Loading...
06 June 10, 2009 Commission87347 REM 4DS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chair: Bob Magee 15` Vice Chair: Bob Buster 2nd Vice Chair: To Be Elected 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 Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Robert Crain, City of Blythe Ray Quinto / Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Jordan Ehrenkranz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Steve Nolan, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Eric McBride, City of Hemet Patrick J. Mullany / Larry Spicer, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Ben Godfrey, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi / Scott Mann, City of Menifee Jesse Molina / Bonnie Flickinger, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Malcolm Miller, City of Norco Jim Ferguson / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside James Potts / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Scott Farnam / Bridgette Moore, City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, 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. 11.36.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, June 10, 2009 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. 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 /east 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. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) 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 10, 2009 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 13, 2009 6. PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Continue the public hearing to receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2009/10; 2) Close the public hearing; and 3) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2009/10. 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 onthe item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to ,the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a 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. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND PROPOSED GOAL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 Page 226 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt 0.0% as its annual race -neutral Federal Transit Administration, (FTA) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for FFY 2009/10 from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-012, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Goal (49 CFR Part 26) as Applies to Funding Received Directly from the Federal Transit Administration 3) Post the proposed DBE overall annual goal for FFY 2009/10 and receive comments for 45 days; and 4) Submit the FFY 2009/10 FTA DBE program and annual goal to the FTA. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 3 8B. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND CALTRANS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND PROPOSED ANNUAL ANTICIPATED RACE- CONSCIOUS AND RACE - NEUTRAL PARTICIPATION GOALS FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 Page 244 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt 0.3% as its race -conscious Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) and 0.4% as its race -neutral Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) for FFY 2009/10 from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-013, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level as Applies to Funding Received from the Federal Highway Administration Through Caltrans"; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission for submission to Caltrans; 4) Authorize the Chair to execute the Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form on behalf of the Commission for submission to Caltrans; and 5) Submit the FFY 2009/10 DBE program and AADPL to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans. 8C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 291 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2009. 8D. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Page 297 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4, 2008. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 4 8E. 2009 STATE ROUTE 91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE Page 305 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the 2009 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. 8F. EXTENSION OF 1989 MEASURE A HIGHWAY FUNDING FOR THREE COACHELLA VALLEY PROJECTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 336 1) Approve the following three amendments to the previously approved 1989 Measure A Coachella Valley highway project agreements for an extension of the termination date beyond June 30, 2009 as follows: a) Agreement No. M23-006-02 (West Cathedral Canyon channel to East Palm Canyon Drive bridge widening project in city of Cathedral City) extended to December 31, 2010; b) Agreement No. 06-31-017-02 (Jefferson Street to Madison Street in city of Indio) extended to December 31, 2009; c} Agreement No. 07-31-097-02 (West city limits to Washington Street in city of La Quinta) extended to December 31, 2009; 2) Approve reductions to the Measure A funding amounts in the above amendments as follows: a) Agreement No. M23-006-02 by $357,600 for a revised funding amount of $3,942,400; b} Agreement No. 07-31-097-02 by $178,600 for a revised funding amount of $ 1,976,400; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 5 8G. 1989 MEASURE A HIGHWAY LOCAL CIRCULATION FUNDS FOR STATE ROUTE 60/VALLEY WAY INTERCHANGE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 339 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-078-00 with the county of Riverside authorizing 1989 Measure A Local Circulation funds for the State Route 60/Valley Way Interchange in the amount of up to $5.5 million; 2) Extend the expenditure reimbursement of 1989 Measure A funds expiring on June 30, 2009 to June 30, 2011; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8H. 1989 MEASURE A HIGHWAY LOCAL CIRCULATION FUNDS FOR STATE ROUTE 91NAN BUREN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE Page 341 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-077-00 with the city of Riverside authorizing 1989 Measure A Local Circulation funds for the State Route 91/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project in the amount of $7.616 million; 2) Authorize staff to utilize federal, state, and/or local funds based on project delivery and availability of these funds; 3) Extend the expenditure reimbursement of 1989 Measure A funds expiring on June 30, 2009 to June 30, 201 1; and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 81. FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA Page 343 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve an amendment to the FY 2008/09 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Temecula (Temecula) as submitted. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 6 8J. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA Page 346 Overview This item is for the Commission to grant the city of Temecula (Temecula) an extension to June 30, 2010, for approved SB 821 program funds for the Santa Gertrudis Creek pedestrian/bicycle bridge overcrossing project. 8K. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE INTERSTATE 215/ STATE ROUTE 74 INTERCHANGE PROJECT Page 350 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) and conduct a selection process for construction• management and related services for the Interstate 215/State Route 74 interchange project in the city of Perris. • 8L. AMENDMENTS TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES . MANUAL Page 352 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve revisions to certain provisions in the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures manual; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-01 1, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Revisions to the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures Manual". Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 7 8M. AMENDMENTS WITH ZAMISKI CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 362 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-51-089-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-51-089-00, with Zamiski Construction to exercise the first one-year option extension to expire on December 31, 2010; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-52-088-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-52-088-00, with Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. to exercise the first one-year option extension to expire on December 31, 2010; 3) Approve additional funding in the combined amount of $950,000 for the services to be provided by Zamiski Construction and Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc.; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8N. DEFERRAL OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE METROLINK STATION FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 367 1) Defer development of the University of California, Riverside (UCR) station from opening day service as part of the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project; and 2) Maintain the status in the environmental clearance process as a possible future station. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 8 80. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH PSOMAS TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE PHASE 1 — PERRIS MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY Page 369 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-33-007-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 04-33-007-00, with Psomas for construction support services for Phase I — Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility in a not to exceed amount of $73,769, for a total contract value of $1,163,461, plus a general contingency amount of $6,231 for a total not to exceed amount of $1,169,692; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve the use of the contingency as may be required for the project. 8P. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 Page 373 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the preliminary FY 2009/10 Metrolink operating and capital budget; 2) Allocate the Commission's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) in an amount not to exceed of $6,502,900 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) fund for train operations and maintenance -of -way, and $21,912,200 for capital projects to be funded by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, State Transit Assistance (STA) funds and LTF; and 3) Authorize the SCRRA to apply $155,200 of the Commission's prior year carryover funds to the FY 2009/10 operating budget to cover an unanticipated increase in the liability insurance premiums. 4111 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 9 8Q. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECURITY CART PROGRAM AT THE COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 379 1) Approve implementation of a security cart program at the three largest Commission -owned commuter rail Metrolink stations, with capital expenditures not to exceed of $50,000 and operating expenditures not to exceed $10,000 a year; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel. review, to purchase equipment and services to implement the aspects of this program on behalf of the Commission. 8R. AGREEMENT WITH CALIBER PAVING COMPANY, INC. FOR REHABILITATION OF THE COMMUTER RAIL STATION PARKING LOTS Page 383 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 09-24-063-00 to Caliber Paving Company, Inc. for repairs, paving, slurry sealing, and striping of various Commission -owned commuter rail station parking lots for the Metrolink Station Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan (Plan) for a not to exceed amount of $790,886; 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 10, 2009 Page 10 8S. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CALLAN MANAGEMENT • COMPANY DBA WESTERN AREA SECURITY SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 387 1) Receive and file the Review of Contract Billings of Callan Management Company dba Western Area Security Service (WASS); 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-25-071-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-25-071-00, with WASS to provide additional security services at the five Metrolink commuter rail stations, with an increase to the current contract in the amount of $405,000 and exercise the first one-year option in the amount of $1.3 million; 3) Approve a budget adjustment to increase expenditures by $205,000; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8T. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 398 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 8U. FISCAL YEARS 2009/10 — 2011/12 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Page 406 Overview This item is for the Commission to review and approve, in concept, the FYs 2009/10 — 2011/12 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA),. SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 11 8V. FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 THIRD QUARTER STATUS OF PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Page 411 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the transit operators' third quarter compliance status report on the FY 2008/09 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP). 8W. PALO VERDE VALLEY - FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 423 1) Reaffirm the Commission's definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" standards; and 2) Make a finding through the adoption of Resolution No. 09-010, "A 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 that can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley. 8X. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Page 430 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize payment of $ 1,645 per month maximum per buspool for the period July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, to the existing Corona, Mira Loma, and Riverside buspools; and 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 12 8Y. FISCAL YEAR 2009 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT — ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST Page 433 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve "a first -come, first -served" basis allocation of $570,000 in support of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separations located in Riverside County. 8Z. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 435 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on state and federal legislative activities. 9. MID COUNTY PARKWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 442 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve refocusing the Mid County Parkway (MCP) limits to Interstate 215 and State Route 79 in response to comments received on the draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (DEIR/EIS). 10. STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT UPDATE Page 448 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive an update on the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) project. 11. ELECTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR 2ND VICE CHAIR Overview This item is for the Commission to conduct an election for the 2009 2nd Vice Chair position. Page 451 • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 13 12. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 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 14A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners — See List of Property Owners Item APN Property Owner(s) 1 310-1 10-016 310-100-007 310-100-008 310-100-009 310-100-010 310-100-01 1 310-100-012 310-100-013 310-100-014 WLPX Perris Venue 2 310-100-040 310-100-006 310-100-042 310-100-005 310-100-004 WLPX Perris Triangle 3 310-062-004 310-062-007 Peacefield Inv. 4 311-190-030 31 1-190-046 Lake Perris Village MHC 5 310-061-016 310-070-075 310-070-076 310-081-01 1 Ringmasters Square (Perris Freeway Plaza LLC) 6 310-100-048 John R. Anderson 7 310-100-049 310-100-050 Riverside County Transportation Commission 8 310-100-045 George Harada Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 10, 2009 Page 14 15. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 8, 2009, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JUNE 10, 2009 AM AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS (� Q� �s P,�,.-, 6sU., .Lesv yiiJ )-< dam_ /1/1� 6=--t--t A Aug T'T`..tr--- "JgSS. .4404../ Ai U Ce r7 Le,t,✓c-f l l{ 6 4e /'1rl/�--i j,�_T�¢ ��� p.J O$Eiis e-Cu Cdi- --1 i YvL Tp �' -F r� c1 Rc/ of 7-e, / (.ID / H�c� E4so/J IV c Act-L.-Di-) - kir;;,thltn--_,)/Lt (I ri 0)015e tts �o gr, (D _ziaL ri,:-- �-r�-P _ fE Jos IDE 11AS ,, 4ezzoo7-z-_z o s R4��'b �`�d�� ec, - r.fij 01, Ler- =ki o t � -'P,..°n (-SILsotA Ci.v,CeD z geue Poe.,1 14-c-- PACi ,,._ Stye-KJc, S .‘.1 .11-0 ` Goy C.1.-4. rye. 4.e. )zt/�� 0471-I reel �;/�ir4' Y ;_Ar.zr ,'^' s. _c r a% . �--entii 1?.. �.bGi�.�.�� 2./ 1- ,2_ DDerr evrA! <li1yl 7 i Qi1 � rne. 'OV--e I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL JUNE 10, 2009 Presen Absent County of Riverside, District I D County of Riverside, District II D X County of Riverside, District III � O County of Riverside, District IV � D County of Riverside, District V � D City of Banning D City of Beaumont i D City of Blythe #2t D City of Calimesa ,e'r D City of Canyon Lake � D City of Cathedral City RK D City of Coachella X- 0 City of Corona .21. D City of Desert Hot Springs 0:D City of Hemet D City of Indian Wells D D City of Indio D City of La Quinta � D City of Lake Elsinore d2r' D City of Menifee oiat D City of Moreno Valley D City of Murrieta ,r--'. D City of Norco D, City of Palm Desert ;r1„,„ City of Palm SpringsD City of Perris D City of Rancho Mirage -,17, D City of Riverside -s2r D City of San Jacinto � D City of Temecula � D City of Wildomar � 0 Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 0 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON MINUTES Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Bob Magee at 9:34 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Chair Magee led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Steve Adams Marion Ashley Roger Berg Bob Botts Daryl Busch Bob Buster Joseph DeConinck Jordan Ehrenkranz Scott Farnam Frank Hall Terry Henderson Darcy Kuenzi Robin Lowe Bob Magee Scott Matas 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Glenn Miller Jesse Molina Gordon Moller Patrick J. Mullany Gregory Pettis James Potts Steve Pougnet Ray Quint° Ron Roberts Karen Spiegel Jeff Stone Roy Wilson Raymond Wolfe Commissioners Absent Richard Kelly Eduardo Garcia Rick Gibbs John F. Tavaglione Anne Mayer, Executive Director, presented a 5-year service award to Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 5 — 6 AND APRIL 8, 2009 M/S/C (Henderson/Spiegel) to approve the minutes of February 5 — 6 and April 8, 2009. Abstain: Berg, Ehrenkranz, and Moller 6. PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF FEE INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 229-082-002, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT FROM ADAMS STREET TO THE 60/91 /215 INTERCHANGE, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Chair Magee opened the public hearing and requested legal counsel to explain the nature and the scope of the hearing. Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, explained the purpose of this hearing is for the Board to consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity to acquire by eminent domain certain real property for the construction and maintenance of improvements to the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) project from Adams Street to the 60/91 /215 interchange, in Riverside County, California. He stated at the conclusion of this hearing, the Board will be asked to adopt a resolution of necessity and provided the findings. Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, verified the proof of mailing that certifies on April 24, 2009, the notice was sent to the property owner of said parcel number. Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager, stated the Commission is requested to determine and find that the full requirements for the adoption of a resolution of necessity has been met and satisfied, and highlighted the following areas: • The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; • The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; • The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; • The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; • SR-91 HOV lane project map; • Ro Sun Park property; • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 3 • Ground view and aerial view of the Ro Sun Park property to be acquired; and • Staff recommendation that the Commission adopt a resolution of necessity based on the findings. Jennifer Harmon read a letter dated May 7, 2009, from the property owner's attorney, Lee and Kaufman, LLP, for the public record. Chair Magee called upon all persons with an interest in the property who wish to be heard on this matter. There were no requests to speak. Chair Magee called upon any other persons who wish to be heard on this matter. There were no requests to speak. At this time, Chair Magee closed the hearing. Commissioner Bob Buster expressed support for the need to acquire this property for the SR-91 HOV lane project. He requested staff provide an update on the improvements along the SR-91 corridor. Anne Mayer replied staff will provide an update on the overall scope of the project and the improvements that are being proposed at the June Commission meeting. Commissioner Steve Adams concurred with Commissioner Buster's comments and expressed support for the SR-91 HOV lane project in order to improve safety and traffic flow. M/S/C (Buster/Lowe) to: 1) Make the following findings as hereinafter_ described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner; and Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 4 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-009, "Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition of Fee Interest in Certain Real Property, Located in Riverside County, California, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel number 229-082-002 (Caltrans Parcel No. 20406-1), is Necessary for the Construction and Maintenance of Improvements to the State Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Project from Adams Street to the 60/91/215Interchange, in Riverside County, California". 7. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented the proposed Budget for FY 2009/10, and discussed the following areas: • Budget process; • Guiding policies; • FY 2009/10 Budget considerations; • Budget summary; • Revenue breakdown for FY 2008/09 - FY 2009/10; • Expenditures breakdown for FY 2008/09 - FY 2009/10, expenditures breakdown by department, department expenditure highlights, and functional expenditures breakdown; • Personnel cost trends; • Measure A Administration; and • Next steps. Chair Magee opened the public hearing at this time. No comments were received from the public and the Chair announced the continuance of the public hearing to the Commission meeting on June 10, 2009. M/S/C (Stone/Henderson) to continue the public hearing for the proposed Budget for FY 2009/10 to the Commission meeting on June 10, 2009: 8. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There was additional information for . Agenda Item 10, "Amendment with STV Incorporated to Provide Advanced Preliminary Engineering, Final Design, and Procurement and Construction Support for the Perris Valley Line Project". Per staff's request, Agenda Item 9C, "Revisions to the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program Maintenance of Effort Guidelines", was pulled from the Consent Calendar for revisions. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 5 Commissioner Roger Berg requested Agenda Item 9F, "Agreement with Elite Electric Inc. to Provide Electrical Lightening Maintenance for the Five Metrolink Stations in Riverside County", be pulled for further discussion. Commissioner Jeff Stone requested Agenda Item 9S, "State and Federal Legislative Update', be pulled in order to vote separately on the various bills. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Stone/Adams) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Abstain: Ashley and Stone, Agenda Item 9E, "Recurring Contracts for FY 2009/10" due to a potential conflict of interest. 9A. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW 1) Adopt the Annual Investment Policy; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Investment Policy". 9B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. 9D. CITY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAMMING REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE ROUTE 91/ VAN BUREN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE 1) Approve the city of Riverside's request to program $2 million of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds from the Regional Arterial Program for the construction phase of the State Route 91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchange improvement project; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-036-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-72-036-00, between the city of Riverside and the Commission to reflect $2 million of construction funds; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 6 9E. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 Approve the recurring contracts for FY 2009/10. 9G. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH PB AMERICAS, INC., FOR ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON STATE ROUTE 91, FROM STATE ROUTE 241 TO PIERCE STREET, AND ON INTERSTATE 15 FROM HIDDEN VALLEY PARKWAY TO CAJALCO ROAD 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-31-001-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 08-31-001-00, with PB Americas, Inc. (PB) to perform additional preliminary engineering and environmental services required for the preparation of a Ca!trans Project Report and Environmental Document (PR/ED) for the development of proposed improvements to the State Route 91 corridor, from SR-241 to Pierce Street, and on Interstate 15, from Hidden Valley Parkway to Cajalco Road, for the amount of $2,536,181; 2) Approve an adjustment to the project budget for the amount of $2,536,181, for a total not to exceed amount of $35,077,485; 31 Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director to execute future amendments from the proposed contingency balance. 9H. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DAVID ASSOCIATES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS, S AND COST ESTIMATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ROUTE 74/INTERSTATE 215 INTERCHANGE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF PERRIS EVANS AND PECIFICATIONS, OF THE STATE IMPROVEMENT 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-31-122-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-31-122-00, with David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) to perform additional work scope to complete the final engineering services and prepare plans, specifications, and cost estimate (PS&E) for the construction of the SR-74/I-215 interchange improvement project in the city of Perris for the additional amount of $700,000; 2) Approve an adjustment to the project budget in the amount of $790,000, from the previously approved base amount of $2,091,662 plus a contingency amount of $218,338 for a total amount of $2,310,000, to a revised base amount of • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 7 $2,791,662 plus a contingency amount of $308,338 to cover potential future changes in scope for a total not to exceed amount of $3.1 million; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to execute future amendments from the proposed contingency balance for additional work as required for the project. 91. AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK SHUTTLE SERVICE TERM EXTENSION AND FUNDING INCREASE 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No.-03-25-303-02, Amendment No. 2 to MOU No. 03-25-303, with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for an extension of the term and increased funding of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) North Main Corona Metrolink Station shuttle service; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. 9J. AGREEMENT WITH DELCAN CORPORATION TO CONDUCT A STUDY TO ASSESS AND RECOMMEND SECURITY, SURVEILLANCE, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE COMMISSION'S METROLINK STATIONS AND SELECT PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES 1) Award Agreement No. 09-25-061-00 to Delcan Corporation to conduct a study to assess and recommend security, surveillance, and emergency response enhancements to the Commission's existing as well as proposed Metrolink stations and select park and ride facilities for a not to exceed amount of $200,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 8 9K. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF PERRIS AND THE COMMISSION FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF RAIL MUSEUM IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY 1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 09-33- 070-00 between the city of Perris and the Commission for design and construction of Orange Empire Rail Museum's (GERM) rail museum improvements at the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility in an amount not to exceed $150,000; and 2) Authorize the ExecutiveDirector or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. 9L. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 9M. AMENDMENT TO SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 1) Approve modification to SunLine Transit Agency's (SunLine) FY 2008/09 operating assistance funding by allocating an additional $1,177,483 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds and $6,517 in federal Section 5311 funds to cover the shortfall in Measure A funding and federal Section 5307 allocations; 2) Approve modification to SunLine's FY 2008/09 capital improvement program resulting in a reduction of $3,006,837 in State Transit Assistance (STA), $751,231 in Section 5307, and $1,836,997 in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) expenditures; 3) Include $4,714,391 in federal Section 5307 and $452,696 in Section 5311 funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Stimulus Package of 2009 to the SRTP; 4) Approve a budget adjustment of $3,006,837 to the FY 2008/09 budget to decrease STA expenditures; and 5) Approve amendment no. 1 to SunLine's FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 9 9N. AMENDMENT TO PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 1) Approve Amendment No. 1 to Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency's (PVVTA) FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect a reduction in the agency's FY 2008/09 State Transit Assistance (STA) capital funding from $591,198 to $126,997 due to the revenue shortfall in the revised STA apportionment; and 2) Reallocate $114,401 of the available STA amount to the new transit office project and $12,596 for a bus engine replacement project. 90. AGREEMENTS FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TRUCK SERVICE 1) Agreement No. 06-45-005-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-45-005-00, with Pepe's Towing to add an additional tow truck to Beat No. 25 effective May 2009; 2) Agreement No. 06-45-004-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 06-45-004-00, with Hamner Towing to add an additional tow truck to Beat No. 26 effective May 2009; 3) Agreement No. 06-45-531-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 06-45-531-00, with Hamner Towing to extend the term of the agreement for Beat No. 1; 4) Agreement No. 06-45-004-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 06-45-004-00, with Hamner Towing to extend the term of the agreement for Beat No. 26; 5) Agreement No. 06-45-005-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 06-45-005-00, with Pepe's Towing to extend the term of the agreement for Beat No. 25; and 6) Agreement No. 06-45-046-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-45-046-00, with Tri-City Towing to extend the term of the agreement for Beat No. 2. 9P. AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICES Approve Agreement No.09-45-069-00 with the city of Riverside (City) for Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) services during the construction of the Van Buren Boulevard/State Route 91 interchange reconstruction. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 10 9Q. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM Approve Agreement No. 09-45-068-00 with the county of Riverside, Department of Facilities Management, for the lease of a radio communications site on Box Springs Mountain for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program. 9R. COLUMBIA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT Allocate $500,000 in Rail Local Transportation Fund'(LTF) funds to the city of Riverside for the Columbia Avenue Grade Separation project. 10. AMENDMENT WITH STV INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE ADVANCED PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, FINAL DESIGN, AND PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, presented the recent developments for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project, highlighting the following areas: • Major change in environmental process and proposed contract amendment; • Environmental process; • Environmental impact report (EIR) advantages; • UC Riverside station issues; • Highgrove station issues; • Hunter Park station sites; and • Engineering progress and opportunity. Commissioner Buster expressed support for completing an EIR for the PVL project in order to evaluate all of the potential impacts. Commissioner Darcy Kuenzi thanked staff for its hard work on this project. She suggested sending correspondence on behalf of the Commission to Barney Barnett, Highgrove Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), thanking him for his community advocacy efforts for a proposed Highgrove Metrolink station. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 11 M/SIC (Kuenzi/Adams) to: 1) Approve development of a federal supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) and a state EIR; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-33-123-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 07-33-123-00, with STV, Incorporated (STV) for advanced preliminary engineering (APE), final design, support for the procurement of construction materials, and design support during construction of the PVL in a not to exceed amount of $14,247,935, for a total contract value of $30,858,812 plus a general contingency amount of $1.9 million for a total not to exceed amount of $32,758,812; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to issue a notice to proceed (NTP) for final design and construction support contingent on receiving Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approval of the environmental document and the project construction grant agreement (PCGA), respectively; 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 5) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve the use of the contingency as may be required for the project. 11. COMMUTER RAIL AND MULTIMODAL FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, presented the draft Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual, highlighting the following: • Commission facility standards and station maintenance; • Commission facility standards - goals, design elements, safety and security, environmental sustainability and standardization; and • Bus loop, platform and canopy designs; • Plans and Programs Committee comments; and • Next steps. Commissioner Buster suggested evaluating options for the cities and county to share in the cost to maintain the Commission -owned Metrolink stations. In response to Commissioner Bob Botts' question if the 10% cap for off site improvements currently exists for the Metrolink stations, Sheldon Peterson replied that this is the first proposed opportunity to implement the 10% cap. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 12 Anne Mayer added that the 10% cap sets a framework to allow decisions to be made at a staff level. If a city's request for off site improvements exceeds the 10% cap, staff will forward the request to the Commission for action on a case by case basis. Sheldon Peterson requested Commissioners contact him with any additional comments, concerns, or questions. The manual will return to the Commission for approval at its July meeting. 12. IMPLEMENTATION OF INLAND EMPIRE 511 Robert Yates provided an overview on the implementation of the Inland Empire 511. M/S/C (Lowe/Henderson) to: 1) Approve the implementation of Inland Empire 511 in partnership with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and direct staff to begin updating the telephone and website systems required to support the project; 2) Approve a set aside amount of $32,500 for costs related to telephone company (AT&T and Verizon) land line switching charges to enable the operation of the 511 number; 3) Approve Agreement No. 09-41-066-00 with !tells Corporation (Iteris) to update the existing traffic map and Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) telephone system in the amount of $503,500; 4► Approve Agreement No. 09-45-067-00 with Iteris for operations and maintenance services for the traffic map and IVR telephone system including monthly per call usage charges for a three-year term in the amount of $1,080,000; and 5) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 13. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION 9F. AGREEMENT WITH ELITE ELECTRIC INC. TO PROVIDE ELECTRICAL LIGHTING MAINTENANCE FOR THE FIVE METROLINK STATIONS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Commissioner Berg expressed strong concern for the proposed costs, specialized equipment, and quarterly field inspections that are included in the scope of services. In addition, he expressed concern that the proposed agreement with Elite electric Inc. was not attached to the agenda item. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 13 Anne Mayer discussed the ongoing efforts of the Commission as the owners and operators of the Metrolink stations, noting that this item standardizes and professionalizes the Commission's operation of its facilities. The proposed costs for this agreement are comparable to the costs the Commission has incurred on a time and materials basis. In response to Commissioner Berg's question as to why this contract was not competitively bid, Anne Mayer replied this is an, ongoing maintenance contract that is not subject to the public contracts code. Commissioner Gordon Moller expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Berg for his concern related to costs. He asked for clarification that the maintenance contract components include blown lamps, fuses, defective ballasts, controllers, timers, connectors, conduits, circuit breakers, j-boxes, and damaged or unsafe wiring as noted in the staff report. Matt Wallace replied the quarterly inspections include all of these components. He discussed the additional work the contractor will complete during the quarterly inspections. Commissioner James Potts recommended the Commission enter into a one-year contract instead of a two-year contract in order to evaluate the work being performed. Anne Mayer suggested the Commission approve a one-year contract with a one-year option. Commissioner Berg reiterated his concerns about the contractor's costs, the manner in which this agreement has been developed, and issues that have not been addressed. Commissioner Potts agreed that while there is a level of uncertainty, he expressed support for having a contractor on -call to handle any lighting issues. M/S/C (Potts/Roberts) to: 1) Approve selection of and award Agreement No. 09-24-059-00 to Elite Electric Inc. to provide electrical lighting maintenance services at the five Commission - owned Metrolink stations for a total contract amount of $262,000 for the term of one-year with a one-year option; and Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 14 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission No: Berg Abstain: Ashley 9S. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, provided an overview on all the bill positions before the Commission for action. M/S/C (Ashley/Lowe) to: 1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislative activities; and 2) Approve the following bill positions: a) AB 798 (Nava) - SUPPORT; c) AB 732 (Jeffries) - SUPPORT; d) AB 729 (Evans) - SUPPORT; g) SB 372 (Kehoe) - OPPOSE; h) SB 679 (Wolk) - OPPOSE; and i) H.R. 947 (Calvert) - SUPPORT. Commissioner Stone recommended the Commission take an oppose position on AB 266 (Carter) instead of a monitor position. MIS/C (Stone/Adams) to: b) AB 266 (Carter) - OPPOSE. No: Buster and Pettis Commissioner Stone recommended the Commission take a strongly support position on AB 1403 (Eng) instead of a support position. He commended Hasan Ikhrata of the Southern California Associated Governments for his leadership. M/S/C (Stone/Lowe) to: e) AB 1403 (Eng) - STRONGLY SUPPORT. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13. 2009 Page 15 Commissioner Stone recommended the Commission take an oppose position on ACA 15 (Arambula) instead of a support position. He stated that he believes it is important to maintain the 2/3 vote for imposing taxes to protect the citizens of California as reducing the voter threshold will have negative impacts. Commissioner Adams concurred with Commissioner Stone's position and comments. Commissioner Terry Henderson expressed her support for ACA 15 and a majority vote on all issues. She expressed that government should not make it more difficult to move forward. Commissioner Buster concurred with Commissioner Henderson's position and comments. He discussed how voters take a doctrinaire approach to any taxes, regardless of the benefit, using Measure A and the Commission's legislators as an example. Commissioner Stone reiterated his opposition to ACA 15, citing that the 2/3 provides protection from unnecessary taxes. Commissioner Berg concurred with Commissioner Stone's position and comments to oppose ACA 15. Commissioner Gregory Pettis expressed concern that the discussion has moved away from the intent of ACA 15 and expressed his support for the bill. Commissioner Roy Wilson concurred with Commissioner Pettis' concern. He explained that ACA 15 is to determine whether or not, in public elections, to lower the threshold from a 2/3 approval to 55% approval from the people, not the legislators. M/S/C (Stone/Adams) to: f) ACA 15 (Arambula) — OPPOSE. Yes: Adams, Ashley, Berg, Botts, Busch, DeConinck, Ehrenkranz, Farnham, Kuenzi, Magee, Miller, Molina, Mullany, Potts, Quinto, and Stone No: Buster, Hall, Henderson, Lowe, Matas, Moller, Pettis, Pougnet, Spiegel, and Wilson Abstain: Roberts Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 13, 2009 Page 16 14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 14A. Anne Mayer announced the Workshop on Advancing Goods Movement through the Inland Empire is being held at the Marriott Riverside on May 26, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. — 1:30 p.m. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:13a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 10, 2009, in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board i • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2009/10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION. This item is for the Commission to: 1) Continue the public hearing to receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2009/10; 2) Close the public hearing; and 3) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2009/10. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The annual fiscal budget is the result of Commission staff determining the operating and capital needs for FY 2009/10 and identifying the resources to fund those needs. The budget process began in December 2008. The goals and objectives approved by the Commission on March 11, 2009, 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 13, 2009, staff presented the proposed budget to the Commission. Subsequent to that presentation, staff updated the document as a result of the following changes, resulting in a net decrease of $24,763,700 to ending fund balance: Adjustments to FY 2008/09 Projected Amounts • Decreases of $4.5 million and $1 million in Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues, respectively, based on sales tax receipts trends and economic data; • A $150,000 increase in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) reimbursements for the North Main Corona station parking structure; Agenda Item 6 1 • A $66,600 decrease in salaries and benefits expenditures for three retirees who accepted the early retirement incentive; • A $413,800 increase in commuter rail station support costs and maintenance expenditures primarily due to increased security costs; • A net decrease of $809,800 in Measure A Coachella Valley highway engineering expenditures due to updates of projected expenditures; • A $150,000 increase in rail construction expenditures related to the North Main Corona station parking structure; • Net decreases of $400,300 and $1,000,000 in Measure A Coachella. Valley and Measure A Western County highway construction expenditures, respectively, related to updates of projected expenditures; • A $402,000 increase in rail operating and capital contributions related to the reversal effect of a FY 2007/08 accrual; and • Decreases of $1,763,000 and $112,000 in Measure A local streets and roads expenditures and Coachella Valley specialized transit expenditures, respectively, based on the decreased Measure A revenue projections. Adjustments to FY 2009/10 Budgeted Amounts • Decreases of $4.5 million and $1 million in FY 2009/10 projected Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues, respectively, based on sales tax receipts trends and economic data; • A $30,000 decrease in LTF revenues allocated for Commission planning and programming activities; • A $100 increase in Freeway Service Patrol reimbursements; • A $9,630,000 increase in CMAQ reimbursements for the North Main Corona station parking structure and for Interstate 215 corridor improvements; • A $145,600 net decrease in investment income as a result of a net increase in expenditures over revenues and the correlating decrease in the estimated cash balance; • A $88,800 decrease in salaries and benefits for a third retiree who accepted the early retirement incentive; • A $165,000 increase in professional and support costs related to increased costs for graphic design services, general business insurance, and weed abatement; • A $300,000 increase in repair support costs offset by a $300,000 decrease in rail construction expenditures due to a reclassification of rehabilitation project costs; • A $187,000 decrease in program management expenditures for Bechtel services based on a reconciliation to the Bechtel contract amount; • A $243,500 increase in rail station maintenance expenditures primarily due to increased security costs; • A $4 million increase in preliminary engineering expenditures related to the Perris Valley Line; Agenda Item 6 • • • 2 • • • • A $584,000 decrease in Measure A Coachella Valley highway engineering expenditures due to updates of costs; • An increase of $300,000 in rail construction expenditures based on contract scope changes; • A $6,519,300 increase in Measure A Coachella Valley highway construction expenditures based on jurisdictions' extension requests; • A net increase of $1,200,000 in Measure A Western County highway construction expenditures based on updated costs and communications from lead agency jurisdictions; • A $229,700 decrease in specialized transit expenditures due to the decreased Measure A revenue projections; • A $1,266,000 decrease in local streets and roads expenditures due to the decreased Measure A revenue projections; • A $772,200 decrease in Coachella Valley regional arterial expenditures due to the decreased Measure A revenue projections; • Increases of $11,577,000 and $6,350,000 in LTF transit and rail jump-start allocations, respectively, based on final Short Range Transit Plan submissions and a correction to the jump-start allocation amount; • A $673,000 decrease in State Transit Assistance expenditures based on the final Short Range Transit Plan submissions; and • A net decrease of $1,726,900 in operating transfers in and out related primarily to a reduction in net bond proceeds for debt service. A public hearing to allow for public comment on the proposed budget, as revised, is required prior to the adoption of the proposed budget. The public hearing was opened at the May 13, 2009 Commission meeting. After the public hearing is closed .on June 10, 2009, adoption of the proposed Budget for FY 2009/10 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 2009/10. This document contains the executive summary, as revised, that was presented at the May 13, 2009 Commission meeting; the Gann Appropriations 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. A summary of the proposed Budget for FY 2009/10 is as follows: Agenda Item 6 3 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 Debt 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 Attachment: FY 2009/10 Proposed Budget Agenda Item 6 FY 2009/10 Budget $ 209,141, 900 59,893,600 11,475,000 0 506,100 3,419,100 260,000,000 243,482,600 787,918,300 6,053,300 16, 906,400 3,795,600 443,424,400 1,110, 500 198,255,000 243,482,600 913,027,800 (125,109,500) 406,095,000 S 280,985,500 4 • BUDGElj FY 2049/10 • • June 10, 2009 Honorable Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, Califomia FY 2009/10 Budget Introduction Economic uncertainty presents its challenges, but well -managed organizations find ways to continue their progress during tough times with the objective of emerging even stronger when economic conditions improve. This best describes the current financial situation facing the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission). Projected sales tax revenues for fiscal year (FY) 2009/10 are expected to be comparable to FY 2008/09 revised projections, but the Commission is moving forward with an ambitious program of project development and funding leading to the eventual construction of billions of dollars in transportation projects over the next decade. That's an important development for Riverside County (County) and the region. All too often, capital projects are delayed during tough times, leading to greater challenges in the future. A more thoughtful approach is to continue to invest in infrastructure during challenging times, often leading to welcome economic opportunities and a better future for everyone. Investing in better infrastructure can create jobs immediately but will also create an economic base that attracts employers and jobs for the long-term. Maior Protects on the Horizon By using a combination of funding from sources that include the voter -approved Measure A sales tax, Proposition 1 B, and other state and federal programs, the Commission will be completing environmental and engineering work for a number of projects, many of which will begin construction within the next two to three years. Current projects include: • State Route (SR) 91 High Occupancy Vehicle (NOV) lanes/Adams Street to SR-60/SR-91/Interstate (1) 215 interchange • 1-215 corridor improvements and connector widening • SR-74/G Street to 1-215 interchange • I-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV lane connectors • SR-91 and 1-15 corridor improvements, including Express Lanes • Perris Valley Line • SR-79 realignment • Mid County Parkway 6 Completed Projects Making a Difference While much of the Commission's attention has been placed on major projects that start construction in a few years, there have been a number of significant transportation facilities that have recently been completed, resulting in a profound and positive improvement to the transportation system in the County. The SR-91/Green River interchange in Corona opened at the end of the 2008 calendar year and has improved access to and from the freeway. Similarly, the spring 2009 opening of the La Sierra interchange on SR-91 will be welcomed by motorists and residents. Train commuters will certainly welcome the opening in summer 2009 of .a new parking structure at the North Main Corona Metrolink station. Two other rail -related projects include a grade separation project at Ave 48 in Coachella and Indio that was completed in May 2009 and the Columbia Avenue grade separation project in Riverside that will be completed during FY 2009/10. Stimulus Dollars to Make a Major Impact With Congress's approval of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Ca!trans and local governments in Riverside County will begin receiving welcome federal stimulus funding for transportation projects during FY 2009/10. While this funding does not come directly to the Commission, the investment in the area's transportation system will free up other dollars controlled by the Commission to build additional projects. Thanks to the ARRA funding, a number of projects will begin construction during FY 2009/10. While it will not serve as the lead construction agency, the Commission was able to attract welcome federal stimulus funding to build five important freeway projects in various locations including: • I-10/Bob Hope/Ramon Road interchange (Coachella Valley) • 1-10/Palm Drive interchange (Coachella Valley) • I-215/Clinton Keith Road interchange (Murrieta) • SR-60Nalley Way interchange (Rubidoux area of Riverside County) • SR-91Nan Buren Boulevard interchange (Riverside) Federal stimulus dollars are also flowing to Riverside County transit operators for needed projects. Altogether the County of Riverside will receive more than $100 million in ARRA funding for highway and public transit projects. Federal funding will take on an even greater focus when Congress considers the reauthorization of the federal transportation bill as part of the current session. The Commission will be working closely with local jurisdictions and neighboring transportation agencies to maximize funding for the region. Current Responsibilities During FY 2009/10, the Commission will invest $263 million in capital projects that include highway, regional arterial, and rail projects. The Commission's overall budget will exceed $669 million and includes additional investments for transit operations, 7 • • • payments to cities for street and road improvements, and a variety of smaller programs such as motorist and commuter assistance programs. The Commission's status has become somewhat unique in Southern California. As many transportation agencies have consolidated functions and grown in size, the Commission remains true to the original intent of the state of California (State) legislation that first created it, operating a staff of 41 budgeted positions. In doing so, the Commission remains effective in its role as a transportation planning and funding agency by maintaining productive relationships with other agencies. For example, Measure A pays for a score of lesser -known projects that are extremely important to local residents. In FY 2009/10, the Commission will return $36 million in funding to local cities and the County for local streets and roads needs. The Commission also receives and programs funding from state and federal sources. This includes the State's Transportation Development Act program dollars that are allocated primarily to the County's major public transit providers. Measure A also pays its share by funding transit fare discounts and programs for senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and individuals of limited means and by operating a commuter assistance program that provides traveler information and ridesharing assistance to employers and commuters. Looking Toward the Future The focus of FY 2009/10 and beyond will be the development and delivery of the 2009 Measure A 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan which includes the widening of four major freeways. Moreover, it also includes the development of toll facilities on SR-91 through Corona and on major sections of the 1-15. The Commission received legislative approval for both of these efforts in 2008 with the approval of AB 1954 (Jeffries) and SB 1316 (Correa). With legislative approval in place, environmental work on the widening of SR-91 through Corona has already begun with additional work included for related improvements on the SR-91/SR-71 connectors interchange. The development of the Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension is yet another priority for now and until the anticipated launch of service in 2012. The project has received a favorable rating from the FTA and $45 million in federal funding in the federal FY 2008/09 appropriation bill. GFOA Distinguished Budget Award The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented an award of Distinguished Budget Presentation to the Riverside County Transportation Commission for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008. 8 In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan and as a communications device. The award is valid for a period of one year only. The Commission believes that this budget document conforms to program requirements, and it will be submitted to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. Acknowledgements The preparation of this budget has been a collaborative effort of the Commission's staff. The budget reflects the Commission's desire to communicate the components of the budget in terms that are easily understandable and supportable for the general public. Staff acknowledges and appreciates the guidance and leadership of the Commission's 32-member Board of Commissioners and the sense of renewal and commitment they have and continue to inspire. Signature on file Signature on file Anne Mayer, Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 9 • Commission Introduction State of California (State) law created the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission or RCTC) in 1976 to oversee the funding and coordination of all public transportation services within Riverside County (County). The Commission's mission is to assume a leadership role in improving mobility in the County. The governing body consists of all five members of the County Board of Supervisors, one elected official from each of the County's 26 cities, and one non -voting member appointed by the Governor of California. The Commission is responsible for setting policies, establishing priorities, and coordinating activities among the County's various transit operators and other agencies. The Commission also programs and/or reviews the allocation of federal, state, and local funds for highway, transit, rail, non motorized travel (bicycle and pedestrian), and other transportation activities. The Commission serves as the tax authority and implementation agency for the voter approved Measure A Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Measure A was approved by the County's electorate in 1988 and imposes a one-half of one cent sales tax to fund specific programs that commenced in July 1989 (1989 Measure A). The 1989 Measure A was approved for 20 years and expires on June 30, 2009. On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved the renewal of Measure A beginning in July 2009 through 2039 (2009 Measure A). Additionally, the Commission provides motorist aid services designed to expedite traffic flow. These services include the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), a program that provides call box service for motorists, and the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), a roving tow truck service to assist motorists with disabled vehicles on the main highways of the County during peak rush hour traffic periods. These services are provided at no charge to motorists and are funded through a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations. The Commission is also legally responsible for allocating Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, the major source of funds for transit in the County. The TDA provides two sources of funding: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is derived from a one -quarter of one cent state sales tax, and State Transit Assistance (STA), which is derived from the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Finally, the Commission has been designated as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the County. As the CMA, the Commission coordinates with local jurisdictions in the establishment of congestion mitigation procedures for the County's roadway system. 10 Riverside County Transportation Commission List of Principal Officials Board of Commissioners Name Title Agency Bob Buster 1st Vice Chair (Commission) County of Riverside, District 1 John F. Tavaglione Member County of Riverside, District 2 Jeff Stone Member County of Riverside, District 3 Roy Wilson Member County of Riverside, District 4 Marion Ashley Member County of Riverside, District 5 Bob Botts Chair (Plans and Programs Committee) City of Banning Roger Berg Member City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck Member City of Blythe Ray Quinto Member City of Calimesa Mary Craton Chair (Budget and Implementation Committee) City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis Vice Chair (Budget and Implementation Committee) City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia Member City of Coachella Karen Spiegel Vice Chair (Plans and Programs Committee) City of Corona Scott Matas Member City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe Member City of Hemet Patrick J. Mullany Member City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller Member City of Indio Terry Henderson Member City of La Quinta Bob Magee Chair (Commission) City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi Member City of Menifee Jesse Molina Member City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs Member City of Murrieta Frank Hall Member City of Norco Jim Ferguson Member City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet Member City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch Member City of Perris Ron Meepos Member City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams Member City of Riverside James Potts Member City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts Member City of Temecula Scott Farnam Member City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe Governor's Appointee Ca!trans, District B Management Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director 11 Executive Summary Introduction The budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009/10 is presented to the Board of Commissioners (Board) and the citizens of Riverside County. The budget outlines the projects the Commission plans to undertake during the year and appropriates expenditures to accomplish these tasks. The budget also shows the funding sources and fund balances that will be used for these projects. This document will serve as the Commission's monetary guideline. To provide the reader a better understanding of the projects, staff has included descriptive information regarding each department and major projects. The discussion in each department includes a review of major initiatives and key assumptions. Staff used the goals and objectives approved at the Commission meeting on March 11, 2009, to prepare this budget. In addition to the Commission's long-term goals and strategic plan, the short-term factors listed below were used to guide the development of the budget: Operational • Complete projects and programs included in the 1989 Measure A and determine use for unexpended revenues. • Aggressively pursue completion of the environmental and design processes on key components of the 2009 Measure A 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan). • Continue development of the toll program consistent with the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan including obtaining federal toll authority for select projects and executing toll program agreements with key partners. • Work closely with local jurisdictions to implement the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program and facilitate the delivery of arterial improvements in westem Riverside County (Westem County). • Continue cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regarding the Small Starts process to support project development activities for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension (Perris Valley Line) project. • Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving the County. • Support innovative programs that provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders with special transit needs. • Promote program efficiency and harmony between transit operators. • Maintain effective partnerships among commuters, employers, and government to increase the efficiency of our transportation system by encouraging and promoting transportation altematives. • Continue to provide a motorist aid system that ensures safety and convenience to freeway motorists. • Maintain an active involvement in state and federal legislative matters to ensure that the Commission receives proper consideration for transportation projects and funding. • Maintain close communication with Commissioners and educate policy makers on all issues of importance to the Commission. 12 Financial • Maintain administrative program delivery costs below the policy threshold of 4% of Measure A revenues. The current Management Services budget is 2.90% of Measure A revenues. • Maintain administrative salaries and benefits at less than 1 % of Measure A revenues. The current administrative salaries and benefits is .94% of Measure A revenues. • Continue to maintain prudent cash reserves to provide some level of insulation for unplanned expenditures. • Maintain current positive bond ratings with rating agencies. • Move forward on Measure A projects for highways and regional arterials using sales tax revenues, TUMF revenues, and state and federal funding as well as financing alternatives such as commercial paper, sales tax revenue bonds, and other financing strategies such as toll revenue bonds. • Look for opportunities, funding sources, and innovative approaches to address transportation needs that extend beyond Measure A. • Leverage and protect past Measure A investments in rail with state and federal funding for additional rail improvements, including the Perris Valley Line. • Replace the financial software system to better integrate project accounting needs and improve accounting efficiency. Budget Overview Chart 1 — Revenues: Major Categories TUMF Revenue 4% Intergovernmenta 1 21% Other Revenue 0% LTF Sales Tax 31% Investment Income 1% Measure A Sales Tax 43% Total revenues are budgeted at $284,435,700, which is an increase of 9.8% over FY 2008/09 projected revenues and an 8.1% decrease over the FY 2008/09 budget. The projected fund balance at June 30, 2009 available for expenditures (excluding reserves for debt service of $26,393,400 and loans receivable of $14,700,000) is $365,001,600. Total funding sources available for the FY 2009/10 budget, including commercial paper and sales tax revenue bond proceeds of $75,000,000 and $185,000,000, respectively, amount to $909,437,300. 13 • Chart 2 — Commission Revenue Trend 5050.000.0W S100.000.000 $250.0 o.0o0 S200.00ROOD 3130.003.000 3100.000.000 330.00osoo 3- MI MI MN MI -; ,- .:MII - FY 07AS FYO 000 FISCAL YEARS FY WHO Sthrvesthwentincorae . Ova Revenue D TVMF Revenue °IMerptrvernnetlal ■ LTF SSI0S Tea El Measure Sales Tax The local economy has been significantly impacted by the housing, subprime mortgage, and credit crisis. Population growth has slowed down, there have been significant job losses, and consumers have decreased spending. These factors have resulted in declines in Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues and TUMF fees. The outlook for 2010 is guarded with some expectations for an economic recovery beginning in late 2010 or in 2011. The State Board of Equalization recently provided cities and other agencies its projections for statewide taxable sales over the next fiscal year to decrease 4.8%. After taking these economic factors and the state of the local economy into consideration, staff has projected that Measure A sales tax revenues will be unchanged from the FY 2008/09 revised projection of $121,500,000. On behalf of the County, the Commission administers the LTF for public transportation needs, local streets and roads, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The majority of LTF funding received by the County and available for allocation is distributed to all public transit operators in the County, and the Commission receives allocations for administration, planning, and programming in addition to funding for rail operations included in the commuter rail Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The LTF sales tax revenue received from the State is budgeted at $59,000,000, unchanged from the FY 2008/09 revised projection. Additional FY 2009/10 budgeted LTF revenues for allocations to the Commission's general fund include $750,000 for administration; $1,770,000 for planning and programming; $6,750,000 for grade separation jump-start funding award allocations to the cities of Corona and Riverside and the County; and $19,155,300 for rail operations and station maintenance. An additional LTF revenue allocation of $216,600 is to fund rail capital rehabilitation projects. Intergovernmental revenues include reimbursement revenues from federal sources of $24,654,000, state sources of $33,240,800, local agencies of $1,938,800, and others of $60,000 for highway and rail capital, rail operations and station maintenance, commuter assistance, and motorist assistance programs as well as planning and programming activities. Reimbursement revenues vary from year to year depending on project activities and funding levels. STA funds generated from the statewide sales tax on motor vehicle fuel were allocated in prior years by formula by the State Controller to the Commission for allocations to the County's public transit operators. The STA transit allocation for FY 2009/10 is $0 due to a suspension in the state's FY 2009/10 budget. 14 As a result of an amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Western Riverside Council of Govemments (WRCOG), the Commission will receive 48.7% of TUMF revenues (as updated by the most recent Nexus study). TUMF represents fees assessed on new residential and commercial development in Western County. FY 2009/10 TUMF fees are expected to remain flat at $5,000,000 based on a weakened housing market in the Inland Empire, and these revenues also include TUMF zone reimbursements of $6,475,000 for the State Route (SR) 74/G Street to Interstate (I) 215 project. Other revenue is projected to decrease 73.7% from the prior year's budget primarily because of the conclusion of approximately $1,430,000 in annual debt service payments from Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) related to bonds issued for 1989 Measure A Coachella Valley regional arterial projects. Investment income is anticipated to decrease 57.2% in FY 2009/10 as a result of declining interest rates and declining cash balances. Staff continues to actively manage its resources and make appropriate investments to maximize the retum to the Commission without sacrificing security and affecting short-term cash requirements. Table 1— Revenues FY 2008-2010 FY 07l08 FY 08/09 tY 08/09 FY 09/10 . Dollar Percent Actual . Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Measure A Sales Tax $ 142,537,500 $ 126,000,000 $ 121,500,000 $ 121,500,000 -$ (4,500,000) -3.6% LTFSales Tax 82,118,800 78,599,000 72,609,300 87,641,900 9,042,900 11.5% Intergovernmental 34,856,600 87,166,500 45.965,300 59,893,600 (27,272,900) -31.3% TUMF Revenue 14,556.000 7,730,000 9,999,000 11,475,000 3,745,000 48.4% Other Revenue 2,073,000 1,927,200 528,200 506,100 (1,421,100) -73.7% Investment Income 23.744.300 7 980 000 8 537,000 3.419.100 (4.560.900) -57.2% TOTAL Revenues $ 2991566.21x1 $ 309 402 70Q $ 25P 13R R01) $ 284 43.5 70Q S (24 967.000) -8.1 gi Chart 3 — Expenditures: Major Categories Public and Specialized Transit 14% Local Streets and Roads SYo Management Other Programs Services 7% 1% Debt Service 30% Capital Highway, Regional Arterial, and Rail 43% Total expenditures are budgeted at $669,545,200, an increase of 3.5% from the prior year budget amount of $647,040,200. Program expenditures totaling $465,421,400 represent 69.5% of total budgeted expenditures in FY 2009/10. Program costs have decreased by 21.2% from $590,530,800 in FY 2008/09 primarily because of the completion of construction for some highway and rail projects and of Western County land mitigation acquisitions under the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the next ten years. The MSHCP in Westem County is being implemented by the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). • 15 • • • Planning and Programming Department budgeted expenditures of $3,628,200 reflect a 53.7% decrease from the FY 2008/09 budget of $7,836,700 as a result of the completion of geotechnical borings in the Cleveland National Forest related to feasibility analysis of a future Irvine -Corona Expressway. The $15,157,000 increase in Rail Department budgeted expenditures of $24,279,100 is primarily due to a $1,300,400 increase in commuter rail operating subsidies and a $13,300,000 capital subsidy for rail cars. Significant highway projects include SR-74/G Street to 1-215 interchange, SR-91 corridor improvements, SR-91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes/Adams Street to SR-60/SR-91/1- 215 interchange, SR-91Nan Buren Boulevard and SR-91/La Sierra Avenue interchanges, I- 15 corridor improvements, 1-215 corridor projects, and Mid County Parkway. Approved Western County regional arterial projects will be in various phases of engineering, construction, and right of way. The Perris Valley Line and other related projects and the Riverside Downtown layover facility represent significant rail capital projects in FY 2009/10. In addition to providing funding for the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan projects, the commercial paper program will fund Coachella Valley projects including land acquisition for the MSHCP as well as highway and regional arterial projects. Highway and regional arterial projects in the Coachella Valley will be funded by a single program under the 2009 Measure A, which expenditures for FY 2009/10 are classified as regional arterials, compared to the 1989 Measure A that had two separate funding programs. Local streets and roads expenditures of $35,908,900 decreased $10,653,400 from the FY 2008/09 expenditures of $46,562,300 primarily as a result of a decrease in Western County funding under the 2009 Measure A program as well as a decrease in overall Measure A sales tax revenues. Debt Service of $198,255,000 has increased significantly as a result of the refinancing of the 2008 bonds in connection with the commencement of $185,000,000 in forward starting interest rate swaps as well as a portion of the commercial paper program outstanding balance. Management Services expenditures of $5,868,800 have decreased 8.1% compared to the FY 2008/09 budget due to reductions in administration support and capital outlay costs. Table 2 — Program Expenditures FY 2008-2010 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 IY 08/09 FY 09170 Dollar Percent Achlal Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Management Services $ 9,646,000 $ 6,383,000 $ 9,992,900 $ 5,868,800 $ (514.200) 8.1% Regional Issues 893,300 5,979,700 1,843,800 7,530,700 1,551,000 25.9% Planning and Programming 4.681.000 7,836,700 7,078,500 3,628,200 0208,500) -53.7% Rail 9,050,500 9,122,100 9,278,800 24,279,100 15,157.000 186,2% Right of Way Management 551,900 1212,000 816,800 1,364,600 152,600 12.6% Public and Specialized Transit B8.484200 110,492,300 84,164,100 90,927,200 119,565.100) -17.7% Commuter Assistance 3,453,900 6,487,500 6271200 6,237,300 Motorist Assistance 3,983,300 3,353,100 2,532,700 3,386,000 32,900 1.0% Capital Highway, Regional Arterial, and Rag 149295,900 390,703,800 277,645,100 276576.000 (114,127,800) -292% Local Streets and Roads 54,516,400 46,562,300 44,799,300 35,908,900 (10,653,400) -22.9% Regional Arterials - Coachelb Valley 9,906,100 8,781.300 8,781,300 15,583,400 6,802,100 77.5% Debt Service 149789.200 50126.400 45.883,40Q 19,9..M20 148128.600 295.5% TOTAL $ 4792517Q() $ 647040ZQQ $494g 9n0 $669.$ 22505 OM 3.5% Note: Management Services include Executive Management, Administration, Legislative Affairs and Communications, and Finance. 16 Commission Personnel The Commission's salary and fringe benefits total $6,053,300 for FY 2009/10. This represents a decrease of 10.2% or $689,700 over the FY 2008/09 budget of $6,743,000. As a cost savings measure, there will be no merit -based salary increases in FY 2009/10 and reductions in certain fringe benefits. The Full Time Equivalent (FTE) of 41.0 FTE positions is below the FY 2008/09 level as a result of two retirements related to the implementation of an early retirement incentive and maintaining a position as vacant. Table 3 -staff Summary by Department FY 2008-2010 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FTE FTE FTE Executive Management 2.0 0.7 0.4 Administration 4.6 4.7 4.2 Legislative Affairs and Communications 2.5 2.6 1.9 Finance 6.9 6.6 6.5 Regional Issues 2.3 2.0 1.6 Planning and Programming 4.0 3.8 3.8 Rail 3.0 2.9 3.2 Right of Way Management 1.4 1.4 1.0 Public and Specialized Transit 2.6 2.6 2.7 Commuter Assistance 1.5 1.8 1.8 Motorist Assistance 0.7 1.8 1.2 Capital Project Development and, Delivery 10.5 14.1 12.9 TOTAL 42.0 45.0 41.0 Department Initiatives The preparation of each department's budget was based on key assumptions, accomplishments in FY 2008/09, major initiatives for FY 2009/10, and department goals and related objectives. Following are the key initiatives and summary of expenditures for each department. Executive Management • Continue project development and delivery as the key Measure A priority. • Explore creative financing opportunities due to the impact of the State's general fund and budgetary issues on transportation funding. • Maintain regional cooperation and collaboration as a significant effort consistent with the philosophy and mission of the Commission. • Enhance external communications with media, business and civic groups, and the community. • Maintain and improve administrative efficiency and fiscally sound practices. • Continue to be competitive in the employment market and provide staff training and development opportunities to enhance skills, productivity, and value. • • • 17 • • • Table 4 - Executive Management Program FY 07/08 Costs Actual Personnel Professional Support TOTAL Administration FY 08/09 FY 08/09 Revised Budget Projected $ 223,400 $ 42,200 47,600 $ 313,200 $ 131,800 $ 91,600 75,000 54,700 58,700 45,700 265,500 $ 192,000 FY 09/10 Budget $ 93,700 $ 70,000 51,600 $ 215,300 $ Dollar Change (38,100) (5,000) (7,100) (50,200) Percent Change - 28.9% -6.7% - 12.1% , M% • Provide high quality support services to the Commission and to internal and external customers. • Continue to strengthen the electronic. records management system. • Continue to provide timely communications to Commissioners with continued emphasis on the utilization of electronic mail. • Continue to update technology to streamline processes and provide easier access to Commission records. • Support and develop a motivated workforce with a framework of activities and practices that comply with employment laws and regulations. Table 5 - Administration Program FY 07/08 Costs Personnel Professional Support Capital Outlay TOTAL Actual FY 08/09 Revised Budget $ 356,900 $ 90,600 1,107,700 117,400 $ 1.672.600 $ FY 08/09 Projected 444,000 $ 447,400 86,000 88,700 1,471,400 976,300 350,000 89,000 2.351.400 $ ,601.400 Legislative Affairs and Communications FY 09/10 Dollar Budget Change $ 357,700 $ 98,000 1,141,900 20,000 (86,300) 12,000 (329,500) (330,000) $ 1.617.600 $ (733.8991 Percent Change -19.4% 14.0% - 22.4% -94.3% - 31.2% • Continue efforts to seek greater state and federal investment in transportation infrastructure. • Advocate positions in the State Legislature and in Congress that advance the County's transportation interests, especially those related to the implementation of Express Lanes on SR-91 and 1-15 and of the Perris Valley Line. • Continue to develop a broad public information program regarding the Commission's responsibilities and accomplishments through a variety of media formats. • Continue to place an emphasis on providing communications support related to major project development efforts. • Provide new Commissioner orientation meetings and other continuing education opportunities for Commissioners. Table 6 - Legislative Affairs and Communications Program FY 07/08 Costs Actual Personnel Professional Support TOTAL $ 386,100 266,100 170,500 $ 822,700 FY 08/09 Revised Budget $ 1.085 000 $ 969.500 $.1 147 100 $ 62.100 524 18 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Projected Budget Change Change 390,000 $ 386,400 $ 314,700 $ (75,300) -19.3% 506,300 457,000 666,000 159,700 31.5% 188,700 126,100 166,400 (22,300) -11.8% Finance • Continue appropriate uses of long- and short-term financing to advance 2009 Measure A projects of the Commission and CVAG. • Apply the sales tax revenue forecast update to develop a financing plan to support the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan, including consideration for a recommended increase in the $500 million 2009 Measure A bonding cap. • Develop and approve internal audit projects related to the organizational accountability program. • Continue to keep abreast of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) technical activities affecting the Commission's accounting and financial reporting activities. • Implement an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system to benefit all staff in the management of accounting and project information and automate a', paperless workflow system. • Implement a centralized procurements process in order to strengthen controls and ensure consistency in the application of procurement policies and procedures and adherence to applicable laws and regulations. • Maintain order, safety, and security at the Commission -owned operating properties, including the commuter rail stations. Table 7 — Finance Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Capital Outlay `Debt Service 154.200 TOTAL $ 1.991.700 Regional Issues FY 07/08 Actual $ 793,800 983,400 60,300 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 Revised Budget Projected $ 699,000 $ 597,700 1,370,000 1,324,700 62,100 49,600 550,000 258,000 3 453,000 3,453,000 $_ 6,1$4.1DQ $ 5.683.000 FY 09/10 Budget $ 694,600 1,779,600 59,100 355,500 6,500,000 $ 9.388.800 Dollar Percent Change Change $ (4,400) 409,600 (3,000) (194,500) 3,047,000 $ 3.254.70Q -0.6% 29.9% -4.8% -35.4% 88.2% ark • Focus on interregional concerns and maintain effective working relationships involving various bi-county transportation issues, including goods movement and the development of a regional infrastructure cargo fee. • Secure funding through the federal transportation bill for goods movement -related needs. • Monitor the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach's (Ports) projects for impacts on Riverside County. Table 8 — Regional Issues Program FY 07/08 Costs Actual Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations TOTAL FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Revised Budget Projected Budget $420,000 $ 358,100 $ 296,000 $ 309,000 452,200 599,100 255,900 455,000 21,100 22,500 11,900 16,700 5,000,000 1.280,000 6,750,000 $8__ 93 30Q $ 5.979,700 $ 1.843.800 L7,530 700 Dollar Percent Change Change $ (49,100) (144,100) (5,800) 1,750,000 $ 1.551.000 - 13.7% - 24.1 % -25.8% 35% 25.9% • • • 19 Planning and Programming • Monitor funding authority and responsibility related to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and impacts on the STIP caused by the state budget issues. • Ensure STIP and Proposition 1 B funded projects are administered and implemented consistent with California Transportation Commission (CTC) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) policies. • Continue to strategically program projects and obligate funds in an expeditious manner for the maximum use of all available funding, including monitoring the use of such funding to prevent funds from lapsing. • Coordinate planning efforts with regional and local agencies relating to the development of regional transportation plans (RTP) and green house gas reduction implementation guidelines. • Monitor and track the TUMF regional arterial projects. • Continue development of alternative financing strategies. • Work cooperatively with member agencies to continue the work efforts on the new Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridors. • Continue the Congestion Management Program (CMP) update and traffic monitoring along urban and rural highway systems. • Administer the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. Table 9 - Planning and Programming Program FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Costs Actual Revised Budget Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations TOTAL Rail FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Projected Budget $ 760,800 $ 567,800 $ 494,800 $ 545,300 336,000 270,300 159,300 249,300 18,700 31,100 12,200 21,700 3,565,500 6,967,500 6,412,200 2,811,900 $ 4.681.000 $ 7.836.70Q $ 7.078.50Q $ 3.62$20Q Dollar Change $ (22,500) (21,000) (9,400) (4,155,600) $ (4.200 500) Percent Change -4.0% -7-8% -30.2°% -59.6°% - rs, • Continue capital improvements at the commuter rail stations, including multimodal facilities, security and rehabilitation projects, and,a layover facility, in Riverside County. • Continue project development and right of way acquisition activities related to the Perris Valley Line project. • Work with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to advance additional Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) and 91 Line train service by 2011. Table 10 - Rail Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations Special Studies TOTAL FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Actual Revised Budget $ 356,800 $ 427,900 167,200 410,500 83,500 145,100 8,410,300 7,938,600 32,700 200,000 $ 9.050.500 $ 9 122 100 FY 08/09 Projected FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change $ 378,800 $ 439,400 $ 11,500 2.7% 326,900 409,300 (1,200) -0.3% 122,500 158,200 13,100 9.0% 8,420,600 23,072,200 15,133,600 190.6% 30,000 200,000 0.0% $ 9 278.800 $ 24 279 10Q $ 15157.000 166 2% 20 Right of Way Management • Maintain a right of way acquisition and management program in support of capital projects. • Manage right of way acquisition schedules and budget control measures. • Maintain and manage the access, use and security of Commission -owned properties, properties in acquisition process, and income generating properties. Table 11 - Right of Way Management Program FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations Transfer Out TOTAL FY 08/09 Actual Revised Budget Projected $ 140,800 $ 155,000 $ 175,400 208,800 692,000 317,800 134,400 285,000 315,200 67,900 80,000 8,400 $ 551.90Q $ 1.212.000 $ 816 800 Public and Specialized Transit FY 09/10 Budget $ 111,800 700,000 532,800 20,000 14,300 S 1.378.900 Dollar Percent Change Change $ (43,200) -27.9% 8,000 1.2% 247,800 86.9% (60,000) -75.0% 14,300 N/A $ 166.900 j,fs • Support innovative programs that provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs and monitor funding of these programs. • Provide availability for local matching funds to Western County applicants seeking FTA Section 5310 federal capital grants. • Conduct long-range planning activities to ensure that anticipated revenues are in line with projected levels of service by transit operators. • Monitor public and specialized transit operators' performance through the TransTrack program. Table 12 - Public and Specialized Transit Program FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations TOTAL FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget $ 265,700 $ 116,900 12,600 88,089,000 48 Li $ 365,200 284,900 22,800 109,819,400 110,492.300 $ 257,800 $ 172,500 11,600 83,722,200 $ 84.164.100 $ 90.927 200 374,500 342,800 29,100 90.180,800 Dollar Percent Change Change $ 9,300 57,900 6,300 (19,638,600) $ f19.56511001 2.5% 20.3% 27.6% -17.9% -17.7% Commuter Assistance • Continue to maintain and operate a five -county ridematching database system with partner agencies. • Maintain and grow employer partnerships through value-added services and tools for ridesharing programs. • Improve the suite of services and outreach to rideshare participants and employer partners, including personalized information and electronic access and distribution. • Implement an Inland Empire 511 system in partnership with SANBAG for the dissemination of traffic and traveler information services. • Optimize park and ride facilities to support car/vanpool arrangements and facilitate transit connections. • 21 Table 13 — Commuter Assistance Program FY 07/08 Costs Actual FY 08/09 FY 08/09 Revised Budget Projected FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change Personnel $ 195,900 $ 255,500 $ 162,800 $ 215,300 $ (40,200) -15.7% Professional 298,200 467,500 473,400 1,483,500 1,016,000 217.3% Support 432,400 512,300 543,100 524.300 12,000 2.3% Projects and Operations 2,451,300 5,212,200 5,089,300 3,997,200 (1,215,000) -23.3% Capital Outlay 76,100 40,000 2,600 17,000 (23,000) -57.5% Transfers Out - 1,027,800 1,192,900 828,900 (198,900) -19.4% TOTAL $ 3.453.900 $ 7.51.5 300 $ 7.464.10Q $ 7.066.200 $ (449.100) -6.0°,11 Motorist Assistance • Complete the implementation of the Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) system for tow trucks. • Continue to meet with the County's Information Technology (IT) Department regarding the radio narrowband conversion. • Operate the Inland Empire 511 system in partnership with SANBAG. Table 14 — Motorist Assistance Program FY 07/08 Costs Actual Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations Transfers Out TOTAL FY 08/09 Revised Budget $ 89,200 $ 20,600 39,900 3,833,600 490.000 250,300 $ 34,500 43,000 3,025,300 $ 4 473.300 $ 3.3.53 J 00 FY 08/09 Projected FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Budget Change Change 103,100 $ 141,000 38,500 404,400 26,200 41,600 2,364,900 2,799,000 454.700 2.532 7OQ $ 3 840.700 $ (109,300) -43.7% 369,900 1072.2% (1,400) -3.3% (226,300) -7.5% 454.700 ELLA $ 487.600 14.5% Capital Project Development and Delivery • Continue project development, right of way, and construction activities on remaining 1989 Measure A projects including SR-91 HOV lanes/Adams Street to SR-60/SR-91/1- 215 interchange, SR-74 curve widening, I-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV lane connectors, SR-91 interchange improvements at La Sierra Avenue and Van Buren Avenue, and SR-111 operational improvements. • Continue project development and right of way activities on the 1-215 bicounty highway and Perris Valley Line rail projects, which were included in both the 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A programs. • Continue project development and right of way work on the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan projects, including the SR-91/SR-71 connectors, SR-91 corridor improvements, 1-15 corridor improvements, 1-215 corridor mobility improvement projects, SR-79 realignment, and Mid County Parkway. • Complete construction of the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility Phase 1 and the North Main Corona station rail parking structure. • Commence rail project activities for the Riverside Downtown station layover facility, La Sierra station parking expansion, and rehabilitation projects. • Continue final design, acquire right of way, and commence construction related to interchange improvements at SR-74/G Street to 1-215. • Provide Western County TUMF funding and support to local jurisdictions for regional arterial project engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction. 22 • Provide advance funding and support of 2009 Measure A highway and regional arterial projects and for the acquisition for land as mitigation in the Coachella Valley. Table 15 — Capital Project Development and Delivery Program FY 07108 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 1,470,600 $ 2,698,400 $ 1,733,300 $ 2,456.300 $ (242,100) -9.0% Professional 1,335,900 2,627,300 2,024,900 10,248,500 7,621,200 290.1% Support 86,900 2,044,800 423,500 1,052,200 (992,600) -48.5% Projects and Operations 210,683,500 437,809,000 326,571,300 313,593,300 (124,215,700) -28.4% Capital Outlay 141,500 867,900 472,700 718,000 (149,900) -17.3% Debt Service 149,635,000 46,673,400 42,430,400 191,755,000 145,081,600 310.8% Transfers Out 163.573,100 68 097,300 84,336,900 242.184,700 174,087,400 255.6% TOTAL $ 526.926.50Q $ 560 818.10Q 5 457 993 00Q 5 762.008.000 $ 201.189.900 35.9% Table 16 — Projected Fund Balances by Program and Geographic Area at June 30, 2010 Measure A Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Other Total Reserved: CETAP $ - $ - $ - $ 45,373,200 $ 45,373200 Commuter Assistance 10,076,900 - 10,076,900 Debt Service - 24,071,100 24,071,100 Highway 73,564,400 1,400 1,968,300 75,534,100 Loans Receivable 1,733,600 1,733,600 Local Streets and Roads 160,200 85,700 67,500 313,400 Planning and Programming 302,200 302200 Rail 21,107,400 2,366,200 23,473,600 Regional Arterials 7,975,400 100 37,400 8,012,900 Right of Way Management - 1,649,500 1,649,500 Public and Specialized Transit 8,225,900 72,660,200 80,8136,100 Unreserved, designated: Motorist Assistance - - 6,890,900 6,890,900 Unreserved, undesignated 2 668 000 2 688.000 TOTAL Fund Balance $ 1221143 80Q $ 67. 200 $ 67.509 $ 1$7.987.000 $. 280 0.1500 • 23 • CHART 4 - PROJECTED FUND BALANCES BY GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE AND PROGRAM AT JUNE 30, 2010 Management Services $2,668,000 Planning and Programming $302,200 Rad $2,366,200 Right of Way Management $1,649,500 • • Western County$168,254,400 Commuter Assistance $10,076,900 Highway $73,564,400 Loans Receivable $1,733,600 Local Streets and Roads $160,200 �TUMF $45,410,600 Public and Specialized Transit $8,225,900 Rail $21,107,400 Regional Arterial $7,975,400 Coachella Valley $67,200 Highway $1,400 Local Streets and Roads $85,700 Regional Arterials $100 Speciadzed Transit $0 Palo Verde Valley Local Streets and Roads $67500 Motorist Assistance $6,890,900 State Transit Assistance $16,189,600 Local Transportation Fund $56,470,600 24 • • • TABLE 17 - BUDGET COMPARATIVE BY SUMMA912ED UNE ITEM FY 2000- 2010• FY 07/00 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percem REVENUES AUYiI Revised Budget Projected - Budget Change Change. Measure A Saks Tel S. 142,537000 S 120.000,000 $ 121000,000 $ 121008000 $ (4,508000) 39% LTF Saks Tar 82318.800 78,509,000 72,600300 80641.900 9.042,900 91.694 STA Transit Allocalon • 10,923,400 9300.000 4989.400 - (9,300,000)-109.0% Vehicle RegiaVaeal Fees 1,684,100 1.495.000 1,336,200 8450000 145.000) 3.0% Reimbursement 22249.100 76,971,500 39,739,700 50443000 (17.927.900) -D:579 Other Revenue 2,073,000 1927200 528200 506,100 (1,421,100) -73:7% TUMF Revenue 14008.000 7.730900 9996,000 11.475.000 3,745,000 48.4% Investment More 23 744 30Q 7.980.000 8.537000 3.419.100 (4.560.900) AIMS TOTAL Revenues 299,886,200 309902.700 259.138.800 284,435,700 024,967900) 41.1% EXPENDITURES Pasant Satary and Bone% 5.460,000 6,743,000 5.120100 6.053.300 (689,700) -10.2% Professional and Support Legal Services 1.227.600 1,998,500 1.947,100 4.348500 2.347.000 117.4% Financial Ad.kory 289300 120.000 76.000 65,000 (55,000) -45.8% Audit Services 445.700 548.000 491.000 - 600,090 52,000 9.5% Professional Services - Other 2355.100 4.756.900 3.180.200 11.090900 7,139,000 1511.11s TOTAL Professional Costs 4.318,100 0423,400 5.694.300 16.906.400 0483900 127.7% Support Costs .916 e00 4.887500 2.863.994 3.795.600 01091 9001 122.3% TOTAL Professional and 8uppat Coate 18533.700 12310:900 8.358200 20,702.000 8,391,101) 68.2% Projects end Operatics: Projects -General 3872.400 7920,300 4,232,500 14.521300 7,494.800 908.7% Rai 1899.900 1.980,000 0086900 2.492200 533200 27.2% Motorist Assistance 3833,600 3.025.300 2.364.900 2,799.000 (226.300) -7.5% Commuter Assstance 2.173000 2,722200 2.639300 2,777,200 55900 2.0% Engineering 29.102900 71,027,800 69.756.300 50590.900 (12.438.700) -17.5% Construction 40,190800 06.303.600 83.536.300 67.518.300 (38.765.300) -36.5% Right of Way and Land 72,524,800 200.238.400 110741,300 122,609,8W (77,628.600) -38-5% Operating and Capital Conbinr0as 6.912,400 10.979,600 7,615.600 27,330,000 16,350.400 148.9% Special SMdles 3.149000 6.597,000 5024.900 2.232.800 (4.364200) -662% Public and Specialized Transit 5,537.700 7.470.400 4.651.800 10298,300 2,527,900 379% Loral Streets and Roads 54816.400 46.562.300 44,790300 35,908,900 (10,653 400) -22 B% Regional Arleriak 9.906,100 0781.300 8.781.300 15.553.400 6.502.100 77.5% LTF Disbesemeols 82,304,100 80,431,000 66294,800 73,800.500 (6.630.500) 43.2% STA Disbusemats 1,200400 22 920 090 13770600 6.962,000 118906.0001 -W.e% TOTAL Pmjed and Operating Costs 317333000 576.052.000 433,898,900 443,424,400 (132,627000) -23.0% Debt Service Pencipal Payments 141,870,000 38630,000 33.630000 180395,000 140768000 442.4% Interest Payrnenls 6.810700 10498,400 10253,400 10610000 Cost o4 issuance 1307.500 3.250.000 3259004 NVA TOTAL Debt Service 149,789.200 50326,400 46883.400 198250.000 148328.600 295.5% Capital Outay 335.000 1847909 822300 1.110,500 1697.4091 -38.5% TOTAL Expenditures 479 251 700 847 040 200 494 087 900 669.545200 22 505 0011 Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures 079,365000) (337037,500) (234.949.100) (385.109,500) (47,470000) 14.1% Other %arming Soueas (Uses) Transfers In 164.063.100 60125,100 85,529,800 Transfers Out (164,063100) (60125,100) (85.529.800) Debt Proceeds 160 249 000 130 000 000 110800,000 Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expendiuras and Other Financing Sources (Uses) (19,116,500) (207.637,500) (124.949.900) Beginning Fund Balance ENDING FUND BALANCE 243,482,600 174,350500 252.2% (243.482,6001 (174.357.500)-252.2% 260 000 000 130 000 000-100.0% (125.109,500) 82.528.000 39.7% 550160800 531.044100 533044,100 406.095.000 (124.949.100) -23.5% f 531044144 f 329.4t16.fi00 5 411%095.()00 $ 280 985 500 C (42 421 1001 331% 25 TABLE -18 CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET FY 2009110 REVENUES Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax STA Transit Allocation Vehicle Registration Fees Reimbursement Other Revenue TUMF Revenue Investment Income TOTAL Revenues EXPENDITURES Personnel Salary and Benefits Professional and Support General Legal Services Financial Advisory Audit Services Professional Services -Other TOTAL Professional Costs Support Casts TOTAL Professional and Support Costs Projects and Operations: Projects -General Rall Motorist Assistance Commuter Assistance Engineering Construction Right of Way and Land Opera0ng and Capital Contributions Special Studies Public and Specialized Transit Local Streets and Roads Regional Arterials LTF Disbursements STA Disbursements TOTAL Project and Operating Costs Debt Service Principal Payments Interest Payments Cost of Issuance TOTAL Debt Service Capital Outlay TOTAL Expenditures Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers In Transfers Out Debt Proceeds Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources (Uses) Beginning Fund Balance ENDING FUND BALANCE FY2009/10 FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 Operating Budget Capital Budget Trial Budget $ 12.198.000 $ 109,302,000 5 121,500.000 87,425,300 216,600 87,641,900 1A50,000 1,450,000 11,813,500 46.630.100 58.443.600 506.100 - 506,100 11,475,000 11,475,000 1,181,300 2.237,1300 3,419.100 114,574,200 169,861,500 284,435,700 3,597,000 2.456,300 6,053,300 541,000 3004.500 4,345.500 65,000 - 65,000 545,000 55,000 600.000 5,506,900 6,389,000 11,895.900 6,657.90o 2,743,400 10.248,500 16.906.400 1,052,200 3,795,600 9,401,300 11000,700 20,702.000 169,100 14,352,000 14,521.100 2,492,200 2,492.200 2,799,000 2,799,000 2,777.200 - 2,777.200 58590,90o 58,590,900 1.100,00o 66.418.300 67,518.300 20,000 122.589,800 122,609,800 27.330000 27,330,000 2,082,800 150,000 2,232.800 10,298,300 - 10,298.300 35,908,900 35,908000 15,583,400 15,583,400 73.800,500 - 73,800,500 6,962,000 - 6,962.000 129,831.100 313,593,300 441424.400 182,395,000 12,610,000 3250,000 182,395,000 12010.000 3 250,000 392,500 196255,000 198,255,000 718,000 1.110.500 143.221000 526,323,300 669,545200 (28.647.700) (356.461,800) (385,109.500) 1,474,800 242,007,800 243,482.600 (1,475,000) (242,007,600) (243,482,600) 260 000,000 260,000.000 (28.617.900) (96.461.600) (125,109.500) 132,403,200 273,691,800 406,095,000 $ 104-839.800 $ 176 145 700 $ 230.985.50Q • • 26 • Table 19 — Budget Expenditures and Other Uses Summarized by Governmental Fund Type FY 2009/10 TOTAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES SUMMARIZED BY FUND TYPE General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Debt Service Total Personnel Salary and Benefits $ 3,101,400 $ 2,951,900 $ - $ - $ 6,053,300 Professional and Support Expenditures Legal Services 481,000 3,864,500 - 4,345,500 Financial Advisory 50,000 15,000 65,000 Audit Services 545,000 55,000 - 600,000 Professional Services - Other 2.718.100 8,324.700 853,100 11,895.900 TOTAL Professional Services 3,794,100 12,244,200 868,100 16,906,400 Support Costs 2.162,400 1,633,200 - 3,795.600 TOTAL Professional and Support Services 5,956,500 13,877,400 868,100 20,702,000 Project and Operations Expenditures Program Management - 5,752,000 - - 5,752,000 Projects - General 49,100 8,720,000 - 8,769,100 Rail - 2,492,200 - 2.492,200 Motorist Assistance - 2,799,000 - 2,799,000 Commuter Assistance 2.777,200 2,777,200 Engineering - 58,590,900 58,590,900 Construction - 58,528,300 8,990,000 - 67,518,300 Right of Way and Land 20,000 114,589,800 8,000,000 - 122,609,800 Operating and Capital Contributions 27,330,000 - - 27,330,000 Special Studies 2,062.800 170,000 - 2,232,800 Special TransporlatioNTransit - 10,298,300 - 10,298,300 Local Streets and Roads - 35,908,900 35,908,900 Regional Arterials - Coachella Valley - 15,583.400 15,583,400 LTF Disbursements 900,000 72,900,500 73,800,500 STA Disbursements - 6,962,000 6.962.000 TOTAL Project and Operations Expenditures 32,854,100 393,580,300 16,990,000 443,424,400 Capital Outlay 375,500 735,000 - 1,110,500 Debt Service Principal, Interest, and Cost of Issuance 6500.000 56,360,000 135,395,000 198,255,000 Other Financing Uses: Transfers Out 14,300 10,377,300 233,091,00D - 243.482.600 TOTAL Expenditures and Other Financing Uses $ 42 301 110Q $ 428 021 90Q $ 307 309 tag S 135.395.000 S 913 077.800 27 Table 20-Highway. Repbnal Ar1arW, and Rail Programa FY mine pescrm8on (detaHe prmtnfed/n Section 7.3. except as Ind/cereal Bechtel Program Management S 5054.100 SCRRA Program Management 647.000 SR-81 Corridor knprovementa (Demon Build) 8.425,000 General 175.030 TOTAL PROJECTS -GENERAL $ 14,401,100 Highway ErgYaetrg SR-60Tn[k Climbing Lanes S 300.000 SR-74/G Street b 4215Interchage 50g,OW SR-74A•75 b 7W Street20,000 SR-74 Crave Widening 30,000 SR-79 Realignment 2,650.000 SR-91)SR-71 Ca nm.tura 2.901,600 SR-91 Corridor improvements 13250000 SR-91 HOV Lanes/Adams Street to 5R-605RA7A-2151ntertharge 215,000 415 Corridor Improvements 12000,000 4215/SR-BO Sad Junction HOV lams CeraMr 315000 4216 Scow* Project 500.000 1.215 Bicounty HOV Intedm Project 878,800 1-215 Mixed Flow Lanes/415 b Scar Road 2,400,000 4215 Mixed Flow Lanes/Sco0 Road to Nuevo Road 2,400,000 I-215 FIOV Lanest4umo Road b Box Spr4g4 Road 2.000.000 4215 $0lMb0und b 475 Conneclor Wid ening Gap Closure 600.000 Mid County Parkway 782.500 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY ENGINEERING 41,742,900 Regional Arterial Engineering Various Western County TUMF Regidat Arterial Projecb 3,758,000 SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL ENGINEERING 3,TSB,OOD er Raj PJgbedsg La SbRa StationStationParking Expansion - BD,000 Perris Valley Line and ObRelated Projects 12,300,000 Riverside layover Faciy 550.000 Station Rehabilitation Projects 150.000 SUBTOTAL RAIL ENGINEERING - 13,090,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY. REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAR ENGINEERING $ 580110,900 Highway Construction SR-BNVaOy Way lMurliaga S 3.000,000 SR-74/G &reel b 1-2151nlerchange 17,600.000 SR-74/1-15 to 7th Street 5,0)0 SR-74 Curve Widening i0,00D SR-91/LaSiemd Ln<,.A.m1, 9e 1.290,000 SR-81Nan Buren IMechage 7,600,000 SR-111 Cey and County Projects 6,719,30D 4215/SR-60 East Junction NOV Lanes Connector 005J100 Pak and Roue (details presented in Section 7.2 Commuter Assistance) 1,000.0 General (demos prowled to Section 7.2 Commute, Assistance) t00,OWW SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION 35,409,300 Region Arterial Construcion Various Western County TUMF Regional Arterial Projects 10,459.000 Various Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Projects SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL CONSTRUCTOR 18.0308.990,000 000 Rail Construction La Siena Station Parking Expansion 2.000,000 Nwtii Main Corona Station Perking Strmlwe 1,400)000 Pert MrtOnadal Facility 3.560.000 Prins VaNey Lone and Other Related Projects 5100J000 stakon RehaN6tatron PrOjeCis 500,0W SUBTOTAL RAIL CONSTRUCTION 12060.000 TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL CONSTRUCTION S 670111)300 Highway Right of Way old Lad SR-74!G Street to 42151Merchage $ 2320000 SR-744-15 b Tlh Street 2,530.000 SR-74 Curve WMera g 2.230,000 SR-79 Rea/gm o-4 1 030,000 SR-91 Corridor Improvements 24.250.00D SR-91 HOY Lanes/Adams Street to SR-60/SR-91/4215 Interchange 25.B09.500 415 Cdndor lropruVemenla 10,000 1-215/SR-60 East Archon HOV Lanes Connector 812,3013 4215 Mixed Flaw Lanes/$on0 Road b Nuevo Road 1.523.0013 Ma County Parkway 6,270,000 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 86,584,800 Regional Arterial Right of Way and Land Various Western County TUMF Regional Anenal Projects Various Coadtaa Valley Regional Arterial Projects SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 2o,OB3000 Rag RIgM or Way and Lard Pella Muanio0al Fxilily 12.000 Penis Valley Line and Ober Related Pmjecls 10,298,000 Riverside Layover Facility 5.500.000 Generat (details on 520,000 presented In Section 7.2 Right d Way Manapemen0 20135.000 SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 15,942,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND $ 122.609,BOO GRANO TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAILPROGRAMS $ 263120,100 12.003.000 8,000,000 28 00999000 S 000960'90P $ OO9'110 ICS $ COI'120'K $ 009 C6C'92 $ 00209'09 4 OOC'896'L OOIYt $ 000'9919 $ O�LIS f 00269d'OLC $ 009699999 S 006096'9 4 0005191 S 000sn'03 f COO VW'90/ 009110'199 009'09909S 001C21292 002009OS 000992'9C I001092) 0061019 009808'92 002'892'020 001699'09s 009'110099 009'949'8 002'929'09 000'916'6 (0094001'2W (001'6961Z1) (009111'6U (006'ZLE'L) (000919.92) 002'9999P 00110442 (0011911'0 (0091199221 1000'661'LL11 100000910 (009121' 0 9009999'2) 9002'814/ OOCLLt 000/20018 S 0:92499'829 S 001'11C019 S 000'969 SCLS 001929'09 f 001'CLI'SE $ 009 IIOC'100 S 000'ZSL'LI $ 002'SVC'162 S 008920'921 S 009'019 JCS f 009'902 02 $ 009'IOC '21 $ C09929'92 $ 000/92-61 S 9011V198 ONni ONIONS 9auele9 Wnd 6uuu16eg 991nalue9030epun) MAP sanu9eaa 9a (/oueplap) sa9xa teen leldue1n1 pele,0113111101 009'281'012 008'020'99 00909E2191 000'009 CIL COO'110%02 000'008'92 002928'929 1109'1.2COL ON 62022 00✓1905E 00914 9n0 s.raj9ue11 000'090'9 009'101'1 - 000'0921 005'2011 - - - - - 999999110 3900 000'900'961 009'2995/ 0012190111 000982'521 009'92219 001'921.96 000'011t9 000'041 00490111 000'0099 009 PSI - - - 9099989 9990 009099'1 000'229 0000E - - - - 000'02 091C12, 00E'022 0099LC 000'290 002'999 A9pn01ellde° 009'009CL 009'962'99 001'100'29 - 009'006'22 00,211219 00911C'19 000'006 000'090'1 009'269 119999990990 OO1C94'41 00C111'9 001106'6 • - 00168991 000'191'9 009'9061 - - - 2919A 90000993• 9Wry991VI9uP 00990090 00CB6/YI 00✓919PS 009'906'99 000962'99 0019992S • 901011 9999199g9 I 9 00019611 009'911'91 001.0021 - 000296'9 009'922.21 00,1029 - - SIuken101400 V1S 00C102'01 009'1591 00eLE9'9 - 002'162'01 001D 159'1 00L'LC9'S - - • 99991999190990 V 91n9B9ey 001'MCL 008'129'9 0096/1'0 - - • - 0022029 001'/92 00l'SK 009'290'2 002'299'9 001'909'2 919Prgg 1999d9 000'092'12 009'999'2 009116'9 • - • - 000'20I 0001eVeL 009'9391 0011199 su191nquwoo 1992900060119.910 009009 n 009111'913 00014099 000'000'9 00810119 00019L'LC 009/4033 000'929'99 00116911 000'02 001,1 00919 puel pue Am W 1a00 0009304 00E10518 0096050/ 000103'9 000101 0099901, 00E1E9 5 00099009 00911 1C - u91'rL99000 006'00989 009992'89 009201'82 - 009'980'99 0009919 006'069'99 OW/09'09 000'911902 - - 009'L Butineu0u3 000.1/12 0008002 000021.2 • - 002LLL'Z 0115649'2 009'91l'2 - - 9991199999990009999290 000'8821 0081902 009'029'0 - • 000/192/ 006119E'L 009'CC9'6 • - 909919119V 090116.1 CO21912 000'9e0'2 000669'9 - 002'2912 000'990'2 0061691 lea 00/129/1 OOCLECf 001eLilt 0002L9'II 009'1014 001'LLB'E 00119 00012 Ie10I1i0-10efa.d 00nel:6 0091902 001'91C2 002'6691 002'066 009'929 009291.'4 004'499'1 000499'1 9190000eang 001'900'91 004'1699 OL1,01C1 - 00,199 005'069 00141.09 00Cn5'21 001'Z89'L 00V/99'1 001'46/0 006'911'L 0019Zel Se4Ne0 RU115001041 006"6500 S 00V5211 $ 000'094'5 S S S ' $ • $ S ' S 006'1982 S 0014SOL f 009606'1 f 009101.E $ 000'0301 9 0000SS'E $ skeue990upi pue being PuuOWad sash 1P219998d 00C40'41U S 009'1994M* f 00CPoL'1.29 $ 002220'CM 009 UV 90 $ 00C'9SO450 S 00 010'01C $ 009'45901, S 00L9691a $ 006'ZZL'505 S 000191492 S 009'01B'LIZ ! 