After interviews, the evaluation panel ranked the five firms, as follows: Top Ranked David Evans & Associates Second Project Design Consultants Third Psomas Fourth RBF Consulting Fifth Nuitt-Zollars Staff recommends that agreements be executed with the top, three firms, namely, David Evans & Associates, Project Design Consultants and P'somas Cost will be based on firm fixed price perassignment, and the germ of .each contract is three years with two one-year contract extension options to be exercised at the sole discretion of the Commission. Work will be awardedon a rotatingbasis and assigned in accordance with the firm's ranking. A budget of $300,000 for FY 2007/08 has been included' in next- 'fiscal year's proposed budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount:. $300,000 Source of Funds: CMAQ 530,000 Measure A $270,000 Budget Adjustment: No 221 33 81403 P3816 $90,000 GLA No.: 221 33 81403 P3800 $150,000 222 3,1, 81403 P3015 $60,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 6/5/2007 Agenda item 8BB 215 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Agreements to Epic Land Solutions, Real Estate Consulting & Services, and Overland Pacific & Cutler for On -Call Property Management Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 07-33-151-00 to Epic Land Solutions, Agreement No. 07-33-153-00 to Real Estate Consulting & Services, and Agreement No. 07-33-152-00 to Overland Pacific & Cutler for on -call property management services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 7, 2007 meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to release a request for proposals (RFP) for on -call right-of-way property management services for Commission's rail and highway projects. These services are required after developed properties are acquired and occupants are relocated. Services include securing the properties to prevent vandalism, perform asbestos and lead paint testing, mitigation and disposal, demolition of structures,and temporary lease management. Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP Proposals were delivered to Commission prior to 2 p.m. Evaluation Committee review of proposals Staff recommendation to Commission Agenda Item 8CC 216 March 01, 2007 March 20, 2007 April 18, 2007 June 13, 2007 Selection Process Staff received three proposals and a selection panel was assembled, that consisted of Commission staff. The selection panel reviewed the proposals based on qualifications of the firms, staffing and project organization, work plan, cost and price, and completeness of response. After review, the panel determined that all three firms submitted good quality proposals and ranked thefirms as follows: Top Ranked Epic Land Solutions Second Real Estate Consulting &'Services Third Overland Pacific. & Cutler Due to the amount of potential property management :services required to deliver, the -Perris Valley Line project, the State Route 79 realignment, the Mid County Parkway project, and other Measure A projects, staff recommends that agreements be executed with the three firms. Cost will be based on firm fixed price per assignment, 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 will be 'awarded on a rotating basis in accordance with the: firms ranking. A budget for $420,000 for . FY 2007/08 has been included in next fiscal : year's proposed budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes: Year.: FY 2007/08 Amount: $420,000 TUMF $60,000 Source of Funds: Measure A $345,000 Budget Adjustment: No CMAQ $15,000 221 33 81403 P3816 $30,000 2`21 33 81403 P3800 $300,000 GLA No.: 210 72 81403 P5127 $30,000 210 72/73 81403 P5123 $30,000 222 31 81403 P3015 $30,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved:\if Date: 6/5/2007 Agenda Item 8CC 217 • i! AGENDA ITEM 8DD • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: • Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement to Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, Leighton Consulting, Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical, Bureau Veritas NA, and Tetra Tech for On -Call Right -of -Way Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessment Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 07-31-146-00 to Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, Agreement No. 07-31-147-00 to Leighton Consulting, Agreement No. 07-31-148-00 to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical, Agreement No. 07-31-149-00 to Bureau Veritas NA, and Agreement No. 07-31-150-00 to Tetra Tech to perform on -call right-of-way Phase I and Phase II environmental assessment services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 10, 2007 meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to release a request for proposals (RFP) for on -call right-of-way Phase I and Phase II environmental assessment services to support current Commission projects and future Measure A highway and rail projects. Consultants will perform early testing of known or potentially contaminated sites to avoid or, at least, minimize costs and schedule delays to Commission projects. Site investigations will be conducted to a level necessary to develop an order -of -magnitude estimate of mitigation or clean-up costs. Agenda Item 8DD 218 Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP Proposals were delivered to Commission prior to 2 p.m. Evaluation Committee review of proposals Interview of short-listed firms Staff recommendation to Commission Selection Process March 1, 2007- April 06, 2007 , April 16, 2007. April 19, 2007 June 13, 2`007 The Commission received 14 proposals and a selection panel was assembled, that consisted of representatives from the Commission, Ca!trans and Bechtel Engineering. The selection panel reviewed the proposals in accordance `. with the criteria provided in the RFP and the Commission's procurement procedures. After review, the panel recommended five firms for interview. After interviews, the panel ranked the firms, as follows: Top Ranked Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates Second Leighton Consulting Third Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical Fourth Bureau Veritas NA Fifth Tetra Tech Due to the amount of potential environmental assessment work required to deliver the State Route 91 HOV, the Perris Valley Line, SR-79 Realignment, rthe Mid County Parkway projects, and other Commission projects, staff recommends that agreements be executed with all five firms. Cost will be based on firm fixed price per assignment, 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 will be awarded on a rotating basis and assigned in accordance with the firm's ranking. A budget of $378,000 for FY 2007/08 has . been included in .next fiscal year's proposedbudget. Agenda Item 8DD 219 • • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $378,000 Measure A - $225,750 Source of Funds: TUMF $52,500 Budget Adjustment: No CMAQ $99,750 221 33 81403 P3816 $21,000 221 33 81403 P3800 $105,000 GLA No.: 210 72 81403 P5127 $17,500 210 72/73 81403 P5123 $35,000 222 31 81403 P3015 $28,000 222 31 81403 P3005 $171,500 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 6/5/2007 Agenda Item 8DD 220 a AGENDA ITEM 8EE • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007. TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Property "Committee of the Whole" Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve a Memorandum of Understanding with Metropolitan Water District for the Construction of the Perris Valley Pipeline and the Provision of a Substitute Easement PROPERTY "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 07-33-155-00 with Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for the construction of the Perris Valley Pipeline in the San Jacinto Branch Line rail right-of-way and for provision of a substitute easement; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel (Adorno, Yoss, Alvarado, & Smith) review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On February 14, 2005, March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) entered into an agreement with the Commission to exchange properties associated with the realignment of 1-215. The property exchange has not yet been completed.. Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) and MWD have undertaken a public works project to construct a 96-inch diameter water transmission pipeline (hereinafter referred to as the "Perris Valley Pipeline") for the purpose of providing additional municipal water supply within the service areas of WMWD and MWD. A portion of the Perris Valley Pipeline project will be constructed on properties (hereinafter referred to as the "Property") that are involved in the open exchange between the Commission and March JPA. WMWD has commenced an . action to exercise its authority under the California Eminent Domain Law to acquire an easement to construct, operate and maintain the Perris Valley Pipeline across the March JPA property, including the Property. Agenda Item 8EE 221 After completion of the eminent domain action to acquire the easement, the easement will be assigned to MWD. MWD is solely responsible for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Perris Valley Pipeline within the easement, and will execute a public works contract for construction of the same. The MOU would allow the Perris Valley Pipeline to be installed and constructed by MWD, at MVVD's sole cost. Any construction, method that will interfere with rail traffic shall be approved by the Commission in advance. The MOU provides that within 30-days of MWD's receipt of the assignment of the Easement from WMWD, MWD will execute the "Easement Agreement with Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiafor 96-Inch Water Transmission Pipeline" (the "Substitute Easement") The Substitute Easement grants a non-exclusive easement from the Commission to MWD for the purpose of locating, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, operating, inspecting and repairing the Pipeline. MWD will use the easement and . Perris Valley Pipeline solely for the transmission of water. The Commission retains the right of use to the surface area of the easement for railroad uses. In drafting the MOU, the Commission retained the services of Adorno, Yoss, Alvarado, & Smith because Best, Best, and Krieger also represents the WMWD. It is currently expected that construction of the pipeline will be completed in July . 2008. Agenda Item 8EE 222 • AGENDA ITEM 9 �I i� • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Countywide (Coachella Valley Association of Governments/Riverside County Transportation Commission) Alameda Corridor East Grade Separation Preliminary Engineering Grants for the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize the development of a countywide (CVAG/RCTC) $20 million grants for Alameda Corridor. East (ACE) grade separation preliminary engineering projects to support submittal of applications for Proposition 1 B Trade Corridor improvement Fund (TCIF) funding in 2008. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its April 2007 meeting, the Commission adopted the Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects (Blueprint) that identifies 18 high priority ACE grade separation projects that total $561 million. The Blueprint recognizes the various federal, state and local funding sources available for grade separation projects. One of the new state funding sources identified in the Blueprint is from Proposition 1 B: TCIF. TCIF Funding: $2 Billion .Statewide In November 2006, voters passed Proposition 1 B, a $19.95 billion transportation bond initiative. Proposition 1 B authorizes $2 billion to the TCIF.- "Projects that separate rail lines from highway or local road traffic are eligible for TC1F funding. The TCIF guidelines must be approved by the state legislature. Following this adoption, the fund will be allocated by the California Transportation Commission along federally designated "trade corridors of national significance" and other corridors with high volumes of freight movement. Agenda item 9 223 In December 2006, the state Business, Transportation and Housing Agency prepared: a Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) that recommends -$ 158 million of TCIF. for construction of grade separation projects in Riverside County. Since TCIF contemplates a 1:1 match this would require $316 million in construction related grade separation projects. Current Grade Separation Project. Development in Riverside County A review of the status of ACE grade separation projects in, consultation with .the lead agencies reveals that there is about $240 million in construction under project development, which is $76 million short of the $316 million target based on the state: GMAP recommendation: CROSSING Blueprint. Priority Group Columbia Ave LEAD AGENCY A. Riverside PROJECT ,. COSTS (MILLIONS) $26.0 STATUS Final Design FULLY FUNDED? No - Needs $5 M Sunset Ave Banning $36.0 PA & Env Doc No - Needs $15 M Ave 48/Dillon Rd ^ Coachella/Indio $16.1 ` Final Design Yes - Jurupa Ave Riverside $21.7 Construction Yes Subtotal Priority A (4 projects) $84.8 Blueprint Priority Group B Magnolia Avenue - County $26.7 Prelim Engineering No 3`a Street Riverside $31.7 Prelim Engineering . No McKinley Street Corona $80.0 Prelim Engineering No Magnolia. Avenue Riverside $50.0 Final Design. No Iowa. Avenue <: Riverside $30.0 Conceptual Desigrs No Auto Center Drive Corona . $23.0 PA & Env Doc No Clay Street County $25.0 PA & Env: Doc No Streeter Avenue Riverside $33.7 Conceptual Design No Subtotal Priority B (8 projects) $300. 1 Totals (12 Projects) $384.9 TCIF Potential Construction for Priority Group B $240.08 80% of Total Priority B "Project Costs TCIF State GMAP Target $316.0 $158 million . with 1:1" Match Requirement - Shortfall ($75.92) Riverside County Pipeline Development - In anticipation; of the first round of TCIF allocation,. it is 'best that Riverside County be a strong competitor.. With an anticipated shortfall of $76 rniliion and the lead agencies expression of capacity to develop additional projects, CVAG : and Commission staff have identified funding sources (eastern and western) that could' be used to uniquely strengthen the application for the first round through providing seed money to help advance projects into the pipeline for development. Agenda Item 9: 224 • • • • Specifically, the following projects have been identified by the cities and CVAG for either conceptual design or preliminary engineering funding: CROSSING Blueprint Priority B LEAD AGENCY PROJECT COSTS (MILLIONS) STATUS RCTC TIER Center Street County $36:3 - 2 Streeter Avenue Riverside $33.7 Conceptual Design 2 lowa Avenue Riverside $30.0 Conceptual Design 2 McKinley Street Corona $23.0 Blueprint Priority C PA & Env Doc 2 Jurupa Road County $26.5 - 1 Riverside Avenue Riverside - $27.0 Other ACE. Crossings - 1 Bellegrave Avenue County $25.0 - 3 . Avenue 52 Coachella $20.0 - 3 Avenue 62 County $20.0 - 3 Avenue 66 County $20.0 - 3 This could add five more grade separation projects into the project development pipeline, thereby increasing the total projects under development from 12 to 17. The total construction project TCIF potential would increase from $240 million to $337 million (this does not include the additional $5 million and $15 million needed for Columbia Avenue and Sunset Avenue). Preliminary Grant Criteria In concert with CVAG's current Interchange Preparation Fund (IPF), the grant criteria would provide up to $1.5 million per ACE grade separation project (ranked in the top 3 tiers of the Commission's priority list) and require a 25 % local match. Up to $ 10 million is available in the CVAG IPF and staff proposes up to $10 million available for the Commissionrail funding. This would provide adequate seed funding to get the projects listed above started or advanced through preliminary engineering. CVAG will administer the grant for the Coachella Valley while the Commission will administer the grant for Western Riverside County. The Commission's current agreement with Burlington .Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) requires a portion of the 5/10% railroad contribution for grade separation projects to be funded by the Metrolink member agencies where Metrolink currently operates based on the ratio of Metrolink trains to freight trains. While this ratio is very small, it does provide a limited opportunity to access Transportation Development Act commuter rail funds for this purpose. Agenda Item 9 225 The funding sources identified for Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County are not eligible in the Pass Area. However, it is anticipated that Sunset Avenue and 22nd Avenue grade separation projects in Banning will be submitted for TCIF funding. The Commission has already approved $7.5 million in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy. for .Users (SAFETEA-LU}_and authorized additional commercial paper financing to the city of Banning for the Sunset Avenue project. 1n addition, $10 million of SAFETEA=LU funds still remains available to any jurisdiction in Riverside County that develops a "shelf -ready" project (i.e. environmental document approved and final design completed).:: Next Steps Contingent upon approval by the. CVAG board, staff will continue to workwith CVAG to refine the grant criteria and report back next month to the Commission the recommended award for approval. Attachments: 1) Grade Separation Funding Strategy Blueprint List 2) RCTC.ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need List' 226 • ATTACHMENT 1 • • • Riverside County Transportation Co mission GRADE SEPARATION FUNDING STRATEGY BLUEPRINT LIST CROSSING Priority .Group A LEAD AGENCY RCTC PRIORITY TIER Columbia Avenue/BNSF & UP Riverside 1 Sunset Avenue/UP Banning 1 Avenue 48/Dillon Road/UP Coachella/Indio 2 Jurupa Avenue/UP Riverside 2 Priority Group B Chicago Avenue/BNSF & UP Riverside 1 Magnolia Avenue/BNSF County 1 3' Street/BNSF & UP Riverside 1 McKinley Street/BNSF Corona 1 Magnolia Avenue/UP Riverside 1 Iowa Avenue/BNSF & UP Riverside 1 Adams Street/BNSF Riverside 1 Auto Center Drive/BNSF Corona 2 Clay Street/UP County 2 Center Street/BNSF & UP County 2 Streeter Avenue/UP Riverside 2 Madison Street/BNSF Riverside 2 Priority. Group. C Jurupa Road/UP County 1 Riverside Avenue/UP Riverside 1 Agenda Item 9 227 RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need List, Aarit 2006 Rail Line Cross Street Jurisdiction Overall Weighted Score' Priority Group UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County 4412 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside 4330 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside County 4250 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 4010 1 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 3950 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av (BNSF) Riverside 3950 1 UP (LA SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside 3880 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning 3800 1 UP (LA SUB) Riverside Av Riverside 3785 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av (BNSF) Riverside 3770 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 3665 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 3638 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 3625 2 . UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County 3535 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 3263 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 3110 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 3100 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 3100 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/Dillon Road Indio/Coachella 3075 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside County 3008 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Banning 3000 2 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 2965 2 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Ave Riverside 2925 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Palmyrita Av (UP) Riverside 2835 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St (BNSF) Riverside 2695 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 2690 2 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2650 2 BNSF (SB SUB) . Mary St Riverside 2640 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 2590 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 62 Riverside County 2544 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 2475 3 UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd Riverside 2465 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 2400 3 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Riverside County 2348 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 Riverside County 2265 3 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 2265 3 UP (.YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 Coachella 2258 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av Beaumont 2200 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 2100 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2080 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Apache Trail Riverside County 2052 4 UP (LA SUB) Rutile St Riverside County 2046 4 BNSF (SB SUB). Jefferson St Riverside 2030 4 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 2025 4 UP (YUMA MAiN) Viele Av Beaumont 1983 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Cota St Corona 1938 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside County 1904 4 UP (LA SUB) Mountain View Av Riverside 1650 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Drive Riverside County 1592 4 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside County 1531 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 1330 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 1267 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 1250 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1120 4 i UP (YUMA MAIN) Tipton Rd Palm Sprites 1100 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Radio Rd Corona 1075 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Jane St Riverside 1060 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 Coachella 767 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 58 Riverside County 688 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St Corona 663 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Riverside 520 5 228 * Seven factors were considered in determining the overall score and resulting priority group; they were identified in consultation with technical staff of the affected jurisdictions, and approved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The factors include: • Safety — Accident Score (combination of frequency & severity) 20% of total score • Delay — 2005 Daily Vehicle Delay 20% of total score • Delay — 2030 Daily Vehicle Delay 20% of total score • Emissions Reduction 10°/0.of total score • Noise Reduction 10% of total score • Adjacent Grade Separations; and 10% of total score • Local Priority Ranking 10% of total score RCTC establisheda Priority List in March 2001. The List was updated in April 2006. Between March 2001 and April 2006, one grade: separation project was completed: Avenue 50, Coachella in January 2004. 229 • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • ij ri! 11 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commission's Triennial Performance Audit: Fiscal Years 2003/04 through 2005/06 AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to review and approve the FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 Triennial Performance Audit for the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with Public Utilities Code 99246, the Commission is required to designate an entity other than itself to conduct a performance audit of its activities and the activities of each transit operator to whom Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are allocated. The audits are required to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the Commission and the public transit operators. The audits must be conducted in accordance with the guidelines set by the State Comptroller General's Office. The audits are required every three years and the Commission's triennial audit must be completed and submitted to Ca[trans by June 30, 2007. At its December 13, 2006 Commission meeting, approval was given to hire Pacific Municipal Consultants' (PMC) to conduct the. Triennial Performance Audits'. The audits .covered FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 and included the seven public transit operators consisting of the city of Banning, city of Beaumont, city of Corona, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, city of Riverside Special Services, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine. Transit Agency. Results of the transit operators' audits were presented to the Transit Policy Committee at its May 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission's Commuter Rail audit is part of SCRRA's Triennial Performance Audit review. Agenda Item 10 230 The following highlights the Commission's performance audit: 1 } The Commission conducts its management of the TDA program in a competent, professional manner while operating in a complex intergovernmental environment; 2} The Commission has satisfactorily complied with all state legislative mandates for regional transportation planning_ agencies; 3) During the audit period, the Commission formally adopted policies that clarify the eligibility and use of TDA funds; 4} Commission staff has been, responsive in providing technical assistance to the operators and in transit planning efforts, including improving upon the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) that identifies transit performance standards to measure .transit operator , efficiency and effectiveness; 5) All eight recommendations made in the prior performance audit .have been implemented; 6} The Commission established the TPC to provide policy direction and guidance for significant activities such as development of a :transit Vision for Riverside County and to provide a forum for addressing a variety- of transit policy issues at the regional level; 7} As a result of the renewal of Measure A, the Commission has been organizing itself through creation of new positions toward serving more as an implementation agency; 8) Planned organizational changes and additions of senior level staff in the last few years have ensured that strong long-term leadership can be found from within the ranks; and 9) As the .Commission continues to grow, the agency has been working to strengthen internal processes and internal controls to enhance the management of the complex agency and delivery of _ projects. Agenda item 10 231 • • • The following recommendations were made as a result of the FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 Triennial Performance Audit of the Commission: 1) The Commission should continue its efforts with the operators to develop regional transit policy goals that link to a countywide transit vision; 2) Consideration should be given to revising the discretionary performance targets in the PIP to set a target range based on decreased productivity. Currently, the discretionary targets are based on a plus or minus 15 % variance. The recommendation is that the. Commission should consider removing the target on the side of increased productivity but maintain the target for decreased productivity. 3) Require transit operators that provide both general public service and exclusive service for elderly and disabled to complete separate State Controller reports for the respective services; 4) Develop step-by-step desk procedures that document "how to" administer or implement a program; and 5) Continue efforts to integrate the different computer programs, databases and financial modules utilized by Commission staff. In addition, the Commission requested audit staff to review exclusions from farebox calculations as well as a review of "best practices" related to managing capital projects. PMC consultant staff, Derek Wong, will present the results and findings of the Commission's Triennial Performance Audit at the Commission meeting. Attachment: Triennial Performance Audit Report Agenda Item 10 232 • • • FY 2004-2006 TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SUBMITTED TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SUBMITTED BY PMC May 14, 2007 1:1 C • TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary i Section I 1 Introduction - Initial Review of RTPA Functions 1 Audit Methodology 6 Section II 7 Operator Compliance Requirements 7 Section III 15 Prior Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations 15 Section IV 19 Detailed Review of RTPA Functions 19 Administration, Management and Coordination 19 Transportation Planning and Programming 24 TDA Claimant Relationships and Oversight 32 Public Information and External Affairs 35 Section V 37 Special Analysis 37 Section VI 47 Findings 47 Triennial Audit Recommendations 48 234 • Executive Summary PMC was retained by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to conduct its Transportation Development Act (TDA) performance audit for Fiscal Years (FY) 2003-04 through 2005-06. As a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), RCTC is required by Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 99246 and 99248 to prepare and submit an audit of its performance on a triennial basis to the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to continue to receive TDA funding. TDA funds are used for RCTC administration and planning, and distributed to local jurisdictions for motorized and non -motorized forms of transportation. This performance audit is intended to describe how well RCTC is meeting its administrative and planning obligations under TDA, as well as its organizational management and efficiency. To gather information for the TDA performance audit, PMC conducted interviews with agency staff and the transit operators within RCTC's jurisdiction, reviewed various documents, and 'evaluated RCTC's responsibilities, functions, and performance of the TDA guidelines and regulations. Below are findings from the analysis: RCTC conducts its management of the TDA program in a . competent, professional manner while operating in a complex intergovernmental environment. 2. RCTC has satisfactorily complied with all State legislative mandates for Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. 3. During the audit period, RCTC formally adopted policies that clarify the eligibility and use of TDA. One policy described what revenues can augment farebox revenues in the calculation of the farebox recovery ratio. Another policy established a reserve fund to ensure adequate funding of transit services. 4. Staff has been responsive in providing technical assistance to the operators and in transit planning efforts, including improving upon the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) that identifies transit performance standards by which the transit operators are measured for efficiency and effectiveness. 5. RCTC has responded to and implemented each of the eight prior performance audit recommendations. 6. The new Transit Policy Committee (TPC) was established during the audit period in response to a prior audit recommendation. The initial activities of Triennial Performance Audit RCTC 235 PMC the TPC included review of transit performance. The TPC has since been working to provide policy direction and guidance for significant activities such as development of a transit vision for Riverside County, and to provide a forum for addressing a variety of transit policy issues at the regional level. 7. In light of the extension of Measure A for another 30 years and the limited capacity of . Ca!trans and partner agencies to deliver projects, RCTC has been organizing itself through creation of new positions toward -serving more as an implementation agency. 8. Planned organizational changes and additions of senior level staff in the last few years have ensured that strong long-term leadership can be found from within the ranks. 9. As RCTC continuesto grow, the agency has been working to strengthen internal processes and internal controls to enhance the management of .the complex agency and delivery of projects. 10. In its continued 'commitment to ensure fairness among all transit operators, the agency requested a special review of cost exclusions from the farebox ratio in this audit. A separate review was also requested for capital grants management. The finding from the review of cost exclusion is that the TDA statute does not include provisions to exclude, from operating expenses, capital -related expenses below capitalization thresholds which. are funded by capital. grant . funds. The agencies that excluded such costs from the farebox ratio in the audit period were RTA and PVVTA. PVVTA would have fallen below its TDA minimum farebox of 10 percent in each year if these costs were not excluded. Five recommendations are provided to improve .RCTC's administration and management of TDA : and its. .organization. Recommendations for the special analysis of capital grants management are listed separately. Each recommendation isdescribed in detail in the last chapter of this audit, and is summarized below: Performance Audit Recommendations: 1. Continue efforts with the operators to develop regional transit policy goals that link to a countywide transit vision. 2. Consider revising six of the performance targets in the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) to set a target range only for the side of decreased productivity: 3. Requiretransit operators that provide both general public service and exclusive service for elderly and disabled to complete separate State Controller reports forthe respective services. Triennial Performance Audit ROTC ii 236 • • 4. Develop step-by-step desk procedures that document "how to" administer or implement a program. S. Continue efforts to integrate the different RCTC computer programs, databases and financial modules. Capital Grant Management Recommendations: There are potential incremental steps that RCTC might consider that could enhance its monitoring of grants and communication with the transit operators. Greater detail about each recommendation is contained in Section V. Work with the transit operators to distinguish between shorter term grant projects and longer term grant projects, and track them based on these differences. 2. On an annual basis, request from the operators which specific grant projects will be procured in the coming fiscal year, and which specific open federal grants can be used in part or in whole to fund them. 3. Consider establishing Commission policy to encourage first in/first out (FIFO) grant drawdown. 4. Revise Commission policy on disbursement of funds for capital projects based on providing evidence of procurement. Triennial Performance Audit RCTC 237 P Section I Introduction - Initial Review of RTPA Functions The Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) has retained the firm of PMC to conduct its Transportation Development Act (TDA) ,performance audit covering the most recent triennial period, Fiscal Years (FY) 2003-04 through. 2005- 06. As a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), RCTC 'is required by Public Uti►ities Code (PUC) Sections 99246 and 9.9248 to prepare and submit an audit of its performance on a triennial basis to the California Department of Transportation (Ca'trans) in order to continue to receive TDA funding. This performance audit, as required by TDA, is intended to describe how well RCTC is meeting its administrative and planning obligations under TDA. Overview of RCTC RCTC was established by state legislative statute .(AB 1276, Chapter 1333) in September 1976. The Commission was initially governed by a board of seven Commissioners representing the interests of communities within Riverside County. Today, RCTC's membership has expanded to 30 Commissioners, which is comprised" of an elected official from each of the county's 24 incorporated cities, all five county supervisors and a non -voting ex-officio member from Ca'trans, District 8 appointed by the Governor. The member jurisdictions include the following entities: County of Riverside City of Desert Hot. Springs City of Palm Desert City of Banning City of Hemet City of Palm Springs- City of Beaumont City of Indian Wells City of Perris City of Blythe City of Indio City of Rancho Mirage City of Calimesa City of Lake Elsinore . City of Riverside .. City of Canyon Lake City of La Quinta City of San Jacinto City of Cathedral ' City City of Moreno Valley City of Temecula City of Coachella City of Murrieta ! City of Corona City of Norco Riverside County is geographically located in Southern California, stretching nearly 200 'miles across. The County is bordered by San Bernardino County on. the . north, Orange County on the west, San Diego and Imperial Counties on the south, and the Colorado River on the east. Riverside County was created in 1893 from parts of San Bernardino and San Diego Counties. The county derives its Triennial Performance Audit 1 RCTC 238 PC • • • name from the City of Riverside, christened when the upper canal of the Santa Ana River reached it in 1871. The county's geography encompasses over 7,300 square miles and is traversed by 886 miles of highways and 2,600 miles of County - maintained roadways. Population growth has seen a marked increase in recent years. Based upon the 2000 U.S. Census, the county's population was 1.5 million. The 2006 California Department of Finance (DOF) estimate reports a countywide population of 2.0 million, the fifth largest in the state. The most populous cities within the County include Riverside (255,093), Moreno Valley (142,54.8), Corona (124,935), Hemet (58,770), and Temecula (57,425). According to the DOF, between July 2005 and 2006, Riverside County ranked the highest in population growth, increasing 4.1 percent. In terms of numerical growth, Riverside County added nearly 80,000 persons during that period, ranking highest in that category. Against this backdrop of rapid population growth, Riverside County's economy has become increasingly diverse and robust. This is attributed to the economy's tremendous construction and industrial capacity. The Interstate 15 (1-15) and 215 (1-215) corridors have become major development areas for employment centers. The University of California, Riverside campus (UCR) has seen growth in its student body population and facilities. This has stimulated higher end office employment growth in the region. As a result of these trends, there has been a slight shift in the jobs -housing balance towards greater local job creation. The current economic and population trends have created the need to plan and implement a myriad of transportation projects encompassing all modes including toll roads, commuter rail and enhanced bus transportation. RCTC has committed itself to be an effective facilitator of mobility throughout the county. Role of RCTC When RCTC was established by the State Legislature in 1976 as part of a reform of transportation -planning and programming throughout Southern California, its mission was to plan and program transportation improvements for Riverside County. To this end, RCTC was designated a regional transportation planning agency (RTPA) for state transportation planning and programming purposes. Specifically, the agency was assigned responsibility for short-range transportation planning, the allocation of federal, state and local funds for highway, mass transportation, rail, non -motorized travel and other transportation programs. Among the programs RCTC is responsible for administering is the Transportation Development Act. Over time, both local and state mandates have expanded the scope of RCTC's responsibilities. The most notable expansion of authority was the enactment by the county's electorate in 1989 of Measure A, a 20-year, local one-half percent sales tax dedicated to transportation. This measure was reauthorized in 2002 for a 30-year period commencing in 2009 and ending in 2039. Both measures received. Triennial Performance Audit . 