000219.8E S 009'8ZZ'CL S 005•511• 0 f wWM51e1aueui 0910902919101 009/01012 00082969 001'090191 000 lel 291 0016L1SC 00C 92829 000000OS 000'900'099 00689009 009'066'69 00906L 001169 60019 000162 Veaegue9l 000'000092 000000'019 00091'099 - 0019000.09Z 000'000011 000'eaC09{ - - sp9eaad WaO 000'2Lell 000'066'6 000199'91 - 000'921'11 000'666'6 000'059'11 - •- anuan921 m9211 °West's 000'4491 000'991'2E 001%92 000950 000030'9 C09133 009195 090'939 0061E01 0092091 0016/212 006'29 0019916 006'099 9WWd1WauµsenW 000041'{ 00Y9CCI 001118'1 - - 000.0W1 002.9221 001'919'1 ' wad u0064,109a 0090A 0031809 0091E9 D60 90'9 00056 0061411 001'009 00✓1E4 001'CLS 999898099100 001.6111 OO1C21$01 - 0010699Y 009'C2901 - - - ug9e41919suIP1 V16 0091661 009L9YC 0091002 0009019 002.92CL 006'062'9 009'299 009'621 002'1 L5 99W09091n9W8a.9990 000'19992 OOC16Cs 06C12Ce - 00L'129 11012199792 00Y611'91 00/16V9 0001/01'1 000'919'2 00V(60'1 s909912999nquieu le99209 00004/16 000'99L/1 009529'01 - 00Yd1192 002121'91 001192'01 00000VS 0099L 9'9 002'219 9909090999900099 ep15 006199'L8 000'6019Z1 009'911Y9 009'912119 000'001789 002'192'01 002'329112 009'609'21 005'19911 9919199S 111 000'009111 S 000'009121 S 009'2E92t1 $ S $ ' S • $ ' S - S 000009811 S 000'001'911 $ 609'221.691 S 000'00092 S 000'001C $ 000009.9 $ 9919919$ V a1nwew 533900S lelON989d 499938 13909944 1940v 218008 P9109(01d Rn>7V K6ON O9p09(oIel 199PV 990pIO p9n9119d 094912 109909 P9199919d 110909 Ol/80 Ad 80/90 Ad 6040 Ad 09890 Ad 6(490 Ad 90/201.2 01160.12 8090 Ad BOLO Ad 01I60 Ad 60290 Ad 90/20 Ai 0060 Ad 60/90 Ad 90/L0 Ai 9R101 Wnd *DAPS W O 904990009d 41090 stand anueneu moods 0.0.f lelolle0 • • sesn pus sewnos )elBueuld pelewlls3 Jo Alew- eoor Ad 1,3 elLtei SECTION 1 GUIDING POLICIES1 30 Commission Policy Goals and Objectives The following material outlines the Commission's adopted policy goals, objectives and financial policies that serve as the framework for the work plan presented in the FY 2009/10 Budget. Promote Mobility The Commission, in cooperation with local, state, and federal agencies, will strive to create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the County and region. While Riverside County grapples with the challenges of a declining real estate market and an uncertain economy, the need for better mobility and transportation remains a top public policy priority that the Commission is poised to address. The 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan, approved in December2006, will become more prominent this year as environmental and design work moves into high gear on SR-91, 1-15 and 1-215. The Commission will also work with partners including the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA or Metrolink), CVAG, and WRCOG to deliver transit services, improve highways and arterials in the Coachella Valley, and ensure investment of TUMF dollars in Western County. In moving forward with this aggressive program of projects and services, the Commission will face the challenge of lower Measure A receipts and declining state transportation revenues along with uncertainty regarding the availability of federal dollars. The following are emphasis areas for the Commission in FY 2009/10: • Complete projects and programs included in the 1989 Measure A and determine use for unexpended revenues, if any. • Continue to aggressively pursue completion of the environmental and design processes on key components of the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan which includes the widening of SR-91, 1-15, and 1-215. • Continue to develop the toll program consistent with the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan including obtaining federal toll authority for select projects and executing toll program agreements with key regional and state partners including Caltrans, OCTA, California Highway Patrol (CHP), Transportation Corridors Agencies, and others. • Seek to obtain state legislative authority to utilize the design -build method of project delivery to advance project delivery schedules. • Continue to work with state and federal agencies to fund and construct projects programmed in the STIP, Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), Proposition 1B bond programs, and Measure A program as well as other high priority regional projects. • Maximize the effective application and use of Western County TUMF funds to deliver eligible Commission priority projects. • Work closely with local jurisdictions to implement the TUMF Regional Arterial Program and facilitate the delivery of arterial improvements in Western County. 31 • • Ensure Improved System Efficiencies The Commission will select projects and allocate funds in a manner that will improve safety and reduce congested traffic corridors. • Advocate the development and use of advanced technologies for transportation applications that are affordable and practical. • Work with public and private interests to apply real-time technology to disseminate commuter information that will support the use of alternate modes and improve efficiency of the regional transportation system. • Assure the effectiveness of transit planning through coordination with the Transit Operators Working Group, Citizens' Advisory Committee, and annual SRTP process with a goal toward promoting program efficiency and effectiveness. • Provide innovative commuter rideshare programs to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and coordinate with other regional rideshare service providers to address intercounty commute trips. • Develop an Inland Empire region 511 system, in partnership with SANBAG, that will make real-time traffic information available to commuters for the purpose of trip planning and congestion avoidance. • Leverage existing online trip planning services such as Google Transit by integrating and maintaining regional transit schedules and routes. • Work with local jurisdictions, Caltrans and the CHP to continue providing a motorist aid system which includes a call box program and an FSP program including temporary services in freeway construction zones. • Continue development, in partnership with Caltrans and SANBAG, of the Inland Empire Transportation Management Center. • Leverage our resources to incorporate park and ride services at Metrolink stations that have available capacity. Foster Environmental Stewardship The Commission will achieve its mobility goals while promoting environmental stewardship and protecting the area's natural resources and quality of life. • Continue working with the RCA to implement the MSHCP. • Work with the Southem California Association of Governments (SCAG), SCAQMD, sub -regional agencies, and local jurisdictions to implement an RTP that meets regional air quality goals and conformity guidelines. • Support a variety of outreach channels and educational programs that promote the benefits of ridesharing, transit, rail, and availability of commuter resources. • Facilitate private/public use of clean fuels technology. • Consider and address new state and federal mandates regarding greenhouse gas emissions including participation in various forums to develop implementation guidelines. • Continue to develop sustainable and green commuter rail stations and provide 33 upgrades and rehabilitation projects to reduce the environmental impact of the existing stations. • Coordinate with local and regional agencies regarding compliance with SB 375 and AB 32. Encourage Economic Development Transportation decisions will consider the economic benefits derived from any improvement, and, where feasible and practical, will pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development. • Support local agencies in the design and construction of interchanges that are in proximity to regional economic centers and developments. • Support local projects, consistent with countywide transportation goals, which enhance business development, local employment, and area tourism. Support Transportation Choices through Intermodalism and Accessibility County residents will be served, where economically feasible, through the development of transportation alternatives and travel options that consider the needs of a wide range of citizens. • Work with transit providers and local social service agencies to provide specialized transit service to meet a broad spectrum of socio-economic transit needs. • Leverage commuter assistance and freeway service patrol outreach channels in order to increase the awareness of and foster the use of alternative commuting modes. • Implement the Commission's commuter rail SRTP and SCRRA's long-range strategic plan for expansion of the commuter rail system benefiting Riverside County constituents with an emphasis on the Perris Valley Line, an extension from Riverside to Perris via Moreno Valley. • Pursue the goals and objectives as outlined in the Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) for Riverside County related to a unified, comprehensive but flexible strategy for transportation service delivery to address transportation gaps and/or barriers focusing on unmet transportation needs of elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, and individuals of limited income. • Enhance security, surveillance, and emergency response capabilities of County transit facilities and infrastructure through proactive planning, interagency coordination, and investment. Prioritize Public and Agency Communications The Commission will provide timely, informative, and accurate information to encourage informed public and agency participation in the Commission's decision -making processes. 34 • • Promote a close working relationship with news and civic entities to increase interest in and understanding of transportation and related issues. • Enhance the provision of public information through various forms of communication (e.g., website, television, Speakers Bureau, print media, radio, etc). • Maintain an ongoing effort of informing Riverside County's Congressional and State Legislative delegations regarding County transportation issues. • Develop an effective long-range legislative strategy regarding the upcoming reauthorization of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) to ensure that the federal government participates as a full partner in funding Riverside County projects that are of national and regional significance. • Advocate for sufficient funding for Riverside County from various federal and state revenue sources including, but not limited to, the Federal Stimulus Act, STIP, and State and Local Partnership Program. • Seek legislative flexibility for innovative financing and delivery methods. • Maintain ongoing efforts to educate commuters, businesses, and the public regarding the Commission's toll planning efforts and specific project development efforts currently underway. 35 • Financial and Administration Policies Budget Policies • The Commission shall budget no more than one percent (1 %) of Measure A sales tax revenue for administrative salaries and benefits. • Administrative program delivery costs will be budgeted at whatever is reasonable and necessary, but not to exceed four percent (4%) of Measure A sales tax revenues (inclusive of the one -percent salary limitation). • The Commission shall budget 100% of the annual required contribution related to the postretirement health care benefits. • Amounts will be budgeted by fiscal year for multi -year projects based on best available estimates with the understanding that, to the extent actuals vary from those estimates and the project is ongoing, adjustments will be made on an ongoing basis. • The fiscal capital budget should be consistent with the strategic plan and deviations appropriately noted, explained, and justified. • A balanced budget shall be adopted annually with operating and capital expenditures and other financing uses funded by identified revenues and other financing sources as well as available fund balances. Revenue Policies • Sales tax revenue projections will be revised semi-annually to ensure use of current and relevant data. Staff may adjust annual amounts to reflect the most current economic trends. • A strategic application of local funding sources will be used to maximize federal and state funding of projects. • Fiduciary responsibility regarding Western County TUMF revenues shall be exercised, and revenues will be allocated pursuant to Commission direction and the approved 2009 Measure A. Debt Management Policies • The Commission will maintain 2.0x debt ratio coverage on all senior debt. • Debt issuance will be for major capital projects including engineering, right of way, and construction. Operating requirements, if any, must be from current ongoing revenues. • Costs of issuance including the standard underwriter's discount will not exceed two percent (2%). • The Commission may enter into interest rate swaps to better manage assets and liabilities and take advantage of market conditions to lower overall costs and reduce interest rate risk. • While it is the intent of the Commission to establish a cash debt reserve for long term bond issuance, surety bonds can be obtained when beneficial to the 36 Commission. • The commercial paper program and other short-term financing vehicles will provide advance funding for projects included in the expenditure plan of the approved 2009 Measure A. • The Commission will consider actions to lessen the restriction of the $500 million 2009 Measure A bonding cap, which could include the possibility of a future ballot measure to increase the cap. Auditing, Accounting, and Financial Reporting Policies • The Commission will replace its financial software system in order to better integrate project accounting needs and improve accounting efficiency. • The Commission will issue a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in accordance with the GASB Statement 34 financial reporting model. • An audit is to be conducted annually on the Commission's accounting books and records. As long as the Commission has outstanding bonds, an independent accounting firm must conduct the audit. • The Commission is responsible for ensuring that audits of Measure A and TDA funding recipients are completed and reviewed for compliance and other matters in a timely manner. • An internal audit program will be maintained to identify improvements in controls and procedures as well as best practices. Capital Planning and Programming Policy • Established priorities will be reviewed annually with the Commission. Reserve Policies • The Commission will maintain program reserves in accordance with Measure A and TDA policies and guidelines. • The Commission will maintain a cash reserve at least equal to five percent (5%) of annual revenues (exclusive of reimbursements and matching funds). • The Commission will establish and maintain a transit operator's reserve of ten percent (10%) for the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley. Additionally, a ten percent (10%) reserve will be established and maintained for each of the Western County transit operators (public bus and commuter rail). Cash Management/Investment Policies • Where possible, the Commission will encourage receipt of funds by wire transfer to its accounts. • Balances in the bank operating account will be maintained at the amount necessary to meet monthly expenditures. • Idle funds will be invested per the Commission's established investment policy • 37 • emphasizing in order of priority: 1) safety, 2) liquidity, and 3) yield. • Cash disbursements to local jurisdictions and vendors/consultants will be completed in an expeditious and timely manner. Human Resources Management Policies • Commission staffing levels will be consistent with the intent of its enabling legislation, which envisioned a small, but effective staff. • Contract staff and consultants will be used to augment staff efforts as much as possible to support programs or work loads, which do not appear to be of a permanent nature. Information Technology Policies • Significant effort will be made to maintain efficient and cost-effective technology infrastructure by continuously upgrading network equipment and software to ensure quality performance, productivity, and connectivity among staff, other agencies, and the public. Networksecurity will continue to be a top priority to maintain the integrity of the Commission's network and information. The following matrix illustrates the linkage of the Commission's overall policy goals described in this section to the individual departmental goals included in Section 7. Commission Policy Goals Goods System Environmental Economic Intemrodalsm & Rnancial & Department Mobility Movement Efficiencies Stewardship Development Aoressilulty Communications Administration. Management Services Executive Management X X AdministrationX X Legislative Affairs & Communications X X X X X Finance X Regional Programs - Regional Issues X X X Planning and Programmtg X, X X X X Rail X X X X Right of Way Management X X X Public and Specialted Transd X X X X Commuter Assistance X X X X X Motorist Assistance X Capital Project Development & Delivery X X X X 38 • • SECTION 21 BUDGET PROCESS SUARY 39 • Budget Process Summary The budget is the primary performance tool used to measure and control accountability of public agencies for taxpayer dollars. The budget communicates to all stakeholders (i.e., elected officials, regional agencies, and citizens) how the investment they made will be put to use by providing detailed information on the specifics of resource allocation and expenditures. Progress is monitored on a monthly basis, and revisions and updates are made as deemed necessary to reflect changing dynamics and accommodating unplanned requests. This results in a budget document that is useful and meaningful as a benchmark against which to evaluate government accomplishments and/or challenges and to assess compliance with fiscal accountability. Chart 5 - Budget Process ID Task Name Duration 2009 2010 J J A SIOINID J F M A M J J A 1 Short Term Strategic Direction Phase 105 days 2 Resource Identification and Allocation Phase 105 days 3 Needs Assessment Phase 90 days 4 Development and Review Phase 110 days 5 Adoption and Implementation Phase 40 days 6 Budget Roles and Responsibilities 225 days • Short -Term Strategic Direction Phase The first phase of the budget process is to determine the direction of the Commission in the short-term and to integrate this with the Commission's long-term goals and objectives. Annually a workshop is held for the policy makers to evaluate and determine where the Commission plans to be and what it desires to accomplish over the next five to ten years. Annual reviews allow for timely responsiveness to any significant political, legislative, or economic developments that may occur locally, statewide, or nationally. Staff then adjusts its course based on the long-term strategic direction of the policy makers. Staff convenes in early January to both assess actual results, compared to the current year budget, and map changes in strategy for the ensuing fiscal year by reviewing and, if necessary, redefining departmental mission statements and setting goals. Those goals, upon review by the Board, become the Commission's short-term strategic direction. Chart 6 - Functional Organization Chart FY 2009/10 40 CHART 6 - FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION CHART FY 2009/10 Board of Commissioners Policy Committees Plans & Programs Budget & Implementation Advisory Committees Technical Advisory Citizens Advisory Legal Counsel Executive Management Executive Committee Multimodal Programs -Commuter Assistance - Call Box Program -Freeway Service Patrol • Rail Operations -Transit Planing Administration Legislative Affairs and Communications -Clerk of the Board and Board Relations -Office and Records Management •Claims and Insurance Administration •Human Resources -Legislative Advocacy -Legislative Analysis • Publie Information and Communications -Media Relations • Goods Movement Capital Project Development and Delivery -Highway and Rail Capital Programs • -New Corridors -Property Management -State Transportation Improvement Program -Regional Transportation Plan •Congestion Management •TLIMF Program Finance -Financial Management ' Budget Development - Contract Management and Procurement - Disadvantaged Business Enterprise • • Resource Identification and Allocation Phase Simultaneous with the short-term strategic direction phase, staff focuses on what funding sources are available and what monies are estimated as carryover from the current year. In actuality, resource identification occurs throughout the year, but it is finalized in the upcoming fiscal year budget. Amounts to be borrowed are determined as parts of the long-term strategic planning process, but such amounts are adjusted in the annual budget to reflect more current information. Needs Assessment Phase Staff and consultants evaluate what projects and studies need to be accomplished. Project priority and sequencing set in the long-term strategic plan are the top candidates for budget submission. However, priorities may have changed due to economic necessities or political realities, resulting in projects being rescheduled by acceleration or postponement. New projects may be added or existing priorities deleted based on Commission direction. Development and Review Phase Using all the data and information gathered from the previously mentioned stages, department heads submit their desired budgets to the Finance Department. The information, along with staff and overhead allocations, is compiled into a preliminary or draft budget. After review by the Executive Director and inclusion of the desired changes, the draft budget is presented to the Board for input. Adoption and Implementation Phase The proposed budget is submitted to the Commission at its May meeting. A hearing is scheduled to allow for public comment on the proposed budget. The Commission may choose, after public hearing, to adopt the budget or to request additional information and/or changes to the budget. The budget must be adopted no later than June 15 of each year. Upon adoption by the Commission, the budget is entered into the accounting system effective July 1 for the next fiscal year. 42 Budget Roles and Responsibilities Involvement in the budget permeates all staffing levels at the Commission from clerical support staff to policy makers. Each program manager develops a detailed line item operating and capital budget. Those budgets by program are submitted to the department head for review and approval. The department heads submit their budgets to the Chief Financial Officer by mid -March. The Finance Department compiles the department budgets. Both the capital and operating budgets are combined into the draft budget for the entire Commission. The Executive Director reviews the entire budget for overall consistency with both the short- and long-term strategic direction of the Commission, appropriateness of funding sources for the identified projects and studies, and reasonableness of the operating budget expenditures, which should also correspond to the capital budget. Expenditure activities of the funds are controlled at the budgetary unit, which is the financial responsibility level (General, Measure A, Motorist Assistance, LTF, STA, TUMF, Capital Projects, and Debt Service Funds) for each function (i.e., administration, programs, intergovernmental distributions, debt service, capital outlay, and other financing uses). These functions provide the legal level of budgetary control (i.e., the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated amount). Budget -to -actual reports are distributed to program managers and directors on a monthly basis for informational purposes and quarterly for identification and evaluation of any significant budget variations. Management has the discretion to transfer budgeted amounts within the financial responsibility unit according to function or may provide support for supplemental budget appropriations requests. Supplemental requests require the authorization of the Commission. The Commission may take action at any monthly meeting to amend the budget. Those amendments are incorporated into the budget, as they occur, and are reflected in the CAFR in the final budget amounts reported in the budgetary schedules. The Finance Department compiles the data and submits a budget appropriations adjustment at mid -year to the Commission for approval. Chart 7 — Staff Organization Chart FY 2009/10 • • 43 • • • FY 2009/10 Riverside County Transportation Commission Board of Commissioners Legal Counsel Executive Director Deputy Executive Director Office & Board Services Manager Senior Administrative Assistant Senior Office Assistant Chief Financial Officer Procurement & Assets Manager Procurement & Assets Administrate Accounting & Human Resources Manager 4 Accounting Supervisor ) mil Accounting Technician (4) •LAccounting Assistant) Accounting Clerl) Goods Movement Manage 1 Government Relations Manager] Multimodal Services Director ▪ Rail Manage} Li Staff Analyst ( Transit Manager) L{ Staff Analys3 Multimodal Sences Manager 4 Staff Analyst 1 Project Development Director ) { Capital Projects Manager) Community Relations Mang* `�IG,� Programming 6 Punning Mann ) Senior Staff Analyst) Staff Analyst r Project Delivery Director Capital Projects Mane • er Right of Way Manager Senior Staff Analyst) Staff Analyst Tog Programs Director ) 4 Toll Project Managers (k) vrswae • • • SECTION FUND BU'DGETO 45 e V 990 U9c S DOL 4L0 rZ S DOs 898 L 4 009 Bel 91 S 009 0!t 9S S DU9 OIt 99 9 DOS L9 4 002 Le 9 OOl EBB ZZl 4 DOZ LZE 9 S INSTUSS'-1 009 996 9 S +eeA M pu3 Ouele6 Punj 6'9B090Y OOY CBC BZ 1001 fCLI DO L'G96'22 002'E9L 69 009 LIS 91 008 $>--- 00Y li2'6 00996L'S9l 002'99129 000 Z4.9 002 9E9 6 ieaA W 6uryu160e aoueles Punj (009991'I0) 00z I00Z'vEC6) (OOE'Z16Z9) Oo0'L9r (00E'B) (009'699'Z) sa+nlpuadr3(spun) Lana anuenay)o(Aouengap) ssapag 000'000 09Z DOB 129 ZEl 000606 B! - 1001911Z) 1001 LLU 1009'999l) 00£'Z69'1.9 OOLI 06C)— 00! el9 ON 9L9 (9860) 990.190s 6010ueul! 19N 000129'ZCl 1000'16099U I00L'917Z) 100L'LLL) 1009 999 1) 0o£269 LS IOU MO 00['61.9 0099[5 5+9)auel 000'000092 000'000.09Z - - - - ep6900+d 1090 (sasn) 9aa+no5 0.4000u +96 (009'60V990 1006'091'9W (009'10ZYL) (009'L9L8) (009Z12'90 100e IZ6'00 008'LLI (OOL'LL9'4 (005908'91 I) 00LZ06 (000'9Z9) (009'99Z'£) se+rlIPue4s3(spun)18n0 anuanay to(Acualpeep) 9seszi3 00Z 999600 D0096E-9EL 00L Viz' IQ 00E296•0 00S 006 ZL 009lOL LC 0061ZL 000'LZOVE 00£'9966SZ 00('£99 000'CPS'2 OOS L9Z'Zt 632ln110N3dR31tl101 (005601'9Z0 IOOE'ZZC'Z) 009'1.01'Z 00099Z 06L 000 SeV9CI 000000'99 000'09Z1 000'09Z'C 000'019'ZI 000.000-C 000'0)VC 00016C'Z9L 000'96C7CI 000'000'09 000'990'92C 000'066'91. 000.9909M 0004066'4G OOL'ESC'LEl (000L9L91 (009'212'20 00C'Z96'9 009'0062L 000'O0 '9 00910L'LE 00910L'Lf 000'009'9 006')ZL 000'L9LLC 005L99'0o2 006 L21. 000 LOC If 009 L990r2 000NEE 00E'LCZ'9 00Z'LZe'OB oostson OOl'6Lrte 00Z9Z9V 00L'0051 009'009'9 008'898 Z O01'Lt4'4 008118 / 000112 001'OB9 001998 00E29091 0000002L 00009Z'9 005199'ZI 000'£99 000'999'Z 00998Z'L£ 00£'LEZ'9 000'0929 Ooi'OZ£'9 s 000 E99 000 Cog Z 002't9r 009.09C') 001'6dZ'tZ 00V9Z9£ 00L'OE9'L 301A8391830 1v101 apuensai)o lso0 oluau+Red )sas)u1 guawAed IedlpuVd 301A213S 1930 SINV1,1908d H31-110 ONV V 3911SV3IN 1V101 Nampo pue Iusu Morena pal0ld Iellde0 SV0h100dd 1V11dV0 a3H10 0NV V 300SV311 SINYUCOad 1VN0103211V101 soug91esv Aucol0ly BaueISISSV amtuu 00 Il9ue+1 pe111ePad3 Pue pognd ReM30 )4001 suolle+iclOpoueuai4ely peg Bulwwa+6oid pue Bwuueld Swiss' leuol6a0 SNVN00Nd1VN0103b 00L900'8 8301Aan 1Naun9vNVN 1V101 OOt 020'2 Boueuld 00I'Let'L suopltlununuo0 pue memo an9elel0al 000[1.9'1 uonenslwwpe 0089LZ Luaw90euery anllnoaxg 6901A213S 1N30139MJVW S32Jn110N3dii3 00L'9091.92 00).19Z 009'01 009Y01 006'LZ9.69 006'6LL'9 00z-669 OOC'ett'92 OOL'Ore'Stl o0L'S9L1 000'SI CZ 001.'130'6C S3(1N3A3411V101 001. 01t'C 001.19Z DOS (L 0081,61. 006'L20 DD8'60(1— Se— UMW— 006'0051 00L'09 ODLS 009 C9 europul Wewlsanul 601.'909 - - - - - - 00V909 enuena21+a410 000'9L9'Ll 000'000'9 - 000'SLV9 - anuanati 411n1 009'069'69 - 000'CLI'l • 00VOZ6'2t 000'999') 00E'60C2 00)900'i leivawweno0+alul 0061.$4 9 - 000'000'69 - 009'9lZ - - 00C'92r'9Z MI 9e1EIS ill 000'0009 l S S $ S• $• $ 000669 $ 000'£OseZ S 000'86L'69 9- 9- S 000'00o'C S )(e19e19S V ertneaN 53nN3A3a 1VIOL 30NM39 9103£021d 30NV1SISSb SONni 39i NO119151161 A911WA A3l1Vn A1Nn00 3dVE dSd le39P30 NOIldl210S30 ONIN191N00 lYlldtlO LSNV91 NOI1V12lOdSNVtll W21049Nn 3ON3A OV0D 9139163M i11fd 321n9V3W 31V1S 79001 91011V130dSNVKL 0Wd 01/6002 Ai SV301 IuO04.1e000 Pua puns A9 fu n9 - EZ opal • • Fund Budgets Budgetary Basis The Commission accounts for its 38 budgeted govemmental funds using the modified accrual basis of accounting and the current financial resources measurement focus. The basis of accounting is the same as the basis of budgeting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available to meet current year obligations. Revenues are considered to be available when they are guaranteed as to receipt, based on expenditure of funds (i.e., govemment matching funds), or certain to be received within 180 days of the end of the fiscal year. Expenditures are generally recorded when a liability is incurred; however, debt service expenditures are recorded when the payment is due. Chart 8 - Total Fund Expenditures and Transfers Out (Uses) Debt Service Fund 15% Fund Structure General Fund 5% Special Revenue Funds 46% There are 38 funds that account for the Commission's budgeted resources and are categorized into four govemmental fund types: General fund, special revenue funds, capital projects funds, and Debt Service fund. The number of funds has increased from the 24 budgeted funds included in the FY 2008/09 budget primarily as a result of the commencement of the 2009 Measure A. There are five funds reported in the General fund and 29 in the special revenue funds. Three capital projects funds are used to account for capital project expenditures financed with short- or long-term debt proceeds. In addition, the Commission has one Debt Service fund to account for debt related activity. 47 Chart 9-Budgeted Funds Structure Fivaaida Coadynougmativar-- •-:—Bedptd Audl'tmefn ]dean. A Admieirladiox _7FAdn.nitrien iy..:d F.v.nw Fu..a ISIAP (Tatum Gan* F.sta ass Rail Cagiil lad:Lvet&Roads • RCTcP lCpazssn ipecalad.aaa3 'camaie: AsKsla,ae Rat Pidt iiVaYM+segmli laru.h.lL Pat{v� H tlw+.o . ie1lf. Pl•'^+•a a+d A.pnwel ae.mis Load Weet&Real, SYaaaadnw! Pao Va.& ran... Led Nor & Sa da SAFE lacal Taaaspe 1Ak a?¢+d. — Stab'h..a- 71TM?' Non -Budgeted Funds )9WAf A .11Uart &am. sid..arlmmovmwxn Rail cz7Ll -eo: Saoi s asa& Specialiad That'll ContaieaAoiAam /l-. Ceoid.r. Bond Fntnxg Recacaulaal,rils Lcaoars De.alopad Puilie leant KSoaha rk retiv L Hiplwa7 uki I✓epad Asterisk _eea Snvet 9s ttca s Spaulmrd-eand • roc, raw. Nslity L "—ae: Swat * W.& Cwa.l� rt. raal, WaternCods Bond Maser,. resneneiilP;er Sale. 7.=!era. I Dolt Seavix Fasse In addition to the 38 budgeted governmental funds, the Commission has one fiduciary fund comprised of an agency fund. The Commission does not adopt a budget for this fund. General Fund Overview The General fund of the Commission is used to account for all activities not legally required or designated by Board action to be accounted for separately. For many public agencies, the General fund is the largest fund; however, it is less significant for the Commision. The Commission's largest revenue source is Measure A, a locally levied sales tax that legally must be separately accounted for in special revenue funds. The General fund receives a small portion of the Measure A sales tax revenue for administration and operation of the Commission. The Commission's commuter rail operations, short-range transit planning, fund programming, right of way management, regional issues, and administration are accounted for in the General fund. The revenue sources for the General fund are Measure A sales tax for administration; LTF sales tax for administration and planning, programming, and monitoring (PPM) activities; LTF Article 4 funds for commuter rail transit operations and capital; user fees • 48 from licenses; state highway account (SB 45) funding for project planning; various other state and federal reimbursements not accounted for in other funds; and investment income. Chart 10 — General Fund Sources Transfers In Other 1% 3% LTF Sales Tax 72% Federal Revenues 3% State Revenues 13% Measure A Sales Tax 8% Table 24 — General Fund Sources FY 2008 — 2010 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 % Change % Change Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Actual Revised MEASURE A SALES TAX $ 3,40Qp00 $ 3,400.000 $ 3,400,000 $ 3.000.000 -11.3% -11.8% LTF SALES TAX 11,851,500 17,280,000 13,609,300 28,425,300 139.8% 64.7% STATE FUNDING STIP 283,100 1,493,200 1,116,300 843.600 198.0% -43.5% Other 60,600 300.000 4,500,000 7325.7% 1400.0'/e FEDERAL FUNDING Other 1,997,800 3,839,900 3,815,000 1,100,000 -44.9% -71.4% OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS Local 509,000 509,400 474,600 382,500 -24.9% -24.9% Miscellaneous 2,200 236,000 4,700 180,000 8081.8% -23.7% USER FEES Licenses and Leases 507,300 400,000 403,900 400,000 -21.2% 0.0% OTHER 65,800 92,000 30,500 106,100 61.2% 15.3% INVESTMENT INCOME 466,900 164,600 316,800 83,600 -82.1% -49.2% TRANSFERS IN 291,000 264,300 58,000 591,100 1031% 123.6% TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 19.435 2M $ 27 959 40Q $ 23.229.100 $ 39 6122200 103.8% 41.7% Measure A sales tax revenues are used for administration and are $400,000 less than the prior year due to the decreased Measure A revenues. The administrative allocation is adjusted at mid -year based on required expenditures, but in no event will exceed four percent (4%) of total Measure A revenues (including administrative salaries and benefits). LTF sales tax revenues fund administration, planning staff and studies, and transit operations and capital for rail services. The changes compared to the prior year budget are for the following reasons: • Planning money is set by law at three percent (3%) of estimated LTF sales tax revenues. The FY 2008/09 revised budget includes the effect of the mid- year projection adjustment. This adjustment usually includes the 49 unapportioned carryover amount, which is not determined until after the fiscal year end. • Transit funding for commuter rail and bus transit operators is also tiedto sales tax revenues; however, allocations are based on need to the extent that revenues and reserved fund balance are available. In FY 2009/10, LTF allocations from the Local Transportation Fund, a special revenue fund, to the General fund increased $10,109,300 primarily to fund higher commuter rail operating and capital contribution expenditures to SCRRA. • Allocations aggregating $6,750,000 for local jurisdictions' grade separation projects are included in the FY 2009/10 General fund budget. STIP revenues fund PPM activities, which may vary annually. Other state revenues include a $4,500,000 allocation from the State Transit Assistance special revenue fund to fund a portion of the increased capital contribution expenditures to SCRRA. Federal revenues are primarily reimbursements for geotechnical studies related to the proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway. Other reimbursements are from other local agencies related to the geotechnical studies and the construction of the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility, a portion of the security costs at the commuter rail stations, and a grant from WRCOG related to the interregional partnership study. • 50 Table 25 General Fund Uses FY 2008 - 2010 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 %. Change %: change Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Actual Revised Personnel Salary and Fringe Benefits $ 3,556,600 $ 3,328,900 $ 3,094,000 $ 3,101,400 -12.8% 88% Professional and Support Legal Services 301,600 486,600 390,100 481,000 59.5% 1.2% Financial Advisory 3,100 38,100 10,000. 50,000 151,2.9% 31.2% Audit Sennces 422,803 485.600 471,003 545,000 28.9% 122% Professional Services -Other 1,198,600 2,516,300 1,547,800 2,718.100 126.8% 8.0% Lease/Utilities 333,300 396,000 415,903 410,000 23.o%3.8% General 254,800 368,700 264,200. 314.700 23.5% -14.6% Communications 95,400 94,400 42,600 97,400 2.1% 3.2% Maintenance 169,000 337,000 356,400 554,500 228.1% 64.5% Insurance - 402,700 571,003 327,000 390,000 -3.2% -31.7% Staff Related 175,103 236,000 116,600 212,800. 21.5% -9.8% InfonnatiONPub6City 156.900 190.200 145.000 183,000 16.6% 3.8% SUBTOTAL 3.513,300 5,719,100 4,0136,600 5,956,500 69.5% 4.2% Project and Operations Projects - General 118,000 25,000 49,100 N/A-58.4%. Rail Operations 1,899.960 1,959,000 2085,000 2,492260 312% 27.2% .Engineering 2,800 10,000 --100.0%-100,0% Construction - - WA WA Right of Way 66,100 20.000 8,400 20,000 -69.7% 0.0% Operating and Capital Contributions 6,510,460 10,979,600 7,615,600 27,330,000 319.8% 148.9% Special Studies 2,604.700 6 049 500 5 367 200 2.062.800 20:6% -65.9%- SUBTOTAL 11,083,900 19.136,100 15,101,200 31,954,100 188.3% 67.0% Other LTF Disbursements Capital Oullay SUBTOTAL 992,500 1,050,000 1.050.000 900,000 -9.3% -14.3% 111,760 856600 347,000 375,500 236.2% -56.2% 1,104,200 1,906,600 1,397,000 1,275,500 15.5% 33.1% Debt Service Principal Payments WA WA Interest Payments _ - WA WA Arbitrage Rebate Tax _ _ N/A WA SUBTOTAL - - - N/A WA TRANSFERS OUT - - 14.369 N/A WA TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 19 258.009 $ 30.090.700 $ 23. 678,1100 $ 42.301 800 119.7% 40-_6% Personnel salary and fringe benefits have decreased from the FY 2008/09 budget by 6.8%- This decrease is due to the retirement of three staff in FY 2008/09, as a portion of their time, and related salaries and benefits, was usually distributed to General fund activities. Professional and support expenditures are comparable to the prior year's budget. Project and operations expenditures increased 67.0% as a result of increased commuter rail station operating and maintenance expenditures, a $14,600,400 increase in rail operating and capital contributions to SCRRA, a $1,750,000 increase in allocations for local jurisdictions' grade separation projects, and a $3,500,000 decrease in special studies related to the geotechnical studies. 51 Other expenditures have decreased 33.1 % because of a decrease in LTF allocations for planning activities based on the decline in LTF sales tax revenues and a reduction in capital outlay related to computer improvements substantially completed in FY 2008/09. The transfer out of $14,300 is from right of way management lease revenues to the 1989 Measure A Western County Highways special revenue fund related to the I- 2151SR-60 East Junction HOV lanes connector project. Special Revenue Funds Overview The Commission's special revenue funds are legally restricted as to use. Measure A sales tax, LTF sales tax, Westem County TUMF, state budgetary allocations, and vehicle registration fees are all accounted for in the 29 special revenue funds. State and federal reimbursements and project matching funds are used to supplement the Measure A sales tax revenues. The special revenue funds' resources are expended on County highway, rail, regional arterial, and new corridors engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction; local streets and roads maintenance, repair, and construction; economic development incentives; bond financing; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; education and incentive programs to encourage use of alternate modes of transportation; special social service transportation programs; public transit operations and capital needs; and motorist towing and freeway call box assistance. REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES Chart 11 — Special Revenue Funds Sources Transfers In 20% Other 1% TUMF 4% Federal Revenues 8% State Revenues 9% Interest 1% LTF 19% Measure A 38% 52 Table 26 -Special Revenue Funds Sources FY 2008 -2010 FY 07108 FY 013.409 re mos FY 09r1D- %Change %Change Actual Revised Budget Prciected Budget Actual Revised MEASURE A SALES TAX H1991mYs $ 45,356,800 5 39,714,000 $ 38256,000 $ 27,08t,000 -40.3% -31.8% Rail 16,808,800 15,063.000 14.510,000 --100.0%-100.0% Regional Arterials 13,823,500 1aiwhom 11,734,000 7,885,000 -42.4% -34.6% Higfivays and Regional Arterials - 14202.000 WA WA Local Sheets and Roads - 54,512,400 48,034,000 46,771,000 36,591,000 32.9% -23.8% Commuter Assistance 7590.100 2282.000 2,198.000-100.0%-100.0% Specialized Transit 6,045,900 5.327,000 5,131,000-100.0%-100.0% PubBc Transit - 14,614.000 WA WA Economic Development Incentives 1,053,000 WA WA New CarnOors - 9,827000 WA WA Bond Financing - _ 7,172,000 NJA Wil TOTAL MEASURE 130137,500 122.600,000 118,100,000 118.500,000 -14.8% 3.3% LTF SALES TAX ArBde 4 Transit 70267,300 61319,030 59.000000 58216.600 -15.7% -3.5% STATE FUNDING . FSP Budgetary Allocation 1,437,000 1,474,000 1.485,600. 1,734,600 20.7% 17.7% STIP 1.974,400 31.057200 10,426.500 20.945,000 960.8% -32.6% State Transit Assistance 10,923,400 9,300,000 4,889,400 --100.0%-100.014 State Otter 6,870,700 11,552,900 4,209,600 3,767,600 -452% -67.4% FEDERAL FUNDING Federal Transil Administration Congestion Mitigation and Arc (Duality Federal Other 4,170,700 10,950,000 5,089,600 10,980,000 163.3% 0.3% 1,984,500 9,425,300 5,057,100 8,750,200 340.9% -72% 343503 3,393,000. 5.272,500 3,823090 1013.2% 12.7% OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS Local 1,428,800 1,140,600 L166,000 614.300 -57.0% -46.1% Miscellaneous 362.100 1,000,000 1,622,200 822,000 127.0% •17.8% USER FEES Vehicle Registration Fees 1,684,100 1.495,000 1.336.200 1.450030 -13.9% -3.0% TUMF REVENUE 14,556.000 7,730030 9.999000 11,475,000 -21.2% 48.4% OTHER 1,499,900 1,435,200 93,800 --100.0%-100.0% INVESTMENT INCOME 20379,400 6,602,800 6,707,400 3,073,900 -84.9% -53.4% TRANSFERS IN 790.803 33387.400 49998,400 60,069,900 7496.1% 79.9% TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS t 277 810190 R 3126ffi4Dl 9 26445@?ly1 S :1A5222_21 B. Measure A Special Revenue Funds Of the special revenue funds, 24 are funded primarily with Measure A sales tax revenue: five 1989 Measure A and ten 2009 Measure A Westem County operating funds, four 1989 Measure A and three 2009 Measure A Coachella Valley operating funds, and one 1989 Measure A and one 2009 Measure A Palo Verde Valley operating funds. Since the 1989 Measure A terminates on June 30, 2009, the ten 1989 Measure A operating funds will be closed upon the completion of the specific projects and programs. With the commencement of the 2009 Measure A on July 1, 2009, the 14 operating funds will be in existence for the 30-year term. These funds account for all Measure A project and program expenditures and transfers of debt proceeds. 53 Chart 12 — Measure A Sales Tax Revenues by Geographic Area Palo Verde Valley 1% Coachella Valey 24% Western County 75% Western County Measure A Operating Funds These special revenue funds account for Western County's approximately 75%b share of the Measure A sales tax. Since the sales tax leverages state and federal dollars, most of the Commission's reimbursements flow through these funds. Chart 13 — Western County Percentage of Total Special Revenue Fund Sources Other Funds 35% Westem County Measure A Operating Funds 65% 54 Table 27 — Western County Measure A Operating Funds Sources FY 2009 — 2010 Measure A Sales Tax Highways Rail Regional Arterials Local Streets and Roads Commuter Assistance Specialized Transit Public Transit Economic Development Incentives New Corridors Bond Financing Total Measure A FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Revised Budget Budget $ 35,146,000 $ 15,063,000 36,516,000 2,282,000 2,282,000. Dollar Variance 27,081,000 $ (8,065,000) (15,063,000) 7,965,000 7,965,000 25,751,000 (10,765,000) (2,282,000) (2,282,000) 10, 354,000 10, 354,000 1,053,000 1,053,000 9,822,000 9,822,000 7,172,000 7,172,000 91,289,000 89,198,000 Local Transportation Fund Sales Tax 1,339,000 216,600 State Funding State Other 11,258,400 3,476,400 STIP 31,057,200 20,945,000 Federal Funding Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 9,425,300 8,575,200 Federal Transit Administration 10,950,000 10,980,000 Federal Other 1,700,000 2,650,800 TUMF 2,730,000 6,475,000 Other Miscellaneous Reimbursements 1,000,000 762,000 Local Revenue 557,000 530,800 Investment Income 3,575,100 1,530,900 Transfers In 26.762A00 52.846,200 (Z091,000) (1,122,400) (7,782,000) (10,112,200) (850,100) 30,000 950,800 3,745,000 (238,000) (26,200) (2,044,200) 26,083.800 TOTAL Western County Measure A $ 191 643 400 $ 198.186 90Q $ 6 543 500 % Change Estimated -22.9% -100.0% N/A -29.5% -100.0% -100.0% WA N/A N/A N/A -83.8% - 69.1% - 32.6% -9.0% 0.3% 55.9% 1372% -23.8% -4.7% -57.2% 97.5% 3.4%Q As Table 27 demonstrates, total sources for the Western County operating funds are 3.4% above the prior year's budget, principally due to TUMF reimbursements and transfers in representing commercial paper funding offset by decreases in Measure A sales tax revenues, state funding, and investment income. The overall decline in total budgeted Measure A sales tax revenues of 3.6% is reduced in Western County to 2.3% due to the impact of taxable sales changes on the geographic allocation formula. For FY 2008/09, the Western County's share was 74%. FY 2009/10 Measure A sales tax revenues reflect the Western County programs under the 2009 Measure A, which has variations from the 1989 Measure A. Coachella Valley Measure A Operating Funds These special revenue funds account for Coachella Valley's 24% share of the Measure A sales tax. 55 Chart 14 — Coachella Valley Percentage of Total Special Revenue Fund Sources Coachella Valley Measure A Operating Funds 10% Other Funds 91% Table 28 — Coachella Valley Measure A Operating Funds Sources FY 2009 — 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Measure A Sales Tax Highways Regional Arterials Highways and Regional Arterials Local Streets and Roads Specialized Transit Public Transit Total Measure A Other Miscellaneous Reimbursements Investment Income Transfers In TOTAL Coachella Valley Measure A $ 4,568,000 $ $ (4,568,000)-100.0% 12,180,000 (12,180,000)-100.0% 14,202,000 14,202,000 N/A 10,658,000 9,941,000 (717,000) -6.7% 3,045,000 (3,045,000)-100.0% 4.260.000 4,260,000 N/A 30,451,000 28,403,000 (2,048,000) -6.7% 1,430,200 (1,430,200)-100.0% 130,400 46,300 (84,100) -64.5% 4.125,000 (4,125,000)-100.0% $ 36.136.6li $ 28.449.300 $ (7.687.300) 21.3% As shown in Table 28, total sources for the Coachella Valley operating funds are 21.3% below the prior year's budget due to the decline in Measure A sales tax revenues, the conclusion of annual debt service payments from CVAG, and no requirement for transfers in of commercial paper proceeds. The overall decline in total budgeted Measure A sales tax revenues of 3.6% is in addition to the impact of taxable sales changes on the geographic allocation formula. For FY 2008/09, the Coachella Valley's share was 25%. Other miscellaneous reimbursements in FY 2008/09 represented the Coachella Valley TUMF program's final share of the debt service on the 1993 Series A sales tax revenue bonds used to fund regional arterial improvements. Palo Verde Valley Measure A Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Palo Verde Valley's 1% share of the Measure A sales tax. 56 Chart 15 - Palo Verde Valley Percentage of Total Special Revenue Fund Sources Palo Verde Valley Measure A Operating Fund 0% Table 29 - Palo Verde Valley Measure A Operating Fund Sources FY 2009 - 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Measure A Local Streets and Roads Investment Income $ 860,000 $ 899,000 $ 39,000 4.5% 1,300 700 (600) -46.2% TOTAL Palo Verde Valley Measure A $ 861 300 $ 899 700 $ 38.400 4.5% The Measure A sales tax revenues are affected by the impact of shifts in taxable sales changes on the geographic allocation formula as well as the overall changes in Measure A sales tax revenue levels. Non -Measure A Special Revenue Funds The non -Measure A special revenue funds account for funding from TDA's LTF and STA, TUMF, and motorist services. Table 30 - Local Transportation Fund Sources FY 2009 - 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar To Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Local Transportation Fund Sales Tax $ 60,000,000 $ 59,000,000 $ (1,000,000) -1.7% Investment Income TOTAL Local Transportation Funds 1,295.500 627,900 (667,500) -51.5% $ 61.295.500 5 59.627.900 $ (1 667 6001 -2.7%Q The LTF special revenue fund derives its revenue from one quarter of one cent of the state sales tax that is returned to source, and the LTF sales tax revenue in FY 2009/10 is projected to be slightly lower. Investment income is expected to decrease significantly as a result of declining yields on investments and cash balances due to the use of a portion of available fund balance for FY 2009/10 expenditure requirements. 57 Table 31 — Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Fund Sources FY 2009 - 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 0.0% Local Revenue 500,000 (500,000)-100.0% Federal Other 1,693,000 1,173,000 (520,000) -30.7% Investment Income 1,141,900 606,900 (535,000) -46.9% Transfers In 2.500.000 6,790,000 4,290,000 171.6% TOTAL TUMF $ 10834-900 $ 13.569.900 $ 2 735 000 The TUMF fund accounts for the Commission's share of developer fee assessments on new residential and commercial developments in Westem County for regional arterials and CETAP corridors. TUMF revenue is projected to remain unchanged due to the weakened housing market. No local revenue is expected due to the completion of the I- 15/Cajalco Road interchange preliminary engineering, which costs were reimbursed by the city of Corona. Federal revenues are related to federal reimbursements on the SR- 79 realignment project. The transfer in for FY 2009/10 relates to an intrafund borrowing of TUMF CETAP funds to provide funding for regional arterial expenditures. In the prior year, the transfer in was related to commercial paper funding for the SR-91/Green River Road interchange, which has been completed. Chart 16- Motorist Services Funds Sources SAFE 41%. FSP 59% Table 32 — Freeway Service Patrol Fund Sources FY 2009 — 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated State Budgetary Allocation $ 1,474,000 $ 1,734,600 $ 260,600 17.7% State Other 294,500 291,200 (3,300) -1.1% Local Revenue 83,600 83,500 (100) -0.1% Investment Income 14,500 5,700 (8,800)-60.7°% Transfer from SAFE - 433,700 433,700 N/A TOTAL Freeway Service Patrol $ 1 866.600 $ 2.548.700 $ 682.100 3G.5 % The FSP fund accounts for the state and local resources provided to cover the costs of servicing stranded motorists in covered service areas and construction zones by means of towing, changing tires, and providing fuel. Due to the accumulation of resources in the FSP fund balance in prior years, the transfer in from the SAFE special revenue fund was not required in FY 2008/09; however, it has been reinstated for FY 2009/10. 58 • • • Table 33 - Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Fund Sources FY 2009 - 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar %Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Vehicle Registration Fees $ 1,495,000 $ 1,450,000 $ (45,000) -3.0% Federal - CMAQ 175,000 175,000 N/A Other Miscellaneous Reimbursements 5,000 60,000 55,000 1100.0% Investment Income 84,100 60,700 (23,400) -27.8% TOTAL SAFE $ 1.584.100 $ 1 745 700 $161.600 10.222 The SAFE fund accounts for the $1 per vehicle registration fee levied on all registered vehicles within the County. It funds emergency aid call boxes located strategically on the highways throughout the County. Commencing in FY 2009/10, the SAFE fund will • also fund the Inland Empire 511 system. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) reimbursements represent the pass -through funds from SANBAG as its share of the Inland Empire 511 system operating costs. Other miscellaneous reimbursements include recoveries from call box knockdowns. During FY 2008/09 a collection agency was hired by the Commission to more aggressively pursue recoveries from the parties at fault, or their insurance companies. Table 34 - State Transit Assistance Fund Sources FY 2009 - 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated State Budgetary Allocation Investment Income TOTAL State Transit Assistance $ 9,300,000 $ - $ (9,300.000)-100.0% 360,000 194.800 (165.200) -45.9% S 9.660.000 $ 194.80Q $ {9.465.2001 -98.0% The STA fund accounts for the state budgetary allocation for rail and bus transit operations and capital requirements. The allocation is strictly based on estimates of gas tax revenues and is provided by the Controller of the State of California. It is subject to an annual state budget appropriation. As a result of the State's budget issues, the STA allocations beginning in FY 2009/10 were suspended. Investment income is expected to decrease significantly because of declining yields on investments and cash balances due to the use of available fund balance for FY 2009/10 expenditures resulting from the suspension of state allocations. 59 EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES Chart 17 — Special Revenue Funds Uses LTF Transfers Out Disbursements 2% 17% Local Streets and Roads 9% Other 4% Projects and Operations 68% • • 60 • • • Table 35 - Special Revenue Funds Uses FY 2008 - 2010 FY 07108 FY 08109 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 %.Change % Change Actual Revised Budgel Projected Budget Actual Revised Personnel Salary and Fringe Benefits 1,903,400 $ 3,414,100 $ 2,031,100 -$ 2,951,900 55.1% -13.5% Professional and Support _ Legal Services 864,800 1.445,900 1,441.500 3,864.500 346.9% 187.3% Financial Advisory 100 - 1,900 - --100.0% -1090% Audd Services 22,900 62,200 20,000 55,000 140.2% -11.6% Professional Services -Other 596,400 1,590,600 1,120,600 8,324,700 1295.8% 423.4% Lea58lUNilies 57,200 109,700 65,300 6,100 -89.3% -94.4% General 286,300 283,700 234,200 274,900 3.2% -3.1% Communications 46,300 57,300 60,600 65,600 41.7% 14.5% Maintenante 32,500 1,854,600 320,000 939,500 2790.8% -49.3% insurance 20,400 29,000 - --100.0%-100.0% Stab Related 31,100 136.600 84,100 121,100 289.4% -11.3% InfomaticuPPublicity lame 224 300 232.000 226.000 22,051 93% TOTAL PROFESSIONAL AND SUPPORT 2,112,600 5,795,800 3,578,300 13,877,400 556.9% 139.4% Projects and Operatiaw Program Management 3,755,600 6,2313,300 4.024,900 5,752,000 53.2% -7.8% Park and Ride Lease Payments 47,500 190,000 150.000 120.000 152.6% -36.8% Projects - General 69,300 480,000 32,600 8,600,000 12309.8% 1691.7% Motorist Assistance 3,833,600 3,025.300 2.364,900 2.799,000 -27.0% -7.5% Commuter Assistance 2,173,800 2,722,200 2.639.300 2,777,200 27.8% 2.0% Engineering 20,614,000 70,332,600 50.667,500 58.590,900 184.2% -16.7% Construction 38,147,800 100,604,60D 80.386.300 58.526,300 61.9% -41.8% Right of Wry - 34,699,700 122,660,000 56,323,000 114,589,800 230.2% 43.6°% Special Studies 545,100 547.500 257,700 170,000 -68.8% -68.9% Pudic and Specia9zed Transk 5,537,700 7,470,400 4,651,800 10.298.300 86.0% 37.9% State Transit Assistance 1,200,400 22,928,000 13,775,600 6,962,000 480.0% -69.6% Regional Arterials 9,906.100 8,781.300 8,781,300 15.583,400 57.3% 77.5% Capital Cantnbution 402,000 _ • - -1000% NM TOTAL PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS B8.932,600 345.980.200 224.054,900 284,770,900 139.4% -17.7% Other Local Streets and Roads CIF Disbursements Capital Outlay 54,516.400 46,562,300 44,799,300 35,908,900 -34.1% -72.9% 81,311,600 79,381,000 65,244.800 72,900.500 -10.3% -8.2°% 223.300 951.300 475.300 735 000 229.2% TOTAL OTHER 136,051,300 126.894,800 110,519,400 109,544,400 -19.5% -13.7% Debt Service Interest Payments 154.200 - - 6,500,000 4115.3% 0.0% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 154,200 8,500,000 4115.3% 11/A TRANSFERS OUT 35.084.40Q 36 737 700 37 129 800 10 377 300 -70 4% -71.8% TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $ 294 238 5Q0 $ 518 872 40Q $ 377-313 50Q B 428 021.900 45 5 6 -17 5% Measure A Special Revenue Funds The Measure A special revenue funds expend monies on capital construction and improvements to highways, commuter rail, regional arterials, new corridors, and local streets and roads. Funding is also reserved for commuter assistance, public and specialized transit, and economic development incentives programs as well as bond financing costs. The Commission is a self-help county, and, as such on major highway projects, the Commission supplements the State's spending. Upon completion of the projects, Caltrans takes over the maintenance and operations of the projects. All revenues from the Measure A sales tax have been pledged as security for the Commission's senior sales tax revenue bonds and commercial paper notes. Debt service on the bonds is recorded in the Debt Service fund, and most of the resources 61 for the cash payments are provided through transfers out by the Measure A special revenue funds for the 2009 Measure A bonds. Debt service, consisting of a $50,000,000 principal payment as well as interest, for the commercial paper notes is recorded in a capital projects fund, as the notes will be paid from 2009 Measure A sales tax revenues or refinanced with proceeds from sales tax revenue bonds. Western County Measure A Operating Funds Table 36 — Western County Measure A Operating Funds Uses FY 2009 — 2010 Personnel, Professional and Support Measure A Program Management Park and Ride Lease Payments Projects -General Highway. Rail Commuter Assistance Public and Specialized Transit Local Streets and Roads Regional Arterial Economic Development Special Studies Capital Outlay Debt Service Transfers Out FY 08/09 Revised Budget $ 7,967,000 5,904,300 190,000 480,000 108,406,600 43,490,000 5,022,200 4,425,400 35,044,300 2,000,000 10,000,000 547,500 907.800 28.839.200 FY 09/10 Budget $ 15,677,600 5,619,000 120,000 8,600,000 125,185,200 62,772,000 2,777,200 6,038,300 25,751,000 170,000 735.000 6,500,000 1,153 900 Dollar Variance $ 7,710,600 (285,300) (70,000) 8,120,000 16,778,600 19,282,000 (2245,000) 1,612,900 (9293,300) (377,500) (172,800) 6,500,000 (27,685,3001 TOTAL Westem County Measure A $ 253.724.300 $ 261.099.200 $ 7.874 900 % Change Estimated 96.8% -4.8% -36.8% 1691.7% 15.5% 44.3% -44.7% 36.4% -26.5% -100.0% 100.0% 68.9°% -19.0°% N/A Westem County personnel, professional, and support expenditures have almost doubled as a result of the implementation of the Inland Empire 511 system, specialized professional services required for the SR-91 corridor improvements project, and the development of the fourth main track by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) required by various rail capital improvements. General project expenditures include $8,425,000 for the design -build phase of the SR-91 corridor improvements related to project management and interagency support. The Western County highway expenditures include progress toward completion of 1989 Measure A projects such as the SR-91 HOV lanes/Adams Street to SR-60/SR-91/1-215 interchange, SR-91Nan Buren interchange, and SR-74/G Street to 1-215 interchange. Additionally, advance project development activities related to the 10-Year Westem County Highway Delivery Plan will continue for the SR-91, 1-15, and 1-215 corridor improvements. Rail expenditures include the Perris Valley Line and related rail improvements and the Riverside layover facility. The decrease in commuter assistance is due to the completion of the I-15/1-215 traffic flow detection project. The increase in public and specialized transit expenditures is attributable to $1,918,300 for Western County intercity bus service and Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) administration expenditures funded by the 2009 Measure A. The 1989 Measure A did not include funding for these public transit programs. Local streets and roads expenditures decreased because of the decline in Measure A sales tax revenues as well as the decrease in Western County funding 62 allocated for the local streets and roads program. Transfers out in the prior year's budget were primarily related to commercial paper funding for the advance development of the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan projects prior to the commencement of the 2009 Measure A. FY 2009/10 transfers out consist of highway funding for related property management activities, a contribution from commuter assistance to rail capital for a park and ride facility at the La Sierra station parking ° expansion project, and start-up funding for 2009 Measure A commuter assistance program operations from available 1989 Measure A commuter assistance funds. Coachella Valley Measure A Operating Funds Table 37 — Coachella Valley Measure A Operating Funds Uses FY 2009 — 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Revised Budget Budget Variance Personnel, Professional and Support Measure A Program Management Highway Regional Arterials Specialized Transit Local Streets and F2oads Transfers Out $ 31,900 33,000 17,692,600 8,781,300 3,045,000 10,658,000 7,898 500 $ 12,000 16,300 6,719,300 15,583,400 4,260,000 9,436,000 1.556,500 $ (19,900) (16,700) (10,973,300) 6,802,100 1,215,000 (1,222,000) (6.342.000) % Change Estimated -62.4% -50.6% -62.0% 77.5% 39.9% -11.5% -80.3% TOTAL Coachella Valley Measure A S 48140.300 S 37 583.500 $ (10.556 800)-21.9%Q The Coachella Valley highway expenditures for FY 2009/10 reflect the carryover of project funding budgeted in FY 2008/09 for 1989 Measure A projects to be completed in FY 2009/10. Regional arterial projects are managed by CVAG. In accordance with the 2009 Measure A, highway and regional arterial funding is combined and related expenditures are reported as regional arterials. Specialized transit funds are distributed to SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) for transit operations, and such funding allocated for Coachella Valley specialized transit increased under the 2009 Measure A. Transfers out are related to debt service. In FY 2008/09 debt service requirements related to 1989 Measure A debt issued for Coachella Valley highway projects was completed. Debt service requirements for 2009 Measure A debt issued for the city of Indio local streets and roads projects under an advance funding agreement are substantially lower. 63 Palo Verde Valley Measure A Operating Fund Table 38 - Palo Verde Valley Measure A Operating Fund Uses FY 2009 - 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Local Streets and Roads $ 860,000 $ 721,900 $ (138,100) -16.1% Transfers Out 177,100 177,100 N/A TOTAL Palo Verde Valley Measure A $ 860.000 $ 899.000 $ 39.000 105.1 In the Palo Verde Valley, expenditures are for local streets and roads; however, transfers out relate to debt service for the city of Blythe local streets and roads projects under an advance funding agreement. Non -Measure A Special Revenue Funds The non -Measure A special revenue funds account for LTF disbursements, TUMF Westem County project costs, transit disbursements from STA, and motorist assistance expenditures including towing service as well as freeway call boxes and Inland Empire 511 system operations. These activities are budgeted in the LTF, TUMF, STA, FSP, and SAFE funds, respectively. Table 39 - Local Transportation Fund Uses FY 2009 - 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated LTF Disbursements TOTAL Local Transportation Funds $ 79,381,01)0 $ 72.900,500 $ (6,480,500) -8.2% io 79.381 00Q $ 72.90Q500 $ t6 480 500) The LTF special revenue fund provides for funding of public transit operations in the County, bicycle and pedestrian facility projects, planning, and administration. In FY 2009/10 LTF transit allocations are primarily for operating rather than capital purposes, which may also be funded by available STA funding. The actual allocations will not occur until July 2009. Table 40 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Fund Uses FY 2009 - 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Personnel, Professional and Support $ 652,100 $ 552,400 $ (99,700) -15.3% Program Management 301,000 116,700 (184,300) -61.2% Regional Arterial/CETAP Projects 109,708,000 37,032,500 (72,675,500) 66.2°% Transfers Out - 7,035.100 7,035,100 N/A TOTAL TUMF $ 110 661 10Q $ 44 736 700 $ (65 924.400) The TUMF fund accounts for the expenditures in the Western County on regional arterial projects, including the CETAP corridors such as the Mid County Parkway. The decrease in project expenditures is attributable to the lower TUMF revenue base available for new regional arterial project commitments and a significant decrease in right of way acquisitions related to the Mid County Parkway. Transfers out are required • 64 for intrafund borrowings between the regional arterials and CETAP to fund regional arterial projects. Table 41 State Transit Assistance Fund Uses FY 2009 — 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Personnel, Professional and Support S 400 $ 300 $ (100) -25.0% Claimant Allocations 22,928,000 6,962,000 (15.966.000) -69.6% TOTAL State Transit Assistance $ 22.978.400 $ 6.962.300 $ (15 966100) -69 6°% The STA fund is used to account for the state budgetary allocation of gas tax revenues designated for transit purposes. The FY 2009/10 allocations are primarily for Western County bus and rail capital purposes, as available funds for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley are minimal. The actual allocations will not occur until July 2009. Table 42 — Freeway Service Patrol Fund Uses FY 2009 — 2010 FY 08/09 FY 09110 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Personnel, Professional and Support $ 314,300 $ 159,200 $ (155,100) 49.3% Towing 1,986,400 2,238,000 251,600 12.7°% Operating Costs 138,400 145,800 7,400 5.3°% Capital Outlay 23,400 - (23,400)-100.0°% Transfers Out - 14,000 14.000 TOTAL Freeway Service Patrol $ 2.462.500 $ 2 557 00Q $ 94.500 111/ The FSP fund accounts for the Commission's towing service, which is jointly funded by Caltrans and the Commission. While the program also includes services to construction zones to help mitigate congestion, such services have decreased as a result of the SR- 60/SR-91/1-215 interchange construction completion in FY 2008/09. Towing costs increased primarily because of two additional trucks to service two beats. Personnel, professional and support costs are lower due a reduction in administrative overhead allocations. 65 Table 43 — Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Fund Uses FY 2009 — 2010 FY 08109 FY 09/10 Dollar % Change Revised Budget Budget Variance Estimated Personnel, Professional and Support $ 244,200 $ 427,800 $ 183,600 75.2% Access Charges 69,800 69,800 0.0% Preventive Maintenance 5,400 - (5,400)-100.0% Corrective Maintenance 5,400 (5,400)-100.0% Knockdowns 8,000 - (8,000)-100.0% Operating Casts 39,000 35,400 (3,600) 0.0% Vandalism 400 - (400)-100.0% Equipment Maintenance - Call Boxes 772,500 310,000 (462,500) -59.9% Special Studies - - - WA Transfers Out - 440,700 440,700 N/A CapitalOutFay 20,100 - (20,100)-100.0% TOTAL SAFE $ 1.164.800 $ 1.283.700 $ 118.900 10.2% The SAFE fund accounts for the installation and maintenance of a freeway call box system within the County as well as the operations of the Inland Empire 511 system. Equipment maintenance costs reflect the completion of technology upgrades, other call box site -related improvements, and a reduction in call boxes due to the increased use of cellular phones for emergencies. Professional costs increased as a result of the Inland Empire 511 system operations that will commence in FY 2009/10. The transfers out to the FSP special revenue fund reflect a matching contribution from SAFE funding to the State's contribution for towing services. Capital Projects Funds Overview The capital projects funds account for all debt proceeds from commercial paper notes and senior sales tax revenue bonds. In March 2005 a commercial paper program was established to advance project development and land and right of way acquisition related to the 2009 Measure A projects. During FY 2009/10, the Commission anticipates the issuance of $75,000,000 in additional commercial paper notes. In June 2008, the Commission issued $126,395,000 in sales tax revenue bonds (2008 Bonds) to refinance the outstanding commercial paper in order to maximize the availability of commercial paper funding for the advancement of 2009 Measure A projects. The Commission anticipates the issuance of approximately $185,000,000 in variable rate sales tax revenue bonds in October 2009 (2009 Bonds) in connection with the commencement of two interest rate swaps. This issuance will refinance the 2008 Bonds and approximately $50,000,000 in commercial paper notes. 66 Chart 18 — Capital Projects Funds Sources Transfers In 16% Other 0% Investment Income 0% Debt Proceeds 84°% Table 44 - Capital Projects Funds Sources FY 2008 — 2010 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 % Charge % Change Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Actual Revised Federal - Other $ 824,700 $ _ $ _ $ --100.0% WA Investment Income 818,000 4,400 557,600 10,500 -98.7% 138.6% Debt Proceeds 160,249,000 130,000,000 110,000,000 260,000,000 62.2% 100.0% Transfer In 110,005,000 50,000,000, 54.5% WA TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS $ 271.096.700 9 130.004.40Q $ 110.557 60Q $ 310.010.500 14 0% 135 5% Commercial paper proceeds will continue to be used for Coachella Valley regional arterial projects subject to an advance funding agreement and debt service interest on outstanding commercial paper notes- Proceeds from the 2009 Bonds will be used for debt service purposes to retire $50,000,000 in commercial paper notes and to pay the costs of issuance related to the 2009 Bonds. A significant use of the commercial paper proceeds is transfers out to the 2009 Measure A Highway Improvements Fund for projects. Additionally the 2009 Bonds proceeds will be transferred out to the Debt Service fund to retire the 2008 Bonds and establish a debt service reserve for the 2009 Bonds and to the Commercial Paper capital projects fund to retire $50,000,000 in commercial paper notes. Table 45 — Capital Projects Funds Uses FY 2008 — 2010 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 % Change % Change Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Actual Revised Legal Services $ 51,200 $ 66,000 $ 115,500 $ - 100.0%-100.0% Financial Advisory 286,500 80,000 55,000 15,000 -94.8% -81.3% Professional Services 560,100 650,000 511,600 853,100 52.3% 31.2% Program Management - _ - NIA N/A Engineering 8,485,800 685,000 19,088,800 --100.0%-100.0°% Construction 4,052,000 5.699.000 3.150,00D 8,990.000 121.9% 57.7% ROW/Land Mitigation 37,759,000 77,558,400 111,409,900 8,000,000 -78.0% -89.7% Principal Payments 110,005,000 - - 50,000,000 -54.5% N/A Interest Payments 3,049,400 14,553,000 4 510,000 3,110.000 2.0% -78-8% Arbitrage rebate lax _ - - N/A N/A Cost of Issuance 1,107,500 - - 3,250,000 193.5%0 N/A Transfers Out 128.978.700 32,387,400 28.9oo.o00 233 091 000 80.7% 619.7% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS $ 294.345 700 $ 131 778 8012 $ 117 752 00Q $ 307 309_100 4 4% 1�.2% 67 Debt Service Fund Overview The Debt Service fund of the Commission is used to account for all activities related to the sales tax revenue bonds debt incurred by the Commission. The Commission's largest single expenditure is debt service. The bond agreements require the trustee to hold all bond proceeds and a portion of the sales tax revenues, that will commence on July 1, 2009, and to segregate all funds into separate amounts- These monies are included in the restricted investments held by trustee in the capital projects funds and the Debt Service fund. Under the agreements, the Commission may use sales tax revenues for any lawful purpose related to the Riverside County TIP after the trustee has satisfied debt service requirements. Under the 2009 Measure A program, the Commission has the authority to issue bonds subject to a debt limitation of $500,000,000. In order to advance project development activities, the Commission established a $185,000,000 commercial paper program in 2005. The 2008 Bonds refinanced the outstanding commercial paper notes of $110,005,000 with sales tax revenue bonds for a par amount of $126,395,000 in order to restore the commercial paper program to its maximum capacity for subsequent years' expenditures. The 2009 Bonds will refinance the 2008 Bonds and $50,000,000 of outstanding commercial paper notes. Chart 19 — Debt Service Fund Sources Investment Income 0% Transfers In 100% Table 46 — Debt Service Fund Sources FY 2008 - 2010 FY 07108 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 % Change % Change Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Actual Revised Investment Income $ 2,080,000 $ 1,208,200 $ 955,200 $ 251,100 -87.9% -79.2% Transfers In 52976,300 35473,400 35,473,400 132,821,600 150.7% 274.4% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND $ 55 056 300 $ 36.681 60Q $ 36.42$ 600 $ 133.072.700 141 7% 262.8% Investment income in FY 2009/10 is expected to decrease due to retirement of all sales tax revenue bonds related to the 1989 Measure A and return of debt service reserves. Accordingly, investment and cash balances will be lower, and investment yields have been decreasing. Transfers in consist of debt service funding from the proceeds of the 2009 bonds to retire the 2008 Bonds and establish a debt service reserve for the 2009 bonds and from CVAG and the cities of Blythe and Indio for debt service principal payments on the 2008 Bonds. 68 • Table 47 — Debt Service Fund Uses FY 2008 — 2010 FY 07108 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 % Change % Change Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Actual Revised Principal Payments $ 31,865,000 $ 33,630,000 $ 33,630,000 $ 132,395,000 315.5% 293.7% Interest Payments 3,608,100 1,843,400 7,743,400 3,000,000 -16.9% 62.7% Transfers Out - - 19.500.000 - N/A NIA TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND $ 35.473.1_0Q $ 35.473.400 S 60 873 400 $ 135.395 00Q 281.7% 281.7% The debt service payments relate to the 2008 Bonds and 2009 Bonds. 69 • • • SECTION 41 REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCE' 70 12775"21/2-1 IFY270rItirl008 Ea el S 009'£ZIT, 13150 1715r, ooz caz S 6az 00 S bo9 see 1Z S 006469 LB S boo 009 Iz1 S 009796'ESS 009'Z96'S6Z 000'000'09Z 000'000'09Z 000'911'Z 00r Oasts OOL'se['s 00L'09 000'09 009'906'£ 00['£Il 009'090 0091196'E1 00L'IS1 000'091. 0001E61 0003 con Iz 000'0Z6'9 000'0[1 006'99eL9 009'116 001'96S'OS 001'9 00S'L00'£ 009'L00 000'009'S 00£'691' l l 00E141. 000'009'Z 00VOS'e L 001.'906 000'Z91 00VOLZ'96 009'6ll'l 000'S16'6 009'614 009'616 009'6LL£ S 009'62 S 000'096' 1 s • h eganoS Bulpund 1V101 ul welsuell eoesoad laa0 S3JLIf10S DNIONVNIA M3H10 009'9ZO'Z - pled aowes AeMtad 000'SLI - e012ue8Uew3 AtMead col**Any oolues 00S'zaz 009'6SL'I 000'SZ6 00L'9ZE'1 toueislsty iaynwwo0 000'000, 00N9S V61 - suormedomnueualuleW uo0t15 I!eH • 000'00V1 - 009'£69 000'02r1 0ulwwe/Bod We Bwuueld 000'0SV9 sante!'wooed Oo0bo0'as 00E'I[9'L esuell peztePad6 We *Ind S OINDObd IVNOID3U 000' I69'es sptob put slee4s lead • d7130 000'EL PI 000V96Y sleueuV ItualBey 000'00V 000'096'01 006'Z9Z'I 009'99eZ - 009'9lZ 000.91.6'S Ilet7 00£'£s6'l - 009'ZLO'9 009'e6Z 000'ses'OZ - o0o'oes'es ezenyBIH kenllaD oue luewdolene0 sloelad Itlldt0 96M1008d 1V11dVO U3H10 ONV V sanse3W s- s• s• s- s• s t 000'05E t 000'000'E t senuenea 1st110 s0p000Wss910 lss01 seed 009s9s16si! y01.70 VIA OVISO asy10 &IS V19 All yemeeely 61.1OeledO • sIpIWA !s»peA • %elS xe1 ealeg puewsBeueyy ALadom seowes wewe6eutly we160,d pue luewyed00 ill 011600E AA wueoidlluewLedaO AO SOW nA' 9P *met • • Revenues and Other Sources Total revenues and other sources are budgeted at $787,918,300 and consist of Measure A sales tax of $121,500,000 (or 15.4% of total sources); LTF sales tax of $87,641,900 (or 11.1 % of total sources); federal revenues of $24,654,000 (or 3.1 % of total sources); state revenues, including vehicle registration fees, of $33,240,800 (or 4.2% of total sources); TUMF of $11,475,000 (or 1.5% of total sources); debt proceeds of $260,000,000 (or 33.0% of total sources); transfers in of $243,482,600 (or 30.9% of total sources) and other revenues of $5,924,000 (or 0.8% of total sources). The specific revenue funding sources are shown in Table 49. Table 49 — Revenues and Other Sources Federal State Local Other Total Measure A Sales Tax $ - $ $121,500,000 $ $ 121,500,000 Local Transportation Fund Sales Tax 87,641,900 87,641,900 State Transit Assistance - Califomia Department of Transportation 1,983,300 29,765,000 31,748,300 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 8,750,200 8,750,200 Federal Transit Administration 10,980,000 10,980,000 Federal Other 2,940,500 2,940,500 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 11,475,000 11,475,000 License Fees 400,000 400,000 Coachella Valley Association of Govemments Department of Motor Vehicle Fees - 1,450,000 1,450,000 Freeway Service Patrol - 2,025,800 2,025,800 Investment and Other 1,828,800 3,525,200 5,354,000 Debt Proceeds 260,000,000 260,000,000 Transfers In - 243.482,600 243,482,600 TOTAL 124,654.000 $ 33.240.800 $ 222.445.700 $ 507.407 800 $787.748.301 Revenue Sources —Definitions and Background Measure A: Measure A was first approved by Riverside County voters in 1988 and expires on June 30, 2009 after a 20-year term. On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved the renewal of Measure A through 2039. The 2009 Measure A is expected to raise more than $5.7 billion (in real dollars) during its lifespan. The amount raised by the Measure A levy has increased as the County and its economic base have grown during the past two decades, peaking in FY 2005/06 at $157 million. As a result of the recent economic slowdown, Measure A revenues have decreased and are expected to approximate $121.5 million in FY 2008/09. Measure A requires that all sales taxes collected may only be used for transportation purposes including administration and the construction, capital acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, highways, including state highways and public transit systems and for related purposes. These purposes include expenditures for planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right of 72 way acquisition. The Commission historically has obtained and updated Measure A revenue projections through a consultant for budget and strategic project planning purposes. The UCLA Anderson Forecast completed the last update in May 2006; however, this forecast has been updated frequently because of the weakened Inland Empire economy that began in 2007. Measure A revenue projections for the next fire fiscal years are presented in Chart 20 below. Chart 20 — Forecasted Measure A Sales Tax Revenues 2010 — 2014 $175,000,000 $150,000,000 $125,000,000 $100,000,000 $75,000,000 $50,000,000 $25,000,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 The following additional assumptions were used in the development of the Commission's revenue forecast for FY 2009/10: • The Inland Empire economy is not expected to improve significantly in FY 2009/10; however, a slow recovery is expected to begin in FY 2010/11. • The State does not change mix of items subject to the sales tax from what has been included historically. • The relative sales and property tax rates of Riverside and surrounding counties do not change from historical levels. • Internet sales will have minimal impact on revenue. The Measure A sales tax revenue projections will be utilized in the 10-Year Westem County Highway Delivery Plan financing strategy and an analysis of a potential increase to be sought in the $500 million 2009 Measure A bonding cap. 73 • • • Geographic Allocation - Riverside County is comprised of three geographic areas: Westem County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. The percentage of Measure A revenues allocated to each of these areas based on retum to source is approximately 75% for Westem County, 24% for Coachella Valley, and 1 % for Palo Verde Valley. These percentages will experience some variations from year to year based on changes in levels of taxable sales. Chart 21 — Geographic Allocation of Measure A Revenues Palo Verde Valley 1% Coachella Valley 24% Westem County 75% Program Allocation - The 2009 Measure A TIP defines the manner in which the sales tax revenues are to be spent, as presented in the following table. In Westem County, public transit includes funding for specialized transit, commuter rail, intercity bus service, and commuter assistance. For the Coachella Valley, public transit includes specialized transit and public bus services. gr,t- Westem County Highways 30.0°% New Corridors 11.0°% Regional Arterials 9.0°% Public Transit 12.0% Local Streets and Roads 29.0°% Economic Development Incentives 1.0% Bond Financing 8.0% Coachella Valley Highways and Regional Arterials 50.0% Local Streets and Roads 35.0% Public Transit 15.0% Palo Verde Valley Local Streets and Roads 100% Local streets and roads allocations to the local jurisdictions within each geographic area are based on population (in Westem County and Palo Verde Valley) or dwelling units (in Coachella Valley) and taxable sales. 74 Based on the projected Measure A sales tax revenues of $121,500,000 for FY 2009/10, the geographic and program allocations are presented in the following table. Table 51 - Geographic Allocation of Measure A Revenues by Program Program Administration Western County Coachella Valley Pab Verde Valley Total Administration $ 3,600.000 $ - $ $ - $ 3,000,000 Highways 27,081,000 27,081,000 New Corridors 9,822,000 9,822,000 Regional Arterials 7,965,000 7,965,000 Highways and Regional Arterials 14,202,000 14,202,000 PublicTrans8 10,354,000 4,260,000 14,614,000 Economic Development hmenbrres 1,053,080 - 1,053mo Local Streets and Roads 25,751,000 9,941,000 899,000 36,591,000 Bond Financing 7,172,000 - 7,172,000 TOTAL S 3.022.000 $ 89.198.000 $ i,.6 Ls' r S 899.000 " $ 121.509.000 Local Transportation Fund: LTF, established in state law by the TDA, is funded through a one -quarter of one cent of the State's 7.25% sales tax. The intent of the legislation was to provide a dependable revenue stream for public transportation operations. Based upon an annual projection of LTF sales taxes, the vast majority of LTF revenue in the County is allocated to the eight public transit operators, including the Commission for its share of Metrolink operations costs. Much like Measure A revenue, LTF had increased with the growth of the County and its economy until the recent econornic slowdown. Revenues received from LTF are allocated for regional and local transportation planning, program administration, bicycle and pedestrian facilities projects, public bus transit, and rail transit in Western County including the Commission for its share related to commuter rail operations. The Commission administers these funds on behalf of the County in a special revenue fund. State Transit Assistance: STA provides additional TDA state funding of transit operations and capital for urban counties. Sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuels generate the STA funding. Due to the State's budgetary issues, it suspended the STA allocations for FY 2009/10. These funds, when made available by the State, are allocated to the County's eight public transit operators. State Transportation Improvement Program: Administered by Caltrans, the STIP is funded through state and federal gas tax dollars and is California's primary transportation fund. Dollars are allocated to each county based on a formula that takes into consideration population and highway centerline miles. Actual funding decisions for 75% of STIP dollars are made by local transportation agencies such as the Commission. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality: The CMAQ program is federally funded and is targeted for transportation improvements in areas with air quality problems. This program pays for improvements that reduce congestion while improving air quality. The Commission has also used CMAQ dollars to include fuel and commuter assistance programs, signal interconnects, HOV lanes, and transit projects. Federal Transit Administration: On a reimbursement basis, the federal government provides funding for qualified capital investments in rail facilities, track, and vehicles. FTA funding is generally allocated annually by the federal government and is based on • • • 75 calculated miles of service. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee: In connection with the 2009 Measure A, the TUMF program was established in the Westem County to provide additional funding for regional arterial projects. TUMF is administered by WRCOG. As a result of an MOU with WRCOG, the Commission will receive 48.7% of the TUMF revenues, which are divided equally between the regional arterial and CETAP programs. TUMF revenues maintained by WRCOG are allocated for regional arterial zone improvements and regional transit facilities. Rail and Highway Licenses: The Commission owns parcels of land and right of way for highway, rail, and regional arterial projects in selected areas throughout the County. The ownership provides licensing opportunities for fiber-optic cable, advertising signs, and business tenants. The amount of funding received from the licenses provides revenue to support the cost of owning and maintaining the Commission's land and facilities. Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies: This motorist assistance program places freeway call boxes throughout the freeways and state highways in the County. Additionally, the Commission may allocate a portion of the SAFE revenue to support the FSP and 511 operations. The call boxes enable motorists to summon help should they encounter mechanical or emergency problems while on the road, while the Inland Empire 511 system provides real-time traffic and transit trip information available via the internet or telephone. State law that allows county SAFE agencies to impose a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations within the County to pay for call box purchases and operations; excess SAFE revenues may be used for 511 operations. Freeway Service Patrol: Caltrans is the primary sponsor of the FSP and provides the majority of funding for the program. The Commission administers and implements the program along with the CHP and Caltrans. Investment Income: The Commission has established a prudent investment policy for cash on hand that is intended to maximize return while providing absolute safeguards on principal and liquidity. A more detailed explanation of the Commission's investment policy is discussed in Section 1. Interest earnings on the State and County investment pools are estimated at an interest rate of 1%. The eamings on funds held by the trustee for debt service and projects in money market funds and investment agreements are assumed to be at 1.0%. Program Revenues Revenues and other financing sources are allocated to the various Commission programs as follows: 76 Highways Funding for the highway program includes Measure A sales tax revenues for Westem County highways, new corridors, economic development incentives, and bond financing programs and Coachella Valley highways and regional arterials programs. The 2009 Measure A sales tax revenues will be used primarily for the SR-91/SR-71 connectors, I- 15 corridor improvements, and 1-215 corridor improvements. Unexpended 1989 Measure A revenues from prior years will be used on remaining projects such as SR-74 widening from 1-15 to 7`" Street and curve realignment, SR-74 from G Street to 1-215, SR-91 HOV lanes from Adams Street to the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 interchange, I-215/SR- 60 East Junction HOV lane connectors, and SR-111 projects as well as for pass - through funding for interchange improvements to the city of Riverside for SR-91 at La Sierra Avenue and Van Buren Boulevard and to the County for SR-60 at Valley Way. CMAQ and STIP funding will be used for the SR-91 HOV lanes from Adams Street to the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 interchange and the I-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV lanes connector projects, and additional STIP funds will also be received for the 1-215 corridor improvements. Other state revenues relate to the SR-91 HOV lanes project. The Commission will need to issue $75,000,000 in commercial paper to fund 2009 Measure A projects including MSHCP land acquisition in Coachella Valley; preliminary engineering, design -build, and right of way activities related to the 10-Year Westem County Highway Delivery Plan; and Coachella Valley highways and regional arterials. Local revenues consist of $6,475,000 of TUMF zone reimbursement funds from W RCOG for the SR-74/G Street to 1-215 interchange project and investment income. Transfers in represent proceeds from the 2009 Bonds in the amounts of $131,750,000 to refinance the 2008 Bonds and establish a debt service reserve and $50,000,000 to retire outstanding commercial paper notes; commercial paper project funding of $51,341,000 primarily related to the SR-91 corridor improvements; $1,733,600 for debt service payments related to the advance funding agreements with CVAG and the cities of Blythe and Indio; and a Right of Way Management contribution of $14,300 for the I- 215/SR-60 East Junction HOV lanes connector project. Table 52 — Highway Program Sources FY 08/09 Revised Budget Measure A Sales Tax $ 39,714,000 Federal - CMAO 1,125,300 Federal - Other State - STIP 27,057,200 State - Other 5,710,600 Other Local 5,200,400 Debt Proceeds 130,000,000 Transfers In 52,161,200 TOTAL $ y60.968 700 Rail FY 09/10 Budget $ 59,330,000 6,072,500 1,983,300 20,945,000 294,800 7,594,800 260,000,000 234.838,900 $ $91 05.9.300 Variance Percent $ 19,616.000 4,947,200 1,983,300 (6,112,200) (5,415,800) 2,394,400 130,000,000 182.677.700 $ 330 090.600 49.4% 439.6% N/A -22.6% -94.8% 46.0% 100.0% 350.2% 12.6.5°� Unexpended 1989 Measure A revenues will be used primarily for the Perris Valley Line and other related projects and the Riverside layover facility. The 2009 Measure A • 77 Western County's public transit program allocated $5,416,000 for rail. Rail operations, which include Metrolink operating and capital contributions, station and rail right of way maintenance, and support, will be funded with an allocation of $19,155,300 in LTF sales tax revenues as well as $4,500,000 in STA revenues, which are included in other state revenues. LTF capital allocations of $216,600 will fund station rehabilitation projects. The LTF estimate for rail operations and capital assumes the LTF apportionment formula (based on population estimates for the County's three major geographic areas provided by the State Department of Finance), calculates 22% (established for planning purposes by Commission policy) of the amount available for Western County, and then compares that with budgeted expenditures. FTA transit capital funding will be used to for the Perris Valley Line and for construction of the North Main Corona station parking structure and the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility. CMAQ funds will be used for the completion of construction of the North Main Corona station parking structure. Other federal revenues consist of a Transportation Enhancements (TE) grant for the construction of the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility. In addition to the STA revenues noted earlier, other state revenues include Proposition 1B funds for construction of the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility and La Sierra station parking expansion as well as for the station security project. Local revenues include investment income, reimbursements of $862,000 related to the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility and Perris station, SCRRA reimbursements of $180,000 for station security at the Riverside Downtown station, and other miscellaneous revenues of $6,100. Transfers in represents $378,900 in Commuter Assistance funding for the La Sierra parking expansion, which include a park and ride facility. Table 53 — Rail Program Sources FY 08/09 Revised Budget Measure A Sales Tax $ 15,063,000 LTF 1,339,000 Federal - FTA 10,950,000 Federal - CMAQ 7,000,000 Federal - Other 1,300,000 State - STIP 4,000,000 State - Other 5,147,900 Other Local 2,979,600 Transfers In 7,007 000 TOTAL Regional Arterials $ 54.786.500 FY 09/10 Budget Variance Percent $ 5,416,000 19,371,900 10,980,000 1,262,900 400,000 7,256,600 1,529,300 378,900 $ 46 595 600 $ (9,647,000) -64.0% 18,032,900 1346.7% 30,000 0.3% (5,737,100) -82.0% (900,000) -69.2% (4,000,000)-100.0% 2,108,700 41.0% (1,450,300) -48.7% (6,628,100) -94.6% $ (8.190 900) -15.0% The Westem County regional arterial program will receive funds from the 2009 Measure A and TUMF assessed on new residential and commercial development in Western County. In prior years, the 1989 Measure A funded Coachella Valley regional arterial projects. Other federal revenues include $1,173,000 for the SR-79 realignment studies. Other local revenues consist of investment income. Transfers in represent intrafund 78 borrowings from the TUMF CETAP program. Table 54 — Regional Arterial Program Sources FY 08/09 Revised Budget Measure A Sales Tax TUMF Federal - Other Other Local Transfers In TOTAL CETAP $ 12,180,000 $ 2,500,000 1,693,000 2,502,600 8,220,900 S 27 096 590 $ FY 09/10 Budget 7,965,000 2,500,000 1,173,000 151,300 6,790,000 18.579100 Variance $ (4,215.000) (520,000) (2,351,300) (1,430,900) (8.517.2001 Percent -34.6% 0.0% -30,7% -94.0% -17.4% -31.4% The Western County CETAP program will also receive funds from TUMF development of new corridors. Local revenues represent investment income. Table 55 — CETAP Program Sources TUMF Other Local TOTAL Local Streets and Roads FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent for $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 0.0% 591200 507,500 (83.700) -14.2% $ 3.091.200 $ 3.007.50Q $ (83"7001 -2..ri Measure A allocations for the local streets and roads program are distributed to the cities and the County to use for local street repairs, maintenance, and construction. Local revenues represent investment income. Table 56 — Local Streets and Roads Program Sources FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent Measure A Sales Tax $ 48,034,000 $ 36,591,000 $ (11,443,000) -23.8% Other Local 6,100 3,100 (3,000) -49.2% Transfers In 1.471,700 - (1,471,700)-100.0% TOTAL $ 4a 511 800 $ 36 594 100 $ (12.917.700)-261,41 Public and Specialized Transit LTF sales tax revenues are allocated primarily for public bus and rail transit operations and capital in the County. A small portion of these revenues is used for LTF planning and administration allocations as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities grants. In prior years, the STA allocation received from the State was used to fund transit capital; however, these allocations have been suspended by the State for FY2009/10. Under the 2009 Measure A, public transit funding has been allocated for Western County specialized transit and intercity bus services and Coachella Valley specialized and public transit services. Local revenues represent investment income. • • 79 • Table 57 — Public and Specialized Transit Program Sources FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent LTF Sales Tax $ 67,371,500 $ 59,000,000 $ (8.371.$00) -12A% Measure A Sales Tax 5,327,000 7,871,300 2,544,300 47.8% State Transit Assistance 9,300,000 - (9,300,000) 100.0% Other Local 1,655,500 917,600 (737,9001-44.6% TOTAL $ $3.654.000 $ 67 788.900 $ (15 8651001 -199% Planning and Programming Transportation planning studies are funded with an LTF off -the -top allocation equal to three percent of estimated revenues. STIP will fund PPM activities of the Commission. A federal earmark will be used to fund the completion of the geotechnical studies related to the Irvine -Corona Expressway. Local revenues consist of other agency reimbursements of $212,500 for joint studies as well as investment income. Table 58 — Planning and Programming Sources FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent LTF Sales Tax $ 1,022,900 $ 1,770,0130 $ 747,100 73.0% State - STIP 1,493,200 843,600 (649,600) -43.5% Federal - Other 3,819,900 1,100,000 (2,719,900) -71.2% Other LocaUAgencies 536,700 221,800 (314,900) -58.7% TOTAL $ 6,872,700 $ 3,935,400 $ (2,937,300) -42.7% Regional Issues An LTF allocation of $6,750,000 will fund grade separation projects for the cities of Riverside and Corona and the County. Local revenues consist of a grant from WRCOG for strategic transportation planning studies on 1-15. Table 59 — Regional Issues Program Sources FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent LTF Sales Tax $ 5,615,600 $ 6,750,000 $ 1,134,400 20.2% Other Local/Agency 56,000 170,000 114,000 203.6% State - Other 300.000 - (300,000)-100.0% TOTAL 5 971.6nn $ 6_220 OQQ $ WI 4.0.0 15.9% Commuter Assistance The Commuter Assistance program will receive funding from Measure A public transit, Surface Transportation Program (STP), other county transportation commissions, and investment income to assist in implementing services to commuters and employers in promoting use of alternate modes of transportation in Western County. The Commission will also receive CMAQ pass -through funds to support the San Bernardino commuter assistance program. Additionally, STP revenues include a ridesharing demonstration project in the Coachella Valley. 80 Table 60 — Commuter Assistance Program Sources FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Revised Budget Budget Variance Percent Measure A Sales Tax $ 2,282,000 $ 1,326,700 $ (955,300) -41.9% Federal -CMAQ 1,300,000 1,239,800 (60,200) -4.6% Federal - STP 400,000 267,500 (132,500) -33.1% State - Other 400,000 425,000 25,000 6.3% Other Local/Agencies 824,000 644,500 (179,500) -21.8% Transfer In - 450.000 450,000 N/A TOTAL $ 5.206.000 $ 4.353.500 $ /852.500) -16.4% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies SAFE is funded from revenues received by a $1 fee included with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) registration fees. Since the growth in these fees historically has not been substantial, the budget amount has remained relatively constant. Local revenues primarily represent investment income as well as cost recoveries from responsible parties related to call box knockdowns. Table 61 — SAFE Program Sources FY 08/09 Revised Budget Federal - CMAQ $ DMV Fees 1,495,000 Other Local 89,100 TOTAL $ 1.584.100 Freeway Service Patrol FY 09/10 Budget Variance Percent $ 175,000 $ 175,000 N/A 1,450,000 (45,000) -3.0% 120 700 31 600 35.5% $ 1.745.700 $ 161.60Q 10.2% Caltrans will allocate $1,734,600 in State highway account funds to cover the FSP and $291,200 for special FSP services required for construction projects. The State provides nearly 80% of the funding for the FSP program. The allocation of funding throughout the State is based on population, freeway miles, and level of congestion. The State's contribution is matched with an operating transfer from SAFE. In addition to investment income, local revenues include other revenues of $83,500 from the city of Riverside for FSP services required on SR-91 for interchange construction projects. Table 62 — FSP Program Sources FY 08/09 Revised Budget State Budgetary Allocation $ 1,768.500 Other Local 98,000 Transfers In TOTAL $ 1.865.500 Other Programs FY 09/10 Budget $ 2,025,800 89,200 433,700 $ 2 548.700 Variance Percent $ 257,300 14.5% (8,800) -9.0% 433,700 N/A $ 6.022Q(1 36.5% A total of $449,200 in revenues is expected from property management licenses and other miscellaneous revenues related to the San Jacinto and San Bernardino • • 81 • • • subdivision rail program. Transfers in of $325,000 are related to Measure A highway funding for the maintenance of the Commission's highway properties. Management services sales tax revenues consist of Measure A of $3,000,000 and LTF of $750,000 for administration. Other local revenues for property management and management services totaling $49,200 are related to investment income. 82 • SECTION 5 PERSONNEL� 83 • Personnel Personnel salary and fringe benefits The Commission provides a comprehensive package of benefits to all permanent, salaried employees. The package includes: • Health, dental, vision, and life insurance • Short and long-term disability • Workers' compensation • Tuition assistance • Sick and vacation leave • Retirement benefits in the form of participation in California Public Employees Retirement System (CaIPERS) • Postretirement health care • Deferred compensation • Employee Assistance Program Chart 22 - Personnel Salary and Benefits Other Fringes 4% Health 11% Retirement_ �.,,;_ Salary 23% "�62% When the 2009 Measure A plan was approved in 2002, one of the requirements of the measure was for the Commission to not budget more than one percent of Measure A sales tax revenue for administrative salaries and benefits. In this budget, the Commission is utilizing .94% of this capacity; other salaries and benefits are funded by specific programs and other federal, state, and local funds. As a result of this requirement, the Commission maintains a small staff to provide the transportation services to Riverside County. The Commission's salary and fringe benefits total $6,053,300. This represents a decrease of 10.2% over the FY 2008/09 budget of $6,743,000. The FTE has decreased by 3 positions from the previous year, for a total of 41 FTE positions, as a result of the following: • Three retirements related to the implementation of an early retirement 84 incentive; and • Maintaining an authorized As a cost savings measure, the merit -based salary increases in fringe benefits. Chart 23 - Salary and Benefits Costs $7,000000 56,000,000 $5,000,000 64.000000 $3,o00,000 62,000,000 61,000,000 k 2003 2004 2005 2006 position as vacant. Commission has determined that there will be no FY 2009/10 and has made reductions in certain 2007 20013 2009 2010 Management continues to be firmly committed to the intent of the Commission's enabling legislation that called for a small staff. Staff will continue to be provided the tools needed, including state of the art technology, to ensure an efficient and productive work environment. However, it must be recognized that small is not viewed in an absolute context; it is relative to the required tasks to be performed and the demands to be met. Table 63 - Personnel Summary Executive Management Administration Legislative Affairs and Communications Finance Regional Issues Planning and Programming Rail Right of Way Management Public and Specialized Transit Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Capital Project Development and Delivery TOTAL FY O7/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FTE FTE FTE 2.0 0.7 0.4 4.6 4.7 4.2 2.5 2.6 1.9 6.9 6.6 6.5 2.3 2.0 1.6 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.0 2.9 3.2 1.4 1.4 1.0 2.6 2.6 2.7 1.5 1.8 1.8 0.7 1.8 1.2 10.5 14.1 12.9 42.0 45.0 41.0 85 SECTION 61 COMMISSION 9EBlj 86 i Commission Debt The Commission's debt under the 2009 Measure A has been incurred for highway, regional arterial and local streets and roads projects for which title usually vests or, upon completion, will vest with Ca!trans or local jurisdictions. Future Measure A sales taxes are pledged to cover Measure A debt service payments. Since these projects are not assets of the Commission for which the Commission will have operating responsibilities, except for the intangible rights to operate a toll franchise on highways, future operating costs related to these projects cannot be determined and are not applicable. However, for toll and rail assets, operating budget impacts are considered in future project development. Commercial Paper In March 2005 the Commission established a $185,000,000 commercial paper program to advance project development and land and right of way acquisition under the 2009 Measure A TIP. Maturities of commercial paper notes are rolled over to new issuances of commercial paper. Regarding the commercial paper notes, the Commission currently maintains a P-1 and an A-1+ rating from Moody's Investors Service (Moody's) and Standard and Poor's Rating Service (S&P) rating agencies, respectively. Interest payments are made from available commercial paper proceeds or sales tax revenues. The current amount of outstanding commercial paper notes is $110,000,000; however, $50,000,000 will be retired in connection with the 2009 Bonds. In FY 2009/10 the Commission will issue $75,000,000 in new commercial paper notes for capital project funding and interest payments for a projected outstanding amount of $135,000,000 at June 30, 2010. The Cornmission will make $3,110,000 in estimated commercial paper interest payments during the year. The Commission has a $190,000,000 irrevocable direct draw letter of credit and reimbursement agreement with Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America) as credit and liquidity support for the commercial paper notes. The letter of credit expires in March 2010, and the Commission anticipates an extension or replacement of the letter of credit. However, due to the financial crisis in 2008, the cost for the liquidity support is expected to increase significantly. Interest Rate Swap As a means to achieve a greater level of interest rate stability in connection with a refinancing of outstanding debt in late 2009, the Commission entered into two forward -starting interest rate swaps in August 2006 for a total notional amount of $185,000,000. The counterparty for the first swap ($100,000,000 notional amount) is Bank of America, and the counterparty for the second swap ($85,000,000 notional amount) was Lehman Brothers Derivative Products Inc. 87 (Lehman DP). Under the swap agreements that become effective in October 2009, the Commission will pay the counterparties a fixed rate of 3.679% for 20 years, the expected term of the debt to be issued in 2009; the counterparties will pay the Commission a floating rate equal to 67% of the one -month London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR). In September 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings filed for bankruptcy, which was a trigger event under the swap agreement with Lehman DP. Accordingly, the swap agreement was terminated, and a termination payment of approximately $3,453,000 was paid to Lehman DP, The Commission entered into a replacement swap with Deutsche Bank AG (Deutsche Bank) for a notional amount of $85,000,000 at similar terms, except that the Commission will pay Deutsche Bank as the counterparty a fixed rate of 3.206%. Sales Tax Revenue Bonds In June 2008, the Commission issued $126,395,000 in sales tax revenue bonds to refinance $110,005,000 in outstanding commercial paper notes since the inception of the program, fund capitalized interest through December 2009 and a reserve fund, and pay accrued interest and costs of issuance. The 2008 Bonds were necessary for the restoration of the commercial paper program to its maximum capacity in order to fulfill existing commitments for the use of commercial paper, pay costs related to 2009 Measure A projects during FY 2008/09, and provide short-term financing of FTA Small Starts reimbursable costs related to the Perris Valley Line project. The Commission received ratings of Aa2, AA+, and AA from Moody's, S&P, and Fitch Ratings, respectively. During FY 2008/09, no principal payments were required; however, interest payments of $5,850,000 were made. An interest payment of $3,000,000 will be made in FY 2009/10 prior to the planned refinancing of the bonds. The Commission expects to issue $185,000,000 in variable rate bonds to refinance the sales tax revenue bonds and $50,000,000 of outstanding commercial paper notes in October 2009 in connection with the commencement of the interest rate swaps. Estimated debt service payments for the 2009 Bonds in FY 2009/10 are $6,000,000 for principal and $6,500,000 for net interest payments. Debt Capacity Analysis The Commission is legally prohibited from issuing additional debt if its debt coverage ratio is less than 1.5 to 1 on all senior debt. The Commission has adopted a higher standard of 2 to 1 as part of its debt management policy. As Charts 24 and 25 and Table 64 indicate, the Commission has successfully met its policy standard for debt issued under the 2009 Measure A, even in a declining sales tax revenue environment. The 1989 Measure A related debt consistently exceeded the Commission's standard, and coverage of 3.43 is anticipated for FY 88 • • • 2009/10. Any coverage less than 2 to 1 would necessitate using other program funding to cover all debt service expenditures. Chart 24 - Measure A Debt Capacity Analysis $140,000,00 $12=00,00 $100(000,00 $800)0,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $- FY09/10 ®Senior Debt Service ®Available Revenues Table 64 - Measure A Debt Capacity Analysis FY09/10 $ 121,500,000 $ 18,610,000 6.53 Sales Tax Revenues Senior Debt Service Coverage Ratio - Senior Debt Senior Debt Rating Commercial Paper Rating Aa2/AA+/AA P-1/A-1+ Chart 25 - Available Measure A Revenue/Debt Service M Senior Debt Service 0 Available Revenues Debt Service Schedule Table 65 - Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Debt Service Requirements Fiscal Year Principal Interest Total 2009/10 $ $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Under the provisions of the 2009 Measure A, the Commission has the authority to issue bonds subject to a bond debt limitation of $500,000,000. The following is a summary of debt issued and secured by 2009 Measure A revenues: 89 2005 Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A and Series B: In February 2005, the Commission authorized a $200,000,000 commercial paper program. On March 31, 2005, the Commission established the program for $185,000,000 Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A and B. The repayment of principal and interest on the commercial paper notes is secured by an irrevocable direct draw letter of credit issued by the Bank of America, as the Measure A sales tax revenues securing such repayment commence on July 1, 2009. Maturities of the commercial paper notes may range from one to 270 days, and interest rates are variable and dependent on current market conditions. The initial issuance of commercial paper in April 2005 was $30,005,000; additional amounts of $50,000,000 and $30,000,000 were issued during FY 2006/07 and FY 2007/08, respectively. The $110,005,000 in outstanding commercial paper notes was refinanced by the 2008 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds in June 2008. During FY 2008/09, the Commission issued $110,000,000 in commercial paper notes. The note agreements require the trustee to hold all note proceeds and a portion of sales tax revenues and to segregate all funds into separate accounts as required by the indenture. Receipt of the 2009 Measure A sales tax revenues begins in FY 2009/10. 