2 RCTC 239 ._ G approval by over two-thirds of the electorate. The revenue generated by the sales tax allows RCTC to exercise strong leadership in the arena of identifying and funding transportation projects. State legislation also expanded RCTC's responsibilities in. several ways: First; the agency was assigned the responsibility for being the county's congestion management: agency. Second, it assumed responsibility for allocating and programming federal funding from the Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air . Quality (CMAQ) Funds and Transportation Enhancement Funds. _ Third, the agency programs 7.5 percent: of . the State. highway funds committed to the county and intended for capital improvements to the county's roadway system. In addition, in collaboration with Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, RCTC is a founding partner of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), the region's Metrolink commuter .rail service provider. Four members from RCTC's governing board (including two alternates) serve, on SCRRA's governing board. In another partnership with the Sane Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG), RCTC provides a carpooling matching service. In another partnership with SANBAG, RCTC manages its Commuter Assistance Program providing a seamless service to all ;of the Inland Empire. RCTC also operates and maintains the http://www.comrnutesmart.info website (a onestopshop for commuters) and its ridematching functionality_ on behalf of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino . and Ventura counties. Drawing upon Measure A revenues, RCTC oversees a program to provide services to. seniors and .disabled persons in the county. In western Riverside County, 2.5 percent of the funds are used for this purpose; and in the; Coachella Valley between five and ten . percent of its share of Measure A funds is committed to these services. An important feature of RCTC is that it operates in a complex intergovernmental environment, which requires ongoing communications and coordination with agencies at the local, regional, state and federal levels of government. This means; for example, that its transportation plan and RTIP must be -coordinated with the regional transportation planning and programming process managed.. by the Southern: California Association of Governments (SLAG), the metropolitan planning organization MPO for Riverside Count It must also coordinate its P g g (. .) Y• highway development programs with the San Bernardino Associated Governments :(SANBAG), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and Caltrans. RCTC interacts regularly with county government, the cities in the county and the county's transit operators to ensurecoordination between RCTC policies and programs and the member agencies' programs and services. Triennial Performance Audit 3 RCTC 240 lC Organizational Structure As noted above, RCTC's governing body is composed of 29 voting members and one non -voting member, currently Caftans' District 8 Director, who represents the governor. The RCTC Board meets on the second Wednesday of every month. The Board also has five committees to assist in providing policy recommendations in its decision -making process. Each Board member serves at least on one committee. The committees consist of the following: Committee Purpose and Function Executive Committee The Executive Committee reviews and makes final decisions on personnel issues and office operational matters. The committee is composed of the Chair, Vice Chair, Second Vice Chair, Past Chair, two members representing Western Riverside County cities, a member representing the Coachella and Palo Verde Valley areas, and three members of the Board of Supervisors. The Executive Committee meets on the second Wednesday of every month. Budget and Implementation Committee Fourteen Commissioners review an array of issues, including budget development and oversight, the countywide strategic plan, legislation, Measure A implementation and capital programs, public outreach and communications activities, competitive grant programs, property management, motorist assistance programs, and the TUMF program. Plans and Programs Committee , Fourteen Commissioners review an array of issues, including the state transportation improvement program (STIP), the regional transportation improvement programs (RTIP), new corridors, infermodal programs, air quality and clean fuels, regional planning, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), the congestion management program, as well as the transit, rail and rideshare programs. Property Committee Composed of up to nine Commissioners, which oversees acquisition, management and disposition of the Commission's property matters and any other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. The Property Committee meets on as needed basis. Transit Policy Committee t ' • Composed of up to eleven Commissioners, which shall provide policy direction to the preparation of the transit vision; monitor transit implementation; review the performance of operators; and bring regional perspective to transit. The Transit Policy Committee meets on the third Thursday of the month at 10:00 a.m. on a quarterly basis. Triennial Performance Audit RCTC 4 241 M C: There are two ad hoc committees that meet on an as needed basis: the Audit Ad Hoc Committee and the San Jacinto Branch Line Ad Hoc Committee. Prior to hearing by the full Commission, business items related to RCTC's transportation programs are reviewed by two of its committees: Plans and Programs Committee and the Budget and Implementation Committee. Committee members are allowed opportunities to examine the items in detail prior to making recommendations to the full Commission. This provides a formal process .for staff to communicate its analyses of policies, programs and projects with its board members. The two committees and the monthly Commission meetings enable Commissioners to make informed public policy decisions. Documentation provided by RCTC shows that during the audit period, RCTC has provided detailed staff reports on a regular basis to its committees. Commissioners also participate on a number of regional and' intergovernmental committees, including the. SCRRA, the High Speed Rail Ad Hoc Task Force, the SR-. 91 Advisory Committee, the Regional Transportation Agencies Consortium, the SCAG :Regional Council and Transportation and Communications Committee, and the Mobile Source Review Committee. In addition to the committees on which the Commissioners serve, RCTC has created a nine -member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), which meets quarterly and is comprised of citizen members appointed by the Commission. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) is comprised of city and county public works directors or city managers who meet on the third Monday of every month to review technical issues associated with RCTC's program of activities. It also includes the, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), SunLine and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). RCTC's total .actual annual revenue for the fiscal years covered by this audit ranged from $198.4 million in 'FY 2004 to :40:41 ; � :ifeelladOli inFY 2006, a 24 percent increase. The revenues include RCTC's management of a large capital outlay program, which can fluctuate from year-to-year. In addition, the revenues include, a 'substantial amount of Measure A revenue that flows. through RCTC to its member agencies. RCTC's total actual annual :expenditures during the audit period ranged from $154.6 million in FY 2004 tot 0��) in FY 2006,; a . percent increase. This increase was due in part to a substantial increase in the `Capital Highway, Rail and the FY 2005-09 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Programs. Durin • this period, salaries and benefits ranged from 2.6 million in FY wit-, n ! �� g $ 2004 to ������� �� tam- �����.;�_ :1 in FY 2046, a. a.emu ,.,�.. _. •. _ , percent increase.- It is important to recognize, however, that RCTC has increased its staffing levels in the past several .years to manage its growing Triennial `Performance Audit RCTC 5 242 • • programs. The cost of salaries and benefits amounts to just 1.5 percent of the agency's total cost. Audit Methodology To gather information for this performance audit, PMC accomplished the following activities: • Document Review: PMC conducted an extensive review of documents including various RCTC files and internal reports, committee agendas and public documents. • Interviews: PMC interviewed key RCTC staff as well as the transit operators under RCTC's jurisdiction. • Analysis: PMC evaluated the responses from the interviews as well as the documents reviewed about RCTC's responsibilities, functions and performance to TDA guidelines and regulations. Additional research was conducted in audit areas that required further analysis. • Special Analysis: Conducted special analysis on transit capital grant programs and management at the request of RCTC. The remainder of this report is divided into five chapters. In Chapter II, PMC provides a review of the compliance requirements of the TDA administrative process. Chapter III describes RCTC's responses to the recommendations provided in the previous performance audit. In Chapter IV, PMC provides a detailed review of RCTC's functions, while Chapter V details the findings from the special analysis on transit capital grants. The last section summarizes our findings and recommendations. Triennial Performance Audit 6 RCTC 243 PMC Section II RTPA Compliance Requirements Fourteen_:key compliance requirements are suggested in the "Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Entities" which was developed by Ca!trans to assess the RCTC's conformance with TDA. Our findings concerning RCTC's compliance with State legislative requirements are summarized in Table II-1 TABLE ll-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix l RCTC Compliance Requirements;_ Reference Compliance Efforts ; All transportation operators and city or county governments which have responsibility for serving a given area, in total, claim no more than those Local Transportation Fund (LTF) monies apportioned to that area. 1 l Public . Utilities Code, Section 99231 RCTC accounts for its claimants' :areas of apportionment and has not. l allowed those claimants to claim more than what is apportioned for their area. RCTC makes this finding in each adopted. resolution approving LTF claims. However, RCTC has expressed concern in reports to the TPC that requests for operating and capital allocations are exceeding available projected revenue due to past fund surpluses. .In response, RCTC adopted o reserve 'LTF policy and funding disbursement policy in January 2005. _. RCTC allocates LTF based on population to determine each claimant's apportionments, ! according to law. Mid -year projections of LTF provide updated apportionment data to the claimants: Conclusion: Complied. The RTPA has adopted rules and regulations delineating procedures for the submission of claims for facilities provided for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles. Public Utilities Code, Sections 99233.3 and 99234 (continued on next page) RCTC . has an: adopted set of policies governing the Article 3 (SB 821 ). Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. Initial policies were adopted in December 1986 with additional policies enacted Triennial Performance Audit RCTC 7 244 rt. TABLE Il-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix, continued RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts over time, the latest adopted in March 2003. An evaluation committee comprised of Citizen Advisory and Technical Advisory Committee members annually evaluate proposed projects according to seven evaluation criteria. An average weighted score is given to each project to determine. funding priorities. Conclusion: Complied. The RTPA has established a social_ services transportation advisory council. The RTPA must ensure that there is a citizen participation process which includes at least an annual public hearing. Public Utilities Code, Sections 99238 and 99238.5 RCTC has established a ' Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) required under PUC 99238.5. The CAC also serves as the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council required under . PUC ' 99238. Bylaws of the CAC/SSTAC were enacted in May 2001. Members are appointed to one, two, or three year staggered terms. There are eleven members on the CAC and collectively are consistent with the membership required for a SSTAC under PUC 99238. Vacancies occurring on the SSTAC are filled following advertisement of the vacancies to solicit appropriate membership. The SSTAC participates on a number of issues, including the annual unmet transit needs hearings in Palo Verde Valley, and coordination and consolidation of specialized transportation . services. The committee meets at least three times a year in February, May and August. Conclusion: Complied Triennial Performance Audit 8 RCTC 245 PNIC TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix, continued RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The RTPA has annually identified, analyzed and recommended potential productivity improvements which could lower the , operating costs of those , operators which operate at least 50 percent of their t vehicle service miles within the , RTPA's jurisdiction. Recommendations include, but are not .limited to, those made in the performance audit: • A committee for the purpose providing advice on productivity improvements may be formed. • The operator has made a reasonable effort to implement improvements recommended by the RTPA, as determined by the RTPA, or else the operator has not received an allocation which exceeds its prior year allocation. Public Utilities Code, Section 99244 The creation of the Transit Policy Committee in May 2004 provides the forum to annually identify, analyze and recommend productivity improvements. With implementation of the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) as well as TransTrack, the Committee and RCTC staff . have analytical tools to !review opportunities for operational improvement: Conclusion: Complied The RTPA has ensured that all claimants to whom it allocates Transportation Development 4 Act (TDA) funds submits to it and to the state controller an annual certified fiscal and L compliance audit within . 180 days after the end of the fiscal year (December 27). The RTPA r may grant an extension of . up to 90 days as it deems necessary (March 26). ( Public Utilities Code, Section 9.9245 , For the audit period, RCTC has. received most of the fiscal and compliance ` audits from the claimants bythe established dates set by the State Controller. The City of Beaumont was not in compliance with timely submittal of its fiscal audits. As a result, RCTC has withheld TDA funding until the City submits eachannual report. Conclusion: Complied The RTPA has submitted a copy l of its _performance audit to the Director of the California Department of Transportation. In addition, the RTPA has certified in writing to the 'Director, that the performance Public Utilities Code, Section 99246(c) (continued on next page) RCTC submitted a written letter to Caltrans, dated May 25, 2004, certifying compliance with this requirement. The letter was enclosed with the FY 2000/0172002/03 performance audit of, RCTC, and a copy of Triennial Performance Audit RCTC 9 246 PMG • • TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix, continued RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts audits of the operators located in the area under its jurisdiction have been completed. f the April 14, 2004 Commission Agenda. Conclusion: Complied i The RTPA has designated an independent entity to conduct a performance audit of operators and itself (for the current and previous triennium). For operators, the audit was made and calculated the required performance indicators, and the audit report was transmitted to the entity that allocates the operator's TDA monies, and to the RTPA within 12 months after the end of the triennium. If an operator's audit was not transmitted by the start of the second fiscal year following the last fiscal year of the triennium, TDA funds were not allocated to that operator for that or subsequent fiscal years until the audit was transmitted. Public Utilities Code, Sections 99246 and 99248 For the current three year period, RCTC has retained PMC to conduct the audit of RCTC and the seven transit operators. Arthur Bauer & Associates, Inc. was retained to conduct the previous audit for the three fiscal years that ended .tune 30, 2003. Conclusion: Complied The performance audit of the operator providing public transportation service shall include, but not be limited to, a verification of the operator's operating cost per passenger, operating cost per vehicle service hour, passengers per vehicle service mile, and vehicle service hours per employee, as defined in Section 99247. The performance audit shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of the needs and types of passengers being served and the employment of part-time drivers and the contracting with common carriers of persons operating under a franchise or license to provide services during peak hours, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 99260.2. Public Utilities Code, Section 99346(d) The performance audits of the operators include all required elements. Conclusion: Complied Triennial Performance Audit RCTC 10 247 MCI TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix, continued RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The RTPA has established. rules and regulations regarding revenue ratios for transportation operators providing services in urbanized and new urbanized areas. Public Utilities Code, Section 99270.1 and 99270.2 There are two transit operators under RCTC's jurisdicfion, RTA and SunLine Transit, that serve both urbanized and non - urbanized areas. RCTC developed rules and regulations with Ca'trans approval for determining , the minimum fare ratios for these operators. The formula methodology and fare ratio calculations are annually. submitted to Caltrans for. concurrence by April 1 preceding the fiscal year for. which the calculation takes place. Conclusion: Complied The RTPA has adopted criteria, rules and regulations for the evaluation of claims under Article 4.5 of the TDA and the determination of the cost- effectiveness of the proposed community transit services. Public. Utilities Code, Section 99275.5 RCTC utilizes Measure A local transportation sales tax revenues to fund specialized: community transit services. Conclusion: Not Applicable State transit, assistance funds received by the RTPA are allocated only for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes, (Note: Since the June 9, 1990 passage of Proposition 116, state transit assistance funds may no longer . be used for street and road purposes, as had been .permitted in certain cases under PUC Section „ 99313.3); Public Utilities Code, Sections 99310.5 and 993133 and Proposition 116 RCTC allocates State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for transit servicespnly. Conclusion: Complied ' The amount received pursuant to Public Utilities Code, Section 99314.3, by each RTPA for state transit assistance is allocated to the operators in the area of its .jurisdiction as allocated by the Slate Controller's, Office. Public Utilities Code, Section 99314.3 RCTC administers . STA funds in accordance with the relevant PUC requirements (i.e. on the , basis of population and „operator revenues). Conclusion: Complied Triennial Performance. Audit RCTC 11 248 P G • TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix, continued RCTC Compliance Reference Compliance Efforts Requirements If TDA funds are allocated to purposes not directly related to public or specialized transportation services, or facilities for exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles, the Public 99401.5 Utilities Code, Section TDA funds are used exclusively for public transit in all parts of the county except for the Palo Verde Valley. RCTC conducts an annual Unmet Transit Needs process in the Palo Verde , transit planning agency has annually: Valley pursuant to PUC Section 99401.5. The public hearing for unmet needs was held in the • Consulted with the Social City of Blythe on March 6, 2003; Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) established pursuant to Public Utilities Code, Section 99238; ` • Identified transit needs, including: o Groups that are transit- dependent or transit disadvantaged, - o Adequacy of existing transit services to meet the needs of groups identified, and ! o Analysis of potential alternatives to provide transportation services; March 4, 2004; and March 3, 2005 for services provided during the audit period.. In consultation with the CAC/SSTAC, RCTC produces an identification and analysis for determination and adoption of unmet transit needs that are reasonable to . meet before any allocations are made for streets and roads. The definitions of "unmet transit needs" and "reasonable to meet" are reaffirmed in the report, and findings of the unmet needs process are adopted through • Adopted or re -affirmed definitions of "unmet transit needs" and "reasonable to meet;" • Identified the unmet transit needs and those needs that are reasonable to meet; Board resolution. LTF funds have only been allocated to streets and roads after completion of the unmet needs process. Conclusion: Complied • Adopted a finding that there are no unmet transit needs; that there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet; or that there are unmet transit needs including needs that are reasonable to meet. If a finding is adopted that there are unmet transit needs, k these needs must have been funded before an allocation was made for streets and roads. Triennial Performance Audit RCTC 12 249 PMC TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix, continued RCTC Compliance Reference Compliance Efforts Requirements The RTPA has caused an audit of its accountsand records to California Administrative Code, Section 6662 The accounting firm of McGladrey & Pullen, : LLC be performed for each fiscal conducted the financial audit year by the : county auditor, or . of RCTC for FYs 2004, 2005, and a certified public accountant. 2006. The. Comprehensive The RTPA •must transmit the Annual Financial Report was resulting audit report to the submitted to the State State Controller ° within: 12 Controller within 12 months of months of the end of each fiscal year, , and must be performed in accordance with the end of each fiscal year. RCTC also maintains fiscal and the Basic Audit Program and accounting records and Report Guidelines for California supporting papers for at least Special Districts prescribed by ' . four years following the fiscal the State Controller. The audit shall include a determination of . compliance with the • transportation development and accompanying rules and regulations. Financial statements may not . commingle the state transit assistance . fund, the local transportation 'fund, or - other revenues or funds of any city, county or other agency. The year close. Conclusion: Complied RTPA must maintain fiscal and accounting records and supporting papers for at least four years following the fiscal year close.. Findings and Observations from RTPA Compliance Requirements Matrix, In our opinion, RCTC has satisfactorily complied with all State legislative mandates for Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. The mandate for RCTC to analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for the transit operators was strengthened through the creation of the Transit Policy Committee. The enhancement of the PIP as a relevant tool, and implementation of TransTrack have also improved RCTC`s ability to evaluate performance. measures and indicators of the transit operators. The submittal of annual fiscal audits was an issue for the City of Beaumont, which RCTC has taken action to withhold TDA funds until the audits are completed and submitted.' Although not contained in the RTPA compliance matrix, PUG 99243 specifies submittal of the annual State Controller Report by each 'operator. ` There is a Triennial Performance Audit RCTC 13 250 PC • requirement that an operator prepare separate reports for general public transit and for specialized services for elderly and disabled, and to submit the reports to the State Controller and the Transportation Planning Agency. Only one of the four applicable operators (City of Banning) currently submits both reports, whereas the others each submit one combined report for their entire respective systems. ROTC should request that the three operators, RTA, SunLine Transit, and City of Beaumont, comply with the requirement and submit separate State Controller reports for these services. To its credit, ROTC has compiled with the TDA requirements for regional planning agencies using relatively small staff resources to irnplement the various programs in the TDA statute. in recognizing the need to manage an increasing workload related to public transportation, a Staff Analyst position was added and filled in FY 2005-06 to assist the Transit Program Manager. Triennial Performance Audit 14 RCTC 251. PM Section III Prior Triennial Performance 'Audit Recommendations This chapter describes the RCTC's response to the recommendations included in the prior triennial performance audit prepared by Arthur Bauer & Associates; Inc. For this purpose; each prior recommendation for the agency is described, followed . by a discussion of the agency's efforts to implement the: recommendation. Conclusions concerning the extent to whichthe recommendations have been adopted by the agency are then presented. Prior Recommendation } Create a vision of transit service for Riverside County. Actions taken by RCTC The Commission adopted Ordinance No. 04-.003 on May 6 2004 to create a Transit Policy Committee (TPC) to discuss, develop, and submit policy directions relating to transit matters for Commission action. Through this process, the TPC's role is to l) guide the preparation of a transit vision; 2) monitor transit implementation; 3) review performance of operators; and 4) bring a regional perspective to transit. Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 2 Establish a transit subcommittee fio provide policy direction. Actions taken by RCTC: . As per the actions taken by RCTC for Prior Recommendation l; the Commission adopted Ordinance No. 04-003. creating the Transit Policy Committee (TPC). The . TPC provides policy direction to transit operators and its services to bringregional. perspective to transit. Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 3 Strengthenanalytical capabilities to oversee operator performance. Triennial Performance Audit 15 RCTC 252 C • • • Actions taken by RCTC: To assist with data analysis and PIP compliance, RCTC procured TransTrack, a web based Transit Performance Manager software application and training package. TransTrack provides the analytical tools necessary to assist with the review of the transit operators' performance. The commitment to the PIP was also reaffirmed by RCTC in September 2005. The PIP was designed to be used as a tool to review transit services to ensure compliance with the farebox recovery ratio and to provide effective transit services. The PIP includes eight performance indicators that each operator is required to meet. Two indicators are mandatory for all operators, and. the remaining six are discretionary. The transit operators must meet at Feast three of the six discretionary targets. The Commuter rail program must meet three of eight discretionary performance targets. Conclusion This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 4 Clarify the definition of revenues to calculate the farebox ratio. Actions taken by RCTC: The definition of revenues to be included in the calculation of the farebox ratio were developed and subsequently approved by the TPC on July 26, 2004 and by the Commission on September 8, 2004. The definition includes the formula for determining the intermediate fare ratio for operators serving both urbanized and non -urbanized areas, types of revenues that can be included in the farebox ratio, as well as cost exclusions. Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 5 Track the status of new transit services introduced by the operators. Action taken by RCTC: New transit services are tracked through the TransTrack program given the program enables operators to report operating and performance data by specific route. It is anticipated that as both RCTC and transit operator personnel become more familiar with the full capabilities of the web -based tracking program, customized reports will be developed to more closely monitor new services to ensure compliance with TDA requirements. Triennial Performance Audit 16 RCTC 253 C Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 6 Request operators to submit State Controller Report, Federal National Transit Database and Federal Triennial Review Report to RCTC. Action taken by RCTC: PUC Section 99243(a) requires RCTC to receive each operator's State Controller Report. Staff has since .developed a spreadsheet entitled Operator TDA Report. Submission Check List, to monitor compliance. Through this process, Commission staff is able to monitor compliance and follow through as needed.. It .was determined that all reports have been received during the audit period. Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 7 Develop a schedule for the operators to submit annual financial audits and state controller. reports. Action taken by RCTC: At the beginning of each year's financial and compliance audits, the finance official at each city/transit operator is advised of the impending audits and related expectations, requirements and deadlines for completion of the financial` and compliance audits. Responsibility for the preparation of the State Controller reports for each operator is noted in these audit notification: letters. Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 8 Develop flagging system to. notify of next employee appraisal. Action taken by RCTC: RCTC's Accounting and Human Resources Manager developed a spreadsheet (Performance Evaluation . Schedule) that provides the . employee's name, supervisor's name,, hire date, and the performance evaluation date_. Based on this information, the Executive Assistant sends out an email 60 :days in advance to the employee and supervisor informing there that an evaluation is due. If the Triennial Performance Audit 17 RCTC 254 • evaluation is not received by the due date, the Executive Assistant s_ 's a reminder email on a biweekly basis. Effective February 2007, the process was augmented with the placement of appointments on the electronic calendaring system. Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. Triennial Performance Audit 18 RCTC 255 Section IV Detailed Review of RTPA Functions In this section, a detailed assessment of RCTC's functions and performance as a RTPA during this audit period is provided. Adapted from Caftans' Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Entities, RCTC's activities can be divided into the following activities: • Administration, Management and Coordination • Transportation Planning and Programming • TDA Claimant Relationships and Oversight • Public Information and External Affairs RCTC also requested that a special analysis be undertaken of capital grants management and farebox calculation. The special analysis is contained following this functional review. Administration, Management and Coordination Staffing One significant change during the audit period was the growth in staff at RCTC. The agency had averaged about 25 employees in the early period of the performance audit. During FY 2005-06, the number of employees increased to 32.Full Time Equivalents (FTE). The additional Commission personnel is attributed_ to the hiring :of a Director of Programming and Administration, and for staff analysts, including a staff analyst to assist the Transit 'Program Manager. Table IV-1 shows the growth in staff during the audit period. The agency has since increased its FTEs with plans to grow to well over 40 staff in the near future to meet an increased workload, including the implementation of the extension of Measure A. Triennial Performance Audit . 19 RCTC 256 • • Table IV-1 Actual Personnel by Department FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 Executive Management 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.4 Administration 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.6 Legislative Affairs & Communications 1.5 1.0 1.3 2.6 Finance 5.0 5.1 5.5 5.5 Regional Issues 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 Planning & Programming 3.6 3.7 3.9 4.4 Rail Operations 2.4 2.0 2.4 3.0 Property Management 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.8 Specialized Transit 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 Transit 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.7 Commuter Assistance 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.1 Motorist Assistance 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 Capital Project Development & Delivery 0.9 1.1 1.8 2.9 TOTAL FTEs 25.0 25.0 26.0 31.9 Source: RCTC Through a more horizontal organization, there is one Executive Director, two Deputy Executive Directors and four Program Directors who are responsible for the various transportation programs of the agency, including the following: • Regional Programs • Administration • Legislative Affairs & Communications • Capital Project. Delivery • Finance & Human Resources Administration • Transportation Planning & Programming Under the Program Directors are Staff Analysts who provide specific implementation of the agency's programs such as TDA and regional. transportation planning. For a transportation commission responsible for providing mobility to nearly two. million county residents covering 7,300 square miles, the agency has been assembled to fulfill its original statutory requirements as well as assume additional regional responsibilities such . as providing stewardship of the Measure A local transportation sales tax program, serving as Triennial Performance Audit 20 RCTC 257 PIVIC the County's Congestion Management Agency, and providing motorist assistance programs. Even though Management continues to be committed to the intent of the Commission's enabling legislation by maintaining a relatively small staff, the increased development and delivery of projects programmed through Measure A, the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process. (CETAP), the Transportation : Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), 'and federal Small Starts: funds, have necessitated a timely augmentation of staff. With the responsibility for managing and spending billions of public dollars, it is apparent that RCTC is evolving from a primarily transportation planning, and programming agency into an agency that supports both = planning and programming, and project delivery and implementation. To this end, a draft organization chart has been developed by the RCTC management team that potentially expands the agency significantly (to occur after the audit period). The Commission will continue to ''have: two Deputy Executive Directors, each supported by four technical Directors along with a staff of project managers. Some of these new positions include Project Delivery Director, Toll Programs Director, Capital Projects Manager; Community Relations Manager, Goods Movement Manager, Accounting Supervisor, Toll Project Managers, a Senior Staff Analyst, and several Staff Analysts. This proposed staff augmentation would take the current FTE count of 32.0-to about 44.0, or about a 38 percent; increase. Capital Project Development As the original Measure A tax horizon ends in 2009, the :agency's implementation of its strategic plan has played a key role in the success to administer the highway capital program, as well as other programs such as for transit, in Riverside County. The management of the Measure's Expenditure Program has continued to be accomplished with the assistance of the Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation, which has assigned a 10 member team that serves as program manager, overseeing the implementation of the Measure A program for ROTC. In addition, RCTC has proceeded to be involved with additional project implementation aspects including ` property administration, and right-of-way acquisition oversight for the commuter rail extension into Perris Valley through - Federal Small Starts funding. A Deputy Executive Director as .well as the Project Development Director provide overall administration and management of the delivery of capital projects. Project development and delivery will continue as a main priority under Measure A. Roadway improvementsare scheduled or have been made for the SR-60, SR- 74,SR-79, : and SR-91 corridors, the Green River/SR-91 interchange, and other significant roadway projects.. Triennial Performance Audit 21 RCTC 258 PC • • It is worth noting that the expansion of RCTC to deliver projects is required in part to comply with state mandates. Although outside the audit period, RCTC is securing the need for contract positions to administer the toll road program in fiscal year 2007-08. The draft organization chart which was approved in February 2007 by the Executive Committee includes this new program and identifies three contract positions to include a Toll Program Director, and at least two toll project managers. This reflects the evolving nature of the agency and its responsibilities in meeting community and regional needs. Internal Controls As RCTC continues to grow in staff, the interaction between the departments as well as with its stakeholders also becomes more complex. For example, the relationship between programming and capital development becomes more crucial as funding requirements need to be in place for project delivery. This brings to light the process that RCTC is undertaking to formalize its internal practices. Beginning in January 2004, RCTC began undertaking efforts to strengthen internal controls to ensure that proper policies and procedures are developed to clearly identify the specific roles and level of coordination among staff. More recently, the Chief Financial Officer, Deputy Executive Director and Accounting and Human Resources Manager have been making additional efforts to develop internal controls given movement of some organizational functions from one department to another. Also, certain functions have transitional positions, such as the innovative finance manager that will be eliminated upon determination of a public private partnership strategy to have public toll roads, and converted to a capital project delivery program manager for the Perris Valley Line. Other coordinated efforts have been made by staff to propose methods for enhancing the relationship between funds management and capital projects. In addition, an internal controls audit will be forthcoming, as RCTC is developing a Request for Proposal. Policies and guidelines are also established for contract development and procurement of goods and services by RCTC. Currently, the CFO delegates this responsibility. A set of guidelines is provided for the development and standardization of a contract and for procurement and award of the service. The guidelines provide a uniform system of processing contracts in a consistent, timely and coordinated manner. There are various computer software programs within RCTC that serve specific purposes. The Programming division is developing a project database for maintaining all projects and grant information. The Cleric of the Board uses a program called Liberty, while Finance and Human Resources uses fundware. Transit utilizes TransTrack and right-of-way has its own software package. At the current time, these various programs can not interact with each other. Commission staff have had meetings to .discuss the integration of computer Triennial Performance Audit 22 RCTC 259 F°C software to be more efficient in sharing information rather than creating redundant systems. As part of RCTC's efforts to strengthen internal controls and formalize. processes for delivering capital projects, the agency should prepare desk procedures that document the instructions and steps for the activities conducted by each division. Documentation should include at a minimum what programs/projects each department is responsible for, the desk processes or procedures and materials used to execute the programs/projects, . target audience or market, and identification ,of communication channels. These documents would enable a new hire or ,a staff transfer from another department to be able to fulfill the responsibilities by following the desk procedures. Personnel Management The growth of RCTC staff has provided additional internal value beyond having the manpower to meet the agency's responsibilities. An issue raised in the prior performance audit was the future succession of RCTC management provided that potential retirement of high level staff is possible in the 'inext several years. With key executive recruitments and promotion of staff to the director level during the audit .period, there is a larger current candidate pool of directors to succeed the Executive_ Director and continue meeting the agency's mission and goals. This indicates the Executive Director has conducted succession planning and actively addressed the issue through these personnel activities. It was also indicated that salaries have reached those in neighboring counties like Orange County which helps with retention and attraction. With the increase in staff that has occurred and that will continue, it is important for the agency to have a well documented personnel manual. Personnel benefits ,andrights are stipulated in the RCTC :Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual. During the audit period, RCTC retained a human resources consultant who performed an audit of the Commission's personnel administration. The audit consisted of an update of the Policies and Procedures Manual to include a clarification of catastrophic leave policy, correction of the: retirement vesting policy,: ,and extension of the employee probationary period: to one-year with three quarterly progress reports. The audit, findings also stressed: improved internal customer service,which the Commission has addressed; through the issuance of an in-house bi-monthly newsletter. Another example of improved customer service is that personnel information and forms have been uploaded onto the Commission's Intranet, which include a benefits summary and W-4 forms. The Deputy. Executive :Director and Accounting and Human Resources Manager also revised the _previous manual which contained inconsistencies between RCTC policy and actual practice. An example is the; amount of .coverage for post retirement health care where some employees had assumed one level of coverage whereas it was actually a lower amount. The revised manual includes Triennial Performance Audit 23 RCTC 260 • 19 sections. detailing personnel matters such as the recruitment process, terms of employment, health and retirement benefits, record keeping, tuition reimbursement, and separation procedures. There have been three amendments to the current personnel manual, occurring in June, July and November of 2006. While the current Human Resources manager also serves as the Accounting manager, this person is seeking certification as a Human Resources specialist. It is anticipated that with future hiring of lower level accounting staff, this position will be able to focus on human resources issues as well as being involved with financial policy. Transportation Planning and Programming This functional area addresses planning functions required of RCTC, including development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program and the Congestion Management Program, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program, and Transit Planning including the Short Range Transit Planning process. Additional transportation programs administered by the agency are also discussed, including the Commuter Assistance Program and the Motorist Assistance Program. Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) RCTC is responsible for preparing the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for Riverside County projects that have been approved for federal and state funding. Federal fund sources that RCTC allocates include Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program, and Transportation Enhancements (TE) funding. State fund sources include SB 821, State Transit Assistance, and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. Federal regulations require that all projects funded with state and federal funds be included in a RTIP in order to receive the funds. 1n addition, projects that are regionally significant, but are locally funded are also required to be included in the RTIP. RCTC submits the county RTIP to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the six - county region (Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties). SCAG is responsible for ensuring that the RTIP is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (a 30-year long-range planning document) and adopted air plans. SCAG is the responsible agency for submittal of the RTIP to federal agencies for approval. The RTIP is generally updated every two -years with amendments occurring between updates. Triennial Performance Audit 24 RCTC 261 P C RCTC generally uses the following criteria for calls for projects for CMAQ, STP, and STIP funds: 1. Emphasis on Measure A 2. Regional Significance 3. Economic Development 4. Project Readiness 5. Air Quality 6. Safety 7. Congestion Mitigation 8. Matching Funds 9. System Continuity 10. Geographic Balance . The 2004 RTIP (2006 FTIP), including amendments, provided by staff showed a total transit; program cost of $373.3 million for the upcoming six year period of FYs 2006-07 through FYs 2011-12 An additional $22.3 million in :prior year obligated funds was also identified. The revenues to support' ;the transit prograrn include Federal, FTA, State and Local sources. The FTA revenue portion its $78 million, or 21 percent of revenues, while LTF Article 4 is $135.9 million, or 36 percent of revenues. Other local and revenues such as fares (8.5 percent), Measure A (9.8 percent) and other local; (7.3 percent), as well as State STA (10.6 .percent) provide most of the remaining funds. For State Highway projects in the 2004 RTIP (2006 FTIP), the prograrn total is $1.4 billion for the six year period, with $351.3 million in prior year obligated funds. About 63 percent of the funding is from local sources, including local national highway funds, Western Riverside TUMF and 'local city funds. Federal National. Highway funds and State Regional Improvement Program funds provide most of the remaining revenues. For Local Highway projectsin the 20`04 RTIP (2006 FTIP), the program total is $558.7 million for the six year period, with $102.9 million in prior year obligated funds. About 61 percent" of the funding is from local sources, with the balance from federal sources, primarily the Highway Bridge Replacement' and Rehabilitation Program (17.6 percent of total funds). Triennial Performance Audit. 25 R CTC 262 PMG • The status of RTIP projects is updated four times a year when the local sponsoring agencies are asked to update their projects. Because management of the RTIP involves the regular input from local agencies, RCTC staff provides assistance when needed to local jurisdictions for programming of projects and funding. Staff also monitor the reimbursement of funds to the local agencies. Programming staff has recently completed a review of the project development and implementation process. Improvements have been identified to ensure efficiencies regarding the management of Capital Projects and reimbursements. Recommendations for improvement address process gaps in the areas of funding authorizations, monitoring project delivery, and overseeing project expenditures and close-out. Programming staff will expand its role to assist the Capital Projects and Finance departments in these areas. Congestion Management Program RCTC is the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Riverside County. As a CMA, RCTC is responsible for developing a program that better links land use, transportation and air quality that prompt growth management strategies. The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) identifies deficiencies in the County transportation network that inhibit these growth strategies. The CMP involves the monitoring of congestion along a designated system that includes all highway facilities and selected major arterials. The system is monitored to ensure that the level of service along these roadways do not fall below the adopted level of service. Should a roadway fall to a deficient Level of service, a deficiency plan would be required to identify mitigation measures including a cost and schedule of the recommended mitigation measures. Bicycle and. Pedestrian Facilities Program As an important piece of the County transportation system, non -motorized transportation is encouraged by RCTC. In its efforts, the agency administers an annual Call for Projects process for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Article 3 of the TDA provides two percent of funding for the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. RCTC has an adopted set of policies governing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. Initial policies were adopted in December 1986 with additional policies enacted over time, the latest adopted in March 2003. An evaluation committee comprised of three Citizen Advisory Committee members and three Technical Advisory Committee members evaluate proposed projects according to seven evaluation criteria. These criteria include the following: 1. Use of the Facility 2. Safety 3. Importance as a Transportation Alternative Triennial Performance Audit 26 RCTC 263 Pl C 4. Missing Link, Extension or, Connectivity 5. Matching Funds 6. Population Equity =7. Physical Accessibility Enhancement An average_ weighted score is given to each project to determine funding priorities. During the audit period, the following allocations were made: • FY 2004: $ 1,178,538 • FY 2005: $ 1,360,685 • FY 2006: $ 2,167,565 The allocations are based on two percent of TDA fund apportionments; as allowed by law, plus carryover funds from prior years: The FY 2006 CAFR shows an unreserved balance of $731,709 in LTF for bicycle and pedestrian projects. In " addition, in each year of the audit, it appeared that expenditures were lower than the funds reserved. An unclaimed balance exists because not all projects that are selected to receive funding are ready for construction. The account is drawn down as projects are completed or contracts have been awarded. The adopted Commission policy states that. agencies will have up to two 'years to complete: the project or award a construction contract, or the agency may request an extension oftime to complete the project if there are uncontrollable delays in the coordination of the project with another agency. Any unused . allocations after this time are reprogrammed into the next year's revenues. Transit Planning including the Short Range Transit Planning Process RCTC is responsible for the coordination of transit among all of the: operators in the Countyto ensure an efficient delivery of services: In .this capacity, the agency has provided a regional perspective to facilitating the provision of public - transit by the seven transit operators and SCRRA. To strengthen its ability to coordinate efficient and effective transit service, RCTC established . the Transit Policy Committee and reaffirmed the Productivity Improvement Program designed to meet PUG Section 99244 which requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators. The TPC is well attended by the " 10-member committee. As further means to provide analysis of operator performance, the Triennial` Performance Audit 27 RCTC 264 • • • agency uses TransTrack software to standardize the reporting of key performance data by the operators in determining compliance with the PIP. TransTrack is fairly new and has provided value in terms of enabling RCTC to track operator performance by route, analyze new services and service extensions, and calculate the performance information for the PIP. The help of these management tools will enable staff to hold thorough discussions with the TPC and transit operators in creating a regional transit vision and policies and goals for transit delivery. Staff noted that the visioning process commenced in January 2006 and will continue through 2007. The PIP also provides a integrated performance approach to the updates to the Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs). RCTC requires that the operators prepare a transit service plan that must meet at least five performance indicators, the first two as mandates. For bus operators, the indicators are: Table IV-2 PIP Program Performance Indicator Performance Target 1 Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Increases No More Than CPI 2 Fare Box. Recovery Ratio Per PUC Requirements and RCTC Policy 3 Subsidy Per Passenger +/- 15% Variance 4 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile +/- 15% Variance 5 Subsidy Per Revenue Hour +/- 15% Variance 6 Subsidy Per Revenue Mile +/- 15% Variance 7 Passengers Per Revenue Hour +/- 15% Variance 8 Passenger Per Revenue Mile +/- 15% Variance For Rail, two additional discretionary targets are Ridership Growth (goal of 2 percent growth) and Passenger Miles per Revenue Car (goal of 30 passengers per revenue car mile). The performance target for six of the performance indicators includes a high and low range for evaluating transit operator productivity. These indicators include: subsidy per passenger; subsidy per passenger mile; subsidy per revenue hour; subsidy per revenue mile; passengers per revenue hour; and passengers per revenue mile.. ROTC should consider removing the . target on the side of increased productivity but maintaining the target for decreased productivity. There should be no constraints placed on the side of increased transit efficiencies and effectiveness, provided that should an operator increase productivity above the target range, it would indicate the operator missed the performance target. However, there should continue to be a limit placed on decreased productivity, as RCTC should monitor the magnitude of an operator's decreased performance relative to a target. Triennial Performance Audit 28 RCTC 265 PMG SRTP Process Each operator. is required to prepare and deliver an SRTP to RCTC that outlines the plannedservice for the next three years. The SRTP provides the justification for the operator to receive TDA funds for both capital and operating expenditures.. The SRTP also provides the basis for services and capital projects that are programmed in TIP documents that are approved by RCTC, ,SCAG and federal grant awarding agencies like the FTA for capital grants: RCTC coordinates the annual update to the SRTP. A schedule is prepared by RCTC to guide the process for the coming year. A minimum of two meetings are held betweenRCTC and the .operators, the first to kickoff the update process, and the second to discuss issues andchangesduringthe update. Draft SRTPs are due in April with formal adoptionof the plans by the Commission in June_ A follow-up debriefing meeting its also held to discuss potential improvements to the Short Range Transit Plan for the following year. Regional Transit Goals Regional transit goals as part of the transit visioning process are being developed and coordinated with the timing' of completion of Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COAs) by RTA and SunLine Transit. It will beimportant for RCTC to continue to clearly convey its supporting role to the transit operators and to assist with providing efficient and effective service while meetingregional goals and conforming to state and federal mandates: This is partly ;facilitated through quarterly meetings between the RCTC Executive Director and the SunLine Transit General Manager.. Similar meetings are also attempted with the RTA General Manager. The formation of regional goals will likely need to be consistent with the allocation of new Measure A funds to transit, which include .commuter rail and express buses, bus rapid transit, and specialized services:: The service plans developed from the visioning process will be used to spend transit'ss share of the Measure funds. Commuter. Assistance Program The focus of the Commuter Assistance Program is to improve mobility throughout the transportation system by encouraging commuters to make a mode -shift decision away from solo vehicle commuting. RCTC offers a comprehensive list of programs and outreach under the umbrella of Commuter Assistance which helps foster more efficient use of the transportation system, reduces congestion and vehicle emissions. Several incentives, subsidies, and promotional programs exist for 'commuters to - start and maintain a rideshare arrangement. The Advantage! Rideshare program provides a $2; per day incentive (over three months) to new ridesharers in the form of merchant gift certificates. A vanpool incentive provides $1,800 over nine Triennial Performance Audit 29 RCTC 266 C • • months to new vanpool arrangements and a buspool subsidy provides an ongoing subsidy of $35/month/rider for active buspool riders. Club Ride provides rewards to consistent ridesharers in the form of access to exclusive merchant discounts and promotions. A Guaranteed Ride Home program ensures a ride home to ridesharers in the event of an emergency or missed rideshare arrangement. FY 2005-06 resulted in over 1,000 Advantage Rideshare participants (22 percent increase over FY 2004-05) and almost 4,000 Club Ride participants (38 percent increase over FY 2004-05) Combined, these programs contributed to air quality by reducing approximately 700,000 pounds of emissions. Critical to the success of these programs are employer partnerships. The Commuter Assistance Program provides FREE rideshare services to employers through its Inland Empire Commuter Services program such as transportation surveys, ridematching, marketing materials, and offering the various rideshare incentives and programs to employees. Local employers benefit from having a low cost tax free benefit they can offer employees. Large companies who must meet air quality mandates can take advantage of programs that help them fulfill their requirements. The employers are a cost effective channel for access to groups of commuters with similar commute patterns and for implementing RCTC's rideshare programs. In addition to outreach to employees through employer channels, RCTC promotes the Commuter Assistance Program online and in print. The most prominent and versatile outreach element of the Commuter Assistance Program is http://www.commutersmart.info. Here, commuters can go online and find a ridematch, access bus/rail information, and traveler information to help them make smart travel decisions and assists RCTC in its mobility enhancement/congestion avoidance goals. RCTC manages this site and its ridematching functionality on behalf of the following neighboring counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura. In addition, the Commuter Exchange, a 40 foot mobile information center with interactive rideshare displays and collateral, is another mode of outreach that attends public events, school and employer functions to increase the publics awareness of ridesharing programs available to them. Finally, to provide facilities to support ridesharing, RCTC partners with Caltrans and property owners to lease space for parkand ride lots. These park and ride lease arrangements supplement large state owned park and -ride facilities throughout the county. The leases are annual and renewable, allowing for adjustments as needed. RCTC provides the financial resources for the lease while Caltrans assumes liability and provides the signage. The commuter assistance program is funded by Measure A. Triennial Performance Audit 30 RCTC 267 PIVIG Motorist Assistance Program Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies RCTC has "served as the designated Service Authority for. freeway Emergencies (SAFE) for Riverside County since 1986. SAFE is best known for the .call box program along major highways that enable stranded motorists to phone for assistance. With the expansion in the use of cellular phones, .however, the trend in call box usage has declined. Table IV-3 shows the trend in usage the last three years. Table IV-3 SAFE Program Usage Fiscal Year Number of Calls Number of Call Boxes Annual Change _ in Calls 2004 23,713 1,083 2005 19,945 1,058 -15.89 percent 2006 15,390 979 -22.84 percent Source: FY 2006 RCTC CAFR. Freeway. Service Patrol RCTC administers the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) in conjunction with the CHP and Caltrans. The FSP provides quick motorist assistance during peak traffic conditions. Three tow truck contractors are used to provide 15 roving tow trucks along major freeways including the following corridors and corresponding beats: • SR-91 from Orange County Line to Lincoln (Beat # 1) SR-91 from Lincoln to Magnolia (Beat #2) • SR-91 from Magnolia to 1-215 (Beat #4) • '1.215 from San Bernardino County Line to SR-60 at :Heathcock (Beat # 18) • 1-15 from SR-91 to SR-60 (Beat #25) The FSP operates during peak, commute hours from 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. FSP is also utilized in construction Zones. Mid- day construction FSP operates from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00. p.m on' Beat # 18 and on a portion of Beat #4 (Adams Street to 1-215). Table IV-4 shows the annual number . of incidents for all corridors for the last three years. Triennial Performance Audit RCTC 31 268 • Table IV-4 FSP Program Results Fiscal Year Number of Incidents Annual Change 2004 32,564 2005 32,542 0.00 percent 2006 31,838 2.16 percent Source: FY 2006 RCTC CAFR. TDA Claimant Relationships and Oversight. This functional area addresses RCTC's interaction with the transit operators in Riverside County and its administration of the provisions of TDA. The sub - functions described include costs to administer the program, technical and managerial assistance to operators, TDA claims processing and the unmet transit needs process. RCTC Administration and Planning The uses of TDA revenues apportioned to Riverside County flow through a priority process prescribed in state law. Prior to apportionment of funds to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program and the transit operators, the Commission is able to claim TDA revenues for administration of the fund and for transportation planning and programming purposes. By law, the Commission is limited to three percent of local transportation funds for planning and programming. The limit does not apply to fund administration, but RCTC has been responsible in the amount its claims. The Commission also allocates revenues to SCAG, CVAG, and WRCOG for planning purposes as a member of the regional agency. During the audit years of 2004 through 2006, RCTC claimed the following amounts: Table IV-5 TDA Allocated for RCTC Administration and Planning and Programming Fiscal Year TDA Administration of TDA Planning and Programming Total 2004 $61,320,592 $756,657 $1,550,311 $2,306,968 2005 $70,125,120 $675,000 $1,822,800 $2,497,800 2006 $80,465,965 $700,000 $2,643,428 $3,343,428 Triennial Performance Audit 32 RCTC 269 In FY 2004, the amount claimed by RCTC equals to about 3.76 percent of TDA apportioned to the County. In FY 2005, the amount was 3.56 percent; and for. FY 2006, the amount was 4.15 percent. Technical and Managerial Assistance to Operators The RCTC Program Manager responsible for transit provides an array of services to the operators. Evidence of communication and assistance were provided to substantiate the information obtained from the interview. Assistance to the operators is offered through meetings, phone and email correspondence and site visits. Examples of technical and managerial assistance include meetings to prepare the Short Range Transit Plan, quarterly transit. operator meetings, release of TDA apportionment data and