2008 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A-1 and A-2: In June 2008, the Commission issued $126,395,000 principal amount of serial bonds to refinance all of the outstanding principal amount of the commercial paper notes and a portion of accrued interest on the notes, fund capitalized interest through December 1, 2009, and fund a reserve fund. The bonds are subject to redemption on December 1, 2009. If the bonds are not redeemed, they are subject to a mandatory tender at a new interest rate. The bond agreement require the trustee to hold all bond proceeds and a portion of sales tax revenues and to segregate all funds into separate accounts as required by the indentures, including a reserve fund equal to the maximum annual debt service of approximately $10,124,000. Receipt of the 2009 Measure A sales tax revenues begins in FY 2009/10. The allocation of the sales tax revenue bonds to the 2009 Measure A programs is presented in Chart 26. • • 90 • • Chart 26 — Program Long -Term Debt Local Streets and Roads 2% Highway 98% The allocation of the sales tax revenue bonds by the benefiting geographic area is presented in Chart 27. Chart 27 — Long -Term Debt by Geographic Area Coachella Valley 6% Palo Verde Valley 1% Western County 93% The allocation of the sales tax revenue bonds debt service for the highway program by geographic area is presented in Chart 28. Chart 28 — Highway Program Debt Service for FY 2009/10: $2,720,700 Coachella Valley 11% Westem County 89% 91 Outstanding Debt and Legal Debt Margin at June 30, 2009 A summary of the Commission's outstanding debt secured by Measure A sales tax revenues and related legal debt margin at June 30, 2009 is presented below: Table 66 - Legal Debt Margin Authorized Debt 2005 Commercial Paper Notes 2006 Series A-1 and A-2 Total Outstanding Debt Legal Debt Margin 2009 Measure A $ 500,000,000 110,000,000 126,395,000 236 395 000 $ 263 605 000 M Listed below are the principal and interest payments by bond issue for FY 2009/10: Table 67 - Bond Debt Service Requirements by Issue Bonds Issued Principal 2008 Senior Bonds Interest $ $ 3,000,000 TOTAL FY 2009/10 Debt Service $ - $ 3.000.000 92 SECTION DEPARTMENT BUDGET 93 TABLE 68 - BUDGET COMPARISION BY DEPARTMENT FY 2008 - 2010 *RUES: ling Revenues Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax STA Transit Allocation Vehicle Registration Fees Reimbursement Other Revenue TUMF Fees Investment income Total Revenues EXPENDITURES: Management Services Executive Management Administration Legislative Affairs and Communications Finance Total Management Services Regional Programs Regional issues Planning and Programming Rail Right of Way Management Public and SpeciaAted Transit Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Total Regional Programs Capital Project Development and Defrvery Debt Service cipal Payments rest Payments st of Issuance Total Debt Service Total Expenditures Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers In Transfers Out Debt Proceeds Net Financing Sources (Uses) Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources (Uses) FY 07/08 Actual $ 142,537,500 82,118,800 10,923,400 1,684,100 22,249,100 2,073,000 14,556,600 23 744.300 299,886,200 313,200 1,672,600 822,700 1.837,500 4,846,000 893,300 4 681,000 9,050,500 551,900 88,484,200 3,453,900 3.983 300 111,098,100 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 Revised Budget Projected $ 126,000.000 $ 121,500,000 78,599,000 72,609,300 9,300,000 4,889,400 1,495,000 1,336,200 76.371,500 39.739,700 1,927,200 S28,200 7,730,000 9,999,000 7 980,000 8,537.000 309.402,700 259,138,800 265,500 2,351,400 1,085,000 2681.100 6,383,000 5,979,700 7,836,700 9,122,100 1,212,000 110,492,300 6,487,500 3 353 100 144,483.400 192,000 1,601,400 969,500 2,230.000 4,992.900 1,843,800 7,078,500 9.278.800 816,800 84,164,100 6.271,200 2.532,700 FY 09/10 Budget $ 121,500,000 87,641,900 1,450,000 58,443,600 506.100 11,475,000 3.419.100 284,435,700 215,300 1,617,600 1,147.100 2.888.800 5,868,800 7,530,700 3,628,200 24,279.100 1,364,600 90,927,200 6,237,300 3,386,000 111,985,900 137,353,100 Dollar Percent Change Change $ (4,500,000) -3.6% 9,042.900 11.5% (9,300,000)-100.0% (45,000) -3.0% (17,927,900) -23.5% (1,421,100) -73.7% 3,745,000 48.4% (4.560,900) -57.2% (24,967,000) -8.1% (50,200) (733,800) 62,100 207,700 (514,200) 1,551,000 (4,208,500) 15,157,000 152,600 (19,565,100) (250,200) 32.900 (7,130,300) -18.9% -31.2% 5.7% 7.7% -8.1 % 25.9% 53.7% 168.2% 12.6% -17.7% -3.9% 1.0% -4.9% 213,718.400 446,047,400 331,225,700 328,068,300 (117,979,100) -26.4% 141,870,000 6,811,700 1 107.500 149,789.200 479 251 700 (179,365,500) 164,063,100 (184,063,100) 160 249 000 160 249 000 (19,116,500) 33.630,000 16.496,400 50,126,400 647 040 200 (337.637.500) 69,125,100 (69,125.100) 130 000 000 130 000 000 (207,637,500) Beginning Fund Balance 550 160600 531 044 100 Ending Fund Balance $ 531 044 100. $ 323 405.6D0 $ 406 095-000 $ 280 985 500 $ (42 421 100) -13 1% 33,630,000 12.253,400 182,395,000 12.610,000 3,250,000 45 883 400 198.255.000 494,087.900 869,545.200 (234,949.100) (385,109,500) 85,529,800 (85,529,800) 110 000 000 243 482,600 (243,482,600) 260 000.000 110 000 000 260,000 000 148,765,000 (3,886,400) 3.250,000 148,128,600 22.505,000 442.4% -23.6% #OIV/0! 295.5% 3.5% (47,472,000) 14.1% 174 357,500 174,357.500 130,000,000 130,000,000 252.2% 252.2% 100.0% 100.0% (124,949,100) (125,109,500) 82,528,000 -39.7% • 531 044 100 406095000 (124,949,100) -23.5% 94 • • SECTION 7.1 MANAGEMENT SERVICES 95 • • • Executive Management Mission Statement: "To maintain the highest level of achievement and professionalism possible while managing the activities of the Commission with a small staff, complemented with consultants, to effectuate sound transportation policies and legislation compatible with environmental standards." Chart 29 — Executive Management Support 24% Professional 33% Expenditures Personnel 43% Executive Management has a budget of $215,300, a decrease of 18.9% from last year's budget, for oversight of all Commission functions. Professional costs include legal fees and consulting services. Support costs include various membership dues of $35, 000. Table 69 — Executive Management Expenditure Detail FY 07/08 FY 08/0'3 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 223,400 $ 131,800 $ 91,600 $ 93,700 $ (38,100) -28.9% Legal Services 35,200 50,000 39,700 45,000 (5,000) -10.0% Professional Services -Other 7,000 25,003 15,000 25.000 - 0.0% Total Professional Costs 42,200 75,000 54,700 70,000 (5,000) -6.7% Support Costs 47,600 58.700 45,700 51600 (7,100) -12.1% TOTAL Executive Management $ 313.20Q $ 265 500 $ 192 00Q $ 215 300 $ (50.2001 -1LM 96 Executive Management Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview Department Description The Executive Director is responsible for and provides strong leadership in developing and implementing new strategies at the local, regional, and statewide levels to assure project delivery of transportation improvements throughout the County. Furthermore, Executive Management is committed to fostering a positive and supportive work environment for staff that emphasizes quality work and encourages teamwork and open communication, while recognizing individual achievement. This is accomplished through a productive and collaborative effort with the members of the Commission and the oversight of the Commission's Executive Committee. Key Assumptions • The Executive Director will play a prominent role with external audiences with an emphasis on working with Congress, Riverside County business organizations, and Southern California transportation agencies and local governments regarding the reauthorization of the federal transportation act and on advancing transportation policy in California. • Project delivery will be a top priority in FY 2009/10 given the Proposition 1 B bond funding in the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) and Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) categories. • The Commission will repeatedly be in the public eye as projects ratchet up the public involvement process as part of the environmental analysis that is being conducted on the development of the Mid County Parkway, realignment of SR-79, construction of the Perris Valley Line project, and widening of 1-215. • The development of the Perris Valley Line project will mark Riverside County's first major rail expansion in more than 11 years and will require significant effort from the Executive Director to obtain approvals from the FTA, local railroads, and community. • The Commission will have a high profile throughout the state due to its efforts to obtain design build authority for the construction of the SR-91 corridor improvement project in Corona. • 97 • • • As a cost savings measure, there will be no merit -based pay increases for employees during FY 2009/10. Accomplishments FY 2008/09 saw extraordinary accomplishments at the Commission, placing it in the top tier of California transportation organizations. In several areas, the Commission stood by itself in successful advocacy, innovation, and leadership. • Completed the reconstruction of the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 interchange. While Caftans served as the lead construction agency, the Commission funded as much as 85 percent of the overall project. All financial considerations with the contractor have been resolved. • Through the efforts of the Southern California Working Group in 2008, the Commission was successful in obtaining $162.7 million in Proposition 1 B TCIF to build 12 railroad grade separations and improvements on the 1-215Nan Buren Boulevard interchange. A number of these projects are underway with the city of Riverside moving forward with construction at Columbia Avenue. • Continued to implement components of the 10-Year Westem County Highway Delivery Plan. More than $89 million in engineering contracts have been awarded for preliminary engineering work and environmental studies on 1-15, 1-215, and SR- 91. Significant components of the environmental work have been completed on the 1-215. • Launched the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for the Perris Valley Line project, which included three public meetings or hearings and presentations to organizations such as the Riverside Unified School District. • Moved forward with the eventual implementation of the Perris Valley Line project by reaching agreement with BNSF for access to its mainline. • Continued right of way acquisition for the SR-91 HOV lane project in Downtown Riverside. • Completed the legislative process for obtaining toll approval on the SR-91 and 1-15 corridor improvements with the approval of SB 1316 and AB 1954, respectively. • Completed a draft environmental document for the Mid County Parkway and conducted a lengthy public comment period. As a result of the comments, a number of changes have been made to the proposed project. • Continued multiagency implementation efforts related to the proposed Irvine - Corona Expressway and, as part of this effort, completed drilling for geological testing to determine the viability of a tunnel for this project. The completion of the overall study and feasibility effort is expected this year. • Continued land acquisitions in support of the MSHCP using the commercial paper program. • Implemented a comprehensive cost -savings program that includes the implementation of an early retirement incentive, the elimination of administrative leave time, reductions in travel -related expenditures, and the elimination of a floating holiday for Commission employees. • Funded and/or completed major construction projects in FY 2008/09, including: 98 o Completion of a new parking structure at the North Main Corona commuter rail station; o Completion of funding for a new Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road interchange on -10, which will begin construction in 2009; o Ongoing STIP-funded CVAG project development efforts for additional interchange improvements on 1-10; o Completion of the SR-91/Green River Road interchange construction as a result of state and federal funding buttressed by the Commission's commercial paper program; and o Implementation of the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding for several projects throughout the County. Major Initiatives Project development and delivery will continue as the key Measure A priority. Work efforts are ongoing for the SR-74, SR-79, SR-91, 1-15, 1-215, Mid County Parkway, and Coachella Valley Measure A commitments in partnership with CVAG. Continuing expansion of commuter rail parking as well as project development and planning for the Perris Valley Line will also be top priorities in FY 2009/10. Due to the continuing significance and volatility of the State's General Fund and budgetary issues on transportation funding, staff will continue to explore alternative financing opportunities. The approval of ARRA funding to build infrastructure was unexpected but provided a needed one-time increase in federal funding to build new projects. The ongoing implementation of these improvements will continue during FY 2009/10. A regional effort to generate additional funding for goods movement needs has been launched with the Ports. Instead of seeking a legislatively mandated container fee, transportation agencies are working closely with the Ports to develop a cooperative surcharge to fund regional improvements including grade separations in Riverside County. Regional cooperation and collaboration will continue to be given significant emphasis consistent with the philosophy and mission of this Commission. This has proven successful as part of the Southern Califomia Working Group effort and will become increasingly important to ensure that Southern California receives needed funding when Congress reauthorizes the federal transportation act in 2009. T oward that goal, the Commission is also a member of Mobility 21, which is comprised of county transportation agencies, business organizations, and the Automobile Club of Southem Califomia. Mobility 21's aim is to raise awareness and funding for Southern California transportation needs. Enhanced external communications will remain atop Commission priority. Media relations will continue to be formally cultivated, and press releases will remain a major effort along with the Commission Connection newsletter. An expanding and systematic outreach to business and civic groups, focusing on Commission efforts in terms of funding, construction, and services will be the central feature of the communications program. • • • 99 • • While actively participating in all of these major endeavors, the Executive Director will maintain and improve administrative efficiency and fiscally sound practices characteristic of the Commission. With a total of 41 budgeted staff positions, the Commission organization remains consistent with Commission direction. The number of budgeted positions is down from the previous fiscal year due to the implementation of an early retirement program to save costs. The Commission will continue to be competitive in the employment market and will retain capable staff as well as attract high quality applicants. Staff training and development will continue, enabling our small and dedicated staff to enhance skills, productivity, and value. Our goal is to maintain the most effective mid -sized transportation agency in California. Department Goals Maximize funding for transportation improvements in Riverside County through legislative advocacy and locally controlled funding options such as sales taxes. Objectives: • Implement the Commission's early development project priorities outlined in the recent Commission workshops, focusing on the first 10 years of the 2009 Measure A and the closeout of the 1989 Measure A expenditure plan. • Advocate federal appropriations for current projects, FTA Small Starts rail funding, and the regional efforts to reduce the community impacts of rail goods movement. • Place an emphasis on initiating federally authorized and funded projects included within the new federal transportation bill and the Commission's ongoing project priorities. Executive staff will respond to the State's transportation funding issues by continuing project work on named Measure A projects. • Work with the Ports on their efforts to develop a surcharge to pay for regional transportation improvements including railroad grade separations. Support regional transportation solutions in cooperation with surrounding counties that are of benefit to Riverside County. Objectives: • Continue work on grade separation and rail capacity projects funded through SAFETEA-LU and TCIF as well as those called for in the Commission's $561 million Grade Separation Plan adopted in October 2006. • Work with neighboring counties regarding corridor improvements on SR-71 and SR-91 as well as on 1-15 and 1-215. • Maintain an effective working relationship with the agencies that comprise Metrolink to ensure that Riverside County commuter rail needs are served in an efficient, effective, and safe manner. 100 Maintain effective working relationships with Commissioners to strengthen and expand the Commission's leadership in transportation policy decision -making at all levels of government. Objectives: • Facilitate Commissioner participation at the regional, state, and federal levels to raise the interests of the Commission and seek favorable action. • Continue regular one-on-one meetings between the Executive Director, senior staff, and the Commissioners. While maintaining a relatively small staff, promote the Commission's effectiveness by improving and developing staff skills, using state-of-the-art working tools, and fostering an environment that encourages and rewards individual and team effort. Objectives: • Continue to maintain a well -documented employee appraisal process that provides clear, understandable, and measurable performance criteria for all employees. • Continue to refine the Commission's performance -based compensation system. Develop the framework for a Commission culture that enhances productivity, encourages regular and open communication among staff, and promotes the mutual achievement of individual and organizational goals and objectives. Objectives: • Conduct a semi-annual review of organization accomplishments as measured against planned objectives to determine progress in meeting those objectives and action steps needed. • Facilitate open communications and coordination between management, professional staff, and support staff through regular meetings. Executive Management PerformanceA/Vorkload Indicators FY 07/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09/10 Projected Expenditures $479,251,700 $494,087,900 $669,545,200 Put5fia 3�E. 10 Staffing levels 42 45 41 Administration costs as percentage of expenditures 2.50% 3.08% 2.97% 101 • • Administration Mission Statement: "To provide quality and efficient services to the Board of Commissioners, its staff, and external customers and to comply with applicable federal and state requirements." Chart 30 — Administration Support 71% Expenditures Capital Outlay 1% Personnel 22°% Professional 6% The Administration Department's total budget is $1,617,600 for office operations including management of office space, lease, and equipment; records; Commission and committee meetings; and special events as well as for the clerk of the board and human resources functions. Salaries and benefits expenditures of $357,700 reflect a decrease in FTEs from 4.65 to 4.22. Professional costs of $98,000 cover various services including, but not limited to, Commissioners' per diem, legal fees, and consultant and other professional services. Support costs of $1,411,900 cover administrative overhead including office maintenance; Commission insurance coverage; information technology updates, support, and maintenance; and recruitments. General business insurance costs budgeted in FY 2008/09 were higher than required. The Commission has been in the process of major upgrades of computer hardware and software in recent years; however, significant capital outlay expenditures are not expected in FY 2009/10. 102 Table 70 — Administration Expenditure Detail FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 356,900 $ 444,000 $ 447,400 $ 357,700 $ (86,300) -19.4% Professional Costs Commissioner - Per Dlem 60,300 56,000 50,200 55,000 (1,000) -1.8% Legal Services 16,300 19,000 33,500 33,000 14,000 73.7% Professional Services -Other 14.000 11.000 5,000 10,000 (1.0001 -9 1% Total Professional Costs 90,600 86,000 88,700 98,000 12,000 14.0% Support Costs Capital Outlay TOTAL Administration 1,107,700 1,471,400 976,300 1,141,900 (329,500) -22.4% 117,400 350000 89,000 20,000 (330,000) -94.3% S 1.672.60Q S 2 351 400 S 1.601.400 S 1. 17-190 $ (7310001 11.2% Administration Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview — Office Operations Department Description Office Operations oversees the daily maintenance needs of the Commission's office facility and its staff; manages information technology and records management systems; oversees the office lease; purchases office supplies and equipment; maintains a safe working environment for Commission board members, staff, and consultants; and provides support services. Office Operations continues to operate with a small staff of six consisting of the Office and Board Services Manager, Senior Administrative Assistant, three Administrative Assistants, and Senior Office Assistant. 103 • Key Assumptions • Support is provided to 41 full-time Commission staff. • Requests for project proposals and project notices of completion are posted and printed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. • Information technology systems are updated to ensure efficiency. • An accurate and efficient records management system is maintained. Accomplishments • Updated the web page in a timely manner for the postings of agendas, legal notices, requests for proposals, and employment opportunities. • Maintained efficient information technology infrastructure through new equipment for workstations and control room operations. • Maintained the electronic records management system to ensure accurate and efficient processing of incoming and outgoing correspondence and documents. Major Initiatives The Commission will continue to maintain a robust electronic records management system. Achieving greater efficiencies and strengthening the Commission's records management processes and procedures, the system pertains to the management, storage, and accessibility of the Commission's actions and documents and the retention capability for incoming and internally created records. Office Operations will continue to provide high quality support services to the Board of Commissioners and to internal and external customers by providing a working environment that enhances the overall mission of the Commission. Department Goal — Office Operations Ensure quality service that demonstrates responsiveness and flexibility and provides services at the most reasonable cost. Objectives: • Support 41 full-time staff. • Provide accessibility to meeting agendas, legal notices, requests for proposal, and employment opportunities through the Commission's web page. • Continue to improve administrative efficiency through automation of records processing. • Provide a safe working environment with the maintenance of an injury and illness prevention program. • Post legal notices and requests for proposal on the Commission's web page and in the newspapers on a timely basis. • Provide office supplies, equipment, and services consistent with intended quality and capabilities at the most advantageous price afforded in the market. • Manage the Commission's information technology systems. 104 • Develop and implement a Disaster Recovery Plan to ensure uninterrupted. Commission operations. Department Budget Overview — Clerk of the Board Department Description The Clerk of the Board staff provides support services to the Board of Commissioners, which increased to 32 members in October 2008, and its alternates and for Commission and committee meetings. It serves as an important resource for the Commission and has the responsibility for recording, publishing, preserving, and filing meeting proceedings of documents acted upon by the Commission and its committees; posting legal notices, capital project requests for proposals', and notices of project completion; processing claims against the Commission; fulfilling requirements of the Commission and the committees as it relates to the Conflict of Interest Code; serving as the Filing Officer for Economic Interest and Campaign Disclosure statements and legal claims against the Commission; coordinating Commission special events and meetings; and performing all duties required by law, rules, or order of the Board of Commissioners. Key Assumptions • Staff support and meeting services are provided- to 32 Commissioners and their altemates, the Commission, three established committees, and a number of ad hoc committees. • Monthly agenda packets and supporting documents and legal notices are published and distributed in accordance with the Brown Act. • Officers and members of the Commission are kept informed by providing them with the most current and accurate data to assist them and facilitate their decision making responsibilities. • Frequent communication with Commissioners continues to provide news and updates on Commission items and transportation -related meetings. • Available technology is used to provide simplified access of agenda items and Commission actions by the public, local agencies, and staff. • Compliance with state and federal updates is achieved as it relates to the Brown Act. Accomplishments • Updated the web page and the bulletin board for the agenda, minutes, and supporting documents. • Posted legal notices in local newspapers and on the Commission's web page. • Regularly advised officers and members of the Commission and their staff on changes to Commission meetings and other transportation -related meetings. • Arranged Commission and committee meetings and special events of the Commission. • Scheduled and advertised unmet transit needs hearing in Blythe for the Palo Verde Valley area. • • 105 • • • • Processed and transmitted Commission -approved resolutions and ordinances to appropriate agencies in a timely manner. Major Initiatives Each year, local agencies make changes to their appointments regarding their representation on the Commission. Staff has made and will continue to make every effort to ensure that the newly appointed representatives, as well as their respective staff, are aware of operational policies of the Commission and other transportation - related meetings. There will be continued emphasis on the utilization of electronic mail with Commissioners for more efficient communications. Staff will continue to update technology to streamline processes and procedures for easier access to Commission actions, minutes, resolutions, and ordinances. Department Goals — Clerk of the Board Ensure coordination and documentation of Commission and committee meetings and provide public accessibility to agenda items as required by state regulations. Objectives: • Provide accurate, high quality agenda packets for Commission and committee meetings. • Continue to provide support to Commission members, staff, and attendees of Commission and committee meetings. • Post meeting agendas and supporting documents in compliance with Brown Act requirements. • Maintain an accurate list of Commissioners and alternates and submit membership roster changes to the Secretary of State. • Maintain and file all Commission and committee meetings and official records of the Commission. • Perform all duties within mandated deadlines. • Maintain and promote good Commission and staff relations. Facilitate access of information to Commission records. Objectives: • Continue to respond to requests for records and information on a timely basis and in accordance with state law. • Continue to improve the Commission's recordkeeping practices by updating the electronic records management system. • Maintain Commission agreements, amendments, memoranda of understanding, resolutions, and ordinances. • Maintain a centralized database for Commissioners, agencies, and consultant contact information. 106 • Coordinate special activities, meetings, events, and conferences as requested by the Executive Director and the Commission. Department Budget Overview — Human Resources Department Description Human Resources responsibilities include administering the recruitment, selection, and appraisal process; updating and conducting a biennial survey of comparable salaries and benefits;. maintaining personnel policies and procedures; and scheduling periodic sessions for staff to review benefits and personnel rules and for supervisors to review the performance evaluation process. Key Assumptions • The use of consultant services for Human Resources administration is maximized. • The assessment of Human Resources practices and procedures will continue. • Continuous improvement in communication with employees regarding Human Resources information will be an ongoing process. • Compliance with state and federal labor law regulations is achieved. Accomplishments • Revised the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual. • Amended the CaIPERS contract to offer an early -retirement incentive provision. • Provided the annual Benefit Statement to all employees. • Regularly provided information to employees on changes to health insurance, 401(a) defined contribution, 457 deferred compensation plans, and the personnel policies and procedures manual through the Commission's intranet. • Recruited and filled five staff positions. • Held training session on violence in the workplace. Major Initiatives Human Resources focuses on managing employees and consists of a framework of activities and practices that support and develop a motivated workforce while at the same time complying with legislation and regulations that govern the employer/employee relationship. Staff will use written position descriptions and performance expectations in order that each employee has a clear and consistent understanding of what is expected. Additionally, staff will utilize qualified human resources consultants to assist in establishing good human resources management practices, based on policies to establish parameters for fair and consistent decision - making, and to institute good workplace practices. A compensation program review will be conducted every two years to ensure fair compensation is established to attract and retain the most qualified employees. • • 107 • • Department Goals — Human Resources Administer human resources policies, procedures, and programs in order to align personnel laws and the Commission's policies with continuous improvement principles. Objectives: • Review and update personnel policies and procedures to comply with federal and state requirements. • Provide information to enhance the employee's knowledge of current personnel policies and procedures in various forms including electronic access, workshops, and printed information. • Ensure that employee personnel records are updated timely for various personnel actions. Continue to employ and recruit a dynamic and talented workforce. Objective: • Maintain a compensation program that ensures internal equity and external competitiveness within the pay structure for Commission employees. Develop people to be their best in order to meet the needs of the organization. Objectives: • Build and maintain an effective performance system to include timely performance evaluations, personal development, and a supportive work environment. • Provide appropriate and timely training to meet the demands of the organization. Understand and consistently deliver excellent customer service to all employees. Objective: • Focus on "employee as customer" and consistently strive to exceed expectations by supporting and maintaining individual respect, appreciation, management accessibility, and communication. Improve the quality of the work culture. Objectives: • Develop and maintain a safe working environment. • Maintain a proactive employee relations process. • Promote a work/family balance. • Recognize and reward individual contributions. 108 Administration Performance/Workload Indicators FY 07/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09/10 Projected Empbyee rules/Benefits review sessions held 3 3 3 Recruitments 12 5 1 Positions filled 12 5 1 Documents processed 4,997 2,523 2,775 Legal notices 10 10 12 Commission/Committee/Ad Hoc meetings 64 63 65 Commissioners supported (including alternates) 64 68 68 Staff supported: Regular full-time Temporary/Seasonal 44 1 43 1 _ 41 0 109 • • • Legislative Affairs and Communications Mission Statement: "To strive to improve the lives of Riverside County residents by working through the legislative process and by maintaining effective interagency relationships. This is supported by facilitating interactive communications with the public and transportation stakeholders through various outreach and media efforts." Chart 31 - Legislative Affairs and Communications Support 1 5 % Professional 58% Expenditures Personnel 2 7 % The Legislative Affairs and Communications Department has a total budget of $1,147,100, an increase of 5.7% from last year's budget. Staffing costs make up 27.4% of the total department expenditures and reflect a decrease in FTEs from 2.56 to 1.90. Professional costs include legislative advocacy for $416,000 and graphic design and website updates aggregating $196,000. Support costs, which include media ads for $108,000, have decreased 11.8% from last year's budget. Table 71 - Legislative Affairs and Communications Expenditure Detail FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 386,100 $ 390,000 S 386.400 S 314,700 $ (75,300) -19.3% Professional Costs Legal Services 1,000 16,000 3,000 8,000 (8,000) -50.0% Professional Services -Other 265100 49030Q 454,000 658.000 167,700 34.2% Total Professional Costs 266,100 506,300 457,000 666,000 159,700 31.5% Support Costs 170500 188700 126100 166400 (22,300) -11.8% TOTAL Legislative Affairs and Communications $ 822 700 S 1 n95000 $a59 snn $ 1 147 10Q $ 62 10Q 5,23i 110 Legislative Affairs and Communications Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview Department Description Legislative Affairs Transportation issues and system enhancements typically affect a number of jurisdictions and stakeholders. Through increased participation, the Commission is able to play a stronger leadership role at all levels of government to advance its interests and policy goals. The importance of this is magnified when the Commission is seeking changes in law or needs legislative authorization to move forward with a specific project. The Commission's Legislative Affairs efforts focus on taking full advantage of opportunities at both the federal and state levels when there is a potential impact to Commission programs. In doing so, the Commission maintains its role as a major legislative force and a statewide leader on a broad range of issues affecting transportation policy such as project delivery and enhanced funding. This requires the establishment and maintenance of ongoing communication with Riverside County's legislative delegations in Washington and Sacramento. The Commission accomplishes this via a combined effort that includes Commissioners, staff, and legislative consultants in the two capitals. Specific legislation in the coming year will be necessary to advance a number of important Commission work efforts. In FY 2008/09, the Commission sought the approval of two bills to authorize the development of toll facilities on SR-91 in Corona and 1-15. Both bills, SB 1316 and AB 1954, respectively, were approved and signed by the Governor in September 2008. In FY 2009/10, the Commission will seek legislative approval for more flexibility in delivering these projects by seeking design -build authorization for the SR-91 corridor improvement project. In terms of working with state government, funding has been unpredictable for projects that are funded through the STIP or from the voter -approved Proposition 1 B bond program. The approval of a balanced state budget in February 2009 was • • 111 • expected to stabilize the situation; however, the weakened California economy and declining tax revenues may force significant cuts in programs. This creates uncertainty regarding transportation funding because a number of Proposition 1 B CMIA highway projects including the widening of 1-215 in Murrieta and the widening of SR-91 for HOV lanes in Riverside are slated to begin construction in the next two years. The other Proposition 1 B component that is important to the Commission is the TCIF. By working closely with other transportation agencies in Southem California as part of the Southern California Consensus Working Group, the Commission was able to obtain $162.7 million in funding for 12 grade separation projects throughout Riverside County as well as for the widening of the Van Buren interchange at 1-215. The issue of federal legislation and working with Congress will have heightened awareness in the coming year because of the February 2009 approval of ARRA, or the federal stimulus package, and the likely reauthorization of the federal transportation bill in 2009. In anticipation of this priority, the Commission has already bolstered its lobbying presence in Washington, D.C. to play an influential role in shaping the reauthorization legislation. Developing effective partnerships with agencies such as Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine, and CVAG will be an important component of the Commission's federal lobbying strategy pertaining to the federal transportation bill reauthorization process. Ideally, Riverside County will communicate a unified message to Congress regarding its mobility needs. During the coming year, the Commission will play a leadership role in bringing various agencies together in this effort that will include cities, the County, and transit operators. Another important effort in working with Washington is joining with other Southern California transportation agencies to maximize regional funding. This proved to be successful in California during the TCIF funding allocations and can be counted on in terms of the federal reauthorization as well. One organization that the Commission is a member of is Mobility 21, which is comprised of transportation agencies, the Automobile Club of Southern California, and major business organizations such as the Greater Riverside Area Chambers of Commerce. Communications The Commission is committed to communicating with and educating a broad arena of interested parties on the roles and responsibilities of the agency. Emphasis is placed on informing Riverside County residents and businesses about transportation projects and services and maintaining open communication with other transportation stakeholders. Various forms of media and communication tools are used in these outreach efforts with the overall objectives to provide accurate, informative, and easily accessible information; facilitate public participation in the Commission processes; and increase interagency coordination and cooperation. The Deputy Executive Director is responsible for communications with the news media and prepares text for Commission materials, presentations, and speeches. Along with the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director, Community 112 Relations Manager, and individual project managers actively participate in public presentations at the local, regional, and state levels to represent the Commission's interests. Strong relationships with the news media are very important to ensure that the public is well informed regarding the Commission's progress in determining funding priorities, designing infrastructure improvements, and constructing projects. There are many points throughout these processes in which the public can and should play a role in shaping the future of the County's transportation network. Key Assumptions • The Government Relations Manager will oversee the legislative affairs work effort with guidance from the Executive Director and the Deputy Executive Director. • The annual newspaper report to the public will be distributed throughout the County. • The Commission Connection newsletter will be published regularly as well as distributed electronically and posted on the Commission website. • The Speakers Bureau effort will continue to seek local community opportunities to expand outreach regarding the Commission's activities. • The Commission's website will be updated and refreshed on a regular basis. • Additional communications tools and opportunities will be explored for incorporation into the ongoing program to help build public awareness of Commission activities including radio, television, and the internet. • The Commission will take a leadership role in formulating a countywide direction on federal transportation policy in order to influence the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. • Public outreach will take a heightened role as project development activities accelerate on projects such as the SR-91 and 1-15 corridor improvement projects, widening of 1-215, the SR-91 HOV lanes, the Perris Valley Line project, the Mid County Parkway, and the SR-79 realignment. • Construction updates regarding the construction of a new parking structure at the North Main Corona station will continue to be a priority and will require coordination with the city of Corona and Metrolink. • Goods movement will remain a key policy priority for the Commission and there will be an emphasis to ensure that Riverside County receives significant funding for this need from state and federal governments. • Another legislative priority will be to seek authorization for design -build procurement authority for the SR-91 corridor improvement project through Corona. Accomplishments • Received legislative approval for two bills, SB 1316 and AB 1954, which provide the Commission with tolling authority on two future projects to widen SR-91 and 1-15. 113 • Published a four -page annual report supplement in three major newspapers— The Press Enterprise, Desert Sun, and The Califomian. • Continued effective relationships with the news media resulting in informative coverage regarding local and regional transportation issues and Measure A project delivery. • Provided extensive public outreach support as part of the project development process for the Mid County Parkway, Perris Valley Line, SR-91 and 1-15 corridor improvement projects, and Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study projects. • Supported the Rail Department in the development of various marketing materials and advertisements including weekend and holiday train services. • Increased the Commission's presence on television and radio with interviews on Time Warner Cable, KVCR, and KTIE. This included live, interactive television appearances that included Commissioner participation regarding the future of SR-91 and the Perris Valley Line project. • Updated an informational video regarding goods movement issues and railroad grade separations. • Continued an effective outreach program to inform Metrolink riders at the North Main Corona station regarding construction impacts from the building of a new parking structure. • Continue to take a leadership role and work together with the five -county consensus working group and with Mobility 21 on goods movement issues through the federal legislative reauthorization process. The consensus working group effort was successful in the advocacy for a larger share of Proposition 1B TCIF dollars. • Developed new collateral materials for outreach to the financial community on the Commission's activities. This brochure has been updated and is often distributed at public events. • Improved the functionality of the Commission's website and launched or updated a number of specific project related-websites including those for the Mid County Parkway and the SR-91 and 1-15 corridor improvement projects. • Updated the appearance of the Commission Connection newsletter. • Actively participated in a region -wide effort to expand the reach of Mobility 21, a Southern California transportation advocacy group, to the Inland Empire. The emphasis resulted in co -hosting a major conference in Los Angeles in late 2008. • Upgraded a new Commissioner orientation program that will bolster Commissioner knowledge and participation regarding Commission projects and activities. Major Initiatives Legislative Affairs Legislatively, the continued quest for additional state and federal investment in transportation infrastructure will be an ongoing concern. At the state level, ongoing state funding problems will likely result in the diversion of state transportation funding. The uncertainty of state funding has led the Commission to embark upon 114 new funding strategies such as toll financing to build new projects. Making these projects more efficient, such as allowing for design -build procurements, will be a major priority in FY 2009/10. Additionally, in shaping state transportation policy, there is a need to be especially active in state legislative matters to ensure that Riverside County needs obtain proper consideration and funding. Another concem to monitor is state legislation that could impact transportation economic development in Riverside County through planning regulations as evidenced in SB 375. Another priority will be dealing with Congress on the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. The federal transportation bill will be a critical opportunity to secure funding for goods movement -related needs such as the funding of Alameda Corridor East grade separations in Riverside County. Communications The Commission provides information to the public through various channels including: 1) participation at public meetings, chambers of commerce, and service clubs; 2) production and provision of resource materialsand fact sheets; 3) maintenance and enhancement of the Commission's website; and 4) development of newspaper press releases, radio and television interviews, and cable television spots. The Commission's largest publication effort to provide widespread understanding of its projects and expenditures is its four -page annual report which is published in three area newspapers throughout the County. Broad distribution of the Commission Connection, a monthly one -page, two-sided newsletter highlighting actions of the Commission and emerging topics, will continue as part of the Commission's communications efforts. Efforts will continue to update and expand the Commission's contact database including e-mail addresses in order to support distribution of the Commission's public information materials. A continuing emphasis will be placed on providing communications support to major project development efforts including the Perris Valley Line, Mid County Parkway, SR-91 and 1-15 corridor improvement projects, and ongoing highway construction projects. The need for proactive public communication and outreach remains important, as the Commission continues to move forward with the delivery of the 2009 Measure A work program. This is an area of emphasis, as the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan places the Commission in a high -profile role to deliver large- scale highway projects. This will require additional contact with the public by the Community Relations Manager. The Commission's outreach will include a proactive effort to work closely with various media formats such as print, radio, internet, and television to increase their understanding of and interest in transportation issues and to generate a higher level of media coverage. Toward that end, opportunities will be identified for live or taped interviews and presentations that speak to local residents and employers and their 115 • questions concerning transportation issues. Appropriate forums may include city council meetings local cable television and radio. New Commissioner orientation meetings will be provided by the Deputy Executive Director in one-to-one or group settings. To supplement individual Commissioner meetings with the Executive Director, continuing education opportunities at the small group level will also be provided to Commissioners that focus on timely issues. Department Goals Foster the Commission's full involvement in a broad range of local, regional, state, and federal government settings. Objectives: • Participate in the Self -Help Counties Coalition, the California Transit Association, Southern California Legislative Roundtable, League of Cities, Mobility 21, state and federal transportation agencies, and community/business organizations. • Work with the CTC and the regional transportation planning agencies to protect and enhance project funding for the County through influencing policy decisions. • Maintain a leadership role in local and regional transportation venues related to project development efforts and current and emerging issues including coordination with other county transportation commissions, councils of governments, and local jurisdictions. • Continue to foster the success of the Southern California Working Group and Mobility 21 in advocating for additional funding for goods movement projects. • Participate and influence intercounty discussions between Riverside and Orange counties regarding the operation of the 91 Express Lanes as well as overall transportation policy between both counties. This includes supporting efforts to develop a new transportation corridor between the counties and to support additional transit service. • Participate and influence intercounty discussions with SANBAG on issues involving improvements to 1-215 and major arterials such as Pigeon Pass Road and Reche Canyon Road. • Participate and influence intercounty discussions with SANDAG on intercounty transportation issues including planning, vanpooling, transit connections, and the future improvement of 1-15. • Provide leadership to the Technical Advisory Committee of the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) to ensure that funding for air quality -related transportation improvements is fully distributed to Riverside County jurisdictions. • Form a Legislative Technical Advisory Committee comprised of representatives from cities, the County, and transit operators to develop a countywide strategy for the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. • Work with WRCOG and CVAG to monitor and respond to transportation issues involving the implementation of SB 375 on smart growth planning. 116 Implement the Commission's state and federal legislative program to maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues by supporting legislation to protect and increase current funding levels, ensuring an equitable distribution of available resources, streamlining administrative procedures to reduce costs and time of project development, and accelerating the allocation and use of existing resources. Objectives: • Coordinate legislative activities of federal and state legislative consultants related to SAFETEA-LU, ARRA, and Proposition 1B. Obtain monthly reports on activities performed. • Work with board members to establish policy positions, visit with elected representatives in Sacramento and Washington, draft legislation, and take positions on pending legislation. • Review and analyze legislation and recommend positions for the Commission to adopt on speck legislative proposals. • Effectively represent the Commission before the state and federal legislative bodies, the CTC, and other agencies in funding, programming, and policy matters. • Maintain contact and good working relationships with state and federal lawmakers and their staffs. Regularly meet and inform them of County transportation issues, policy positions, and project priorities. • Convene meetings with state, federal, and legislative staff members. Support the continuing education of Commissioners to increase their understanding of transportation -related issues at local, state, and federal levels to maximize the effectiveness of the Commission in affecting policy and funding actions. Objectives: • Provide orientation training for new Commissioners. • Produce and distribute a regular two -page fact sheet, Commission Connection, highlighting actions and activities of the Commission that will also be distributed electronically. • Provide periodic educational workshops or study sessions for Commissioners. Develop and maintain an information program which educates the public and other stakeholders on the roles and responsibilities of the Commission as it relates to accomplishments achieved through Measure A or other funding sources controlled or administered by the Commission. Objectives: • Expand, maintain, and update information on the Commission's website including individual project websites. • Annually produce a report that informs the public regarding Measure A progress and other Commission programs. • 117 • • • • Issue news releases to the local media announcing significant achievements and providing information on Commission actions and activities. • Develop and maintain open lines of communication with news reporters to facilitate adequate and accurate news coverage. • Schedule periodic media information briefings or news conferences when a particular issue warrants it. • Expand the stock of video footage for use in production of cable television spots that feature transportation projects funded and or implemented by the Commission. • Periodically use cable television and other forms of media such as intemet sites and blogs, if appropriate, to communicate information to the public regarding the Commission's activities and services. • Coordinate and oversee message content of all Commission publications and communications to provide uniformity of message and direction. • Support the development and planning of projects in regard to public outreach and communication efforts. • Require the use of Measure A project/program signage by funding recipients to increase public awareness of Measure A accomplishments. • Continue to administer and expand the use of the Speakers Bureau to reach community members in service and other organizations. • Monitor and distribute media coverage from various outlets in the County and throughout the region to Commissioners and staff to enable them to closely follow transportation policy trends. • Provide oversight and coordination to Commission departments in the development of communications' materials. Foster and maintain effective communications with other agencies to heighten their understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and increase interagency coordination and cooperation. Objective: • Assign designated staff members to attend other agency meetings and require staff to provide written/verbal communication on topics of discussion during regular staff meetings. Legislative Affairs and Communications Performance/Workload Indicators FY O7/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09/10 Projected Si0.60 t0urQau pr 4ntatiogs Legislative matrix submittals to Commission 9 5 9 Commissioner and state and federal legislator in -person meetings 40 50 60 Inland Empire delegation staff briefings 3 2 2 Southern California legislative staff roundtables 10 10 11 118 • Finance Mission Statement: "To safeguard the Commission's assets and maintain strong and prudent fiscal controls in investing, accounting, budgeting, procurements, and financial reporting including ongoing disclosure to all interested parties. Seek financing alternatives that complement the Commission's strategic direction." Chart 32 — Finance Professional 71% Expenditures Support 2% Personnel 27% Finance's total budget is $9,388,800 and reflects a 53.1% increase over the prior year's budget, primarily related to debt service. In FY 2008/09, the Commission paid $3,453,000 to terminate an interest rate swap due to a trigger event as discussed in Section 6. The FY 2009/10 debt service represents the estimated interest expenditures to be funded by the 2009 Measure A Western County bond financing program. Department staffing costs will total $694,600, reflecting a slight decrease of 0.6% due to Finance staff providing increased support to various programs and projects. Professional costs of $1,779,600 include various services related to general legal, investment and financial advisory, external and internal audits, debt management primarily related to the administration of increased utilization of the commercial paper program, CAFR and annual budget graphic design, and implementation of the new ERP system. The significant increase in professional costs is due to the estimated cost to renew or replace in March 2010 the letter of credit supporting the commercial paper program. Due to the financial and credit crisis, costs are expected to increase about six times the current fees. Support costs of $59,100 include CAFR and annual budget production costs of $28,000. Capital outlay is related to the carryover of budgeted costs for the ERP system software. 119 Table 72 — Finance Expenditure Detail FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 08109 FY 09l10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 793,800 $ 699,000 $ 597,700 $ 694,600 $ (4.400) -0.6% Professional Costs Legal Services 17,200 66,000 72,000 30,000 (36,000) -54.5% Financial Advisory 16,200 120,000 75,000 65,000 (55,000) -45.8% Audit Services 416,200 500,000 465,000 475,000 (25,000) 5.0% Professional Services -Other 533,800 684.000 712,700 1 209,600 525.600 76.8% Total Professional Costs 983,400 1,370,000 1,324,700 1,779,600 409,600 29.9% Support Costs Capital Outlay Debt Service TOTAL Finance 60,300 62,100 49.600 59,100 f30001 -4.8% 550,000 258,000 355,500 (194 5001 #DIVA! 154,200 3,453,000 3,453,000 6,500,000 3,047.000 88.2% $ 1.991,700 ; 6.134.100 $ 5.683.000 $ 9.388.800 $ 3.254700 531% Finance Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview Department Description Finance and Accounting Commission resources are allocated to assure financial stability and fiscal accountability. Finance activities include investing the Commission's cash resources, planning and directing financial transactions, and subsequent monitoring of legal and regulatory requirements. Adequate cash flow must be maintained while at the same time prudently investing idle funds. Borrowing needs are carefully planned using both short- and long-term debt. Once debt is issued, there are ongoing responsibilities including interaction with financial advisors, bankers, dealers and underwriters, bond • 120 • • • counsel, bond insurers, trustees, issuing and paying agents, arbitrage consultants, and rating agencies as well as providing regular and consistent information disclosure to investors. Fiscal accountability involves receiving all funds due the Commission, paying all Commission obligations, maintaining the general ledger, reporting regularly on the Commission's fiscal results, and preparing and monitoring the budget. Fiscal accountability requires the coordination of budget planning and monitoring and the accurate and timely accounting for all funding sources, including compliance with all applicable laws and regulations governing those funds. Accounting encompasses cash receipt and disbursement functions, maintenance of the general ledger including project cost accounting, payroll processing, quarterly and annual financial reporting, and retention of and coordination with independent auditors. The Commission also recognizes the importance of accountability for the organization. As a result, the Commission is highly regarded by individuals, peers, other organizations, and government officials at a local, regional, state, and national basis. A formal organizational accountability program was approved in January 2006 to address fraud risk, ethical conduct, financial and operational disclosure, and maintaining the public's confidence in the Commission. Accordingly, measures have been implemented based on a conceptual framework related to oversight, reporting, fraud, internal control, and ethics. Procurements and Assets Management In the management of the procurements and contracts process, the responsibility of the procurement and assets management function is to ensure that the procurement policies approved by the Commission are followed and procurement procedures are updated as required. The function is responsible for the purchase of all goods and services, except for real property acquisition, in accordance with Commission policies and federal and state funding requirements to ensure the implementation of the Commission's projects and programs. This includes updates to the disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program, goal, and anticipated DBE participation level (AADPL) for federally funded projects. Procuring goods and services for the Commission is a cooperative effort. All Commission staff involved in procurements for their projects and programs are responsible to employ sound judgment and appropriate standards of ethics and fairness to procure in a manner most advantageous to the Commission. This division also conducts a review and updates insurance coverage for the Commission and its properties. The Commission owns and maintains five Metrolink commuter rail stations, and stations along the Perris Valley Line extension will be added in the next few years. Assets management oversees the daily maintenance of these stations; however, expenditures are identified in the Rail Department budget. It is the responsibility of 121 assets management to ensure that the rail passengers have a safe and pleasant experience at the Commission -owned Metrolink commuter rail stations. Key Assumptions • The commercial paper program will continue as a short-term financing vehicle for the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan projects and as grant anticipation funding for the Perris Valley Line project with the renewal or replacement of the letter of credit as liquidity support. • The Commission will pay 100% of the annual required contribution related to postretirement health care benefits. • Arbitrage calculations related to the outstanding debt issues will be performed by a consultant on an annual basis. • Directors and program managers will continue to have adequate project budget and accounting information to make informed decisions. • Phase 1 of the ERP system finance -related modules for general ledger, project accounting, accounts payable, purchasing, and contract management will be implement in September 2009. Additional modules related to human resources/payroll,. fixed assets, budget preparation, position budgeting, accounts receivable, and GASB 34 financial reporting may be implemented by June 30, 2010. Implementation of web -based applications has not been determined. • Investments will be maintained primarily in state and local agency investment pools for short-term liquidity purposes; however, investments in mid-term treasury and federal agency securities may be made as available funds are identified. The overall interest rate is conservatively projected to be 1 %. • A consistent procurements and contracts management function will replace existing processes. • Existing procurement policies and procedures will be reviewed and updated as necessary. • A standardized procurement filing system will be developed and implemented and centralized procurement files will be implemented. • Rehabilitation of five Metrolink stations will commence. • A procurement to outsource the daily property management and maintenance of the commuter -rail stations to a single vendor will be conducted; however, oversight of the commuter rail stations will continue to be provided by the Procurement and Assets Manager. Accomplishments • Made the final debt service payments on the 1993, 1996, 1997, and 2000 bonds related to the 1989 Measure A. • Quickly reacted to and informed the Commission about the trigger event that led to the termination and replacement of an interest rate swap in September 2008. • Commenced the implementation of EDEN, an ERP financial management system, to replace Fundware, as continued development of the software for governments by the vendor has become uncertain. 122 • • • Participated in the FTA financial management oversight review of the Commission, which resulted in no material weaknesses. • Conducted internal audit reviews of the Finance function; right of way management, and capital projects management. • Submitted CAFR for consideration of financial reporting excellence award from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) (16th year) related to the CAFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. • Obtained GFOA distinguished budget award (13th year) for annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008. • Provided assistance in revisions to the Measure A maintenance of effort (MOE) guidelines and determination of FY 2010-2019 base year MOE amounts. • Recruited a Procurement and Assets Manager and Procurement Administrator to staff the new procurement and assets management division of the Finance Department. • Revised procurement templates and developed a standard evaluation form for proposals. • Initiated an analysis of third party contract insurance coverage compliance and expiration dates. • Improved the pre -award audit process to utilize on -call audit firms and obtain a more timely report for use during contract negotiations. • Commenced contract reviews related to major station maintenance expenditures to identify improper charges and noncompliance with contract terms. • Conducted thorough reviews and analysis of proposed repairs and improvements at the stations to control costs. Major Initiatives Finance and Accounting The commercial paper program has been in place for over four years and has provided advance funding for projects included in the 2009 Measure A and related 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan. Commission management will continue to consider appropriate uses of commercial paper to advance 2009 Measure A projects of the Commission and CVAG and to provide FTA Small Starts grant anticipation funding for the Perris Valley Line project. In order to restore additional funding capacity to the commercial paper program, a portion of the outstanding commercial paper notes will be refinanced along with the 2008 Bonds in connection with the issuance of variable rate sales tax revenue bonds in October 2009 and commencement of the interest rate swaps. Additionally, the Commission will need to obtain liquidity support for the 2009 Bonds and renew or replace the letter of credit facility supporting the commercial paper program. Staff is developing a financing plan to support the highway and rail capital projects to be delivered through 2019 and to assess future financing requirements. This financing plan will incorporate revised sales tax revenue forecasts as well as other potential federal, state, and local revenue sources, including tolls. Based on the updated cost estimates for these projects and identified revenues, the financial advisory team will evaluate potential 123 project funding shortfalls and alternative financing strategies that may be required. Financing alternatives to be considered include commercial paper, long-term bond issues to finance Measure A and toll projects, and federal loan programs. The financing plan process will also include consideration of the restriction of the $500 million 2009 Measure A bonding cap, which could include the possibility of a future ballot measure to increase the cap. The initial internal audit risk assessment completed in FY 2007/08 will be updated, including any changes in the three-year audit plan. Approximately three intemal audit projects per year will be developed as part of the next major effort related to the organizational accountability program. An outcome of the projects included in the audit plan will be operational solutions such as process improvements. The Finance Department will continue to keep abreast of GASB technical activities affecting the Commission's accounting and financial reporting activities. Recently released standards that may affect the Commission include fund balance reporting and governmental fund type definitions as well as the accounting and reporting for derivatives such the interest rate swaps. The Finance Department will continue the implementation of a new ERP financial management software system that will integrate data processing across the Commission, automate administrative processes, and embrace data integration. The ERP implementation efficiency gains include an automated paperless workflow system, advanced project accounting, multi -year budgeting, multi -year contract management, grant tracking, and readily available scanned images that can be retrieved by all users. The go -live date for the core modules is currently scheduled for September 2009. Procurements and Assets Management As a result of the addition of a procurement and asset manager and a procurement administrator to support procurements and contracts management, a centralized procurements process is being implemented to manage requests for proposals or qualifications and related contract development. Accordingly, this will strengthen controls to ensure consistency in the application of procurement policies and procedures and adherence to applicable laws and regulations, especially those related to federal and state grants. Furthermore, these positions assist in the property management functions of the Commission's commuter rail stations. To prepare for the long-term maintenance of Commission -owned stations, a commuter rail station rehabilitation and strategic plan is being implemented (see Section 7.2, Rail). Part of the implementation of this plan will be the outsourcing of the property management function, including maintenance, of the stations during FY 2009/10. Staff has determined the annual DBE and AADPL goals for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2009/10, subject to Commission approval. For funding received from the Federal 124 • • Highway Administration (FHWA) through Caltrans, the race conscious AADPL and the race -neutral AADPL are 0.3% and 0.4%, respectively for FFY 2009/10. The annual race -neutral FTA DBE goal is 0.0%. Department Goals Protect the Commission's cash resources by regular monitoring of investment practices to ensure consistency with established investment policy. Objective: • Achieve a rate of return at least equal to the County of Riverside Treasury Pool rate. Manage the Commission's outstanding debt ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations and continued investor awareness and receptivity to the Commission's program. Objectives: • Provide an annual update and review of the debt programs with rating agencies no later than December 2009. • Meet continuing disclosure requirements of the debt program. • Prepare arbitrage calculations as required. Ensure the Commission and funding recipients comply with Measure A and TDA laws and regulations as they relate to the annual financial and compliance audits as well as close cooperation and coordination with independent auditors. Objectives: • Minimize the number of substantive management letter comments and compliance findings requiring corrective action by the Commission. • Maintain appropriate fiduciary review and monitoring procedures for Measure A recipient and TDA claimant audits. Maintain fiscal and budgetary control through monitoring of periodic results and ensuring consistency with the Commission's strategic direction. Objectives: • Obtain the GFOA Distinguished Budget Award for the FY 2009/10 budget. • Facilitate a comprehensive budgeting approach that effectively involves management staff, requiring full accountability for all department expenditures. • Fund 100% of the annual required contribution related to the postretirement health care benefits. Assure fiscal accountability for Commission funds with general ledger accounting and financial reporting consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. 125 Objectives: • Ensure proactive communication and timely responses to any noted errors, corrections, and budget transfers related to program management reviews of accounting and budget information. • Obtain an unqualified opinion on the basic financial statements. • Receive financial reporting excellence awards from the GFOA. • Stay abreast of finance, accounting, and financial reporting developments by attending training and conferences in these general areas or in specialized areas applicable to job duties. • Update and maintain the fiscal policies and procedures manual. • Update and maintain complete accounting desk procedures manual for EDEN implementation to facilitate cross training. • Assist local governments with Measure A funding by providing timely allocation of funds for eligible projects and financing opportunities to the extent funding does not impact other programs and is financially feasible and prudent. • Maintain financial software to reflect technical updates and current technology. Develop and maintain an organizational accountability program encompassing financial and operational functions. Objectives: • Establish and implement measures related to oversight, fraud, internal control, and ethics. • Issue annual disclosure statements related to financial and operational responsibilities. • Develop an annual intemal audit plan to include approximately three internal audit. projects and update business risk analysis at least on an annual basis. Procure goods and services from qualified consultants, contractors, and other vendors in accordance with laws and regulations at a competitive price. Objectives: • Assist departments and programs to procure and obtain goods and services in a cost effective and efficient manner. • Ensure that procurements are conducted in accordance with a comprehensive Procurement Policies Manual. • Ensure that agreements, amendments, and MOUs are entered into with appropriate legal considerations. • Process agreements, amendments, and MOUs in a timely and efficient manner. • Ensure that consistent procedures, processes, and tools are used for procurements. Review existing procurement policies and procedures. Objectives: 126 • Ensure that the procurement polices reflect Commission requirements and practices. • Segregate policies and procedures so that procedures can be easily updated without Commission approval. • Ensure that procurement policies and procedures reflect the requirements of the Commission's federal, state, and other funding sources. • Create an easy to read desktop quick procurement policies reference guide for use by Commission staff. Maintain order, security, and safety at the Commission's commuter rail stations. Objectives: • Monitor and improve closed circuit television systems at the five Commission - owned Metrolink stations. • Replace signage and repair facilities in an orderly and cost-efficient manner. Finance PerformanceNVorkload Indicators FY 07/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09110 Projected Aa2/AA+/AA Sales tax revenue bond rating Aa2/AA+/AA Aa2/AA+/AA Commercial paper rating P-1/A-1+ P-1/A-1+ P-1/A-1+ GFOA Certificate of Achievement Awarded Awarded Awarded GFOA Distinguished Budget Award Proficient Proficient Proficient Invoices processed 5,071 5,275 5,500 Checks processed 3,490 3,563 3,600 Audit adjustments 0 0 0 A 7 Payroll hours processed 80,489 87,675 84,000 Accounts receivable invoices processed 213 239 300 127 i i SECTION 7.21 REGlOPIAL PROGRA! 128 s • Regional Issues Mission Statement: "To strive to improve the lives of Riverside County residents through the facilitation of interagency and interjurisdictional relationships in support of a coordinated regional approach to transportation funding and solutions." Chart 33 - Regional Issues Expenditures Total budgeted expenditures for Regional Issues are $7,530,700. Staffing costs make up 4.1% of the department expenditures. Professional services include on -call goods movement consultants for $250,000 and completion of phase III activities related to the transportation elements of the 1-15 interregional partnership study with WRCOG for $170,000. Projects and operations include allocations of $6,750,000 to the cities of Riverside and Corona and the County related to TCIF grade separation activities. 129 Table 73-Regional Issues FY 07/08 FY 08109 FY 08f09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 420,000 $ 358,100 $ 296,000 $ 309,000 $ (49,100) -13.7% Professional Costs Legal Services 109,600 50,000 18,900 30,000 (20,000) -40.0% Professional Services -Other 342,600 549 100 237,000 425,000 (124,100) -22.6% Total Professional Costs 452,200 599,100 255,900 455,000 (144,100) -24.1% Support Costs 21,100 22,500 11,900 16,700 (5,800)-25.8°% Projects and Operations Operating Contributions 5 000,000 1,280 000 6,750,000 1,750,000 35.0% Total Projects and Operations 5,000,000 1,280,000 6,750,000 1,750,000 35.0% TOTAL Regional Issues $ 893,300 $ 5 979 700 $ 1 843 80Q $ Z530.700 $ 1 551 00Q 25.9% Regional Issues Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview Department Description Of particular importance to the Commission are the promotion and maintenance of interregional cooperation to ensure that the interests of the Commission are disseminated in a proactive, informative manner. Within that context, partnership development, public and private, is viewed as critical to the Commission's continued success in affecting positive transportation decisions to meet future demands. Working in close coordination with the Legislative Affairs and Communications Department, Regional Issues advocates for federal, state, and local funding to mitigate the impacts of goods movement. • • 130 • Key Assumptions • The $162.7 million Proposition 1B bond funding for the TCIF projects is available through the State budget process for 12 grade separations and a ground access improvement project to improve the I-215Nan Buren interchange. • The Infrastructure Cargo Fee proposed by the Ports is completed, or, at a minimum, the framework is drafted. • Phase III activities for the 1-15 Interregional Partnership between the Commission, RTA, SANDAG, and WRCOG are completed by February 2010. • A workshop will be developed regarding advancing the issue of goods movement in the Inland Empire. Accomplishments • Completed the 2008 Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects. • Coordinated the signing of TCIF project documentation including completion of baseline agreements for 12 grade separations and a ground access improvement project for the I-215Nan Buren interchange. • Completed the Environmental Justice Analysis and Community Outreach Study, funded by Ca!trans, in March 2009. • Monitored and provided written comments on port expansion projects for each of the Ports. Major Initiatives The Commission's work effort will remain focused on facilitating ongoing commitments as well as being responsive to various emerging issues. These include bicounty issues with the counties of San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego as well as goods movement. The Commission will continue working with partners from the Southern California Consensus Group (Ports, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority, SANBAG, OCTA, Metro, Ventura County Transportation Commission, and SCRRA) to develop a regional infrastructure cargo fee. A priority will be to coordinate with legislative staff and advocacy groups such as Mobility 21 to secure funding through the federal transportation bill for goods movement -related needs such as the funding of Alameda Corridor East grade separations in Riverside County. The Commission will continue to monitor the Ports' projects for possible impacts on Riverside County by reviewing agendas and requesting notices for projects under CEQA and the Brown Act. 131 Department Goals Facilitate development of regional transportation solutions that benefit Riverside County. Objectives: • Monitor progress made in constructing the TGIF -funded projects through discussions with staff from partner agencies including Caltrans; cities of Banning, Corona, and Riverside; and the County of Riverside. Timely completion of the TCIF projects is required to demonstrate the region's ability to deliver projects consistent with the CTC's direction when the Proposition 1 B funding was allocated. • Secure new sources of revenue supported by user fees and/or customs fees in support of the 2008 Grade Separation Funding Strategy that identified a funding shortfall of $565 million. Determine where future efforts on addressing Riverside County goods movement issues -would prove most effective. Objectives: • Identify drivers of demand for goods movement services and performance of modal systems and services as well as public benefits, specific areas of inefficiency, and the impacts of goods movement on communities. • Implement the Commission's 2008 Grade Separation Funding Strategy through coordination of advocacy efforts with Legislative Affairs and Communications. Facilitate public and private investments in clean air technology in support of the broader air quality programs for SCAG, SCAQMD, and Riverside County local entities. Objectives: • Monitor the impact of AB 32 (greenhouse gas emission reduction) application to Commission transportation projects. • Monitor the impact of SB 375 (greenhouse gas emission reduction) from light trucks and automobiles through land use and transportation efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled. • Actively participate on the MSRC's Technical Advisory Committee to ensure equitable funding is available in support of capital projects within Riverside County. Regional Issues Performance/Workload Indicators FY 07/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09/10 Projected Number of written comments on expansion projects submitted to Ports 1 1 0 • • 132 • • Planning and Programming Mission Statement: "To exert leadership in transportation planning and the programming of funds in order to improve mobility, foster environmental stewardship, expedite project delivery, and form partnerships with regional, state, federal agencies resulting in maximum return of federal, state, and private funding on local investment." Chart 34 - Planning and Programming Personnel 15% Professional and Special Studies Support LTF Disbursements 25% Expenditures Projects - General tee Planning and Programming expenditures of $3,628,200 have decreased 53.7% from last year's budget. Salaries and benefits represent 15.0% of total expenditures and decreased slightly. Professional services totaling $249,300 are comparable to the FY 2008/09 budget and include consultant contracts to assist the Commission with completion of the geotechnical studies for the proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway, CMP implementation efforts, air quality analysis, local and regional planning activities, and legal services. Projects and operations costs have decreased 59.6% due to a decrease in LTF disbursements that is directly related to the decrease in LTF planning revenues as well as in the costs for the geotechnical studies that are nearing completion. Projects and operations costs include consultant services related to the hosting and management of a project database to improve the management and monitoring of projects and funding. 133 • Table 74 — Planning and Programming Expenditure Detail FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09110 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 760,800 $ 567.800 $ 494,800 $ 545,300 $ (22,500) -4.0% Professional Costs Legal Services 16,300 25,000 9,300 10,000 (15,000) -60.0% Financial Advisory 186,700 - - - - #DIV/0! Professional Services -Other 133.000 245.300 150.000 239.300 (6.000) -2.4% Total Professional Costs 336,000 270,300 159,300 249,300 (21,000) -7.8°% Support Costs 18,700 31,100 12,200 21,700 (9,400) -30.2% Projects and Operations Projects - General 68,000 25,000 49,100 (18,900) -27.8% ROW Support Services 1,000 #DIV/0! Special Studies 2,572,000 5,849,500 5,337,200 1,862,800 (3,986,700) -68.2% LTF Disbursements 992 500 1.050.000 1.050 000 900.000 (150.0001 -14.3% Total Projects and Operations 3.565,500 6.967.500 6.412.200 2.811.900 (4.155.600)-59.6°% TOTAL Planning and Programming $ 4.681. ai $ 7 836 70Q $ 7 078 ,'inn Lamm 200 $ (4 208 500) AIM Planning and Programming Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview Department Description • The Commission is responsible for short- and long-range transportation planning and programming. Short-range planning and programming involves the development of the five-year STIP and preparation of the five-year FTIP for Riverside County. These programming documents identify projects and their respective funding and schedules. • 134 The Commission's involvement with long-range planning efforts includes the coordination and input into planning efforts throughout the County and southern California region. These efforts include participation in local, bicounty, and regional corridor studies, including the continued development of the CETAP corridors. Regional planning efforts are incorporated in the RTP (a 30-year transportation plan) developed by SCAG in conjunction with county transportation commissions, sub -regional agencies, local agencies, transit operators, and other interested parties. The Commission is responsible for approving projects for Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds and coordinating with Caltrans on the selection of Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds as part of the STIP approved by the CTC every two years. In 2007, the CMIA program was approved by the CTC. CMIA is one of the various categories included in the Proposition 1 B transportation bond package that was approved by the voters in November 2006. In 2008, another Proposition 1B category, the TCIF, was approved by the CTC. The Commission is a member of the Southern California Consensus Group that developed and submitted project proposals for consideration of funding from the TCIF program. As with the RIP and IIP funds, CMIA and TCIF funds are administered and allocated by the CTC. Programming specifically involves the development, review, and approval of projects for various funding programs. In order to receive federal funds and approvals, all projects funded with federal and state dollars, or local projects that are regionally significant, must be included in the FTIP. SCAG is responsible for incorporating all six -county (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) transportation improvement programs into one regional programming document and conducting a conformity analysis with the adopted air plans to ensure compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This effort is performed every 18 to 24 months. The Commission is responsible for allocating the following local, state, and federal funding sources: Local Sources: • 1989 and 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plans • Western County TUMF regional arterial program State Sources: • SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian projects • RIP Federal Sources: • TE • 135 • STP • CMAQ The Commission also serves as the CMA for the County and is responsible for developing and updating the CMP. The CMP was developed to meet state legislation and federal Congestion Management System (CMS) requirements, which includes an enhanced traffic monitoring system. The CMP's highways and regional arterials are regularly monitored to ensure that they are not operating at deficient levels [Level of Service (LOS) "F"]. If a deficiency occurs along the CMP system, a deficiency plan must be prepared that identifies mitigation measures and/or projects that will improve the LOS to "E" or higher. Key Assumptions • The Commission will continue its efforts in working with transportation partners to streamline and improve project delivery. • A Special Use Permit and a federal funds obligation will continue to allow completion of -geotechnical field-testing in the Cleveland National Forest to determine the feasibility of tunnel construction for the Irvine -Corona Expressway. • Project development work for CETAP corridors will be funded with a combination of local, state, and federal funds. • MSHCP funding contributions to the RCA through 2019 have been completed. • The consultant contract for CMP services is maintained to provide assistance with ongoing traffic monitoring efforts, biennial updates to the CMP, and support on other related planning activities. • The Commission will utilize all available funding sources on transportation projects identified in the 1989 Measure A and the 2009 Measure A as well as other regional high priority projects, including TUMF regional arterial projects. • The consultant contract for TUMF project development and oversight will be maintained. • The Commission will continue participation in local, bicounty, and regional planning efforts representing the interests of the County. • The Commission will work with the CTC, Caltrans, and local project sponsors to implement projects funded with STIP-RIP, CMIA, and TCIF to ensure that the programming and timing of allocations are consistent with project schedules. • The Commission will develop strategies to implement alternative financing structures including public toll roads. • The Commission will continue the development of a project management database that will consolidate all projects into one database to improve efficiencies in monitoring projects and funding and to integrate other database needs within the Commission. 136 • • • The Commission will continue to assist local project sponsors with the processing of state and federal funding approvals and overall project delivery. Accomplishments • Submitted 18 STIP allocation and amendment requests to the CTC. • Completed the draft project level Environmental Impact Study (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Mid County Parkway project. • Completed geotechnical borings in the Cleveland National Forest to assist in determining feasibility of a future Irvine -Corona Expressway. • Continued funding contributions to the RCA to support reserve assembly. • Obtained a Letter of No Prejudice repayment for $21 million for advancing CMAQ funds for the completed SR-60 HOV lane project from 1-15 to Valley Way. • Completed 22 local agency agreements and amendments for the implementation of TUMF regional arterial projects. • Completed 66 RTP project amendments. • Completed over 290 FTIP project amendments. • Facilitated the development of ARRA allocations and a local stimulus program for Riverside County transportation projects. • Completed the project database development. Major Initiatives Each county transportation commission throughout the State is responsible for programming RIP funds, which represents 75% of the total STIP funding available statewide for capital enhancement projects. The 75% funding level is then further distributed with 60% of the funds allocated to Southern California and 40% to Northern California. A population formula is then applied to determine county funding levels called "county shares." The Commission is responsible for ensuring that projects funded with STIP funding are administered and implemented consistent with CTC and Caltrans policies. Two percent of RIP funding available to Riverside County was allocated for staff support to carry out STIP PPM activities. Federal TE funds are also administered through the STIP. TE funds are not subject to general fund diversions; however, TE funds are authorized each year by the passage of the state budget. CMIA and TCIF funds are monitored by Caltrans and the CTC. Baseline agreements are developed for each project under these programs. Any changes to project funding, scope, or schedule will require an amendment to the baseline agreement. The CTC allocates the CMIA and TCIF funds and the process for allocating the funds is similar to the process established for STIP funds. 137 Included in the 2009 Measure A is a provision that identifies $400 million of TUMF revenues collected on the Western County TUMF network to be allocated to TUMF regional arterial projects. Of the $400 million, $200 million is slated specifically for the CETAP corridors and the other $200 million for regional arterial projects. In September 2004 the Commission established a 5-year program and approved $71.7 million to fund project development work for 24 regional arterial projects. An amendment to the $400 million cap provision was approved by WRCOG and the Commission in August and September 2008, respectively. As a result, the Commission will continue receiving TUMF funds for the CETAP and Regional Arterial Program projects above the original $400 million cap. The Commission initiated strategic partnership efforts to identify and evaluate alternative financing strategies. Alternative financing will likely be necessary to fund the significant gap between funding readily available through conventional governmental funding/financing techniques and project needs. Alternative financing structuring including the use of public toll roads will be necessary to fully fund the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan. Transportation Planning The Commission's role in planning throughout the year will involve working with SCAG, sub -regional agencies, local agencies, and the other county transportation commissions in the region on various planning efforts relative to the development of the 2012 RTP, implementation of the 2008 RTP, corridor studies, goods movement studies, and efforts to update transportation computer models and project databases. Staff will also be an active participant in the development of green house gas reduction implementation guidelines, including SB 375 legislative amendments. In FY 2009/10 the Commission will continue its work efforts on the CETAP corridors. The draft environmental document for the Mid County Parkway has been circulated for public review and public comment received. During FY 2009/10 the environmental process for this project will continue. Additionally, the geotechnical feasibility report for the Irvine -Corona Expressway should be concluded by the end of the calendar year. The Commission will also provide coordination and oversight, along with SANBAG, for the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County corridor activities that are being led by the County, focusing on the Pigeon Pass and Reche Canyon road improvements. The FY 2009/10 CMP effort will focus on the CMP biennial update and completion of the conversion of traffic counter equipment to digital technology. Traffic count information will be provided to the public via the Commission's website. • 138 • Transportation Programming As mentioned above, the Commission is responsible for allocating various state and federal funds. The funds are monitored to ensure that regulations are adhered to in order to prevent funds from lapsing. The following summarizes the status of these funding programs: Local Funding TUMF Project monitoring and tracking of TUMF regional arterial projects will occur according to the agreements between local agencies and the Commission. In addition, Commission staff will work with local agencies regarding amendments to agreements and any issues regarding project delivery. To date, 22 project agreements have been executed totaling approximately $61 million. During FY 2009/10, a total of $26.3 million is anticipated to be reimbursed to local agencies using TUMF regional arterial funding. 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial Program A call for projects was initiated for the 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial program. Due to the economic downturn, the selection of projects has been postponed. It is anticipated that the call for projects will be revisited some time during FY 2009/10. State Funding STIP- RIP/IJP The 2010 STIP cycle is scheduled for approval by the CTC in April 2010. Staff will work with the CTC, Ca!trans, and local agencies in reviewing STIP programming capacity and determine projects for inclusion in the 2010 STIP. Amendments to the current 2008 STIP will continue for projects that have changes in project scope, schedule, and funding. Projects requiring time extensions may be granted by the CTC if deadlines cannot be met; however, they are not guaranteed. SB 821 Annually,. the Commission releases a call for bicycle and pedestrian projects in April. The Commission establishes an evaluation committee to rank eligible projects that meet the established criteria. Project recommendations are approved by the Commission in June of each year. The Commission approved 17 projects in the amount of $1.4 million for FY 2008/09. The FY 2009/10 call for projects will 139 have funding of $1.4 million available for award. These expenditures are included in the LTF special revenue fund, which is reflected in the Transit Department since this fund's activities relate primarily to transit funding. Federal Funding CMAQ, STP, and TE The Commission is responsible for allocating. CMAQ, STP, and TE funds to transportation projects. In 2003, the Commission directed staff to program SAFETEA-LU funds (CMAQ and STP) to projects that were impacted by the state budget crisis and/or the rise in construction material costs with the exception of the CMAQ funding that is apportioned to the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). In 2007, the Commission approved future. CMAQ and STP funds (from the reauthorization of the federal transportation act) for grade separation projects approved in the Proposition 1B TCIF program. The Commission will be reviewing federal funding options for the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan projects once the federal transportation act is reauthorized and future funding levels are known. The Commission defers the selection of projects for CMAQ funds apportioned to the SSAB to CVAG. In 2007, CVAG approved 22 projects for CMAQ funding allocations of approximately $30 million from SAFETEA-LU. In 2004 the CTC restructured the administration of the TE program by incorporating it in the STIP. Although TE funds are federal, they must be granted state budget authority in order for the funds to be allocated by the CTC. If the state budget approval is delayed, the TE funds cannot be allocated until the state budget is passed. In 2005, the Commission approved 18 projects totaling $17.6 million over FY 2006/07-2009/10. These projects are included in the 2008 STIP. During FY 2006/07, two projects were allocated totaling $917,290. Subsequently, in FY 2007/08, four projects were allocated totaling $5.6 million. During FY 2008/09, five additional projects are planned for delivery totaling $4 million. It is anticipated that the seven remaining projects will be allocated in FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11. Project Monitoring In 2006, a consultant firm was awarded a contract to develop a web -based project management database. With the high demand for reporting and monitoring, the progress of projects is essential to prevent funds from lapsing; a consolidated database will allow for efficient monitoring of these project schedules and funding. Local agencies will have access to project information as well as the capability to update their respective project information in a timely manner. The database has 140 • been implemented in phases with the first phase completed in October 2007 and additional phases implemented during FY 2008/09. The Programming Department has begun to assist the Capital Project Development and Delivery Department with preparing and submitting requests for authorization of federal funding. In addition, Programming will take on a broader role in monitoring expenditures and project closeout to prevent funds from lapsing. Department Goals - Planning Build upon relationships with local, state, and federal agencies to coordinate short- and long-range planning to ensure that transportation projects receive funding and approvals. Objectives: • Work with CVAG, WRCOG, Caltrans, transit operators, local agencies, and SCAG to coordinate project submittals and amendments to the 2008 RTP in addition to developing strategies to meet SB 375 Greenhouse Gas emission reductions. • Work with CVAG, WRCOG, Caltrans, transit operators, local agencies, and • SCAG to coordinate development of the 2012 RTP. • Provide the Commissioners information to assist in advocating Commission projects. • Continue CETAP inter- and intracounty corridor work. • Continue working with the RCA to implement the MSHCP, although funding to assist in the assembly of the reserve system through 2019 has been completed. Continue to seek a stronger role for county transportation commissions in state and regional transportation and air quality programs in order to direct funding for programs and projects that will improve air quality and mobility in Riverside County. Objectives: • Support efforts to seek additional funding at the local, state, and federal levels for projects that improve air quality. • Support ongoing efforts to regulate federal emission sources. Continue implementation of the CMP in cooperation with SCAG, WRCOG, CVAG, Caltrans, and local agencies and maintain federal certification for the CMP. Objectives: 141 • • Implement the CMP to meet federal CMS requirements cited under the metropolitan planning organization (i.e., SCAG) planning regulations. • Provide data collected on the CMP system to SCAG and Caltrans for reporting on the Highway Performance Monitoring System. • Provide data collected on the CMP system to local agencies and other interested parties. • Continue monitoring the CMP system to ensure the minimum adopted level of service threshold is met. Work with Caltrans and local governments including transit operators to seek opportunities to develop and implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications that improve the accessibility of highway and transit information to the public as well as achieve operational efficiencies. Objectives: • Seek federal and state funding sources to support implementation of ITS strategies and projects consistent with the Inland Empire ITS Strategic Plan. • Program ITS projects in the FTIP to account for air quality benefits. Continue to advocate for jobs/housing balance and attracting high income jobs to Riverside County in addition to addressing intercounty congestion. Objectives: • Participate in ongoing studies and activities regarding , the jobs/housing imbalance between Orange and Riverside counties and San Diego and Riverside counties. • Support the County interests pertaining to transportation planning as population, job, and housing forecasts are developed by SCAG and the State. Department Goals — Programming Identify alternative financing strategies in order to fully fund projects identified in the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan. Objectives: • Continue the assessment and evaluation of available strategies. • Support efforts to develop design -build legislation. Consolidate project databases to allow for efficient monitoring of projects and funding with the ability to share project information with local jurisdictions. 142 • • Objectives: • Maintain consultant contract to support the Commission's web -based project management database that will enhance and promote information sharing. • Work with SCAG and other county transportation commissions to refine and maintain the SCAG regional database, including the coordination of the Commission's database with SCAG's FTIP database. • Coordinate with Caltrans to assure database compatibility and promote information sharing including timely reporting of fund obligation information. Ensure maximum funding and flexibility for projects funded with STIP-RIP, Proposition 1B, SAFETEA-LU, and federal reauthorization funds. Objectives: • Participate in statewide efforts to develop and implement guidelines and legislation for the various Proposition 1 B funding programs. • Work with Caltrans and the CTC to meet the intent of the CMIA and TCIF programs related to implementing projects within the timeframes specified in the baseline project agreements. • Advocate that local and federal funds used to replace state funding due to the state budget shortfall be given high priority for repayment when the state is in a position to repay such loans. • Participate in various forums regarding reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU to increase funding levels, streamline programming processes, and provide flexibility in obligating funds. • Support efforts advocating the continuation and protection of Proposition 42 funding and the payback of loans taken from state transportation accounts. • Advocate that RIP county share reserves receive priority programming over counties that advance shares. • Continue to strategically program and fund projects in an effort to obligate and/or allocate funds in an expeditious manner for the maximum use of all available funding. • Continue to monitor project implementation through the use of milestone reporting on a quarterly basis to maintain maximum funding levels for projects and prevent loss of funds to Riverside County. Provide support to the Commission's Capital Project Development and Delivery and Finance departments to maintain project funding and schedules and minimize programming issues. Objectives: • Provide input to the budget development process. 143 • • Rail Mission Statement: "To develop and support passenger rail transportation options for increased mobility within Riverside County and the region." Chart 35 — Rail Personnel 4% Expenditures Rail expenditures of $24,279,100 include Metrolink operations and capital support as well as maintenance and operations of the five Commission -owned and operated commuter rail stations. Professional and support costs include legal and consultant services as well as general supplies, media ads, printing services, and marketing incentives. These costs are comparable to the prior year. Station maintenance includes property management, utilities, grounds maintenance, repairs, cleaning, and security services at the five Commission -owned commuter rail stations and adjacent parking areas and the new Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility. Grounds maintenance and repairs reflect an increase in expenditures due to aging irrigation systems and the new Perris facility, and security costs have increased as a result additional services, including coverage of the new North Main Corona station parking structure. Operating expenditures consists of an operating contribution of $7,000,000 to SCRRA for Metrolink operations and $13,300,000 for new rail cars. The Commission's subsidy to SCRRA's operating budget has increased by 21.7% from last year's budget primarily due to increased safety, insurance, and mechanical expenses for new equipment. The Commission's commuter rail program expects to meet the number of required Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) targets for FY 2009/10. 146 Table 75 - Rail Expenditure Detail FY OT/08 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 358,800 $ 427,900 $ 378.800 $ 439,400 g 11,560 2.7% Professional Costa Legal Services 48,900 230,000 182,200 210,000 (2(1,000) -8.7% Professional Services -Other 118.300 180,500 _ 144.700 199,300 18.800 10.4°% Total Professional Costs 167,200 410,500 326,900 409,300 (1,200) -0.3% Support Costs 83,500 145,100 122,500 158,200 13,100 9.0% Rail Station Operations Station Maintenance 670700 830,000 748,100 1,030,200 200,200 24.1% Station Security 972,400 995.000 1,200,000 1.300,000 305.000 30.7°% Other Transit Operations 255,800 134,000 - 136,900 162,000 28,000 20.9°% Capital Maintenance - - - 13,306,000 13,300,000 ifON/01 Operating Maintenance 6.510,400 5979.600 6,335,600 7 280,000 1.300.400 21217% Total Rag Station Operations Special Studies TOTAL Rail Operations Rail Staffing Summary 8,410,300 7,938,600 8,420,600 23,072,200 15033,600 190.6°% 32,700 200,000 30,000 200,000 0.0% ; 9 050 500 $ 9 127 100 S 9.278= $ 24 279109 $ 15 157 000 188 2% Department Budget Overview -Rail Operations Department Description The Commission has directed efforts in the areas of regional commuter rail, intercity passenger rail, high-speed rail, and capital improvements to support enhanced passenger and freight rail service. The entire program includes elements of planning, programming, commuter rail development and support, station and corridor management, mitigation of community and environmental impacts, legislative and 147 • regulatory advocacy, and construction of capital projects. Many elements are managed or supported by other Commission departments, legal counsel, and consultants. Departmental efforts contributing to the rail program are found throughout the budget document. Coordination and consultation also occur with a variety of public and private entities including the CTC, Ca!trans, California Public Utilities Commission, California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), Federal Railroad Administration, FTA, Amtrak, environmental agencies, the University of California (UC), transit providers, SCAG, WRCOG, CVAG, SANDAG, Los Angeles -San Diego -San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency, local governments, private freight railroads, businesses, and property owners. The Commission participates in the ongoing funding and governance of Metrolink by SCRRA, a joint powers authority consisting of the county transportation commissions of Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties. The Commission holds two voting positions on SCRRA's eleven member board. Commission staff serves on the five -county Technical Advisory Committee which negotiates service and funding levels, based upon the county's established priorities, and provides technical assistance, coordination between various SCRRA and commission departments, and linkages to local communities. Of the seven commuter rail lines operated by Metrolink, three routes consisting of the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines directly serve Western County. Unlike the other SCRRA member agencies, the Commission owns and operates the commuter rail stations serving Riverside County: Riverside Downtown, Pedley, La Sierra, West Corona, North Main Corona, and, coming soon, Perris. Station operation and maintenance costs are included in the Rail Department budget with services currently coordinated by the Finance Department's Procurements and Assets Management Division. New and ongoing construction projects at these stations are described in the capital budget managed by the Capital Project Development and Delivery Department. Key Assumptions • Metrolink's preliminary FY 2009/10 budget is adopted by the Commission and SCRRA. • Ridership and fare revenues continue to grow on the Riverside, 1E0C, and 91 Lines. • The Commission manages the station security guard contract. Estimated costs are based on the actual contract terms with a portion to be reimbursed by SCRRA. Accomplishments • Completed substantial construction on the 1,000 space North Main Corona parking structure and developed a comprehensive parking strategy to minimize disruption to existing passengers during construction. 