federal revenue estimates, monitoring of various funding progrars, updates to federal funding formulas, and administration of TDA claims. The Program Manager provides :assistance in the planning and programming of federal grants, as the transit operators are eligible for various Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant programs. RCTC provides the conduit between the operators and SCAG in procuring certain capital grants such as FTA .urbanized grants that must pass through SCAG, as the designated recipient of the funds. The Program Manager tracks the status of capital grants through the quarterly grant tracking program in which each operator submits `a quarterly report detailing the status of existing open grants. RCTC 'developed and issued an excel -based spreadsheet that requires the operators to include detailed information about the capital grants, including allocation, . number, project description, total cost, funds expended to date, outstanding allocation, status asopen or closed, and anticipatedcompletion date. As of .June 30, 2006, there were 192 open capital grants with, a project value of $85.6 million. RCTC has expressed concern about the number of open capital grants and has requested the auditor to conduct a special review of grants management. The review is contained after this section. TDA Funding Policy Changes Beginning in FY 2004-05, after: a meeting with the transit operators in September 2003, RCTC implemented an approved change in the. Western County funding formula for LTF and STA. The change was to reflect additional funding needs for commuter rail service, including anticipated cost increases from the expansion of Metrolink;from Riverside to Perris (a Measure A project). The formula change is 78 percent for -bus (from 80 percent) and 22 percent (from 20 percent) for commuter rail. Future bus cost increases by RTA would be paid for with unclaimed LTF funds in prior years. The funding formula is to be reviewed in FY 2007-08 with proposed changes in FY 2009-10. Also, RCTC is anticipating additional revenues from the renewed Measure A in FY 2009-10, as well as Proposition 42'i.n FY 2008-09, to help fund transit and commuter rail. Triennial Performance Audit 33 RCTC 270 G 4. • In January 2005, the Commission approved an LTF reserve policy and funding disbursement policy to address concern that operating costs were outpacing current revenue. The reserve policy sets aside 10 percent of apportionments that could be drawn down pending approval of a request by an operator and a budget and SRTP amendment. The funding disbursement policy provides a timeline on the LTF allocation where two -twelfths (16.67 percent) of the operating funds are disbursed the first month and the remaining allocation (83.33 percent) disbursed over the next eleven months. TDA Claim Processing On an annual basis during this audit period, RCTC was responsible for managing the allocation of between $36.4 and $53.3 million in Local Transportation Fund revenues for transit, and between $2.7 and $3.9 million in State Transit Assistance funds. Prior to apportionment to the transit operators, a percentage of the LTF revenues are claimed off the top by RCTC for administration and planning purposes, as described earlier. LTF is also claimed for bicycle and pedestrian projects prior to apportionment to the operators. RCTC prepares and distributes several documents during the TDA claims process. The documents include the findings of apportionment by population area and a packet providing claimants with the necessary forms and funding information needed to prepare TDA claims. The claims are prepared by each operator, adopted by the operator's governing board or council, and must include a signoff on the implementation of a number of TDA requirements. These requirements are contained in the "Standards Assurances For Applicants" and includes compliance with revenue ratios, attachment of specific documentation, and submittal of compliance audits and reports. Each submitting claimant certifies that all conformance requirements are satisfied to receive both LTF and STA funds. Once the claims are processed and funds are allocated by RCTC, operators can amend claims during the fiscal year as actual transit service is delivered. State Transit Assistance Funds are claimed under the procedures and formulas established in the TDA statute. RCTC is required to make annual findings prior to allocation of STA funds to the transit operators. These findings are part of the Standard Assurances checklist and is integrated with the claims for LTF revenues. Unmet Transit Needs Unmet transit needs hearings are required by TDA where claims can be made for streets and roads. This occurs only for the Palo Verde Valley since TDA is dedicated to transit in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. RCTC conducts the annual unmet needs process in consultation with the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), which .serves as the statutorily required Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC). Members of the CAC sit on the hearing panel during the hearing and participate in the review of the comments. Several Commissioners attend the hearing alongside RCTC staff to hold the Triennial Performance Audit 34 ROTC 271 MG meeting in the City of Blythe. During the audit period, the unmet needs hearings were held on March 6, 2003, March 4, 2004, and March 3, 2005. From a reviewof documentation, RCTC cornplies with the unmet needs process in which the : agency advertises the public hearing, take public testimony and makes annual findings of unrnet transit needs that are reasonable to meet. A resolution of the findings, as well as reaffirmation of the definitions of an unmettransit need and reasonable to meet, are adopted by the Commission. Public Inforrnation and External Affairs RCTC has developed a comprehensive outreach effort to elicit support for its mission and to educate the public :of its role in the delivery and maintenance of transportation infrastructure. ' The outreach program is divided into two roles: Legislative affairs and media relations. The legislative affairs efforts involve the utilization of lobbyists at state and federal levels to ensure that adequate funding is maintained. for transportation projects. As part of its ,mission in providing transportation projects services to Riverside County, RCTC plays an active role in Washington D.C. and Sacramento in advocating transportation -friendly policies. At .the beginning of every year the Commission adopts a Federal and a State Legislative Program that sets forth basic positions on transportation policy issues. RCTC also works closely with SANBAG to. establish a. unified front: in advocating for transportation legislation on. behalf of the entire Inland Emp're. However, it is noted that the two counties also differentiate from one another. on other fronts when appropriate, such as for local needs. RCTC also .enjoys a close working relationship with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and is a member of Transportation California, the state's . leading transportation advocacy and .public education organization. RCTC's media relations efforts are conveyed through RCTC's website, publications and public presentations. Marketing efforts of specific projects is on a project by project basis. For example, it was indicated that the Perris Valley rail line extension requires a relatively large marketing effort. In addition, a separate marketing strategy is required for projects along 1-215 which need to account, for a larger outreach base. RCTC's website, (http://www.rctc.org/), is divided into four main sections: About RCTC, Projects & Planning, Transportation Services, and Doing Business with RCTC. According to RCTC's PublicAffairs Director, the :website will undergo a significant . upgrade to make it more ADA-compliant and user-friendly, and to keep it fresh with new . content. The website also contains a link to the CommuteSmartinfo trip planner,: which includes traffic conditions data, a transit planner and a rideshare matching service for Southern California commuters. RCTC has been managing` the CommuteSmart.info website on behalf of five Southern California regional transportation planning agencies for . the past two Triennial Performance Audit 35 RCTC 272 PMG • • years. Through MQU's with the agencies, RCTC is reimbursed for managing the regional trip planning program. The monthly "Commission Connection" newsletter is distributed to about 2,000 decision makers and provides information regarding current projects and RCTC's role in their implementation. The newsletter also highlights major initiatives such as Measure A funded projects as well as the agency's other accomplishments. The most current newsletter is posted on the RCTC website together with News and Events section containing transportation -related articles from local media. The need for direct media outreach has diminished to some degree due to the available information contained on the revamped website, plus the media is better educated about RCTC programs. Staff representatives from RCTC give about 18 to 20 public presentations on an annual basis. The Public Affairs Director sees his role as an internal service provider to the rest of the agency as well as to the public at large. He is committed to ensuring that information regarding programming and projects are properly disseminated; and reflect consistency. RCTC is looking at expanding its public outreach effort by hiring a Community Relations Manager, who would interface with the public at open houses and other venues. According to the Public Affairs Director, a challenge for the agency is the perceived inconsistency with how projects are promoted. For example, there is no standard on whether RCTC or an outside party retains a public relations firm. In addition, marketing of the toll roads might require a separate outreach strategy that is different from other projects. Nevertheless, as a result of RCTC's public outreach efforts and collaboration with other RTPAs, public perception of the agency remains quite positive. Triennial Performance Audit 36 RCTC 273 1-7"MG Section V Special Analysis At. the request of RCTC, a special section of this Triennial Performance Audit is provided which evaluates two topic areas related to Capital Projects Management. Each is addressed separately below. I. The first request states: "As a result of the various capital asset capitalization thresholds established by the transit operators, certain capital -related expenses below such thresholds which are funded by capital grant funds are included as .operating expenses. For purposes of calculating the fare ratio each fiscal .year, is it appropriate to exclude such capitol -related expenses from the operating expenses used in the fare ratio calculation?" Analysis The Commission is seeking clarification whether capital -related expenses below capital asset capitalization thresholds which are funded by capital grant funds can be excluded from operating expenses in the farebox recovery ratio. As the farebox recovery ratio is a provision in the Transportation Development Act, it is necessary to consult the applicable sections in the statute. For certain operating expenses to be excluded from the TDA farebox recovery ratio, the exclusions must comply, in part, with the definition of operating cost contained in Public Utilities Code Section 99247(a). The definition states, "Operating; cost means all costs in the operating expense object classes exclusive of the costs in the depreciation and amortization expense object class of the uniform system of accounts and records adopted by the .Controller pursuant to Section 99243, and exclusive of all subsidies ;for commuter rail services operated under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission and of all direct costs for providing charter services, and exclusive of all vehicle lease costs. Other cost exclusions from the farebox ratio can include exemptions for new services (PUC Section 99268.8), ridesharing services costs (99268.16), and cost increases in ADA'complementary paratransit service above the consumer price index from the prior year's expenses (99268.17, per AB 813). The Uniform System of Accounts and Records referenced in PUC 99247(a) is the State adopted accounting standard for transit operators 'to report .financial . information to the State Controller. The State's adopted USOA mirrors the federal USOA accounting standard utilized by the Federal Transit, Administration for transit operator reporting in the National Transit Database (NTD). The NTD instructions: define capital expenses as expenses for items of tangible property Triennial Performance Audit 37 RCTC 274 _ G, • • that have a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost threshold consistent with federal and local requirements. The cost threshold by FTA requirements is at least $5,000 or a lesser level used by the transit agency for its financial statements. The Riverside County transit operators have set the capitalization thresholds at various levels for their respective systems. For example, SunLine Transit's capitalization threshold is $1,000. RTA's capitalization threshold for any equipment, tires, tubes and materials of rolling stock is one-half of one percent of the average value of the fleet. For FY 2006, the value was determined to be $1,102. All other ifems have a capitalization threshold of over $400. Capital expenses do not include operating expenses that are eligible to use capital funds. NTD defines operating expenses to be consumable items with a useful life of less than one year or an acquisition cost which equals the lesser of $5,000 or the capitalization level established by the transit agency for financial statement purposes. Whereas a capital asset must meet both conditions of having a useful life of at least one year and be at or above the capitalization threshold, an operating expense could be an item either having a useful life of less than a year, or be below the threshold. Essentially, if a capital related expense can not meet both conditions, it is considered an operating expense. Given that capital -related expenses below the capitalization threshold are an operating expense, they would not incur depreciation charges which is an allowable exclusion from the farebox ratio. Other cost exclusions allowed by TDA, and described above, also appear to not be applicable. In sum, the TDA statute does not include provisions to exclude, from operating expenses, capital -related expenses below capitalization thresholds which are funded by capital grant funds. If the expense is classified as operating, TDA does not appear to differentiate between the type of funding source (operating fund or capital grant fund) to warrant different treatment of the operating expense for purposes of the farebox ratio. There also does not appear to be language in the Uniform System of Accounts to suggest an exclusion of such capital related expenses. From a review of the financial audits of each operator for the past three years, the agencies that excluded such costs from the farebox ratio were RTA and PVVTA. PVVTA would have fallen below its TDA minimum farebox of-10 percent in each year if these costs were not excluded. By not excluding these costs, the farebox ratio for PVVTA would have been 7.4 percent in FY 2003-04, 8.4 percent in FY 2004-05, and 9.5 percent in FY 2005-06. RTA's farebox ratios would have been 17.9 percent in FY 2003-04, 19.4 in FY 2004-05, and 19.1 in FY 2005-06 by not excluding the capital related costs. Each of these farebox ratios for RTA would have exceeded the blended farebox ratio requirement in each respective year. Triennial. Performance Audit 38 RCTC 275 2. The second request states: "Provide a review of transit related capital expenditures relating to allocation of funds and timeliness of completing capital projects. Provide guidance to the Commission on "best practices related to the management of transit related capital projects." Analysis A special request was: made by RCTC for the auditor to review the management and completion of transit capital grants, and to provide recommendations on how the process could be improved. The purpose of this analysisis centered on the relatively large number of open grants outstanding by the transit operators as well as RCTC-Rail. As of June 30, 2006, there were 192 open capital grants with a project value of .$85.6 million. Most of the grants have been awarded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), with others that are solely funded by TDA. The auditor's review primarily focuses on FTA related grants that are awarded to the grantees. Background With the passage of SAFETEA-LU in August 2005, FTA had provided direction for previous TEA-21 formula funds to be drawn down and spent to prevent mixing of: previous monies with SAFETEA-LU grants. However, in practice FTA does not generally deobligate formula funds so long as the. grant is obligated :by ;the designated recipient for a specific use. Once a federal, grant is approved and awarded by the FTA, the operator has three years to obligate the available funds to spend. If the funds lapse and not drawn down, funds are still available if they have been obligated by the operator within the three year period, but can only be used for the specific purpose for which the funds were approved (contained in the grant award activity line items). On the other hand, Federal earmarks, a different funding source which is guided .by congressional rules, could be pulled from the grantee for non-use. ;. Part of RCTC's responsibility is to . communicate with . SCAG (as the Metropolitan Planning Organization), and then with the transit operators, the federal apportionment in its jurisdiction. RCTC also determines whether the proposed capital projects conform to the operator's short range transit plan, Federal Transportation Improvement Program and regional transit goals and policies.. RCTC allocates to the operators the local match (e.g. TDA) to the FTA grant and tracks the progress of capital project implementation by the operators and use of the TDA funds. Amendments to the FPI' are made if approved grant funds are shifted to other projects during the fund availability timeline, and with the approval of RCTC, SCAG and the FTA. The direct grantee operator communicates with the FTA on a regular basis through the grant funding agreement, regular reporting and management using the FTA Transportation Electronic Award Management (TEAM), and electronic draw down of the federal funds_ using the FTA Electronic Clearinghouse ('ECHO) financial system. The grantee is responsible for administration and management Triennial Performance Audit 39 RCTC 276 P'1'C • of the grant after award in compliance with the grant agreement and applicable FTA circulars and regulations. RCTC, in turn, coordinates with the operators and SCAG to ensure the proposed capital projects are programmed for FTA (and Caltrans for both rural and elderly and disabled grants) approval. FTA Grant Management Guidelines The FTA has developed financial management guidelines pertaining to the administration of FTA grants. These guidelines are contained in FTA Circular 5010.1C, Grant Management Guidelines and covers Metropolitan Planning grants, Capital Program grants and Urbanized Area Formula grants. To provide an overview of the FTA guidelines, FTA monitors grants to confirm that grantees establish and follow procedures that are reasonable and comply with FTA requirements. Submission of Annual Certifications and Assurances by the grantee are in lieu of detailed FTA scrutiny. However, quarterly project management meetings may be instituted by FTA with selected grantees. These meetings provide a forum for management briefings, status/progress reports, discussion of accomplishments and problems and, as appropriate, an opportunity for site inspection. in addition, annual independent audits and federal triennial reviews for recipients of urbanized area formula program funds give FTA an opportunity to verify the grantee's certifications and assurances. As one of the triennial audit elements, the FTA checks for grant close out using a series of "yes" or "no" questions. The following questions are posed: What is the schedule for closing out all open grants? • Are projects on schedule? • Are any grants_ inactive? • Should these or any other grants be closed?. • Should any grant funds be deobligated? When appropriate, corrective actions are recommended to resolve grantees' program management deficiencies. FTA monitors the grantee's actions until compliance with all program requirements is achieved. If needed, FTA can invoke sanctions to assure that grantees act to correct any noted program deficiencies. RCTC should be aware of the results of the FTA Triennial Audits and provide assistance as needed. FTA Provisions. to Terminate or Deobligate a Grantee's Funds There are several provisions in the Circular that give FTA the right to terminate or deobligate a grantee's funds. The provisions include: Triennial Performance Audit 40 RCTC 277 • Chapter I: Project Administration and Management, Subsection 7 "Lapsed Funds". "...If all activities in the approved grant have been completed, and there are lapsing funds that are unobligated by the grantee, these funds should (emphasis added) be deobligated by FTA." Chapter I: Project Administration and Management, Subsection 15f "Close - Out by. FTA "FTA reserves the right to unilaterally initiate grant close-out. There are certain circumstances that could cause FTA to close-out a grant in whole or in part :at any time before project completion such as: 1. Grantee failure to comply with the terms or conditions of the grant agreement or other Federal requirement; 2. Continuation of the project would not produce results. commensurate with further expenditure of funds; 3. Funds are no longer needed to accomplish the grant purpose; 4. Failure by the grantee to make reasonable progress to complete approved grant activities or, (emphasis added) 5. Determination that • the project has been essentially completed and/or approved funds have been substantially drawn down." • Chapter IV: Payment. Procedures, Subsection le "De -obligation of Funds". "FTA reserves the right to deobligate unspent Federalfunds prior to project closeout." • Chapter IV: Payment Procedures, Subsection if "Right to Terminate". "The grantee agrees that, upon written notice, FTA may suspend or terminate all or part of .the financial assistance provided herein if the grantee is, or has been, in violation of the terms of the approved grant, or if FTA determines that the purposes of the statute under which the project is authorized would not be adequately served by continuation of Federal financial assistance for the project. Any failure to make reasonable progress (emphasis added) or other violation of the approved - grant that significantly endangers substantial performance of the project shall be deemed to be a breach of the approved grant." . "If FTA determines that the grantee has willfully misused (emphasis added) :FTA assistance funds by failing to make adequate progress (emphasis added); to make reasonable use of the project real property;, facilities, or equipment; or to Triennial Performance Audit 41 RCTC 278 • • honor the terms of the approved grant, FTA reserves the right to require the grantee to refund the entire amount of Federal funds provided herein or any lesser amount as may be determined by FTA." Grantee Responsibilities The Circular describes the grantee's responsibilities and actions to manage grants, including to: 1. Provide continuous administrative and management direction of project operations. 