148 • Cornmenced implementation of the Green Metrolink Station Rehabilitation Plan to upgrade the existing Metrolink stations for energy and resource efficiency and to rehabilitate station elements such as painting, paving, and lighting. • Initiated a safety and security assessment at the Metrolink stations that will identify upgrades to the security camera system, monitoring activities, and emergency response. • Supported the holiday toy train events at Riverside County commuter rail stations. Community participation grew substantially with record attendance at the four station events, and the Spark of Love Toy Drive generated a record number of toys for local charities. Major Initiatives Over the last 16 years, more than $100 million in capital improvements have been made in developing stations and securing access to support the Commission's commuter rail services operations. Current major initiatives include the completion of a 1,000 space parking structure at the North Main Corona station, construction of the Perris Multimodal Facility, and rehabilitation projects at various stations. A conceptual planning effort to expand the La Sierra station with the addition of a multimodal park and ride facility is also currently in process. Additionally, the Commission is working with OCTA and SANBAG to advance additional IEOC and 91 Line train service by 2011. As part of that initiative, the Commission is expanding the layover facility at the Riverside Downtown station to accommodate additional train sets. The development of the Perris Valley Line project and its operational impacts will continue to be pursued and evaluated, respectively. The Commission has developed a draft Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual to establish the design guidelines for future commuter rail stations, park and ride facilities, and multimodal transit centers developed by the Commission. The most immediate projects are the proposed stations along the Perris Valley Line extension as well as consideration for a multimodal park and ride facility at the La Sierra station and other locations to be determined based on demand. The goal of this effort is to provide the best approach to build, maintain, and operate cost effective and environmentally sustainable facilities that meet the public's transportation needs. Staff will seek Commission approval of the manual during FY 2009/10. • 149 2010 Chart 36 — Metrolink Average Daily Ridership 14000 12000 10000 0000 6000 4000 2000 0 2006 2007 2008 ElRiverside/L.A ®IEOC 091 Line 2009 Chart 37 — Riverside County Metrolink Station Locations Riverside County Metrolink Stations UP WIN uNE '+• BNSF MAN/ UNE Department Goals —Rail Operations Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving Riverside County. Objectives: • Support improved Metrolink system safety initiatives. • Meet or exceed PIP goals through increased peak period patronage on the Riverside Line, IEOC Line, and 91 Line. • Maintain weekend, midday, and reverse -peak patronage in FY 2009/10. • Reduce the public subsidy per passenger mile traveled on lines currently serving the County through economies of scale, efficient use of train sets and crew hours, and increased passenger fares. Maximize opportunities for public use of rail -related investment. 150 Objectives: • Support transit operator efforts to expand availability and use of connecting transit in order to improve access and reduce demand on parking capacity. • Evaluate opportunities with the Commuter Assistance Program's park and ride operations for the designation of specific car/vanpool parking at commuter rail stations with available capacity. • Expand opportunities for interline travel through coordination of schedules with Amtrak intercity and long distance trains and other Metrolink lines, including encouraging joint ticketing options. Generate revenue to offset maintenance costs of rail properties. Objective: • Implement the concept of "green power" at the Metrolink stations by changing landscape materials to reduce water consumption. Department Budget Overview --Rail Development In order to expand passenger rail options throughout the County, the Commission conducts feasibility studies to assess the viability of commuter rail expansion. In 2005, the Commission completed the Commuter Rail Feasibility Study that examined the viability of extending Metrolink commuter rail service largely within existing rail rights of way. The Commission approved the study and recommended advanced study of extensions on the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) to Hemet/San Jacinto and Murrieta/Temecula. The next phase of Alternative Analyses for these corridors will be pursued in future years as funding availability allows. San Jacinto Branch Line The Commission holds title to and manages the 38-mile SJBL and several adjacent properties, preserved for future passenger rail service. BNSF holds the freight rights in the corridor, providing service to local shippers, and performs maintenance on the line. Perris Valley Line Small Starts Project In June 2000, the Commission allocated $20 million of Measure A funds for capital and operating expenditures related to the implementation of passenger rail service on the initial operating segment of the SJBL, known as the Perris Valley Line. Project cost estimates total $169 million; however, such estimates are being reviewed and may be revised. Staff is seeking a project construction grant agreement from the FTA Small Starts Program to fund $75 million of the project cost with the balance to be funded by other federal, state, and local funding sources, as illustrated in Chart 38 and Table 75. The FFY 2008/09 appropriations bill included $45 million of the $75 million funding. • • • 151 • • • Details on this capital project are included in the Capital Project Development and Delivery section. Chart 38 — Perris Valley Line Funding Chart Table 76 — Perris Valley Line Funding Plan Federal STP FTA 5307 FTA 5309 Small Starts FTA 5309 Rail Modernization CMAQ State Total $ 500,000 18,613,600 75,000,000 3,515,700 2,907,000 State: STIP 30,000,000 Local: Measure A 20,000,000 Rail Property Sale Proceeds 15,275,700 March Joint Powers Authority Right of Way Donation 2,950,000. Total Perris Valley Line Project Estimate $ 168,862,000 The project has received FTA approval to begin project development. The National Environmental Policy Act draft environmental assessment was circulated for public review in 2004, and a new Supplemental Environmental Assessment will be released in fall 2009. A new CEQA document will be circulated for review and is expected to be finalized in the fall 2010. The FY 2009/10 budget in the Capital Project Development and Delivery section includes total expenditures of $34.8 million for the Perris Valley Line and other related projects. The public outreach program for this project continues to be a priority with ongoing efforts to reach all the communities including residents, businesses, and schools along the corridor. 152 Chart 39 — Perris Valley Line Map Passenger Rail to Coachella Valley In recent years the Commission has also focused attention on the creation of intercity passenger rail service between the Coachella Valley, Riverside, and the Los Angeles basin through advocacy efforts with state, federal, and local government entities and negotiation with the freight railroads. The Commission's current efforts include seeking capital and operating funds and coordinating with Amtrak and Caltrans. High Speed Rail The Commission continues to play a proactive role in the development of a statewide, high-speed passenger rail system, including routing of the backbone corridor through the Inland Empire with possible stations in the Riverside/Corona and Murrieta/ Temecula areas. With the passage of Proposition 1A in November 2008, there is now a proposed funding mechanism to move the state high speed rail project forward. The CHSRA has begun work on a project level environmental assessment and corridor alignment study for the section between Los Angeles and San Diego via the Inland Empire. The Commission has directed the review to include an alignment alternative along 1-15 for analysis. The Commission has entered into an MOU to be supportive in the development of this high speed rail project, and there are ongoing project and technical working group meetings. Key Assumption • Project development on the Perris Valley Line will continue in FY 2009/10. • 153 • • • Accomplishments • Having received a medium -high rating from the FTA on the Perris Valley Line in December 2007, continued project development activities including progress on environmental documents and the related public reviews. • Obtained $45 million in funding for the Perris Valley Line project in the FFY 2008/09 budget. • Completed conceptual plans and began preliminary engineering to provide for additional layover track capacity at the Riverside Downtown station. • Initiated the Green Metrolink Station Rehabilitation Plan to improve the existing Commission -owned stations. Major Initiatives During FY 2009/10, the Commission will complete construction of Phase 1 of the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility and initiate engineering and design of a Riverside Downtown layover facility. Additionally, as discussed above, project development and right of way acquisition related to the FTA Small Starts Perris Valley Line project is expected to continue. Department Goals —Rail Development Identify and plan for capital improvements necessary to increase the scope, appeal, and reliability of commuter rail operations. Objectives: • Continue work to fully fund the Perris Valley Line (Riverside to Perris via Moreno Valley) on the SJBL. • Finalize the station design elements for the Perris Valley Line. • Continue development of the Riverside Downtown station layover facility expansion. Maintain efforts with local agencies, other Southern California counties, and the state and federal governments to expand intercity passenger rail service into Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. Continue to support and influence state efforts in the creation of a high-speed passenger rail system along an Inland Empire alignment through coordination with state and local agencies. 154 Rail Performance/Workload Indicators FY 07/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09/10 Projected Average daily ridership on existing commuter lines • Riverside Line 5,188 5,179 5,280 • 1E0C Line 4,871 4,633 4,788 • 91 Line 2,268 2,300 2,391 Farebox recovery ratio • Riverside Line • 57.24% 56.93% 59.16% • IEOC Line 41.26% 34.33% 37.38% • 91 Line 50.85% 50.76% 54.30% Rail PIP targets: o Passenger trips 3,152,379 3,143,274 3,153,135 o Farebox recovery ratio 49.04% 45.49% 48.22% o Subsidy per passenger mile $0.17 $0.21 $0.19 o Passenger miles per revenue car mile 36.74 35.97 38.76 • 155 • Right of Way Management Mission Statement: "To support project development and delivery through the acquisition and management of required right of way in the most economical, efficient, and timely manner." Chart 40 - Right of Way Management Support 39% Expenditures Projects and OperationsPersonnei 1°% 8`Yo Professional 52% Right of Way expenditures are budgeted at $1,378,900 to provide for the costs of personnel performing right of way and property management functions, legal and other consultant fees, and support expenditures. FY 2009/10 salaries and benefits reflect the early retirement of the property administrator. Support expenditures of $532,800 consist primarily of weed abatement at $455,000 and services needed to maintain the Commission's real properties in a condition that complies with all local codes and regulations governing property maintenance. Projects and operations reflects the elimination of project management services that are no longer required. In addition to the expenditures described in this section, Right of Way Management oversees and manages the work of right of way consultants that provide acquisition, negotiation, relocation, appraisal, appraisal review, survey and right of way engineering, environmental assessment, and title services. Expenditures for these right of way support services of $2,630,800 are included in the Capital Project Development and Delivery section. 156 Table 77 — Right of Way Expenditure Detail FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Bens its $ 140,800 $ 155,000 $ 175,400 $ 111,800 $ (43,200) -27.9% Professional Costs Legal Services 60,300 85.000 84,000 100,000 15,000 17.6% Professional Services -Other 148.500 607.000 233.800 600.000 (7.000) -1.2% Total Professional Costs 208,800 692,000 317,800 700,000 8,000 1.2% Support Costs 134,400 285,000 315,200 532,800 247,800 86.9% Projects and Operations Projects - General 50,000 (50,000)-100.0% Engineering 2,800 10,000 (10,000)-100.0% ROW Support Services 65,100 20,000 8,400 20,000 0,0% Total Projects and Operations 67.900 80,000 8,400 20.000 (60.000) -75.0% Transfer Out 14,300 14.300 #DN! i TOTAL Right of Way Management $ 551 90Q $ 1 212.000 $ 816.80Q $ 1.378 90Q $ 166 90Q an Right of Way Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview —Right of Way Acquisition and Support Services Department Description The Commission is responsible for the delivery of highway and rail projects included in the 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A TIPs. Right of way acquisition is on the critical path in the delivery of Commission projects. The Commission authorized the development of a Right of Way Acquisition Program in 2006. To implement the Commission's directive, staff procured the services of on - call right of way consultant services in the fields of title and escrow, right of way engineering and surveying, environmental assessment, appraisal and appraisal review, acquisition and relocation, feasibility studies and cost estimates, property • • 157 • management, and utilities relocation. These consultants are managed and supervised by the Right of Way Management Department. The primary goal of the Right of. Way Management Department is to deliver right of way in the most cost effective manner and within project schedules, while adhering to federal and state regulations. Commission staff required to supervise and manage right of way services and related support for individual projects are included in the Capital Project Development and Delivery Department budget. Key Assumptions • File close outs and transfers of right of way acquisition files to Caltrans related to the SR-74 widening project (Segment 2) and the SR-60 HOV lanes/1-215 to Redlands Boulevard will continue. • Right of way acquisition will be completed for the SR-91 HOV lanes, SR-60 East Junction to 1-215 HOV lanes, the Perris Valley Line, and SR-74/G Street to 1-215 interchange projects. • Right of way acquisition on the SR-74 curve realignment project will commence. • Work to implement the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan will continue. • Advanced acquisition of right of way will commence on the SR-91 corridor improvements project. • Development of the SR-79 realignment and Mid County Parkway projects will continue. Accomplishments • Completed the advanced acquisition of the Arantine Hills parcel for the Mid County Parkway. • Commenced right of way acquisition for the SR-91 HOV lanes project. Acquisition of right of way is on schedule and on budget. • Completed acquisition of right of way for the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility project. • Commenced right of way acquisition for the I-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV lanes connector project and the SR-74/G Street to 1-215 interchange project. • Completed the review of over 700 BNSF licenses and agreements to determine encroachments, utility conflicts with the Perris Valley Line project, and consideration of termination or increases in license fees. • Completed closeout of the SR-60 HOV lanes/I-215 to Redlands Boulevard project and transferred ownership of right of way to Caltrans. • Completed closeout of SR-74 widening project (Segment 1) and transferred ownership of right of way to Caltrans. 158 Major Initiatives In support of the Commission's 10-Year Western County Delivery Plan, the Right of Way Management Department developed and maintains an in-house right of way acquisition and management program. Right of way acquisition has been completed for the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility project and is currently underway on several other projects. There are approximately 81 parcels to be acquired for the SR-91 HOV lanes from Adams Street to the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 project. In addition, ten businesses will be relocated and, potentially, one residential owner may have to be moved, either temporarily or permanently. Major utility relocations and railroad property acquisitions are required for this project as well. Right of way certification for this project is scheduled in August 2010. The I-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV lanes connector project will require the acquisition of a commercial property from the County, a partial acquisition from a used car dealership, the relocation of an outdoor advertising sign, and the acquisition of a multi -family residential. property with a 15-unit apartment structure. Utility relocation and railroad agreements are requiredvfor this project. Right of way certification for this project is scheduled in July 2009. The SR-74/G Street to 1-215 interchange project will require a full -take acquisition and 25 partial -take acquisitions. Utility relocation is likewise required. Right of way certification is scheduled in October 2009. The SR-74 curve realignment project will require 14 partial -take acquisitions as well as utility relocation. The Perris Valley Line project will require the full -take acquisition of eight station parcels. Advanced acquisition of the Palmyrita station parcel is underway. Advanced right of way acquisition for the SR-91 corridor improvement project will commence upon award and execution of the Project and Construction Management Services contract, which is scheduled in August 2009. Right of Way Management staff will continue to work with Capital Project Development and Delivery staff by providing right of way cost estimates and recommendations to reduce property impacts of proposed alignments. Right of Way Management staff will help identify properties that may be eligible for advanced acquisition. Department Goals— Right of Way Acquisition and Support Services Advance right of way acquisition activities in support of the SR-79 realignment and Mid County Parkway projects. Objectives: 159 • • • Ensure compliance with federal and state regulations for advance right of way acquisition activities. • Protect and maintain properties acquired for future projects. Deliver right of way for the I-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV lanes connector, SR- 74/G Street to 1-215 interchange, and SR-91 HOV lanes projects. Objectives: • Ensure compliance with federal and state regulations. • Meet established budget and schedule. • Ensure fair and consistent treatment of property owners and the public. • Ensure displaced individuals and businesses receive their full relocation entitlements. • Work cooperatively with CaMans District 8 staff. Commence right of way acquisition for the Perris Valley Line project Objectives: • Work cooperatively with FTA staff. • Ensure compliance with federal and state regulations. • Ensure fair and consistent treatment of property owners and the public. • Meet established budget and schedule. Commence advanced right of way acquisition for the SR-91 corridor improvement project • Ensure compliance with federal and state regulations governing advanced acquisition. • Provide cost estimates and other right of way support services through the environmental phase of the project. Provide right of way support to all Commission projects. Objectives: • Provide right of way planning, cost estimate, schedule, right of way engineering, title search, environmental assessment, and utilities relocation support for all projects. • Provide right of way acquisition and property management support for all projects. Department Budget Overview —Property Management Department Description In the process of acquiring real property for both rail and highway transportation purposes, the Commission strives to manage its real property with the objective of 160 maximizing existing and future public transportation benefits, safety, and income by means of professional property management policies and procedures. This includes issuing licenses and rights of entry for authorized third -party uses, as well as investigating and resolving issues regarding uses that are not authorized by the Commission. On certain occasions, the Commission may also grant easements. General maintenance activities and security measures are also part of the property management scope of work on all Commission -owned properties. The demolition and clearance of structures and other improvements on acquired property, excluding commuter rail stations, is included in the property management function. Additionally, the Commission must manage real property acquired for a project until it is required for construction. Since 1990, the Commission has acquired property assets in the course of rail and highway project implementation. To date, the rail properties number over 225 parcels. The Commission acquired approximately 500 parcels for the SR-74 widening project. In addition approximately 40 properties have been acquired for the Mid County Parkway, SR-79 realignment, Perris Valley Line, and the SR-60 HOV lanes/I-215 to Redlands Boulevard projects. These properties were acquired in fee, and some will be transferred primarily to Caltrans upon completion of the projects. Upon project completion, all remaining properties within every project are reassessed and deemed surplus when it has been determined that the continued retention of the property no longer supports the Commission's policy goals and objectives. Key Assumptions • Approximately ten properties will be acquired for various highway projects that contain structures requiring demolition and relocation of tenants. This number will substantially increase with the commencement of advance right of way acquisitions for the SR-91 corridor improvement project. • Approximately 40 applications for licenses and rights of entry will be received for processing. • Development of the property inventory database will continue, with significant enhancements to include document images, photographs, and geographic information. • Technological features of the RCTC Global Application (RGA), a project management database, will be enhanced to provide additional support to engineering, legal counsel, public outreach, and traditional property management functions. Accomplishments • Completed the demolition and clearance of structures at the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility and a structure for the SR-91 HOV lanes project. • 161 • • • • Continued to maintain properties and update files of property acquired by the Commission for rail and highway projects. • Resolved property -related issues related to the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility. • Completed the review of processes and procedures related to the issuance of licenses and rights of entry. • Supported the Perris Valley Line preliminary engineering efforts by providing geographic information systems data to locate utilities and plan their relocation. • Initiated the process to provide legal counsel and engineering consultants on-line access to the RGA. • Supported public outreach activities by providing graphics from the RGA to Commission presenters to facilitate public understanding of project issues. Major Initiatives Opportunities to improve operating efficiency and effectiveness in the processing of license and right of entry applications, updating of insurance documents, and general monitoring of the physical conditions at property sites have been identified. Projects identified in the Right of Way Acquisition and Support sections above involving demolition, clearance, property maintenance, rent collection, and other associated activities will be supported accordingly in a cost-effective and timely manner. Additional resources will be required to adequately ensure security and safety of large properties involved in recent and foreseeable advanced acquisitions. Department Goals —Property Management Maintain order, security, and safety at the Commission's non -operating properties. Objectives: • Increase the pool of property maintenance contractors to meet the requirements of an expanded area of responsibility. • Improve the system of regular inspection to identify issues in a timely manner and to maintain a proactive mode of maintenance. • Maintain good relations with local regulatory agencies to ensure cooperation in resolving property maintenance issues. Enhance revenue to offset maintenance costs of rail and highway properties. Objectives: • Surplus excess Commission -owned property. • Ensure that license valuation and assessments reflect current market conditions on existing and future licensees. • Develop an automated monitoring system to initiate review of rental rates as scheduled according to agreement provisions. 162 Provide support for property acquisitions and conveyance of capital project rights of way. Objectives: • Provide property management services for properties acquired with tenants prior to their relocation. • Demolish and clear properties with structures that need removal for capital projects. • Maintain order, security, and safety of properties after clearance by installing adequate infrastructures and coordinating with law enforcement whenever necessary until construction begins. Upgrade the process of receiving and processing applications for temporary use of Commission properties. Objectives: • Conduct a review of existing application forms and templates to update them to current conditions and technologies and to enhance risk management. • Review processing procedures to ensure critical steps are adequately addressed and timeframes minimized. • Establish, in coordination with Procurement and Asset Management staff, a comprehensive approach to maintain updated insurance coverage on all active agreements involving licenses, rights of entry, and easements over Commission properties. Right of Way Management Performance/Workload Indicators FY 07/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09/10 Projected License agreements 31 40 40 Appraisals completed 43 150 80 Appraisal reviews completed 43 150 80 Right of Way on -call consultants: Title and escrow services 3 3 3 Survey and right of way engineering 3 3 3 Appraisers 5 5 5 Appraisal reviewers 3 3 5 Acquisition/relocation 3 3 3 Environmental assessment 5 5 5 Furniture, fixture, and equipment appraisers 2 2 2 Goodwill appraisers 2 2 2 Property management 3 3 3 • • • 163 • • • Public and Specialized Transit Mission Statement: "To coordinate the operation of all public transportation services within the County with a goal toward promoting compliance as well as program efficiency and effectiveness between transit operators and improving mobility. To maintain and enhance, as resources allow, mobility options for seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons of limited means through innovative solutions and community interaction." Chart 42 — Public and Specialized Transit Personnel 0% Expenditures Professional 0% Support 0% Projects and Operations 100°% Public and specialized transit expenditures are budgeted at $90,927,200 forFY 2009/10 and consist primarily of projects and operations costs; however, professional cost increases are related to state triennial audit services and legal services related to new funding agreements. Projects and operations costs have decreased 17.9% because of declining LTF sales tax revenues and the State's suspension of STA funding. LTF disbursements consist of transit operating and capital allocations of $69,030,000, bicycle and pedestrian facilities allocations of $1,200,000, and planning and administration allocations of $2,670,500. The LTF transit allocations reflect the use of $13,272,600 in fund balances. STA disbursements are primarily for bus and rail capital purposes in Western County, as minimal fund balances, if any, for the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley areas are projected to be available in FY 2009/10. Measure A disbursements include $4,120,000 for Western County specialized transit funding of the first year of the two-year call for projects from 1989 Measure A. The majority of Measure A disbursements relate to 2009 Measure A public transit programs: $564,300 for Western County CTSA allocations, $4,260,000 for Coachella Valley public and specialized transit, and $1,354,000 for Western County intercity bus services. The Coachella Valley allocation is disbursed monthly to SunLine, the major transit provider in the Coachella Valley, and reflects a change in funding from 10% in the 1989 Measure A to 15% in the 2009 Measure A. 164 Table 79 - Public and Specialized Transit Expenditure Detail FY 07/08 FY 08109 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 265,700 $ 365,200 $ 257,800 $ 374,500 $ 9,300 2.5°% Professional Costs Legal Services 3,600 17,500 16,500 35,000 17,500 100.0°% Audit Services 5,400 10,000 6,000 70,000 60,000 600.0°% Professional Services -Other 107,900 257 400 150,000 237.80Q (19.6001 -7.6°% Total Professional Costs 116,900 284,900 172,500 342,800 57,900 20.3°% Support Costs 12,600 22,800 11,600 29,100 6,300 27.6% Projects and Operations LTF Disbursements 81,311,600 79,381,000 65,244,800 72,900,500 (6,480,500) -8.2°% STA Disbursements 1,200,400 22,928,000 13,775,600 6,962,000 (15,966,000) -69.6% Measure A Disbursements 5,537,700 7,470,400 4,651,800 10,298,300 2,827,900 37.9°% Special Studies 39,300 40,000 50,000 20,000 (20,000) 50.0°% Total Projects and Operations 88,089 000 109,819 400 83 722,200 90,180,800 (19,638,600) -17.9% TOTAL Transit $ 88.484 700 $ 110 492,300 $ 84 164 tQQ 6 90 927.20Q $ (19 565.1001 Public and Specialized Transit Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview Department Description The Measure A specialized transit program provides a valuable service to the community by serving the needs of commuters, such as seniors and persons with disabilities, whose transportation needs are not met by traditional services. Specialized transit operations are typically managed by social service and nonprofit agencies. The Commission also allocates funding, following a competitive call for projects, through the FTA Section 5310 program that is administered by Caltrans. This program provides funding to nonprofit transportation and social service agencies and public operators under special circumstances for the purchase of capital equipment. • 165 • • • With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, the following are two relatively new federal funding sources for specialized transit services: • Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) (Section 5316) program provides funding for the development and maintenance of jobs access projects to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from work during non -peak hours as well as supply reverse commute options for workers in suburban areas. • New Freedom (Section 5317) program provides funding for new public transportation services and alternatives for people with disabilities beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. In accordance with the provisions of SAFETEA-LU, recipients under these programs must comply with all federal coordinated planning requirements to be eligible for funds, and projects selected for funding under these programs must be originate from a locally derived Coordinated Plan. Moreover, the Coordinated Plan must be developed through a process that includes representatives of the public, private, nonprofit transportation and human service providers. Development of the Coordinated Plan was completed in April 2008, and the first Universal Call for Projects was issued shortly thereafter. The related evaluation process and approval of Measure A and JARC/New Freedom grant awards were completed in September and October 2008 for the Coachella Valley and Western County applicants, respectively. Projects are set to begin the provision of service on July 1, 2009. The Commission is responsible for short-range transportation planning and programming. Planning includes the development of the countywide SRTPs for eight public transit operators consisting of the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside; SCRRA's Metrolink cornmuter rail; Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency; RTA; and SunLine. The Commission assists in coordinating the development, review, and approval of the annual countywide SRTPs and allocates Measure A, LTF, STA, and FTA Section 5307, 5309, 5311, 5316, and 5317 transit funding resources to public transit programs. The Commission is responsible for the disbursement of Measure A, LTF, and STA funds, while federal transit funds are administered by the FTA. In partnership with the County's transit operators, the Commission coordinates the allocation of available Proposition 1 B transit funding and ensures proposed projects meet the mobility needs of the County. Proposition 1 B funds are annually appropriated by the legislature and used for transit related capital purchases or infrastructure/facility improvements. The Riverside County operators applied for Proposition 1B funds; however, due to the state's ongoing financial crisis and inability to issue bonds, the release of funds is currently on hold. The Commission has public transit operator oversight and fiduciary responsibilities to ensure that annual fiscal audits and a state triennial performance audit are conducted. The Commission is also charged with annually reviewing public transit operator activities and recommending potential productivity improvements to lower operating costs. The Commission also conducts the annual unmet transit needs hearing in the Palo Verde Valley. Additionally, in order to ensure that specialized transit allocations are 166 expended and required service goals are met in accordance with funding agreements, the Commission engages an audit firm to perform certain agreed -upon procedures for the specialized transit funding recipients. Key Assumptions • Specific funding allocations for specialized transit for FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11 will be based on the results of the two-year Universal Call for Projects released in April 2008 and completed in October 2008. • LTF, STA, and Measure A disbursements are based on projected budgetary allocations but may be adjusted after the Commission has approved actual allocations in July 2009. • Declining LTF revenues will require streamlining operating expenses by all operators while maintaining efficiency and quality of service. • Transit Vision, adopted by the Commission in June 2008, established a 25% allocation of Measure A Western County Specialized Transit funds to the RTA as the CTSA for Western County. Accomplishments • Completed the application evaluation, funding award, and contract agreement execution processes for successful recipients of Measure A, JARC, and New Freedom funding under the Universal Call for Projects. • Secured Commission authorization to provide interim funding of $1.7 million for one year to 13 Measure A Western County Specialized Transit recipients to continue Measure A funding at the FY 2007/08 level. The extended term allowed uninterrupted service for FY 2008/09, while funding awards and agreements related to the Universal Call of Projects were prepared in accordance with federal grant requirements. • Completed the local review and project ranking process for the FY 2007/08 FTA Section 5310 applications submitted to Caltrans for the statewide application. Projects are derived from a locally developed Coordinated Plan. • Incorporated FY 2007/08 Proposition 1B Public Transportation, Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds with transit capital funding sources following Caitrans' release of program funding and guidelines. • Approved allocation of Proposition 1 B California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) for eligible transit safety and security projects identified by transit operators following release of program funding and guidelines by the Governor's Office of Homeland Security. • Adopted the Transit Vision and related funding formulas for the TDA and Measure A funds for 2009-2019. • Identified the development of a mobility management program through the transit visioning process. • • 167 • • Major Initiatives For 20 years, the Commission has long demonstrated a strong commitment to assist in the mobility of those with specialized transit needs. Through its 1989 Measure A Specialized Transit Program, the Commission has provided millions of dollars to public and nonprofit transit operators for the provision of special transit services to improve the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. Along with support of traditional dial -a - ride services, the Commission supports innovative programs that provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs. The riders, many frail and elderly, have come to depend on these services that provide a higher level of assistance than can be provided by the public transit providers and/or operate in areas not served by public transit. As a result of the 2009 Measure A, these specialized transit programs will continue through 2039. In July 2009, 17 programs in Western County and 5 programs in Coachella Valley will commence specialized transit services under the Universal Call of Projects, including the non -emergency medical transportation component. Nine of these projects will be fully funded with Measure A funds, while the other 13 projects will be funded by a mix of Measure A, JARC, and New Freedom funds. As identified in the Coordinated Plan, the specialized transit projects approved for funding will require implementation and yearlong performance monitoring. In order to assure the availability of funds to support matching of FTA Section 5310 capital grants, $150,000 on an annual basis is budgeted for Western County applicants to meet the 11.47% local matching requirements for such grants. As a result of declining LTF and Measure A revenues, staff will be conducting long- range planning activities to ensure that anticipated revenues are in line with projected levels of service by the various public transit operators. Department Goals Provide timely information to the public regarding Commission -implemented projects and support public relations activities of Measure A, JARC, and New Freedom funded programs by grant recipients. Objective: • Produce and distribute public information materials as needed including press releases, flyers, brochures, marketing materials, and newspaper ads. Allocate Measure A Specialized Transit and federal funds to support services that will maintain and/or enhance mobility by alleviating transportation barriers for seniors, persons with disabilities, and the truly needy. Objectives: • Monitor performance of specialized transit grant recipients through analysis of their quarterly performance reports. 168 • Continue discussions with the Office on Aging and United Way to encourage funding of transportation projects through these agencies. Assistance to screen eligible transportation programs and monitoring the cost effectiveness of these proposals will continue to be offered to both agencies. • Support the FTA Section 5310, 5316 and 5317 grant processes to improve mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities and individuals of limited means by working with Caltrans, public operators, and social service agencies to ensure a competitive process statewide for the allocation of federal transportation dollars for social service programs. • Provide technical assistance and program support to agencies offering specialized transit programs to ensure the maximum benefit of funding for improved mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and individuals of limited means. Coordinate the operation of all public transportation services within the County with a goal toward promoting program efficiency and harmony between transit operators as outlined in state law. Objectives: • Review transit planning, resource allocation, and service implementation policy requirements including appropriate coordination of commuter rail, intercounty and intercity bus, local bus and paratransit, and social service transportation services to ensure convenient service for passengers. • Assure the ongoing effectiveness of the SRTP process and work with the County's eight transit operators to assure efficiency and effectiveness as well as compliance with the PIP. • Coordinate regional transit connections among commuter rail, buses, and paratransit services to ensure convenient service for passengers. • Monitor transit operators' quarterly capital grants reports. • Monitor transit operators' performance through analysis of their quarterly performance reports using the TransTrack computer -based tracking program. Continue to provide staff resources to assist and support the coordination of transit services within the County and throughout the State. Objectives: • Implement mobility management countywide. • Participate and influence intercounty discussions between Riverside, Orange, and San Diego regarding the enhancement of intermodal options. This includes additional transit services (rail and express bus) and rideshare services. • Regularly participate in meetings that focus on the coordination of transit services, such as the California Association for Coordinated Transportation, SunLine's Access Committee, RTA's ADA Committee, the Riverside County Foundation on Aging Board of Directors, the Older Californian Traffic Safety Task Force, and the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council. • • 169 • Continue the development of a marketing and distribution network for communicating specialized transit mobility options to seniors, the disabled, and persons of limited means. Specialized Transit Performance/ Workload Indicators FY 07/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09/10 Projected SRTPs submitted by operators and reviewed 7 9 8 Number of SRTP amendments 8 7 8 Number of Specialized Transit grants awarded 14 13 22 Number of one-way trips provided by Measure A funded projects 86,995 83,060 188,531 Number of one-way trips provided by JARC & New Freedom funded operators - - 95,711 Number of one-way trips reimbursed through the Westem County Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project 76,473 82,444 85,000 Number of transit tickets provided through the Transportation Access Program & Beaumont Adult School Transit Program 91,599 95,350 97,168 Number of clients served through Blindness Support Services 21 30 50 170 • • • Commuter Assistance Mission Statement: "To encourage and promote transportation alternatives for commuters through information delivery, technological innovation, education, and community outreach." Chart 43 — Commuter Assistance Capital Outlay Personnel 0% 3% Projects and Operations 65% Expenditures Professional f 24% Support 8% Commuter Assistance expenditures and transfers out total $7,066,200, which represents a 6.0% decrease from last year's budget. Professional costs of $1,483,500 have increased 217.3% over the prior year due to the implementation of an Inland Empire 511 system and the MSRC bikemetro.com project. Support costs totaling $524,300, which are comparable to the prior year, include mail and printing services, computer and vehicle maintenance, communications, and other office expenditures. Projects and operations expenditures of $3,997,200 consist of $1,100,000 for the development of a transit -oriented park and ride facility in Lake Elsinore; park and ride lease payments of $120,000; and regional transportation consultant services totaling $2,132,200 to manage and implement the program and merchant vouchers valued at $645,000. Unexpended 1989 Measure A commuter assistance funds of $2,421,100 will primarily fund the implementation of an Inland Empire 511 system and the new park and ride facility. These funds will also provide transfers of $378,900 to rail capital for a park and ride facility at the La Sierra Metrolink station and $450,000 for July and August 2009 commuter assistance operations, since 2009 Measure A receipts commence in September 2009. 171 Table 80 — Commuter Assistance Expenditure Detail FY 07108 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 195,900 $ 255,500 $ 162,800 $ 215,300 $ (40,200) -15.7% Professional Costs Legal Services 26,800 20,000 28,000 30,000 10,000 50.0% Professional Services -Other 271,400 447 500 445.400 1.453.500 1.006.000 224.8% Total Professional Costs 298,200 467,500 473,400 1,483,500 1,016,000 217.3% Support Costs 432,400 512,300 543,100 524,300 12.000 2.3% Projects and Operations Construction 230,000 2,300,000 2,300,000 1,100,000 (1,200,000) -52.2% Park and Ride 47,500 190,003 150,000 120,000 (70,000) -36.8% Regional Transportation 2.173.800 2.722.200 2.639.300 2.777.200 55.000 Total Projects and Operations 2,451,300 5,212,200 5,089,300 3,997,200 (1,215,000) -23.3% Capital Outlay 76,100 40,000 2,600 17,000 (23,000) -57.5% Transfer Out 1 027.800 1 192 900 828 900 (198 9001-19.4°,6 TOTAL Commuter Assistance $ 4.53.900 $ 7 515 301 ; 7.484 100 $ 7 066 90Q $ (449 1001 -8.051 Commuter Assistance Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview Department Description While much of the Commission's work is focused on increasing transportation infrastructure and capacity, there is significant value in ensuring that the transportation systems are used efficiently. To help foster more efficient use of these systems, the Commission's Commuter Assistance Program seeks to encourage Riverside County constituents/commuters to make a mode -shift decision away from single occupancy vehicle commuting and into alternative modes of transportation such as a carpool, vanpool, buspool, public bus, Metrolink, walking, bicycling, or telecommuting. 172 • • • The Commuter Assistance Program seeks to influence driver behavior by fostering a mode -shifting decision at both the employer and commuter levels via the following methods: • The provision of employer services to foster the implementation of employer - based mode -shift and rideshare programs; • The use of incentives both for beginning and then maintaining a mode- shift/rideshare arrangement; and • Public information services including the dissemination of personalized commute options and traveler information through technology in order to educate commuters of all travel options available to them and to foster congestion avoidance behavior when traveling. The Commission's Commuter Assistance Program was implemented as a specific requirement under Measure A to address congestion mitigation. While ridesharing has a beneficial impact on air quality, first and foremost, it is a strategy to ease traffic congestion through increased use of alternative travel modes of transportation. Key Assumptions • The Commission will continue to contract with a consulting firm to administer the Commuter Assistance Program • Maintaining its long-term partnership with the Commission, SANBAG will contract with the Commission to manage and implement a "sister" Commuter Assistance Program for its residents and employers in San Bernardino County. • In partnership with SANBAG, the Commission will develop, maintain, and operate an Inland Empire 511 system in accordance with national 511 implementation standards. • At the regional level, four county transportation commissions (Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Ventura) will contract with the Commission for the provision of regional ridematching database and network operations. Accomplishments • Placed the contract for the implementation of the Commuter Assistance program out to bid via a request for proposal process to ensure transparency on both performance and cost effectiveness with respect to the funding of the Commuter Assistance Program. The new contract is effective at the beginning of FY 2009/10. • Funded the installation of approximately 75 radar detection stations on the 1-15 and I- 215 corridors (covering 63 miles of freeway) to the San Diego County line. These detection stations are intended to support an increased traveler information service area for Western County including information contained on the live traffic maps published on www.CommuteSmart.info, 511, and private sector providers. This effort will also result in the provision of live travel times into and out of the Temecula Valley on Caltrans District 8 changeable message signs. This project was substantially completed in May 2009. • Developed and launched a report card program for both program participants and 173 employer partners which translates individual or worksite rideshare participation into money saved, congestion reduced, and emissions reduced. This outreach is intended to recognize rideshare efforts and to motivate participants to continue ridesharing and/or grow employer program participation. • Secured JARC funds to extend the availability of rideshare services to employers in the Coachella Valley for an additional two years. The Air Quality Enhancement grant funding the project sunsets at the end of FY 2008/09. • Continued to operate, maintain, and enhance the regional ridematching database and the regional rideshare website, www.CommuteSmart.info, on behalf of the five -county region. • Continued work on the enhancement of and integration of the dormant MSRC Bike Metro website. • Continued development of on-line services and tools for employer partners and end user commuters • Continued use of the Program Measurement Tool to evaluate program performance. • Renewed leases for park and ride facilities with the following locations: Canyon Community Church of the Nazarene (Corona), Elsinore Naval Military School (Lake Elsinore), La Sierra University (Riverside), Living Truth Christian Fellowship (Corona), Revival Christian Fellowship (Menifee), Hope Lutheran Church (Temecula), and the United Methodist Church (Temecula). • Worked in partnership with the Rail Department to develop a section of park and ride spaces in the city of Riverside at the La Sierra Metrolink station. • Secured new park and ride lease arrangements with the following locations: Mountain View Community Church (Temecula), Orchard Christian Fellowship (Temecula), West Community Friends Church (Corona), and San Jacinto Assembly of God (San Jacinto). • Established, in concept, a long-term arrangement with the Storm Baseball stadium for a park and ride facility in the city of Lake Elsinore to support carivanpools and a popular RTA CommuterLink service to the North Main Corona Metrolink station. Major Initiatives A cornerstone of the Commuter Assistance Program is its continued partnership among commuters, employers, and government. The partnership, based on voluntary efforts, makes a collective difference in increasing the efficiency of our transportation system — local roads, freeways, commuter rail, and public bus. The combined effort results in less congestion, decreased vehicle miles traveled, and improved air quality. The major initiatives to continue these partnerships and efforts in FY 2009/10 are described below. Grow Employer Partnerships: Given that the highest percentage of rideshare arrangements is formed at work sites, voluntary employer participation is critical to addressing congestion and air quality goals; employers are the conduit to directly influencing their employees' personal transportation choices. The ongoing success of the core Western County rideshare program and the explosive success of the two year old Coachella Valley rideshare program demonstration is a testament to the significance of employer partnerships in the program's success. However, the current economic • • 174 • • • downtum will pose challenges in terms of maintaining and/or growing these partnerships. Employer Transportation Coordinators (ETC) are having to do more with less, and many employers previously regulated to meet Rule 2202 requirements are falling below the 250+ employee threshold. Delivery of value-added services and tools to make the ETC jobs easier will be critical to their continued partnership. Enhance Program Tools and Outreach: The Commission is continuously looking for ways to improve the suite of services and outreach to both our program participants and employer partners to foster partnerships and participation. Through a grant -funded work effort, Rideguides distributed to commuters will be refreshed and reprogrammed to include personalized transit itineraries in addition to custom car/vanpool matches and park and ride information. An electronic Rideguide will also be available as part of this work effort. Finally, the continued development and launch of on-line transactions for employers and end user commuters will be a focus for FY 2009/10. Not only are these online initiatives a value -add for users, these initiatives will allow for more efficient processing and save on paper costs. Implement Inland Empire 511: 511 is an unfunded federal mandate arising out of TEA21 and SAFETEA-LU, and it requires that real-time or near real-time traffic and traveler information be provided to the public. The Commission has been highly involved in the regional decision for the implementation of 511 and the dissemination of Advanced Traveler Information services. The Commission will deliver, maintain, and operate an Inland Empire 511 system working in partnership with SANBAG. This system will include a website and call center component that serves Riverside and San Bernardino County residents and commuters with traveler information, a transit planner, access to rideshare services, and more. While the Commuter Assistance Program will fund the implementation costs of the Inland Empire 511 system, SAFE will fund the annual operating costs. Support Multimodal Travel: In addition to ridematching, information services, and incentives to facilitate ridesharing, the Commuter Assistance Program also implements park and ride facilities to support ridesharing efforts. The last Caltrans park and ride facility in Riverside County was built in 1999. The Commission leases park and ride spaces from property owners to supplement the network of park and ride spaces in Riverside County. A focus for FY 2009/10 will be to optimize the number of spaces leased and coordinate with ridesharers and transit and rail partners to identify areas where the lease program can help support car/vanpool arrangements as well as facilitate transit connections. Commuter Assistance Program funding of a parking expansion project at the La Sierra station, where there is an identified gap in park and ride service, would benefit both car/vanpoolers and popular RTA transit routes. Department Goals Operate a cost-effective Commuter Assistance Program within Riverside County that results in a demonstrable reduction in single occupant vehicle trips thus assisting with congestion mitigation and improving air quality. 175 Objectives: • Continue to offer short-term incentives for commuters to try a transportation mode other than driving alone. • Continue to provide a rewards program for long-term ridesharers to encourage their continued use of alternative modes of transportation. • Ensure the effectiveness of the Commuter Assistance Program through program analysis and recurring assessments of participation and retention of ridesharers. Through the implementation of the Program Measurement Tool, the Commission will continue to look for ways to pare program costs without impacting service delivery or participation. • Continue the mode-shift/rideshare incentive and services to the Coachella Valley. • Continue to explore, deploy, and enhance a basic suite of on-line services to employer partners to make the administration of a trip reduction program an easier task. • Deploy and enhance a basic suite of on-line services on a demonstration basis to end user commuters to achieve deeper market penetration and cover those people interested in taking alternative commute modes but who are not affiliated with an employer partner. • Optimize the number of park and ride spaces leased and address park and ride gaps in the system. Ensure the coordination of ridesharing programs throughout the Inland Empire and the southern California region. Objectives: • Continue to administer a "sister" Commuter Assistance Program in San Bernardino County on a contract basis, thus expanding the reach and effectiveness of commuter programs throughout the Inland Empire area. • Collaborate with SANBAG, to deliver, operate, and maintain an Inland Empire 511 system. • Continue to contract for the enhancement of the RideGuides through a grant funded by the MSRC. Working in partnership with Metro, this grant will enable personalized transit information to be displayed on individualized RideGuides produced for employees who have been surveyed. • Continue to provide leadership with regard to the ongoing operation, maintenance, and enhancement of both the regional ridematching database and network. • Fund and participate in regional rideshare marketing programs to enhance awareness of and encourage participation in commute modes that provide an alternative to driving alone. Enhance and pursue educational activities that encourage alternatives to driving alone and that encourage employers to assist employees in seeking commute methods other than driving alone. Objectives: • • 176 • • • • Continue and expand the operation of the new Commuter Exchange vehicle to include 70 site visits for the FY 2009/10. • Continue and enhance the dissemination of the report card program for both program participants and employer partners that translates individual or worksite rideshare participation into money saved, congestion reduced, and emissions reduced. • In partnership with the four county transportation commissions and others, utilize the regional ridesharing database and website www.ridematch.info. • Maintain, update, and enhance the Rideshare Plus members' only website, www.Rideshareplus. info. • Distribute regular broadcast information bulletins via email or fax to local employers regarding commuter issues. • Continue with the implementation of the on-line transactions program in order to increase employer participation and reach out to end user commuters. • Publicize the participation of local employers in the Commission's Commuter Assistance Program through various media options. Table 81 — Commuter Assistance Program Budget Advantage Rideshare In County Buspool Subsidies Club Ride Commuter Exchange Inland Empire Commuter Services - Riverside Regional Rideshare Marketing Special Project Development/Contingencies Park and Ride SANBAG Regional Ridematching Services General TOTAL Project Type Commuter Incentive Commuter Incentive Commuter Incentive Public Education Employer Services Marketing Program Enhancement Commuter Services Commuter Incentives and Services; Employer Services Commuter and Employer Services Measure A Other FY 2009110 Budget 368,000 100,000 210,000 197,600 568,500 17,500 456,000 $ - $ 368,000 100,000 210,000 197,600 568,500 17,500 456,000 1,498,900 1,498,900 448,100 1,880,100 $ 5,744,700 1,317,500 4,000 $ 1,321,500 1,317,500 448,100 1,884,100 $ 7,066,200 Commuter Assistance Performance/Workload Indicators FY 07/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09/10 Projected Number of one-way single occupant vehicle trips reduced as a result of Advantage Rideshare incentives 101,234 187,348 114,657 Number of Club Ride Members 5,860 5,930 5,202 Number of incoming 1-866-RIDESHARE telephone calls 3,709 2,513 2,563 Number of services provided by Inland Empire Commuter Services to support employer trip reduction efforts at worksites: • Employers requesting survey services 154 165 135 • RideGuides produced 23,121 35,000 22,950 • Technical assistance services 356 340 301 177 Number of events participated in by the Commuter Exchange in total, and as identified individually below: • Public events 13 6 8 • Employer work sites 10 6 8 • Elementary schools 48 58 55 178 • • • Motorist Assistance Mission Statement: "To improve safety, reduce congestion, and enhance access to traveler information for motorists through the provision of a comprehensive motorist aid system." Chart 44 — Motorist Assistance Personnel Professional Transfers Out 4% 11% 12% Expenditures Projects and Operations 72% Support 1% Motorist Assistance expenditures and uses are budgeted at $3,840,700 for FY 2009/10, or an increase of 14.5% compared to the prior year budget. Salaries and benefits reflect the early retirement of the former motorist assistance manager. Professional costs of $404,400 include legal services, operations of the newly implemented Inland Empire 511 system, and contracted consultants to monitor the Commission's call box program and to provide monthly operating and statistical reports for the program. Transfers out of $454,700 to the FSP represent SAFE's matching to state funding for FSP services. Budgeted expenditures for project operations include $2,238,000 in towing contract costs for the FSP program and $561,000 for SAFE operations to cover cellular access charges, knockdowns, vandalism, miscellaneous repairs and maintenance, and call answering services. Towing costs have increased 12.7% because one vehicle will be added to Beat #25 and one vehicle to Beat #26 on 1-15 between the I-15/SR-60 interchange and Temescal Canyon Road to help relieve congestion. Equipment maintenance expenditures are related to ongoing maintenance and site improvements. 179 Table 82 - Motorist Assistance Expenditure Detail FY 07/03 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits $ 89,200 $ 250,300 $ 103,100 $ 141,000 $ (109,300) -43.7% Professional Costs Legal Services 8,000 10,000 7,500 10,000 0.0% Professional Services -Other 12.600 24.500 31.000 394,400 369.900 1509.8% Total Professional Costs 20,600 34,500 38,500 404,400 369,900 1072.2% Support Costs 39,900 43,000 26,200 41,600 (1,400) -3.3% Projects and Operations Towing 2,013,700 1,986,400 1,932,500 2,238,000 251.600 12.7% Access Charges 72,200 69,800 60,000 69,800 - 0.09$ Preventive Maintenance 3,600 5,400 - (5,40D)-100.0% Corrective Maintenance 3,600 5,400 - - (5,400)-100.0% Equipment Maintenance 1,627,900 772,500 266,700 310,000 (462,500) -59.9% Knockdowns 8,000 - (8,000)-100.0% Vandalism - 400 - Operating Costs 112,600 177400 105,700 181,200 3,800 2.1% Total Projects and Operations 3,833,600 3,025,300 2,364,900 2,799,000 (226,300) -7.5% Transfers Out 490.000 454700 454,700 ODIV/01 TOTAL Motorist Assistance $ 4.473 300 b 3 353 100 $ 2 532 700 $ 3 840 700 $ 487.600 14.5% Motorist Assistance Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview Department Description As a SAFE, the Commission is responsible for providing a motorist aid system for Riverside County. The call box system allows motorists to call for assistance in the event of a mechanical breakdown or accident on the freeway. The FSP assists stranded motorists on certain segments of the freeway by towing, changing flat tires, and providing a gallon of fuel at no charge to the motorists. FSP service is also provided in construction zones through separate funding agreements with Caltrans to help mitigate congestion. Additionally commencing in FY 2009/10, in partnership with SANBAG through the Commission's SAFE program, an Inland Empire 511 system to provide motorists with traveler information will be operated and maintained. 180 • • • Key Assumptions • Current percentage levels of vandalism, knockdowns, and miscellaneous repairs to call boxes will remain consistent with the past year. • Annual maintenance costs are based on a flat -fee contract based on the number of call boxes. • Call box operating costs are based on estimates from the CHP and the call answering center contract through SANBAG. • Cellular service charges are based on the existing five-year agreement for digital cellular service. • Tow truck contractor costs for the nine existing FSP beats are based on Commission -approved contracts. • The Commission will maintain and operate an Inland Empire 511 system to be funded 50% by the Commission and 50% by SANBAG. The Commission's share of operating costs will be funded with SAFE revenues while implementation costs will be funded by the Commuter Assistance Program. Accomplishments • Completed the implementation of recommendations identified in the Riverside County SAFE 5-Year Plan. • Worked with the County of Riverside IT Department on the Federal Communications Commission Regulated Radio Narrowband conversion. • Expanded FSP service on 1-15 by working with the CHP and Caltrans to identify and justify the need for additional FSP vehicles, issued a request for proposal for the new Beat #2, and awarded a contract for service. • Along with SANBAG, conducted an informational meeting for prospective FSP tow operators to explain the program, its benefits to both the motorists and operators, and what is required of the tow operators. • Implemented a "cost recovery" program for call box knockdowns in an effort to collect reimbursement from motorists involved in accidents that damage Commission property. Major Initiatives Staff will complete the implementation of the AVL system for the tow trucks. All of the FSP vehicles and drivers will be fully equipped by early FY 2009/10. Staff will also continue to meet with County IT Department staff regarding the radio narrowband conversion. The Commission, along with its partner, SANBAG, has been committed to operate and maintain an Inland Empire 511 system beginning in FY 2009/10_ This system will include a website interface and an interactive voice recognition (IVR) telephone system that serve Riverside and San Bernardino county residents and commuters. The Inland Empire 511 system will provide real-time traffic and transit trip planning services as well 181 as access to rideshare services for the entire Southern California region extending to the Nevada, Arizona, and Mexico borders. Department Goals Maintain the integrity of the call box system and service levels. Objective: • Along with San Bernardino County SAFE, continue to monitor the operation of the call answering center contractor. Enhance access to real-time traveler information. Objective: • Create the Inland Empire 511 website and telephone systems supporting the Inland Empire 511 system. • Leverage existing resources such as traffic data provided by Caltrans District 8, existing IVR software, and Google Transit to minimize the start-up period and costs. Continue the Freeway Service Patrol as long as state funding support is available. Objectives: • Work cooperatively with the County IT Department to address radio needs of the program especially along the 1-15 corridor. • Consult with Caltrans and the CHP to evaluate existing beats and determine if changes in service hours, number of vehicles assigned to each beat, or expanded service hours are justified, should additional funding become available. • Review proposed construction projects with Caltrans and local cities and coordinate the use of temporary tow service to mitigate congestion. • Work cooperatively with Caltrans, the CHP, and other FSP program managers to gain increased funding for the program and review the funding allocation formula to attain a more equitable distribution of program funds. • Complete the implementation of the AVL system. Motorist Assistance Performance/Workload Indicators FY 07/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09/10 Projected Number of call boxes 682 682 682 Number of call box calls 7,525 7,300 7,000 Number of vehicle assists 45,530 45,000 47,500 • • 182 • SECTION 7.3 CAPITAL PROJECTS 183 • • Capital Project Development and Delivery Mission Statement: "To keep the Commission's contract with the voters of Riverside County by accelerating the planning, programming, and implementation of projects and programs in the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan, as enhanced by the Toll Program, to the extent that funds are available. To ensure that capital projects are environmentally acceptable, expertly designed, and implemented in a cost effective manner." Chart 45 — Capital Project Development and Delivery Personnel 0% Transfers Out 32% Debt Service 26 % Expenditures Professional 0% Capital Outlay 0% Support 0% Projects and Operations 42°% The budgeted expenditures and transfers out total $762,008,000 to cover all of the Commission's major capital projects. General project costs include $14,352,000 related to program management provided by Bechtel Infrastructure (Bechtel), SCRRA, and the project and construction manager and interagency support related to the SR-91 corridor improvements design -build phase as well as permits for rail capital projects. Highway capital expenditures of $143,737,000 are primarily for engineering, construction, and right of way on SR-60, SR-74, SR-79, SR-91, SR-111, 1-15, 1-215, and the proposed Mid County Parkway. Regional arterial capital expenditures amount to $43,290,000 for various Western County TUMF regional arterial projects approved for TUMF funding in 2004 as well as Coachella Valley highway and regional arterial projects. Rail capital expenditures amount to $61,692,000 for preliminary engineering, environmental, initiation of right of way acquisitions, and advance construction procurements for the FTA Small Starts Perris Valley Line and other related projects; 184 completion of construction of the North Main Corona station parking structure and the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility; preliminary engineering and right of way acquisition for the Riverside layover facility; and design and construction of the La Sierra station parking expansion. Other expenditures relate to station rehabilitation and security projects. Local turnback payments to cities and the County for local streets and roads repair, maintenance, and construction amount to $35,908,900, net of debt service payments from the cities of Blythe and Indio. Regional arterial disbursements to CVAG for the balance of the unexpended funds relating to the 1989 Measure A Coachella Valley regional arterial program are budgeted at $2,458,900. Other regional arterial expenditures of $13,124,500, net of debt service payments from CVAG, will be funded by the 2009 Measure A Coachella Valley highway and regional arterial program. Interest payments on outstanding commercial paper and the 2008 Bonds and proposed 2009 Bonds are approximately $12,610,000. Cost of issuance related to the proposed 2009 Bonds is estimated at $3,250,000. Principal payments include the retirement of the 2008 Bonds of $126,395,000 and commercial paper notes of $50,000,000 as well as a projected $6,000,000 for the 2009 Bonds. Significant transfers out include $181,750,000 in 2009 Bonds proceeds for the retirement of the 2008 bonds and a portion of the outstanding commercial paper notes as well as the establishment of a debt service reserve; $51,341,000 in commercial paper proceeds to fund 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan projects such as the SR-91 corridor improvements; and $6,790,000 for intrafund TUMF borrowings. Repayment of sales tax revenue bonds debt principal and related interest is $1,733,600 from CVAG and the cities of Blythe and Indio under advance funding agreements is also included in transfers out. The remaining transfers out are related to highway property management and administrative charges to TUMF. Other costs of $14,625,000 include salary and fringe benefits, legal fees and other professional services, support, special studies, and capital outlay. • • 185 • • • Total Projects and Operations Capital Outlay Debt Service - Transfers Out TOTAL Capital Project Development and Delivery Table 83 — Capital Project Development and Delivery Uses Detail FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 08/09 - FY 09/10 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Salaries and Benefits • S 1,470,600 S 2,698,400 S 1,733.300 S 2,456,300 $ (242.100) -8.0% Professional Costs Legal Services 884,400 1,410,000 1,452,500 3,804.500 2,394,500 169.8% Financial Advisory 88,800 1,000 - ODIV/01 Audit Services 24,100 38,000 20,000 55,000 17,000 44.7% Professional Services -Other 340,600 1.179.300 551.400 6.389.000 5209.700 441.8% Total Professional Costs 1,335,900 2,827,300 2,024,900 10,246500 7,621,200 290.1% Support Costs 86,900 2,044,800 423,500 1,052,200 (992,800) -48.5% Projects and Operations Projects-Generat 3,824,900' 8,718,300 4,057,500 14.352,000 7,633,700 113.8% Engineering. 29,099,800 71,017.600 69,758,300 58690,900 (12,428,700) -17.5% Construction 39,989,800 104,003.600 81,236,300 66,418,300 (37,585,30D) -36.1% Right of Way and Land 72,458,700 200,216400 117.732,800 122.589,800 (77,628,600) 38.8% Special Studies 505,800 507,500 207,700 150,000 Local Streets and Roads 54,516,400 48,562,300 44,799,300 35,908,900 (10,653,400) -22.9% Regional Arterials 9,906,100 8,781.300 8,781.300 15,583,400 6,802.100 77.5% SCRRA Contribution 402,000 - - - ODIVI01 210,683,500 437.809.000 328,571.300 313,593,300 (124,215,700) -28A% 141,500 867,900 472,700 718.000 (149,90D) -17.3% 149,835,000 46,873,400 42,430,400 191,755,000 145,081.600 3113.8% 183 573.100 68.097.300 84.336 900 242.184 700 174,087.400 255 6% $ 526 926 500 $ 56n R76 1 nrl S 457.093 000 S 767 008 000 S 201.189= 35 c1 S Capital Project Development and Delivery Staffing Summary Department Budget Overview 186 Department Description Capital Projects is responsible for the development and delivery of major highway, regional arterial, and rail capital projects where the Commission is identified as the lead agency. The delivery of a capital project can include tasks such as feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, environmental clearance, final design, right of way acquisition, construction, and construction. management. Approximately 57% of the Commission's FY 2009/10 budget originates in this department managed by the Toll, Project Delivery, and Project Development Directors responsible for the capital program. The primary goal of Capital Projects is to accelerate delivery of the Measure A; Proposition 1B CMIA, PTMISEA, and CTSGP-CTAF; STIP; toll; and federally funded highway, regional arterial, and rail capital improvement projects throughout the County. Highway improvements currently in progress include the addition of carpool lanes and tolled Express Lanes, widening and realignment projects, and interchange improvements as well as planning for new CETAP corridors. Regional arterial capital improvements include funding for Western County TUMF regional arterial projects, which were approved by the Commission in 2004 as a result of a call for projects. Commuter rail capital improvements include the completion of the North Main Corona parking structure, the Perris Valley Line, a multimodal facility in the city of Perris, and the La Sierra station parking expansion in addition to station rehabilitation and security projects. This department also provides the necessary coordination between the Commission and Caltrans for the development of scope, cost, and project delivery schedules for Measure A projects that are funded by the STIP and Proposition 1 B CMIA. Capital Projects also has lead agency status over certain demonstration projects identified in SAFETEA-LU. The 2009 Measure A program includes stipulations for agencies in Western County to be eligible to receive the new Measure A local streets and roads funds beginning in 2009. Each incorporated city in Western County and the County must participate in the TUMF program, which is administered by WRCOG. Additional requirements include participation in the Western County MSHCP, submittal of an annual capital improvement program, and meeting an annual MOE requirement. The Commission and WRCOG entered into an amended MOU which identifies a distribution of the TUMF revenues prior to the 2009 Measure A which commences in July 2009. The distribution, after deduction of a WRCOG administrative fee, is 48.7% to the Commission for regional arterials and CETAP corridors. The remaining revenues are distributed to WRCOG for the five TUMF improvement zones and for regional transit facilities. Given the staff support required to oversee and participate in the project development work, consisting of preliminary engineering and right of way activities, final design, and construction for the capital projects, costs for staff and related support have been included in this department budget. The projects identified in the FY 2009/10 budget funded by Measure A, TUMF, state, or federal funds as well as future toll revenues require the continued support of the Bechtel program management team which includes • • • 187 • • • program managers, project engineers, construction engineers, inspectors, contracts administration, and support staff. Since the passage of SB 45 in 1997, the Commission is responsible for STIP-RIP fund programming and project delivery in partnership with Caltrans and the CTC. Additionally, the Commission may also be responsible for project delivery of federal demonstration projects. Long -Term Strategic Planning A significant effort was completed in December 2006 to develop an implementation plan strategy for the 2009 Measure A state highway program, with a focus on the first 10 years of the program through 2019. An objective -based assessment of the Western County portion of the 2009 Measure A TIP was completed along with the prioritization of the program of projects. Four highway corridors, 1-215, 1-15, 1-10, and SR-91, were selected as the priority focus for the first 10 years of the 2009 Measure A program, and long-term development work was approved for large scale projects such as the development of the Mid County Parkway, realignment of SR-79, and the bicounty widening of 1-215 to San Bernardino County. Project development activities for these projects have been ongoing. Key Assumptions • The Commission will continue its emphasis on the closeout of the 1989 Measure A program. • The 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan serves as the basis for defining the 2009 Measure A project selection and prioritization. • Western County TUMF regional arterial project costs are based on the list of projects approved by the Commission in 2004. • Agreements for the advancement of 2009 Measure A funds have been obtained from CVAG and cities desiring to participate in the commercial paper program. • Highway project costs are based on engineers' estimates and scope agreements with Caltrans. • Construction projects are competitively bid to minimize costs. • All projects will be built to required standards. • All highway projects, with the exception of tolled Express Lane facilities, are transferred upon completion to Caltrans; operation of these facilities is the responsibility of Caltrans. Tolled Express Lane facilities, when completed, will be owned and operated and maintained by the Commission through the term of a future agreement between Caltrans and the Commission. • 2009 Measure A regional arterial projects will be selected and programmed once the impact of the FY 2009/10 state budget and federal highway trust fund deficit concerns are resolved. 188 • Accomplishments • Continued implementation of the 10-Year Delivery Plan for the Western County Highway Program. • Completed 60% of final design and began right of way acquisitions and utility relocations for the SR-91 HOV lanes project through Riverside from Adams Street to the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 interchange. • Completed final design and began right of way acquisition for the I-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV lane connectors project. • Completed the project report and environmental process and began final design and right of way acquisition for the SR-74/G Street to 1-215 interchange project. • Continued successful negotiations with the FTA related to the Small Starts funding authorization for the Perris Valley Line. • Made substantial progress related to the environmental process for the Mid County Parkway and SR-79 realignment projects. • Substantially completed construction on the parking structure project at the North Main Corona station. • Completed final design on the Perris multimodal facility and commenced construction activities. • Completed the project report and environmental process and began final design for 1-215 widening from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road. • Made substantial progress on the project report and environmental studies for the following projects: ■ SR-91 corridor improvement project (27% complete); ■ 1-15 corridor improvement project (20% complete); • I-15/Cajalco interchange (completed); • SR-71/SR-91 interchange project (24% complete); and • 1-215 widening project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road. • Began design of SR-74 curve widening project. • Obtained state tolling authority for the SR-91 and 1-15 corridor improvement projects and also began application and agreement processes with FHWA regarding federal tolling authority for these toll projects. Federal tolling authority for the Commission is expected in early FY 2009/10. • Commenced a procurement for a project and construction manager for the design - build phase of the SR-91 corridor improvements. • Completed TUMF project agreements and amendments to implement pre - construction activities. Major Initiatives FY 2009/10 will mark a significant milestone as the Commission closes out the 1989 Measure A programs and formally commences the 2009 Measure A programs, of which the highway, rail, regional arterial, and local streets and roads programs represent the majority of the funding allocations. While most of the 1989 Measure A highway projects have been completed, a few projects will continue such as the SR-91 HOV lanes from Adams Street to SR-60/SR-91/1-215 interchange, SR-74 curve widening, I-215/SR-60 • • • 189 • • • East Junction HOV lane connectors, SR-91 interchange improvements at La Sierra Avenue and Van Buren Boulevard, and SR-60 at Valley Way. The 1-215 bicounty highway and Perris Valley Line rail projects will continue, as both are also included in the 2009 Measure A. Various stages of project development work for projects included in the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan will continue in FY 2009/10. Implementation of tolling facilities within the SR-91 and 1-15 corridors, two major projects in the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan, requires obtaining tolling authority from state and federal jurisdictions. Efforts to obtain this authority include successful passage of state legislation, approval of state and federal tolling authority applications, and administrative approval from Caltrans and FHWA. In September 2008, SB 1316 and AB 1954 were successfully passed and signed into law by the Governor which provides state tolling authority. Federal tolling authority is expected for both corridors by early FY 2009/10. The Commission disburses Measure A local streets and roads funds directly to the cities and County for their use. The budgeted amount is set by formula established in the Measure A TIP. Local jurisdictions will receive $35,908,900 for local streets and roads maintenance, repair, and construction. Each jurisdiction's respective allocation is based on population (Western County and Palo Verde Valley) or dwelling unit (Coachella Valley) and the amount of sales tax generated. La Quinta is the only city in the Coachella Valley which does not participate in the Coachella Valley TUMF Program. Accordingly, La Quinta's Measure A allocation is remitted to CVAG in lieu of the TUMF. Agreements have been executed with CVAG and two cities, Indio and Blythe, to advance acceleration of 2009 Measure A regional arterial or focal streets and roads revenues through participation in the commercial paper program. The annual principal and interest payments for these loans will be deducted by the Commission from each agency's respective disbursements based on the terms of the loan agreements. Detailed descriptions of the capital projects, including local streets and roads funding, that are included in the FY 2009/10 budget follows the Performance/Workload Indicators. Department Goals Build upon and strengthen the partnership with Caltrans toward timely delivery of identified Measure A, CMIA, toll program, and STIP projects. Objectives: • Develop agreements with Caltrans and FHWA, as may be required, to finalize project scoping and cost issues for the STIP, federal demonstration, toll, and Measure A funded highway projects in Riverside County. • Provide quarterly contract status and cost schedule reports to the Commission and Caltrans. 190 • Meet the project milestones identified in the CMIA agreements between Commission, Caltrans, and the CTC. To the extent permitted by law, pursue reasonable involvement of local DBE firms and minority and women business enterprises in contract work. Objective: • Maintain goal for a minimum DBE participation in all federally funded contracts. Continue to review quarterly report on DBE participation levels. Provide effective communication of project progress to the Commission board members, city councils, the County Board of Supervisors, Caltrans, CTC, and FHWA. Objective: • Develop a strategy with Caltrans District 8 that would allow the Commission to advance specific projects identified in the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan to take advantage of any unexpected state or federal funding which may become available through increased state or federal budget authorizations, federal stimulus or potential loan programs to advance construction. Work with Caltrans and other agencies toward completion of preliminary engineering and environmental clearance of all projects. Objective: • Work with Caftans, the County, and the cities in Riverside County to complete preliminary design and environmental clearance for Measure A projects that could be eligible to receive additional or early funding from various sources that could become available if a project is sufficiently developed. Complete the construction of the highway projects identified in the budget. Objectives: • Complete the SR-111 project in the Coachella Valley. • Continue to provide funding and support for interchange improvements along the SR-91. In coordination with the Rail Program Manager, construct capital improvements at existing commuter rail stations as identified in the budget. Objectives: • Complete construction of the North Main Corona station parking structure. • Complete construction of the Perris multimodal facility. • Continue preliminary engineering, complete environmental clearance, and start right of way acquisition for the Perris Valley Line. • Continue various station rehabilitation projects. • • 191 • • • Complete engineering and commence construction of Riverside Downtown station layover facility. • Complete engineering and construction of the La Sierra station parking expansion. Location of Major FY 2009/10 Projects within Riverside County INSERT MAP HERE 1) 1-10 (A) Preparation of studies along the truck climbing lane for the betterment of goods movement. (B) Initiation of a toll feasibility study from the San Bernardino County line to SR-111. 2) SR-74 3) SR-79 (A) Final design and right of way acquisition of the G Street to the 1-215 interchange. (B) Preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, final design, right of way acquisition and construction for the curve widening at Winchester Road. Realignment between Gilman Springs Road and Domenigoni Parkway including project study report, project report, and environmental document. 4) SR-91 Construction of interchange improvements at: (A) La Sierra Avenue and (B) Van Buren Avenue. (C) Final design, right of way acquisition, and utility relocation for HOV lanes from Adams Street to the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 interchange. (D) Preliminary engineering and environmental studies for improvements to the SR-91/SR-71 interchange. (E) Preliminary engineering and environmental studies for toll and mixed flow projects from SR-241 to Pierce Street in the city of Riverside. 5) SR-111 Design and construction of intersection improvements by the cities of Indio, Cathedral City, and La Quinta and the County. 6) Mid County Parkway Preliminary engineering, project report, and environmental documentation for the project. 7) Perris Valley Line Preliminary engineering and right of way acquisition for the Perris Valley Line (Riverside -Moreno Valley - Perris) along the SJBL. 192 8) North Main Corona Station 9) Local Streets and Roads 10) SR-86 11) Perris Multimodal Facility 12) I-215/SR-60 13) 1-215 Bi-County Project 14)1-215 Bi-County HOV Interim Project 15) 1-215 Projects Construction of parking structure. Allocation of Measure A revenues to each city and the County to improve, maintain, and repair high priority local streets and roads. Traffic signal at Avenue 66. Construction of a bus and rail multimodal transportation facility in downtown Perris. Final design, right of way acquisition, and construction for the I-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV lane connectors. Development of an EIR/EIS and preliminary engineering on the 1-215 North from the SR-60/SR- 91/1-215 interchange to the Orange Show Road in San Bemardino County. Preliminary engineering and environmental document for the interim project to provide two HOV lanes on the 1-215 North from the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 interchange to Orange Show Road in San Bernardino County. (A) Final design for the south segment from 1-15 to Scott Road, (B) Preliminary engineering and environmental document preparation for segments from Scott Road to Nuevo Road and from Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road. 16) 1-15 Preparation of engineering and environmental document for the expansion of mixed flow and addition of tolled Express Lanes from the San Bernardino County line to 1-215 in Temecula. 17) La Sierra Station Parking Expansion Final design and construction for parking expansion to accommodate public bus connections and provide park and ride facilities for commuters. 18) Riverside Downtown station Engineering and right of way activities for station Layover Facility layover layover facility. 193 Capital Project Development & Delivery Performance/Workload Indicators FY 07/08 Actual FY 08/09 Estimated FY 09/10 Pro ected Capital Projects Summary The following is a summary of the capital projects included in the FY 2009/10 budget. Costs are generally categorized by preliminary engineering, final design, right of way, construction, and design -build phases in addition to other project -related costs such as salaries and benefits, Bechtel project management, and legal fees. Western County Highway and Regional Arterial Projects SR-60 Truck Climbing Lanes (P3029) Commence preliminary engineering for truck climbing lanes through the Badlands area between Moreno Valley and Beaumont. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact SR-60Nalley Way (P3032) $ 300,000 Preliminary engineering $ 33,900 Other project -related costs Costs will be funded using 2009 Measure A highway funds. N/A; state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. Provide funding and support to start construction to improve interchange at Valley Way. This project is expected to be completed 2011. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $ 3,000,000 Construction Costs will be funded using 1989 Measure A highway funds with the County as lead agency. The funding commitment was $7.0 million. N/A; state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. 194 SR-74/1-15 to 7th Street (P3001) Complete right of way acquisition closeout for Segment II related to the realignment and widening of four -lane roadway between Wasson Canyon Road in the city of Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the city of Perris. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $ 5,000 Construction/Landscape management $ 2,530,000 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 20,000 Final Design $ 42,500 Other project -related costs Costs will be funded using 1989 Measure A. N/A; state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. SR-74/G Street to 1-215 Interchange (P3015) Continue final design and acquire right of way for the interchange improvements. Preliminary engineering began in 2006 and was completed in 2009. Final design began in 2008. Construction of the project is expected to begin in early 2010 and completed in 2012. The total project cost is estimated at $41 million. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 500,000 Final design $11,600,000 Construction $ 2,320,000 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 234,100 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using 1989 Measure A highway funds, TUMF zone contributions, and a federal earmark. Operating Budget Impact N/A; state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. SR- 74 Curve Widening (P3009) Complete preliminary design, environmental documentation, final design, and right of way acquisition and begin construction. Preliminary engineering began in 2009. Construction of the project should be completed by the end of 2010. The total estimated project cost is $ 4.2 million. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 30,000 Preliminary engineering $ 2,230,000 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 1,290,000 Construction $ 148,700 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using 1989 Measure A highway funds. Operating Budget Impact N/A; state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. • • e 195 • • SR-79 Realignment (P3003 & P5127) Perform realignment environmental and preliminary engineering services from Gilman Springs Road to Domenigoni Parkway. The total estimated project cost is $1.2 billion. The preliminary engineering phase for this project began in the late 1990's. The project is expected to be ready for start of construction in 2013 and will be constructed in phases over a number of years as funds become available. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $ 2,650,000 Preliminary engineering $ 1,030,000 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 168,400 Other project -related costs None; costs will be funded using TUMF regional arterial, federal earmarks, and SAFETEA-LU federal funds. N/A; state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. SR-91 Corridor Improvements (P3026 R P3028) Continue the preliminary engineering and environmental study phase and commence the design -build phase for the toll and mixed flow lanes project from SR-241 to Pierce Street, including tolled Express Lanes connectivity to 1-15 and improvements to the SR- 91/1-15 and SR-91/SR-71 interchanges. The SR-91 corridor improvements project cost is estimated at $1.6 billion, and project development activities began in September 2007. The project is expected to be completed and open to traffic in December 2016. FY 2009/10 Cost $13,250,000 Preliminary engineering $24,250,000 Right of way acquisition $ 8,425,000 Design -build $ 4,613,800 Other project -related costs, including toll feasibility work Measure A Budget Impact Project development costs will be funded using commercial paper proceeds as advance funding of 2009 Measure A highway funds. Toll revenue bonds are expected to be issued in 2011 to provide project financing and reimburse the 2009 Measure A for toll -related project costs not covered by the 2009 Measure A. Operating Budget Impact Operation and maintenance of future tolled Express Lanes facilities are the responsibility of the Commission, while all other state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. Preliminary estimates of annual operating and maintenance costs are $7,800,000. Such costs will be paid from the collection of toll revenues. SR-91/SR-71 Connectors (P3021) Continue preliminary engineering and environmental studies for interchange improvements to the SR-91/SR-71 interchange. The total estimated project cost is $136 196 million. Preliminary engineering began in February 2008, and construction of the project is expected to be completed by December 2016. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 2,901,600 Preliminary engineering $ 94,400 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using STIP-RIP funds and commercial paper proceeds as advance funding of 2009 Measure A highway funds. Toll revenue bonds are expected to be issued in 2011 to provide project financing and reimburse the 2009 Measure A for project costs not covered by the 2009 Measure A. Operating Budget Impact N/A; state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. SR-91 HOV Lanes/Adams Street to SR-60/SR-9111-215 Interchange (P3005) Continue final design, right of way acquisitions, and construction. Preliminary engineering began in 2001. Construction of the project should be completed in the summer of 2015. The estimated total project cost is $273 million. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 215,000 Final design $25,609,500 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 468,800 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Final design costs will be funded using LONP funds received and CMAQ with 1989 Measure A highway funds for local match. Right of way costs will be funded using STIP-RIP, Traffic Congestion Relief Program, CMAQ, and Measure A highway funds. CMAQ and CMIA funds generated by Proposition 1 B will be used for construction activities. Operating Budget Impact N/A; state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. SR-91/La Sierra Avenue Interchange (P3014) Provide funding and support to start construction to widen and fully improve La Sierra Avenue from SR-91 to El Sobrante Road. This project is expected to be completed in 2009. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 3,200,000 Construction Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using 1989 Measure A highway funds with the city of Riverside as lead agency. The Measure A funding commitment for this project was $27.2 million. Operating Budget Impact N/A; state highway and regional arterial operations are the responsibility of Caltrans and the local jurisdiction, respectively. • • • 197 • • • SR-91/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange (P3008) Provide funding and support for construction to widen and fully improve the interchange at Van Buren Boulevard. This project is expected to be completed in 2010. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 7,600,000 Construction $ 5,000 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using 1989 Measure A highway funds with the city of Riverside as lead agency. The Measure A funding commitment for this project was $7.6 million. Operating Budget Impact NIA; state highway and regional operations are the responsibility of Caltrans and the local jurisdiction, respectively. I-15 Corridor Improvements (P3027) Continue preliminary engineering and environmental studies to add two tolled Express Lanes and one mixed flow lane in each direction from the San Bernardino County line to SR-74 and to add one HOV lane in each direction from SR-74 to 1-215. Preliminary engineering and environmental work started in April 2008 and is scheduled for completion in 2012, Construction is expected to start in 2015 and conclude by 2019. The total project cost is estimated to be $1.7 billion. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $12,000,000 Preliminary engineering $ 10,000 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 482,000 Other project -related costs Project development costs will be funded using 2009 Measure A highway funds, including commercial paper proceeds as advance funding. Toll revenue bonds are expected to be issued in 2015 to provide project financing and reimburse the 2009 Measure A for toll -related project costs not covered by the 2009 Measure A. Operation and maintenance of future Express Lanes facilities are the responsibility of the Commission, while all other federal and state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. Preliminary estimates of operating and maintenance costs are $15 million. Such costs will be paid from the collection of toll revenues. 1-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV Lane Connectors (P3017) Substantially complete final design and right of way acquisition. Preliminary engineering began in 2006. Construction of the project is expected to be completed by 2012. The total project cost is estimated at $59 million. 198 FY 2009/10 Cost $ 315,000 Final design $ 895,000 Construction $ 812,300 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 373,900 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using CMAQ and SIP funds with 1989 Measure A highway funds for local match for final design. STP funds with 1989 Measure A highway funds for local match funds will be used for right of way. STP and CMAQ, with STIP-RIP and STIP-IIP for local match funds, as well as lease proceeds will be used for construction. Operating Budget Impact N/A; state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. 1-215 Mixed Flow Lanes/1-15 to Scott Road (P3022) Continue final design to add one mixed flow lane in each direction. Preliminary engineering began in 2007 and was completed in 2008. Final design began in 2008. Construction of the project is expected to begin in early 2011 and finish in 2013. The total project cost is estimated at $64 million. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 2,400,000 Final design and engineering $ 142,400 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using STIP-RIP funds and 2009 Measure A highway funds; CMIA funds generated by Proposition 1B bonds will be used for construction activities. Operating Budget Impact N/A; federal highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. I-215 Mixed Flow Lanes/Scott Road to Nuevo Road (P3023) Continue preliminary engineering and environmental documentation to add one mixed flow lane in each direction. Preliminary engineering began in 2007. Final design is expected to begin in 2011, and construction will begin two years later. Construction of the project is expected to be completed by 2016. The total project cost is estimated at $188 million. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 2,400,000 Preliminary engineering $ 1,523,000 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 165,200 Other project -related costs Measure Budget Impact Costs will be funded using STIP-RIP funds and 2009 Measure A highway funds. Operating Budget Impact N/A; federal highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. • • • 199 • • • 1-215 HOV Lanes/Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road (P3024) Commence preliminary engineering to add one HOV lane in each direction. Preliminary engineering is expected to begin in 2010 with construction expected to be completed by 2017. The total project cost is estimated at $280 million. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 2,000,000 Preliminary engineering $ 78,600 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using 2009 Measure A highway funds. Operating Budget Impact N/A; federal highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. 1-215 Southbound to 1-15 Connector Widening Gap Closure (P3031) Commence preliminary engineering to widen southbound connector to 1-15. Preliminary engineering is expected to begin in 2009 with construction expected to be completed by 2012. The total project cost is estimated at $8.5 million. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 600,000 Preliminary engineering $ 78,900 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using 2009 Measure A highway funds. Operating Budget Impact N/A; federal highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. 1-215 Bicounty Project (P3012) Continue to fund the Project Study Report and EIR/EIS on the 1-215 North from Riverside to the San Bernardino County line through a cooperative agreement with SANBAG. Preliminary engineering began in 2003. Construction of the project should be completed by 2040. The total estimated project cost is $1.4 billion. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 500,000 Preliminary engineering and environmental $ 15,300 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Current phase costs of this project will be funded using 2009 Measure A highway funds. Operating Budget Impact N/A; federal highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. 1-215 Bicounty HOV Interim Project (P3030) Continue to fund preliminary design phase to add one HOV lane in each direction on the 1-215 North from the city of Riverside to the San Bernardino County line through a cooperative agreement with SANBAG, which has a match up project north from the San 200 Bernardino County line to 1-10. Preliminary engineering will begin in 2009. Construction is estimated to be completed by 2014. The total project cost is $167 million. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $ 878,800 Preliminary engineering and environmental $ 31,800 Other project -related costs Costs will be funded using 2009 Measure A highway funds. N/A; federal highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. Mid County Parkway (P2302 & P5123) Perform activities related to the development of a project report and environmental document for a new corridor from 1-15 to SR-79. Preliminary engineering began in FY 2003/04, and this phase is anticipated to be completed in 2010. Construction of this new facility will be completed over many years as funding becomes available and is estimated to cost $3.1 billion. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact Preliminary engineering and environmental Right of way acquisition/support services Other project -related costs Costs will be funded with TUMF CETAP funds and 2009 Measure A new corridor funds. N/A; responsibility for highway operations has not been determined. $ 782,500 $ 6,270,000. $ 331,400 Various Western County TUMF Regional Arterial Projects (P5102, P5103, P5104, P5105, P5106, P5107, P5108, P5110, P5111, P5113, P5114, P5115, P5116, P5118, P5121, P5125, & P5128) Provide TUMF funding and support for the engineering, right of way, and construction activities related to various Western County TUMF regional arterial projects approved by the Commission in September 2004 following a call for projects. Total project costs approved for TUMF regional arterial projects approximate $73 million. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $ 3,758,000 Engineering and design $10,459,000 Construction $12,083,000 Right of way None; costs will be funded using TUMF funds with various local jurisdictions as their respective projects. N/A; regional arterial operations are the the local jurisdictions. regional arterial lead agency for responsibility of • • 201 • • • Coachella Valley Highway and Regional Arterial Projects SR-111 City Projects (P3413, 3415, & P3416) Provide funding and support to complete signal and local intersection widening improvements along SR-111 and SR-86 as a result of the cooperatively programmed 1989 Measure A highway program funds by the Commission and CVAG. In 2003 nine projects in the cities of Cathedral City, Indio, La Quinta, and Rancho Mirage and the County were approved for 1989 Measure A highway funding. As amended in December 2007, totaling funding of these projects approximates $24.4 million. Substantially all of the projects have been completed, with the exception of four projects with projected remaining funding commitments of $9.4 as of June 30, 2009; however, due to the expiration of the 1989 Measure A on June 30, 2009, sufficient funds are not available in excess of $6.7 million. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $ 6,719,300 Construction projects in the cities of Cathedral City, Indio, and La Quinta Costs will be funded using 1989 Measure A highway funds with each city or the County as lead agency for its respective project. N/A; state highway operations are the responsibility of Caltrans. MSHCP Land Acquisition in Coachella Valley (P8100) Provide funding and support for the acquisition of land as mitigation for the cumulative and indirect impacts associated with construction of future highway and regional arterial projects as required by 2009 Measure A under an advance funding agreement with CVAG. In September 2005 the Commission approved the advance funding of 2009 Measure A highway and regional arterial funds in the amount of $15.025 million for CVAG's land mitigation acquisitions. CVAG began expending these funds in FY 2008/09 following completion of federal permit and other matters. As of June 30, 2009, the projected remaining funding commitment for this project is approximately $14.7 million. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $ 8,000,000 Land acquisition Costs will be funded using commercial paper proceeds as advance funding of 2009 Measure A highway and regional arterial funds. N/A; land mitigation operations are the responsibility of CVAG. 202 Various Coachella Valley Highway and Regional Arterial Projects (P8100) Provide funding and support for the Monterey Avenue corridor in Rancho Mirage and Jackson Street, Avenue 42, and Jefferson Street in Indio under an advance funding agreement with CVAG. In September 2005 the Commission approved the advance funding of 2009 Measure A highway and regional arterial funds in the amount of $28.275 million for nine regional transportation projects in the cities of Coachella, Indio, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage and the County. As of June 30, 2009, the projected remaining funding commitments for these projects are approximately $17.0 million. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $ 8,990,000 Construction Costs will be funded using commercial paper proceeds as an advance of 2009 Measure A regional arterial funds with the cities of Indio and Rancho Mirage as lead agencies for their respective projects. N/A; regional arterial operations are the responsibility of the local jurisdictions. Rail Projects Perris Valley Line and Other Related Projects (P3800, P3823, P3824, & P3999) Continue preliminary engineering and right of way acquisition and complete environmental clearance for extension of commuter rail services to Perris. Project commenced in December 2007 when the Commission received approval from FTA to move into project development. Other related projects include adding a fourth main track between the Riverside Downtown station to the connector to the SJBL branch line at Highgrove as well as right of way acquisition. Expected completion date is December 2012 for a total project cost of $169 million. FY 2009/10 Cost $12,300,000 Preliminary engineering/support services $ 5,200,000 Construction/support services $30,410,000 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 7,032,000 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using FTA and 1989 Measure A rail funds as well as proceeds from sales of surplus properties. Subsequent year costs will also include STIP funding. Operating Budget Impact Rail station operations related to this project, which will be the responsibility of the Commission upon completion of the project, will be funded with LTF and property management fees. Rail service and capital operations will be the responsibility of Metrolink and will be funded by the Commission with LTF and STA based on an allocation determined by Metrolink. Annual station operations approximate $300,000 per station, or $1,500,000 annually • • 203 • • • in the aggregate for five proposed stations. Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility (P3816) Complete construction of the Perris multimodal facility Phase I. Contractor commenced construction in January 2009, with an expected completion of September 2009 for a total construction cost of $5 million. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $ 3,560,000 Construction and support services $ 12,000 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 91,900 Other project -related costs None; costs will be funded using FTA Section 5309 bus funds, TE, TUMF regional transit, pass -through funds from RTA, Proposition 1 B PTMISEA, and a Measure A contribution from the Commuter Assistance Program. Operations of this facility will be the responsibilities of the Commission and RTA, as defined in a cooperative agreement. Of the estimated $76,100 annual operating costs, the Commission will be responsible for approximately $31,000 to be funded by 1989 and 2009 Measure A Commuter Assistance funds. North Main Corona Station Parking Structure (P3808) Complete construction of a 1,000 space parking structure at the North Main Corona station. Construction commenced in January 2008 with an expected completion date of September 2009 for a total construction cost of $21 million. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact Operating Budget Impact $ 1,400,000 Construction and support services $ 42,900 Other project -related costs None; costs will be funded using STIP-IIP funds, CMAQ, STA, LTF, and FTA Section 5307 funds. Operations of this parking structure will be the responsibility of the Commission. Annual operating costs are estimated at $300,000 to be funded with LTF. La Sierra Station Parking Expansion (P3809) Commence final design and construction for the parking expansion at the La Sierra station to accommodate public bus transit connections and provide park and ride facilities for commuters. Construction is expected to be completed by May 2010. FY 2009/10 Cost Measure A Budget Impact $ 60,000 Final design $ 2,000,000 Construction $ 111,800 Other project -related costs Costs will be funded using Proposition 1B PTMISEA and 1989 Measure A rail and commuter assistance funds. 204 Operating Budget Impact Operations of this parking expansion will be the responsibility of the Commission. Annual operating costs are estimated at $100,000 to be funded with LTF. Riverside Downtown Layover Facility (P3822) Commence preliminary engineering, final design, and right of way activities for a Riverside Downtown station layover facility. Project development activities will commence in July 2009, and the project is expected to be completed by 2011. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 550,000 Preliminary engineering and final design $ 5,500,000 Right of way acquisition/support services $ 310,000 Other project -related costs Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using 1989 Measure A rail funds. Operating Budget Impact Operations of the layover facility will be assumed by Metrolink upon completion. Station Rehabilitation and Security Projects (P4011 & P4012) Continue various station rehabilitation and security projects. In April 2008, the Commission approved the Commuter Rail Station Rehabilitation Maintenance Plan with initial phase costs estimated at $2.5 million. The Commission approved a Comprehensive Station Security Upgrade Program in July 2008 at an estimated cost of $368,000. Several contracts have been awarded and are in progress. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 150,000 Final design (rehabilitation) $ 500,000 Construction (rehabilitation) $ 1,048,500 Other project -related costs (rehabilitation) $ 342,700 Other project -related costs (security) Measure A Budget Impact Costs will be funded using LTF capital, Measure A rail, and Proposition 1 B PTMISEA and CTSGP-CTAF funds. Operating Budget Impact Operating costs at the stations are expected to decrease as a result of the rehabilitation projects; however, the savings have not yet been determined. Local Streets and Roads Annually monitor the MOE requirements to ensure local agencies are expending funds according to the 2009 Measure A ordinance. Review local agency 5-year capital improvement plans to ensure Measure A funds are expended on eligible local street and road projects. Western County Area Distribute local return funding for local streets and roads projects in Western County. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 416,000 Banning • 0 205 461,000 107,000 136,000 2,911,000 1,201,000 831,000 928,000 2,615,000 1,564,000 495,000 831,000 5,102,000 5,485,000 2,046,000 399,000 5,223, 000 Beaumont Calimesa Canyon Lake Corona Hemet Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Riverside County $25,751,000 Total Western County Measure A Budget Impact All costs will be distributed in accordance with 2009 Measure A local street and road funds. Operating Budget Impact N/A; local streets and roads operations are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. Coachella Valley Distribute local return funding for local streets and roads projects in Coachella Valley. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 1,134,000 463,000 316,000 187,000 1,267,000 0 2,031,000 1,381,000 718,000 1,339, 000 1,105, 000 Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Riverside County CVAG 9,941,000 Total Coachella Valley (505,000) Less: debt service payments $ 9,436,000 Total Coachella Valley, net Measure A Budget Impact All costs will be distributed in accordance with 2009 Measure A local streets and roads funds. Operating Budget Impact N/A; local streets and roads operations are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. 206 Palo Verde Valley Area • Distribute local return funding for local streets and roads projects in Palo Verde Valley. FY 2009/10 Cost $ 826,000 Blythe 73,000 Riverside County 899,000 Total Palo Verde Valley (177,100) Less: debt service payments $ 721,900 Total Palo Verde Valley, net Measure A Budget Impact All costs will be distributed in accordance with 2009 Measure A local streets and roads funds. Operating Budget Impact N/A; local streets and roads operations are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. • 207 SECTION 8 C4AAAAUMTY PROFILE1 208 • • Community Profile Riverside County is the fourth largest county in California, stretching westward nearly 200 miles from the Colorado River and comprising more than 7200 square miles that include 24 incorporated cities. Riverside County can trace its beginning back to 1893 when voters approved the formation of a new county. The area was carved from parts of San Bemardino and San Diego counties. In its 115 years of existence, the County's economy has diversified and prospered. Originally, Riverside County was a very agricultural area, known for a wide variety of crops grown on its fertile soils. The County remains a strong agricultural area, but it is increasingly becoming a leader in manufacturing, transportation, construction, and tourism. The success of the area has brought dramatic population growth to Riverside County (Chart 46). Since the 1980's, the County has been one of the fastest growing counties in the state. The available and affordable housing in Riverside County has attracted many people to the County; however, a housing slowdown has occurred in recent years primarily as a result of the effect of the subprime mortgages and the ensuing credit crisis (Chart 47). During the growth period, jobs also increased as many firms relocate to the area and move away from older communities; however, the current economic slowdown has caused the County's unemployment rate to edge up from its near all-time lows (Chart 48). The overall economic outlook for Riverside County is expected to improve by 2011 based on various economic forecasts. The area is preparing for its future as well in supporting better education. The County is home to a number of colleges and universities including UC Riverside. Chart 46 - Population 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 Source: California Department of Finance 209 Chart 47 - New Home Sales 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1994 Source: Dataquidc 1996 1998 Chart 48 - Unemployment Rate 2000 2002 2004 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: California Employment Development Department 2006 2008 As a result of these demographic changes, retail sales in the County have increased through 2006 (Chart 49 and Table 84); however, the effect of the current economic slowdown on retail sales was noted in sales tax receipts beginning in 2007. The prior years' increases in retail sales had a positive effect on the sales tax receipts generated in the County, which has a 7.75% sales tax rate including the Measure A rate (Table 85). The taxable sales generation by jurisdiction in the County is presented in Table 86. • • • 210 • • • Chart 49 — Retail Sales (%) - $29.8 Billion — 2006 Data Apparel Stores 4% Specialty Stores Other Services & 8% Outlets Food Stores 27°/n r, 4% Other Reta4 Stores 3°% Automotive 23°% General Merchandise 12% Building Material 8% Eating & Drinking 8% Table 84 — Sources of County of Riverside Taxable Sales by Business Type (in 000's) 2006t 2005 2004 2003 2002 Apparel stores $1,080,385 $990,129 $867276 $746,015 $610,388 General merchandise 3,553,554 3,304,474 3,026,335 2,671,971 2,459,046 Specialty stores 2,262,442 2,104,040 1,885,435 1,649,224 1,501,106 Food stores 1,309,782 1,197,438 1,079,972 1,028,392 967,171 Eating and drinking 2,316,422 2,157,801 1,940,610 1,713,632 1,559,215 Household 948,217 964,629 862,551 691,051 594,049 Building materials 2,390,236 2,424,898 2,226,117 1,678,347 1,427,831 Automotive 6,956,756 6,751,648 6,035,203 5,198,391 4,563,779 Miscellaneous 1,024,551 944,155 792,450 653,929 568,148 Total all other outlets 7,973,892 7,417,279 6,521,199 5,678,183 5,248,261 $29,816,237 $28,256,491 $25,237,148 $21,709135 $19,498,994 Source: State Board of Equalization Year represents most recent data available. Table 85 — Direct and Overlapping Sales Tax Rates Fiscal Year Measure A Direct Rate County of Riverside 2009 0.50% 8.75% 2008 0.50% 7.75% 2007 0.50% 7.75% 2006 0.50% 7.75% 2005 0.50% 7.75% 2004 0.50% 7.75% Source: Commission Finance Department and California State Board of Equalization 211 Table 86 — Principal Taxable Sales Generation by Jurisdiction in Riverside County for 20061 ' Year represents roost recent data available. 212 Commission Facts Programs and Services Measure A: The Commission administers Measure A, the local half -cent sales tax for new transportation projects in the County. Under Measure A, funding is used to improve highways, commuter rail, regional arterials, local streets and roads, transit and specialized transportation services including commuter assistance, economic development, new corridors, and Commission administration. Measure A expires in 2039. Transportation Development Act: The TDA is comprised of two elements: Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance funding. The Commission administers the LTF one -quarter of one cent of the state sales tax on behalf of the County. STA is generated from the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel and is allocated by the State to the Commission on the basis of population and as a percentage of transit fare revenues. TDA funding is allocated primarily to bus and rail transit operators for transit operating and capital needs. Additionally, LTF funding is available for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, planning, and administration and allocated to the Commission and local jurisdictions in the County. Highways: The Commission assists with the planning and funding for highway improvements. Major current projects include: SR-60 East Junction to 1-215 HOV lanes connector, SR-74/G Street to 1-215 interchange, SR-79 realignment, SR-91 corridor improvement project (HOT and mixed flow lanes), SR-91 HOV lanes/Adams Street to the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 interchange, SR-91 interchange improvements at La Sierra Avenue and Van Buren Avenue, 1-15 corridor improvement project, 1-215 corridor mobility improvement projects, and Mid County Parkway. State highway maintenance is the responsibility of Ca!trans. Local Streets and Roads: The Commission administers funding to local jurisdictions to improve streets, intersections, signal coordination, and pavement. Local streets and roads maintenance is the responsibility of the local jurisdictions. Commuter Rail: The Commission funds and oversees Metrolink rail services within the County. The Commission's three Metrolink lines are the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 lines. The Commission owns and maintains five Metrolink stations located at: ➢ Riverside Downtown Station, 4066 Vine Street, Riverside ➢ La Sierra Station, 10901 Indiana Avenue, Riverside ➢ Pedley Station, 6001 Pedley Road, Riverside ➢ North Main Corona Station, 250 E. Blaine Street, Corona ➢ West Corona Station, 155 S. Auto Center Drive, Corona Motorist Assistance: The Commission provides emergency call boxes through the SAFE and offers emergency towing services through the FSP. Commuter Assistance: The Commission provides a variety of rideshare services both to employers and commuters. Through voluntary participation, commuters and employers receive a direct benefit from their sales tax dollars, and the entire region benefits from reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. Specialized Transit: The Commission maintains a strong commitment to assist in the mobility of those with specialized transit needs. Through its Specialized Transit Program, the Commission has provided millions of dollars to public and nonprofit transit operators to assist in the provisions of special transit services to improve the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. 213 • SECTION 9� 1APPENDICESI 214 Glossary of Acronyms AADPL — Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level ADA — Americans with Disabilities Act ARRA — American Recovery and Reinvestment Act AVL — Automatic Vehicle Locator Bank of America — Bank of America, N.A. Bechtel — Bechtel Infrastructure BNSF — Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Board — Board of Commissioners for the Riverside County Transportation Commission CAFR — Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CalPERS — California Public Employees Retirement System Caltrans — California Department of Transportation CEQA — California Environmental Quality Act CETAP — Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process CHP — California Highway Patrol CHSRA — California High Speed Rail Authority CMA — Congestion Management Agency CMAQ* — Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CMIA — Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (Proposition 1B funding category) CMP — Congestion Management Program CMS — Congestion Management System Commission — Riverside County Transportation Commission Coordinated Plan — Coordinated Public Transit —Human Services Transportation Plan County - County of Riverside CTC — California Transportation Commission CTSA — Consolidated Transportation Service Agency CTSGP-CTAF — California Transit Security Grant Prograrrr—California Transit Assistance Funds CVAG — Coachella Valley Association of Governments DBE — Disadvantaged Business Enterprise DMV — Department of Motor Vehicles EIR — Environmental Impact Report EIS — Environmental Impact Study ERP — Enterprise Resource Planning ETC — Employer Transportation Coordinators FFY — Federal Fiscal Year FIRM* — Federal Highway Administration FSP — Freeway Service Patrol FTA* — Federal Transit Administration FTE — Full-time Equivalent FTIP — Federal Transportation Improvement Program FY — Fiscal Year GASB — Governmental Accounting Standards Board GFOA — Government Finance Officers Association HOV — High Occupancy Vehicle (Carpool Lane) I — Interstate IEOC — Inland Empire —Orange County Metrolink Service IIP* — Interregional Improvement Program IT — Information Technology ITS — Intelligent Transportation System IVR — Interactive Voice Recognition JARC — Jobs Access Reverse Commute (FTA Section 5316) Lehman DP — Lehman Brothers Derivative Products Inc. LIBOR — London Interbank Offer Rate LOS — Level of Service LTF* — Local Transportation Fund Metro — Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metrolink — Operating Name for SCRRA (see SCRRA) Moody's — Moody's Investors Service MOE — Maintenance of Effort MOU — Memorandum of Understanding 215 MSHCP - Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan MSRC - Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (AB 2766) OCTA - Orange County Transportation Authority Perris Valley Line - Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension Project PIP - Productivity Improvement Program Ports - Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach PPM - Planning, Programming, and Monitoring PTMISEA - Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (Proposition 1B funding category) RCA - Regional Conservation Authority ROTC - Riverside County Transportation Commission RGA - RCTC Global Application RIP* - Regional Improvement Program RTA - Riverside Transit Agency RTP - Regional Transportation Plan S&P - Standard & Poor's Rating Service SAFE - Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies SAI^El .A-LU* - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SANBAG - San Bernardino Associated Govemments SANDAL - San Diego Association of Governments SB 45 - Senate Bill 45 Kopp 1997 Transportation Funding SB 821 - LTF Bicycle and Pedestrian Funds SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District SCRRA - Southern California Regional Rail Authority SJBL San Jacinto Branch Line SR - State Route SRTP - Short Range Transit Plan SSAB - Salton Sea Air Basin STA* - State Transit Assistance State - State of California STIP* - State Transportation Improvement Program STP* - Surface Transportation Program SunLine - SunLine Transit Agency TCIF - Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (Proposition 1 B funding category) TDA* - Transportation Development Act TE* - Transportation Enhancements TIP - Transportation Improvement Plan TUMF* - Transportation/Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (Western County/Coachella Valley) UC - University of California VCTC - Ventura County Transportation Commission Western County - Westem area of Riverside County WRCOG - Western Riverside Council of Governments 1989 Measure A - Original 1/2 cent transportation sales tax measure approved by voters in November 1988 2009 Measure A - Extension of sales tax measure approved by voters in November 2002 which is effective upon expiration of original sales tax measure in June 2009 2008 Bonds - Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series A-1 and A-2, issued in June 2008 2009 Bonds - Sales Tax Revenue Bonds anticipated to be issued in October 2009 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan - 2009 Measure A 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan, adopted December 13, 2006 * Additional information provided in Funding Definitions. • 216 • • Funding Definitions Federal Fund Sources Federal Transit Administration (FPA) Section 5309 discretionary funds generally provided to urbanized areas for funding new start rail projects, major bus fleet replacement, and transit facility construction. Matching ratios range from 50/50 to 80% federal and 20% local. Section 5307 formula funds made available to urbanized areas for operating subsidies, capital projects and planning. Operating match is up to 50% of the net operating cost; capital and planning match is 80% federal and 20% local. Section 5310 funds made available to states for providing capital support to private non-profit and, in certain circumstances, public transit operators. This is a state administered discretionary program providing funds on an 88.53% federal and 11.47% local basis. Section 5311 funds provided to support rural transit operating subsidies and capital projects. Operating match is up to 50% of the net operating cost; capital match is 80% federal and 20%a local. Section 5316 funds provided for the development and maintenance of jobs access projects to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from work during non -peak hours as well as supply reverse commute options for workers in suburban areas. Section 5317 funds made available for new public transportation services and alternatives for people with disabilities beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was approved by Congress to replace the former Federal Aid Urban/Federal Aid System funding programs. ISTEA was established as a six -year funding program and was reauthorized for another six years in 1997. This new transportation act was renamed as the Transportation Equity Act of the Twenty-first Century (TEA21) and was extended through August 10, 2005 when the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFEtEA-LU). With guaranteed funding for highways, highway safety, and public transportation totaling S244.1 billion, SAhEILA-LU represents the largest surface transportation investment in our nation's history. Under these programs the following fund sources are allocated to each county, and the Commission further allocates these funds based on federal provisions. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds allocated by the Commission and administered by Caltrans that provide funding for local street and road improvements. Current matching rate is 88.53% federal and 11.47% local. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds allocated by the Commission for transportation related air quality improvement projects in air quality non - attainment areas. Current matching rate is 88.53°% federal and 11.47% local. Safety projects can qualify for 100%n of CMAQ funding. Transportation Enhancements (TE) The amount of funds made available under this program is 10% of the state apportionment of STP funds. Projects are qualified and prioritized by the Commission and submitted to the Califomia Transportation Commission for inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Program. The basic definition of a transportation enhancement project is an improvement that is over and above the base transportation project. Project categories are pedestrian and bicycle facilities, scenic or historic highways, scenic beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities, preservation of abandoned railway corridors, control/removal of outdoor advertising, archaeological planning and research, and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. Current matching rate is 88.53% federal and 11.47% local. State and Local Fund Sources State Transportation Improvement Program 217 The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) consists of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds. The RIP and IIP programs are mainly supported by Proposition 42 funding. The RIP component represents 75% of STIP funds available for capacity projects- Regional Transportation Planning Agencies are responsible for selection of projects proposed for RIP funds. The IIP component represents the remaining 25% of STIP funds available for capacity projects and Caltrans is responsible for the selection of I1P-funded projects. The Commission and Caltrans District 8 work closely in coordinating projects for these fund sources. Proposition 1 B Program In November 2006, the voters in California approved Proposition 1B, which will fund various transportation programs from bonds issued by the state of Califomia. Programs to be funded include corridor mobility improvements (CM1A), transit capital (PTMISEA), STIP supplement, goods movement (TCIF), state -local partnership funds, and cities and counties. Transportation Development Act (TDA) The TDA is comprised of two elements: Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. LTF funds are derived from 1/4 of one cent of the state sales tax and are returned to source. There are three areas of apportionment within Riverside County comprised of Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley (Blythe). The Commission administers the LTF on behalf of the County of Riverside. Funds are provided for program administration, Southern California Association of Govemments regional planning, local transportation planning, and transit services in Western County and the Coachella Valley. In the Palo Verde Valley, funds support transit services and local street and road improvements. Funds are also provided to the County for local street and road improvements in unincorporated areas. Additionally, under SB 821, 2% of LTF funds are made available for bicycle and pedestrian projects. STA funds are generated from the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel and are allocated by the state to the Commission based on population and as a percentage of transit fare revenue. The Commission has generally used these funds to support capital purchases and improvements as these funds have been subject to state budgetary actions. Measure A Measure A is a half -cent local retail transaction and use tax that was initially approved by the voters in November 1988 for 20 years (Ordinance 88-1) and extended in November 2002 for an additional 30 years (Ordinance 02-001), through June 2039, to help fund key transportation improvements in Riverside County. It provides funds to improve highways and local roadways, to initiate commuter rail services on existing tracks, to expand dial -a -ride services and commuter programs, and to guarantee half-price bus fares for seniors and persons with disabilities. These types of improvements are needed to control traffic, increase safety, and maintain the quality of life within the County. Since existing state and federal sources provide only a limited amount of funding for a limited number of projects, Measure A will cover the shortfall for key projects with a funding source that is under local control. It will use the revenue generated in Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley to meet the unique transportation needs of each of those areas. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program was adopted by all local jurisdictions in the western county area of Riverside County in July 2003. Under this program, which is administered by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), fees are assessed on new residential and commercial development in western Riverside County to ensure that new development pays its fair share toward providing the needed infrastructure improvements on the regional system of highways and arterials. In accordance with the extension of Measure A in 2002, the Commission shall receive the first $400 million of TUMF revenues to fund equally the regional arterial system and the development of new corridors. As a result of a Memorandum of Understanding with WRCOG, the Commission will receive 48.7% of TUMF through June 30, 2009, and, in accordance with the extension of Measure A, thereafter at 100%, after deduction of an administrative fee, up to an aggregate of $400 million. An amendment to lift the $400 million cap has been proposed and will be presented for approval in FY 2008/09. Program Terms The following explanations of terms are presented to aid in understanding the various program terms used and discussed in the narrative and generally used in outlining the Commission's functions for auditing, governmental accountine, financial reporting and budgeting. Transportation Improvement Plan • • 218 • • This plan also acts as the County's expenditure plan and was prepared by the Commission for the proposed 1/2% local retail transaction and use tax for transportation purposes to be collected. This was proposed by the Commnission as a means to fill the funding shortfall to implement needed highway, regional arterial, and commuter rail projects; local street and road programs; and transit improvements for seniors and disabled persons. Highways Measure A provides revenues to widen existing highways, expand interchanges, and improve remote freeways. These improvements are needed to control traffic congestion in Western County and improve access and safety in Coachella Valley. Costs of these improvements will be covered by funds from state and federal sources. Measure A revenue will be used to supplement —not replace --these other sources and to accelerate work on projects deferred for lack of funding. Commuter Rail Measure A provides capital revenue for commuter rail service to Orange and Los Angeles counties. LTF provides revenue for commuter rail operations in Riverside County. These trains operate on existing railroad tracks parallel to major freeways. Commuter rail service provides a safe and reliable transit alternative to driving alone during the peak period. Plans to expand commuter rail service in western Riverside County from Riverside to Perris via Moreno Valley are currently underway. Metrolink The Commission's commuter rail program is part of the regional network operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operating under the name of Metrolink, a five -county joint powers agency composed of the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and Ventura. The purpose of this agency is to manage the operation and maintenance of commuter rail in the five -county metropolitan area. Regional Arterials Fifty-five percent of the Measure A funds generated within the Coachella Valley is used for state highways and major regional road projects. The Coachella Valley area is served by few state highways. The regional arterial system developed through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments functions much like state highways to address future needs for the area. The system is to be implemented with a mix of funding required from new development under a Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee to be paid by developers from new development and from Measure A funds returned to the Coachella Valley area. The Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee schedule shall be established in order to generate at least the equivalent of Measure A funding toward the regional arterial system. Local Streets and Roads Measure A provides revenues to local jurisdictions for the construction, repair, and maintenance of local streets and roads. The County and local cities are required to supplement those expenditures with other previously dedicated revenue sources to maintain road improvements at a level equal to or greater than the base year amount (fiscal year 1987/88). LTF provides revenue for local street and road improvements in the Palo Verde Valley and unincorporated areas of the County. Specialized Transit Measure A provides revenues to improve transportation services for seniors, persons with disabilities and commuters. For seniors and persons with disabilities, it provides dial -a -ride cab service at night for emergency purposes, guarantees half-price bus fares, and assists centers with their transit programs. For commuters, it improves express bus service and expands ridesharing programs. In the Coachella Valley, revenues also are available for bus replacement and local bus service. Commuter Assistance The purpose of this program is to provide short-term incentives to encourage single occupant vehicle drivers to use alternate modes of transportation including carpools, vanpools, bus pools, public bus, commuter rail, walking, and bicycling. Motorist Assistance The Motorist Assistance program has two elements. The Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) is a special team of tow trucks that travel on selected Riverside County freeways during peak commuter hours to assist drivers when their cars break down. The other element is the call box system, which installation and operation is made possible with revenue provided by the public. One dollar per year from every motor vehicle registration pays for the call boxes and their operation and maintenance. Call boxes arc being provided by the Commission, which serves as the County's Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). 219 Bicycle and Pedestrian LTF provides revenues for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and related right-of-way costs. Transit The Commission is the agency responsible for short-range transportation planning and programmting and coordinating the operation of all public transportation service within the County. The Commission allocates and disburses TDA funds to the transit operators for operating and capital purposes. General Terms The following explanations of terms are presented to aid in understanding the narrative discussions and illustrations included in this budget document and the terminology generally used in governmental accounting, auditing, financial reporting, and budgeting. Accountability The state of being obliged to explain one's actions, to justify what one does. Accountability requires a government to answer to its citizenry to justify the raising of public resources and the purposes for which they are used. Accounting System The methods and records established to identify, assemble, analyze, classify, record, and report a government's transactions and to maintain accountability for the related assets and liabilities. Accrual Basis of Accounting The accounting of the financial effects of transactions, events, and interfund activities when they occur, regardless of when cash is received or paid. Advance Refunding Bonds New bonds issued to refinance an outstanding bond issue before the date the outstanding bonds become due or callable to obtain better interest razes and/or bond conditions. Proceeds of the advance refunding bonds are deposited in escrow with a fiduciary, invested in U.S. Treasury Bonds or other authorized securities, and used to redeem the underlying bonds at their maturity or call date and to pay interest on the bonds being refunded. Agency Fund A fiduciary fund type used to report resources held by a govemment for others in a purely custodial capacity and cannot be used to support the govemment's own programs. The Commission's agency fund is the Local Projects Agency Fund that accounts for the proceeds from a subordinate debt issue for various cities' local street and road projects. Audit A systematic collection of the sufficient, competent evidential matter needed to attest to the fairness of management's assertions in the financial statements or to evaluate whether management has efficiently and effectively carved out its responsibilities. The auditor obtains this evidential matter through inspection, observation, inquiries, and confirmations with third parties. Balanced Budget The funding of operating and capital expenditures and other financing uses with identified revenues and other financing sources as well as available fund balances on an annual basis. Basis of Accounting A term used to refer to when the effects of transactions or events are recognized for financial reporting purposes. For example, the timing of recognition can be when the transaction or event occurs (accrual basis) or when cash is received or paid (cash basis). Bond A written promise to pay a specified sum of money (face or principal amount) at a specified date or dates in the future (maturity date), together with periodic interest at a specified rate. Bonds are primarily used to finance capital projects. Budget 220 • • A plan of financial activity for a specified period indicating all planned revenues and expenditures for the budget period. Annual budgets are usually required by law and are essential to sound financial management. The Commission prepares an annual budget that is applicable to a single fiscal year. Budgetary Control The control or management of a government in accordance with an approved budget to keep expenditures within the limitations of available appropriations and available revenues. Budget Document The instrument used by the budget -making authority to present a comprehensive financial program to the appropriating governing body. Capital Outlay Expenditures resulting in the acquisition of or addition to the govemment's capital assets or assets to be transferred to Caltrans, such as highway projects. Capital Projects Fund A governmental fund type created to account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital projects. The Commission has two capital projects funds for Measure A Western County and Commercial Paper to account for debt proceeds from 1989 Measure A sales tax revenue bonds and 2009 Measure A commercial paper notes related to highway, commuter rail, regional arterial, and local streets and roads projects. Commercial Paper An unsecured short-term promissory note issued primarily by corporations with maturities ranging from two to 270 days. The credit risk of almost all commercial paper is rated by a rating service. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report A financial report that encompasses all funds of the government. In the financial section of the CAFR are the basic financial statements and required supplementary information as well as combining and individual fund financial statements as necessary. The CAFR also contains introductory information and statistical data. Current Financial Resources Measurement Focus A measurement focus that reports on the near -term or current inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable financial resources. This focus is unique to accounting and financial reporting for state and local governments and is used for reporting the financial position and results of operations of governmental funds. Debt An obligation resulting from the borrowing of money or from the purchase of goods and services. Debts of governments include bonds, time warrants, and notes. Debt Coverage Ratio The ratio of pledged revenues to related debt service for a given year. Debt Limit The maximum amount of outstanding gross or net debt legally permitted. Debt Proceeds The difference between the face amount of debt and the issuance discount or the sum of the face amount and the issuance premium. Debt proceeds differ from cash receipts to the extent issuance costs, such as underwriters' fees, are withheld by the underwriter. Debt Service Fund A governmental fund type created to account for the accumulation of resources for and payment of general long-term debt principal and interest. The Commission has one debt service fund for its sales tax revenue bonds. Expenditures Represents decreases in net financial resources on the transfer of property or services for acquiring an asset, service, or settling a loss. Fiduciary Funds 221 Funds used to report assets held in a trustee or agency capacity for others and cannot therefore be used to support the government's own programs. Financial Advisor In the context of the issuance of debt, a consultant who advises the issuer on any of a variety of matters related to the issuance. The financial advisor sometimes also is referred to as the fiscal consultant. Financial Audit An audit made to provide independent assurance whether the financial statements of a government are presented fairly in conformity with GAAP. Financial Resources Resources that are or will become available for spending and include cash, resources ordinarily expected to be converted to cash such as receivables, inventory, and prepaid assets. Fiscal Year For the Commission, the 12-month period that begins July 1 and ends with June 30 of the designated fiscal or operating year for accounting and budgeting purposes. Fund A fiscal and accounting entity with a self -balancing set of accounts in which cash and other financial resources, all related liabilities, and residual equities or balances, and changes therein, are recorded and segregated to carry on specific activities or attain certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions, or limitations. Fund Balance The excess of a governmental fund's assets over its liabilities. Fund Type Any one of eleven classifications into which all funds are categorized in governmental accounting. Governmental fund types include general, special revenue, debt service, capital projects, and permanent funds. Proprietary fund types include enterprise and internal service funds. Fiduciary fund types include pension trust, investment trust, and private - purpose trust funds and agency funds. GASB 34 Statement No. 34 issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board that was implemented by the Commission in FY 2001/02. GASB 34 established new financial reporting standards for state and local governments. Under the new financial reporting model, governmental financial statements include basic financial statements that present both government -wide and fund financial statements and required supplementary information, including Management's Discussion and Analysis. GASB 45 Statement No. 45, Accounting for Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB), issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board implemented by the Commission in FY 2007/08. GASB 45 requires recognition of post -retirement health care costs on an accrual basis over a period approximating the employees' years of service and to provide information about actuarial accrued liabilities associated with these benefits and whether and to what extent progress is being made in funding the plan. General Fund The governmental fund type used to account for all financial resources, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. General Ledger A record containing the accounts needed to reflect the financial position and the results of operations of a government. In double -entry bookkeeping, debit balances equal the credit balances in the general ledger. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Minimum standards and guidelines for financial accounting and reporting. GAAP encompass the conventions, rules, and procedures that serve as the norm for the fair presentation of financial statements. The GASB is the primary authoritative accounting and financial reporting standard -setting body on the application of GAAP to state and local governments. 222 • • Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) Rules and procedures established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) for the conduct of a financial audit. There are ten basic GAAS, classed into three broad categories: general standards, standards of fieldwork, and standards of reporting. The Auditing Standards Board of the AICPA publishes Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS) and related interpretations to comment and expand upon these basic standards. Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) Standards established by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in its publication, Government Auditing Standards, for the conduct and reporting of both financial and performance audits in the public sector. GAGAS set forth general standards applicable to both types of audits and separate standards of fieldwork and reporting for financial and performance audits. The GAGAS standards of fieldwork and reporting for financial audits incorporate and build upon GAAS. Governmental Funds Funds generally used to account for tax -supported activities. The Commission's governmental funds are comprised of general, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects funds_ Grant A contribution by a government or other organization to support a particular function or program. Independent Auditor An auditor meeting the independence criteria set forth in GAAS and GAGAS. Indirect Cost Allocation Plan A cost allocation plan developed to identify and document the cost incurred to administer state and federal programs and is used to recover such indirect costs from program grants or reimbursement agreements. Internal Auditing An independent appraisal of the diverse operations and controls within a government entity to determine whether acceptable policies and procedures are followed, established standards are met, resources are used efficiently and economically, and the organization's objectives are being achieved. The term covers all forms of appraisal of activities undertaken by auditors working for and within an organization. Internal Control Policies and procedures established to provide reasonable assurance that specific government objectives will be achieved. Joint Venture A legal entity or other organization resulting from a contractual agreement and that is owned, operated, or governed by two or more participants as a separate and specific activity for the benefit of the public or service recipients and in which the government retains an ongoing financial interest or ongoing financial responsibility. The Commission is a member agency of Metrolink. Legal Level of Budgetary Control The level at which a government's management may not reallocate resources without special approval from the legislative body. Loans Receivable An asset account reflecting amounts loaned to individuals or organizations external to the Commission, including notes taken as security for such loans. Measurement Focus The objective of a measurement, that is, what is being expressed in reporting a government's financial performance and position. A particular measurement focus considers not only which resources are measured (financial or economic), but also when the effects of transactions or events involving those resources are recognized (basis of accounting). The measurement focus of the Commission's government -wide and fiduciary fund financial statements is economic resources, whereas the measurement focus of governmental fund financial statements is current financial resources. Modified Accrual Basis The accrual basis of accounting adapted to the governmental funds' measurement focus according to which revenues and other financial resource increments (e.g., bond issue proceeds) are recognized when they become susceptible to 223 accrual, that is when they become both "measurable" and "available to finance expenditures of the current period." Expenditures are recognized when the fund liability is incurred except for unmatured interest on general long-term debt and certain similar accrued obligations when due. The Commission's governmental funds are accounted for using the modified accrual basis of accounting. Other Financing Sources Amounts classified separately from revenues to avoid distorting revenue trends that represent an increase in current financial resources. Other financing sources generally include general long-term debt proceeds, amounts equal to the present value of minimum lease payments arising from capital leases, proceeds from the sale of general fixed assets, and transfers in. Other Financing Uses Amounts classified separately from expenditures to avoid distorting expenditure trends and represent a decrease in current financial resources. Other financing uses generally include transfers out and the amount of refunding bond proceeds deposited with the escrow agent. Overhead Indirect costs that cannot be specifically associated with a given service, program, or department and thus, cannot be clearly associated with a particular functional category. Principal In the context of bonds other than deep -discount debt, the face value or par value of a bond or issue of bonds payable on stated dates of maturity. Program Group activities, operations, or organizational units directed to attaining specific purposes or objectives. Program Budget A budget wherein expenditures are based primarily on the functions or activities of a government rather than to specific items of cost or to specific departments. Purchase Order A document authorizing the delivery of specified merchandise or the rendering of certain services and the making of a charge for them. Refunding Bonds Bonds issued to retire bonds already outstanding. The proceeds of refunding bonds may be used to repay the previously issued debt (current refunding) or to be placed with an escrow agent and invested until used to pay principal and interest on old debt at a future dale (advance refunding). Reimbursement Grant A grant for which a potential recipient must first incur qualifying expenditures to be eligible. Reserved Fund Balance Those portions of fund balance which are not appropriable for expenditure or that are legally segregated for a specific future use. Special Revenue Fund A governmental fund type used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources (other than major capital projects) that are legally restricted to expenditure for specified purposes. The Commission maintains special revenue funds for Measure A Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde; Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee; Freeway Service Patrol; Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies; State Transit Assistance; and Local Transportation Fund. Transfers All interfund transfers representing flows of assets between funds of the government without equivalent flows of assets in return and without a requirement for repayments. Trust Fund A fiduciary fund type used to report pension, invesunent. or private -purpose trust arrangements, under which principal and income benefit individuals, private organizations, or other governments. • • 224 T`ustee A fiduciary holding property on behalf of another. 225 Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2009/10 RCTC Budget Summary Beginning Fund Balance S4E8,096,000 Revenues 284,435,700 Debt Roc eeds 260,000.000 Translers h 243,482,600 Total Estimated Sources 787,918,300 &pendeures 869,545.200 Transfers Out 243,482,600 Total attested Uses 813.027,800 Uses Over Sources (125.109,500) (Offset by beghning fund balance) Endng Fund Balance $ 280.985,500 Funding Sources Budget Adjustments (Draft to Final) Mena ati,Gund a v14 PafYi FY 2009A4Va4mnle. Bowsaw wssur.. re..w 14500.c021 MOM. LlFremw Il cc4wl ✓ oman," tern reneunamon1 SO.= meroaz.F peren...l cwe inarn si, WPM ▪ ;ugq.reMaWmele (sas.evil 6[In M.11, 1.61, Ob.iuvn. a.pec.e.,.a re L acr(mien'Meure,' w lyn.ny Papal coat cre...n'Maur.,' WOW -way i,000. oc m Beb&FY ana AA amen Merano ,0 0o1 Cara.. OF leuenvii I1.020.0031 Rrwaen ladarehele rwmuae,lenS ebap. w> Bacreernmu.reni aeon Ila4mal ▪ ewnP+rvv„Menet 0,16on+r.t.n.t) sesoo 1.4.50 poleaemeaLopenccNa 14ss000l Dacresse program nene2wenn coat IICIPBSPO rY Oyaept;ael cmlc 01435001 ircreese. Miespc.we name A.M./MS. 110. soul ircreass n Lif erceeon 101 wm9t11.1nme (B.A.ol Rnmun Measure R L6P11311.1.3 h+w.a1uu.,' WC ne.y coat 11209,m]1 Lcrne.n eoasure,a or by,.aynyw erolr.l post. 151e3.1001 FY R91e L.M10 Fund Balm. War red luq.la10C91 329145,5n Funding Sources Wastes.A 4 LTF Cancans CIAAO PTA Federal Other TOW License Fees OMV Fees FSP Investment and Other Deb Proceeds Tlanlars In Total Federal Stele LOcotl091er Total 8,751200 29,765,000 S 121.500,000 S 121.500,0M 87,%t ,903 e7,641,500 • 31,748,300 13.750200 10,£�M3 6'A.WJ o25 mo • 5,524,000 5,524000 • 200,000,000 260,0130,IX0 - 243,482800 243.462,600 S 24,050.002 S 33,240%00 S 730.023,500 E 7e7.918,30 000,,000 1.060,000 SOPS t100 Summary of Expenditures Management Services Regional Programs Capital Project Development and Delivery Debt Service Total FV 09/10 Expenditures $ 5,868,800 137,353,100 328,068,300 198,255,000 $ 689,545.200 1 Management Services Elamtive Management Administration LegOlatlw Maio and Communications Finance Tool Management Services rd7 Alumpermat I rx FT2008R0 Highlights: Downtimes Expenditures have decreased $ 215,300 6.1% from FY 2008/08 1,617,600 • Remain active In stab legislative matters, Including allowing design -build 2,888,900 procurements Participate Mteaeral reauthorization process Provde proactive communications and outreach on major projects Renew or replace letter of credit tor commercial paper at potentially nigher cost e Use Measure A bad financing revenues for debt service on 2009 bade 1,147,100 2,4 $ 5,868,800 • • Capital Program Salaries and Benefits Professional Costs Suppose Costs Projects and Operations: General Highways Local Streets and Roads Rail Regional Arterials Special Studies Capital Outlay Taal Capital Project Development Delivery FY09l10 Expenditures $ 2,456,300 10,248,500 1,052,200 14,352,000 185,927,000 35,908,900 61,672,000 15,583,400 150,000 718,000 S 328,068,300 Capital Program Highlights • 1989 Measure A Projects - Local circulation interchanges on SRA1 (La Sierra and Van Buren) and SR- 60 (Valley Way) - SR-74/G Street to 1-215 interchange - SR-91 HOY lanes (Adams to Interchange) - SR-111 projects • 2009 Measure AI70-Year Delivery Plan Projects - SR-91, 1-15, and 1-215 corridor improvements - MSHCP land acquisition in Coachella Valley - Coachella Valley highway and regional arterial projects in Indio and Rancho Mirage • Rail Projects - Perris Valley Line and related projects - Perris Multimodal Transportation and Riverside Downtown layover facilities • Regional ArterialICETAP Projects - Mid County Parkway - Local Western County TUMF projects • Local Streets and Roads distributions of $35.9 million Regional Programs Regional Issues Planning and Programming Pail Plantar wayA9negxnmt Peek and specialised Transit cmnender/sslaends 1/eenerfiesemN.4 Teel Pegtenal Proyemn pY20mnU EgaMllr. s Tssd2ro 3.620200 24279.100 6270 wa21.0200 6,23]300 3.366.000 s 137.360a60 Highlights: • Decrease of 4.9% Irons FY 2008A19 • Fund grade separagaw • Complete ICE geotechnical studies • OperMe new station MORN, In Corona and Penis • Provide higher operating and capital subsldles to SCARS • Maintain real properties In compliance with local codes • Use LTF and STA reserves for bum and rail transit • implement 1E511 system • Dewier, new peril and ride facilities Capital Program (continued) Expenditures Breakdown by Function Personnel P rotessiorml Segnd P roles le end Operations Dad Sarek a and Cost of Issuance Canna, Outlay TotalEvendee. FY 09E0 Expenditures 3 6,050,090 13.900.400 3.796E00 446,424400 190,255.000 119000 SO69.565200 2 Measure A Administration ■T^ i • Measure A limits administrative salaries and benefits to 1% of Measure A sales Mx revenues • Commission policy for total administration costs not to exceed 4%of Measure A sales tax revenues Next Steps • Receive input for proposed budget today • Finalize budget and related document • Close public hearing and adopt final budget 3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 6 (Insert after page 29 of the FY 2009/10 Budget document) Gann Appropriations Limit In November 1979, the voters of the State approved Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative. The Proposition created Article XIIIB of the State Constitution, placing limits on the amount of revenue that can be spent by public agencies from the "proceeds of taxes." In 1980, the State Legislature added Section 7910 to the Government Code, providing that the governing body of each local jurisdiction must establish, by resolution, an appropriations limit for the following year. The appropriations limit for any fiscal year is equal to the previous year's limit adjusted for population changes and changes in the California per capita income. The Commission is subject to the requirements of Article XIIIB. Gann appropriations limits are calculated for and applied to the Commission. In accordance with the requirements of Article XIIIB implementing legislation, the Board approved Resolution No. 08-017 on June 11, 2008, establishing appropriations limits for the Commission at $322,761,463. The FY 2008/09 budget appropriated $196,228,661 in taxes for the Commission, falling well within the limits set by the Gann Initiative. Based on historic trends and future projections, it appears the Commission's use of the proceeds of taxes, as defined by Article XIIIB, will continue to fall below the appropriations limit. The projected gap between the Commission's projected "use of proceeds" and appropriations limit remains significant over the next decade. The calculation for the FY 2009/10 appropriations limit is as follows: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2009-2010 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 2008-2009 Appropriations Limit $ 31 1,666,690 2009-2010 adjustment: Change in California per capita income Change in Population, Riverside County 2.13 percent 1.40 percent 2.13 + 100 = 1.0213 100 1.40 + 100 = 1.014 100 1.0213 x 1.014 = 1.0355982 $ 31 1,666,690 X 1.0355982 = $ 322,761,463 2009-2010 Appropriations Limit $ 322,761,463 Source: California per capita income — California Department of Finance Population, Riverside County — California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cheryl Johns, Procurement and Assets Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Transit Administration Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Proposed Goal for Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt 0.0% as its annual race -neutral Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for FFY 2009/10 from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-012, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Goal (49 CFR Part 26) as Applies to Funding Received Directly from the Federal Transit Administration"; 3) Post the proposed DBE overall annual goal for FFY 2009/10 and receive comments for 45 days; and 4) Submit the FFY 2009/10 FTA DBE program and annual goal to the FTA. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and the FTA, 49 CFR Part 26, the Commission must adopt its DBE annual goal as a condition to receive a commitment for federal financial assistance from the FTA as a direct recipient. Since 2006, the Commission has implemented a race -neutral DBE program in compliance with directives issued by the U.S. DOT published in response to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision in the Western States Paving Co. vs. United States and Washington State Department of Transportation. In a race -neutral program, the Commission may not set numeric contract DBE participation goals on any of its DOT -assisted contracts for which DBE subcontracting possibilities exist until such time that the Commission can adequately document evidence of discrimination in its transportation contracting Agenda Item 8A 226 program within its relevant geographic area to meet narrow tailoring provisions of the governing regulations (49 CFR Part 26). However, for FFY 2009/10, it is proposed that the annual FTA DBE goal be 0.0%. Staff is recommending a null goal because there are no new projects planned for FFY 2009/10 that will be funded either in whole or in part with FTA funds. Although the Commission has applied for stimulus funds from FTA, any such funding received will be disbursed to local cities and other agencies. The Commission will not be directly awarding any third party contracts using FTA funds. For FFY 2008/09, the Commission set an annual race -neutral DBE goal of 6.4%. To date, the Commission has awarded one construction contract utilizing FTA funds. In December 2008, a contract for the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility was awarded in the amount of $4,904,840 with federal funds in the amount of $1,494,022. As required, the public notice will be published in the newspaper to inform the public of the proposed goals and the rationale for setting the goal. These documents are available for inspection at the Commission for 30 days following the date of the notice, with a 45-day comment period. If there are no substantive comments received, the adopted goal and goal methodology shall be submitted to the FTA by August 1, 2009. Attachments: 1) DBE Goal Methodology 2) Resolution No. 09-012 Agenda Item 8A • • 227 ATTACHMENT 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Proposed Annual Overall Goal For Federal Transit Administration Funded Projects Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 I. GOAL METHODOLOGY As required by Federal Regulations 49 CFR Section 26, " public agencies receiving Federal Department of Transportation -assisted funds must adopt its annual overall DBE goal by using every effort to meet its goal through race neutral measures. Agencies may establish specific contract goals, including goals for particular projects through subcontracting opportunities, in those instances when race neutral measures are not sufficient to meet the Commission's overall goal. The following methodology was used in establishing a Base Figure for DBE availability for FFY 2009/10: •. NUMERATOR - Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs)* firms in the four -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange) • DENOMINATOR - Total number of consulting and construction firms, the work category** identified within the three -county area based on the most recent available data from the U.S. Census Bureau- 2006 *: Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) include the following: Asian Subcontinent, Caucasian, Hispanic, African American, Asian -Pacific American, Women, Native American businesses and other businesses (men). The number of the firms available was obtained from the Caltrans Office Civil Rights web page: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/find certified.htm 228 ATTACHMENT 1 * *: The work categories selected from the 2006 County Business Patterns (NAICS) are as follows: TABLE A Industry Code Industry Code Description 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 54131 Architectural Services 541310 Architectural Services 54132 Landscape Architectural Services 541320 Landscape Architectural Services 54133 Engineering Services 541330 Engineering Services 54134 Drafting Services 541340 Drafting Services 54135 Building Inspection Services 541350 Building Inspection Services 54136 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services 541360 - Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services 54137 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services 541370 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services 54138 Testing Laboratories 541380 Testing Laboratories 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 54162 Environmental Consulting Services 541620 Environmental Consulting Services 54182 Public Relations Agencies 541820 Public Relations Agencies This information can be obtained from the following web link: http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl.pl 229 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE B— Industry Code _ Industry Code Description 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 238140 Masonry Contractors 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 238210 Electrical Contractors 238910 Site Preparation Contractors This information can be obtained from the following web link: http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl.pl To obtain the Numerator a query search was performed with the following parameters at the Ca!trans Office Civil Rights web page: • Select the three -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange) • Select the Race/Ethnicity. • Select the same NAICS Categories that were used for the Census Data Search as listed in Table A and Table B. • Obtain the number of DBE certified Firms. To obtain the Denominator a query search was performed with the following parameters at the US Census Bureau web page: • Select the three -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange) • Select the applicable NAICS Categories for the work to be performed; these are outlined in Table A and Table B. • Obtain the number of Firms. 230 ATTACHMENT 1 CENSUS DATA FOR CONSULTING SERVICES CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY FIPS CODE COUNTY NAICS 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services NAICS 54162 Environmental Consulting Services NAICS 54182 Public Relations Agencies NAICS 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 30 059 Orange 1,893 170 93 104 33 065 Riverside 484 32 20 25 36 071 San Bernardino 435 35 9 22 TOTAL 2,812 237 122 151 Of the 3,322 firms identified in the four NAISC classifications from the 2006 Census data there are 303 identified available DBE firms in the Caltrans DBE directory of firms in the consultant services work codes that operate within the four -county area, see table below: DBE IDENTIFIED FIRMS PER NAICS CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES COUNTY NAICS 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services NAICS 54162 Environmental Consulting Services NAICS 54182 Public Relations Agencies NAICS 541618 Other Management Consulting Services Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino 139 38 25 101 The information presented above was obtained through the Caltrans Web Site: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ucp/QuerySubmit.do?naicsCode = 54%20%20%20Professi onal, %20Scientific, %20and %20Technical %20Services 231 a iz O CDCD l h r•f CD = �nn Q Y S < N N al• co ,-+ v 3 6 m m ▪ cs y CDW Q c 0 � h c - Et c � CD f+ Q � 3. 5. Cal a) C v m to C) m v co '., a) v O crN CD CT O CD o m m N 0 <a o N � O 3- . 5' 0 3: 3 cn S91300 )110M S90!A1aS suoReowsselo OSIVN 1-19n910 ayl 0- CD Z m �, O ill 0 CO CO 0 M. � su < a m 3 in-{ p EL m co 0 7 n O Z -< N rn NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction w NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction rn NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction -Jn NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction rn NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction c„ � NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors COCO NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors o o NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors oN NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors a) NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors a)NAICS al co 238910 Site Preparation Contractors • • �D co o ▪ m 7 O_ 51 7_ n. \5 O C Q O. O 7 A 'O v -4 co o N < 7 C CD C CD Q Q N rm O- E o cm < c o 3 0 O co. O 7 • (D 7 O_ ✓ h F). C7 • O o a co � 7- II '* al co o d N .-+ o O 7 N O o N N 6 o ci) �: O m -,, m y N o• 7 0 N O cn n rD 7 OZ%PueOZ%'0 0 ni 7 OD CO CD 7 :I c 1 O_ N O p fD u) m 7 n O C z —i N rn NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction rn NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 00 NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction V NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction coNAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction coNAICS rn 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors w o NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors — cr NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors w NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors +� rn NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors -tz. o NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors I. 1N3WHOVI1 / ATTACHMENT 1 The following lists the total amount of projected funds (Federal (FTA) and non - Federal (FTA)) for consultant and construction Services for FFY 2009-10. The funding has been separated into each NAISC classifications to determine the DBE percent per classification as required by the DBE calculation. The funding distribution to each NAISC classification was determined by reviewing similar projects or past experience with similar items of work. WORK CATEGORY ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS % OF FEDERAL FUNDS Consultant Services $0 $0 0% Construction Projects $0 $0 0% The projects that were used to determine the percent distribution for each NAISC classification were as follows: Consulting Services State Route 22 Design -Build Project Management Services State Route 74 Segment 1 Construction Management Contract 1-215 East Junction Final Engineering Design Construction Services State Route 74 G Street to 1-215 Project Report Cost Estimate BUDGET BREAKDOWN CONSULTING SERVIi NAICS Classification % Funding Distribution Funding Amount ($) Federal Funding Amount($) Federal Funding Weight Factor 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 0% $0 $0 0 54162 Environmental Consulting Services 0% $0 $0 0 54182 Public Relations Agencies 0% $0 $0 0 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 0% $0 $0 0 TOTAL 0% SO SO 0 234 ATTACHMENT 1 BUDGET BREAKDOWN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES NAICS Classification % Funding Distribution Funding Amount IS) Federal Funding Amount($) Federal Funding Weight Factor NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 0% $0 $0 0 NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 0% $0 $0 0 NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 0% SO $0 0 NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction 0% $0 SO 0 NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 09/0 SO $0 0 NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 0% $0 $0 0 NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 0% SO SO 0 NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors 0% $0 $0 0 NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 0% SO $0 0 NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors 0% $0 $0 0 NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors 0% $0 $0 0 TOTAL 0% $0 $0 0 At this time, there are no projected consultant or construction projects utilizing FTA funds. • • 235 ATTACHMENT 1 The formula that is provided to determine calculation of DBE Goal is as follows. The weighted Base Figure is calculated by first determining the number of ready, willing, and able DBEs in the three counties for the work category shown in Table A, divided by the number of total firms in those categories. Using this method determines the availability by the number of firms that have directly participated in, or attempted to participate in, past federally -funded assisted contracting efforts. The application of the formula yields the following baseline information: DBE( Base Figure) _ CE No. of (DBEs)in a Work Category xyVeight Ix100 No.of All Firms in same Work Category The Base Figure resulting from the calculation is as follows: CONSULTANT NAICS Classification DBE s Available (Numerator) All Firms from 2006 Census Weight DBE (Base Figure) 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 139 2,812 .00 0% 54162 Environmental Consulting Services 38 237 .00 0% 54182 Public Relations Agencies 25 122 .00 0% 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 101 151 .00 0% TOTAL 303 3,322 0.00 0% 236 ATTACHMENT 1 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES NAICS Classification DBE s Available (Numerator) All Firms from 2006 Census Weight DBE (Base Figure) NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 26 226 0.0 0% NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 6 33 0.0 0% NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 8 106 0.0 0% NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction 67 175 0.0 0% NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 31 106 0.0 0% NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 36 584 0.0 0% NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 30 99 0.0 0% NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors 15 400 0.0 0% NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 8 120 0.0 0% NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors 46 1716 0.0 0% NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors 46 658 0.0 0% TOTAL 319 4,223 0.0 0% 237 ATTACHMENT 1 DBE (Base Figure) = Consultant DBE(Base Figure) + Construction DBE(Base Figure) DBE (Base Figure) = 0 + 0 DBE (Base Figure) = 0 II. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BASE FIGURE No adjustments have been made to the Base figure since no projects are anticipated to be awarded in the upcoming fiscal using FTA funding. III. ANTICIPATED PROJECTS FOR FFY 2009/10 For the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 no Consultant or Construction Contracts are anticipated to be awarded with FTA federal fund allocations. IV. UTILIZATION OF RACE/GENDER-NEUTRAL METHOD If FTA funded projects were anticipated in the upcoming fiscal year staff would foresee meeting the proposed goal by utilizing race -neutral methods by: 1) making efforts to ensure that the Request for Proposals (RFPs) and Invitation for Bids (IFBs) process and the contracting requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses; 2) encouraging the prime consultant and contractors to subcontract portions of the work to DBEs; 3) distributing the RFPs and IFBs to organizations that represent and assist DBEs; and, 4) listing the RFPs and IFBs on the Commission website www.rctc.org. V. PUBLIC NOTICE IN SETTING OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOAL As required, the public notice informs the public of the proposed goals and the rationale for setting the goal, which are available for inspection at the Commission for 30 days following the date of the notice. The Commission will receive comments for 45 days. If there are no substantive comments received, the adopted goal and goal methodology shall be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration prior to the start of the FFY on October 1, 2009. VI. ESTABLISHMENT OF GOAL Based on the information presented in the report, it is proposed that the Commission's overall DBE goal for FFY 2009/10 be established at 0%. 238 ATTACHMENT 1 Construction Consultants NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237110\fta\fta search all dbe categories 05 22 09pdf.pdf NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction ..\caltrans searcheslConstruction\NAICS 237120\fta\fta search all dbe categories 05 22 09pdf.pdf NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction ..\caltrans searches\ConstructionlNAICS 237130\fta\fta search all dbe categories 05 22 09pdf.pdf NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ..\caltrans searches\ConstructionlNAICS 237310\fta\fta search all dbe categories 05 22 09pdf.pdf NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237990\ftalfluerySubmit.pdf NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors ..\caltrans searcheslConstruction\NAICS 238110\ftalfta search all dbe categories 05 22 09pdf.pdf NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors ..\caltrans searches\ConstructionlNAICS 2381201ftatha search all dbe categories 05 22 09pdf.pdf NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors ..\caltrans searches \ConstructionlNAICS 2381401fta\fta search all dbe categories 05 22 09pdf.pdf NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors ..\caltrans searcheslConstruction\NAICS 2381901fta\fta search all dbe categories 05 22 09pdf.pdf 240 ATTACHMENT 1 NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors ..\caltrans searcheslConstruction\NAICS 2382101fta\fta search all dbe categories 05 22 09pdf.pdf NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors ..lcaltrans searches \ Construction lNAICS 2389101fta\fta search all dbe categories 05 22 09pdf.pdf 241 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 09-012 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING ITS FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND GOAL (49 CFR PART 26) AS APPLIES TO FUNDING RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) adopted its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in 1999; WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision regarding the Washington State Department of Transportation, determined that sufficient evidence must exist to support the use of race conscious measures on federal -aid contracts; WHEREAS, the Commission is still required, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 26, to adopt a DBE goal and implement its DBE program as applies to federal funding received by the Commission directly from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); WHEREAS, the methodology to determine the agency's DBE goal shall be in accordance with 49 CFR Part 26; WHEREAS, the Commission is a direct recipient of FTA funds; WHEREAS, the Commission does not currently have sufficient evidence of discrimination or its effects which would support the adoption or implementation of a race -conscious DBE goal; WHEREAS, in light of the Ninth Circuit ruling and the FTA directive, and in accordance with 49 CFR Part 26, the Commission has utilized all race neutral methodology in calculating the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2009/10 DBE goal. 242 NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission amends its DBE program goal for FFY 2009/10 (October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010) . SECTION 2. The Commission goal for FFY 2009/10 shall be 0.0%. SECTION 3. The Commission shall implement a race -neutral DBE program, and shall take affirmative steps to utilize race -neutral means of meeting its overall goal. ADOPTED this 10th day of June, 2009. Robert E. Magee, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • 243 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cheryl Johns, Procurement and Assets Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Proposed Annual Anticipated Race- Conscious and Race -Neutral Participation Goals for Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt 0.3% as its race -conscious Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) and 0.4% as its race -neutral Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) for FFY 2009/10 from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-013, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level as Applies to Funding Received from the Federal Highway Administration Through Caltrans"; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission for submission to Caltrans; 4) Authorize the Chair to execute the Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form on behalf of the Commission for submission to Caltrans; and 5) Submit the FFY 2009/10 DBE program and AADPL to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), the FHWA, and 49 CFR Part 26, in order to be eligible for federal highway funding grants as a subrecipient through Caltrans, the Commission must adopt annual DBE participation goals. Since 2006, the Commission has implemented a race -neutral DBE program in compliance with directives issued by U.S. DOT published in response to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision in the Western States Paving Co. vs. Agenda Item 8B 244 United States and Washington State Department of Transportation. In a race - neutral program, the Commission may not set numeric contract DBE participation goals on any of its DOT -assisted contracts for which DBE subcontracting possibilities exist. In March 2009, Caltrans notified all of its subrecipients that it had received conditional approval from the FHWA to implement a race -conscious component to the DBE program that would also apply to local agency sub -recipients of FHWA funding. As a result, local agencies must adopt and execute a new California Department of Transportation DBE Implementation Agreement and incorporate a race -conscious annual anticipated DBE participation goal into their DBE program. All contracts to be awarded after June 2, 2009, utilizing federal (FHWA) funding must incorporate both race -neutral and race -conscious DBE participation goal components. In addition Caltrans made available new contract terms and conditions and forms that must be used in federally funded contracts. For FFY 2008/09, the Commission established a race -neutral AADPL of 0.45%. During the year, the total percentage of DBE award is 0.00%. The Commission did not award any FHWA funded contracts. In establishing the goals for FFY 2009/10, staff proposes that the Race -Conscious AADPL be 0.3% and the race -neutral AADPL be 0.4%. These goals were based on the U.S. Census Bureau "County Business Patterns" for 2005, using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). This year staff used statistics within a three -county area — Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino — area that the Commission draws bids from and is working with on several large projects. The following project has been identified as a candidate for FHWA funding for fiscal year 2009/10: • Construction of State Route 74 from G Street to Interstate 215 interchange The analysis attached to this staff report details the formula utilized in developing the AADPLs for FFY 2009/10. Adoption of these goals and execution of the included documents will meet the requirements established by Caltrans to continue to receive FHWA funding as a subrecipient. Attachments: 1► DBE Goal Methodology -Race Conscious 2) DBE Goal Methodology -Race Neutral 3) Resolution No. 09-013 4) U.S. DOT DBE Implementation Agreement 5) Annual Submittal Form Agenda Item 8B • • 245 ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal and Methodology For Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 Race -Conscious The Commission was notified by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) that it had received conditional approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to immediately implement its Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal and Methodology. As part of the revised program, Caltrans has adopted a race -conscious DBE Goal and an Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL). The two percentages will be combined into an overall program goal. To comply with the directive from Caltrans, the Commission is required to calculate new race -conscious DBE goal. In addition, the Commission is required to calculate a Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) and utilization that the Commission expects can be achieved on the projected projects for the upcoming fiscal year. A separate document will be issued outlining the determination of the AADPL. I. RACE -CONSCIOUS DBE GOAL METHODOLOGY The following methodology was used in establishing the race -conscious DBE Goal for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement RFQ: • NUMERATOR - Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (UDBEs)* firms in the four -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange) • DENOMINATOR - Total number of consulting and construction firms, the work category** identified within the four -county area based on the most recent available data from the U.S. Census Bureau - 2006 *: Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (UDBEs) include the following African American, Asian -Pacific American, Women, and Native American businesses. The number of the firms available was obtained from the Caltrans Office Civil Rights web page : http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/find certified.htm 246 ATTACHMENT 1 **: The work categories selected from the 2006 County Business Patterns (NAICS) are as follows: TABLE A — Consultant Services Industry Code Industry Code Description 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 54131 Architectural Services 541310 Architectural Services 54132 Landscape Architectural Services 541320 Landscape Architectural Services 54133 Engineering Services 541330 Engineering Services 54134 Drafting Services 541340 Drafting Services 54135 Building Inspection Services 541350 Building Inspection Services 54136 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services 541360 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services 54137 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services 541370 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services 54138 Testing Laboratories 541380 Testing Laboratories 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 54162 Environmental Consulting Services 541620 Environmental Consulting Services 54182 Public Relations Agencies 541820 Public Relations Agencies This information can be obtained from the following web link: http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl.pl 247 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE B- Construction Services Industry Code Industry Code Description 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 238140 Masonry Contractors 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 238210 Electrical Contractors 238910 Site Preparation Contractors This information can be obtained from the following web link: http://censtats.census.govicgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl.pl 248 ATTACHMENT 1 To obtain the Numerator a query search was performed with the following parameters at the Caltrans Office Civil Rights web page: • Select the three -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange) • Select the Race/Ethnicity - African American, Asian -Pacific American, and Native American businesses, men and women owned business. • A separate search was performed by selecting Women only owned business with the remaining Race/Ethnicity classifications: Asian Subcontinent, Caucasian, Hispanic, and other. • Select the same NAICS Categories that were used for the Census Data Search as listed in Table A and Table B. • Obtain the number of DBE certified Firms. To obtain the Denominator a query search was performed with the following parameters at the US Census Bureau web page: • Select the three -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange) • Select the applicable NAICS Categories for the work to be performed; these are outlined in Table A and Table B. • Obtain the number of Firms. 249 • CENSUS DATA FOR CONSULTIN • ATTACHMENT 1 CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY FIPS CODE COUNTY NAICS 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services NAICS 54162 Environmental Consulting Services NAICS 54182 Public Relations Agencies NAICS 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 30 059 Orange 1,893 170 93 104 33 065 Riverside 484 32 20 25 36 071 San Bernardino 435 35 9 22 TOTAL 2,812 237 122 151 Of the 3,322 firms identified in the four NAISC classifications from the 2006 Census data there are 230 identified available UDBE firms in the Caltrans DBE directory of firms in the consultant services work codes that operate within the four -county area, see table below: UDBE IDENTIFIED FIRMS PER NAICS CLASSIFICATIONS FOR COUNTY NAICS 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services NAICS 54162 Environmental Consulting Services NAICS 54182 Public Relations Agencies NAICS 541618 Other Management Consulting Services Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino 97 29 22 82 The information presented above was obtained through the Caltrans Web Site: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ucp/QuerySubmit.do?naicsCode = 54%20%20%20Professional,%20Scientific,%20and%20 Technical %20Services 250 o Q 73 m CD - h co m 0 • v S < _• v S O" CU �p rt S C m 0 0 co c) m o -� c • 3 m m 5' m .+ v C m n m v 0 s0 m y m co m o m a m 0 r+ 0 0 3 5. st 0- 0 0 0 0 N C O o� co co o' m 0 n 0 Q m cn ui 108W uapl sWal. 5 m m m m woaj suop.eowsselo OSIVN r+ co N 0 0 Cr) am ways elep snsuao O D m a)m) - 3 33 m < Q m 3 v' o fl (D co n 0 O C Z � ts, rn NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction w NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction rn NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction � cn NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction _. rn NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction U, � NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors • co m NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 'Pp o NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors o NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors � a) NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors co cn oo 238910 Site Preparation Contractors n m Z cn C cn O D m O 0 O Z cn C n O Z N m 53 n m ca L 1N31AIHOV.L.L / �h CD , �a D E' �- 0 N O a O 9-(-) < v a' cfl m o m < c 0 a p m Cn o- 3 a 0 v cn C") 0 Q co II -P 0 N O 0 N O 0 N O 0 m cn cn o' m 0 N O 0 m' 0 0 N O m a a N 0 :ells clam suemeo aye g6nonn pauielgo seen anoge peluasaad uop.euuolui aqi O v n op co 3 ?o a <' Q� 5. u) m w v D n O C Z --Ioa -< °D NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction IQ NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction w NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction m NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction w NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction _ v NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors cm NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors Q, NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors rn NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors N co NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors ^' rn NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors • C v 03 m v m Z --I -n m v T_ m Z D n cn n r D N cn n D 0 Z cn -n O n O Z cn C n O Z rn G 5 D c D n 2 m Z •-i ATTACHMENT 1 The following lists the total amount of projected funds (Federal and non -Federal) for Consultant and Construction Services for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The funding has been separated into each NAISC classifications to determine the DBE % per classification as required by the DBE calculation. The funding distribution to each NAISC classification was determined by reviewing similar projects or past experience with similar items of work. WORK CATEGORY ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS % OF FEDERAL FUNDS Consultant Services $0 $0 0% Construction Projects $30,075,000 $800,000 2.66% The projects that were used to determine the % distribution for each NAISC classification were as follows: d Consulting Services: State Route 22 Design -Build Project Management Services State Route 74 Segment !Construction Management Contract 1-215 East Junction Final Engineering Design Past project experience. Construction Services: State Route 74 G Street to 1-215 Project Report Cost Estimate BUDGET BREAKDOWN CONSULTING SERVICES NAICS Classification % Funding Distribution Funding Amount I$) Federal Funding Amount($) Federal Funding Weight Factor 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 0% $0 $0 0 54162 Environmental Consulting Services 0% $0 $0 0 54182 Public Relations Agencies 0% $0 SO 0 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 0% $0 $0 0 TOTAL 0% $0 $0 0 253 ATTACHMENT 1 BUDGET BREAKDOWN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES NAICS Classification % Funding Distribution Funding Amount ($) Federal Funding Amount(S) Federal Funding Weight Factor NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 2.02% $607,846.62 $16,168.82 0.0006 NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 0.93% $279,559.14 $7,436.32 0.0003 NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 0.16% $47,587.05 $1,265.82 0.00004 NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction 49.37% $14,846,783.14 $394,926.90 0.0138 NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 14.32% $4,305,363.99 $114,523.40 0.0040 NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 19.07% $5,736,266.38 $152,585.64 0.0053 NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 0.0000 NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors 4.82% $1,450,783.16 $38,591.07 0.0013 NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 2.75% $827,929.02 $22,023.05 0.0008 NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors 5.96% $1,792,099.52 $47,670.15 0.0017 NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors 0.60% $180,781.97 $4,808.83 0.0002 TOTAL 100.00% $30,075,000.00 $800,000.00 0.0279 At this time, there is no projected Consultant project and only one Construction project using $800,000 in Federal Funds or 2.66% of the total project cost. 254 ATTACHMENT 1 The formula that is provided to determine calculation of DBE Goal is as follows. The weighted Base Figure is calculated by first determining the number of ready, willing, and able DBEs in the three counties for the work category shown in Table A, divided by the number of total firms in those categories. Using this method determines the availability by the number of firms that have directly participated in, or attempted to participate in, past federally -funded assisted contracting efforts. The application of the formula yields the following baseline information: AADPL ( Base Figure) = [x--,2_, No.of (UDBEs)inaWorkCategoryxWeight No. of All Firms in same Work Category The Base Figure resulting from the calculation is as follows: CONSULTANT SERVICES x100 NAICS Classification UDBE s Available (Numerator) All Firms from 2006 Census Weight AADPL (Base Figure) 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 97 2,812 .00 0% 54162 Environmental Consulting Services 29 237 .00 0% 54182 Public Relations' Agencies 22 122 .00 0% 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 82 151 .00 0% TOTAL 230 3,322 0.00 0% 255 ATTACHMENT 1 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES NAICS Classification UDBE s Available (Numerator) All Firms from 2006 Census Weight AADPL (Base Figure) NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 8 226 0.0006 0.0020% NAICS 237120 oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 2 33 0.0003 0.0016% NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 3 106 0.00004 0.0001 % NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction 28 175 0.0138 0.2202% NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 13 106 0.0040 0.0489% NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 17 584 0.0053 0.0155% NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 1 5 99 0.0000 0.0000% NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors 6 400 0.0013 0.0020% NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 6 120 0.0008 0.0038% NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors 29 1716 0.0017 0.0028% NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors 26 658 0.0002 0.0007% TOTAL 153 4,223 0.0279 0.2976% 256 ATTACHMENT 1 AADPL (Base Figure) = Consultant AADPL(Base Figure) + Construction AADPL(Base Figure) AADPL (Base Figure) = 0 + 0.2976 AADPL (Base Figure) = 0.2976 AADPL (Base Figure) Rounded = 0.3% II. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BASE FIGURE No adjustments have been made to the Base figure due the limited number of similar sized projects managed by the Commission. III. ANTICIPATED PROJECTS FOR FFY 2009/10 The following project represents the projected Federal Highway Administration funded contracts for DBE federal fiscal year beginning October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010. A. State Route 74 from G- Street to the 1-215 Interchange Scope of Work — Construction of a new interchange and adjacent city street improvements. Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $ 30,075,000 Estimated Federal Funds: $ 800,000 For the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 no Consultant Contracts are anticipated to be awarded with federal fund allocations. IV. UTILIZATION OF RACE -CONSCIOUS METHOD Staff foresees meeting the proposed 0.3% goal utilizing race -conscious methods by: 1) making efforts to ensure that the Request for Proposals (RFPs) and Invitation for Bids (IFBs) process and the contracting requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses; 2) encouraging the prime consultant and contractors to subcontract portions of the work to DBEs; 3) distributing the RFPs and IFBs to organizations that represent and assist DBEs; and, 4) listing the RFPs and IFBs on the Commission website www.rctc.org. V. ESTABLISHMENT OF DBE GOAL Based on the information presented in the report, it is proposed that the Commission's race -conscious DBE goal for the fiscal year 2009 to 2010 be established at 0.3%. 257 ATTACHMENT 1 VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Listed in this section are hyperlinks to the PDFs of the searches that were performed to obtain the numbers used in the calculation. 2006 Census Data Search Print Outs: Consultant ..\census data\Orange County\consultant search Orange County 05 19 08.pdf ..\census data\Riversdie County\consultant data riverside 05 19 09.pdf ..\census data\San Bernardino County\consultant data san Bernardino 05 19 09.pdf Construction ..\census data\Orange County\construction search Orange County 05 19 09.pdf ..Icensus data1Riversdie County\construction data riverside 05 19 09.pdf ..\census data1San Bernardino County\construction data san bernardino 05 19 09.pdf Ca!trans Certified DBE Firms Search Print Outs: NAICS 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services ..1caltrans searches15413 Categories search\caltrans dbe database men and women owned Asia black NtAm engineering same census categories 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searches15413 Categories search\caltrans dbe database women owned Asia sub cauc hispanic other 05 19 09.pdf NAICS 54162 Environmental Consulting Services ..lcaltrans searches1541620 environmental\caltrans dbe database men and women owned Asia black NtAm engineering same census categories 05 19 09.pdf ..lcaltrans searches\541620 environmentahcaltrans dbe database women owned Asia sub cauc hispanic other 05 19 09.pdf 258 ATTACHMENT 1 NAICS 54182 Public Relations Agencies ..\caltrans searches1541820 public relations\caltrans dbe database men and women owned Asia black NtAm engineering same census categories 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searches1541820 public relations\caltrans dbe database women owned Asia sub cauc hispanic other 05 19 09.pdf NAICS 541618 Other Management Consulting Services ..\caltrans searches\541618 other managementicaltrans dbe database men and women owned Asia black NtAm engineering same census categories 05 19 09.pdf ..Icaltrans searches\541618 other managementicaltrans dbe database women owned Asia sub cauc hispanic other 05 19 09.pdf Construction Consultants NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 2371101asian pac black native American 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237110\asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237120\aria pac black native 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237120\asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237130\asia pac black native 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 2371301asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf 259 • ATTACHMENT 1 NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237310\asia pac black native 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237310\asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction ..\caltrans searcheslConstruction\NAICS 237990\asia pac black native 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237990\asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors ..\caltrans searcheslConstruction\NAICS 238110\asia pac black native 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searcheslConstructionlNAICS 238110\asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors ..\caltrans searcheslConstructionlNAICS 238120\asia pac black native 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 238120\asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors ..lcaltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 2381401asia pac black native 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searcheslConstruction\NAICS 238140\asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 2381901asia pac black native 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searcheslConstructionlNAICS 238190\asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf 260 ATTACHMENT 1 NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors ..lcaltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 238210\asia pac black native 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 238210\asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 238910\asia pac black native 05 19 09.pdf ..\caltrans searches1Construction\NAICS 238910\asian sub cauc hispanic other Women 05 19 09.pdf 261 ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AADPL Calculations Using DBEs Excluded From The Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (UDBEs) For Race Conscious Determination For Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 Race -Neutral The Commission was notified by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) that they had received conditional approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to immediately implement its Federal Fiscal Year IFFY) 2009 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal and Methodology. As part of the revised program, Caltrans has adopted a race -conscious DBE Goal and an Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL). The two percentages will be combined into an overall program goal. To comply with the directive from Caltrans, the Commission is required to calculate new race -conscious DBE goal. In addition, the Commission is required to calculate a project specific Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) and utilization that the Commission achieved on the projected projects for the upcoming fiscal year. A separate document will be issued outlining the determination of the race - conscious DBE Goal I. RACE -NEUTRAL AADPL METHODOLOGY The following methodology was used in establishing the race -neutral AADPL: • NUMERATOR - Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs)* firms in the four -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange) • DENOMINATOR — Total number of consulting and construction firms, the work category** identified within the four -county area based on the most recent available data from the U.S. Census Bureau — 2006 *: Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) include the following: Asian Subcontinent (men), Caucasian (men), Hispanic (men), and other businesses (men). The number of the firms available was obtained from the Caltrans Office Civil Rights web page: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/find certified.htm 262 ATTACHMENT 2 * *: The work categories selected from the 2006 County Business Patterns (NAICS) are as follows: TABLE A Industry Code Industry Code Description 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 54131 Architectural Services 541310 Architectural Services 54132 Landscape Architectural Services 541320 Landscape Architectural Services 54133 Engineering Services 541330 Engineering Services 54134 Drafting Services 541340 Drafting Services 54135 Building Inspection Services 541350 Building Inspection Services 54136 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services 541360 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services 54137 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services 541370 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services 54138 Testing Laboratories 541380 Testing Laboratories 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 54162 Environmental Consulting Services 541620 Environmental Consulting Services 54182 Public Relations Agencies 541820 Public Relations Agencies This information can be obtained from the following web link: http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl.pl 263 ATTACHMENT 2 TABLE B— Construction Services Industry Code Industry Code Description 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 238140 Masonry Contractors 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 238210 Electrical Contractors 238910 Site Preparation Contractors This information can be obtained from the following web link: http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl.pl To obtain the Numerator a query search was performed with the following parameters at the Ca!trans Office Civil Rights web page: • Select the three -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange) • Select the Race/Ethnicity - Asian Subcontinent (men), Caucasian (men), Hispanic (men), and other businesses (men) owned business. • Select the same NAICS Categories that were used for the Census Data Search as listed in Table A and Table B. • Obtain the number of DBE certified Firms. To obtain the Denominator a query search was performed with the following parameters at the US Census Bureau web page: • Select the three -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange) • Select the applicable NAICS Categories for the work to be performed; these are outlined in Table A and Table B. • Obtain the number of Firms. 264 ATTACHMENT 2 CENSUS DATA FOR CONSULTING SERVICES CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY FIPS CODE COUNTY NAICS 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services NAICS 54162 Environmental Consulting Services NAICS 54182 Public Relations Agencies NAICS 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 30 059 Orange 1,893 170 93 104 33 065 Riverside 484 32 20 25 36 071 San Bernardino 435 35 9 22 TOTAL 2,812 237 122 151 Of the 3,322 firms identified in the four NAISC classifications from the 2006 Census data there are 73 identified available DBE firms in the Ca!trans DBE directory of firms in the consultant services work codes that operate within the four -county area, see table below: DBE IDENTIFIED FIRMS PER NAICS CLASSIFICATIONS COUNTY NAICS 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services NAICS 54162 Environmental Consulting Services NAICS 54182 Public Relations Agencies NAICS 541618 Other Management Consulting Services Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino 42 9 3 19 The information presented above was obtained through the Caltrans Web Site: http: //www.dot.ca.gov/ucp/QuerySubmit.do?naicsCode = 54%20 %20%20Professional, %20Scientific, %20and %20 Technical %20Services • • O a a) ▪ a. ▪ <N N 3- • co 3 cr co 6 3 C N (13 co m m Q m o h. c 7+: cn m 1 0 5' v h 5- m 7 m m 3 • n m m co — 1 (p o 7 6 � � m 6 ° (o W o m 0_ m co o cn 0 • 3 5' 0 m • 3 o 7 O (D 0 N • 0 O 0 0 ▪ rn ot7 7 fD (n 7 (o c < m O m 0 0 suop.eowsselo OSI`dN 0 0 Q w 0 0 eiegl e}ep 5 7' � ✓ rn 0 v 7 c0 cp 3 m. coa)C Q N O O- a> V1 N 0 0 O —1 I, m NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction w NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction rn NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction � NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction .- rn NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction Cn 4, NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors o co NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors o o NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors , o NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors � o) NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors rn w NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors • • • --I C h D" n a m �. v N • O o o' cn CD . '17 < m co v, o m < .+ c m n 0- -0, v p 6 c 0 m can � c m 6 CA 3 o h 6 o_ d o j' •v o a v r. o' 3 0 • o o c o_ co m 3 II h cn m o co N '+ o O 0 N y O a CD N a o Cn 71 o m -i co y cn o' a� 0 N O cn c, m' o' O N O m Q. 0 N 0 0 D 7 m co 3 x! w <' a � 5' o a cn m n 0 0 C 2 -< _ CO NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction a' NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction "' NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction ce NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction _ op NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction _ m NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors _ (a NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors m NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors ^' NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors V NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors ^' o NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors v co m v m Z T m v m N -o m Z D n cn n D cn _N n D 0 Z -n 0 0 Z cn --I C n -i O Z CA m n m cn Z 1N3WHOVII / ATTACHMENT 2 The following lists the total amount of projected funds (Federal and non -Federal) for Consultant and Construction Services for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The funding has been separated into each NAISC classifications to determine the DBE percent per classification as required by the DBE calculation. The funding distribution to each NAISC classification was determined by reviewing similar projects or past experience with similar items of work. WORK CATEGORY ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS % OF FEDERAL FUNDS Consultant Services $0 $0 0% Construction Projects $30,075,000 $800,000 2.66% The projects that were used to determine the percent distribution for each NAISC classification were as follows: Consulting Services: State Route 22 Design -Build Project Management Services State Route 74 Segment [Construction Management Contract 1-215 East Junction Final Engineering Design Past project experience. Construction Services: State Route 74 G Street to 1-215 Project Report Cost Estimate experience. BUDGET BREAKDOWN CONSULTING SERVICES NAICS Classification % Funding Distribution Funding Amount IS) Federal Funding Amount(S) Federal Funding Weight Factor 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 0% SO 50 0 54162 Environmental Consulting Services 0% $0 $0 0 54182 Public Relations Agencies 0% $0 $0 0 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 0% $0 $0 0 TOTAL 0% $0 $0 0 268 ATTACHMENT 2 BUDGET BREAKDOWN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES NAICS Classification % Funding Distribution Funding Amount (SI Federal Funding Amount($) Federal Funding Weight Factor NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 2.02% $607,846.62 $16,168.82 0.0006 NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 0.93% $279,559.14 $7,436.32 0.0003 NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line ' and Related Structures Construction 0.16% $47,587.05 $1,265.82 0.00004 NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction 49.37% $14,846,783.14 $394,926.90 0.0138 NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 14.32% $4,305,363.99 $114,523.40 0.0040 NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 19.07% $5,736,266.38 $152,585.64 0.0053 NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 0.0000 NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors 4.82% $1,450,783.16 $38,591.07 0.0013 NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 2.75% $827,929.02 $22,023.05 0.0008 NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors 5.96% $1,792,099.52 $47,670.15 0.0017 NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors 0.60% $180,781.97 $4,808.83 0.0002 TOTAL 100.00% $30,075,000.00 $800,000.00 0.0279 At this time, there are no projected Consultant projects and only one Construction project using $800,000 in Federal Funds or 2.66% of the total project cost. 269 ATTACHMENT 2 The formula that is provided to determine calculation of DBE Goal is as follows. The weighted Base Figure is calculated by first determining the number of ready, willing, and able DBEs in the three counties for the work category shown in Table A, divided by the number of total firms in those categories. Using this method determines the availability by the number of firms that have directly participated in, or attempted to participate in, past federally -funded assisted contracting efforts. The application of the formula yields the following baseline information: AADPL (Base Figure) = f � No.of (DBEs)in aWork Category xWeight L No. of All Firms in same Work Category The Base Figure resulting from the calculation is as follows: CONSULTANT SERVICES x100 NAICS Classification DBE s Available (Numerator) All Firms from 2006 Census Weight AADPL (Base Figure) 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 42 2,812 .00 0% 54162 Environmental Consulting Services 9 237 .00 0% 54182 Public Relations Agencies 3 122 .00 0% 541618 Other Management Consulting Services 19 151 .00 0% TOTAL 73 3,322 0.00 0% 270 ATTACHMENT 2 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES NAICS Classification DBE s Available (Numerator) All Firms from 2006 Census Weight AADPL (Base Figure) NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 18 226 0.0006 0.0045% NAICS 237120 oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 4 33 0.0003 0.0031 % NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 5 106 0.00004 0.0002% NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction 39 175 0.0138 0.3067% NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 18 106 0.0040 0.0678% NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 19 584 0.0053 0.0173% NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 15 99 0.0000 0.0000% NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors 9 400 0.0013 0.0030% NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 2 120 0.0008 0.0013% NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors 17 1716 0.0017 0.0016% NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors 20 658 0.0002 0.0005% TOTAL 166 4,223 0.0279 0.4061 % 271 ATTACHMENT 2 AADPL (Base Figure) = Consultant AADPL(Base Figure) + Construction AADPL(Base Figure) AADPL (Base Figure) = 0 + 0.4061 AADPL (Base Figure) = 0.4061 AADPL (Base Figure) Rounded = 0.4% II. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BASE FIGURE No adjustments have been made to the Base figure due the limited number of similar sized projects managed by the Commission. III. ANTICIPATED PROJECTS FOR FFY 2009/10 The following project represents the projected Federal Highway Administration funded contracts for DBE federal fiscal year beginning October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010. A. State Route 74 from G- Street to the 1-215 Interchange Scope of Work — Construction of a new interchange and adjacent city street improvements. Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $ 30,075,000 Estimated Federal Funds: $ 800,000 For the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 no Consultant Contracts are anticipated to be awarded with federal fund allocations. IV. UTILIZATION OF RACE -NEUTRAL METHOD Staff foresees meeting the proposed 0.4% AADPL utilizing race -neutral methods by: 1) making efforts to ensure that the Request for Proposals (RFPs) and Invitation for Bids (IFBs) process and the contracting requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses; 2) encouraging the prime consultant and contractors to subcontract portions of the work to DBEs; 3) distributing the RFPs and IFBs to organizations that represent and assist DBEs; and, 4) listing the RFPs and IFBs on the Commission website www.rctc.orq. V. ESTABLISHMENT OF AADPL Based on the information presented in the report, it is proposed that the Commission's race -neutral AADPL for the fiscal year 2009 to 2010 be established at 0.4%. 272 ATTACHMENT 2 VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Listed in this section are hyperlinks to the PDFs of the searches that were performed to obtain the numbers used in the calculation. 2006 Census Data Search Print Outs: Consultant ..\census data\Orange County\consultant search Orange County 05 19 08.pdf ..\census data\Riversdie County\consultant data riverside 05 19 09.pdf ..\census data\San Bernardino County\consultant data san Bernardino 05 19 09.pdf Construction ..\census data\Orange County\construction search Orange County 05 19 09.pdf ..1census data\Riversdie Countylconstruction data riverside 05 19 09.pdf ..\census data\San Bernardino Countylconstruction data san bernardino 05 19 09.pdf Ca!trans Certified DBE Firms Search Print Outs: NAICS 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services ..lcaltrans searches15413 Categories search\Race Neutrallrace neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 54162 Environmental Consulting Services ..lcaltrans searches\541620 environmentallrace neutrallrace neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 54182 Public Relations Agencies . \caltrans searches\541820 public relationslrace neutrallrace neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf 273 ATTACHMENT 2 NAICS 541618 Other Management Consulting Services ..\caltrans searches1541618 other management\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf Construction Consultants NAICS 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237110\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237120\race neutrallrace neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237130\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237310\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 237990\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 238110\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 238120\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 238140 Masonry Contractors ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 238140\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf 274 ATTACHMENT 2 NAICS 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors ..1caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 238190\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 238210 Electrical Contractors ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 238210\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf NAICS 238910 Site Preparation Contractors ..\caltrans searches\Construction\NAICS 238910\race neutral\race neutral asian sub cauc hispanic other men 05 22 09.pdf 275 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 09-013 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING ITS FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND ANNUAL ANTICIPATED DBE PARTICIPATION LEVEL AS APPLIES TO FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION THROUGH CALTRANS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission adopted its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in 1999; WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision regarding the Washington State Department of Transportation, determined that sufficient evidence must exist to support the use of race conscious measures on federal -aid contracts; WHEREAS, Caltrans conducted an assessment of its DBE program, including an extended public comment period, and determined that the use of race conscious programs and goals could violate the Ninth Circuit ruling, which is controlling authority for California; WHEREAS, as of August 2007, Caltrans completed an Availability/Disparity Study (Study) the purpose of which, was to ascertain whether discrimination exists in the State's transportation contracting industry; WHEREAS, based on the results of the Study, Caltrans requested a waiver from the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) to implement race -neutral and race -conscious measures; WHEREAS, U.S. DOT granted Caltrans request for waiver and approved the proposed goals and methodology; WHEREAS, Caltrans adopted and began implementing the "California Department of Transportation Disadvantaged and Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan" ("Caltrans DBE program") to institute a race- conscious/race-neutral DBE program at both the state and local level; WHEREAS, Caltrans DBE program replaces the existing Caltrans race -neutral DBE program as well as all existing local agency DBE programs, unless a local agency program has been directly approved by a federal agency; WHEREAS, local agencies no longer have their own separate DBE programs, but must instead complete a "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Implementation Agreement" between the local agency and Caltrans; 276 WHEREAS, rather than establishing their own DBE goals, local agencies are now required to calculate their Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Levels (AADPL) based on factors set forth in the Local Programs Procedures, which revise the Local Assistance Procedures Manual to provide for a race -conscious and race - neutral program that recognizes underutilized Disadvantaged Businesses Enterprises as identified in the Study, and to submit the AADPLs to Caltrans via the "DBE Annual Submittal Form" for the relevant federal fiscal year; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the Caltrans DBE program and authorizes the Chair to: A. Execute the California Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Implementation Agreement, pursuant to legal counsel review, as Exhibit A to this resolution; B. Execute the Local Agency "DBE Annual Submittal Form" on behalf of the Commission, SECTION 2. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts 0.3% as its Annual Anticipated DBE Race -Conscious Participation Level (AADPL) and 0.4% as its Annual Anticipated DBE Race -Neutral Participation Level (AADPL) for the FFY 2009/10. ADOPTED this 10th day of June, 2009 Robert E. Magee, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • • • 277 ATTACHMENT 4 Exhibit 9-A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR LOCAL AGENCIES 278 March 4, 2009 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT For the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT." I Definition of Terms The terms used in this agreement have the meanings defined in 49 CFR § 26.5. II OBJECTIVE/POLICY STATEMENT (§26/1. 26/23) The RECIPIENT intends to receive federal financial assistance from the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and as a condition of receiving this assistance, the RECIPIENT will sign the California Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Implementation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as Agreement). The RECIPIENT agrees to implement the State of California, Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Plan (hereinafter referred to as the DBE Program Plan) as it pertains to local agencies. The DBE Program Plan is based on U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR, Part 26 requirements. It is the policy of the RECIPIENT to ensure that DBEs, as defined in Part 26, have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT -assisted contracts. It is also their policy: • To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. • To create a level playing field on which DBE's can compete fairly for DOT -assisted contracts. • To ensure that their annual overall DBE participation percentage is narrowly tailored, in accordance with applicable law. • To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR, Part 26 eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs. •• To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT -assisted contracts. • To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the market place outside the DBE Program. • III Nondiscrimination (§26.7) RECIPIENT will never exclude any person from participation in, deny any person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR, Part 26 on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. In administering the local agency components of the DBE Program Plan, the RECIPIENT will not, directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the DBE Program Plan with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin. 279 March 4, 2009 1V Annual DBE Submittal Form 026.21) The RECIPIENT will provide to the Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) a completed Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form (Exhibit 9-B) by June 1 of each year for the following Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). This form includes an Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL), methodology for establishing the AADPL, the name, phone number, and electronic mailing address of the designated DBELO, and the choice of Prompt Pay Provision to be used by the RECIPIENT for the following FFY. • V Race -Neutral Means of Meeting the Overall Statewide Annual DBE Goal 02631) RECIPIENT must meet the maximum feasible portion of its AADPL by using race -neutral means of facilitating DBE participation. Race -neutral DBE participation includes any time a DBE wins a prime contract through customary competitive procurement procedures, is awarded a subcontract on a prime contract that does not carry a DBE goal, or even if there is a DBE goal, wins a subcontract from a prime contractor that did not consider its DBE status in making the award (e.g., a prime contractor that uses a strict low -bid system to award subcontracts). Race -neutral means include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Arranging solicitations, times for the presentation of bids, quantities, specifications, and delivery schedules in ways that facilitate DBE, and other small businesses, participation (e.g., unbundling large contracts to make them more accessible to small businesses, requiring or encouraging prime contractors to subcontract portions of work that they might otherwise perform with their own forces); 2. Providing assistance in overcoming limitations such as inability to obtain bonding or financing (e.g., by such means as simplifying the bonding process, reducing bonding requirements, eliminating the impact of surety costs from bids, and providing services to help DBEs, and other small businesses, obtain bonding and financing); 3. Providing technical assistance and other services; • 4. Carrying out information and communication programs on contracting procedures and specific contract opportunities (e.g., ensuring the inclusion of DBEs, and other small businesses, on recipient mailing lists of bidders; ensuring the dissemination to bidders on prime contracts of lists of potential subcontractors; provision of information in languages other than English, where appropriate); 5. Implementing a supportive services program to develop and improve immediate and long-term business management, record keeping, and financial and accounting capability for DBEs and other small businesses; 6. Providing services to help DBEs, and other small businesses, improve long-term development, increase opportunities to participate in a variety of types of work, handle increasingly significant projects, and achieve eventual self-sufficiency; 7. Establishing a program to assist new, start-up fimis, particularly in fields in which DBE participation has historically been low; 8. Ensuring distribution of your DBE directory, through print and electronic means, to the widest feasible universe of potential prime contractors; and 9. Assisting DBEs, and other small businesses, to develop their capability to utilize emerging technology and conduct business through electronic media. March 4, 2009 280 •VI Race Conscious Means of Meeting the Overall Statewide Annual DBE Goal (§26.51(d)) RECIPIENT must establish contract goals for Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (UDBEs) to meet any portion of your AADPL you do not project being able to meet using race -neutral means. UDBEs are limited to these certified DBEs that are owned and controlled by African Americans, Native Americans, Women, and Asian Pacific Americans. VII Quotas (§26.43) RECIPIENT will not use quotas or set -asides in any way in the administration of the local agency component of the DBE Program Plan. VIII DBE Liaison Officer (DBELO) (§26.25) RECIPIENT has designated a DBE Liaison Officer. The DBELO is responsible for implementing the DBE Program Plan, as it pertains to the RECIPIENT, and ensures that the RECIPIENT is fully and properly advised concerning DBE Program Plan matters. [Specify resources available to the DBELO; e.g., the DBELO has a staff of two professional employees assigned to the DBE program on a full-time basis and two support personnel who devote a portion of their time to the program.] The name, address, telephone number, electronic mail address, and an organization chart displaying the DBELO's position in the organization are found in Attachment to this Agreement. This information will be updated annually and included on the DBE Annual Submittal Form. The DBELO is responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring the RECIPIENT'S requirements of the DBE Program Plan in coordination with other appropriate officials. Duties and responsibilities include the following: 1. Gathers and reports statistical data and other information as required. 111/2. Reviews third party contracts and purchase requisitions for compliance with this program. 3. Works with all departments to determine projected Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level. 4. Ensures that bid notices and requests for proposals are made available to DBEs in a timely manner. 5. Analyzes DBE participation and identifies ways to encourage participation through race -neutral means. 6. Participates in pre -bid meetings. 7. Advises the CEO/governing body on DBE matters and DBE race -neutral issues. 8. Provides DBEs with information and recommends sources to assist in preparing bids, obtaining bonding and insurance. 9. Plans and participates in DBE training seminars. 10. Provides outreach to DBEs and community organizations to fully advise them of contracting opportunities. 281 March 4, 2009 IX Federal Financial Assistance Agreement Assurance (§26.13) RECIPIENT will sign the following assurance, applicable to and to be included in all DOT -assisted contracts and ID their administration, as part of the program supplement agreement for each project. The recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract, or in the administration of its DBE Program, or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR, Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE Program, as required by 49 CFR, Part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.). [Note — this language is to be used verbatim, as it is stated in §26.13(a).] X DBE Financial Institutions (§26.27) It is the policy of the RECIPIENT to investigate the full extent of services offered by financial institutions owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in the community to make reasonable efforts to use these institutions, and to encourage prime contractors on DOT -assisted contracts to make use of these institutions. Information on the availability of such institutions can be obtained from the DBELO. The Caltrans' Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program may offer assistance to the DBELO. XI Directory (§26.31) RECIPIENT will refer interested persons to the Unified Certification Program DBE directory available from the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program's website at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep. XII Required Contract Clauses (§§26.13, 26.29) RECIPIENT ensures that the following clauses or equivalent will be included in each DOT -assisted prime contract: A. CONTRACT ASSURANCE The contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy, as recipient deems appropriate. [Note — This language is to be used verbatim, as is stated in §26.13(b). See Caltrans Sample Boiler Plate Contract Documents on the Internet at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms under "Publications."] • March 4, 2009 282 • • B. PROMPT PAYMENT Prompt Progress Payment to Subcontractors The local agency shall require contractors and subcontractors to be timely paid as set forth in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code concerning prompt payment to subcontractors. The 10-days is applicable unless a longer period is agreed to in writing. Any delay or postponement of payment over 30 days may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of Section 7108.5 shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies of that Section. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. Prompt Payment of Withheld Funds to Subcontractors The local agency shall ensure prompt and full payment of retainage from the prime contractor to the subcontractor within thirty (30) days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed and accepted. This shall be accompanied by including either (1), (2), or (3) of the following provisions [local agency equivalent will need Caltrans approval] in their federal -aid contracts to ensure prompt and full payment of retainage [withheld funds] to subcontractors in compliance with 49 CFR 26.29. 1. No retainage will be held by the agency from progress payments due to the prime contractor. Prime contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from holding retainage from subcontractors. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. 2. No retainage will be held by the agency from progress payments due the prime contractor. Any retainage kept by the prime contractor or by a subcontractor must be paid in full to the eaming subcontractor in 30 days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. 283 March 4, 2009 3. The agency shall hold retainage from the prime contractor and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the agency of the contract work and pay retainage to the prime contractor based on these acceptances. The prime contractor or subcontractor shall return all monies withheld in retention from all subcontractors within 30 days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed and accepted including incremental acceptances of portions of the contract work by the agency. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating prime contractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the Califomia Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor; deficient subcontractor performance; and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. XIII Local Assistance Procedures Manual The RECIPIENT will advertise, award and administer DOT -assisted contracts in accordance with the most current published Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). XIV Transit Vehicle Manufacturers (§ 26.49) If FTA-assisted contracts will include transit vehicle procurements, RECIPIENT will require each transit vehicle manufacturer, as a condition of being authorized to bid or propose on transit vehicle procurements, to certify that it has complied with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26, Section 49. XV Bidders List (§26.11(c)) The RECIPIENT will create and maintain a bidders list, consisting of information about all DBE and non -DBE firms that bid or quote on its DOT -assisted contracts. The bidders list will include the name, address, DBE/nonDBE status, age, and annual gross receipts of the firm. XVI Reporting to the DLAE RECIPIENT will promptly submit a copy of the Local Agency Bidder/Proposer-UDBE Commitment (Consultant Contract), (Exhibit 10-0(1) "Local Agency Bidder/Proposer-DBE Commitment (Consultant Contract)") or Exhibit 15-G(1) "Local Agency Bidder-UDBE Commitment (Construction Contract) to the DLAE at the time of award of the consultant or construction contracts. RECIPIENT will promptly submit a copy of the Local Agency Bidder -DBE Information (Exhibit 15-G(2) "Local Agency Bidder -DBE (Construction Contracts) — Information" or Exhibit 10-0(2) "Local Agency Proposer/Bidder-DBE (Consultant Contracts) -Information" of the LAPM) to the DLAE at the time of execution of consultant or construction contract. RECIPIENT will promptly submit a copy of the Final Utilization of DBE participation to the DLAE using Exhibit 17-F "Final Report — Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First -Tier Subcontractors" of the LAPM immediately upon completion of the contract for each consultant or construction contract. March 4, 2009 284 XVII Certification (§26.83(a)) CIPIENT ensures that only DBE firms currently certified by the California Unified Certification Program will articipate as DBEs on DOT -assisted contracts. XVIII Confidentiality RECIPIENT will safeguard from disclosure to third parties, information that may reasonably be regarded as confidential business information consistent with federal, state, and local laws. By (Signature ) Robert E. Magee, Chair ADMINISTERING AGENCY (Authorized Governing Body Representative) Phone Number: 951-787-7141 This California Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Implementation Agreement is accepted by: [Signature of DLAE] i [Print Name of DLAE] Distribution (1)Original—DLAE (2) Signed copy by the DLAE — Local Agency (Updated: March 4, 2009) Date: 285 March 4, 2009 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-B Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form Exhibit 9-B Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form TO: CALTRANS DISTRICT 08 District Local Assistance Engineer ATTACHMENT 5 The amount of the Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) and methodology are presented herein, in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 26, and the State of California, Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Plan. The Riverside County Transportation Commission, submits our AADPL information. We have established an AADPL of 0_7 % (0.4 % Race Neutral; 0_3% Race Conscious) for the Federal Fiscal Year 2009 /10, beginning on October 1, 2009 and ending on September 30, 2010. Methodology [Please attach the methodology used to determine the AADPL. See Chapter 9, Section 9.7 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) for guidance in developing the AADPL.] Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Liaison Officer (DBELO) [Please provide the name, address, phone number, fax number, and electronic mail address of the DBELO for the coming Federal Fiscal Year.] Riverside County Transportation Commission Attn: Cheryl Johns 4080 Lemon Street 3`d Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Mailing address: P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502- 2208 Phone Number: 951-787-7967 Fax Number: 951-787-7920 E-mail Address cjohns@rctc.org. Planned Race -Neutral Measures: Attendance at local and regional Procurement Small Business and DBE Fairs; participation in the CCCP and SBDC joint programs; focused mailings to CUCP bidders list firms in NAICS codes that correspond with our projects; promote networking opportunities for primes and DBE subs for upcoming projects. Notify minority chambers and other appropriate business oriented associations of upcoming procurements. [Please detail the race -neutral measures your local agency plans to implement for the upcoming Federal Fiscal Year per 49 CFR Part 26.51 and Section V of the California Department of Transportation Race -Conscious DBE Program Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies.] Prompt Pay Federal regulation (49 CFR 26.29) requires one of three methods be used in federal -aid contracts to ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage, kept by the prime contractor or subcontractor, to a subcontractor. (Attached is a listing of the three methods. On the attachment, please designate which prompt payment provision the local agency will use.) 49 CFR Part 26.29(d) requires providing appropriate means to enforce prompt payment. These means may include appropriate penalties for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract. The means may also provide that any delay or postponement of payment among the parties may take place only for good cause, with the local agency's prior written approval. Please briefly describe the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure that all subcontractors, including DBEs, are promptly paid. LPP 09-xx 286 Page 9-35 March 4, 2009 EXHIBIT 9-B Local Assistance Procedures Manual Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form At this time, RCTC receives copies of the lien releases from the subs and material suppliers indicating payment has been made. In the future, RCTC will not release monthly progress payments to the prime without first receiving a certification from each sub indicating payment from the previous month. The Commission will also consider implementation of appropriate administrative sanctions which may include withholding of payment of the prime's invoice until payment is made to the Subcontractor, or termination of the contract in accordance with the Article entitled TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT depending of course on the issues surrounding failure of the prime to pay the sub promptly. (Signature ) Date Robert E. Magee, Chair ADMINISTERING AGENCY (Authorized Governing Body Representative) 951-757-7141 Phone Number (Signature of Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer [DLAE]) Date Distribution: (I)Original -DLAE (2) Signed copy by the DLAE— Local Agency Page 9-36 March 4, 2009 LPP 09-xx 287 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-B Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form DBE Annual Submittal Form (04/01/08) LPP 09-xx 288 Page 9-35 March 4, 2009 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-B Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form (Attachment) Prompt Payment of Withheld Funds to Subcontractors Federal regulation (49 CFR 26.29) requires one of the following three methods be used in federal -aid contracts to ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage kept by the prime contractor or subcontractor to a subcontractor. Please check the box of the method chosen by the local agency to ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage. ❑ Method 1: No retainage will be held by the agency from progress payments due to the prime contractor. Prime contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from holding retainage from subcontractors. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. ❑ Method 2: No retainage will be held by the agency from progress payments due the prime contractor. Any retainage kept by the prime contractor or by a subcontractor must be paid in full to the earning subcontractor in 30 days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties sanctions, and remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. ® Method 3: The agency shall hold retainage from the prime contractor and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the agency of the contract work and pay retainage to the prime contractor based on these acceptances. The prime contractor or subcontractor shall return all monies withheld in retention from all subcontractors within 30 days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed and accepted including incremental acceptances of portions of the contract work by the agency.. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating prime contractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of: a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor; deficient subcontractor performance and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. LPP 09-xx Page 9-37 March 4, 2009 290 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2009. 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 first 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 59% 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 2009. On a cash basis, the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues are 12.7% and 11.9% lower, respectively, than the same period last fiscal year due to the economic downturn regionally and nationally. Staff continues to monitor the trends in the sales tax receipts and will report to the Commission any necessary adjustments to the budget for sales tax revenue. Federal, state, and local government reimbursements are on a reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. Agenda Item 8C 291 During the FY 2008/09 budget planning process, the Commission took a very conservative approach in estimating the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) receipts as a result of the housing crisis and the significant impact this has had on the Inland Empire's local economy. The operating statement shows TUMF revenues, including project reimbursements, at 104% of the budget; however, a portion of the TUMF fees due to the Commission were withheld in March 2009, to offset developer fee refunds processed by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). Once this balance has been satisfied, TUMF fee payments to the Commission, if any, will resume. Other revenues include first and second quarter State Transit Assistance (STA) revenues remitted to the Commission. In March 2009, the Commission received a revised STA estimate from the state, reducing the FY 2008/09 STA revenues to approximately $4.9 million or an additional 47% below the revised October 2008 estimate. The March 2009 state revision is not reflected in the FY 2008/09 budget amounts. Interest income is slightly higher at 88% for a nine -month period than budgeted; however, interest yields on invested balances have been declining. Staff is addressing the impact of the revised revenue allocation estimates to local governments and transit operators. Staff will diligently continue to monitor the FY 2008/09 revenues and will update the Commission if additional adjustments are needed when the final budget is presented at the June 2009 Commission meeting. The administrative and program/project categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget with the following exceptions: • The Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program is administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and requests reimbursement from the Commission based on available funds and sufficient budget authority. This category is slightly higher due to claims submitted by CVAG during the first quarter. • Engineering, construction, and right-of-way/land expenditures related to the highway and rail capital projects. Status information on significant projects is included below. • Local streets and roads expenditures are related to the timing of the Measure A sales tax revenues as explained earlier. • LTF and STA distributions are below budgeted amounts due to approximately $24 million and $17 million in operating and capital allocations, respectively, not claimed as of March 31, 2009. The transit operators have been reviewing operations and capital requirements as a result of the declining sales tax and STA revenues. Agenda Item 8C • • • 292 • • Intergovernmental distributions are expended as one-time LTF payments made based on claims submitted by CVAG and WRCOG. Any unused funds in this category are related to the planning and programming departmental expenditures. Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority for financial software improvements and station improvements. Staff expects these improvements to take place by the fourth quarter of FY 2008/09. Debt service interest expenditures are made in December and June, while principal payments are made in June. Listed below are the significant capital projects and their status. Capital project expenditures are generally affected by lags in invoices submitted by contractors and consultants as well as issues encountered during certain phases of the projects. The capital projects budgets tend to be based on aggressive project schedules. Highway Engineering/Construction/Right-of-Way/Land State Route 74/G Street to Interstate 215 - Following Federal Highway Administration approval of the modified access report, the Commission issued a notice to proceed to initiate the "at risk" design of the project in March 2008. The final environmental document was approved December 2008, and the Commission is now proceeding with final design aspects of the work. SR-91 /Green River Interchange - The Commission is still awaiting invoice submittals from Ca!trans through December 2008. The project is essentially complete and has been opened to traffic. SR-91 /La Sierra Interchange - The city of Riverside is the lead agency and elected to perform non -Measure A work first and then proceed with starting work on the Measure A funded portion of the work in the second half of FY 2008/09. The Commission is currently awaiting invoice submittals from the city. SR-91 /Van Buren Interchange - The city of Riverside is the lead agency and expects to have the environmental phase completed by April 2009. Advertising for construction is anticipated in April 2009 pending availability of state funds. If state funds are available, construction would start July 2009. SR-91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOW Lanes from Adams Street to 7`h Street - Caltrans is the ►ead agency for the final design phase of this project. Utility relocation and public utility easement requirements are .being completed as part of the final design. Utility relocation activity has begun; however, invoices have not been received. The Commission is performing the right-of-way acquisition activities. Agenda Item 8C 293 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project - Project activities are proceeding as planned, as expenditures are at 90% of the project budget. State Routes 91 /71 Connectors - Project scope changes were made to transfer a significant portion of the work to the SR-91 corridor improvement project, and geometric approval from Caltrans has taken longer than anticipated. Staff is working closely with Caltrans to obtain approval of the geometric approval drawings. 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project - The environmental phase of the project commenced at a slower rate than anticipated; however, the majority of the budget will be expended by the end of the fiscal year. 1-215 Bi-County Project - San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) is the lead agency and the Commission is responsible for 25% of the. consultant's fee. SANBAG placed a hold on proceeding with preliminary engineering until it completed its strategic planning efforts for its program. SANBAG determined that an interim HOV project would be constructed. Commission approval for funding was approved in February, and engineering started in February. The ultimate bicounty project will be deferred until a later date; however, the Commission is awaiting invoices for work completed prior to deferring this scope of the project. 1-215 from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road - The environmental phase of the project was completed and the final design contract awarded last quarter. The final design is proceeding on schedule. The Scott Road to Nuevo Road environmental phase is also proceeding on schedule; however, these projects may be underbudget for the fiscal year. Rail Engineering/Construction/Right-of-Way/Land Perris Multimodal Facility - Funding appropriation by the California Transportation Commission was approved in July 2008. A construction contract was awarded in December 2008, and construction started in January 2009. North Main Corona Parking Structure - Construction is scheduled for completion in July 2009. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements - March 2009 Agenda Item 8C • 294 DESCRIPTION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 3RD QUARTER FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED 03/3112009 FY 2008/09 3RD QUARTER REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATIOI Revenues Sales tax $ 204,668,275 $ 120,379,756 $ (84,288,519) 59% Federal, state and local government reimbursemi 78,367,686 47,838,745 (30,528,941) 61% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 7,730,000 8,031,848 301,848 104% Other revenues 11,227,200 3,685,460 (7,541,740) 33% Interest 7,980,000 6,982,642 (997,358) 88% Total revenues - 309,973,161 186,918,451 (123,054,710) 60% Expenditures Administration Salaries and benefits 1,664,800 1,152,117 512,683 69% General legal services 151,000 113,549 37,451 75% Professional services 1,886,300 992,646 893,654 53% Office lease and utilities 415,000 297,600 117,400 729/0 General administrative expenditures 1,365,900 700,517 665,383 51% Total administration 5,483,000 3,256,429 2,226,572 59% Programs/projects Salaries and benefits 5,253,200 3,097,685 2.155,515 59% General legal services 1,847,500 962,281 885,219 52% Professional services 4,515,113 918,021 3,597,092 20% General projects .. 9,305,600 2,417,113 6,888,487 26% Engineering 71,027,582 26,074,580 44,953,002 37% Construction 106,303,600 52,289,432 54,014,168 49% Right ofway/Land 200,203,400 95,292,349 104,911,051 48% Local streets and roads 46,562,300 27,671,817 18,890,483 59% Regional arterial 7,886,300 7,570,879 315,421 96% Commuter assistance 3,474,500 1,924,121 1,550,379 55% LTF and STA distributions 101,525,600 59,824,642 41,700,958 59% Motorist assistance 3,068,300 - 1,530,358 1,537,942 50% Planning and programming services 11,056,626 4,548,913 6,507,713 41% Right of way management 335,000 174,588 160,412 52% Rail operations and maintenance 8,283,700 5,346,402 2,937,298 - 65% Specialized transit 7,539,400 3,179,525 4,359,875 42°% Total programs/projects 588,187,721 292,822,706 295,365,014 50% Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay 1,050,000 975,833 74,167 93% 1,807,852 308,737 1,499,115 17% Debt service Principal 33,630,000 - 33,630,000 0% Interest 16,496,400 7,967,679 8,528,721 48% Total debt service 50,126,400 7,967,679 42,158,721 16% Total expenditures 646,654,973 305,331,385 341,323,588 47% Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (336,681,812) (118,412,933) 218,268,879 -35% Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in 69,125,100 26,721,976 (42,403,124) 39% Operating transfer out 69,125,100 26,721,976 42,403,124 39% Bond proceeds 130,000,000 110,000,000 20,000,000 850% Total financing sources/uses 130,000,000 110,000,000 (20,000,000) 85% Net change in fund balances (206,681,812) (8,412,933) 198,268,879 4% Fund balance July 1, 2008 475,188,900 531,044,094 55,855,194 112% Fund balance March 31, 2009 $ 268,507,088 $ 522,631,161 $ 254,124,073 195% ",,,,va�,,v„,,a„zne,re4 ,3,,,,u„,„e,ry 295 96Z L91.'1696Z5 S 511'0196L$ COZ6L006 S 629'6£1. $ 849'096'96 $ E91'01.9'LZ $ LZi EL6'95 $ 299'LZ0.9 S VC8.99 $ 059-50660Z $ Za1166 S 60060E', LS 300Z'LC Poop, esoeleq puns 060 9 Pit£5 6Bt 9f9'OS 9SC'LZE'B Z69'f£t PLO 'IB0'Ell ZOVE90'LE 5567Z616 506'LZO'Ll ILL-59 6ZE'LZ6'L IL LODI L9'9 /UV I'M 9002'L AO, eputeq pun/ (UVZ1Y9) L651LL'ZZ 596'061.06 LEL (944'0E1.'Ll) (6, VELVEI (9E0'668'91) (ES2'000'L t) al' L (5LL'IZS'9) 5Z969E ZLLSLl'l sesueleq pun, a a6ue4p wry 000600O LILI SL2'L09'5Z 000-000'011 - - - - LG8 Ens 64E'LL=g77. seen/sepooe 6upueu9 Feral 000'000.0II 000'000'OLI - - - - spaaowd puo9 9L16LZLVZ 611E'01L - - ILIU 6'S - OLL'L99'0Z - - Do,eoueq 6u0e,aeo 9L6'11LIO 965419'5Z - - - - 09E61 L'L - - solsuen Buow° sesrysewnos 6upueup oupO (CCell.VOL4) (6Z9VECT) (SSVSS9'SL) LEL (91,1,-0E1'42) (644'EL9.0 16C0996'S l) (E9E'9L0'S) EEC I. 895'550'LL 6Z9'99E ZLL'911.'4 r Duedue lotus)JOAO Peptone, ssess6 S9C'V ff'SOf OBS'1!L'f 9EI'SS t'9L 969'NI 9C SL9'ELE'1 89i090 49 066 ZZLZ2 9e05E5 BLI,Zff'98 ZZ9'SLL'4 Z96 E985, seppouaeva relay BL9'L96'1 09S'LLL'E 61 C8819 - - apima$ elet to/ Del amp, eBeple,V BLVL93'L 095'W:6 611.96L'9 - - - lse,elul IPOPePel LeL'90f CE9'9L8 901229'ESE SES 9Ll C EO6'94E'S S95'4L { E46B65b 996'0E94 Z49'629'69 211,36'1. 6L6'OLS'L L 19'149'LZ S9f'29d'98 ZE9'692'Z5 09S'6LO'92 C L L'LI6'Z 20916 L92'296 S99'L60'C BZ9'99re LtVOOL 0a9'Let 969'L66 SPVCIl LL l'ZSI'L ZL'Z09'4L 6S'LBf'9S OCC'9s0'E1 PC0 9Z0'0 999'96 966.95E 99L'96Z Sten LSOb l6r 96BFZW 19V005 Z09 Z969 9E6 Z49 1.92'006 099'599'E 999.160-9 - 511'9f9'L6 95L'6LC6Z1 $ - S 66-966'9C 9S9'L9L-LE L8L'6L1'L 160E0r0 L66'L6 00E 999'9E1 900'9L4 LE! ESS91•99 1£L 892'21.91 U66691:9 Z1£'90I S - vasee'L 992'090.Z5 069'ZZl62 9Z0'9E5 LOVE'! L-05075 99609' I 6L8'OL5-L 9ZZ'EI6'5 E90'BZS'9 LOZ'BSZ L66'6 OSOL 64£SEZ L6L 60V/60119 065'066L 8960E6 ZDOVEE'• LZL'4Z6'I 96'6C5 l59'6Z2'lZ 01,6ZL'S L00'Z95'e6 G65'995'9 ZEZ'SZ£'Z 092.09E 900'065 9 GO6'L lS'L 9L'Zl 5L6'6 92V26 LZBZL 6E5'9L6 Aetee rodeo uo9nq!nsle Iewewwaw6olul BLL'450-Z sloeload/Pwe,60O level /toe petienedS 2009069 euueuet ale pue suapendo Pea 9891,L4 luewe6euew A9M /o IOW EL69051e seowas Bulwwe,Btxl pue fetuueld eaue SISSE opoloW • euellnqulsiP elS pue All • 6pu41D199e,ateuwoo lepape I9to6Pe sped Due weans Fehr Zlet, puel/Aeule146i6 uaipwleuo-,� • 6eueeu6u3 • %POPO le»ue0 609-E80 MINOS lettissal0,d Ze9'08L ses leBll moues ZZ6'60C'L stouaq pee 9eueles spelo,dowe,6wd 069-56L £6169L'Z utgeetuwpe lel0l Oo9'CC L19'999 sontpuadee anneeseeope polo° 6LE'6L 9ZZ'E9Z mein Due noel aego 66L'6Z 609'999 saopua$ euasse/Wd 6L56 9Z/65 9851we9 Fefiel lae11e0 E99.59 690966 L spouse pue stews uonepeueupe elonllp BPDID3 951'OOL'E 1,61'4051C 80L'960'LL SOCKS L66'L9E'66 deli ZP E 99L000'LL senuene, poi 999'669 056099 SIZE LL 69 L'I 8861860.E 0546E 2605EI oeete L06692'9 - C89'eC - 560'9 96E SCZ'LLE Pentane, owl° - (wee0 - - 1) 9ed udne6i06, w,opun opepodsue,l 952-256Z0 L966906 LaLLZ'C uneyueoPosee tool No elels'lenpe/ $ I9£'1696E S ZE6666'91. S 096'0E9 S E9Z-L90'09 $ • $ 00Z'L5Z'E49 Del sales senuenee 1V101 301A935 Wtl9001id 901100919900 (iWnll 30911191SW ONni A31-IVA A311VA umn0O 3dVS ONN 03N191100 1930 113dVd A11,1000 Bid NOILVOLLIW 1ISNtla1 NOI1V1210e1SNV91 V1131.OV03 30a3A N931S3A6 idSi 1V33N30 W0193111400 Na319aM WaOdmn 31V18 1tl001 Oltld NOI1V1a0dSNVa1 V3anSV3W 9002/4E/E0030N3 SNINOW 3NIN 90i a3larno aac ONnd A9 mow./Ala3larno 010I1dI1,0530 NOI99I16100 NOI1tl1a0d�A1Nn00 3015143Na • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4, 2008. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In December 2007, the Commission awarded an agreement to MuniServices, LLC for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional fees contingent on additional sales tax revenue generated from the transactions and use tax (sales tax) audit services. The services performed under this agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales taxes. Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices has submitted an audit update, which reported findings that have been generated and submitted to the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) for review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 93 businesses. Through Quarter 3 (03) 2008 for July through September 2008, the SBOE has approved corrections for 28 of these accounts for a total sales tax revenue recovery of $215,438. If the SBOE concurs with the error(s) for the remaining claims, the Commission would receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues. Additionally, MuniServices has provided the Commission with the quarterly sales tax report for the fourth quarter (Q4) of calendar 2008 for October through December 2008. Most of the Q4 2008 Measure A sales taxes were received by the Commission in the first quarter (Q1) of calendar 2009 for January through March, 2009, due to a lag in the sales tax calendar. This report includes a review by each major economic category, an analysis of sales tax by business category, an analysis of the quarter's cash receipts, and a summary of the top 25 sales tax contributors. The executive summary section of the Q4 2008 report is included as Agenda Item 8D 297 an attachment to the staff report. The following observations were noted in the Q4 2008 report: • Continuing declines in sales tax revenues are projected for each major economic category. • Over the last two-year period, the Q4 2008 sales tax levels were at or near the low points for almost all of the top 10 economic segments, except for service stations that were closer to the high point due to the higher fuel prices during this period. • Over the last two-year period, the Q4 2008 sales tax levels for new auto sales and building materials (retail and wholesale) showed a significant variance from the high point, indicating that these segments have been significantly affected by the slowdown in the economy. The report indicates that the economic difficulties will continue through mid-2010. Staff continues to monitor monthly sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine the need for any additional adjustment to the revenue projections in FY 2008/09, as well as the budget for FY 2009/10. Attachment: Sales Tax Analysis for Quarter 4, 2008 ' Agenda Item 8D • • 298 District of Riverside Co RCTC Sales Tax Digest Summary FIRST Quarter Collection of FOURTH Quarter Sales Quarter 4, 2008 6/NUNISERVICES CALIFORNIA OVERVIEW California local governments' sales tax revenues abandoned sure footing in the second half of 2008. Recognition of the states economic recession introduced residents, legislators and local government officials to a rapidly deteriorating economy. Consumer confidence, while appreciative of lower fuel and energy costs, directed savings at the pump to anything except taxable purchases. Adding consumers' lack of spending to large businesses stockpiling cash, small businesses struggling to find financing and difficult -if -not -impossible -to -find consumer credit for auto and home purchases leads to the foregone conclusion that 2009 is going to be a very rough year. California local governments look ahead to a possible bottoming of the economy in the 3rd Quarter 2009, flat growth into 2010 and slow growth by the end of 2010. Stock market gains coupled with the sale of foreclosure homes and increased new housing starts offers hope of better times in late 2010 early 201 1. EXPECTATIONS The following review of each major economic category outlines MuniServices' expectations and projections based on MuniServices trending data analysis, market research and national economy considerations. • Holiday sales started slow and improved in the final weeks of the season, yet many retailers experienced double-digit declines. • Luxury retail shoppers are choosing promotional and clearance -priced items over regular - priced merchandise. • Expect additional department store closures and bankruptcies over the next year. Vulnerable businesses include Gottschalks, Kmart, Sears and furniture stores. • Wal-Mart"s lower prices attracted a wider spectrum of shoppers searching for better deals. • Projection: 7.5% decline through 2nd Quarter 2010. www.MuniSeruices com /Soolgy-8181 Pagel District of Riverside Co RCTC • Restaurants will follow the same path as general retail. Consumers are downgrading restaurant choices and cooking at home more frequently. • Projection: 7.5% decline through 2nd Quarter 2010. • Depressed auto sales will lead to more dealership consolidations, dealership closures and possible failure of Chrysler and/or General Motors. • New Auto Sales Projection: 50%, 30%, 20% and 20% declines in 15' 2nd 3rO and 4w Quarter 2009, respectively, from year-ago quarter. • Service Stations Projection: 50%, 50%, 25% and 0% declines in 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th Quarter 2009, respectively, -from year-ago quarter. • Stalled housing markets erode demand for construction goods, which leads to continued job losses throughout the construction supply chain. • Projection: 15% decline through 4th Quarter 2010. Business to Business • Job losses combined with economic uncertainty are leading companies to put off purchases. • Demand for semiconductors expected to decline by 24% in 2009. • Projection: 5% to 10% decline through 4th Quarter 2009. • Statewide sales tax revenue was down 4.9% for the year and 10.8% for the quarter. • Northern California was down 3.6% for the year and 9.2% for the quarter. • Southern California was down 5.8% for the year and 12.0% for the quarter. Information prepared by MuniServkes, LLC 300 2 District of Riverside Co RCTC PERFORMANCE REVIEW The following tables review the net cash receipts and the business activity performance for 4"' Quarter 2008. Net Cash Receipts Analysis Local Collections Share of County Pool 0.0% Share of State Pool 0.0% SBE Net Collections Less: Amount Due County 0.0% Less: Cost of Administration Net 4020O8 Receipts Net 402007 Receipts Actual Percentage Change S32,169,245 0 0 32,169,245 .00 (407,400) 31,761,845 37, 319,822 -14.9% Business Activity Performance Analysis Local Collections Less: Payments for Prior Periods Preliminary 402008 Collections Projected 402008 Late Payments Projected 402008 Final Results Actual 402007 Results Projected Percentage Change HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS $32,169,245 (2,309,610) 29,859,635 1,657,880 31,517,515 38,222,934 -17.5% BY QUARTER n u m m Z 545,000 540,000 535,000 - S30,000 S25,000 S20,000 S 15,000 S 10,000 S5,000 SO (in thonsands of S) $500 S450 $400 $350 $300 $250 5200 $150 S100 $50 SO 3Q2006 4Q2006 1Q2007 2Q2007 3Q2007 4Q2007 1Q2008 2Q2008 3Q2008 4Q2008 1111111Net Beteip is -u~S BOE A4m in Fees Due u u a E a a Information prepared by MuniServices LLC 301 3 District of Riverside Co RCTC TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS The following list identifies Riverside Co Rctc's Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order and represents the year ended 4w Quarter 2008. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 22.4% of Riverside Co Rctc's total sales and use tax revenue. ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS BEST BUY STORES CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS CIRCLE K FOOD STORES COSTCO WHOLESALE DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES HOME DEPOT J C PENNEY COMPANY JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANTS K MART STORES KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE MOBIL SERVICE STATIONS RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY RITE AID DRUG STORES ROBERTSONS READY MIX ROSS STORES SAM'S CLUB SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY SHELL SERVICE STATIONS STATER BROS MARKETS TARGET STORES VERIZON WIRELESS WAL MART STORES • HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS The following chart shows the sales tax level for the year ended 4th Quarter 2008, the highs, and the lows for each segment over the last two years. • i I (in thousands ofS) S25,000 S20,000 S 15,000 S10,000 S5,000 so 0te. T ocs ` o� , �� �„ e ` `� s �e �0\, e l Ste' ♦ey oJg `♦S %F �♦ S° bv O 2.4 1 r n4Q 2008 ♦Sigh Lio Low s'5 Sao<ss ♦ 4,4 \ ,ate 4`m oa a� v�°e ♦ag 4o AQC 4 Information prepared byMuniServices, LLC 302 4 District of Riverside Co RCTC ANNUAL SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY (in thon seode or 5) 4Q 2008 3Q2008 2Q2008 IQ 2008 4Q2007 3Q 2007 2Q 2007 IQ 2007 4Q 2006 30 2006 50 520,000 540,000 560,000 580,000 S100,000 5120,000 5140,000 5160,000 5180,000 [®C everel Rele it ®Feed Products OTrs asp orts lieu ®Can steer ties p0usin <ss T o Business ileM isc ellenesos � FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: General Retail $I4,000 512,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 SO v a e 0 o e O a N c N c a N ,1 e r. 0 h (in thousand s or S) r, 0 e s O c N a O a O O a M1 e s N a e a T S c ea ra a e a 0 a Information prepared byMuniServices, LLC 303 5 District of Riverside Co RCTC 3`d QUARTER 2008 FINAL RESULTS • $32,430,930 Local net cash collections • $-407,400 Less pool amounts • $2,717,743 Less prior quarter payments • $1,871,616 Add late payments • $31,992,203 Local net economic collections after adjustments • DOWN BY 10.5% compared to 3rd Quarter 2007. MUNISERVICES' AUDIT RESULTS MuniServices, LLC performs an on -going audit for the District of Riverside Co Rctc. This quarter, Riverside Co Rctc received $31,853 in sales tax from MuniServices' audit efforts, bringing the total sales tax revenue produced by MuniServices to $215,438. • Information prepared by MuniServices, LLC 304 6 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2009 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the 2009 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2002, Assembly_ Bill 1010 authored by then -Assemblyman Lou Correa allowed the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 Express Lanes franchise from the California Private Transportation Company. The purchase agreement was completed in January 2003 at a cost of $207.5 million. AB 1010 also eliminated the existing non -compete clause in the franchise agreement that prohibited any capacity -enhancing improvements from being made to SR-91 until the year 2030. The purchase of the 91 Express Lanes and the elimination of the non -compete clause has allowed much -needed improvements to be planned and implemented within the SR-91 corridor. OCTA, the Commission, and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 have been coordinating these improvements. Also required by AB 1010 is the creation and annual update of an implementation plan of SR-91 improvements for the State Legislature. As spelled out in the legislation, the State Route 91 Implementation Plan was completed by OCTA, in consultation with Caltrans and the Commission, and details proposed projects and completion schedules for transportation improvements between Riverside and Orange Counties. The plan includes improvements to Metrolink, express bus, freeways and interchanges, new east -west highway corridors, and high speed rail. Attachment: 2009 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Agenda Item 8E 305 • • Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS I SECTION 1: 2009 STATUS REPORT AND UPDATE 1 SECTION 2: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 7 BY YEAR 2011 8 BY YEAR 2015 13 BY YEAR 2022 19 BY YEAR POST-2025/2030 Y3 SECTION 3: REFERENCES Y8 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 307 • SECTION 1: 2009 Status Report and Update • INTRODUCTION Previous law authorized the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to enter into franchise agreements with private companies to construct and operate four demonstration toll road projects in Califomia. This resulted in the development of the 91 Express Lanes facility in Orange County. The four -lane, 10-mile toll road runs along the median of the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) in northeast Orange County between the Orange/Riverside County Line and the Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55). Since the 91 Express Lanes carried its first vehicle on December 27, 1995, the facility has saved users over 32 million hours of commuting time. While the 91 Express Lanes facility has improved travel time along the State Route 91 (SR-91) corridor, provisions in the franchise agreement between Caltrans and the private franchisee, the California Private Transportation Company (CPTC), prohibited Caltrans and county transportation agencies from adding transportation capacity or operational improvements to the SR-91 corridor from the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15) in Riverside County to the Orange/Los Angeles Counties border through the year 2030. Consequently, the public agencies were barred from adding new lanes, improving interchanges, and adding other improvements to decrease congestion on the SR-91 freeway. Recognizing the need to eliminate the non -compete provision of the franchise agreement, Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 1010 (Lou Correa) into law in September 2002, paving the way for much -needed congestion relief for thousands of drivers who use SR-91 to travel between Riverside and Orange Counties each day. The bill allowed the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 Express Lanes franchise and eliminate the existing clause that prohibited any capacity -enhancing improvements from being made to SR-91 until the year 2030. The purchase agreement for the 91 Express Lanes was completed in January 2003, placing the road in public hands at a cost of $207.5 million. With the elimination of the non -compete provision through AB 1010 and the subsequent 91 Express Lanes purchase by the OCTA, Orange County and Riverside County public officials and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 have been coordinating improvement plans for SR-91, Senate Bill 1316 (Lou Correa) was signed into law in August 2008 as an update to the provisions of AB 1010. SB 1316 authorizes OCTA to transfer its rights and interests in the Riverside County portion of SR-91 toll lanes by assigning them to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and authorizes RCTC to impose tolls for 50 years. SB 1316 also requires OCTA, in consultation with Caltrans and RCTC, to annually issue a plan and a proposed completion schedule for SR-91 improvements from State Route 57 (SR-57) to Interstate 15 (1-15). The previous SR-91 Implementation Plan included a westerly project limit of State Route 55 (SR-55). This plan establishes a program of projects eligible for funding by the use of potential excess toll revenue and other funds. This 2009 SR-91 Implementation Plan (Plan) is the result of the requirement to provide the State Legislature with an annual Implementation Plan for SR-91 improvements and builds on the 2008 report, which was a major update of the previous annual Implementation Plans. This year's update includes projects identified in the Riverside County — Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) as well as other project development efforts and funding programs such as the RCTC 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan that outlines a number of projects such as the extension of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes from the Orange/Riverside County Line to 1-15, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) that provides a funding source for transportation projects, the extension of the Measure A program that provides funding for transportation projects in Riverside County, and the Renewed Measure M program that provides funding for transportation projects in Orange County. The 2009 Plan includes an overview, identification of issues and needs, time frames for project packages to improve mobility on SR-91, and are listed based on a logical sequence for implementation. Project descriptions include conceptual 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1 308 lane diagrams (as appropriate), cost estimates (in 2009 dollars, or as noted), and discussion of key considerations that need to be addressed in the planning and development of each project. This plan will provide OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans with a framework to implement SR-91 and other related improvements. Future annual plan updates will continue to refine the scope, cost, and schedule of each project included in this version of the plan. SR-91 CORRIDOR CONDITIONS Project Limits The project study limits encompass the segment of SR-91 from west of the junction of SR-57 and SR-91 in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, to east of the junction of SR-91 and 1-15 in the City of Corona in Riverside County. The freeway segment is approximately 20.3 miles long, and includes approximately 12.7 miles within Orange County and approximately 7.6 miles within Riverside County. Traffic Conditions Summary A review of traffic conditions in the Corridor indicates that the existing carrying capacity of the facility is inadequate to accommodate current and future peak demand volumes, and that Level of Service (LOS) F prevails in the peak direction during the entire peak period, where LOS F is defined as the worst freeway operating condition and is defined as a density of more than 45 passenger cars/lane/mile. The results also indicate that there are several physical constraints that generate unacceptable traffic queues. The following list summarizes the deficiencies identified along the SR-91 Corridor: ❖ Heavy traffic volumes from 1-15 (North and South) converge with SR-91. The weaving and merging condition is complicated by the close proximity of the Westbound (WB) Main Street off -ramp. ❖ High demand from several on -ramps within the eastern segment exacerbates traffic conditions during rush hours. • An eastbound (EB) general purpose (GP) lane is dropped just east of the Corona Expressway (State Route 71). • The second EB High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane becomes a GP lane. Heavy downstream congestion forces traffic to exit at the Green River off -ramp. The backup caused by the off -ramp blocks the right lane of the mainline freeway. ❖ High traffic volumes from Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road contribute to congestion on the mainline. • The Foothill Transportation Corridor (State Route 241) merges with SR-91 causing additional congestion in the EB direction. Both EB lanes from State Route 241 (SR-241) are dropped prior to State Route 71 (SR-71). ❖ Heavy traffic reentering the freeway merges at slow speeds from existing WB and EB truck scales, impacting the general-purpose lanes. • SR-55 merges with SR-91. An EB lane on SR-91 is dropped at Lakeview Avenue and a second EB lane is dropped at Imperial Highway creating a severe merge condition. •: WB SR-91 drops a GP lane and a 91 Express Lane to SB SR-55, which contributes to mainline congestion. ❖ High demand from Weir Canyon Road, Imperial Highway and Lakeview Avenue. ❖ WB traffic entering SR-91 at Lakeview Avenue weaving through three lanes from WB SR-91 to southbound (SB) SR-55 contributes to mainline congestion. PROJECT SUMMARY Many of the projects identified in this 2009 Plan are based on the MIS that was completed in January 2006. The projects are presented based on potential implementation schedules and priorities established in the MIS as well as through subsequent project development. Table 1 summarizes the various projects in the 2009 Plan, and they are outlined below by implementation schedule (see Section 2 for detailed project summaries): • The first set of projects is anticipated to be completed by 2011 and includes four improvements at a total cost of approximately $145 million. The projects include construction of a Metrolink parking structure at the North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station, Metrolink service improvements, Express Bus improvements, and the EB SR-91 lane addition from SR-241 to SR-71. These projects are in the process of preliminary engineering, final design, construction, 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2 • • 309 • • or procurement and implementation, as noted in the project summaries. ❖ The 2015 improvements include five projects, with a total cost up to approximately $1.9 billion. The projects include new travel lanes between SR-55 and SR-241; interchange improvements at SR- 71/SR-91; the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) from SR-241 to Pierce Street that will widen SR-91 by one GP lane in each direction east of SR-241, add collector -distributor (CD) roads and direct connectors at I-15/SR-91, extend the 91 Express Lanes to 1-15, and add system interchange improvements; a new WB lane at Tustin Avenue; and a potential new interchange or overcrossing at Fairmont Boulevard. Three projects for implementation by 2022 include the SR-241/SR-91 HOV/HOT direct connector, a significant expansion of Metrolink service and station improvements, and SR-91 improvements between SR-57 and SR-55. OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans will be initiating preliminary planning activities for these projects to ensure readiness when local, state, or federal funding becomes available. Consequently, there may be opportunities to advance these projects if additional funding is made available. Projects for implementation by 2022 would cost approximately $900 million to $1.2 billion. Some of these projects may become components of post-2025/2030 projects. :• Projects for post-2025/2030 implementation focus on longer -lead time projects and include: SR- 55/SR-91 Interchange Improvements, an Elevated 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to 1-15, a 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor B) from SR-241/Laguna Freeway (State Route 133) to I-15/Cajalco Road, and the Anaheim to Ontario International Airport High Speed Rail. The $200 million dollar interchange project and the other three, multi -billion dollar potential projects require a significant amount of planning, design, and future policy and public input. In some cases, these projects may include previous projects as project components, Table 1— SR-91 Implementation Plan Projects Project project Summary No. By Year2011 1 North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure 2 Metrolink Short -Term Expansion Plan 3 Express Bus Improvements - Orange County to Riverside County 4 Eastbound Lane Addition from SR-241 to SR-71 Cost (SW 25.0 35A 9.5 74.5 ; SUBTOTAL 144.4` By Year 2015 5 Widen SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241 by Adding a 511, GP lane in Each Direction 6 SR-711SR-91 Interchange Improvements 104.2' 117.5; 7 Widen SR-91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction East of 1,542 SR-241, CD Roads and Direct Connectors at I-151SR-91, Extension of Express Lanes to 1-15, and System Interchange Improvements 8 SR-91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue , 9 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements SUBTOTAL 94.8 44 -76 1,903 - 1,935 10 11 12 By Year 2022 SR-2411SR-91 HOWHOT Connector Metrolink Service and Station Improvements 1 SR-91 between SR-57 and SR-55 SUBTOTAL t50 = r 440 335 417 902 — 1192 By Past-2025/2030 13 SR-551SR-91Interchange 'Improvements 14 Elevated 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to 1-15 15 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor B) from SR-2411SR-133 to 1-151Cajalco Road -16 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport High Speed Rail TBD SUBTOTAL ,720 960; 8,880+ such that all projects may not be implemented within this project summary. Traffic Analysis For the 2009 Plan, the traffic analysis for major SR-91 capacity projects has been updated from the 2008 Plan and the westerly project study limit has been revised to include SR-57. This analysis used the latest freeway operations software model available from UC Berkeley and 2008 traffic data. This freeway operations model 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 3 310 provides a better depiction of actual travel delays experienced by motorists compared to traditional travel demand models. The model can be used to analyze freeway bottlenecks sometimes neglected in traditional travel demand models. This approach is especially important given high SR-91 traffic volumes and the potential for relatively few vehicles to significantly slow down traffic. For example, a minor freeway merging area can cause many vehicles to slow, cascading delay through the traffic stream, and suddenly both speed and volume rapidly decrease for major segments of the freeway. The operations analysis quantified travel time savings for WB morning and EB afternoon conditions for the following major capacity enhancing projects: ❖ Eastbound lane addition from SR-241 to SR-71 by 2011 (Project 4). ❖ New lanes in both directions from SR-55 to SR-241 by 2014 (Project 5). New lanes in both directions from SR-241 to 1-15 by 2015 (Project 7). • Eastbound lane between SR-57 and SR-55 by 2022 (Project 12). New capacity provided by Corridor A and Corridor B by post-2025/2030 as recommended by the 2006 MIS (Projects 14 and 15). The results indicate that the WB morning travel times increase for 2011 as there are no planned WB improvements, but by 2015 and 2022 there are significant travel time improvements compared with the 2011 results. Results for 2030 illustrate travel time increases without Corridors A and B, whereas the inclusion of Corridors A and B results in greatly reduced travel times. The aftemoon travel times are slightly decreased for the EB SR-91 project planned for 2011, whereas 2015 and 2022 improvements will significantly decrease EB travel speeds. These improvements will help manage the future growth for the SR-91 corridor. The current design of the SR-55/SR-91 interchange limits the ability to move traffic into north and central Orange County via SR-55, and significant future vehicle delays may result without major interchange improvements and downstream capacity increases or diversion to other corridors. The introduction of Corridors A and B by post-2025/2030 offers the potential capacity to manage future SR-91 traffic demand in both directions. While both of these corridors are still concepts, they provide substantial relief to EB and WB traffic congestion in the future. Further feasibility studies will determine if one or both concepts move forward in the project development process. The charts below describe the travel time benefits by year including these various project concepts. The 2030 scenario shows travel time without the Corridor A and B improvements. Figure 1-1 — Mainline Westbound SR-91 from 1-15 to SR-57 A.M. Peak Hour Average Travel Time 100 90 ao 70 00 50 40 30 20 Mainline Westbound SR-91 From 1-15 to SR-57 AM Peak Hour Average Travel Time (in Minutes) Ex, ling (2009) 2011 2015 2022 p Orange County O Rlxcrside County. 2030 i 2030 A&B 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4 • • • 311 • • Figure 1-2 — Mainline Eastbound SR-91 from SR-57 to 1-15 P.M. Peak Hour Average Travel Time 100 90 80 ]0 so so an 30 20 Ex sling (2009) MainMne Eastbound SR-91 from SR-57 to 1-15 PM Peak Hour Average Travel Time (in Minutest 2011 2015 2022 B Orange County 13 Rrerside Courtly 2030 A80 PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS Much progress has been made since the initial 2003 SR-91 Implementation Plan was approved. Recently Completed Construction/Improvement Projects As of May 2009, the following physical improvements have been constructed/implemented: •r Repaved and sealed pavement surfaces, replaced raised channelizers, and restriped lanes on the 91 Express Lanes. • EB SR-91 restripe and median barrier reconstruction project that removed the CHP enforcement area and extended the EB auxiliary lane from SR-71 to the Serfas Club Drive off -ramp. •: Express Bus improvements are implemented for the Galleria at Tyler to South Coast Metro route. •3 WB auxiliary lane extension between the County Line and SR-241. This project eliminated the lane drop at the 91 Express Lanes and extended the existing auxiliary lane from the County Line to SR-241 in the westbound direction. This improvement minimized the traffic delays at the lane drop area, resulting in improved vehicle progression. • WB restripe project extended the auxiliary lane between SR-71 and the County Line resulting in a new continuous auxiliary lane between SR-71 SR-241. ❖ Safety Improvements at the Truck Scales. Existing shoulders were improved, lanes were re -striped, illumination improved, and signage was modified into and out of the EB facilities. ❖ Green River Road overcrossing replacement. These projects provided enhanced freeway capacity and improved mobility for one of the most congested segments of the freeway. In addition, there are two projects that are currently in the project development phase that have a direct impact upon SR-91 widening projects. The first is the $2 billion U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Santa Ana River Mainstem (SARM) improvement project that provides flood protection from the recently improved Prado Dam (near SR-71) to the Pacific Ocean. As part of the Corps' project, existing riverbanks have been improved due to the increased capacity of the Prado Dam outlet works, which can now release up to 30,000 cfs compared to the previous facility capacity of 10,000 cfs. The only remaining segment of the Santa Ana River to be improved is Reach 9, which includes areas along SR-91 from the Coal Canyon Wildlife Corridor Crossing to SR-71. SR-91 project teams have coordinated with the Corps; Caltrans; and other federal, regional, and local agencies in order to accommodate future SR-91 improvements by the Corps bank protection project within Reach 9 by relocating the Santa Ana River while it would have been otherwise disturbed by the original Corps project to protect -in -place the riverbank protection for SR-91. This will greatly enhance the ability of Caltrans and other regional transportation agencies to implement many of the SR-91 improvement projects listed herein. The Corps currently has 95% design plans completed for the improvements and are awaiting federal stimulus package funding allocation and disbursement prior to construction. 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5 312 The other project with a direct impact to SR-91 is the $100 million Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) sewer trunk line relocation. The existing SARI line is within the Santa Ana River floodplain and is in jeopardy of failure due to scour from the potential increased flood releases by the aforementioned Corps project. In order to relocate the proposed 48-inch diameter SARI line outside of the floodplain, which is immediately adjacent to SR-91, highway R/W needs to be relinquished to the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) for location of the SARI line. SR-91 project teams have coordinated with the OCFCD; Ca!trans; and other federal, regional, and local agencies in order to accommodate planned SR-91 improvements within the R/W subsequent to relinquishment. This project initiated the preliminary engineering phase in early 2009 and is scheduled to complete construction by summer 2012. Recently Completed PSR's and other Reports In addition to the physical improvements in the corridor, there are several reports and PSR's that are completed, in draft form, or anticipated to be approved that identify improvements that will provide improved mobility. The reports and PSR's include: • Project Study Report "On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County" (April 2004). ❖ MIS —Final Project Report: Locally Preferred Strategy Report (January 2006). ❖ Project Study Report "On Route 91 from State Route 241 in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County" (October 2006). ❖ Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan (November 2006). • Project Study Report for SR-711SR-91 Interchange (December 2006). • RCTC 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan (December 2006). • Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan, approved August2007. ❖ SR-91 from SR-57 to SR-55 Feasibility Study (anticipated by May 2009). ❖ 91 Express Lanes Extension and State Route 241 Connector Feasibility Study (March 2009). ❖ SR-91/Fairmont Boulevard Feasibility Study (anticipated by June 2009). ❖ Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for Eastbound SR-91 lane addition from SR-241 to SR-71 (2009). ❖ Renewed Measure M Strategic Plan (anticipated by June 2009). Updates from the 2008 SR-91 Implementation Plan In addition, to the improvements and progress noted above, the following projects that were included in the 2008 SR-91 Implementation Plan have been modified or dropped for the 2009 Plan: ❖ The Green River Road interchange improvements have been completed and the project is deleted from the 2009 Plan. ❖ The Fairmont Boulevard improvements (Project 9) alternative for drop ramps into the 91 Express Lanes has been deleted. A traditional interchange or overcrossing altemative are still included as viable options. • An eastbound SR-91 widening project from SR-57 to SR-55 (Project 12) has been added for 2009. :• The SR-55/SR-91 interchange improvements (Project 13) schedule has been changed from 2020 completion to post-2025/2030. • The 2020 horizon year has been updated to 2022 to capture projects that will be implemented before 2025. • Various project costs and schedules have been updated from the 2008 Plan based on continued project development. 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6 • • • 313 • • SECTION 2: Implementation Plan OVERVIEW The 2009 Plan describes projects, implementation schedules, key consideration, benefits, and costs (in 2009 dollars, or as noted) for major projects through post- 2025/2030. Most of the projects identified in this Implementation Plan are based on the MIS that was completed in January 2006. The projects are presented based on potential implementation schedules and priorities established in the MIS. The schedules for implementation of the packages of projects include 2011, 2015, 2022, and post-2025/2030. The 2011 and 2015 projects are capable of being implemented through the project development process with minimal to moderate environmental constraints. Some of the longer -range projects for 2022 and post-2025/2030 require more significant planning and environmental assessment prior to design. Each of the project improvements includes an estimate of project schedules. It is important to note that implementing various time saving measures, such as design -build or contractor incentives for early completion, may potentially reduce project schedules. The implementation phases are defined as follows: ❖ Conceptual Engineering = Pre -Project Study Report (Pre-PSR) - Conceptual planning and engineering for project scoping and feasibility prior to initiating the PSR phase. ❖ Preliminary Engineering = Project Study Report (PSR) - Conceptual planning and engineering phase that allows for programming of funds. ❖ Environmental = Project Report/Environmental Documentation (PRIED) - The detailed concept design that provides environmental clearance for the project and programs for final design and right of way acquisition. The duration for this phase is typically 2-3 years. ❖ Design = Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) - Provide detailed design to contractors for construction bidding and implementation. s• Construction = The project has completed construction and will provide congestion relief to motorists. The intent of these implementation plan project packages is to provide an action list for OCTA, RCTC and Ca!trans to pursue in the project development process or for initiating further studies. Figure 2-1- SR-91 Project Study Area from SR-57 to 1-15 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 7 314 By Year 2011 The first set of projects will be completed by 2011 and includes four improvements at a total cost of approximately $144 million (in 2009 dollars). The projects include a new parking structure at the North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station, Metrolink service improvements, Express Bus improvements, and the EB SR-91 lane addition from near SR-241 to SR-71. Most of these projects are in the process of preliminary engineering, final design, construction, or procurement and implementation. These projects are recommended for the first few years of the Plan and will provide mobility improvements to the corridor when implemented. Most of these near term projects provide immediate operational benefits with a minimum of effort required relative to environmental documentation and Right -of -Way constraints. Project No. 1 Project Summary North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure Cost (9M) 25.0 2 Metrolink Short -Term Expansion Plan 35.4 3 Express Bus Improvements — Orange County to Riverside County 9.5 4 Eastbound Lane Addition from SR-241 to SR-71 74.5 SUBTOTAL 144.4 Figure 2-2 — Summary of Projects for Implementation By 2011 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 8 w 315 North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure Project No: 1 Anticipated Completion: 2009 Project Cost Estimate Capital Cost $ 20,000,000 &ipport Cost $ 5,000,000 RPM Cost $0 Total Project Cost $ 25,000,000 Project Schedule Pretimitary Engineering Completed Environmental Completed Design Completed Construction 2008-2009 n�oti israapcn y-iptded Thrnw [r P AHE _PA 1�F,psan Project Description The project will provide a six level parking structure with 1,065 parking stalls_ The construction is within the existing North Main Street. Metrolink station property in Corona. Key Considerations Maintaining parking for passengers temporarily displaced by the new Construction is a significant issue_ Addressing this issue involves providing additional parking, shuttle service, and encouraging passengers to use adjacent stations during construction. Proposed improvements wfil be constructed within existing right of way. Benefits Demand for parking currently exceeds the capacity at the North Main Street Corona station. New parking capacity will allow Metrolink ridership to increase thereby diverting vehicle trips from SR-91. Current Status Construction was initiated in January 2008 and is scheduled to be completed by June 2009. The project is funded with Federal Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Propose iMetrolink Parkingiructure rrndurec vn,h pe rme -r,,n 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 9 316 Iyetrolink Short -Term Expansion Plan Project No: 2 Anticipated Completion:2010 Project Cost C-stanate OCTA Project Cost $ 35,400,000 Project Schedule To be completed by 2010 Current Stahrs SCRRA equipment procurement is urxferway with Rohm Company for the purchase of trailer and cab cars, and also with Mot vePower, Inc. for locomotives. .DAILY TRAINS Year2009: fb ear 2010: 20 Project Description Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), working with the Riverside County Transportation Comniission (ROTC), San Bemarrno Associated Governments (SANBAG), and the Southern Catifomia Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), plans a short-term expansion of train service from the Inland Empire to Orange County. More trains are planned on the Inland Empire - Orange County (IEOC) line that currently runs between San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties as well as the "91 Line" that goes from the Inland Empire to Los Angeles via Orange County, paralleling SR-91_ Currently, 16 trains a day run on the IEOC line and nine trains on the 91 Lane for a total of 25 (lady trains_ The short -tern expansion adds four addtional IEOC trains and four additional 91 Line trains by 2010 for a total of 33 daily trains, subject to negotiations with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), ROTC, and Los Argos County Metropolitan Transportation Authordy (LACMTA). The planned short-term expansion is necessary to accommodate population and employment growth in the region as well as make the current service more convenient Key Considerations Capital costs necessary for this expansion includes the purchase of engines and coaches to operate the new service_ OCTA costs are estimated at $354 million. The long -lean plan (by 2020) adds more service and requires a significant capital investment, incltxiing an addtional station in Placentia. Coordination has been ongoing with the Metrolink extension studies (see also Project #11 for long-term details). Benefits Enables development of expanded Metrolink Service and improves efficiency, which will contribute to congestion relief on SR-91. DAILY TRAINS Year 2009- 25 Year20t0- 33 oduc£d CE I II G 1-11LB • ✓ New !rain engines and coaches ✓ $35.4 million 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 10 • • • 317 • Express Bus Improvements Orange County to Riverside County Projerit No: 3 Anticipated Completion: 2011 Project Cost Estimate Total Capital Cost Total Annual Operating Cost $ 9,500000 $ 900,000 Project Schedule Riverside/Corona to South Coast Metro implemented Fall 2006 Riverside/Corona to Tyler to Irvine Business Complex/UCl in FY 2010/20/1 Riverside/Corona to North East Anahean and CSUF in FY 2010/2011 Riverside/Corona to Anaheim Resort in - FY 2010/2011 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Project Description Orange CountyTransportation Authority (OCTA), working with the Riverside County. Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), plans an extensive expansion of Express Bus service between Riverside and Orange counties_ Commuters lack direct transit connections to many Orange County remployment centers, and new Express Bus service will provide , connections to employment centers in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, I Fullerton, and Irvine. Four Express Bus routes are planned from Riverside County to the Anaheim Canyon Business Center and California State University Fullerton; Anaheim Civic Center, Western Medical Center, and Anaheim Resort; and Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine MCI). Routes would run every 30 to 45 minutes in the peak period, and service will be tailored to match demand. Implementation began in Fall 2006 with the Riverside County to Hutton Centre and South Coast Metro route_ The other routes are planned for implementation by Fiscal Year 2010/2011 contingent on future budget authority. Key Considerations Operating costs are estimated at $900,000 each year. Costs are shared by Orange and Riverside counties. Benefits Development of Express Bus services will contribute to congestion relief on SR-91. Current Status OCTA is developing a procurement plan to Purchase additional vehicles. A cooperative agreement covering the Riverside/Corona to South Coast Metro service with Riverside County has been developed_ The Riverside County to South Coast Metro Express Bus route is currently operating. Expansion of the program is dependent upon future financial committments with Riverside County_ 11 318 Eastbound Lane Addition from SR-241 to SR-71 Project No: 4 Anticipated Completion: 2011 Project Cost Estimate Capikal Cost Support Cost RAW Cast Total Pmject Cost Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction t $ 59,000,000 $14,300,000 $1,200,000 $ 74,500,000 Completed Completed 2007-2009 2009-2011 , Project Description The project will provide; an additional eastbound (EB) lane from the °- SR-91fSR-241 interchange to the SR-71f5R-91 interchange and will widen all EB tames and shoulders to standard widths_ Key Considerations Coordination with SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (Project #7) will be required_ Staged construction would be required for all ramp reconstruction and freeway widening. Freeway operations would most likely be affected by this project, however, freeway lane closures are not anticipated_ An EB concrete shoulder will be constructed with a 12 =' foot width to provide for future widening as contemplated by Project 47 (SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project). Benefits I The lane addition would help to alleviate the weaving condition between SR-241 and SR-71, as well as rermve vehicles from the SR -Di mainline that would be exiting at Green River Road and SR-71. LEGEND www Existing Highway r� Interchange/Ramp Counly tine Hav of HOT Lane . = _ Existing Lane NEI Project Improvement Lane xwr. Exerting Interchange off Current Status The environmental phase was completed in December 2007_ The project is currently in the design phase. Funding is from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) with $71.44M approved, arid the balance of project costs are fium other sourrps_ Caltrans completed design and is performing right-of-way certification, which is anticipated for completion by May 2009. Construction is anticipated to begin in late 2009 and is scheduled to be completed by November 2011. Coal Canyon WLC County Line GrgnRivgiRd I 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 12 • • • 319 • By Year 2015 The next set of improvements includes five projects, which would be implemented by 2015 at a total cost of approximately $1.9 billion (in 2009 dollars, or as noted). One of the projects includes SR-91 widening by one general purpose (GP) lane in each direction between SR-55 and SR-241. Another project is the interchange improvements at SR-71/SR-91. The third project is the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) from SR-241 to Pierce Street that will widen SR-91 by one GP lane in each direction east of SR-241, add CD Roads and Direct Connectors at 1-15/SR-91, extend 91 Express Lanes to 1-15, and add system interchange improvements. The other two projects that will be completed in this time frame include the WB lane at Tustin Avenue, and a potential new interchange at Fairmont Boulevard. Project No. 5 Project Summary Widen SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241 by Adding a 51h GP lane in Each Direction Cost (SM) 104.2 6 SR-711SR-91 Interchange Improvements 117.5 7 Widen SR-91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction East of SR-241, CD Roads and Direct Connectors at I-15ISR- 91, Extension of Express Lanes to 1-15, and System Interchange Improvements 1,542 8 SR-91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue 94.8 9 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements 44 - 76 SUBTOTAL 1,903 -1,935 Figure 2-3 — Summary of Projects for Implementation By 2015 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 13 320 s Project No: Anticipated Completion: 20U Project Cost Estimate Capital Cost Support Cost RAN Cost Total Project Cost $ 78,000,000 $ 22,700,000 $ 3,500,000 $104,200,000 Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Envronmental Design Construction Completed 2007-2009 2009-2011 2011-2014 Widen SR-51 between SR-55 and SR-241 by Adding a 5th GP Lane in Each Direction • Project Description This project proposes capacity and operational irnjxovements by adding one general purpose (GP) lane on eastbound (EB) SR 91 from the SR-551SR-91 connector to east of Weir Canyon Road interchangeand on westbound (WB) SR-91 from just east of Weir Canyon Road interchange to the Imperial Highway (SR-90) intefchange Additionally, this project would facilitate truck traffic approaching the truck scales in both directions. Key Considerations Coordination with the proposed Fairmont Boulevard project (Project #9) will be required. Caltrans is not considering relocation of the truck scales at this time. Benefits LEGEND -.am. Existing Higinray Interchange/Ramp Existing Interchange Proposed Interchange HOY or HOT Lane Existing Lane MINI Project Improvement Lane Auxiliary Lane Lakeview Av Dn Oir On O Alleviates congestion an WB SR-91 by eliminating the lane drop at die truck scales and providing a continuous GP lane to SR-90_ Alleviates congestion an EB SR-91 by eliminating the lane drop for northbound (NB) SR-55 at SR-91 by providing an auxiliary lane to Lakeview Avenue, and at SR-90 by providing a continuous GP lane to Weir Canyon Road. Current Status Preliminary engineering was completed and approved by Caltrans. The environmental phase is underway and is anticipated to be completed by May 2009_ The project received $22M of Corridor !Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funding and $74M of State Transportation improvement Program (STIP)Augmentation funds_ On Fairmontt Bl Truck Scales Off 0 eir Canyon Rd RGi# Gypsum Canyon Rd On Off ft On Off On Off On Off Off OR� NOTE: FAIRMONT BLVD IS CONTINGENT UPON IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT ft9 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 14 • • 321 • szs 91 NV"Id NOI1V1N31131dluil 461a6 600Z 18 edlele1/18-LIS EliPe(01d mummy atpus 'SUYSpalDld Gigy Duel AaepDy ami Pent a, atop uowuapp 6auC1101-1 our Awl Naivaeadue pdflud sue, 6-8•P a awn ioN n AOH ISSISS Duo Htinoa doeap8ueeaH14 •••••• /"..eIN 54,1=3 mu. aN3031 Pura 0>leN3/6MI a mei 10HIAOH S4Bf1 S49S .0 eu aid u0 � dem alum ese 48-88 Ng a spexilauw-uo 9319 teepi won mlaauto0 pecu 00 sue -pi 110 (ea lam) tras as 01 ,a,euuPO 46-9S 83 Pue !emu *Paula D,e uno/S.saun 01110 Min MO 1S tneVI AV ulwul�j iS aldeW ,0 SO lp us Aeneued Ashen ilepq W5 H a semi lOH1AOH a au e1-aS a 17el M S Ue euePeA pa Paged W WP1ePue44lln,a sauel 4froS Ile suapw.la�old Peoa ,eypl oea,O won )013eumoa Pegwa 16•86 e3 Poe •Z °Awe -airy iiSd 464,E/1L-aS sol iopauueo JaAoHj VDU o) pea 'euq Netllzne (a# laid) e6uetraelul 16-11S/IL-68 epl,ol eue toms seuel So fmd n! v 110 e0 Du !an uaalO aun*repo 111!ad) u009PV Duel umaus auel7 83 Ja 6l umuDia Duel _ •440Z-PPu Aq Palaldwoa aq of paledpgue s! pue LOot,aqulaldaS m paauawwo)1PUI aseud tesfewu ua aq m A6ua,n7 s palcd out'sue-step Aq uanadde twe PJlatduw7 sem Buuaaw6ua nleusmaid smels welmO s6ulnes awy,m a6uequea ul aal e nl eauel lOH asnol aaloUP a UMW ePlAwd IIN1 Pekes! ala'eau* / ehails Pus spew 0010 asn ate Aq 441 Due t6-us 6ume spleuop 6ulneam 6urPnpa J0 6useus.use Aq enwdus n!m uoselado aPte,l 'Lippe a l 01 Aemiled ANNA 11appW a Pue 41110e all 01 PeOa 031e1e3 01 16 aS an! S 1-1 & ale Pue IeaSS aalald of 4PZ-ES was Alpedea 46-8S Ieuossve 6wpocud Ag sAelap q,e umisa6um Pave! IIVn 1001010 agl sR1eue9 'pafotl pasodwd aul ylvn Paleup/oo) aq al Paau Ism leg Apnls la4M3,a san0ewape aael4 sapnpul UalU+n'Aem lapun Anuauno sf (OW Pefold)1(PNS. AnceseaJ ,ollawa0lOH/AOH 46-aS11,t2-t1S V mauel seelebs3 46 a!A Pue 1PZ-219uaamla0 uoq)auuw lOH/AOH PailP a aPIA0K1 Ilan (04# Pa.H1d) ,Opauu00 101-1/AOH I6-elS/17Z-e16 au 10158W03 duel b4-13S SN 01 16-8S 93 alp late du8H-U0 46-89 93 PeOa 1anM uaai0 fol5pca aul q suoge70pow ' 41-89 (9N) punoqullou m 16-aS 93 was ia40A01OPP0007 pane mau a apnpul Ot Pe1edpaue & (9# Pe(ad) a6ueW,alul 46-1:1SRL-HS a41'600Z alai ul U08)011M03 PIP a ParlPaWs sl Pue u61seP leo0 6u106,apun Si (P# pa(wd) Lamm/ duel 93 L6-aS aul SUppn =Duels a s180e100S Pue seuel 93 Ile uaP1n4 pUe eG,etpalul L686/4E-HS aul of l7Z-85 wait 46-aS w auel 133 113101130pe U8. 0011.010 1101(P# 100100 a IMI a!>el Piaespse3 t6-aS alt '01# Due 9# 1#1 *Palau 6u!DnPm ' L6-61S W 6116s131#01upP alepowwDaa ut 6ulsappaw ueds-P'epux auel-)ss mau a lien Sulesonraep peokl uaa,0 6ulleva aul 609E1001 t0 0013#007 Nawaaedaa 6tessonsn0 peon ,ae!ei u3a,0 au -pelo,d ucepalwdlueq,aw staeul6u3 Jo sd,00 AuuV S n all Pm uoseoolaa sun,amaS (IaVS),mdao,ass leuoS as euy S MS alp ma i palln6a eg Ism uoseupoco poop:* 'WO *BOO SW :eau pawpaw! aq Aew Algpel ssw6a/ssa,6ul Duel pe6euew peleades-epw6 to 01)a15-1e ue 'eagt0pa u! !4! Pa(wd) papaauo3 lalunoH Ls-as/4cz-as am Plle 19# laakad) swawanwdwl JOPOUI,a'a l6 aSi4L as au4 '(PO Poked) uu9Dav auel tea) uuloWse3 4s as 00 mum Daleul0.1000 aq Ol *USKa 01 Paau sluawanwdu® laa(OW an V#180610edS alupe606 u0Aauleu0o Pue adods &SAX WM Wee'Aptys aptn seAllewelle *mow anew Alluen6an *Pa(wd eanw leul Pet all 91 ails* sail 6ullewaaez3 weal Palwd Wee ueemle0 i 4F8P111P000 gaga sellobed sllefwd uavpaq adms u1 spytuo) 6unmuel;N s1Pa[wd asa%to yea ial aurae 6uwroa a s! Vom pa(wd Pause/ to wilsollsuo) all kg vote Pa{wd aminl 6mp4333d l0u lseal le 10 6m18Pow81ma3V .1gS00 0e111U4S8 8841101 W8 810004)S uO siaalwd esa466upeAsep Asnissax!ffi of Immo s! *sus Ieaseeleoa6 m deuano law spatwd Aemaal us -us am to Amu! 6u p= 0011elep,000 suage,ep!suo0 Aa>4 '.. :Semwed Aatlei‘ 110fmlH161-I 01 Apaullw, Due'pe0a wlelews 4-I of Apawnos a6ueW,alls '.. IA-us/guy au! ueol ocepa1p !pea maw! lOHMOH auo 10 map ruistm all PUB 'c 0110, woe pale uepa l 1044/(A0111 apntaA A011e01u00 UNPI Sl-e1.6-US p uapngsuw aul •S4-1 0l 4tZ-as aw maim sauel tlOH)11o1 A01116011o00 1/9lH al{ 10 up15461%a a1 fl sluawan0ldwl P0Puaw1100a1aSd alit of ta!Ippe u! 'SWamAt due &Small* all D0Ouawwoaa, !Rid Aeneao aaA-Ot (01081 s,uasseuwo0 uumuudsue,l 411100 oPmumb a4l'Aeu0116080l6 a6u8Walm 46-86/61-1 all to Due (9# 100(01d 10 lied mu/ 0613e43.10811 46-136/1L-LIS a4i W eau* (00) ,0100411*P-,oPaya) to uorypDe 01.14 ire '800110301 SoOden le SeUel keg.= #a uosope ale'uoeaap wea m 041el u6 e p uomme a4g papuawuwoai laags awald o; 17Z-aS ulwl Id10) Pa(01d Na tlawldwl 10pw00 16-US 041101 (a8d) POded APHIS pa(wd panwdde agi ; uauduasea 10a(old uo SU 40 uU y .. llO a uoAueo wnsdAO„�,�J Sp fad ial umags ace] PIAHaald ad HA uled aela ouddo3 -ucepfulsu07 yo,eaA of Daw!epsa ueld Alanyap 1e0A-04 OlOb w03 Danuap Slsop - 610Z-110Z 410Z-LOOZ Dala1dw00 uolpaulsuooafssap leluawuo,lnu3 6upaau!6u3 keelwga,d 000S(3,r67S'4 S esipeuo3 ioefold lso0 Pafwd telol alewAs3 1soo loaro,d 916L :uouetdwoo palydtouuV L :ON Idero,d s;uataanwdwi a5uvuomul tuazsAs pus sl l a; saus7 ssasdx3,o uolsualx3 'IS-MS/Ski la s3o43auuo7 1,00.110 pus speoa ao `14Z-11S 3Q zsa3 tpu3 u1 own dJ au() A9 I43-21S uaP1M SR-91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue Project No: 8 Anticipated Completion: 2015 Project Cost Estimate' Capital Cost Support Cost P.M Cost Total Project Cost Project Schedule' Preliminary Engineerhg Envirormrental Design Construction $ 62,300,000 $ 29,200,000 $ 3,300,000 $ 94,800,000 Completed 2009-2011 2011-2013 20'13-2015 • Costs and schedule are derived from 2008 STIP information LEGEND - Existing Highway ww� InterchagelRanp - Existing Interchange Lad HOV or HOT Lane _ Existing Lane mg Project Improvemennt Lane ww� Existing Lanes Outline 1' 7, Project #5 Improvements Tustin Avenue Overcrossing to be reconstructed by others Off Project Description The project will add a westbound (WB) auxiliary lane on SR-91 beginning at the northbound (NB) SR55 to WB SR-91 connector through the Tustin Avenue interchange. The project will also reconstruct the Tustin Avenue overcrossing stricture_ Key Considerations The three build-altematives within the Project Study Report (PSR), On Westbound (WB) SR-91 Auxiliary Lane from the Northbound (NB) SR-55/WB SR-91 Connector to the Tustin Avenue Interchange, require additional right-of-way. City of Anaheim utilities are within close proximity of the proposed widening section. Coordination may be required with SR55ISR-91 interchange improvements (Project #12). Widening of the Santa Ana River bridge is required for all alternatives. Coordination will be required with SR-55ISR-91 kmprovements (Project #13), which includes a proposed WB SR-91 to SB SR-55 flyover connector. Coordination with the City of Anaheim will be required for potential widening of Tustin Avenue andior the WB SR-91 Off -Ramp. A SR-91 Feasibility Study bun SR-57 to SR-55 was initiated in 2008 and will evaluate improvements from Lakeview Avenue through Tustin Avenue. Benefits The project would reduce or eliminate operational problems and deficiencies on this section of WB SR-91 including weaving and merging maneuvers. This project would also address choke -point conditions, which are caused primarily by extensive weaving between the NB SR-55 to WB SR-91 connector and the WB SR-91 off -ramp to TUsbn Avenue_ Current Status Preliminary engineering was completed and approved by Caftans_ The environmental phase was irtitiated in early-2009_ The project received $91.43M in 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Augmentation funding. Tustin Av On Off On Off Lakeview Av 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 17 324 Fairmont Boulevard P ovetments Project No: 9 Anticipated Corn; Mon_ 2015 Project Cost Estimate • Total Project Cost, IOW $ 44,000,000 Total Projed Cost, High 3 75,000,000 Project Schedule Conceptual Engineering Preliminary E►xpneerulg Environmental Design Construction 2008-2009 2E09-2010 2010-2012 2012-2013 2013-2015 'RAN cost is mdeteme ned at this time_ Cost does not Include potential impact to Santa Are River. Project Description r'T The project would provide a new interchange with SR-91 at Fairmont t;Boulevard. A connection is proposed southerly into Anaheim: as part of t' Option'2- Option i indudes a new overcrassing at Fairmont Boulevard with SR-91 4 access_ On- and off-rarnps will mimed Fount-nt Boulevard to eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) SR 91. Option 1 does not include a Fabmont Boulevard connection to Santa Aria Canyon Road to the sold'. Option 2 is stmilm to Option 1 but extends Famont Bouteinird to scmned t to existkig SantaAna Gmyon Roars to the south of SR-91. Option 3 is a new overcrossing at Faimhont Boulevard, wthith wffi not provide SR-91 access. Key Considerations Coordination with SR-91 EB and WB widening (Project its) is recommended as it may need to be constructed first or designed to accommodate the future interchange ramps_ Interchange spacing and f weaving issues (to SR 55) need to be evaluated for both options_ Widening of SR 91 maybe needed to accommodate Option 1 and 2 ramps. Prmamity k of the Santa Ana River may require that the VVB ramp junction tor Option 1 be located north or the river. New connection regrurements and interchange spacing needs to be considered. LEGEND Existia lirgheay moo Proposed inbachengNReip Existing Interchange HOV cc HOT Lane Existing Lane IN Proposed homovement Lanes I:-:: Project 25 Improvements. i OPTION 2 Incl. Sou Connection Santa Ana Cyn Rd Benefits The interchange Is expected to relieve congestion at SR-90, Lakeview Avenue, and Weir Carryon Road interchanges_ Additional accessibility with Option 2 is expected to increase utilization of the proposed interchange_ Preliminary traffic modeling shows a 10-15% decrease in volumes at Weir Canyon and imperial Highway interchanges with the Option 1 and 2 interchange alternatives_ Current Status The City of Anaheim initiated a year -long conceptual engineering study that began in June 2008_ Multiple alternatives have been developed with the three must prominent alternatives featured herein. OPTION 1 8.2 OPTION J On Fairmont Blvd oR 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Fairmont Blvd 18 325 • By Year 2022 Projects for implementation by 2022 include the SR-2411SR-91 HOVJHOT connector improvements, a significant expansion of Metrolink service and station improvements, and SR-91 improvements between SR-57 and SR-55. OCTA, RCTC, and Ca!trans will be initiating preliminary planning activities for these projects to ensure readiness when local, state, or federal funding becomes available. Consequently, there may be opportunities to advance these projects if additional funding is made available. Projects for implementation by 2022 are expected to cost approximately $900 million to $1.2 billion (in 2009 dollars, or as noted). Some of these projects may become components of post-202512030 projects. Project No. 10 SR-241lSR-91 HOVIHOT Connector Project Summary Cost ($M) 150 - 440 11 Metrolink Service and Station Improvements 335 12 SR-91 between SR-57 and SR-55 417 SUBTOTAL 902 —1,192 [-LA:EN TIA 5 of VILLA PARK Figure 2-4 — Summary of Projects for Implementation By 2022 Th.istire, Err:, pied uceC -errr;is y uu.. 