2. Provide, directly or by contract, adequate technical inspection and supervision by qualified professionals of all work in progress, 3. Assure conformity to grant agreements, applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, and safety standards. 4. Maintain the project work schedule agreed to by FTA and the grantee and constantly monitor grant activities to assure that schedules are met and other performance goals are being achieved. S. Keep expenditures within the latest approved project budget. 6. Assure compliance with FTA requirements on the part of agencies, consultants, contractors, and subcontractors working under approved third party contracts or inter -agency agreements. 7. Request and withdraw Federal cash only in amounts and at times as needed to make payments that are immediately due and payable. 8. Account for project property and maintain property inventory records that contain all the elements required. 9. Arrange for an annual independent organization -wide audit in accordance with OMB Circular, A-133, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations." 10. Prepare and submit force account and cost allocation plans prior to incurring costs if seeking reimbursement for these costs. Update and retain these approved documents for FTA upon request and during Triennial Review. 11. FTA requires reports, once submitted and approved by FTA, to be updated and retained by the grantee for availability during the Triennial Review process. Procedures for Closing Out Federal Grant According to FTA, "the grantee must initiate closeout of a grant when all approved activities are completed and applicable Federal funds expended." Once all the FTA-approved activities have been completed, the close-out process is initiated. This process would include: Triennial Performance Audit 42 RCTC 279 PMG l . Submitting a letter to ETA notifying of pending closeout 2. Preparing a final financial Status Report 3. Preparing a final budget revision reflecting actual project costs 4. Final narrative milestone/progress report 5. Submitting a request to deobligate unexpended Federal funds and any other required reports If the grantee, has completed projects or purchases under the FTA approved. budget but fundsstillremain, the grantee can revise the project budget and use the remaining .funds for another project that fits the "scope" of the original grant. Another option would involve splitting funds among similar projects. For example, .the operator could pay for a bus partially from one grant that has remaining ',money and partially from another FTA funded grant. RCTC might be able to provide policy guidance for the operators to identify "and combine past grants, either through Updates of the Short Range Transit Plan, or when amendments to the FTIP are needed. FTA Region IX Comments In conversations with an FTA Region IX official, FTA generally encourages the operators to spend their entire grant for the benefit of transit and the public. While funds from older open grants are still available, the flexibility in their use is lessened after the typical 3 to 5 year life of the grant. The self certification and assurances provided by the operator as part of the grant agreement' essentially provides a :promise that the funds will be used for their intended purpose in a timely manner. While FTA Region IX can and has deobligated grant funds .and required reimbursement by an operator, it was indicated that it is ` more .of the responsibility of the operator to make the determination whether if the funds can be obligated, or deobligated and funds reimbursed back to FTA.. This implies a more self -monitoring and self -policing approach, given the grantees have provided self certification and assurance in the grant agreement. However, FTA conducts routine checks of grant status and drawdown through the quarterly milestone/progress reports and financial status reports submitted by an operator. Theannual financial audit, as well as the FTA Triennial Audit, also serve as other methods for FTA to monitor the close out of grants. Should findings be made in the audits, the operators have a responsibility to act on the recommendations or risk potential actions by FTA. The FTA official commented` that strong communication between the metropolitan/regional planning agency and:, the operator is needed as another ,tool to ' facilitate the management and spending of grants. Triennial Performance Audit 43 RCTC 280 • Experiences of Other Planning Agencies and Transit Operators Other regional planning agencies and transit operators were contacted regarding the subject of capital grant close out. One theme mentioned was that the FTA does not typically force close out of a grant, but would rather have the grantee and planning agency work to identify and use the grant money. Some of the planning agencies work closely with the operators to determine the best use of outstanding grants and then assist in the reprogramming effort to spend the FTA grants. The reprogramming of capital projects using FTA funding requires the approval of the planning agency and MPO, which then must be approved by Caltrans and the FTA. Generally, the FTA will allow the grant to be open so long as the operator assures FTA that the funds are obligated for a specific project and meet the conditions of the grant. If the funds are obligated toward a similar specific project within the scope of the approved grant, small residual amounts could remain and close out not completed, providing an opportunity for the planning agency and operator to coordinate the use of the remaining funds. Some planning agencies emphasized the FTA Triennial Audit as the feedback mechanism on whether there are problems with the timely completion of capital projects and that warrant further FTA review. One larger MPO establishes criteria for programming FTA urbanized funds for the next three year period and selects priority projects that are deemed most essential to the region through a scoring process. Projects that fail to be obligated within the three year period could be removed from the priority list. As the FTA will only approve and allocate funding for projects that comply with the FTIP, the planning agency could decide which projects are eligible through the planning process. The planning agency coordinates the selection of projects with a transit working group comprised of the transit operators. The resolution passed by each operator's board to participate in the program includes assurances that the project will be completed as programmed in the TIP. Some planning agencies stated that the MPO has the ability to reallocate FTA funds within the same urbanized apportionment area; implying the planning agency could shift FTA funding from one operator to another. However, such course of action should be heavily weighted against other factors and be highly defensible as an implementation tool to manage capital grants. The stigma for keeping open grants is that current FTA policies allow grants to remain open provided they are obligated and meet the conditions of the grant. Through its monitoring and auditing, the FTA has its own responsibility to purge its database of open grants and identify those grants that should be addressed. Long term types of grant projects, such as designing and building a multimodal station, could take many years, although other projects such as bus amenities should not. It might be helpful for RCTC to separate between those grant projects that would take longer to complete and close, and those that generally Triennial Performance Audit 44 RCTC 281 do not take as long, in its quarterly grant reports. This could provide some additional perspective on the ability of operators to close out capital projects. TDA Local Match TDA monies (LTF and STA) allocated by RCTC generally provide the local match for FTA grants. Public Utilities Code Section 6648 stipulates a three year window for the spending of LTF funds for specific capital projects. However, after the three years, the transit operator faces three choices: 1) it can simply re -obligate the funds for the same projectwithout penalty of doss of funds; 2) obligate toward another project; or 3) de -obligate the funds which can be reapportioned for another purpose by the same operator, typically without penalty of loss of funds. None of these choices tend to provide an incentiveto close out federal grants: However, if other matching sources of revenue are used, such as an air quality grant or one time competitive revenue that does have a limited availability, and can be lost, ;.then these matching funds_ can ,be an incentive to quickly spend down on the federal grants. Recommendations There are ,;potential incremental steps that RCTC might consider that could enhance its monitoring of grants .and communication with the transit operators through the following recommended activities: 1 Work with the transit operators to distinguish between shorter term grant projects and longer term grant projects, and track 'them based on these differences. Examples of shorter tem grant projects could be those that are relatively straightforward such as bus vehicle procurement and bus amenities, while longer term grant projects could include design and construction projects such Transfer Centers, or full-fledged Intelligent. Transportation System deployment. RCTC could then improve its ability to track the completion of projects by determining which grants should be completed relatively quickly, and which should take longer to complete. If the'to.cal match for ca particular grant has a sunset provision, then the project could be included in the short term category. - A step further would be to develop timeline goals for grant closeout, such as within two to three years of the grant award for short termiprojects, and three to seven 'years for long term' projects. Development of these goals should be through consensus with the operators. 2. On an annual basis, request from the operators which specific grant projects will be procured in the coming fiscal year, and which specific open federal grants can beused in part or, in whole to fund :them. The request could confirm the schedule for. capital project implementation in the SRTP and possibly be integrated with the TDA claims process. This request would allow. RCTC to verify the availability of TDA matching funds for the year. Triennial Performance Audit 45 RCTC 282 • • • Follow up to the anticipated grant projects and activity would be through the existing quarterly request by RCTC of outstanding capital projects, and perhaps separated by the short term/long term categories recommended in Recommendation # 1. Data that the operators could assist RCTC in preparing in the quarterly report include at a minimum: • Identify and correlate the documentation of projects to individual categories as identified in the FTIP (e.g. operations, planning, capital purchase, and facility maintenance). • Document the state of project implementation. • If the project is behind schedule, the reasons for the delay. • Status of amount of federal funding obligated, received, and used to support projects. • Identify the need for an FTIP amendment. 3. Consider establishing Commission policy to encourage first in/first out (FIFO) grant drawdown. Such an adopted policy could clarify the Commission's position to assist the operators with using remaining older open grants for similar projects, if possible, as part of project funding. This policy is also in -line with FTA guidance to completely use all available federal funds and then close out the grant. 4. Revise Commission policy on disbursement of funds for capital projects. Current policy states "The Commission will disburse a. check at the time indicated on the claim form." Rather than base the disbursement of TDA on the claim request, the Commission might choose to issue a check for snatching funds upon being presented with evidence of a capital purchase by the claimant. Evidence of a purchase could be through an invoice, receipt or other statement verifying actual or highly anticipated procurement of the grant capital project. This potential activity relates to PUC Section 6648 regarding the timely allocation and use of LTF for capital projects. Triennial Performance Audit 46 RCTC 283 Section VI Findings and Recommendations The following material summarizes the major findings obtained from the Triennial Audit covering FY's 2004.through 2006. A set' of audit recommendations is then provided. A separate set of; recommendations is included for the special analysis on grant capital management, which are contained in Section V. Findings 1. RCTC conducts its management of the TDA program: in a competent, professional manner while operating in a complex intergovernmental environment. 2.- RCTC has satisfactorily complied with all State legislative mandates . for Regional Transportation Planning Agencies: 3. During the audit period, RCTC formally adopted policies, that clarify the eligibility and use .of TDA. One policy described what revenues can augment fareboxrevenues in the calculation of the farebox recovery -ratio. Another policy . established a reserve fund to ensure adequate funding of transit services. 4. Staff has been responsive in providing technical assistance to the operators and in transit planning efforts, including improving upon the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) that identifies transit performance standards by which the transit, operators are.: measured for efficiency and effectiveness. 5. RCTC has responded to and implemented each of the eight prior performance audit recommendations. 6. The new Transit Policy Committee (TPC) was established. during the audit period in response to a prior audit recommendation. The initial activities of the 'TPC included .review of transit performance. The TPC has since been working, to, provide policy direction and guidance for significant activities such ,as development of a transit vision for Riverside County, and.'to provide a forum for addressing a variety of transit policy issues at the regional level. . In light of the extension of Measure A for another 30 years and the limited capacity of Caltrans and partner agencies to deliver projects, RCTC has been organizing itself through creation of new positions toward serving more as an implementation agency. Triennial Performance Audit 47 RCTC 284 8. Planned organizational changes and additions of senior level staff in the last few years have ensured that strong long-term leadership can be found from within the ranks. 9. As RCTC continues to grow, the agency has been working to strengthen internal processes and internal controls to enhance the management of the. complex agency and delivery of projects. 10. in its continued commitment to ensure fairness among all transit operators, the agency requested a special review of cost exclusions from the farebox ratio in this audit. A separate review was also requested for capital grants management. The finding from the review of cost exclusion is that the TDA statute does not include provisions to exclude, from operating expenses, capital -related expenses below capitalization thresholds which are funded by capital grant funds. The agencies that excluded such costs from the farebox ratio in the audit period were RTA and PVVTA. PVVTA would have fallen below its. TDA minimum farebox of 10 percent in each year if these costs were not excluded. Triennial Audit Recommendations 1. Continue efforts with the operators to develop regional transit policy goals that link to a countywide transit vision. The creation of the Transit Policy Committee is one of several formal steps RCTC has taken to increase transit's presence in the regional forefront. Another is setting a reserve policy to ensure there is adequate funding for continued transit services. The transit committee provides the forum for the transit operators and RCTC to collaborate on issues that could impact the operator's ability to deliver current and future transit services. Building upon this framework, RCTC should continue its leadership efforts and work with the operators to facilitate the development of a transit vision with regional goals and policies that support a comprehensive and coordinated transit network, both within Riverside County and with neighboring counties. RCTC activities, in working with the operators, could include efforts to facilitate the development of specific regional transit policies that provide direction in the visioning process and set priority for project funding decisions. For example, regional policies could guide the implementation of transit programs that promote operating efficiencies such as intelligent transportation communication systems, bus rapid transit, and countywide standard fare media like a smart card or stored memory device. Regional transit policy will be critical given the future influx of new revenues for transit through the renewal of Measure A, as well as anticipated Proposition 42 revenues. Triennial Performance Audit 48 RCTC 285 PC 2. Consider revising six of the performance targets in the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) to set a target range only for the side of decreased productivity. The performance target for six of the performance indicators includes a high and low range for evaluating transit operator productivity. These indicators: include subsidy per passenger; subsidy per passenger; mile; subsidy per revenue hour; subsidy per revenue mile; passengers per revenue hour; and . passengers per revenue mile. ROTC should consider removing the target on the side of increased productivity but maintaining the target for decreased productivity. There should be no constraints placed on the side of increased transit efficiencies and effectiveness, provided that should _ an operator increase ,productivity above the target range, it would indicate the operator missed the, performance target. However, there should continue to be a limit placed on ',decreased productivity, as RCTC should 'monitor the magnitude of an operator's decreased performance relative to a target. 3. Require transit operators that provide both general public service and exclusive service for elderly and disabled to complete separate State Controller reports for the respective services. The Annual State. Controller Report specifies that separate reports be prepared if an operator provides both general public transit and specialized. services for elderly and disabled. This would apply to the Cities of Banning and Beaumont, RTA and:. Suntine Transit. Currently, only the City of Banning prepares separate State . Controller Reports. RCTC should request that the remaining: three operators comply with the requirement and submit separate State Controller reports for these services. 4. Develop step-by-step desk procedures that document "how to administer or implement:a program. As part of RCTC's efforts to strengthen internal controls and formalize processes for delivering capital projects, the agency should prepare desk procedures that document the instructions and steps for the :activities conductedby each division. Documentation should include 'at a minimum what programs/projects each department is responsible for, the desk processes or procedures and materials used to execute the programs/projects, target audience or market, W and identification of communication channels. These documents would enable a new hire or a staff transfer from another department to be able to fulfill the responsibilities by following the desk procedures. Triennial Performance Audit 49 RCTC 286 • • • 5. Continue efforts to integrate the different RCTC computer programs, databases and financial modules. As discussions have been held by RCTC staff, it is recommended that efforts continue to determine how the different RCTC computer programs can be integrated and shared among staff, rather than creating redundant systems. The integration of capital project databases, TransTrack and financial modules could improve internal coordination and communication, and result in greater efficiencies. Capital Grant Management Recommendations There are potential incremental steps that RCTC might consider that could enhance its monitoring of grants and communication with the transit operators. Greater detail about each recommendation is contained in Section V. 1. Work with the transit operators to distinguish between shorter term grant projects and longer term grant projects, and track them based on these differences. 2. On an annual basis, request from the operators which specific grant projects will be procured in the coming fiscal year, and which specific open federal grants can be used in part or in whole to fund them. 3. Consider establishing Commission policy to encourage first in/first out (FIFO) grant drawdown. 4. Revise Commission policy on disbursement of funds for capital projects based on providing evidence of procurement. Triennial Performance Audit 50 RCTC 287 PIG r AGENDA ITEM 1 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Public Affairs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the following bill positions: SB 375 (Steinberg, D-Sacramento) - OPPOSE SB 748 (Corbett, D-San Leandro) - OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED AB 1351 (Levine, D-Van Nuys) - SUPPORT; and 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: AB 1295 Update As of the writing of this staff report, efforts continue to remove AB 1295 - Commission's sponsored legislation regarding toll collecting authority - from the Assembly Appropriations suspense file. The suspense file is often used as a holding mechanism while questions are answered regarding a bill's financial impact on the state budget. Unfortunately it can also be used as a means to put .a bill into a deep freeze without having to take a formal vote. The means to remove a bill from the suspense file is to obtain approval from the Appropriations Chairman Mark Leno, to allow the bill to proceed; no vote is taken by the entire committee to release the bill. In the case of AB 1295, the bill was unanimously approved by the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 30"' and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill was placed on suspense because tolls result in a new state -authorized fee. During the last few weeks staff worked with Speaker Fabian Nunez's office and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to allay concerns regarding the bill's compatibility with AB 1467 that was approved last year and established a Agenda Item 11 288 state pilot program for high occupancy toll lane demonstration projects. The CTC has yet to finalize the means to implement AB 1467. AB .1467 was authored by Assemblyman. Nunez and the ideal situation would be for the implementation of the . bill to allow for the Commission's project on Interstate 15. The final outcome regarding the bill's fate in Assembly Appropriations Committee was determined on May 31' when the bill was held in committee.. Whilethe bill failed to advance, staff will look for an additional opportunity to move forward with other legislative -opportunities in the Senate. At its June 131-1' Commission meeting, a detailed update will be provided by Sacramento Representative Mark Watts. Additional Legislation - SB 375 The Planning and Conservation League and National Resource Defense Council have sponsored a bill to make changes to the California Environmental Quality Act, particularly in the area ,of growth projections. SB 375 would require regional transportation planning ` agencies to adopt preferred growth scenarios that reduce vehicle miles traveled per household. The amount of reduced vehicle miles traveled to be ° reduced would be part of an emissions inventory to be completed by the California Air Resources Board. Additional provisions of the bill would require the CTC to adopt guidelines for the use of travel demand models that meet a number of standards and would require the state to ensure projects that are included in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program reflect this orientation toward preferred growth scenarios. The impetus of this bill is the approval of AB 32 last year,, which implements a statewide strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions statewide. This bill represents the first effort to actually implement the goals outlined in the previous legislation. There are a number of problems with the bill that could impact project delivery for improvements that are being funded through Proposition 1 B and the bill could also place the state in a much stronger role in terms of land use decision making and transportation planning. Moreover, the strictest: provisions in the bill are targeted toward areas with large population centers of 800,000 or more. In the Southern California region, this means that rapidly -growing Riverside County would be faced with the same planning restrictions : placed on the rest of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. These restriction's stress vehicle mileage reduction ` and enhanced transit use along with infill development. At one point thebill included a provision that would have prevented Caltrans from preparing project study reports for capacity -increasing highway projects unless theprojects were consistent with the overall preferred growth scenario adoptedby the region. While this provision has been watered down along with other requirements, of the CTC regarding modeling criteria, the overall impact Agenda item 11 289 • • of the bill is to accelerate implementation of AB 32 on a much faster timetable and. to increase the states role in land use decision making. While the state has established a laudable goal to reduce greenhouse gas. emissions, the provisions of SB 375 will add a host of planning restrictions that conflict with the aims of California's voters when they approved Propositions 1 A and 1 B. Furthermore, it would accomplish this by strengthening the hand of the state and planning agencies such as the SLAG at the expense of local government input. For a number of reasons the bill is opposed by a wide array of organizations including the Inland Empire Transportation Coalition, California Chamber or Commerce, Associated General Contractors of California and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Staff requests an OPPOSE position on the bill in favor of a more inclusive approach to implementing AB 32 that would involve the input of the transportation community along with employer and business interests. State and Local Partnership Program Bills The other two bills that staff is bringing forward for consideration involve the implementation of yet another provision of Proposition 1 B - the State and Local Partnership Program. In April, the Commission voted to approve a SUPPORT position on SB 872 by Senator Dick Ackerman, which would have established a state and local partnership program similar to what was in place in the 1990's. The purpose behind the program is to provide snatching state dollars for county transportation agencies that have approved local sales tax measures. On a competitive basis, the state would match local dollars with state and Focal partnership program dollars of which Proposition 1 B provides $1 billion. The Commission and most agencies that comprise the Self -Help Counties Coalition were of the opinion that the intent of including the state and local partnership program in Proposition 1 B was to provide an incentive for counties to approve transportation sales tax programs. As is often the case with state legislation, creative interpretation of legislative intent can be transformed into an art form. In the case of SB 748 by Senator Eileen Corbett, the definition of a local transportation funding program has morphed to include a variety ofvoter-approved programs including developer fees, . bridge tolls and even parcel taxes - that are connected to transportation. The broader definition of funding programs that could receive matching funds from this program dilutes the $1 billion set aside in Proposition 1 B and is counter to the original intent of the program. Ideally, the Legislature will come to an agreement on a legislative Agenda Item 11 290 vehicle to implement this program that rewards self-help counties, thereby maximizing the positive impact of the funding. For that reason staff recommends an OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED :position on SB 748 and recommends a SUPPORT position on AB 1351 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine. AB 1351 was recently amended in a way' that, makes the bill soi-newhat similar in its approach to SB 872. While there are a few provisions in the bill that have: yet to be finalized, Executive Director Eric Haley has been actively working with the bili's author along with the executive ,,directors from other SouthernCalifornia transportation agencies to finalize the overall legislation. While SB 872 remains the preferred approach, it is helpful to have legislative vehicles in both houses of the Legislature. Inland, Empire Caucus Meeting On May 18' the members of the Inland Empire legislative delegation were hosted by a- group of business organizations including the Monday Morning Group, Inland' Empire Transportation Coalition and Inland Action. Legislators who attended included,Senator Bob Dutton and. Assemblymembers Paul Cook, Wilmer .Carter and the current Chair of the Inland' Empire Caucus, Bill Emmerson. The focus of the meeting was on goods movement and the ,potential for future funding from Proposition 1 B. The Commission was . represented by Executive Director Eric Haley and the Commission's Director of Regional Programs Director, Stephanie Wiggins. Ms. Wiggins presented the Commission's Grade Separation Funding Strategy and offered a compelling presentation regarding the need for the state to invest in grade separation projects. Senator Dutton, who was the legislative author of Proposition 1 B, echoed Ms. Wiggins's presentation and pledged: his support for funding. Federal. Update While Congress has . been consumed by ongoing debates regarding immigration reform and funding authorizations for the war in. Iraq, the main transportation news in Washington is the ongoing :work of the National Surface, Transportation Policy and Revenue Study (NSTPRS) Commission. This Commission is comprised of 12 members, representing: Federal, state and local governments; metropolitan planning organizations; transportation -related industries; and public interest organizations The NSTPRS Commission is working to examine not only the , condition and future needs of the nation's surface transportation system,` but also short and iong-term alternatives to replace or supplement' the fuel tax as the principal revenue 'source to support the Highway Trust Fund over the next 30 years. Agenda item 1.1 291 • • NSTPRS Commission has held a number of field hearings around the country including one in Los Angeles earlier this year. In mid -May a hearing was held in Washington regarding public private partnerships. Other hearings have included a focus on goods movement. A final report from the NSTPRS Commission is expected early next year, which will undoubtedly kick-off the process for the reauthorization of transportation bill prior to 2009. An excellent source of information on NSTPRS Commission as well as reference documents on a number of transportation policy issues can be found at its website at www.transportationfortomorrow.org. Attachment: Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 11 292 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION • Revised: 4/23/07 N' gip'. F ''AA..,,ii,, 3w °:3'd,, £��.:.' .�, i�? � ': � :k&. . , DQ .a T`:F .. .'..:� ., . tf! .i I . \ L` k �(• a'^^ :Y �£�.: F : ':.. \ { �` 'IC ' zSj5..5, , M M'.': 1 „x 3 � �1 .�. _ :. < . I tion ; :. '. ,' a .. u, C•.. i.. w My n� '. .�� , , „ . },, � . i.i� ro .,. • .: . _ a , ,. E. 3i-� � !h� 3 3 z :'.<.,1.. , 3',j",... ..>: :.sf,,.: ..5• r .a�..n� .... .. ..,i�.�.E�F:,. ;, �,:.��a.. '. ; - :.%,.''�ff��;: �. � ...3:£' f .,.., €' :.z .. .. ... ...,... _.... , ..... . . ........ ... N "'B�I)�:. Status S ... .� .... ... .... . "Position a of Board` Date Adoption ,.... . ...„. P STATE LEGISLATION AB 291 (Jeffries & Benoit) This bill relinquishes state control of the portions of SR-74 within Lake Elsinore city limits to the City Lake Elsinore. Referred to Assembly Appropriations suspense file - hearing set for 05/31 /07 Support 04/1 1 /07 AB 1240 (Benoit) This bill authorizes the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to use design -build contracting in the delivery of the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension. Hearing cancelled at request of author. Support 04/1 1 /07 AB 1351 (Levine) This bill establishes guidelines for the expenditure of the $1 billion of State -Local Partnership Funding in Proposition 1 B. The bill is consistent with the intent of Prop. 1 B in supporting self-help counties, such as Riverside, match sales tax dollars with state dollars on large projects on the state highway system. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee - 04/24/07 Support Pending Commission approval AJR 14 (Jeffries) This joint resolution calls on the President of the U.S. and Congress to enact federal legislation that ensures a substantial increment of new revenues from customs duties and importation fees is dedicated to goods movement projects in California and other impacted states. Set for hearing in Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on 06/1 1 /07. Support 04/1 1 /07 SB 9 (Lowenthal) This bill will be a vehicle for establishing a process for the selection of transportation projects to be funded from the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TGIF) of Proposition 1 B. The TCIF is a $2 billion fund. Amended and re -referred to Senate Transportation & Housing Committee. Set for hearing 04/17/07. Monitor 01 /10/07 SB 19 (Lowenthal) This bill will be a vehicle for establishing conditions and criteria for projects to be funded under the $1 billion account created by Proposition 1 B dedicated to reducing emissions related to goods movement. Amended and re -referred to Senate Transportation & Housing Committee. Set for hearing04/17/07. Monitor 01 /10/07 SB 45 (Perata) This bill will establish the application process for allocations from the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account from Proposition 1 B. Amended and re -referred to Senate Transportation & Housing Committee, Set for hearing 04/24/07. Monitor 01 /10/07 293 i• .>r.e .. Ht p..S. ..�.' .oah'i, � �,3Z:sw.;i. s.. �s;. '.`•, i ,._ .. ,,:......,..:, >z k ""�i. Wig:. �, ,_.. � T > T :, od. .} .n:.4k .' ;.. � 3 rt ..<.1..�..) .4w.. ..x�--. 'f R. 3 r. .' F.�{+e : :.#MC t. ....HiH .. x ..e.. ) yy7:.s s}� �3 s., A< ..,4II 4.5. } Ts �o }( F.#I: i1.�,S:. i �i _. . �. .r���� �� �;�.,,,::. � €� � ��� ��� ( y 2 .. 8>" •4^•:i� . £y fh"�•eF:, 3'r �< 3. 43 .�� i ..',� i � -a'' t ? 5�:� -' .#.•'. ... .....< s .... .:`? s.s5s:..;, a , c... a ., .:::: ..�. By•l� St s ......... .. Referred to Rules Committee - 01 /18/07 F�osition .. ... Monitor Date of Board Adoption ... ..... .. 01 /10/07 SB 47 (Per.ata) : - This bill will establish the eligibility, matching fund requirements, and application process for Proposition 1 B , funds under the $1 billion State -Local Partnership Program. The State -Local Partnership Program is to be administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). SB 53 (Ducheny) - This bill requires_ Caltrans to establish performance measures that will allow the department to" issue an annual rating of the overall quality of the state highway system. Caltrans would-be required- to report to " the Legislature ` on how resource, staffing, and programming decisions, -impact the overall condition .of the state highway system (in terms of distressed lane miles, bridge conditions, and life 'cycle costs). SB 53 would require Caltrans to consult with agencies such as RCTC in developing its performance measures. Amended and re -referred to Senate Transportation & - Housing Committee. Set for hearing 04/ 24/07. e Support 2/14/07 SB 56 (Runner) This bill establishes a 10-year pilot program for design -build projects, administered by the CTC. Set for hearing 04/24/07 Support 2/14/07 SB 224 (Battin) This bill relinquishes state control of SR-1 1 1 and SR-79 to local jurisdictions. SR-1 1 1 is relinquished within the city limits of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Indio, and Palm Desert. SR-79 is relinquished within the city limits of Temecula, San Jacinto and Hemet. Passed by Senate Transportation & Housing Committee; Referred to Appropriations Committee - set for hearing 04/16/07 Support 04/1 1 /07 SB 375 (Steinberg) This bill would would require regional transportation planning agencies to adopt ""preferred growth scenarios" that reduce, vehicle miles traveled per household. The amount of reduced vehicle miles traveled to be reduced would be part of an emissions inventory to be completed' by CAR'B: Additional provisions would require the CTC-to adopt guidelines for the use of travel demand models that meet a number of standards and would require the state to ensure that -- projects. that are included in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program reflect this orientation toward "preferred growth scenarios." Referred to Senate Appropriations suspense file - hearing set" for 05/31 /07 Oppose Pending Commission approval SB 748 (Corbett) This bill establishes the criteria for the State -Local Partnership program created when voters approved Proposition 1 B. The bill broadly defines agencies who: may apply for funding from the program and, -also broadly ,-includes : voter -approved ._taxes_as...eligible matching funds. Set for hearing in Senate Appropriations Committee on Q5/31 /07 _ _ _ _ Oppose Unless Amended Pending Commission approval • • SB 872 (Ackerman) This bill establishes the criteria for the State -Local Partnership program created when voters approved Proposition 1 B. The bill allocates $200 million per year statewide over five FY's beginning FY 10-1 1, Funding goes only to self-help counties and to projects with a minimum cost of $25 million. Referred to Senate Transportation & Housing Committee - set for hearing 04/17/07 Support Date of Board ............................ ... . ............................................. Adoption 04/ 1 1 /07 FEDERAL LEGISLATION H.R. 1475 (McGovern, D- MA) This bill equalizes the fringe benefit employers may offer their employees tax-free for transit reimbursement and parking reimbursement to $200/month. Presently, employers may reimburse parking up to $175/month while transit may only be reimbursed up to $100/month. Referred to House Ways & Means Committee; Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee — 03/12/07 Support 04/1 1 /07 H.R. 5576 (Rep. Knollenberg, R- MI) This is the appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia. The House and Senate reports on this bill contain a combined $6.5 million for Riverside County transportation projects, including $3.0 million for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension. House and Senate reports issued. Monitor 01/10/07 295