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 19 326 SR-24.1/SR-91 HOWHOT Connector Project No: 10 Anticipated Completion: 2 7 Project Cost Estimate Range' Total Proj. Cost, Law $150,000,000 Total Proj_ Cost, High $ 440,000,000 Prot Schedule Preliminary Engineering Conceptual Engineering Environmental Design Construction 2007-2009 2010-2011 2011-2013 2013-2015 20152017 'Range asSuRles a 2-lane or 44ane connector, extencing as far as SR-71 4 LEGEND Existing Highway Interchange/Ramp County Line HOV or HOT Lame 71 Existing Lane Project Improvement Lane i rem Express Lanes Extension i Project #4, #5, #6, and #7 Improvements men Existing Intercnange Project 3i5 Lan Project #5 Lane Project Description 'The SR-241/SR-91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) / High Occupancy Toil (HOT) t:connector wilt carry northbound (NB) SR-241 traffic to eastbound (EH) SR-91 &Ta s ,Lanes and carry westbound (WM 91 Express Lares traificto soul/bound (SB) S1R-241. Outside widening would be required mainly on the south side of SR-91 for re anent of EB lanes. tKey Considerations `'Costs may vary significantly depending on the implementation of earlier projects. The HOWHOT coni motor merges in the mean or SR-91 mud requires oodskie widening of SR-91 and reartgnment of the Gypsum Canyon irderrharge_ implementation of Major ;Investment Study (MIS) Corridor A (Project #14) may supersede the need for the HOWHOT connector improvements as tyre project may become the west leg of Corridor 646, The connector impact on SR-91 depends upon fi the connectors are 44anes r (tas-to-toti) or 2-lanes (HOWHOT)_ The impact of the connector On The 91 Egress Lances may require the connector lams to be extended, psssthiy to SR-71, witch will b require further evaluation_ Toll collection issues would need to be resolved. Widening to r accommodate the project could impact the collector -distributor (CD) road and retaining t watts near toe County tine, and Ls-accomodated by the SR-71 connecter (Project #6) as ;well as by the lanes added with Project #7, incluceng the potential extension of 91 Express Lanes as currently proposed in Riverside Comity Transportation Commissions (RCTC) 10-Year Deliver Plan_ Costs range from a 2-lane connector eroding neiv Coal Canyon to a 4-lane connector ending rear SR-71. Also, the project coidd fie considered as a component of Project #7. Realignment of VVB and EB SR-91 lanes may be required_ in addition, an at -grade or grade -separated managed lane ingressmgress facility may be introduced near the County Line by Project #7. Nonstandard lane widths may be required at the Green River Road overcrossing. Benefits Project #7 on Coal Can on °`; __—' '�— —� _ . WLCy County Lane Gr n Rivo#Rd oil (TYP) Gypsum Canyon Rd # o0 Off - 1-�..,----r- -- -- :Improves access to SR-241 and South County for traffic that does not currently utilize 91 Express ?Lanes, which also improves WB SR-91 by eliminating the reed for toll users to weave across four ;,general purpose lanes to ime the existing SR-241 connector. Alleviates congestion on NB SR-241 and EB SR-91 by allowing SR-241 toll andlor HOV users to bypass the existing general purpose EB SR-91 direct connector. The project may provide a benefit to the Central County MIS. a 6'Current Status (Preliminary engineering concepts for a SR-2411SR-91 direct connector have been developed by `Transoprhation Corridor Agencies (TCA) and Caftans_ The 91 Express Lanes Extension and SR-241 Connector Feasibility Study was completed in March 2009 and was initiated to evaluate various alternatives as noted above. 60) On Project #4, #6 and #7 improvements. Potentially impacted by Project #1 o 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 20 • • 327 • Metrolink Service and Station Improvements Anticipated Connpletion: 2020 Project Cost Estimate Total Caplet Cost $ `13.ismomo Key Considerations The capital program is estimated to cost $335 anion, and costs would be shared by the member agencies of SCRRA and Burlington Northern Sata Fe (BNSF). Service levels are subject to negotiation with °NSF, RCTC, and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). Benefits Enables development of new Metrolink Services, which will contribute to congestion relief on SR-91. Current Status The proposed expansion is included in the Renewed Measure M program_ Project Description Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), working with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), San Bernardino Associated €" Governments (SANBAG), and the Southern Catifomia Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), plans an extensive expansion of train service from the Inland Empire to Orange Courtly fibre wins are planned on the Inland Empire - Orange County (IEOC) fine that currently lams between San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange courdies as well as the "91 Line" that goes from the Inland Empire to Los Angeles via Orange County, paralleling SR-91. Currentty, 16 trains a day run on the IEOC tine and nine trails on the 91 ,line_ The long -temp expansion plan builds on service levels that will be ( implemented by 2010 (Project #2). The "2010' plan includes four additional IEOC trains and four additional 91 Line trains for a fatal of 33 trains a day. The long -teen plan adds another fors IEOC trains and five 91 Line trains for a total o1 42 dairy trains_ This planned expansion is necessary to accommodate population and employment growth in the region as well as make the current sefvice more convenient_ Capital improvements necessary for this expansion indude a third trade on sections of the rail line in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties,. new crosaoeeis at critical locations to abow trains to pass one another. new storage tracks in San Bernardino; parking improvements at key stations; and purchase of engines and coaches to operate the new service_ The City of Anaheim is proposing to construct the Anaheim Regional Transportation intermodal Center (ARTIC)_ Phase I be completed by 2015 and will relocate the existing Metrolink station from the Angel Stadium parking lot to the new ARTIC site east of SR-57, includes a new Mehutirk and Amtrak service facility and infrastructure improvements for California Highspeed Rani (CHSR) and bus services. Phase II build -out is anticipated by 2020 and includes new services based upon increased demand as well as fIIM Rapid Transit (BRT) and a local fixed -guideway project_ The Phase Ill ultimate build -out by 2030 includes additional terminal facilities with new regional services to include CHSR and the Anaheim to Ontario segment of the California -Nevada Super Speed Train (CNSST)_ The Crty of Placentia is proposing to construct a new Metrolink commuter rail passenger station and parking lot in the City of Placentia_ This project is scheduled to be completed in rod-2013. DAILY TRAINS Year 2010: 33 Year 2030: 42 DAILY TRAINS Year 2010:20 E Year2030 28 :a3hted as Eros). CHINO HILLS ▪ New track and crossovers ✓ Expanded station parking ✓ New train engines and coaches j 8335 maw 1 E r61155rFl. 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 21 328 SR-91 between SR-57 and SR-55 Project Na 12 Anticipated Completion: 2022 Project Cost Estes Capdal Cost TBD R/VU Cost TBD Support Cost TBD Management & Contingency TED Total Project Cast' S417,000,000 Project Schedule: Conceptual Engineering Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Corstuc4on 2000-2009 2009-2010 2010-2015 2015-2018 2018-2022 'Project cost in 2005 dollars from the Renewed Measure M program Project Description !Improve the SR-57/Sfi91 interchange complex, including nearby local `interchanges, as well as adding freeway capacity between SR55 and 'SR57. A new connector from westbound (VVB) SR-91 to southbomd (SB) i SR-55 will be oonsiructed. Improvements also extend to State College Blvd to the west s `Specific imvrovements will be subject to approved plans developed in cooperation with local jurisdictions and affected communities. Key Considerations The proposed project improvements on VVB and eastbound (EB) SR-91 €between SR-57 and SR-55 may require right-of-way acquisition Coordination with the SR-91/SR-55 interchange improvement (Project #13) :will be required_ Coordination with the SR-91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue improvements (Project #8) will be reined. • Benefits The Proposed project improvements on WB and EB SR-91 between SR-57 and SF455 includes, among other features, adding one EB general purpose lane to achieve lane balancing. The project improvement will alleviate congestion and reduce delay. The SR-57/SR-91 and SR-55/SR-91 interchange improvements are expected to provide congestion relief for SR-91 traffic. Current Status The project improvement for EB SR-91 widening and for improvements to SR-57/SR-91 and SR55/SR-91 are currently tieing studied by the SR-91 Feasibility Study Report from SR-57 to SR-55, which is anticipated to be completed by June 2009. The proposed improvements are induded in the Renewed Measure M program. 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 22 329 • • By Year Post-2025/2030 Projects for implementation by post-2025/2030 focus on longer -lead time projects. This multi -billion dollar program includes: SR-55/SR-91 Interchange Improvements, an Elevated 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to 1-15, a 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor B) from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road, and the Anaheim to Ontario International Airport High Speed Rail. The $200 million dollar SR-55/SR-91 interchange project and the other three, multi -billion dollar potential projects include significant environmental constraints and right of way requirements in addition to requiring a significant amount of planning, design, and future policy and public input. The Corridor A project may incorporate projects being developed in the earlier programs as project components, such that all projects may not be implemented within this project summary in addition to Corridor A. Project No. 13 Project Summary SR-55/SR-91 Interchange Improvements Cost ($M) 200 14 Elevated 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to 1-15 2,720 15 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor B) from SR-2411SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road 5,960 16 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport High Speed Rail TBD SUBTOTAL 8880+ Figure 2-5 — Summary of Projects for Implementation by Post-2025/2030 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 23 330 SR-55/SR-91 Interchange hnprve Project No: 13 Anticipated Crompletion: St-202512030 Project Cost Esto..ate Capital $14E1,000,000 &wort Cost (259t) $ 37,000,000 ROW Contingency (10%) $15,000,000 Tate Po:fed Cost $ 200,000,000 Project Schedule Ca meptual Engineering 2010-2011 Prefirnmary Engineering TBD Environmental TBD Design TBD Construction TBD Note: Project costs derived from the Riverside Comity - Orarrge County MIS, January 2006 and are in 2005 dollars a e r ='I Pc'ENT ?,era ;E reap co v ghte;i k*; 'FoFn i ro an Project Description improvements consist of adding SR-91 capacity by reconshuding the interchange, re -strip -mg exisiirvA lanes, and modifying the oorinectors to and fr= SR-55 and SR-91_ The impmvements extend to takevrew Avenue to the east and would include a new connector from w estbormd (WJB) SR-91 to southbourrd (SB) SR-55. Key Considerations Might -of -way impacts, detailed SR-55/SR 91 interchange improvements, and ckivwrstream impacts to SR-55 rewire further evaluation in a sMisequent phase of project development Conceptual design of SR-55/SR-91 could be !coordinated with SR-91 widening from SR-55 to SR-241 (Project 05), with improvements at SR-91 and Tustin Avenue (Prefect 08), and with the SR-91 Feastility Study knpnrvements from SR-57 to SR-55 (Project 014 The study for Project 012 is anrently being conducted, however, it will not analyze sigruficant Improvements at SR-55/SR-91. Operational enhancements between SR-55 arid Lakeview Avenue may provide some benefit for SR 55/SR 91 by addressing WB SR-91 weaving issues and by the proposed two4ane, right-hand direct connector exit from WB SR-91 to SB SR-55. Benefits Interchange improvements are expected to provide congestion relief for SR-91 traffic and improve the connections to and from SR-91 and SR-55. Current Status SR-55/SR-91 project information was derived from the Final Alternatives Evaluation and Refinement Report, December 2005, by the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS)_ Conceptual engineering is scheduled for 2010/2011 _ SR-55/SR-91 Interchange Improverrits r,1-IINO HILLS 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 24 • • 331 Elevated 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to 1-15 Project No: 14 Anticipated Completion: TBD Project Cost Esliniate" Capital Cast` $1,488,000,000 Support Cost (25%) $ 372,000,000 RAW Cost $ 860,000,000 Total Project Cost S Z720.000.000 Project Schedule Conceptual Engkieering Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Constniction TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 'Capital costs include $160M Tor environmental mitigation exclu ang corresponding support cost, which is included in support cost estimate "Costs derived from Riverside County - Orange County MIS, January 2006 and are in 2005 dollars Project Description The improvements primarily consist oil constructing a new 4-lane r elevated expressway near or within the Santa Ana Canynn with y freeway -to -freeway connectors at SR-241 and 1-15. The faclty may j include managed Lanes and potential reverstile operations: 4 i Key ConMcMrations Choice of Mignment wM be key to determirang net capacity increase. Implementation of Corridor A may supercede the need for the rarest connector improvement Project #10 (at SR-241/SR-91), depending on f the potential e:dension of the 91 Express Lanes_ Extensive right-of-way (R/W) will tie rewired to implement the improvements if the :,t rnment is not on the SR-91 cr»rickw. If Project #7 is constricted and a 4-lane t elevated facility is proposed within the median of SR-91 through. Corona, extensive managed lane dosures would be reqcm-ed during. construction (thus temporarily reducing SR-91 capacity cawing constluction), Potential consideratictrs for co -locating the Magnetic Levitation (Marv) train (see Project #16) acliacent to Corridor A (and also SR-91) include providing a two -column structrre with a utter between the trans and vehides. Concepts for Corridor A and Maglev within the e SR-91 median could jeopardize future opportunities for managed Mies within the SR-91 mecaan, such as the extension of 91 Express Lanes. An alternative could be studied for the CrxridurA viaduct gong with reduced SR-91 geometric standards to minimize RAW impacts. Also, direct connectors (such as for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)1 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) at 1-15/SR-91) to/from the mneckan could be. precluded by Magley columns located within the same mectlan area_ Cancans and Maglev highway RP/A, rriaintenance, safety, and operations considerations would need to be analyzed if shared use wfiti a Marley facility were pursued. Additional mitigation costs may be op,` required for improvements to SR-241 and SR-133. Corridor A as managed lanes, with potential extension of 91 Express Lanes to 1-15 (Project #7), may affect traffic distribution due to "parallel tolled facilities. 2 WB Lanes Abbreviations: Shoulder = Shld Westbound = WB Eastbound = ES 2 ES Lanes Benefits Elevated 4-Lane Facility (MIS CorndorA) Cross -Section The project would provide significant congestion relief by allowing vehicles to bypass the at -grade treeway lanes and local arterial interchanges between SR-241 and I-15. Connections are provided directly between SR-91, SR-241, and 1-15. Current Status This project is identified in the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Stmly (MIS) as part of the Locally Preferred Strategy to improve mobility between Riverside County and Orange County_ Additional Conceptual engineering is being considered 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 25 332 4-Lane facility (MIS Corridor B) from SR-241/SR-133 to 1-15/Cajalco Road Project No: 15 Anticipated Completion: TBD Project Cost EssWrote" Capital Cost' $ 4,544,000,000 Support Cost (25%) $1,136,000,000 R1W Cost $ 280,000,000 Total Project Cost $ 5,960,000,000 Project Schedule Cedec:finical Feasibility Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction 2006-2009 TBD TBD TBD TBD 'Capital costs include $280M for environmental mitigation_ Costs exclude approximately $470M for SR-133 improvements. „Costs derived from Riverside County - Orange County MIS, January 2006 and are in 2005 dollars LEGEND s Existing Highway Corridor B (ICE) Representative Alignment NOTE: REPRESENTATIVE ALIGNMENT SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY Project Description The improvements primmily consist of conshuding a nevi 4-tame highv ay facility through the Cleveland National Forest with freeway -to -freeway connectors at SR-241tSR-1 aril 1-151aIcn Road. The facitily may include managed lanes. The 4-lane facility woukl esseraially be a continuation of SR 133 on the west erg a the corridor,. to 1-15 on the east end. } Key Considerations Choice of facility type (nearly full-length tumid, or other facility type ► with less tunneling) will be inwortani to refine the cost of implementation_ Determining groundwater levels will be key in 's deterrnMing alignmentsand allowable depths for the tunrwl sections_ Costs associated with Aitajor Investment Study (MIS) Corridor B are ' shown for the nearly full-length tunnel option_ Extensive rigid -Of -way may be required to irwlernent the inwrovements. Toll regnents will need further study_ krr enefits The project would provide significant congestion relief by providing an alternative route between Orange and Riverside comities and would allow vehicles to bypass SR-91 between SR 241 and 1-15. The project would not disrupt SR-91 traffic during carAuction and vrouki aim for additional route selection for incident management, emergency evacuation, and for conlinrtify of the highway network by linking SR-133 to I-15. Current Status The Irvine Caana Expressway (ICE) project is identified in the MIS as part of the Locally Prefenud Strategy to improve rrrolty between Riverside County and Orange County. Geotechnical field investigations were completed in November 2o08, and five sites along the representative alignment will be studied for over a year. 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 26 333 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport High Speed Rail Project No: 16 Anticipated Completion: Post-2I 30 Project Cost Estimate To Be DeternMed Project Schedule To Be Deterr Mid LEGEND Imo EzisMig Highway . _... Fit01 Speed Rat Representabre Alignment Project Description Proposals for a new high speed rail corridor from Anaheim to Ontario are included in this project This project includes an alternative that would use SR-91 tight -of -way, or would be aligned adjacent to SR-91 right-of-way, or could potentially be co -located with the Major Investment Study (MIS) Corridor A (Project #14) alignment. Another alignrent opportunity is berg investigated along SR-57. [Key Considerations Alternative alignment impacts to SR-91 right-of-way envelope. and/or Santa Ana River are undetermiried. The choice of alignment will potentially impact MIS Coriidor A (Project #14)_ Right-of-way" (RAN) will be required to implement the improvements _ Potential considerations for co -locating the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) tin adjarPnt to Corridor A (and also SR-91) include provicing a two -column sure with a barrier between the trains and vehicles_ Catlrans and Maglev highway R/W, maintenance, safety, and operations considerations would need to be analyzed if shared use with a Maglev faci5ty were pursued. See the MIS Corridor A (Project #14) for additional considetativa. Coordoiation with Project #11 will be required. 13enetFts The project would provide congestion relief by providing a direct high-speed/high-capacity connection with Ontario International Airport for Orange County air passengers and business next -clay deliveries. Relieves congestion on SR-91 by providing additional capacity in the corridor. Current Status Conceptual engineering studies are currently urittecway Congress has approved $47M for the environmental phase of the project REPRESENTATIVE ALIGNMENT SHOVVN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY 2009 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 27 334 SECTION 3: REFERENCES • The following documents and resources were used in the development of the 2009 Plan. Data was provided by OCTA, RCTC, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, Transportation Condor Agencies (TCA), and other agencies. Draft Project Study Report/Project Report "Adjacent to Route 91 Between Weir Canyon Road and the Coal Canyon Wildlife Corridor Crossing", SARI line RIW relinquishment, April 2009 91 Express Lanes Extension and State Route 241 Connector Feasibility Study, March 2009 Project Study Report/Project Report "On Gypsum Canyon Road Between the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 Westbound Off - Ramp (PM 16.4) and the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 Eastbound Direct On -Ramp (PM 16.4r, June 2008 California Transportation Commission, Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), February 2007 Final Plans, Specifications and Estimates for Green River Road Overcrossing, 2006 Project Study Report "On Route 91 from Green River Road to Serfas Club Drive in the City of Corona in Riverside County", December 2006 Orange County Transportation Authority Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan, November 2006 Project Study Report "On Route 91 from State Route 241 in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County", October 2006 Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) — Final Project Report: Locally Preferred Strategy Report, January 2006 Preliminary design plans for Eastbound Lane Addition from SR-241 to SR-71, 2006 SR-91 Choke Point Elimination - City of Corona, Prepared by Parsons, November 19, 2005 Project Study Report "Westbound State Route 91 Auxiliary Lane from the NB SR-55/WB SR-91 Connector to the Tustin Avenue Interchange", July 2004 Project Study Report "On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County", April 2004 California — Nevada Interstate Maglev Project Report, Anaheim -Ontario Segment; California -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, American Magline Group, August 2003 SR-91 Congestion Relief Alternatives Analysis, Caltrans, January 2003 Route Concept Reports for SR-91, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 Various Preliminary Drawings and Cross Sections, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 2009 SR-91 Implementation Plan 28 • 335 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Extension of 1989 Measure A Highway Funding for Coachella Valley Projects Three STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the following three amendments to the previously approved 1989 Measure A Coachella Valley highway project agreements for an extension of the termination date beyond June 30, 2009 as follows: a) Agreement No. M23-006-02 (West Cathedral Canyon channel to East Palm Canyon Drive bridge widening project in city of Cathedral City) extended to December 31, 2010; b) Agreement No. 06-31-017-02 (Jefferson Street to Madison Street in city of Indio) extended to December 31, 2009; c) Agreement No. 07-31-097-02 (West city limits to Washington Street in city of La Quinta) extended to December 31, 2009; 2) Approve reductions to the Measure A funding amounts in the above amendments as follows: a) Agreement No. M23-006-02 by $357,600 for a revised funding amount of $3,942,400; b) Agreement No. 07-31-097-02 by $178,600 for a revised funding amount of $1,976,400; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 1989 Measure A program includes a state highway element that provides 15% of the Coachella Valley area's Measure A funds to project improvements on State Route 86 and Highway 111. In July 2003, the Commission approved $12 million in Measure A funding for nine projects through June 30, 2009; however, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) had allocated Agenda Item SF 336 $13.828 million for the projects and indicated that the shortfall of $1.828 million would be covered by CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) or other Measure A funds, if necessary. In 2007, CVAG requested and obtained updated cost and completion schedules for the approved projects that had not yet been completed. Based on the revised information, CVAG requested additional funding for the remaining projects of $12,376,810 for a total Measure A funding of the nine projects of $24,376,810. Revenue forecasts in 2007 indicated that sufficient funds would be available for this request, which included covering the shortfall that existed in 2003, plus $9.1 million in unallocated funds. In December 2007, the Commission approved the additional funding of $12,376,810 and required the jurisdictions to submit requests for a time extension after June 30, 2009 for separate Commission approval. Since that Commission action, several events have taken place resulting in a housing/subprime mortgage crisis, financial market/credit crisis, and slowdown in the economy. As a result, the Commission has decreased its revenue projections for FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/10 that have impacted available 1989 Measure A Coachella Valley highway funds. Three local agencies are requesting extensions for 1989 Measure A highway funding in the Coachella Valley as these projects along Highway 111 have not completed construction. The projects are as follows: • City of Cathedral City bridge widening project from West Cathedral Canyon channel to East Palm Canyon Drive was funded in the amount of $4.3 million. The project is scheduled for award on May 27, 2009, and the construction period is approximately 18 months. The estimated unexpended balance at June 30, 2009 is $4,001,500. • City of Indio improvements from Jefferson Street to Madison Street was funded in the amount of $7.2 million. This project is under construction and currently is two-thirds complete. The estimated unexpended balance at June 30, 2009 is approximately $1.264 million. • City of La Quinta improvements from Washington Street to west city limits was funded in the amount of $2.155 million. The city of La Quinta plans to award the project on June 5, 2009, and the construction period is approximately 90 days. The estimated unexpended balance at June 30, 2009 is approximately $1,989,600. Agenda Item 8F • • 337 • • While staff recommends approval of extending the termination date to allow expenditure reimbursement for these projects to occur beyond June 30, 2009, staff projects that there will be a shortfall of available Measure A funds for these three projects in FY 2009/10 of $536,200. Accordingly, staff also recommends that the Measure A funding for these projects be reduced. Considering that substantial construction of the city of Indio's project has been completed, staff does not recommend reducing the funding for this project. Since the other two projects are not currently under construction, staff recommends that the city of Cathedral City and city of La Quinta projects be reduced by $357,600 and $178,600, respectively, based on the proportionate share of the existing agreement funding amounts. Staff has discussed the anticipated shortfall in project funding with CVAG staff. It appears that CVAG staff is willing to request formal action by CVAG to fund the shortfall with Coachella Valley TUMF or other available funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $ 6,719,300 Source of Funds: Measure A Coachella Valley Highway Funds Budget Ad ustment: No 253 31 81301 P3413 $3,643,900 IM23-006-02) GLA No.: 253 31 81301 P3416 $1,264,400 (06-31-017-02) 253 31 81301 P3415 $1,81 1,000 (07-31-097-02) Fiscal Procedures Approved: \44,1E411,, A Date: 5/27/2009 Agenda Item 8F 338 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 1989 Measure A Highway Local Circulation State Route 60/Valley Way Interchange Funds for STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-078-00 with the county of Riverside authorizing 1989 Measure A Local Circulation funds for the State Route 60/Valley Way Interchange in the amount of up to $5.5 million; 2) Extend the expenditure reimbursement of 1989 Measure A funds expiring on June 30, 2009 to June 30, 201 1; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its March 11, 2009 meeting, the Commission allocated federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding in the amount of $4.482 million to the SR-60/Valley Way interchange. In order to fully fund the project, an additional $5.5 million is needed. The SR-60/Valley Way interchange is included in the 1989 Measure A Local Circulation Interchange program for $7 million. An allocation of $5.5 million for this project is well within the amount of funds programmed for this project. The SR-60/Valley Way interchange is scheduled to advertise in summer 2009 and complete construction in late 2010 or early 2011. The total project cost is approximately $13 million and funding is proposed as follows: Funding Source Millions Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds $4.452 Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funds $4.482 Measure A - Western County Local Streets and Roads $1.100 1989 Measure A - Highway Local Circulation Interchange Funds $5.500 Total Project Cost $15.534 Agenda Item 8G 339 Staff recommends that the Commission approve the County's request to allocate $5.5 million of the $7 million 1989 Measure A Local Circulation interchange funds identified for the SR-60 Valley Way interchange, and extend the reimbursement of funds expiring on June 30, 2009 to June 30, 2011. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 Amount: $3,000,000 $2,500,000 Source of Funds: 1989 Measure A Western County Highways Funds Budget Ad ustment: No N/A GLA No.: 222 31 81301 P3032 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ Lvir Date: 05/27/2009 Agenda Item SG • 340 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 1989 Measure A Highway Local Circulation Funds State Route 91/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange for STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-077-00 with the city of Riverside authorizing 1989 Measure A Local Circulation funds for the State Route 91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchange project in the amount of $7.616 million; 2) Authorize staff to utilize federal, state, and/or local funds based on project delivery and availability of these funds; 3) Extend the expenditure reimbursement of 1989 Measure A funds expiring on June 30, 2009 to June 30, 201 1; and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 1989 Measure A program included local circulation interchange funds for the SR-91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchange project. In April 2007, the Commission approved local circulation interchange funds for the interchange project in the amount of $7.616 million. The SR-91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchange project is scheduled to advertise in summer 2009 and complete construction in late 2010 - early 2011. The total cost of construction is approximately $34 million and funding is proposed as follows: Funding Source Millions State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/ American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) $16.101 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality/Surface Transportation Program $2.181 1989 Meas. A - Hwy Local Circulation IC Funds (approved April 2007) $7.616 1989 Meas. A - Hwy Local Circulation IC Funds (savings from La Sierra) $6.500 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Funds $2.000 Total Construction Funding $34.398 Agenda Item 8H 341 At its March 11, 2009 meeting, the Commission approved replacing $16.101 million of STIP funds with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. Earlier this year, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) deferred all STIP allocation requests due to the State budget impasse. However, the CTC is now approving STIP allocations. Commission staff requests the flexibility to program STIP or ARRA funds for the SR-91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchange based on project delivery timing and availability of funds. If the STIP funds are allocated instead of ARRA funds for this project, staff will report to the Commission and identify construction projects that would be ready to obligate the ARRA funds for Commission action. Staff recommends extending the reimbursement of 1989 Measure A funds expiring on June 30, 2009 to June 30, 2011, and, as stated above, requests authorization from the Commission to reprogram state, federal, and local funds based on project delivery and funding availability. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $7,600,000 Source of Funds: 1989 Measure A Western County Highways Funds Budget Ad ustment: N/A GLA No.: 222 31 81301 P3008 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1 Date: 05/27/2009 Agenda Item 8H • 342 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2008/09 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan Amendment for Local Streets and Roads for ,the City of Temecula i STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve an amendment to the FY 2008/09 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Temecula (Temecula) as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A requires each recipient of local streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year CIP detailing how those funds are to be expended. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The CIP for Temecula was approved by the Commission at its June 11, 2008, meeting. Because of the current economic downturn and revenue shortfalls, Temecula is requesting an amendment to the FY 2008/09 Measure A CIP to reduce Measure A funds for the pavement rehabilitation program from $3 million to $2.325 million and to transfer the remaining $675,000 to a FY 2008/09 citywide street maintenance program. This amendment will allow Temecula to perform preventative maintenance on certain roadways rather than the complete rehabilitation that was planned while staying within the constraints of the available revenue. Attachment: Letter From the City of Temecula with Revised CIP Schedule Agenda Item 81 343 • 86812 TT, SM' jPublic Works Department 43200 Business Park Drive•TemecuN. CA 92590-Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033-Temecula, CA 92589-9033 i9511 694-6411 • Fax 1951j 694-6475 City of Temecula r, it 7 ; April 1, 2009 Ms. Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 314 Floor Riverside, Califomia 92502-2208 Re: FY 2009-2013, Five -Year Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Program City of Temecula — Request for CIP Plan Revision for FY 2008-09 Dear Ms. Trevino; The City of Temecula is requesting a revision to the FY 2008/09 Project Funding Schedule listed in our current FY 2009-13 Measure "A" Local Streets & Roads Capital Improvement Plan, a copy of which is provided for your use. The purpose of this revision is to transfer $675,000 from the existing Pavement Rehabilitation Program to our Citywide Street Maintenance Program for FY 2008- 09. Due to the economic downturn and shortfall in revenue sources, the transfer of these funds is necessary to uphold the City's commitment to its ongoing street maintenance and right-of-way responsibilities. As shown on the attached Table, the transfer of these funds from the Pavement Rehabilitation Project will support specific elements of our ongoing Citywide Street Maintenance Program, which is added as Item No. 6 in the revised FY 2008-09 Project Funding Schedule. The listed maintenance and repair functions are currently under contract and are conducted within the City's right-of-way areas. All other FY 2008-09 Project Funding Items and Schedules remain the same. Please review the information and let me know if you have any further questions. I can be reached at (951) 694-6411. Sincere Greg : tler Dire or of Public Works A . chments cc: ranted on Recycled Pie, Genie Roberts — Director of Finance Rudy Graciano — Revenue Manager X.29.21 344 Agency: Prepared By: Phone No.: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE"A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM City of Temecula Greg Butler, Director of Public Works (by Beryl Yasinosky, Management Analyst) (951) 694-6411 April 2, 2009 FY 2009-2013 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan FY 2008-09 Project Funding Schedule (REVISED) *Transfer $675,000 from Project Item No. 5 (Pavement Rehab) to new Project Item No, 6 (Citywide Street Maintenance Program) ITEM NO PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS ($000's) (Current) MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000's) (Revised) MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000's) 5 Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation 3,000 3,000 2,325 6 Citywide Street Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include: striping/stenciling; PCC & AC repairs; streetlr.o.w. drainage facilities 1,489 0 675 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Extension for the City of Temecula STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to grant the city of Temecula (Temecula) an extension to June 30, 2010, for approved SB 821 program funds for the Santa Gertrudis Creek pedestrian/bicycle bridge overcrossing project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year, 2% of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. There are three steps to carry out the program: 1. All cities and the county are notified of the SB 821 program estimate of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals. The Commission's SB 821 program policies, project application, and selection criteria are also provided with the notification. 2. The Commission's SB 821 evaluation committee, comprised of members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees, meets to review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the Commission for approval. 3. The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves a program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. The agencies then have 24 months to complete the projects. Any projects not completed using local forces or awarded a construction contract within the 24 months will be deleted from the program and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project or a project, requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the city's or county's control. Agenda Item 8J 346 DISCUSSION: In July 2007, the Commission awarded $1,591,765 to fund 16 projects as part of its SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. The agencies have until June 30, 2009, to complete the projects. Temecula was allocated $132,000 for construction of the Santa Gertrudis Creek pedestrian/bicycle bridge overcrossing project. This project has also been awarded with federal funds as part of the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program and therefore must comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental regulations. Per Temecula, all the necessary documents requested by Caltrans have been submitted and the preliminary engineering phase of work is 95% complete (Attachment 1). Temecula anticipates environmental approval from Caltrans within the next two to three months. Upon approval, Temecula will proceed with project plans and specifications, advertisement, and award a construction contract for the completion of the project. Temecula is requesting a 12 month extension to June 30, 2010, for completion of the project. Attachment: 1) Letter from City of Temecula 2) SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies. Agenda Item 8J • 347 • • 87128 BC/MD jPublic Works Department 43200 Business Park Drme•Temecula, CA 92590•MailingAddress PO. Box 9033•Temecula, CA 92589-9033 (9511694-6411 • Fax 1951) 694-6475 May 7, 2009 City of Temecula Mr. Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 EZEL V L5 1 MAY 0 8 2009 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Re: Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing — Request for Extension of Time FY2007/2008 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Dear Mr. Cunanan; The City of Temecula respectfully requests an extension of time beyond the June 30, 2009 deadline to claim approved SB821 program funds for the Santa Gertrutlis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing project. In addition to SB821 funding, we have been awarded federal funding in the amount of $425,520 from the Safe Route to School (SRTS) program. Therefore we are required to comply with NEPA environmental regulations and have submitted all the necessary documents requested by Caltrans, Local Assistance for their final review. The preliminary engineering phase of work is 95% complete and we anticipate environmental approval from Caimans within the next 3 to 4 months. Upon approval we will proceed with P S & E, advertisement and award of our construction contract for the completion of our project. As indicated above, the project is progressing and nearly ready for contract award. Your consideration in extending the time to claim approved funds will allow us to move forward with the construction of this much needed pedestrian facility. Sincerely, Gre Byller Dire Direr r of Public Works cc: Jon Salazar - Associate Engineer — Capital Projects Rudy Graciano — Revenue Manager, Finance P(Inted M Recycled Paper RACRAPROJECTsww05\PW05-11 SG Creek Ped Bridge \LettersTCTC-SB821-ExterIsionRgst.icd doc 348 ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES • The Commission will not allocate funds to a project in its approved SB 821 Program until the sponsoring agency awards a contract for the construction of the project or until local agency forces begin construction of the project. (12/18/86) • If funds for a project are not claimed prior to the end of the fiscal year, the project will be deleted from the program and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. (12/18/86) • A project sponsor may request an extension of time beyond June 30th if substantial progress has been made on the project which, at minimum, would mean completion of preliminary engineering. (12/18/86) • Funds allocated for projects in FY 86/87 and prior years must be spent or encumbered (construction contract awarded) by December 31, 1987, or the funds and interest earned on the funds shall be returned to the SB 821 Account. (12/18/86) ***Following four policies pertain to multi -year projects*** • Cities and the County may submit applications for projects to be funded over a 2-3 year period with engineering in year 1 and construction in years 2 and 3. (9/2/87) • Multi -year projects approved in the Commission's program shall be given priority for funding in years 2-3 over new projects submitted and approved. (9/2/87) • When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are not more than 15% over the initial application cost estimate, the increase will be funded by SB 821 funds, if requested by the applicant, during the development of the annual program by the Commission. (9/2/87) • When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are more than 15% above the initial application estimate, the applicant may either fund costs in excess of 15% with local funds or resubmit the project as a new project for consideration by the Commission. (9/2/87) • Any unused SB 821 Program funds must be retumed to the Commission unless that agency can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate, and b) utilize the unused funds to complete approved but unfunded projects. (12/11/91) • No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds for projects not previously included in an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for consideration. (12/11/91) • The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e. California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the California Building Code, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). (4/12/95) • An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using local forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency's control. Also, projects requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the agency's control may receive one twelve-month extension, if necessary. Projects not completed or awarded within the twenty-four months will be deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. (3/12/03) RCTC: 3/20/03 349 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director Lisa DaSilva, Project Manager Bob Wunderlich, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Qualifications for Construction Management Services for the Interstate 215/State Route 74 Interchange Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) and conduct a selection process for construction management and related services for the Interstate 215/State Route 74 interchange project in the city of Perris. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its May 2009 meeting, the Commission approved a contract amendment with David Evans Associates to complete the final design for the I-215/SR-74 interchange project in the city of Perris. Staff has received 95% plans for review and expects 100% plans in September 2009. The project is being designed to and will be constructed in accordance with Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards. Staff has received approval from Caltrans and FHWA for the Commission to continue to be the lead agency for the construction phase of this project and expects to advertise for construction bids in the late fall of 2009. The construction phase for this project is currently funded by State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Measure A, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), and a federal earmark grant. Staff is proposing to retain a consultant to represent the Commission in the performance of construction management services including, but not limited to assistance with the bid process and evaluation, contract administration, coordination of construction with Caltrans and the city of Perris, quality assurance inspection and material testing, surveying, project controls and reporting, review and recommendation of progress payments, development of public information and materials, and analysis of potential claims. Agenda Item 8K 350 Staff will return to the Commission with a negotiated contract with the selected firm at its October 2009 Commission meeting. The expected schedule for advertisement and award of the RFQ is as follows: Refease of RFQ Bidders Information Meeting (not mandatory) Statement of Qualifications Delivered to the Commission Prior to 2 p.m. Notification of Shortlist for Interview Interviews and Selection Initiate Negotiations Staff Recommendation of Award to the Commission Agenda Item 8K June 12, 2009 June 30, 2009 July 14, 2009 July 27, 2009 August 14, 2009 August 28, 2009 October 13, 2009 • 351 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendments to the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures Manual STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve revisions to certain provisions in the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures manual; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-011, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Revisions to the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures Manual". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 11, 2007 meeting, the Commission approved the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures manual as policy guidelines for the acquisition and sale of right-of-way, appraisal of real property, relocation of displaced individuals and businesses, and management of Commission -owned real property. During the recently -concluded internal audit, the review of right-of-way processes resulted in findings that represented opportunities for improvement. The following minor changes in the manual were recommended to more accurately reflect ongoing processes and to lead to more effective compliance with current regulatory requirements. 1) Section 6-4.2 granted authority to the Project Development Director to approve a settlement when the difference between the approved just compensation and the proposed settlement is no more than 10% in excess of the offer or no more than $100,000 in excess of the offer. This responsibility has now been assumed by the Project Delivery Director, and the manual should be amended to reflect that change. Agenda Item 8L 352 2) Section 6-6.2 states that it is the responsibility of the Commission to report to the IRS any real estate acquisitions greater than $599. Since the actual process is for the escrow company to report to the IRS, the manual will be amended to state that the escrow company will report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Commission. 3) Section 7-7.9 contains references to a document described as a Moving Cost Agreement, which has been replaced by another document currently known as the Relocation Claim Form. All references to the Moving Cost Agreement should be replaced with Relocation Claim Form. Staff requests approval of the revisions to the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures manual implementing the recommendations recently made by the internal auditors. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 09-011 2) Proposed Manual Revisions Agenda Item 8L • 353 RESOLUTION NO. 09-011 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") currently retains the authority to add, delete or otherwise modify the Commission's policies and procedures. WHEREAS, the recently completed internal audit conducted by Authority of the Commission resulted in findings of opportunities to improve right of way procedures as documented in the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures Manual through amendments to reflect current practices and enhance regulatory compliance; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. Sections 6-4.2, 6-6.2, and 7-7.9 of the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures Manual shall be revised as per the attached to reflect current conditions and processes. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10t' day of June, 2009. Robert E. Magee, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board 354 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 1. Section 6-4.2 is hereby revised to read as follows: 6-4.2 Settlement Authority a. The Projectpelivery Director is authorized to approve a settlement when the difference between the approved Just Compensation and the proposed settlement is no more than 10% in excess of the offer or no more than $100,000 of the offer. Section 6-6.2 Is hereby revised to read as follows: 2. 1099-S Reporting Procedure a. Transactions Reported Deleted: Development } - - - _ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 1 The RCTC through the escrow company acting in its behalf, is responsible for reporting to the IRS real estate acquisitions in excess of $599. This reporting includes all acquisitions by either negotiated settlement or by condemnation. Specifically, the following must be reported: 3. Section 7-7.2 is hereby revised to read as follows: 7-7.9 Business, Farm and Nonprofit Organization Moving Cost Payments a. General Owners of displaced businesses, farm operations and nonprofit organizations can either employ commercial movers to relocate their personal property, conduct self -move, or have a combined commercial and self -move. Moves that involve large moving cost payments must be monitored, at both the displacement and replacement sites, by the Relocation Agent, to the extent necessary to assure that the personal property involved was actually moved (at the relocatee's expense) to their remaining or replacement property and that the moving cost claim is reasonable and accurate. Relocatees are required to give advance written notice of the date the move will begin. Failure to Deleted: 2 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 355 provide the written notice, or to permit the Relocation Agent to monitor both at the displacement and replacement sites, can cause forfeiture of moving payment eligibility. On -premise monitoring may be waived by the ROW Manager in cases of non -complicated moves. When the requirement is waived, a justification must be documented in the Case File. 1. Multi -Family and Single -Family Fumished Rental Units The owners of furnished multi -family dwellings or furnished single-family dwellings, which they do not occupy, can be reimbursed for the cost of moving such furnishings as a routine business move. In an effort to minimize administrative burdens in the relocation process, it is permissible to reimburse the cost of moving the personal property for these types of businesses using the moving schedule. The businesses would be additionally eligible for other related moving costs such as reestablishment payment. 2. Entire Displacement — Partial Acquisitions If the majority of a business property or farm operation is being acquired as right of way, and/or if the right of way acquisition is so severed that the business or farm operation cannot be continued, the owner can be paid for moving all personal property used in connection with the business or farm operation including items located outside of the right of way acquisition, provided that such items are moved within a reasonable time after acquisition, normally by the end of the relocatee's authorized possession of the acquired area unless an extended time period is agreed upon in writing between the RCTC and relocatee. The Case file must be documented to show why the entire business or farm operation must be relocated when a partial acquisition is involved. 3. Two or More Owners of Personal Property Involved In instances where several different persons or firms own personal property located on business or farm real property being acquired by the RCTC, each owner is entitled to the cost of moving his/her items of personal property. Each must file a separate claim. • • 356 • b. Commercial Mover Moves in this category include all situations where the qualified owners of displaced businesses, farm operation and nonprofit organizations employ someone to move their personal property from real estate acquired to a replacement site and claim reimbursement for their actual and reasonable moving expenses. Applicable related moving expenses paid by the relocatee are reimbursable under this moving cost payment option. If the relocatee moves more than 50 miles, the payment will be based on the prorated portion of the moving costs that would have been applicable to a 50 mile move. If there is a need for specialized moving equipment and/or expertise, it is permissible for the owner to employ two or more commercial movers. It is also permissible for such owners to conduct a move by employing a commercial mover to move part of their personal property and move the balance by self -move. 1. Moving Cost Bids Available The following procedure is applicable when eligible owners of business, farm operations and nonprofit organizations elect this moving cost payment option and it is practical to obtain prior moving cost bids from qualified moving firms: Step One: Obtain an inventory from the relocatee showing the items of personal property to be moved. It is permissible for small items to be grouped into "lots" or to be `lumped" together in some other type of identifiable unit such as specific number of bins, boxes, barrels, etc. The Relocation Agent must make an on -site inspection of the items involved and assure that the inventory is accurate. The Case Files must be documented to show the inspection. Inventories should be prepared either (a) at or near the time of actual move, or (b) at or near the time that the RCTC acquires the parcel, whichever occurs first. Inventories must be submitted by the relocatee and a replacement site selected prior to commencing the next step. Step Two: The Relocation Agent, working in concert with the business, must create moving specifications insuring that there is a meeting of the minds how the personal property 357 will be disconnected (as necessary), packed, disconnected, moved, reconnected and unpacked. The Relocation Agent must obtain at least two (2) moving cost estimates from qualified movers based on the inventory. Relocatees must be given an opportunity to concur in the selection of moving firms who will prepare the bids. If the lowest bid appears to be unreasonable, the Relocation Agent must obtain additional bid(s) to assure that the }Relocation Claim Form will be based on an acceptable amount. It is expected that bids will be provided without cost; however, with prior approval of the ROW Program Manager, movers can be compensated for preparing bids for specific moves. Copies of all bids must be retained in the Case File. Step Three: Submit copies of the bids to the relocatee together with a copy of a,Relocation Claim Formprepared by the Relocation Agent. (See Section 8-7.8 d. for minimum standards of a ,Relocation Claim Form.) Advise the relocatee to complete his/her p portion of the agreement (reflecting the low bid) and return both copies to the RCTC. Step Four: The Relocation Claim Form when received by the RCTC from the relocatee, should be carefully reviewed, and if found proper, completed and signed by the ROW Program Manager. A copy is to be returned to the relocatee and the original retained in the Case File. Step Five: After the approved ,Relocation Claim Form is _ returned to the relocatee, he/she should provide a 5-day written moving date notice (unless waived by RCTC) and cause the move to be completed. Step Six: After the move is completed, the relocatee must provide the RCTC an inventory of the items of personal property that were actually moved to his/her remaining or replacement property. The post -move inventory must contain a statement that all of the items listed therein were actually moved from the project location. Step Seven: The Relocation Agent must conduct an on -site review of the post -move inventory to attest that is it reasonably accurate and that does not contain any items of real property that were retained and moved by the relocatee. Deleted: moving cost agreement Deleted: Moving Cost Agreement Deleted: Move Cost Agreement 1 Deleted: Moving Cost Agreement • Deleted: Moving Cost Agreement 358 • • • If the post -move inventory is substantially the same as the pre -move inventory, the Relocatee can be paid the actual moving costs pursuant to the ,Relocation Claim Form. Eligible documented incidental expenses may likewise be paid. Step Eight: The relocatee must file his/her claim for reimbursement within the 18-month period. 2. Moving Cost Bids Are Not Available If it is not practical to obtain advance moving cost bids due to the complexity of a move, the relocatee can be authorized by the ROW Program Manager to conduct the move without them. When the requirement for obtaining bids is waived due to the complexity of the move, the Case File must be documented and state the justification therefor. In such unique cases, a Move Cost Agreement must be prepared by the Relocation Agent and agreed to by the relocatee. The same requirements for a Move Cost Agreement apply with the obvious exception to an agreed cost of the move. If a business refuses to agree to sign a reasonable Move Cost Agreement, RCTC will not reimburse it for any costs associated with the move. a. Self -Moves Qualified owners of any displaced businesses, farms or nonprofit organizations have the option of conducting a self -move. Under this option, the relocatees will move their personal property and will not employ a commercial mover to conduct the move. 1. Moving Cost Estimates are Available The following procedure is applicable if estimates can be obtained for the amount that would have been charged by a commercial mover for conducting the move. Step One: Relocatee must prepare an inventory of the items of personal property that must be moved as a result of the right of way acquisition. Step Two: Relocatee must advise the Relocation Agent, in writing, of his/her intent to conduct a self -move and { Deleted: Moving Cost Agreement 359 request that the Relocation Agent obtain moving cost estimates based on the inventory. Step Three: Relocation Agent must make an on -site inspection of the items to be moved. Assure that none of the items listed in the inventory is included in the real estate appraisal as real property. Relocation Agent, working with the business, will create specifications for the move of the personal property. Step Four: The Relocation Agent must obtain at least two (2) moving cost estimates from commercial movers who are qualified to conduct the move, if the moving cost is expected to exceed $2,500. If the cost of the move is expected to be $2,500 or less, one estimate covering the cost of the move can be obtained. Bids should not be obtained before the relocatee has selected a replacement site so that actual mileage can be used. (50-mile rule applies). Copies of all bids must be retained in the Case File. Step Five: The Relocation Agent will prepare a,Relocation_ _ - Claim Form in compliance with previous sections of this manual. The relocatee must sign the,claim form and forward _ a signed ,claim form to RCTC. The ROW Manager must _ review, approve and sign the plaim form,. Step Six: The ROW Manager will return ap approved copy of the Relocation Claim Form to the relocates and the Relocation Agent. The relocatee should provide the 5-day written moving date notice and complete the move. Step Seven: After the move is completed, the relocatee must present an inventory of the personal property actually moved. The post -move inventory must contain a statement that all of the items listed therein were actually moved from the project site. Step Eight: The Relocation Agent must conduct an on -site review of the post -move inventory to assure that it is reasonably accurate and that it does not contain any items of real property that were retained and moved by the relocatee. • Deleted: Moving Cost Agreement Deleted: agreement Deleted: agreement Deleted: agreement Deleted: , which should he revi completed and signed by the ROW Program Manager Deleted: fully executed Deleted: Moving Cost Agreement • 360 If the post -move inventory is substantially the same as the pre -move inventory, the relocatee may be paid the amount of the low moving cost bid, as reflected in the ,Relocation Claim Form without presenting additional documentation. They can also be paid eligible documented incidental expenses. Step Nine: Relocatees must file their claim for reimbursement within the 18-month period. 2. Moving Cost Bids Not Available Deleted: Moving Cost Agreement If due to the complexity of the move, it is not practical to obtain moving cost bids or estimates, the relocatee can be authorized by the ROW Program Manager to conduct the move without bids. The relocatee must be reimbursed for his/her actual, reasonable and documented moving cost expenditure, not to exceed the cost of a 50-mile move. The minimum requirements of a ,Relocation Claim Form are _ _ - { Deleted: Moving Cost Agreement ) applicable and because of the inability to secure estimates for the business' self -move the,Relocation Claim Form must _ - { Deleted: Move Cost Agreement ) additionally include: An estimate of the time the owner and employees of the firm anticipate they will need to conduct the move and an agreed upon hourly rate for the owners and his/her employees. Hourly costs of equipment supplied by the business during the move will be included in the Move Agreement. Equipment charges for equipment rented for the move must be supported by receipts. Reimbursement of rental equipment will be limited to the actual out of pocket expense. 361 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 10, 2009 TO:- Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendments with Zamiski Construction and Real Estate Consulting Services, Inc., for Property Maintenance Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-51-089-20, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-51-089-00, with Zamiski Construction to exercise the first one-year option extension to expire on December 31, 2010; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-52-088-11, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-52-088-00, with Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. to exercise the first one-year option extension to expire on December 31, 2010; 3) Approve additional funding in the combined amount of $950,000 for the services to be provided by Zamiski Construction and Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc.; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, 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 Agreement No. 07-51-089-00 with Zamiski Construction and Agreement No. 07-52-088-00 with Real Estate Consulting Services, Inc., to provide property maintenance services for a combined not to exceed cost of $630,000. The term approved for each contract was for three years with two one-year options, to be exercised at the discretion of the Commission. Property maintenance services include weed abatement by mowing or discing, fence replacement and repairs, removal of effects of vandalism, trash removal and removal of other items such as debris and pieces of furniture left by homeless encampments, and coordinating with law enforcement personnel in the legal removal of homeless persons. Work is generated as a result of an abatement notice from the local jurisdiction, information from the sheriff and local police departments, or from staff inspection of the parcel(s), and work is assigned on a Agenda Item 8M 362 rotating basis. The contractor is requested to inspect the parcel to be cleaned and abated, and to submit a schedule and cost proposal. At the same time, Commission and Bechtel staff independently inspect the parcel and prepare an independent estimate as to schedule and cost. Hourly rates are then applied to the independent estimate and compared to the contractor's proposal. If the cost proposal from the contractor is significantly higher than staff/Bechtel's cost estimate, staff negotiates with the contractor for a lower price. If the contractor cannot reduce its cost proposal, staff asks the other contractor if they can perform the work at the independent cost estimate. If neither contractor can perform the work at the independent cost estimate, work is assigned to the contractor with the lowest cost proposal and a task order is issued. Staff then takes pictures of the parcel before and after work is performed. Commission and Bechtel staff inspect the parcel to ensure that work is performed in accordance with the task order, before the contractor's invoice is paid. At the time the agreements were executed, the Commission owned approximately 743 acres of which 301 acres required regular maintenance. These properties were acquired by the Commission for future highway and rail projects. During the two-year period that has since transpired, the Commission acquired additional properties, consisting of approximately 157 acres of vacant properties that require maintenance, resulting in an increase of over 52% in acreage requiring regular property maintenance services. Maintaining these properties in the coming years will require a significant increase in the amount of resources previously allocated for this purpose. Based on prior years' expenditures and future demand in maintaining and servicing these properties, staff recommends the Commission allocate additional combined funding of $950,000 for these agreements to compensate the contractors for providing the services needed to maintain the Commission's properties in a safe condition and to comply with all applicable local regulations and code requirements. Staff further recommends that the Commission exercise the first of the two one-year options that will extend the term of both agreements up to December 31, 2010. Agenda Item 8M • 363 • • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $450,000 N/A FY 2010/11 $500,000 Source of Funds: Lease Revenue and Measure A Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 105 51 73313 $450,000 105 52 73313 $500,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \44,44,0,1-0. Date: 05/19/2009 Attachments: 1) Zamiski Construction Price Summary 2) Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. Price Summary Agenda Item 8M 364 CONSTRUCTION' EXHIBIT: "C" ` PRICE SUMMARY FOR PROPERTY_ MAINTENANCE Description: 1.. Tractor. with 6' mower Tractor with 8'5" disc Laborer with weed wacker Laborer removing trash/debris Laborer (i.e., repair fence line,.. gates, etc:) Supervisor (Foreman) Skiploader:. Backhoe 2,000 gallon water truck Dump truck 5 yard capacity Dump truck`10_ yard capacity . 40 yard bin per load. (0- 5 ton) 13. 40 yard bin per load (5 tort & above) 14. Current Dump. Fees R51 q - �el.: 9.694`:.993 5 •` Pgr:34.296.46 • Fax: P.O. Box 891177 • Temecula, CA 92589 • Lic,#704950 A 365 ATTACHMENT 2 Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. EXHIBIT "B" PRICE SUMMARY FOR HIGHWAY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE Description: 1. Tractor with 6' mower 2. Tractor with 8'5" disc 3. Laborer with weed wacker 4. Laborer removing trash/debris 5. Laborer (i.e., repair fence line, 6. Supervisor (Foreman) 7 Skiploader 8. Backhoe 9. 2,000 gallon water truck 10. Dump truck 5 yard capacity 11. Dump truck 10 yard capacity 12. 40 yard bin per load (0- 5 ton) 13. 40 yard bin per load (5 ton & above) 14. Current Dump Fees gates, etc.) Rates: $ 123.74 hr $ 124.83 hr $ 34.74 hr $ 66.98 hr $ 63.76 hr $. 75.00 hr $ 146.17 hr $ 150.62 hr $ 152.07 hr $ 141.06 hr $ 150.53 hr $ 109.46 ton $ 109.46 ton $ 62.44 ton Items 1,2,3,7,8,9,10, & 11 include the equipment, delivery, fuels, repairs and one operator. Item 4 is subject to future increases dictated by the prevailing wage determination starting June 30, 2007. Items 12,13, & 14 are subject to change as set forth by the waste haulers and dump operators. 366 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager Richard Bryan, Bechtel Rail Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Deferral of University of California, Riverside Metrolink Station for the Perris Valley Line Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Defer development of the University of California, Riverside (UCR) station from opening day service as part of the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project; and 2) Maintain the status in the environmental clearance process as a possible future station. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its May 13, 2009 meeting, the Commission directed staff to complete an environmental impact report (EIR) for the PVL project that would comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The Commission action was taken to address public comments and provide added information to the public regarding project details. One advantage in transitioning from a initial study/mitigated negative declaration environmental process to an EIR was that it would also give the Commission an opportunity re-evaluate decisions regarding station locations and the timing of their development. The Commission will soon release a notice of preparation (NOP) for the EIR. The law requires that the document include a project description which in this case would include the identification of station locations. The purpose of this staff report is to obtain clear Commission direction on the status of a potential rail station at UCR. The possibility of building a station at UCR has always attracted considerable scrutiny and concern. There are a number of factors that make it an attractive option given UCR's standing as a premier academic institution that will continue to grow. In addition, UCR is an important employment center that will likely attract Agenda Item 8N 367 additional employers in the immediate area. Unfortunately, the area for a rail station is located near a residential neighborhood that has often been impacted by the growth of the overall community and the campus. Public comments as part of the Commission's environmental outreach process earlier this year included a number of concerns regarding the location of station near the campus. The concerns included parking, noise, and mitigation issues. On the opening day of service for the PVL service, the Commission anticipates six round trips per day with the majority of service being offered during commute hours — a timeframe that falls well before most campus activity during the morning hours. Future growth will likely include service during more opportune times for UCR students and employees, but overall train ridership during the first few years is unlikely to be impacted by demand at UCR. Moreover, the location of a station in the Hunter Park business center in the northern portion of Riverside will offer a convenient location for those that do end up taking the train. The Hunter Park station would offer a more convenient location than the current Downtown Riverside Metrolink station, which is used by a handful of students and staff. The last time the _ Commission considered the issue of station locations and development was in July 2008. At that time, the Commission approved a station development priority list containing five opening day station, which included the UCR station. Of the five stations that were recommended for opening day, the UCR station ranked near the bottom in terms of ridership. Given the comments received from the public and the train scheduling concerns regarding the line, staff recommends the deferral of the UCR station to a future phase of the PVL. The NOP for the EIR would clearly reflect this decision and communicate the Commission's commitment to addressing community concerns. As a result of this action, the status of a potential UCR station would be similar to future stations that are planned at Ramona Expressway and Fair Isle Drive and could possibly be developed to meet future demand. Agenda Item 8N • • 368 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager Richard Bryan, Bechtel Manager of Rail Projects Erik Galloway, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Psomas to Provide Construction Support Services for the Phase I - Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-33-007-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 04-33-007-00, with Psomas for construction support services for Phase I - Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility in a not to exceed amount of $73,769, for a total contract value of $1,163,461, plus , a general contingency amount of $6,231 for a total not to exceed amount of $1,169, 692; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve the use of the contingency as may be required for the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its September 12, 2007 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise to receive construction bids for the construction of Phase I - Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility adjacent to C Street, between State Route 74 and San Jacinto Avenue in the city of Perris. Because the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility will serve as a future Metrolink Perris Valley Line (PVL) commuter rail station, the Commission is the project lead for development, design, and construction of the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility in coordination with Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The Phase I work will include construction of a Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility with a 141-space park and ride lot, a bus plaza with eight loading bays, closed circuit television system (CCTS), and a transit platform for future Metrolink access. Along with the main facility Agenda Item 80 369 improvements there will be street improvements along C Street, and at the intersection of C Street and SR-74, Rule 20 utilities undergrounding, and landscaping. 1. Initial Agreement: At its July 9, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved the selection process and awarded Agreement No. 04-33-007 to Psomas, formerly known as Pountney Consulting Group, Inc., for the development of the master plan, environmental clearance, and preliminary design of the Phase I. 2. Amendment No. 1, Agreement No. 05-33-907: On August 9, 2004, Amendment No. 1 was executed to simplify the accounting and invoicing procedures for the agreement and to address the merger of Pountney Consulting Group, Inc. and Psomas. 3. Amendment No. 2, Agreement No. 04-33-007-02: On, March 14, 2007 Amendment No. 2 was entered into to allocate funding for Psomas to provide final design and engineering construction support services during the bid, award, and construction phases of the project. The final design of the project commenced in March 2007, after receiving environmental clearance and completion of the master plan. Phase I is a key component of the downtown Perris revitalization efforts and staff has been working closely with the city of Perris planning and engineering departments during the final design of the Phase I. The final design was completed and the project was advertised on October 1, 2008 with the bids received on November 3, 2008. The results of the bid opening were presented at the November 12, 2008 Commission meeting with the award to Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. The construction of the project commenced on January 5, 2009. 4. Amendment No. 3, Agreement No. 04-33-007-03: On February 15, 2008 Amendment No. 3 was executed to supplement the funding for the final design services from the remaining contingency and to extend the term of the agreement. Additional construction support efforts beyond what was anticipated in Amendment No. 2 have occurred thereby requiring the replenishment of the engineering construction support funds. Some of these additional efforts are shown below: • Assistance in the acquisition of right-of-way, specifically the Chu Property located at C Street and SR-74, which required drawing revisions and additional support; Agenda Item 80 • 370 • Coordination with Southern California Edison (SCE) and Verizon for the undergrounding of their facilities including drawing revisions to incorporate their planned work; • Additional efforts to obtain approval and permits from the Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD); • Revisions to the traffic phasing and traffic control plans to address California Department of Forestry (CDF) concerns about emergency vehicle access during construction; • Coordination efforts with STV Incorporated to incorporate the Phase I - Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility into the Perris Valley Line design, including incorporation of field changes to the station design; • Utility potholing services to determine the positive location of an existing gas main in 2' Street; • Redesign of the electrical systems and other civil site features to incorporate new Metrolink station design standards and field changes to address the future PVL project; and • Redesign of street improvements along San Jacinto, at the request of the city of Perris, to move the curb line from 27 feet to 35 feet from centerline of the street." This amendment will cover the additional construction support items, outlined above, replenish the engineering construction support budget to address any future design changes through the completion of the project, and to extend the contract term until December 31, 2011. Budget Summary Staff is currently working with Psomas to finalize the detailed scope, cost, and schedule for the proposed Amendment No. 4. The final scope, cost, and schedule will be attached to the amendment, pursuant to legal counsel review, prior to execution of the agreement. At this time, it is anticipated that the cost of the proposed services will be $73,769 plus a contingency of $6,231 for a total not to exceed amount of $80,000. Agenda Item 80 371 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $80,000 Source of Funds: Proposition 1 B Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 221 33 81304 P3816 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Abtida,ji, nod Date: 05/27/2009 Agenda Item 80 372 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Metrolink Budget for Fiscal Year 2009/10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the preliminary FY 2009/10 Metrolink operating and capital budget; 2► Allocate the Commission's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) in an amount not to exceed of $6,502,900 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) fund for train operations and maintenance -of -way, and $21,912,200 for capital projects to be funded by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, State Transit Assistance (STA) funds and LTF; and 3) Authorize the SCRRA to apply $155,200 of the Commission's prior year carryover funds to the FY 2009/10 operating budget to cover an unanticipated increase in the liability insurance premiums. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: By virtue of the joint powers agreement, the five member agencies, which comprise the SCRRA, must formally commit to fund its 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, 2009. Service and funding levels are limited by the policy and budget constraints of the member agencies and are negotiated each year. FY 2008/09 Notable Accomplishments • Aggressive safety response after Chatsworth incident with a Peer Safety Review, increased efficiency testing, second set of eyes in the cab, inward and outward video camera, expanded Automatic Train Stop, additional oversight, and the initiation of development of Positive Train Control. Agenda Item 8P 373 • Continued steady growth on the year round Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) weekend service. • Continued efforts from Union Pacific for better on -time performance on the Riverside Line with performance at or above the target level of 95% for most of the year. • Continued construction on the Eastern Maintenance Facility (EMF) in Colton. • Delivery of 15 Motive Power locomotives with the cleanest diesel-electric technology available. • Continued development of new rail passenger cars with the first to be delivered in late 2009. Riverside County Service Impact Proposed for FY 2009/10 Three Metrolink commuter rail lines traverse Riverside County: the Riverside Line, the IEOC Line, and the 91 Line. The FY 2009/10 draft Metrolink budget proposes no change in service levels at this time. With the economic slowdown and drop in sales tax revenue, Metrolink has initiated an evaluation of potential cost savings if service level reductions were implemented. Currently no service reductions are planned. In addition, the Metrolink Board approved a 3.0% average fare increase due to restructuring of fares from zone to distance -based calculation and increasing expenses. Commission's FY 2009/10 Operating Subsidy Remains Constant The Commission's proposed funding obligation to SCRRA includes a $6,502,900 subsidy for operations and maintenance -of -way, which represents a $26,800 decrease or less than 1 % change over the initial FY 2008/09 budget. The operating subsidy will come from LTF. Staff also requests the Commission to authorize SCRRA to apply $155,200 of the Commission's prior year carryover funds to the FY 2009/10 operating budget to cover an unanticipated increase in the liability insurance premiums. This amount is the Commission's share of the overall insurance increase based on the train mile cost allocation formula. SCRRA Budget Priorities 1. Continue implementation of ongoing safety improvements and peer review panel recommendations (operating and capital). 2. Preserve current service levels of 149 weekday trains. 3. Incorporate fleet additions (new rail cars). 4. Integrate and open the newly constructed EMF. 5. Improve customer and stakeholder communications. 6. Examine the impacts of increasing overnight rest for train crews to nine or more hours. Agenda Item 8P • • 374 • • 7. Maintain level of operations at or below current aggregate member agency contributions Operating Cost Overview The overall Metrolink FY 2009/10 operating budget is $2.1 million or 1.5% greater than the amended FY 2008/09 budget. The following elements represent the various changes: • A decrease in the cost of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel from $3.25 per gallon in the FY 2008/09 budget to $2.05 per gallon projected for FY 2009/10, which results in a decrease of $1.20 per gallon or an annual savings of $7.4 million. Approximately 2/3 of the FY 2009/10 fuel requirements have been locked in with a forward purchase agreement. This cost savings helps to balance other cost increases in the operating budget. • 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 received in FY 2008/09, and new rail cars anticipated in FY 2009/10. This is a net increase of $5.0 million or 21.4% over the FY 2008/09 budget. • The agency's insurance program also will increase by approximately 30% from the prior year original budget, due to increased costs of premiums, anticipated claims, legal expenses, and other items related to the September 2008 incident in Chatsworth. • In addition there will be a staffing increase to improve operations and equipment oversight. This includes four operations positions including road foreman of engines, new positions in equipment maintenance to address the new rail cars, and a new operations position to oversee implementation of electronic media such as the electronic passenger information system under development. In order to further control costs, there are no increases in salaries and wages included in the budget. Capital Contribution The Commission's new capital and capital renovation obligation for FY 2009/10 is projected at $3,066,600. Of that total, $1.67 million will be funded with ARRA funds applied to Riverside County signal improvements. The remaining $1,396,600 will be funded with FTA 5307 grant funds used for various projects including rehabilitation and renovation of rolling stock and track projects, passenger sign rehabilitation, electronic passenger information system, LA Union station canopy rehabilitation, and on rail equipment. Agenda Item 8P 375 In April 2008, the Commission authorized SCRRA to use $4,785,600 in ARRA funds for Positive Train Control and $760,000 in ARRA funds for safety and security improvements to the Keller Street Yard. There is an additional investment of $13.3 million of the Commission's capital funds to exercise an option for seven additional rail cars in the current procurement. The source of these funds will be combination of LTF and STA. Once received these cars will be used to add cars to crowded trains or add service frequencies on the 91 Line or IEOC routes. Summary Financial Subsidy Impact to Commission The proposed Commission operating subsidy of $6,502,900 represents 4% of the $169.2 million Metrolink operating budget and will be funded with LTF funds. The total capital rehabilitation project subsidy of $3,066,600 represents 6.5% of the $46.7 million capital rehabilitation budget and will be funded with a combination of FTA 5307 funds and ARRA funds. The remaining $18,545,600 in capital funds will be used directly to expand capacity and improve safety for the Metrolink system with direct benefits to Riverside County residents. These funds are a combination of ARRA, LTF, and STA funds. The FTA Section 5307 and ARRA funds do not pass -through the Commission and are received directly by SCRRA. Systemwide In FY 2009/10, Metrolink will celebrate its 17`h 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 55 stations in six counties. Average weekday ridership is projected to total over 43,000 one-way trips. The resulting fare box revenue is projected at $79.2 million or 9.3% over the current year budget. The system anticipates modest growth of 2.8% for weekday riders and with the 3% fare increase there is a 9.3% increase in fare revenues over the previous year's budget. Fare revenues represent 47.0% of total operating expenses. Member agency contributions of $74.4 million for operations represent approximately 44% of total operating expenses resulting in revenue recovery in the budget of 56.3%, one of the higher revenue recovery ratios among commuter rail properties nationwide. In 2004, the Metrolink 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%. Due to concerns about the economy the Metrolink Board reduced the proposed fare increase to 3.0% for this coming fiscal year to take effect August 1, 2009. Agenda Item 8P • • 376 • The preliminary FY 2009/10 combined Metrolink budget is $592.8 million. The operating budget is $169.2 million, an increase of 2.96% from the amended FY 2008/09 budget. The capital budget is $423.6 million made up of rehabilitation and renovation at $79.9 million and a new capital projects budget of $343.7 million. A large portion of the capital budget represents the current procurement of additional rolling stock. The FY 2009/10 Metrolionk budget development process was very difficult this year. Although through tough budget cuts and a significant drop in fuel prices, SCRRA was able to create a budget with a relatively neutral impact on the member agencies' subsidies. The forecast for next fiscal year is not promising with increasing cost obligations and reduced sales tax funding. Staff at SCRRA and all the member agencies will be working throughout the year to try to anticipate and address a significant financial challenge that is projected for the FY 2010/11 budget year. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $19,802,900 Operations - LTF Source of Funds: Capital: STA, LTF FTA Section 5307 and ARRA funds Budget No do not pass through Commission Adjustment: budget. GLA No.: 103 25 86101 P4199 $ 6,502,900 103 25 86102 P4199 $13,300,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \A,., Date: 05/21 /2009 Attachment: Metrolink FY 2009/10 Budget Operating Subsidy Allocation by County Agenda Item 8P 377 • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR2009-10 BUDGET OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY ($000s) Total FY 09-10 LACMTA Share OCTA Share RCTC Share SANBAG Share VCTC Share Expenses Train Operations & Services $104,748.6 $54,168.9 $23,663.1 $8,139.7 $13,728.7 $5,048.2 Maintenance -of -Way 27,271.0 16,009.7 5,219.6 775.2 3,537.6 1,7289 Administration & Services 20,716.7 10,431.2 3,789.0 2,118.0 2,194.8 2,183.8 Insurance 16,488.4 8,589.7 3,884.5 1,279.4 2,072.2 662.6 Total Expenses Incl. MOW $169,224.7 $89,199.5 $36,556.2 L$12,312.3 $21,533.2 $9,623.5 Revenues Gross Farebox 79,173.8 42,012.0 18,069.2 5,654.8 10,796.3 2,641.5 Dispatching 2,992.3 1,513.9 953.1 31.2 111.2 382.9 Other Operating 1,5/2.7 938.7 290.9 123.4 155.7 64.1 Maintenance -of -Way 11,099.0 7,070.1 2,178.7 0.0 1,116.0 734.2 Total Revenues $94,837.8 $51,534.7 $21,491.9 $5,809.4 $12,179.2 $3,822.6 Total County Allocation $74,387.0 $37,664.8 $15,064.3 $6,502.9 $9,354.0 $5,800.9 FY 2008-09 Budget 77,588.7 39,655.1 16,110.0 6,838.5 9,058.5 5,926.5 Increase/(Decrease) (3,201.7) (1,990.3) (1,045.7) (335.6) 295.5 (125.6) Percentage Change (4.13V0) (5.02%) (6.49%) (4.91%) 3.26% (2.12%) �3878 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Implementation of Security Cart Program at the Commuter Rail Stations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve implementation of a security cart program at the three largest Commission -owned commuter rail Metrolink stations, with capital expenditures not to exceed of $50,000 and operating expenditures not to exceed $10,000 a year; and 2► Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to purchase equipment and services to implement the aspects of this program on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission owns and operates the five Metrolink commuter rail stations in Riverside County and is responsible for the safety and security of the Metrolink riders and station facilities. The Commission relies on a security guard contractor to be the primary onsite presence to address safety, security, and customer service responsibilities. The current staffing plan has 24-hour guard service at all five Metrolink stations. The challenge to conduct effective security foot patrols with a limited number of people at stations has expanded significantly in size over the years. For example, the Downtown Riverside station, which originally had approximately 500 spaces now has 1,140 spaces in four separate parking lots. The La Sierra station has 1,065 parking spaces and 500 more will be added in the near future. At the North Main Corona station, the new parking structure is six stories with 1,000 spaces and the station will also retain 300 surface level parking spaces. The West Corona and Pedley stations have fewer parking spaces, but are spread out with multiple entrances and bus driveways. With the expanded lots, it is critical to have a visible security presence and a better ability to respond quickly to emergencies. Implementing a security cart program at the stations can address these issues. Agenda Item 8Q 379 Security Cart Program The initial approach was to develop a program that would provide security carts at all five of the stations. However, after a detailed cost benefit analysis, it was determined that the smaller stations of Pedley and West Corona could do without the carts for now. For Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, and North Main Corona, the security cart program will have several significant benefits including: • Increased patrols and coverage in the parking lots both during the day and night shifts. • A viable patrol of the new Corona parking structure, which would be extremely difficult without a security cart. • A security cart patrolling with a flashing light will pose a significant deterrent to criminal activity compared to a guard at the platform that is not visible from the street. • Guards will be able to respond quicker to incidents and could transport barriers or cones to isolate areas if needed. • Guards will be able to open and close driveway and access gates at the ends of the parking lots more efficiently. • Guards could patrol the frontage of the stations, parking lots, and parking structure to protect against graffiti or vandalism. • Guards will be less fatigued for the duration of the shift and more alert if they are not required to do constant foot patrols of the parking lots. The proposal moving forward is to purchase three new 2009 street legal electric 12v-48v golf carts. These will be highly visible vehicles that will include a flashing light, security decals, and cargo boxes. In addition, a storage shed with electricity will need to be constructed at Downtown Riverside and La Sierra Metrolink stations to store, secure, and charge the vehicles when not in use. There is a secured space in the new North Main Corona parking structure to store and recharge the vehicle. As a general operating policy, the guards will continue to work on foot at the platforms during peak periods with significant passenger activity. During slow periods, midday, and after hours the guards will utilize the carts to patrol the parking lots and structure, close and open gates, and provide a visible deterrent to any unauthorized activity at the station. The guards will be responsible for the carts' security at all times and will lock and keep the carts charged while not in use. The current guard contractor is supportive of this concept and would appreciate the additional resources to better secure the stations. The Commission will need to provide insurance, although the current security contractor's insurance policy covers the guards when operating the carts. Additional operating expenses include an annual maintenance contract for the Agenda Item 8Q • • 380 • • carts, repairs to both the carts and the storage buildings and added utilities to charge the carts. Security Cart Example: Cost Benefit Analysis Before bringing this proposal to the Commission, staff performed a detailed cost/benefit analysis for the program. Given the current economic situation, it was important to be able to justify both the initial capital expenditure and ongoing operating expenditures. For each cost element, several bids were received from multiple vendors and the cart specifications were reviewed by both staff and the security guard management. The cost breakdowns are as follows: Table 1: Capital Costs Station Parking Storage Station Spaces Cart Cost Building Downtown Riverside North Main Corona La Sierra West Corona Pedley Totals 1,140 1,300 1,065 564 288 $8,538 $8,538 $8,538 $8,538 $8,538 $4,136 $0 $4,136 $4,136 $4,136 Cement Foundation Electrical Totals $15,799 $8,538 $23,219 $21,194 $23,244 $91,994 $0 $0 $7,060 $5,1 20 $4,860 $3,125 $0 $3,485 $ 3, 400 $5,710 4,357 $42,690 3 Larger Station Totals $ 25,614 Agenda Item 80 $16.544 $17,040 $ 8,272 $ 7,060 $15,720 $ 6,610 $ 47,556 381 Table 2: Operating Costs Station Annual Maintenance Repairs Repairs Cart Building Insurance Utilities Totals Downtown Riverside $310 $1,000 $500 $1,000 $300 $3,110 North Main Corona $310 $1,000 $ 0 $1,000 $300 $2,610 La Sierra $310 $1,000 $500 $1,000 $300 $3,110 West Corona $310 $1,000 $500 $1,000 $300 $3,110 Pedley $310 $1,000 $500 $1,000 $300 $3,110 Totals $1,550 $5,000 $2,000 $ 5,000 $1,500 $15,050 3 Larger Station Totals $930 $3,000 $1,000 $3,000 $900 $8,830 Table 1 illustrates that the capital costs estimates are reduced significantly to $47,556 for only Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, and North Main Corona Metrolink stations compared to the original plan for carts at all five stations. The operating costs displayed in Table 2 are also decreased proportionally. This modified approach will provide the best security coverage at the lowest cost for the Commission. The security guard contractor also supports this modified program. Staff recommends the approval of the security cart program as described. Funding for this program is currently included in the FY 2009/10 proposed budget. The capital expenditure elements of the program including a small contingency should not exceed $50,000. This funding will come from Commuter Rail's Proposition 1B Public Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP). The annual operating funds of approximately $10,000 with contingency will be funded with the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $60,000 Source of Funds: Prop 1 B TSGP, LTF Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 221 33 90701 P4012 $50,000 103 24 73003, 73315 P4001, P4003, P4006 $10,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \a,34$ Date: 05/26/2009 Agenda Item 8Q 382 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Bill Biehl, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Caliber Paving Company, Inc. for Rehabilitation of the Commuter Rail Station Parking Lots STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 09-24-063-00 to Caliber Paving Company, Inc. for repairs, paving, slurry sealing, and striping of various Commission -owned commuter rail station parking lots for the Metrolink Station Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan (Plan) for a not to exceed amount of $790,886; and • 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its April 2008 meeting, the Commission approved the Plan and directed staff to implement the recommendations needed to make improvements that increase the life of the assets at the five Commission -owned commuter rail stations, including the rehabilitation and improvement of the various station parking lots. The Plan identified the pavement as needing urgent attention to areas experiencing significant deterioration. In addition, the Plan also identified the need to reseal and restripe the parking lots in order to extend its useful life. The remedial work identified in the Plan and required to rehabilitate the parking lots includes saw cutting and removing the asphalt, aggregate base material and replacement with new aggregate base, and new asphalt paving. For the bus loops at the Downtown Riverside and La Sierra Metrolink stations the remedial work includes replacing the severely damaged asphalt with concrete. The Pedley Metrolink station requires additional work necessary to remove low spots to prevent ponding. In all parking lots, the work includes sealing of cracks, slurry sealing of the entire surface, restriping, and repainting curbs. Agenda Item 8R 383 The replacement of asphalt with concrete paving for the bus loops at the Downtown Riverside and La Sierra Metrolink stations will minimize the long-term need to maintain the paving where heavy bus traffic occurs. Concrete paving typically requires minimal maintenance and is estimated to last 20 to 30 years, whereas asphalt paving will require periodic maintenance involving resealing and restriping and crack repairs as needed, estimated at two to three year intervals. The estimated cost differential for concrete in lieu of asphalt for the identified bus loops is $60,000. On April 16, 2009, the Commission released an invitation for bids (IFB) to provide contract services in support of the Plan. The Plan requires that the contractor: 1. Perform asphalt grinding and removal; 2. Perform aggregate base material removal and replacement; 3. Install replacement asphalt and concrete paving; 4. Prepare and seal existing cracks; 5. Slurry seal parking lot surfaces; and 6. Repaint and restripe parking lot surfaces and curbs. The rehabilitation of the parking lots, if approved, is anticipated to be completed within six months of notice to proceed. Work will be performed during the weekends and at night to minimize disruption to normal commuter rail station operations. Selection Process The calendar of events was as follows: Distribution of IFB Pre -Bid Meeting (not mandatory) Bids were Delivered to the Commission prior to 2 p.m. Apparent Low Bidder Announced April 16, 2009 April 23, 2009 May 14, 2009 May 14, 2009 A panel of representatives from the Commission and Bechtel was assembled to open and announce the bids of the six proposals received. The apparent low bidder was announced and a panel of representatives from the Commission and Bechtel was assembled to review the apparent low bidder's bid for responsiveness and completeness. Agenda Item 8R • • 384 • • Cost Analysis The engineers estimate for the project was $850,000. Six bids were received on May 14, 2009, with bids ranging from approximately $791,000 to $989,000. The bids were ranked in ascending order, with the lowest bid listed first, as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Bid Results Bidder Bid Amount 1. Caliber Paving $790.885.54 2. All American Asphalt $793,196.50 3. NPG Inc. $826,790.00 4. Wheeler Paving $840,488.00 5. American Asphalt South $911,455.86 6. Laird Construction $988,889.00 The five Commission -owned and operated Metrolink commuter rail stations are comprised of eight designated parking lots. Each of these parking lots is unique in its current state and each differs in its required repair or rehabilitation. Depending on the required repair or rehabilitation, the cost can differ significantly. Table 2 identifies each of the eight parking lots and the estimated repair cost. Only the Downtown Riverside main lot and the La Sierra lot will have concrete bus loops. Table 2: Cost Breakdown by Station Parking Lot for Low Bidder Station Parking Lot With Concrete Bus Loops With Asphalt Bus Loops Downtown Riverside Main Lot $310,025 $258,681 Downtown Temporary Lot $91,037 $91,037 Downtown East Side Lot $17,1 19 $17,1 19 Downtown Triangular Lot $29,979 $29,979 La Sierra Lot $197, 281 $189,179 Pedley Lot $53,944 $53,944 West Corona Lot $47,273 $47,273 North Main Corona Lot $44,227 $44,227 Total $790,885 $731,439 Agenda Item 8R 385 Various types of repairs are needed to rehabilitate the parking lot surfaces. In all cases, slurry sealing and striping and painting are needed. Significant cracks exist in some of the parking lots and will require special attention to repair. Bechtel staff will assume the construction management and field inspector roles in implementation of this project. Staff recommends that the Commission award this contract to Caliber Paving Company, Inc. to perform the commuter rail station parking lot asphalt removal, asphalt and concrete replacement, slurry seal, and painting and striping in support of the Plan. The amount of the contract is not to exceed $790,886. The funding to cover this project will come from Commuter Rail's Proposition 1 B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA). Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $790,886 Source of Funds: Prop 1 B PTMISEA Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 221 33 73315 P4011 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14.4,440,1ti„vnn Date: 05/27/2009 Agenda Item 8R • • • 386 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cheryl Johns, Procurement and Assets Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Callan Management Company dba Western Area Security Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the Review of Contract Billings of Callan Management Company dba Western Area Security Service (WASS); 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-25-071-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-25-071-00, with WASS to provide additional security services at the five Metrolink commuter rail stations, with an increase to the current contract in the amount of $405,000 and exercise the first one-year option in the amount of $1.3 million; 3) Approve a budget adjustment to increase expenditures by $205,000; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 2006 meeting, as a result of a competitive procurement process, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 06-25-071-00 to WASS to provide security guard services for the five Metrolink commuter rail stations. The scope of services included 24-hour surveillance at all of the stations and armed guard service for the trains stored overnight at the Downtown Riverside station. The initial term of the agreement was for three years at a not -to -exceed amount of $2,476,140. The agreement also included two one-year options to be exercised at the Commission's discretion. In March 2009, when it became apparent there was going to be a significant shortfall in the agreement's authorized funding, staff requested an on -call audit firm to conduct an invoice reconciliation to determine the cause of this shortfall. The reconciliation of this agreement is part of a larger effort that includes the five major agreements that provide maintenance and security services to the commuter rail stations. The Commission spends approximately $1 million or more annually on each of these agreements. All five agreements are being reviewed by the on -call Agenda Item 8S 387 audit firm to determine the nature of the expenditures incurred under these agreements, as well as review contract compliance in an effort to better manage the station maintenance costs. The reconciliation found that four additional service locations were assigned to WASS, but the agreement was not amended to reflect the new locations that were added to the scope of work or the additional cost that would be incurred over the life of the agreement by the addition of these locations. Additional security services were also requested for events such as the Holiday Train. In addition, the reconciliation also found overbilling of overtime costs. Staff met with WASS, which has agreed to reimburse the Commission $7,367 for the overtime overbillings. However, WASS is entitled to payment for the guard service provided at the four additional locations and special events. Therefore, staff is requesting an increase in funding of $405,000 to cover the additional services already provided and to fund the agreement through June 30, 2009. During the term of the initial agreement, WASS has provided satisfactory service and has been responsive to staff's requests. Since there are two one-year options, staff recommends exercising the first one-year option in a not -to -exceed amount of $1.3 million. This will cover all services currently being provided, service for the North Main Corona parking structure when it becomes operational, the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility, special events such as the Holiday Train, and additional supervisory service to be provided during non -peak hours. Staff is recommending approval of Amendment No. 1, which will bring the scope of work of the initial agreement into alignment with the services actually being performed, as requested by staff; increase the original agreement amount by $405,000 from $2,476,140 to $2,881,140; and exercise the first one-year option in an amount not to exceed $1.3 million for a total agreement amount of $4,181,140. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: NO Yes Year: FY2008/09 FY2009/10 Amount: $405,000 $1,300,000 Source of Funds: LTF, Metrolink Reimbursement Budget Ad ustment: Yes $205,000 GLA No.: 103 21 81006 4012 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \40`1te Date: 06/02/2009 . Attachment: Report on Review of Contract Billings Callan Management Company Idba WASS) Agenda Item 8S • • 388 • REPORT ON REVIEW OF CONTRACT BILLINGS FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2006 - MARCH 25, 2009 CALLAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY (dim WESTERN AREA SECURITY SERVICES) AGREEMENT NO.06-25-071-00 Prepared for. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Prepared by: Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio d Associates, P.C. 21250 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 150 Torrance, CA 90503 389 • • • Executive Summary We have completed our review of Callan Management Co., Inc.'s dba Westem Area Security Services (WASS) invoiced costs under Agreement No. 06-25-071-00. The review covered services rendered from July 1, 2006 to March 14, 2009. The purpose of this review was to 1) summarize all fees billed under the contract and compare them to the total authorized amount, 2) identify the location of security services invoiced for and compare the locations to the locations authorized under the contract, and 3) determine whether invoiced costs were billed in compliance with the terms of the contract. We found that: • As of March 25, 2009 (date of last invoice) WASS had invoiced fees of $2,584,507 to the contract for services through March 14, 2009 leaving an authorized contract balance of $190,387. Based on the latest invoice, fees are billed at about $40,115 semi-monthly for all stations. • WASS invoiced $320,609 for security services of four (4) locations that were not included in the scope of the contract. The four locations not included in the contract are CCTV/Dispatch, Inland Empire parking lot, AUX parking in North Corona, and Mission Trains. The Agreement requires that the Commission and Contractor agree upon any amendments, however, we found no evidence of amendments authorizing the addition of these stations/locations and the respective increase in security personnel_ Although the authorized contract rates were used to bill for the security services provided at these additional locations, the contract budget amount was not increased to allow for these additional services. As a result, the contract budget will be exhausted by the end of April 2009, two months before the end of the contract term on June 30, 2009. • WASS invoiced fees of $2,584,507 were allowable and billed in accordance with contract terms, except for $7,367 of overtime billed at rates that exceeded those allowed under the contract. WASS calculated its overtime rates at 1.5 times the allowable regular time contract rate. Overtime rates should have been calculated by adding 50% of the employee's base pay plus payroll taxes to the allowable contract rate. This difference in this overtime rate calculation resulted in over billings of $7,367. Background On September 25, 2006, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC or Commission) entered into an agreement with Callan Management Co., Inc., a California Corporation dba Western Area Security Services (WASS or Contractor) for professional security services for five (5) Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations. The period of performance under this contract extends from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2009 with options for two one-year extensions. The Commission authorized the award of this contract for a not -to -exceed amount of $2,476,139 for the initial three-year term. The contract encumbrance was increased by $298,756 over two years from funds made available through SCRRA reimbursements, increasing the funds available under the contract to $2,774,895. This increase in budget was an emergency stop -gap measure while this expenditure review was being performed. 1 390 The contract requires that WASS perform security services as specified in Exhibit A of the Agreement. Compensation for those services is based on actual labor hours incurred at negotiated fully burdened labor rates as listed in the contract. WASS invoiced costs of $2,584,507 for services performed through March 14, 2009. Scope and Methodology The following is a listing of significant procedures performed: 1. We reviewed the Agreement between the Commission and WASS. We summarized the amounts invoiced and compared the amounts to the not -to - exceed amount. 2. We determined that the work performed was within the period authorized by the Agreement. 3. We obtained billing invoices for the period July 1, 2006 through March 14, 2009, and summarized those charges by station and/or location. 4. We verified the mathematical accuracy of the invoices and determined whether the fees were calculated in accordance with contract terms. 5. We reviewed each billing to verify its completeness per the contract. 6. We compared billed labor rates to the negotiated fully burden rates authorized in the contract. 7. We computed the proper over -time rates based on the contract rates and percentage raises allowed in the agreement. 8. We prepared a schedule of all billed over -time and computed the over billing based on the proper calculation of overtime pay. 9. We reviewed base rates in the contract and compared them to national averages to determine the reasonableness of the pay rates. 10. We reviewed the proposed cost of living adjustments to the Employee Cost Index to determine the reasonableness of the escalations. 2 • • 391 • • • Results of Review Below we provide the details of our findings: Contract Value The total contract value was increased by $298,756 from $2,476,139 to $2,774,895 over two years from funds received from SCRRA. WASS invoiced fees of $2,584,507 for the period July 1, 2006 through March 14, 2009. The contract has a remaining balance of $190,387 as of the invoice dated March 25, 2009. Attachment A summarizes the total invoiced costs by station or location. WASS' invoices cover services provided over a .two week period. The latest invoice dated March 25, 2009 covered services from March 1, 2009 through March 14, 2009 totaling $40,115. Below is a breakdown of the services provided in the latest invoice. Contract 4001 Riverside -Downtown Station 4002 Pedley Station 4003 La Sierra Station 4004 West Corona Station 4006 North Main Corona Station Supervisor 4001 CCTV/Dispatch 4001 Inland Empire Parking Lot 4001 Mission Trains 4006 AUX Parking North Corona (Two -week period) Period Billings $ 6,158.95 5,534.20 5,534.20 5,534.20 5,534.20 1,860.80 1,321.60 2,643.20 2,478.00 3,515.75 $ 40,115.10 Locations Not Included in the Scope of the Contract The Agreement stated that the Contractor shall provide services for the following five (5) Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations in Riverside County: 1. Riverside -Downtown Station 2. Pedley Station 3. La Sierra Station 4. West Corona Station 5. North Main Corona Station Attachment A shows the billings for each of the five (5) stations for the period from July 1, 2006 through March 14, 2009. 392 Our review found that WASS invoiced costs of $320,609 for services performed at four (4) additional locations not listed in the contract The table below summarizes the billings for each of the additional locations. Location 1. Closed Circuit TV — Surveillance Equipment (CCTV/Dispatch) 2. Inland Empire parking lot 3. Mission Trains 4. AUX parking in North Corona Date Services Began 02/04/2007 02/04/2007 01 /06/2008 02/17/2008 Invoiced Costs $ 69,445.05 136,605.76 76,480.13 38,078.49 $ 320,609.43 Locations 1 through 3 were billed as Riverside -Downtown Station services and Location 4 was billed as the North Main Corona Station. The authorized contracted rates were used to bill for the security services provided at these additional locations. Section 3.1.1 of the Agreement states: "The Commission and the Contractor will mutually agree upon an amendment to this Agreement to accommodate necessary increases in security staffing, as such increases become necessary." We found no evidence of amendments authorizing the addition of these stations/locations and the respective increases in security staffing to the scope of the contract. Although the authorized contract rates were used to bill for the security services provided at these additional locations, the contract amount was not increased to allow for these additional services. The contract is to be completed on June 30, 2009. As of March 14, 2009, the remaining balance on the contract was $190,387. At a burn rate of $40,115 every two weeks, we project that the contract budget will be exhausted by the end of April 2009. The contract budget amount should have been increased to allow for these additional costs of services. Over Billing of Overtime Costs Exhibit C of the Agreement details the billing rates for straight -time hours, but not for overtime billing rates. However, Exhibit C does show an added amount to the estimated contract annual expenditures for overtime calculated by adding $4.75 per hour to the employee's base pay. Exhibit B shows that the base regular time wage paid to unarmed security guards is $9.50 per hour. One-half of this $9.50 is $4.75, equal to the amount used to add cost to estimated annual expenditures to account for overtime. Thus, this indicates that the contract overtime rate should be calculated by adding 50% to an employee's regular time pay. Our review showed that WASS invoiced overtime by adding 50% to the contract fully burdened billing rates. Contract fully burdened billing rates include overhead and profit, resulting in an over billing of overtime costs. We believe that adding 50% of an employee's base pay for overtime costs as shown in Exhibit C is appropriate, except that payroll taxes on the increased overtime wage should be allowed. Thus, we calculated allowable overtime billing rates by adding 50% of the employee's base pay plus applicable payroll taxes to the contract billing rates. Using these rates, we identified over billings of $7,367.10 for overtime fees invoiced by WASS during the period of our review. The table below details the over billing of 4 • • • 393 overtime costs by station/location. Attachment B shows the detailed breakdown of our recommended calculation of the overtime rate for 2006. Attachment C shows our recommended overtime rates for years 2006 through 2010. Over Billed Station/Location Amount 4001 Riverside -Downtown Station $ 2,146.02 4002 Pedley Station 1,168.89 4003 La Sierra Station 1,168.89 4004 West Corona Station 1,166.23 4006 North Main Corona Station 1,168.89 Supervisor 4001 CCTV/Dispatch 75.64 4001 Inland Empire Parking Lot 66.20 4001 Mission Trains 406.33 4006 AUX Parking North Corona $ 7,367.10 Conclusions As of March 25, 2009 WASS had invoiced fees of $2,584,507 to the contract for services through March 14, 2009 leaving an authorized contract balance of $190,387. WASS invoiced fees were allowable and billed in accordance with contract terms, except for $7,367 of overtime billed at rates that exceeded those allowed under the contract. WASS invoiced $320,609 for security services of four (4) stations/locations that were not included in the scope of the contract. The Agreement requires that the Commission and Contractor agree upon any amendments, however, we found no evidence of amendments authorizing the addition of these stations/locations and the respective increase in security personnel. As a result, the contract budget will be exhausted by the end of April 2009, two months before the end of the contract term,on June 30, 2009. 5 394 ATTACHMENT A Western Area Security Services Agreement No. 06-25-071-00 SUMMARY OF INVOICED COSTS BY STATION/LOCATION Contract Riverside -Downtown Station $ 613,493.72 Pedley Station 381,907.86 La Sierra Station 382,005.60 West Corona Station 381,813.52 North Main Corona Station 382,360.20 Supervisor 122,316.40 2,263,897.31 Services not in Contract CCTV/Dispatch 69,445.05 inland Empire Parking Lot 136,605.76 Mission Trains 76,480.13 AUK Parking North Corona 38,078.49 320,609.43 TOTAL BILLED AMOUNT $ 2,584,506.74 6 • 395 ATTACHMENT B Western Area Security Services Agreement No. 06-25-071-00 CALCULATION OF 2006 OVERTIME RATES Straight -Time Rate Unarmed Armed Base Rate $ 9.50 $ 12.00 Payroll Taxes 0.97 1.15 OH + Profit 4.97 5.63 Billed Rate 15.44 18.78 Overtime Rate (1.5 x Billed Rate) 15.44 18.78 x 1.5 x 1.5 Billed Overtime Rate Calculation of Audited Overtime Rate Base Rate OFT premium (1/2 base rate) Payroll Taxes (1.5 x base payroll taxes) OH + Profit Audited Overtime Rate $ 23.16 $ 28.17 9.50 4.75 1.46 4.97 12.00 6.00 1.73 5.63 $ 20.68 $ 25.36 396 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Western Area Security Services Agreement No. 06-25-071-00 AUDITED OVERTIME RATES FOR 2006 - 2010 UNARMED SECURITY Billed Rate $ 23.16 24.09 24.78 25.47 26.40 Billed Rate $ 28.17 29.30 30.14 30.99 32.12 Audited Rate $ 20.68 21.51 22.12 22.74 23.57 ATTACHMENT C Questioned Fees $ 2.48 2.58 2.66 2.73 2.83 ARMED SECURITY Audited Rate $ 25.36 26.37 27.12 27.89 28.91 Questioned Fees $ 2.81 2.93 3.01 3.10 3.20 • 397 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, 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 Weekend Service Performance 2000 1600 1200 800 - 400 0 04 FY 08/09 IEOC Weekend Passenger Trips o°j Q°' 5:§ 0% 00 s% )mac lac �a� lac 4e� `O 0o F61 QUO � O , O' �1 �p o �, ^p. fig. �. Last Year —0—Current Year 0 % 0 o 0 0 �A ac0 ��p ��O �p QUO Q�P QUA Daily passenger trips on the year-round Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Metrolink weekend service have continued to grow into the fourth quarter, providing 3,792 trips in the fourth quarter and 49,264 passenger trips year to date. This is an increase of 20.93% over the 40,737 trips provided at this point last year, attributed to increased gasoline prices and continued promotion. The success of this service is due in large part to the coordinated marketing efforts among the Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority, and San Bernardino Associated Governments. Most responsibilities for marketing of the service have transitioned to Metrolink, including revised seat drops, branding, and consolidation of the various weekend services under a single promotional umbrella. Agenda Item 8T 398 Riverside Line 6,000 5,600 5,200 4,800 4,400 4,000 O' Ao 5P 0 � k Passenger Trips Riverside Line 0 0 e o e �o 0 0 � o 0o o A°j c v �J N.06 Se/ 0° 04 Qec' 1 0) \e` QQ Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of April averaged 5,181, an increase of 59, 1 % more than the month of March. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily increase of 65 passenger trips. This is nearly 1 % more than a year ago. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line 100 m 95 — 90 y 85 80 a 75 70 ob 03 49) A° o° 40 Ob A� 0`5 00 00 00 00 PQ� �45:\ Se' Oc' OeG �a� Q°b 4b PQi Month April on -time performance averaged 99% inbound (1 % less than March) and 99% outbound (3% more than March). There was one delay greater than five minutes during the month of April. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 8T „a Signals/Track/MOW 1 100% Dispatching 0 0% Mechanical 0 0% Operations 0 0% TOTAL 399 • Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 6,000 5,600 o •° 5,200 H p 4,800 4,400 4,000 � o4i o� o` 3 P% A� o� o0 o°j o0 PQc \e' �J �J\ P.0 yet p°�` �°, O°G lac (<e� eV)� PQc Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's IEOC Line for the month of April averaged 4,436, an increase of 123, 3% more than the month of March. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of 572 passenger trips. This is nearly 1 1 % less than a year ago. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line 100 y 95 m 90 Y m 85 iu 80 n• 75 70 Q`,;j0 a�Acb J O23 J00 0 �pb c�Q0 °JO`b UA0 00' P \\` PJ 59 pe )a Qe �`a PQ Month April on -time performance averaged 97% inbound (2% more than March) and 97% outbound (1 % less than March). There were 12 delays greater than five minutes during the month of April. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 8T Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 5 2 1 3 45% 18% 9% 28% TOTAL 400 91 Line 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 Passenger Trips 91 Line o� pP AC4) oP o� o`3 o o� o� � 0 �J\ P�0 co, O°� �° p°G ,sacoQ°� eti`a� P4� Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of April averaged 2,334, an increase of 66, 3% more than the month of March. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of 35 passenger trips. This is nearly 1 % less than a year ago. 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line T T T o4' opo o4 o`) o4 o4> A0 o4 o0 o0 o0 o0 Pic �a� �Jc �J� PJA c; 0 �pe° �a� Qe'' %at QQt Month April on -time performance averaged 94% inbound (4% less than March) and 95% outbound (4% less than March). There were three delays greater than five minutes during the month of April. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 8T i of.`.dlay a;Tcr Signals/Track/MOW 7 64% Dispatching 2 18% Mechanical 0 0% Operations 2 18% TOTAL,..1° 401 • Connecting Transit Service Performance The Commission's role facilitating interconnectivity between Metrolink and connecting transit services is essential to ongoing system viability. Such services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as help mitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at the Commission 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 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 Transportation 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. 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,o00 0 PGie �aa o Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route o� O b Oo 5 o� d) CP' 01 � Pao 44 cP �`. e �a� Leo lac Month Q�C� P Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's connecting fixed routes (1, 3, 15, 16, 21, 29, and 38) totaled 2,748 for the month of April, a decrease of 20 trips, and -0.72% more than the month of March. Monthly trips increased by 362 or 15.17% over the year. Agenda Item ST 402 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 FQ,.z3) o`) Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link cP o9 o0 0� 09 o0 o°j 0 0 ��q cP moo,. O� ,��` 4eo Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's Commuter Link routes (202, 204, 206, 208, and 210) totaled 6,209 for the month of April, a decrease of 282 trips, and - 4.34% less than the month of March. Monthly trips have decreased by 827 or - 11.75% over the year. Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 CT' �)o93 oD O� Q,93 � foc' 46 ehacp PQc4a� vs)gm0�<<, Month P4,FE6 Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on the Corona Cruiser totaled 647 for the month of April, a decrease of 60, -8.49% from the month of March. Monthly trips have decreased by 35 or -5.13% over the year. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary — Weekday Service Agenda Item 8T 403 yae„J sun.2Ai°eW We°Blek> PlN"snv 1?8b %S- %L- °M t- %£- %L %6- %£- %0 L- %S- 80 Jdy SA 60 Jdv e6uey0 0/0 %0 %%E %£ °l°Z- %t %8- %0 %Z- %V- 60 JeW SA 60 Jdv a6uey0 °/0 %0 989`Z4 4EE`Z 9E1714 OS6.9 49I.'S 60L 068'ZL 9S4'9 1£0'V 60JdV %4= 068`Z4 89Z'Z £LE`4 VO4'L ZZVS ELL 6Z9'Z1. 6LZ'9 ZOZ'V 60Jen %Z £F£`£4 SLZ'Z ZZ4'4 - 69E'L L 1-'9 £8L 1-91'£ l CO 1-'9 66Z'tr 60 clad %E 886'EP 06Z'Z 904'4 S9£`L 99£'S 96L 991'£1 LSZ'9 LOCI? 60 Uar %8- t+9L`ZV OVZ'Z S4Z'V SL6'9 40I.'S LEL 1,817'Zl Z9L'9 9ZZ'7 80 oa0 1Y00 V£V94 ZOS'Z LLL'4 091.'1 LOWS 66L LSL'£L OZO'L Z5V'17 80 AoN °AZ- 899`94 S44`Z 6Z0'S 149'L ZZS'S 46L L9L'£L SLUE SLZ'V 80430 %4 ZB£`L4 Z9V'Z VG VS L99'L Z4£'S 96L ZS8'£L LZ9'L 09Z'17 80 des %Z- 666.`44 £0V'Z E6VG 498'L L£E`S 9SL 9£S'£I. LLS'L LLS'V 806ny %L 68Z`8V LVtr'Z L8L'6 4E0'9 849'S 909 4LL'£1. Z4.6`L 999'17 80 Mr %S 0£6`14 LOV'Z ZZ8`9 9S9'L 9L9'S V6L Z1.6'£1. ZVL'L L8£'4 80 unf %L £44`94 89Z'Z OL6'4 14XL 69E'S 9SL ££S'£1 LSZ'L 65l'V 80 dieW %4 46C44 69£'Z SOO'S £9L'L 944'S LLL S8Z'£1. ££8'9 14Z'17 SOJdv it... fl Md ° �+t + 5V�[,� �J}. � 'S3 �?. " t, ye+c ; ">.w.....:: .,. ry.t 1 ,L.n # !n. i.: ....t..... utn ... u. .h �.... .W.'' u yy , G tt� .. ... .. ,.6Ili3n .:POO �}11U 4166 � ri :elt11U. ti02i.. .. ... .. ... . • Q31Sf1POV A` C111OH - MOONIM H1N= N331211H1 SdIaL 213JN3SSb'd A` C1)133N13Jb413AV NM 102113W • • moNoyNePlO i %Qv 'u0pelnaleo 911.111-u0aUl ur papnloul lou ale supg papnuuV uopeuluual to mod le awp-uo aiaM Gag 1! 1p paiapsuoo aJe wed paleup.uoi 'sSelap 91genap61>01 apew uaaq anen sluawlsn!pe oN %46 %46 %S6 %46 %E6 %L6 %86 %96 %E6 %66 %004 %96 %86 %46 %96 %98 %46 %96 %tr6 ciaMMOD Al!#Q # 8Ns 81 �;^ln suieJl pouad Head 60 gib aw!1 pelnpeg05lo salnu!W S u!.11!M 6u!npAtf sule�l poPed dead %96 %96 %ft %96 %46 9'oL6 %LB %96 %Z6 %66 %66 %96 %L6 %96 %£6 %88 %06 %L6 %96 60 4dV 8448 %46 %VS %66 %96 %96 %96 %86 %E6 %96 %004 %96 %66 %tr6 %C6 %S9 %69 %tr6 °/oL6 60.1e1/11 %E6 %ES %46 %96 %96 %tr6 %96 %E6 %56 %I-6 °k96 %86 %66 %96 %96 %tr9 %89 %Z6 VoE6 60 00d %56 °kS6 %b6 %96 %96 %96 %96 °kS6 %E6 %LB %6B %66 %BB °h96 °kS6 %E6 %06 %96 °%oZ6 60 Fief %46 %56 %VS %96 %46 %46 %56 %tr6 %46 %56 %96 %96 %66 %96 %46 %98 %on %66 %96 80 000 %46 %E6 %S6 %Se %L6 %46 %Z6 %LB %Z6 %S6 %66 %96 %LB %S6 %96 °h98 %46 %96 %96 80 noN %96 %96 %96 %L6 %L6 °AM %96 %86 %46 %66 °/%96 %26 %004 %L6 %L6 %06 °kS6 %96 %96 90100 06 %48 %96 %46 %66 %Z6 %9B %178 %96 %86 %66 %96 %LB %46 %86 %89 Me °kS6 %E6 80 das %56 %46 %Se %Z6 %WS %E6 %96 °kS6 %g6 %16 %96 %66 %66 %96 %96 %a %98 %L6 %96 80 6nV %96 °k96 %96 %96 %tr6 %L6 %46 %S6 3146 %96 SON %96 %86 %96 °k96 %L6 %E6 %96 'YoL6 901nf %96 5956 %96 %96 %96 %46 %86 %L6 %66 %96 %96 %66 %004 %46 %96 %06 YoZ6 %L6 %86 80 unE %96 %96 %96 %46 %96 %96 %96 %Z6 %tr6 %66 %86 %004 %004 %96 %86 %46 %Z6 %46 %96 80 FeIN %96 %96 %L6 %L6 %L6 %46 %56 "26 %96 %Z6 %86 %66 %66 94.L6 %86 %E6 %ES %96 %004 80 edV °� .. /rl�w ¢: 41 La° 4 Grit 1 �i� ! l ?$;, r�Q A�r>0 01dil?.�e�sa s It uJ xE4-0A0s.10?d, : inp :!E}U .. 4 .r!3'144 �� 0.1rIM SHINOW £1-1531V1 ()lull PeinPaUoS io swum 9 ulUllM 6ulnl.l.ly suleu Jo eBeluawed 301A213S Ab'a)'133M - ANVINIAMS 30N3213HC1V 211103HOS )IN1102113W • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2009/10 - 2011/12 Short Range Transit Plans CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to review and approve, in concept, the FYs 2009/10 - 2011 /12 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FYs 2009/10 - 2011 /12 SRTPs cover the three apportionment areas of the county and are comprised of plans for the municipal operators, PVVTA, 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 the July Commission meeting. The Commission oversees transit service in Riverside County primarily through the approval of SRTPs, which detail the operating and capital costs that are planned for transit services. 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 2009/10. Each operator adopts such a plan and then provides data on performance to the Commission. The SRTPs were developed to meet the Commission's Productivity Improvement Program (PIP), which was adopted as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the 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 that transit operators address recommendations that are made by regular performance audits. Agenda Items 8U 406 The performance indicators that are evaluated through the PIP include operating costs per revenue hour, fare box recovery ratio, subsidies, passengers per revenue hour, and passengers per revenue mile, which are critical in ensuring that service can be maximized in an efficient manner. While reviewing and analyzing individual route productivity will remain with the transit operators and their governing boards, the Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that transit operators are utilizing Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds wisely, efficiently and effectively with the need to provide high quality service. The Commission implemented TransTrack, a transit performance manager software application and training package which assists staff in compiling, tabulating, and reporting transit operating information for use in the SRTP preparation. TransTrack software assists the Commission's policy board in complying with the PIP requirements of the Public Utilities Code (PUC) and state -mandated requirements to effectively use TDA funds. PIP calculations will be analyzed and reported with the requests for financial allocations. City of Banning The city of Banning (Banning) works closely with the city of Beaumont to provide a seamless transit system serving the residents of the cities of Banning, Beaumont, the unincorporated areas of Cabazon and Cherry Valley as well as the commercial area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Reservation. Banning Transit provides both dial -a -ride and fixed route services. Highlights of planned services for FY 2009/10 include the following: • Minor schedule changes will be made to improve frequency, eliminate duplication and improve service coverage; • Upgrade passenger amenities such as bus shelters and information racks; • Procure four buses, two for fixed route and two for dial -a -ride; • Implement a fare increase on July 1, 2009; and • Continue coordination with the city of Beaumont regarding routes, schedules, transfers and fares. City of Beaumont The city of Beaumont (Beaumont) works closely with Banning to provide a seamless transit system. A dial -a -ride service and three fixed routes are operated by Beaumont Transit. Agenda Items 8U • 407 • Highlights of planned services for FY 2009/10 include the following: • Modifications will be made to an existing route or an additional route will be implemented to provide coverage of the discontinued RTA Route 36; • Procure one fixed route bus and two dial -a -ride buses for replacement; • Upgrade passenger amenities by installing additional bus shelters; • Implement a fare increase on July 1, 2009; and • Continue service coordination with Banning. City of Corona The city of Corona (Corona) operates a general public dial -a -ride program and operates two fixed routes known as the Corona Cruiser. Corona closely coordinates all transfers with both RTA and the Commission's Commuter Rail services. Highlights of planned services for FY 2009/10 include the following: • Expand marketing and outreach campaign by promoting the Poetry and Art on the Bus programs; • Procure four Dial -A -Ride Type II, compressed natural gas (CNG) buses; • Construct concrete bus pads at five bus stops, procure and install passenger shelters and bus benches (phase 1 of a multi -year project); • Improve passenger safety by installing solar -powered security lighting, flashing beacons and lighted bus schedules at 20 bus stops (expanded from a pilot program); and • Implement a vendor discount for Corona Cruiser pass -holders. City of Riverside — Special Services Riverside Special Services (RSS) operates a 24-hour advance reservation dial -a -ride for seniors and persons with disabilities 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. Highlights of planned services for FY 2009/10 include the following: • Continue work on design of the CNG maintenance facility; • Purchase and install a new electronic farebox system; • Install security cameras to monitor the parking lot and dispatch center; and • Construct fences and gates around the special transportation parking lot. Agenda Items 8U 408 PVVTA The PVVTA provides fixed route, dial -a -ride, and a transportation reimbursement program (for individuals who cannot ride the public bus system). The fixed route can deviate up to % of a mile away from the actual fixed route. Service is provided within the city of Blythe and surrounding unincorporated county areas in the Palo Verde Valley. Highlights of planned services for FY 2009/10 include the following: • The Mobility Management project is anticipated to renew current agreements with Caltrans to extend the project until 2011; • Creation of the "DV-8" card punch pass; • Expand the exempt deviated fixed route "Green Route 4"; • Reduce dial -a -ride service hours; and • Enhance passenger amenities by installing benches, shelters, and trash receptacles at strategic locations. RTA The 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. RTA provides local, intercity, and regional transportation services. Highlights of planned services for FY 2009/10 include the following: • Minor route modifications and service maintenance improvements for scheduling; • CommuterLink (Routes 212 and 217) and Temecula Trolley Routes 55 and 57 will begin service June 29, 2009; • A 7% reduction in fixed route services for FY 2010 to accommodate declining revenue sources; and • Ridership is anticipated to decline about 4% as a result of service reductions and the new fare structure, but a growth of over 14% is still expected on dial -a -ride services. SunLine 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. SunLine provides both local and regional transportation services with 12 fixed routes and demand response dial -a -ride services known as SunDial. Agenda Items 8U • 409 • Highlights of planned services for FY 2009/10 include the following: • Implement one new fixed route to improve service area coverage; • Continue working with local jurisdictions on bus stop improvement issues; • Implement Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom grant projects; • Finalize Comprehensive Operational Analysis Update Report; and • Continue working on environmental assessment, preliminary and final engineering for new Administrative building. Regional Commuter Rail The Southern California Regional Rail Authority operates seven commuter rail lines with 52 locomotives and 173 commuter rail cars. Three routes, the Riverside Line, the Inland Empire - Orange County Line (IEOC), and the 91 Line directly serve Western Riverside County with connecting service available to destinations on the other four lines. Highlights of planned services for FY 2009/10 include the following: • Maintain current Metrolink service levels in Riverside County; • Expected delivery of new rail coaches for future expansion of service; • Continued engineering of the Perris Valley Line (Riverside - Moreno valley - Perris) Metrolink extension project; • Continued implementation of the Commission's "Green" Station Rehabilitation Plan; • Engineering of an expanded Riverside Downtown Metrolink layover facility; and • Completion of North Main Corona parking facility and Perris Multimodal Transportation facility. Attachments: Short Range Transit Plans Posted on Commission Website 1) City of Banning 2) City of Beaumont 3) City of Corona 4) City of Riverside 5) PVVTA 6) RTA 7) SunLine 8) Commuter Rail Program Agenda Items 8U 410 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Fina Clemente, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2008/09 Third Quarter Status Improvement Program of Productivity STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the transit operators' third quarter compliance status report on the FY 2008/09 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that the Commission annually identify and analyze operating trends for each operator and recommend potential productivity improvements, which could lower the operating costs (Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99244). The Commission meets this requirement through the adoption and approval of the Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP), which detail the operating and capital costs for planned transit services, both bus and commuter rail. The PIP was designed to assist in the SRTP process and meet state PUC requirements by establishing objective criteria for assessing productivity improvement opportunities. The PIP is part of the Commission's comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to improve system efficiency, provide better service and manage costs. To accomplish this, the PIP establishes both mandatory and discretionary performance targets that are evaluated against the operator's actual performance. The PIP requires all operators to meet a single mandatory target and seven discretionary targets. The performance targets are evaluated through the PIP process as follows: Mandatory Target • Fare box recovery ratio (between 10 percent for services provided in non -urbanized areas and 20 percent for services in urbanized areas). Agenda Item 8V 411 Discretionary Targets • Operating cost per revenue hour (+/- 15% variance); • 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 Commuter Rail Program • Ridership growth - goal of 2%; and • Passenger miles per revenue car - goal of 30 passengers per revenue car mile. To be in compliance with the PIP, a bus operator needs to meet or exceed the required fare box recovery ratio and meet or exceed four of seven discretionary targets. The Commuter Rail Program must meet or exceed the required fare box recovery ratio as well as five out of nine discretionary standards. Based on the FY 2008/09 third quarter data (July 2008 through March 2009), the PIP Compliance Summary Report (Attachment 1) indicates that seven transit operators have either met or exceeded their PIP targets. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), Palo Verde Valley Transit Authority (PVVTA), and the city of Riverside have met the required fare box recovery target and all seven discretionary targets. The city of Corona met the mandatory fare box target as well as six out of seven discretionary targets, while the city of Banning met five of seven discretionary targets in addition to the mandatory fare box target. The Commission's Commuter Rail Program has met its fare box requirement and five out of nine discretionary targets. The city of Beaumont met six out of the seven discretionary targets but failed to meet the minimum required farebox ratio of 10%. Additionally, the city of Beaumont has not met the fare ratio requirement for the last three consecutive years from FY 2006 to FY 2008. As a result, under the TDA law (PUC Sec 99268.9), funding for the FY 2008/09 will be reduced by the difference between the fare revenues required to meet farebox and actual fares during the noncompliance year. The reduction in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) operating funds will be effected during the last quarter of the FY 2008/09. Commission staff, in cooperation with transit providers, will continue to monitor quarterly performance to ensure that transit services in the county continue to be provided effectively, efficiently and safely. Agenda Item 8V 412 • • • Attachments: 1) FY 2008/09 PIP Compliance Summary — Third Quarter Status 2) Service Provider Performance Target Reports Agenda Item 8V 413 • • FY 2008/09 PIP COMPLIANCE SUMMARY - THIRD QUARTER STATUS July 2008 - March 2009 OPERATORS ATTACHMENT 1 PIP Indicators Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside RCTC Rail RTA SunLine PVVTA Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I J I O J I 4 I J I J I J I J Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Q O O J O J J J 2. Subsidy Per Passenger 4 J J J 0 J J 4 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile N/A J J d J J d J 4. Subsidy Per Hour J J 4 J O J J J 5. Subsidy Per Mile J J J J 0 4 J J 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour J J J J J J J J 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile J J J J J J J J Unlinked Passenger Trips (Rail) "m" Sw„ ,' ar * f J t Passenger Miles per Rev. Car Miles (Roil) ,. g"#�, ,,�,��,�-,, ,�..� �f � , �i ._ �.'�"�.� ,. 4 Mandatory Scorecard (Farebox Ratio Discretionary Scorecard Met Farebox met 5 of 7 Not Met Farebox met 6 of 7 Met Farebox met 6 of 7 Met Farebox met 7 of 7 Met Farebox met 5 of 9 Met Farebox met 7 of 7 Met Farebox met 7 of 7 Met Farebox met 7 of 7 PIP Compliance* J O for FR J J J J J J *Legend: J = In Compliance; fb = Not in Compliance; N/A = not available To meet RCTC PIP Program, operators need to meet: • Required Farebox recovery ratio: (10% for municipal operators; 20% for Corona, 40% for Rail, 17.65% for RTA and 17.14% for SunLine) • At least 4 of the 7 discretionary targets (Bus); at least 5 of the 9 discretionary targets (Rail) Third Quarter Fy 08/09 PIP Compliance (as of March/09): • All Operators except the City of Beaumont met farebox ratio requirement • All Operators are in compliance with Discretionary Indicator requirement to meet at least 4 of 7 discretionary targets 414 • Ilirervdo (ouzel Irnapatotlun Umois9 Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of Banning Data Elements FY 2008/09 Plan FY 2008/09 Target FY 2008/09 Year to Date Through 3rd Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 147,000 Passenger Miles 608,070 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 16,085.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 246,618.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 261,358.0 Total Operating Expenses $1,265,087 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $126,550 Net Operating Expenses $1,138,537 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 10.00%I >= 10.00% I 11.28%1 Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $78.65 <_ $79.25 $82.01 Fails to Meet Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $7,75 >= $6.35 and <= $8.59 $7.58 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $1.87 None $2.96 4. Subsidy Per Hour $70.78 >= $58.23 and <= $78.79 $72.75 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $4.62 >= $3.55 and <= $4.81 $4.44 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 9.1 >= 7.8 and <= 10.6 9.6 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.60 >= 0,48 and <= 0.64 0.59 Meets Target ote: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 08/09 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 5 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager" 5/21/2009 415 Page 1 of 8 Riverside Inulr frm:partelim (emoissioa Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of Beaumont Data Elements FY 2008/09 Plan FY 2008/09 Target FY 2008/09 Year to Date Through 3rd Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 108,700 _ Passenger Miles - 227,750 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 15,975.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 226,700.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 231,450.0 Total Operating Expenses $1,154,329 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $115,433 Net Operating Expenses $1,038,896 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 10.00%I >= 10.00% I 9.62%1 Fails to Meet Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $72.26 <_ $71.26 $71.73 Fails to Meet Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $9.56 >_ $8.02 and <_ $10.86 $10.69 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $4.56 >_ $3.79 and <_ $5.13 $4.93 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $65.03 >_ $53.36 and <_ $72.20 $64.83 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $4.58 >_ $3.49 and <_ $4.72 $4.69 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6.8 >= 5.5 and <= 7.5 6.1 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.48 >= 0.39 and <= 0.53 0.44 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Did not meet FY 08/09 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 6 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Did not meet RCTC PIP Program as of third quarter. Service Provider Comments: TransT Manager'"' 5/21/200 fie 2 of Ahenida(au IroMpuNlien tumrtramn 1110 Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets port FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of Corona Data Elements FY 2008/09 Plan FY 2008/09 Target FY 2008/09 Year to Date Through 3rd Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 232,873 Passenger Miles 1,011,373 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 34,976.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 426,770.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 450,170.0 Total Operating Expenses $2,108,372 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $421,687 Net Operating Expenses $1,686,685 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio 1 20.000/01 >= 20.00%' 20.00%1 Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cast Per Revenue Hour $60.28 <= $55.58 $57.38 Falls to Meet Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $7.24 >= $5.45 and <= $7.37 $6.83 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $1.67 >= $1.35 and <= $1.83 $1.61 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $48.22 >= $36.55 and <= $49.45 $45.90 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $3.95 >= $2.92 and <= $3.94 $3.59 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6.7 >= 5.7 and <= 7.7 6.7 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.55 >= 0.45 and <= 0.61 0.53 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 08/09 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 6 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program, Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager"" 5/21/2009 417 Page 3108 Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of Riverside Data Elements FY 2008/09 Plan FY 2008/09 Target FY 2008/09 Year to Date Through 3rd Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 160,000 Passenger Miles 580,444 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 40,160.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 580,444.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 665,032.0 Total Operating Expenses $3,091,941 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $317,100 Net Operating Expenses $2,774,841 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio 10.25%I >= 10.00% I 11.57%I Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $76.99 <= $79.34 $71.95 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $17.34 >= $12.46 and <= $16.86 $16.23 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $4.78 >= $3.12 and <= $4.22 $4.19 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $69.09 >= $57.26 and <= $77.48 $63.62 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $4.78 >= $3.77 and <= $5.11 $4.52 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 4.0 >= 3.9 and <= 5.3 3.9 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.28 >= 0.26 and <= 0.35 0.28 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 08/09 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: TransTr anger'" 5/21/2009 • fie 4 ora • • Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan Review Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Data Elements FY 2008/09 Plan FY 2008/09 Target FY 2008/09 Year to Date Through 3rd Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 46,515 Passenger Miles 629,021 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 12,318.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 212,843.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 250,680.0 Total Operating Expenses $931,949 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $96,950 Net Operating Expenses $834,999 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio 1 10.40%' >= 10.00% I 11.79%I Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $75.66 <= $73.52 $68.91 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $17.95 >= $14.62 and <= $19.78 $12.48 Better Than Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $1.33 >= $2.92 and <= $3.94 $2.02 Better Than Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $67.79 >= $54.36 and <= $73.54 $60.78 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $3.92 >= $3.16 and <= $4.28 $3.63 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenueflour 3.8 >= 3.2 and <= 4.3 4.9 Better Than Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.22 >= 0,19 and <= 0.25 0.29 Better Than Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 08/09 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCl-C PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager'"' 5/21/2009 419 Page S of 8 Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan Review RCTC Commuter Rail Data Elements FY 2008/09 Plan FY 2008/09 Target FY 2008/09 Year to Date Through 3rd Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,143,274 , Passenger Miles 107,484,652 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Train Hours 77,037.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Car Miles 3,052,430.0 Total Actual Vehicle Train Miles Total Operating Expenses $41,600,300 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $18,931,800 Net Operating Expenses $22,668,500 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 45.500/01 >= 40.000/0 J 45.49%I Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $540.00 <= $540.83 $588.99 Fails to Meet Target 2, Subsidy Per Passenger $7.21 >= $5.27 and <= $7.13 $7.19 Fails to Meet Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.21 >= $0.15 and <= $0.21 $0.21 Meets Target 4, Subsidy Per Hour $294.25 >_ $231.39 and <= $313.05 $321.03 Fails to Meet Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $7.43 >= $5.42 and <_ $7.34 $7.55 Fails to Meet Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 40.8 >= 37.3 and <= 50.5 44.6 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 1.03 >= 0.88 and <= 1.18 1.05 Meets Target 8. Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,143,274 >= 3,056,317 2,364,851 Meets Target 9. Passenger Miles per Rev. Car Miles 35.21 >= 30.52 and <= 41.30 35.97 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 5 out of 9 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 08/09 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 5 of 9 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: Tth ransTr Manager"' si21/200ztrzoo 4e6of8 n Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan Review Riverside Transit Agency Data Elements FY 2008/09 Plan FY 2008/09 Target FY 2008/09 Year to Date Through 3rd Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 7,641,193 Passenger Miles 52,755,007 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 711,689.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 11,624,909.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 13,585,017.0 Total Operating Expenses $55,574,808 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $8,803,868 Net Operating Expenses $46,770,940 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 15.84%I >= 17.58% I 22.02%J Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $78.09 <_ $77.24 $77.24 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $6.12 >_ $4.79 and <_ $6.49 $4.94 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.89 >_ $0.71 and <_ $0.95 $0.75 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $65.72 >_ $52.86 and <_ $71.52 $60.23 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $4.02 >_ $3.22 and <_ $4.36 $3.61 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 10.7 >= 9.4 and <= 12.7 12.2 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.66 >= 0.57 and <= 0.77 0.73 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 08/09 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: (1) FY2008 Operating Expense includes $1.3M for the required GASB ARC. It does not include the GASB over ARC or pre -fund amount of $4.3M. The exclusion of the pre -fund amount of $4.3M from the discretionary PIP measurements was the agreed upon methodology with RCTC in order to maximize our Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) obligation. (2) FY2009 Operating Expenses budget does not include any GASB funding as the agency is foregoing this key expense until the economic outlook brightens. TransTrack Manager"' 5R1/2009 421 Page 7 of Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan Review SunLine Transit Agency Data Elements FY 2008/09 Plan FY 2008/09 Target FY 2008/09 Year to Date Through 3rd Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,591,473 Passenger Miles 22,352,092 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 234,180.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 3,005,469.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 3,256,404.0 Total Operating Expenses $22,735,270 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $4,051,622 Net Operating Expenses $18,683,648 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio 1 r 17.82%1 >= 17.77% I 18.55%I Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $97.08 <= $99.65 $91.05 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $5.20 >= $3.79 and <= $5.13 $4.59 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.84 >= $0.61 and <= $0.83 $0.8o Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $79.78 >= $65.12 and <= $88.10 $74.16 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $6.22 >= $5.10 and <= $6.90 $5.81 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 15.3 >= 14.6 and <= 19.8 16.1 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 1.19 >= 1.15 and <= 1.55 1.26 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 08/09 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: Translf Tanager'^ sat/zoo ille8of8 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Palo Verde Valley — Fiscal Year 2009/10 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 the adoption of Resolution No. 09-010, `A 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 that 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 Riverside County and Coachella Valley, all available local transit funds are being used for transit service. For FY 2009/10, staff projects a total of $1,029,199 in available LTF funds for transit services; of that amount, transit staff has identified the use of approximately $843,104 towards operating and capital costs. The Commission held a public hearing in Blythe on March 5, 2009. Commissioners Joseph DeConinck, Dick Kelly, Jeff Stone, Roy Wilson, and Citizens Advisory Committee members Jim Collins and Sherry Thibodeaux acted as the hearing Agenda Item 8W 423 board. Notice of the public hearing was advertised in the Desert Sun, Palo Verde Valley Times, and the Press Enterprise. Notices of the hearing were delivered and posted at the Blythe Police Department, Palo Verde Valley Transit Authority (PVVTA), 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 transit vehicles and made available to riders. Four people testified at the hearing and four written statements were received regarding transit service needs in the area (Attachment 2). PVVTA and city of Blythe staff determined what improvements were reasonable to meet based on cost and projected productivity. The following is a summary of comments and responses. • Request to extend operations: o One comment was received requesting operations to be extended to Ripley, Monday through Friday PVVTA staff response — Staff will be proposing to the PVVTA Board in the new Fiscal Year to increase the route service to Ripley, to a Monday through Friday service. Weekend service is recommended to stay as is since ridership does not warrant additional weekend service. • Request modification to existing route schedule: o One comment was received requesting Blue Route 1 to run Saturday hours the same as weekday hours and provide Sunday services PVVTA staff response — Ridership on the Blue Route 1 does not warrant establishing an earlier service. Dial -a -Ride is available to provide transportation for earlier service and current deviated Gold Route service on the weekend can accommodate these requests. • Request to increase services to the Palo Verde College: o One comment was received requesting that the services to and from the College be increased, along with service to Ehrenberg, Arizona PVVTA staff response — Staff is currently working with Palo Verde College to find other funding opportunities from the education side to help provide late night service. The scope of the agency is to serve the residents of the Palo Verde Valley. PVVTA staff has a good working relationship with La Paz County Transit operator of transit service for Ehrenberg, AZ and has expressed these concerns with La Paz County Transit. • Other comments include: o Recommendation for services from Blythe to Palm Springs; o Concerns with gaps in transit services; o Needed more transportation for medical appointments outside of the community; Agenda Item 8W • • 424 • o Suggested purchase of an economical car for use of Dial -a -Ride Services for passengers without wheelchairs; and o A focus group listed medical transportation as its number two priority for seniors. Prior to allocating any Transportation Development Act (TDA) 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 (SRTP) for Riverside County. The definitions Commission adopted for "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" are as follows: "Unmet Transit Needs are, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional SRTP 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." Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 09-010 2) Summary of Oral and Written Testimony and Staff Responses Agenda Item 8W 425 • ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO.09-010 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING A FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UMET 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 5, 2009, 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 farebox 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 2009/10 — FY 2011/12 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; 426 NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission here by resolves: 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 10th day of June, 2009. Robert E. Magee, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • • • 427 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 2 FY 2009/10 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING �lythe City Hall arch 5, 2009 Summary of Oral and Written Testimony and PWTA Staff Responses NAME/ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS SUMMARY OF COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE Henrietta Devereau PO Box 772 Blythe, CA 92226 Requested service to Ripley, Monday through Friday. Suggested that additional hours are needed for weekend routes. Would like no more cuts and no more fare increases. Staff will be proposing to the PVVTA Board in the new Fiscal Year to increase the route service to Ripley, to a Monday through Friday service. Weekend service is recommended to stay as is since ridership does not warrant additional weekend service. Albert Granger PO Box 559 Ehrenberg, AZ 85334 Concerned with the Blue Route 1 running an hour later, it has become a problem for regular passengers. Suggested Blue Route hours on Saturdays be the same as weekdays and Blue Route is needed on Sundays. Concerned with getting to the Fair Grounds on weekends because he does not live near the Gold Route. Also becomes hard to count on a schedule if it keeps changing. Ridership on the Blue Route 1 does not warrant establishing an earlier service. Dial -a -Ride is available to provide transportation for earlier service. Current deviated Gold Route service on the weekend can accommodate these requests. Morris P. Clayford Asst. Director SWC Options 721 E. Hobsonway Blythe, CA 92225 Sharon Alfredson c/o Paradise Inn 801 E. Hobson Way Room 209 Blythe, CA 92225 Recommended a van system of transportation which would have one centralized access site in the Palo Verde Valley for Transportation Needs. Suggested an established criteria level for the cost of transportation versus individual contribution. Suggested shuttle service for the ambulatory individuals who require transportation to and from the Blythe area to the Palm Springs vicinity. Suggested to keep Blue Route 1 as usual, very pleased with it. PWTA is a centralized access point for transportation needs in the Palo Verde Valley. Also, the Mobility Management Project is in place to centralize information for all types of mobility including public or private transportation. Blue Route 1 is currently maintained at a Farebox Recovery Ratio of 12.07% and staff does not anticipate any changes at this time. 428 Ed Walsh (1st comment) Riverside County Office on Aging 6296 River Crest Dr. Riverside, CA 92507 There are gaps in transit services. The most frail and vulnerable are having difficulty using any type of public transit. There are safety concerns for impaired persons using public transit because they get lost sometimes. It is very difficult to coordinate transportation due to the different eligibilities for these services. The Mobility Management Project (MMP) was envisioned to address these issues using public & private transportation. Travel training & travel companion services are also provided as part of the MMP. The MMP also cooridinates transportation needs based on eligibility needs & gives passengers the best options. Morris P. Clayford Shelter Wings Dan Cummings The office of Shelter Wings has had many individuals from the community seek transportation for medical appointments outside of the community. Looking to see if there can be assistance in finding a transportation system, even on a limited basis that will allow transportation of ambulatory seniors and disabled to have appointments outside of the community. Suggested an economical car for use on Dial -A -Ride services for persons without wheelchairs, because big buses are not needed for the blind. The Mobility Management Project and T.R.I.P. are available through PVVTA to provide service to these individuals. According to ADA requirements and funding provisions, ADA equipment/buses must be used for all public transit services provided by PVVTA. Sandra Smith Ed Walsh (2nd comment) Riverside County Office on Aging 6296 River Crest Dr. Riverside, CA 92507 Suggested a late bus at the college for those who take the late bus. Excellent service to Ehrenberg, AZ. Services to Arizona and to the college need to be increased. There has been a huge increase of seniors, in the past few years. The Office on Aging conducted a focus group in Blythe, October 9, 2008. There were twenty attendees and the number two priority that they listed was transportation, specifically medical transportation. Staff is currently working with Palo Verde College to find other funding opportunities from the education side to help provide late night service. The scope of the Agency is to serve the residents of the Palo Verde Valley. PVVTA staff has a good working relationship with La Paz County Transit operator of transit service for Ehrenberg, AZ and has expressed these concerns with them. PVVTA staff works closely with Office on Aging & local senior & disabled groups (e.g. congregate meal program) to monitor the mobility needs of seniors through the MMP. 429 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009/10 Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,645 per month maximum per buspool for the period July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, to the existing Corona, Mira Loma, and Riverside-buspools; and 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their commutes along the State Route 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990, and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 or $25 per seat per month in support of commuter buspool operations. In July 2004, the Commission set the subsidy rate to $35 per seat per month ($1,645 per month) to help offset increases to operational costs during the previous 14 years. To provide additional guidance, the Commission also established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 riders or below and seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool's subsidy. Like all commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation, the Measure A $35 per seat per month subsidy is administered as a user side subsidy. The Commission's subsidy is an important factor that makes buspools an attractive alternative for these commuters with roundtrip commutes in excess of 100 miles. Also, the Commission's subsidy remains cost-effective compared to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 80%. While the monthly cost of each buspool varies according to the number of route Agenda Item 8X 430 miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy reflects a subsidy rate of 14%. Average Monthly Buspool Fare Per Rider $ 248.00 RCTC Subsidy Per Seat $35.00 Subsidy Rate 14% Unlike some of the other Commission approved ridesharing incentives, which have a limited term, the buspool subsidy is on -going. To renew its annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to: • Request in writing, continuation of funding from the Commission for the new fiscal year; • Consistently meet minimum ridership requirements; and • Submit monthly ridership reports throughout the year. The three existing buspools have completed all the requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including the submittal of monthly ridership reports and annual funding continuation requests. The buspools have consistently exceeded the minimum ridership level of 25 riders per month and have collectively averaged 41 riders per month per buspool this current fiscal year. Buspools Corona Mira Loma Riverside Average Riders/Month 44 35 43 Roundtrip Distance —134 mi —123 mi --110 mi Annual Miles Saved 1,258,264 1,094,064 1,492,445 Annual One -Way Trips Reduced 22,176 17,732 22,836 67,124 Estimated Pounds of Emissions Reduced 3,844,773 Miles Saved 62,744 Trips Reduced In reducing the number of vehicles on SR-91 during peak periods, the buspool program saved nearly 3.8 million miles and 67,124 pounds of vehicle emissions in FY 2008/09. The buspool subsidy proves to be an effective use of Measure A Commuter Assistance funds and a budget of $100,000 is proposed for FY 2009/10. Based on the established monthly $1,645 per month per buspool subsidy policy, the funds will support the continuation of the three existing buspools plus two new start-up buspools. Additionally, this request intends that budget resource would be available to support two additional buspools that would allow the program the ability to absorb any potential for increased demand. A FY 2009/10 budget request supporting five buspools is consistent with past program requests. Agenda Item 8X • 431 • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $100,000 Source of Funds: Measure A funds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 263 41 81030 P2109 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i./itud;r,14,",�,� Date: 05/27/2009 Agenda Item 8X 432 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act - Alameda Corridor East STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve "a first -come, first -served" basis allocation of $570,000 in support of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separations located in Riverside County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which was signed by the President in early March, identified $570,000 as an earmark for grade separation projects on the ACE for projects located in Riverside County. As identified in the 2008 Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects (2008 Funding Strategy), there are 61 at -grade ACE crossings in Riverside County. The crossings present conflicts between rail and highway traffic and are located on the main lines of either the Union Pacific (UP) or Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) railroads. The purpose of the 2008 funding blueprint, which was approved by the Commission at its October 8, 2008 meeting, was to develop a strategy and funding plan that leverages existing funding commitments of local jurisdictions. In doing so, the plan developed a strategy for funding 20 of the 61 crossings for a total project cost of $980.5 million. Of that amount, $414.8 million in funding is secured through federal, state, and local funding sources. The funding balance of $565.7 million consists of unsecured sources, including railroad contributions, the California Public Utilities Commission, voluntary container premiums, or have an unidentified funding source. Appendix B from the 2008 Funding Strategy, which provides a summary of the 20 priority projects including an overview of the funding and project status is attached. Staff is requesting that the $570,000 earmark be allocated to one of the 20 high priority ACE projects. If approved, the funding would be allocated on "a first -come, first -served basis". Once funding is requested and project deliverability is demonstrated, staff will seek approval from the Commission to allocate the earmark to a specific project or projects. Attachment: Appendix B — RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy — Summary Agenda Item 8Y 433 Appendix B RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy - Summary i s RCTC Total CPUC Voluntary Total Priority Project Railroad Section Container Asad. Balance Tier Crossing Cost Federal State Local Contribution Mg Premiums Funds` Needed Project Status Funding Strategy Priority A 2 Auto Center Drive/ BNSF $32.0 $8.30 $16.00 $2.70 $5.0 $32.0 - FD 3 Avenue 52/UP $17.3 $10.20 - $2.10 $5.0 - $17.3 CE PSR l 4 Avenue 56/ Airport Blvd./UP $60.0 $10.00 $50.00 - $60.0 CE PSR (Eqv.) 3 Avenue 66/UP $33.5 - $10.00 $23.50 - $33.5 CE PSR (Eqv.) 1 Columbia Avenue/ BNSF & UP $34.1 $6.00 $20.45 $2.60 $5.0 - $34.1 C 1 IowaAvenue/ BNSF & UP $32.0 $10.30 $13.00 $2.40 $1.30 $5.0 $32.0 PS&E 1 Magnolia Avenue/UP $51.2 - $20.00 $26.20 - $5.0 $51.2 ROW&D 1 Sunset Avenue/UP $36.5 $10.60 $10.00 $12.90 $3.00 - - $36.5 PE j Funding Strategy Priority B ' { ` 1 3rd Street/ BNSF & UP $40.2 $7.56 $17.50 $0.50 $2.00 $5.0 $7.5 . $40.2 - PE 2 Clay Street/UP $37.4 $10.00 $12.50 $1.18 $1.87 $5.0 $6.9 $37.4 CE PSR (Eqv.) 1 Magnolia Avenue/ BNSF $81.8 $15.00 $13.70 $15.10 $4.09 $5.0 $28.9 $81.8 CE PSR (Eqv.) 1 Riverside Avenue/UP $30.3 $5.00 $8.50 $2.50 $1.30 $5.0 $8.0 $30.3 E 2 Streeter Avenue/UP $36.8 $7.80 $15.50 $2.20 $1.30 $5.0 $5.0 $36.8 E Funding. Strategy Priority C 3 Bellgrave Avenue/ - UP $105.5 - - $1.00 - - $- $1.0 $104.5 CE PSR (Eqv.) 2 Center Street/ BNSF & UP $36.3 $0.50 - - $- $0.5 $35.8 CPU 1 Jurupa Road/UP $108.4 $12.00 $10.34 $5.0 $81.1 $108.4 - CE PSR (Eqv.) 2 Mary Street/BNSF $38.0 - - $2.25 - $5.0 $30.8 $38.0 - PE 1 McKinley Street/ BNSF $109.2 $0.40 - $1.50 - - $- $1.9 $107.3 CE PSR (Eqv.) 3 Railroad Street/ BNSF $30.0 $0.25 $- $0.3 $29.8 CE PSR (Eqv.) 2 Smith Avenue/ BNSF $30.0 - - $0.25 - - $- $0.3 $29.8 CE PSR (Eqv.) TOTALS: $980.5 S85.3 $152.7 $179.5 $27.8 $60.0 $168.1 $673.3 $307.1 • Total available funds include unsecured funding including railroad contributions, CPUC Section 190 and voluntary container fees. (All dollars in millions. Slight discrepancies may occur due to rounding.) LEGEND CPU Conceptual Planning Underway CE PSR Conceptual Engineering PSR CE PSR (RN.) Conceptual Engineering PSR (or Equivalent) PE Preliminary Engineering E Environmental ROW&D Right of Way and Design C Construction PS&E Plans, Specifications and Estimate FD Final Design RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy 2008 434 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on state and federal legislative activities. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update June to be Critical Month for New Authorization House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) is planning on having a surface transportation authorization bill on the House floor before the July 4 recess. Subcommittee and Committee markups of the bill, which have yet to be introduced, are expected in mid June. Details of how the bill is being written are still unknown; however, Chairman Oberstar has circulated a hand-written sketch of the bill's core concepts, which is provided as an attachment to this staff report. Key themes emerging are: 1) a consolidation of the 108 current federal transportation programs into as few as four major programs; 2) two new offices within the Department of Transportation (DOT) focused on "intermodalism" and "liveability"; 3) a new freight formula program; 4) reducing project delivery time; and 5) a new concept of "mega regions" that would develop multimodal transportation plans and submit them to DOT for annual funding. Conspicuously absent from the Chairman Oberstar's outline is how the new bill will be financed. The Highway Trust Fund is still headed for insolvency in FY 2009; both the Chairman and Ranking Republican Member, Representative John Mica (R-FL), have committed to having a $450-500 billion bill, which is nearly double the current program. New financing mechanisms will be required. Thus far, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has not stated how it suggests the revenue be raised - this is the jurisdiction of the House Ways and Means Committee. It is expected that the Ways and Means Committee will begin holding Agenda Item 8Z 435 hearings in June on how the new transportation bill will be financed. This can be expected to be a heated and intense conversation forthcoming on Capitol Hill. In mid May, House members representing Riverside County submitted the High Priority Project (HPP) requests to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for designation in the new authorization bill. The Commission submitted projects to local Representatives on three corridors: Interstates 10 and 215 and Alameda Corridor East grade separations in Riverside County. Stimulus "TIGER" Discretionary Program Interim Criteria Released The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) created a $1.5 billion surface transportation program, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), to be allocated on a competitive basis by the DOT. DOT recently released interim guidelines for the submission of applications for this program. The guidelines indicate that DOT is looking for large projects of national significance with long-term economic benefits. Statements from DOT also indicate that there will be a focus on "intermodalism" and goods movement projects. Highway and transit programs had specific set -asides in ARRA; therefore, this funding will have less of an emphasis on traditional highway and transit needs. TIGER will be highly competitive. No state can receive more than $300 million, and projects must be a minimum of $25 million. Commission staff is working with regional transportation partners to begin developing strategies to submit the most competitive application(s). Once the guidelines are finalized by DOT following a brief public comment period, applications will be due in September. Given the extraordinary competitiveness of this program, local agencies with an interest in this program are encouraged to coordinate through the Commission. Climate Change Legislation Leaves Out Transit Funding At the time this staff report was written, the House Energy and Commerce Committee was in the midst of a week-long markup of energy and climate change legislation that would create a cap -and -trade emissions credit regime. The politics of the American Clean Energy Security Act (ACESA) are complex; hundreds of amendments to the bill have been offered. Of interest to the Commission is the absence of any provision that would dedicate a percentage of revenue generated from the purchase of emissions allowances to public transportation. Given the ACESA's call to reduce carbon emissions, the bill does not provide funding for transit operators to increase service that would play a critical role in achieving such mandates. Amid the elimination of California's State Transit Assistance (STA) program, new mandates for planning and green house gases (GHG) reduction under AB 32 and SB 375, and now potentially new federal requirements in ACESA, transit operators are facing an ever challenging environment. Last year, Senator Barbara Boxer's climate change legislation included a set -aside for transit. Agenda Item 8Z • • 436 • The current House bill by Representative Henry Waxman ID -CA) contains very little available revenue due to provisions that provide free emissions allowances to certain industries. The Senate has indicated that it will use the Waxman bill as a starting point later this summer. Commission staff will continue to monitor the bill and stay in contact with Riverside County's transit operators regarding potential impacts of ACESA. State Update Budget Woes Could Jeopardize $443 Million of Transportation Funding in Riverside County The state's massive budget shortfall could tempt legislators and the Governor to borrow Proposition 42 transportation sales tax funds to balance the general fund. Moreover, the Legislative Analyst's Office has proposed a partial suspension of Proposition 42 as well as repealing Proposition 42 altogether. Borrowing Proposition 42 funds would have a domino effect on the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), causing projects to be delayed — not just in this fiscal year, but in future fiscal years; projects slated for funding this year would be pushed back one year, causing next year's projects to be pushed out as well. By law, the Legislature would have to repay the Proposition 42 "loan" within three years with interest, meaning that such a move would cost the general fund even more money in the long run. Costs would also run higher with work stoppages and restarts on projects; the money that would eventually be repaid would therefore not go as far as when it was originally allocated. Projects at risk include interchanges on 1-10 in the Coachella Valley, the East Junction project, and projects on 1-215. Even if Proposition 42 funds are protected, if the state is unable to sell bonds several high priority Proposition 1 B projects in Riverside County may be delayed. Projects such as the Auto Center Drive grade separation project in Corona, Iowa Avenue grade separation project in Riverside, Perris Valley Line project, State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane through Riverside and the lane addition to 1-215 north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road would all be at risk of significant delay. The Commission was spared from major cuts during the last budget crisis; however now that many projects are nearing construction, the Commission will have many projects directly at stake in the state's financial condition. An added consequence that hangs in the balance of what the Legislature does with transportation funding is the fate of $2.5 billion of ARRA funds that have been allocated to California. The federal stimulus act required that the Governor certify maintenance of effort on transportation funding levels as a condition of receiving Agenda Item 8Z 437 stimulus funds. Raiding of Proposition 42 or significant delays to Proposition 1 B bond sales may jeopardize California's eligibility to receive stimulus money. Over $70 million for highway projects in Riverside County have been allocated, as well as over $30 million for transit. These projects will begin construction this summer, and could eventually become at risk as well. Attached to this staff report is a one -page fact sheet that is being distributed to Legislators explaining the consequences to Riverside County transportation projects if transportation funds are raided due to the state's budget problems. Attachments: 1) Chairman Oberstar's Outline for New Authorization 2) Proposition 42 Impacts Fact Sheet Agenda Item 8Z • 438 ore- 6-°ruv,.pa x l d) 14,140*,7 a1,++o5 •�y're79.7•?) • bpaa 4,711 : a-itl sr - -.ON* S ty AAO VVAa� Nl w•al• It.A2c047 • -1Kip.M0k0 4-0°g mad Spy' ui 544 S • • St30.ta 11'nvaa0. 4211 AS staq..» +77 sw us xerhyVy % g 1 Aaalimc atidi-+x 4..alaM9 x•a-y Y riorc•-PT-li'hl (vow-45-9N07 0 I Haci.Q4 e957vg6:SY4814V-0 1b-r5 Q�N wrzsv. VS eh OZ SVvt VIA• •s 'Mr0h4W9 1021a nox-LA*1%otso, to tl �va�zz(75 •7.7., gioha.•e}oy.i awlx twni. 442)5y 0 1cig1 4174..1141- A-VrAti 'w.f.? 0 SH N -2-Q s-d9. -Arr? +f a. -n"- 1~craV SZ234••l2SslV ="=1.10 o -d. C7(Q' F6 . 1" . ods N V36.L Oz - Qg ?ca, _ sZ s_ -»baW a4.N - 4°,, v s - (aI Sld)SNN -• StIN .ao02 -- lbbl r• Val f as.s s d/i-1 Q$' pL : 1/5/a. • ylN of -01, ; 4515 -4 9 1 b. --a _. 5p�"°a9 11),417 . ircr .__._..__ Q'� ...._&_,=__.___..c.pzes„.., .42$1,1..„. -1{110j_ 0b :.i.v5.,1 G�. ”br • • co 441 - a% °f yeh hi mupoty• astir; gyp•• • .gro-atrd/Sv P/o , 7Z !soya : r �..4 kngsmpr scappf ici.Tvut ,uOl$//04aa •'N-7,4•,2.s "mks%. s94-9,4' /wary - .1.=Sr dui . );crt29A .o •42 N/IP446 vt Virlfhlt4 INC* i s J4 a m 140 • � VoiSzklic s v„a, , SSP)btrvV4.0¢ 545Wbwd 1AQ 5•441:746 }•- 5•.n"00.4 yOuaa. 3'Or ku FjVA h sisrc9 a 4 sq.76.4zi a- 7 : u & tst s-alas lce v 9-Do i"'Y4 ;7 01, %t1.1069;"00 h So +Md.t� • 3�rt-ta0Z2S 1.36400" W S by M -AL -z;uaaS v a'^q °SI:41114s4 P �'7n �M ! v� 1ni • s o 1 saaoa S s Ncr)j-i StoWV 7 rv.1 apa0 a aanrov, •u !S p, � Cr s�.��ra� . -- +tavudj^d -rrmu40;17 '2411211 4116aq " A,,Ao3aSS�ubcud »711 «.y • - rYu s-oZv-i, —4.-41tIS.ianO -pmV •µt.1 'crna 6u��udswop J s77o_!. ZrS1 jS-1 I I $ 11' ci /33n41,19 /a 'ea4% � + "Ith .*Qfi �'6'�) ptautat.oaaZt 10,9•1,na- g2/. 4.-/51771" - S4.$0014.PggaZticP/ LSZ•4; S0./9ok,( 4444. S 9 - • era 4.+o j - u oN • 5WV 21-00?J4 Kat octata vss4 i W Raiding Prop 42 jeopardizes $443 million in Riverside County transportation projects If the Legislature "borrows" transportation dollars to fill the budget shortfall, it will delay thousands of jobs in Riverside County planned on critical infrastructure projects and have a domino effect on future congestion relief projects. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is funded by Prop 42. Many of these projects are also reliant on state bonds, which if delayed by the budget crisis could have a devastating effect. If Prop 42 is diverted to the general fund and the state cannot sell bonds, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) will have to delay funding to projects. Delaying infrastructure projects is more costly to the state in the long run, and stifles job growth that will lead our region's recovery. Riverside County Job -Creating Infrastructure Projects At -Risk in Budget Crisis Project FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Auto Center Drive Grade Separation (Corona) $16,000,000 Iowa Ave Grade Separation (Riverside) $13,000,000 $ - I-10/Indian Canyon Dr Interchange Reconfiguration $13,656,000 $ 1-10/Date Palm Dr Interchange Reconstruction $14,400,000 $ - 1-215/California Oaks/Kalmia St Interchange $21,990,000 $ - SR-60 East Junction HOV Direct Connectors $28,850,000 $ - I-215/Scott Rd to Nuevo Rd Lane Addition $13,443,000 $ - French Valley Parkway Interchange Construction (1-15/1-215) $ - $31,545,000 SR-74/G St Interchange Reconfiguration $ - $18,685,000 I-215/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd to Scott Rd Lane Addition $ - $55,100,000 SR-91: Adams to SR-60/I-215 HOV Lanes Construction $ - $157,198,000 Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension $ $52,978,000 SR-91 /SR-71 Connectors $ - $6,612,000 Total Dollars of Risk by FY $121,339,000 $322,118,000 Total Dollars at Risk in Riverside County $443,457,000 Domino Effect: Lack of funding in FY 09/10 will push projects back to FY 10/11, creating an "overflow" of demand on the STIP, jeopardizing FY 10/11 projects as well. Anti -Stimulus: Federal economic recovery legislation requires that California certify "maintenance of effort" with regard to transportation funding levels. Depleting state transportation funds could endanger $2.5 billion of federal funds, including $100 million in Riverside County. Don't put California's federal stimulus money at risk. Makes the Budget Worse: Proposition 1A allows the Legislature three years to repay transportation loans (with interest) to the general fund. We would not expect the Legislature to make transportation whole again until FY 12/13. By then, the damage will be done to Riverside County's transportation projects and construction industry jobs with costly delays. What will the state actually have saved once they repay this commitment? Let's work with our Legislators to find a real budget solution and fulfill the will of the voters who approved Propositions 42, 1A and 1B - cutting transportation will not balance the budget. Riverside County Transportation Commission For more information please contact RCTC Executive Director Anne Mayer at amayer(a�rctc.orq or (951) 787-7141 or Government Relations Manager Aaron Hake at ahake(a�rctc.orq or (951) 787-7965. 441 4„AokiP 5 3a00 dIZ AllO 1331:11S 3000 dIZ •SS31:100d SS3N1Sn8 anou9 / N011VZINVO110 / A0N3Otl d0 31NtlN rON 3N0Hd :9NI1N3S3l1d3l1 rON 3NOHd A110 133a1S t,/ rt/N /v s2.7 z_ J / :ss3aaav / 9,77/ 7 �V� 11/1)P �f ! jj(� 411311 VON39V 3O la3rans :31NVN IVON3OV 31-11 NO 031S11 Stll ='ON W311 VON39V `J f I(4pS1N3UtlW0103ranS N 'S1N31NWO3 118nd 081/08 3H1 AO N21310 3H1 01111/v8ns ONV H3t/1313 �/ 9 =31V0 3003 dIZ A113 .133111S ON 3NOHd 31300 dIZ A110 C=1 Zb 7 N:'ON 3N0Hd •SS311OCIV SS3NIS1113 df10H9 / NOIlVZINV0110 / A0N3917 30 3J111/N '/'l''?Ar4 - .:2 :ON11N3S321d3l1 ( � 714,(1 o v ti _'y 133111S �f (.1°W 0g2. C :SS3HOOV -4411 *r1-'1 �7?� :3INVN a S �45 :1/11311 VCIN39V AO 1o3P8f1S (VON30V 3111 NO 031S11 SV) :'ON IN311 VON39`d =S1N3WWO3 onand p :S1N3ININO3 311811d d0 loaf 8f1S 31 )103H3 fluting MU I aA NiNm-in 31-I1 O1 Timms ONV H3V130 /t %/•31VO 3000 dIZ A110 133111S ON 3NOHd 3000 dIZ 1 A113 Q .YZ :'ON 3N0Hd :SS31i0OV SS3N1Sf18 d11011`J / NOI11/ZINVOHO / A37' 30 3WtlN C \NI('°0 r :9N11N3S31id3H 133111S \J's4-\a\M )Th'n 'W 11 ifON3Jd' :SS3li00V :3INVN ItlON39tl 3H1 NO O31SIl Stl) 30 103f BfIS 6 rON W311 tfON30V :S1N3WIN03 °nand �:S1N31AIWOO onand d0 1331110S Al N33H0 1-DO-Q1 _or aliVOS 3H1 30 )Ili310 3H1 cu. _mans ONV H3V130 :31VCI 3000 dIZ A110 133111S gs r9 - «r •lam! :'ON 3N0Hd :SS31i00t/ SS3NISOS d110l19 / NOIIVZIN110 / A0N3OV AO 3INVN =ONI1N3S3Hd311 3000 dIZ AllO 1331115 Y✓4v°v� yv� fY/() rraS0112 72/=SS3aaav .'ON 31 /T IT PI' ?7 J/� l /Z ����yJC�1 ��'� /� W311 33ra s / IVON30V 3H1 NO 031SIl SV) /� 30 103P8n:"ON W311 VON39V o envrJ J 2"�6>� ve=S1N3WW00 °nand 121=S1N3WW00 311911d �� �i AO io3rans / Al NO3H0 I L mating 4141 40 ]IH37'I 3F11 Al nuunnc nnni unwian lO l :3 Wt1N :311dd Community Development Department Planning Division EIZSIDE June 10, 2009 Bob Magee, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROPOSAL TO REFOCUS MID -COUNTY PARKWAY TO CONSTRUCT ONLY THE EASTERN SEGMENT BETWEEN I-215 AND SR-79 Chairman Magee and Commissioners: In response to RCTC staff s recommendation to withdraw the western segment of the MCP project, on June 9, 2009 the City Council voted unanimously to oppose the proposal to refocus the MCP project. Background/Project History In 2004, RCTC began the environmental review process for the MCP project through the issuance of a notice of preparation (NOP). The NOP identified eight alternatives to be studied and considered, with a ninth alternative added later as a result of ongoing consultation with public agencies and the result of completed engineering and environmental studies. Alternative 9 was subsequently selected as the locally preferred alternative in September 2007. More recently, in October 2008, RCTC released the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) outlining the MCP project's environmental impacts on the project area. To date, RCTC has committed significant financial resources for the study and completion of the MCP project. Since the issuance of the initial notice of preparation in 2004, City staff has actively participated in the MCP project's development process, meeting on repeated occasions with RCTC staff as well as submitting formal comments in response to the release of various project -related documents. Given the proximity of the MCP project to the City and the potentially significant traffic -related impacts on the City, RCTC staff was invited to provide the Transportation Committee with an updated overview of the project. On December 16, 2008, the City Council declared its support for the MCP project noting its potential to provide an important east -west 3900 Main Street • Riverside, CA 92522 • 951.826.5371 • fax 951.826.5981 • www.riversideca.gov corridor southerly of the City's limits and serve as a viable alternative to divert cut -through traffic from City streets. In addition, the City Council stated its strong desire to see the western segment of the MCP project constructed prior to the eastern segment and cautioned that long - overdue capacity improvements to the Interstate-15/State Route-91 interchange would be necessary to adequately accommodate the anticipated additional traffic caused by the MCP project. City staff provided additional comments to RCTC expressing concern that the document generally failed to adequately identify and assess the MCP project's full impacts on the City. Particular emphasis was placed on the traffic -related impacts likely to affect the City if the eastern segment of the MCP project was constructed prior to the western segment. In effect, City streets, most notably Alessandro Boulevard and Van Buren Boulevard, would serve as cut - through corridors for vehicles accessing Interstate-15 or State Route-91. City's Opposition On June 4, 2009, RCTC staff formally notified City staff of its recommendation to withdraw the western segment from the MCP project's scope, focusing only on construction of the eastern segment. In response to this change in project scope, the City Council, on June 9, 2009, by unanimous vote, declared its strong opposition to this proposal. Construction of only the eastern segment of the MCP project will result in significant traffic - related impacts to the City. It was expected that construction of the entire MCP project would serve to divert cut through traffic from City streets by providing a more accessible connection to both Interstate-15 and State Route-91. With an expected increase in population throughout the area, levels of service on existing transportation corridors are projected to deteriorate substantially; the RCIP itself estimates that the State Route-60/Interstate-215 interchange alone will increase its number of vehicle trips from 170,000 to over 300,000 per day. Absent the western segment, traffic would continue to utilize City streets as connections and exacerbate existing conditions. In effect, the proposal now under consideration would do nothing to alleviate current — or future — traffic impacts to City streets, Interstate-15, or State Route-91. Greater focus should instead be placed on much needed capacity improvements that address present day concerns, rather than committing already limited resources to projects that address capacity for future needs in undeveloped areas. What is more, construction of the eastern segment would create a growth inducing impact for those communities to be served by its construction. More than providing a new transportation corridor, the eastern segment would enable the proliferation of piecemeal development further removed from employment centers, contributing directly to area -wide traffic congestion and increasingly worse levels of service. The City's Circulation and Community Mobility Element of the General Plan 2025, as well as County of Riverside's General Plan, included in its traffic analysis the full construction of the MCP project. As noted previously, construction of the western segment was expected to divert cut -through traffic from City streets, particularly from Alessandro Boulevard and Van Buren Boulevard. With the proposal to withdraw the western segment, levels of service on Alessandro Boulevard and Van Buren Boulevard would deteriorate to unacceptable service levels. In addition, the growth and densities approved in the County's General Plan and in neighboring jurisdictions are unattainable absent the full implementation of the MCP project — one of the necessary mitigation measures for the General Plans. Moreover, the new Countywide Traffic Model for Riverside County also includes the full MCP project. City's Recommendation To allow for improved traffic conditions, the City Council urges RCTC: • Commit to constructing the necessary improvements to Interstate-15 and the Interstate- 15/State Route-91 interchange first; • Improve Cajalco Road to six -lanes without precluding future improvements to an expressway or higher status; • Delay construction of the MCP project east of Interstate-215 until the necessary improvements to Interstate-15 and the Interstate-15/State Route-91 interchange are underway; • Delay any action refocusing the EIR/EIS for 90 days; and • Work with neighboring jurisdictions to reduce planned development east of Interstate-215. City staff appreciates your continued collaboration and looks forward to continue working with the RCTC and its staff. Please forward copies of all revised plans, staff reports, and environmental documents, as they pertain to this project for review. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Moises A. Lopez, Associate Planner, at (951) 826- 5264 or by e-mail at mlopez@riversideca.gov. Sincerely, Ken Gutierrez, AICP Planning Director cc: Ronald Loveridge, Mayor Riverside City Council Members Brad Hudson, City Manager Belinda Graham, Assistant City Manager Tom DeSantis, Assistant City Manger Scott Barber, Community Development Director Siobhan Foster, Public Works Director Tom Boyd, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Libring, Traffic Engineer Kristi Smith, Supervising Deputy City Attorney Ron Goldman, Planning Director, Riverside County Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92502 Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportation, Riverside County Department of Transportation, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92502-1629 Tay Dam, Federal Highway Administration, 650 Capital Mall, Suite 4-100, Sacramento, CA 95814 Cathy Bechtel, Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA 92502-2208 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mid County Parkway Ad Hoc Committee Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Mid County Parkway: Environmental Environmental Impact Statement Impact Report/ MID COUNTY PARKWAY AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve refocusing the Mid County Parkway (MCP) limits to Interstate 215 and State Route 79 in response to comments received on the draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The draft EIR/EIS for the MCP project was circulated for public review on October 10, 2008, with the close of the public comment period on January 8, 2009, providing a 90-day comment period. During this time, six public meetings/hearings were held: three public information meetings in late October 2008, two public hearings in November 2008 and a 1st District public meeting in December 2008. The Commission accepted public comments for the record at all of these meetings, along with comments via the website and email. Over 4,500 newsletters with comment cards were sent out in October 2008. Over 3,100 comments received from: • 50 public agencies and organizations • 10 large property owners • 240 individuals • Form letter from over 1 100 individuals nationwide Two key themes emerged in the public review comments: 1) Concern about the cost and timing of available funds for the project. Many comments noted that, given the current economy and difficulty in securing funding for the entire project, limited financial resources should be focused on areas of greatest need. Agenda Item 9 442 2) Although the public comments raised concerns about many aspects of the project throughout its entire length, many comments suggested that making improvements to existing facilities rather than building MCP would be a better expenditure of public funding in the western portion of the project area between 1-15 and 1-215. In this area, improving existing facilities such as Cajalco Road instead of building MCP would minimize impacts to the rural communities of Gavilan Hills and Lake Mathews Estates and minimize impacts to existing habitat reserves. Impacts to rural communities and existing habitat reserves were two major concerns raised during public comment. To address these concerns, the Commission as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Ca[trans as the liaison to FHWA in confirming compliance with all applicable NEPA requirements, have developed an approach for completing the EIR/EIS process for the project that would refine the project purpose statement and refine the project alternatives to focus on the transportation needs between 1-215 to SR-79 as shown on -Attachment 1. Under this approach, the MCP project purpose and need statement would be refined to establish 1-215 as the western terminus of the project, with SR-79 remaining as the eastern terminus of the project. Such a refinement would still provide for logical termini and independent utility pursuant to FHWA requirements under 23 CFR 771.111 because: A. The project would connect logical termini (a north -south Interstate highway and a north -south State highway) and be of sufficient length (16 miles) to address environmental matters on a broad scope. B. The project would have independent utility as a usable and reasonable expenditure of funds even if no other transportation improvements were made in the area. C. The project would not preclude the consideration of other, reasonably foreseeable future transportation improvements. To address the refined project purpose statement, up to three modified build alternatives would be defined and evaluated that would consist of a parkway facility from 1-215 to SR-79 (these modified alternatives would follow the alignments for original Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 east of 1-215). While a revised notice of intent/notice of preparation (NOUNOP) would not need to be issued for the modified project, the Commission would conduct additional public outreach, including public information meetings and notifications through the project website and direct mail, to notify the public of the changes in the project. Agenda Item 9 • 443 • A recirculated draft EIR/supplemental draft EIS (RDEIR/SDEIS) evaluating the modified alternatives would be prepared and circulated with the appropriate notice of availability (NOA) and public review process (including public meetings to be held during recirculation). The RDEIR/SDEIS would also include discussions of the process to date and how the comments received during public review of the draft EIR/EIS led to a decision to refine the project purpose statement to focus on the area between 1-215 and SR-79. Construction phasing plans would be developed for each of the three modified build alternatives (1-215 to SR-79) to disclose the proposed project implementation to the public and how construction will be broken up into phases. In addition to including the analysis of up to three modified build alternatives and inclusion of a phasing plan and associated environmental analysis, the recirculated document would also be revised to address public comments received on the draft EIR/EIS. Following completion of public review of the recirculated document, a final EIR/EIS would be prepared. As lead agency under CEQA, the Commission would consider certifying the final EIR, and then would consider approval of one of the modified build alternatives. The Commission would then be responsible for advancing future design, right-of-way, and construction phases for the parkway alternative from 1-215 to SR-79. As lead agency under NEPA, FHWA would consider approval of the final EIS, and issuance of a record of decision (ROD) for one of the modified build alternatives. Fundamental to the refinement of the project purpose statement and alternatives is that no improvements between 1-15 and 1-215 would be planned or analyzed as part of the MCP project. The Riverside County Transportation Department's General Plan roadway improvements for Cajalco Road west of 1-215 would be analyzed in the MCP cumulative impacts assessment using the most current information available from the county; however, the Cajalco Road improvement projects will be subject to separate environmental review processes in the future with the Riverside County Transportation Department acting as the lead agency. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) will have to be modified to match the refocused project description. Additionally, given that projected travel demand west of 1-215 still identifies a need for infrastructure improvements, even with thecounty's planned improvements to Cajalco Road, it is critical that a Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridor between I-215 and 1-15 remain in the RTP to not preclude consideration of future transportation improvements. The refocusing of the project and preparation of the RDEIR/SDEIS and will require additional time and budget. Approximately 18 months will be added to the completion schedule (Attachment 2). Staff is currently working with the team to Agenda Item 9 444 develop a revised scope of work. There is adequate budget to allow work to continue through the summer. Staff anticipates coming back to the Commission in the fall with a contract amendment to cover the revised scope. Attachments: 1) Refocused MCP Map 2) Schedule Agenda Item 9 • 445 • • • MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT rdc mem min Alternatives No Longer Considered Mid County Parkway .141 1 14S.4(ifilt • 1. 4r 711 • s r • .4,.,Ns • „ , 441 44 (refocused) - ...is r-t , puodaq pue £ LOZ u�i,�ismboe !` ZLOZ - L LOZ sW tled ' ue sienaadde. "taautuo��nua legio utelgo• Ltt saipn�s ieoluy�el pasina pue �e;uewaiddns ;o uorteaeda�d • (lle3} s6u!aeaH {aaiuwns} s61.1 aee- o jcind . uollew�o�u� oggnd wwns} leivauaalddns 21-3 aleq �a�e�n�aioaa . 0LOZ sepue6e pue ollgnd penlaoaa s1uawwob 10 nnalna• pasnooja-8 pafad . s6upeeH ollgnd . s6ugaaW uogewaojul oggnd . SI31�113 : eu etlijl don .;. 11D3 f0 1'krN1?121 tad N.LN (10D d 1 w • i envUJ81ly Penelaad Jo uogeogguepl . 6upeau6u3 pue salpms leauewuagnu3 . sengeweuv Apn}s . luewauga! and}ewaily • s6uileen oggnd . salpnis slsAleuy enleA . se geweily �tl}uapl . s6ugaaW oggnd . salpn}s fueuwlead • coat - VOOZ • Mid County; Parkway Approach for Completing the EIR/EIS MID COUNTY PA AY PROJECT rctc wow moo NM NM RECAP OF MID COUNTY PARKWAY J DRAFT EIR/EIS PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD • Public review began on October 10, 2008 • Three public information meetings held in late October 2008` • Two public hearings held in November 2008' • 1st District public meeting in December 2008' • Commission extended comment deadline to January 8, 2009 (providing a total 90-day comment period) r public comment avpfedrafIhe record by acte) MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT rctc Mel MI ISSUES RAISED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS • Adequacy of mitigation measures • Requests to consider new alternatives • Impacts to rural communities • Impacts to habitat reserves and MSHCP consistency • Financial viability of the project MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT rctc MCP Study Area In the DEIR/DE1S MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT rctc graiiii ion. Inn In SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR/EIS • Over 3,100 comments received from: — 50 public agencies and organizations — 10 large property owners — 240 individuals (emails, comment cards, letters) — Form letter from'over 1100 individuals nationwide MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT rctc wino MI KEY THEMES IN PUBLIC COMMENTS Concern about the cost and timing of available funds for the project. 2. Comments suggested making improvements to existing facilities and raised concerns regarding issues in the western portion of the project area between 1-15 and 1-215, including impacts to the conlmunhies and to existing habitat reserves. '.... 3. The public would like to understand when and how the project would be construcjed; a project construction phasing plan should be developed and disclosed to the public. Following reviewof comments; Meetings with Ad Hoc, transportation agencies and - resource agencies Investigated. approach to complete the EIR/EIS proc Maessmtain'Alternative 9 as the preferred alternative - Study new alternatives Including comderatlon of reduction of project remits WjNTYy� MID COUNTY PARKWAY. PROJECT rctc um Staff Recommendation: .Refocus the Mid County Parkway limits to 1-215 to SR-79 Approach acceptable to FHWA, Caltrans and Resource Agencies and will not require the project to begin anew FHWA recommends a public information meeting on project modification Requires Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS, suppoding revisions to technical studies and appropriate public hearings MID COUNTY PARKWAY meat" Additional benefits... • Reduces MCP Construction and Right of Way costs • Avoids reopening MSHCP and uncertainty of consistency analysis • Avoids time, cost and uncertainty of amending RCP's Refocused MEP Project ;.. Benefits of a refocusedproject: • Making best use of limited transportation funding. • Refocusing MCP to 1-215 to SR-79 improves project certainly while avoiding delays • The public spoke and we listened MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT rctc "mow Inotimi Policy Considerations • RTP/RTIP programming implications - Need to revise RTP/RTIP to show MCP from 1.215 to SR-79 and a CETAP corridor from 1-15 to 1-215 • CETAP Corridor to remain in County General Plan MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Ra County P•OrwY rctc (refocused) MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT * MUM Mit retc Additional Steps: • Preparation of supplemental and revised technical studies • Recirculated Draft EIR / Supplemental Draft EIS • Public Hearings on Draft REIR/SEIS • Contract Amendment MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT retc mow g Mill Ouestions/Discussion MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT C • MCP Ad Hoc and Staff Recommendation Refocus MCP to the current alternatives between 1-215 to SR-79 - Newsletter and Website updatesr — Public Information Meetings - • Mid July • Corona, Perris and San Jacinto • Pa •PWKRn G� • •Vahre MalfAa9 •PupKNrenos •AMralie Reareuwe .swi wneeees •Emiennweal Onweee and Enplaning • 1ryNeauend Preened Plemeres MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT MCP Timeline: •Feller easements weed by rueE and agendas •RWrtula Owe Eal A.,. : StPFKnwole DNS EIS (Sumner) •Pbr. heomAlnn •Peia War (Werner) Hearegeff.l( •Prepemelbnof •Reseselb sWPRmnlPl mdWears 'cal " .Ore)o ':armiartRMal • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM Patti Castillo, Capital Projects Manager Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Project Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive an update on the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the request of the Commission at its May 13 meeting, staff will make a presentation on the SR-91 HOV project status and scope. The SR-91 HOV project, from Adams Street to the 60/91 /215 interchange, constitutes the last segment of the SR-91 freeway to be improved through the 1989 Measure A sales tax measure. It is also one of the projects included in the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) portion of the Proposition 18 bond measure passed in 2006. The environmental document for the SR-91 HOV project was approved on August 31, 2007, and Caltrans District 8 is approximately 50% complete with the design phase. Caltrans and the Commission are jointly completing right-of-way activities. The project is scheduled to go to construction in June 2011. Attachment: SR-91 HOV Project Fact Sheet Agenda Item 10 448 STATE ROUTE 9 HOV PP�O�E�`T A project of the Riverside County Trans rtation Commission WHAT IS THE SR-91 HOV PROJECT? In order to improve mobility through the downtown Riverside area, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, in partnership with Caltrans is currently in the final design phase and right of way acquisition phase to construct one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, also called a car pool lane, in each direction of State Route 91 (SR-91) from Adams Street to the, 60/91/215 interchange in the City of Riverside. The SR-91 is a primary truck and commuter route and carries approximately 170,000 vehicles per day within the project area on the existing three lanes in each direction. The route is often highly congested at current traffic Ievels.With Riverside County's population expected to reach 3.5 million by 2030, the vehicle pressure in this corridor will continue to increase.The improvements to the freeway through this widening project will help alleviate congestion through this hub. The cost of the project is estimated to be $273 million and is funded by Measure A, Riverside County's half -cent sales tax for transportation; federal funds; and $157 million of Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds, the state Proposition IB funding. WHAT ARE THE PROJECT BENEFITS? The SR-91 freeway can be considered Riverside's Main Street and serves as the City of Riverside's primary freeway connection to communities including Corona, San Bernardino, and the entire inland region. Over the past few years, significant Measure A investments have been made to improve the 91 with the reconstruc- tion of the 60/91/215 interchange in Downtown Riverside and the widening of the freeway from Adams Street to the Orange County Line. One section of the freeway that has yet to be widened is the 6-mile segment between Adams Street and the 60/91/215 interchange. The addition of a carpool lane through this area will ensure that the entire freeway is at least four lanes wide in each direction. Moreover, the widening of the freeway and its ensuing invest- ment will lead to many other adjacent improvements including improved on and off -ramps at 14th Street and Arlington Avenue, relocating the 9th Street on ramp to loth Street, and the replacement of a number of bridges that cross the freeway such as 14th Street, Cridge Street, and Ivy Street. The overall result will be a state -of - the art transportation facility that serves motorists by adding capacity while easing access to and from the community which better serves businesses, employers and local residents. ADDITIONAL PROJECTS ALONG THE 91 The improvements between Adams Street and the 60/91/215 interchange are im- minent with construction beginning in 201 I, but additional projects along the corridor are in the works. RCTC is currently in the midst of preliminary engineering and environmental review to improve the 91 between Pierce Street in Riverside and the Orange County border. Improvements could include: • The addition of a general purpose lane in each direction, as approved in the voter -approved Measure plan • An improved direct connector between the eastbound 91 and the northbound 71 • The extension of the 91 Express Lanes from Orange County to Interstate 15 • Better freeway to freeway connectors at the 91 and 1-15 • Additional auxiliary or merge lanes to ease access throughout the freeway corridor In addition, the Orange County Transportation Authority and Caltrans are working to add an east- bound lane on the 91 between the Foothill/Eastern Toll Corridor (SR-241) and Serfas Club Drive in Corona. AN ONGOING COMMITMENT The importance of State Route 91 in terms of Riverside County's economy and mobility is indisput- able. Ics hardly surprising that significant amounts of funding have been set aside in Measure A for improvements along the freeway and for public transit investments including Metrolink commuter rail service that parallels the corridor. RCTC will continue its commitment to advancing improvements as quickly as possible, ar204 5R-91 HOV project in Downtown Riverside is yet another example of needed progress. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION:WHAT TO EXPECT WHAT ISTHE PROJECT SCHEDULE? , .J1t1 ARPTHE'- ItgitCT PARTNEkS? 557 ROTC -has teamed with Caltrans ..and worked closely with the City of Riverside to deliver this project. . , " air (.1, KIVE.K3/ DE WHO CAN I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION? If you have any comments or questions about the SR-9I HOV Project e-mail us through our website at www.rctc.org or call ROTC at (951) 787-7141. CONSTRUCTION WHERE IS THE SR-91 HOV PROJECT LOCATED? Project Limits 4 e 1. , w i i,... i . . w, , cc -. ARLINGTON AVE 3-.0 .-'' i 1 .' ,i y. CO . 4 a .i. DJ . 4 m Z 1r.t. \15:ok, 77,0 " Sp ST ,PENTM!...AYA, C, NORTH .MEN.._ MMMMIMMMMIMMMMMMMKMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmMIMMMOMMMMMMMM-M.-ME 450 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 10 EXHIBIT B • , : .7 0; $t111 :. " i++P .�♦ y . I ..._. , •. .. ''� i • +4,. „ n y 1H�;11 �{xl a7 , ,� , �, i��l.' .), a ,1.NIe ,ST: t ti' 1 . ; M 'y+','AA.tg4,aN• xd , '! 4I„ " N.i±*117.-.t F•lnw .1sh:. 1�4'4.rl..4y� 11 �1, ^I 1.II Y.,R;' �" Ik}J"l nRy! ] 41 1,..:: ;y -4'�t,j.C17* jam'__ 40 AN. e Y 441.11 a14._ n0Inat 14th St EB ON=RAMP' TO BE REMOVED URN 14th St EB ON -RAMP -^ .: ru pi r I Project Overview i Closes HOV lane gap • Adds 6 miles of HOV lane to the freeway • Improves ramps, bridges and access • Proposition 18 (2006) Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA)funding 91 Freeway - After 3 - Mixed Flow lanes each direction 1- HOV lane each direction Project History Rcrc„- • 1989 Measure A Project • Completes the HOV lanes from Orange County line to the 60/91/215 Interchange • Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA & ED) phase began in 2001 • Final Environmental Document and Project Report approved in 2007 Project Partners • RCTC - Funding - Right of Way (ROW) Riverside County Transportation Commission • Caltrans - Design - Construction Exit fans ROTC_. r's Roadway Improvements Modify interchanges 2 Mixed Flow + 1 HOV • Madison St. - EB • Arlington Ave.- EB- • Central Ave. -EB/WB • 14th St.- WB 1 Roadway Improvements, Modify Interchanges 2 mixed flow lanes only: • 14th St. EB • 9th St. (now Tenth St.) WB Ramps with Major Improvements • Arlington Ave. - • 14th St.- • 9th St. (Tenth St.) - Replace Bridges • Ivy St. • Pachappa Railroad • Cridge St. • 14th St. aQ Roadway Improvements RCTC, Modify Interchanges 1 mixed flow lane only • Existing Arlington EB Modify Existing Bridges • Undercrossings —Jefferson St. —Madison St. —Brockton Ave. —Arlington Ave. —Central Ave. • Construct sound walls • Construct retaining walls • Landscape replacement planting • Construct water quality basins 2 Right of Way (ROW) Acquisition • Approximately 75 properties are affected • Majority are partial acquisitions • Temporary construction easements and public utility easements M- Schedule as of Spring 2009 • Complete ROW Acquisition August 2010 • Complete Final Design February 2011 • Begin Construction June 2011 • Compete Construction June 2015 Project Cost • Estimated Cost — Environmental — Design — Right of Way — Construction TOTAL: $ 3M $ 16M $ 62 M $192 M $273 M 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I DATE: June 10, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Election of Riverside County Transportation Commission for 2"d Vice Chair STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to conduct an election for the 2009 2' Vice Chair position. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Election of Officers On May 11, 2009, the Commission received a letter from Commissioner Dick Kelly, city of Palm Desert, resigning his position as a member of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, citing a re-evaluation of his priorities. His resignation leaves a vacancy for the 2nd Vice Chair position. In accordance with the Administrative Code, the Chair, Vice Chair, and 2"d Vice Chair shall annually alternate between a regular member of the Commission representing a city and a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. For 2009, the 2"d Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission representing a city. Attachment: List of Past Commission Chairs Agenda Item 11 451 • PAST COMMISSION CHAIRS 2008 Jeff Stone 2007 Terry Henderson City of La Quinta 2006 Marion Ashley 2005 Robin Lowe County of Riverside - District 3 County of Riverside - District 5 City of Hemet 2004 Roy Wilson 2003 Ron Roberts County of Riverside - District 4 City of Temecula 2002 John Tavaglione County of Riverside - District 2 2001 Will Kleindienst 2000 Tom Mullen City of Palm Springs County of Riverside - District 5 1999 Jack van Haaster City of Murrieta 1998 Bob Buster 1997 Bob Buster 1996 Alex Clifford County of Riverside - District 1 County of Riverside - District 1 City of Riverside 1995 Alex Clifford City of Riverside 1994 Corky Larson 1993 Al Lopez County of Riverside - District 4 City of Corona 1992 Al Lopez City of Corona 1991 Kay Ceniceros 1990 Kay Ceniceros 1989 Jack Clarke County of Riverside - District 3 County of Riverside - District 3 City of Riverside 1988 Don Baskett City of Hemet 1987 Melba Dunlap 1986 Jean Mansfield County of Riverside - District 2 City of Riverside 1985 Susan Cornelison Public Member 1984 Susan Cornelison Public Member 1983 Roy Wilson City of Palm Desert 1982 Norton Younglove County of Riverside - District 5 1981 Jean Mansfield City of Riverside 1980 Donald Schroeder County of Riverside - District 2 1979 Donald Schroeder 1978 Russell Beirich 1977 Russell Beirich County of Riverside - District 2 City of Palm Springs City of Palm Springs 452