Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 23, 2011 Budget & implementation90945 RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Monday, May 23, 2011 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside COMMITTEE MEMBERS .41 Scott Matas, Chair / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Ron Roberts, Vice Chair / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson / Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Scott Hines / Gordon Moller, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District II Jeff Stone, County of Riverside, District III %P. STAFF ..1%) Anne Mayer, Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY -'? Annual Budget Development and Oversight Competitive Federal and State Grant Programs Countywide Communications and Outreach Programs Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Public Communications and Outreach Programs Short Range Transit Plans Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board 11.36.06 Riverside Cooly Transportation Commission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager DATE: May 18, 2011 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues - Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda of May 23, 2011 The May 23, 2011 agenda of the Budget and Implementation Committee includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 11 - Graphic Design and Communication Services Consukant(s): Geographics 4178 Chestnut Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dawn Hassett, Managing Partner Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:47 PM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda - !Pad Users Attachments: Conflict of Interest Form.pdf; Conflict of Interest Memo.pdf Importance: High Good Afternoon Budget and Implementation Committee Members: The May Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda for !Pad User is available. Please copy the link below: http://www.rctc.org/downloads/BIC/ipad budgetandimplementation.pdf. In addition, attached is the conflict of interest memo and form for your review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ROLL CALL MAY 23, 2011 Present Absent County of Riverside, District II O )' County of Riverside, District III O .0... City of Beaumont ,A" O City of Calimesa O City of Canyon Lake O City of Cathedral City O ,2r City of Coachella ,2( O City of Desert Hot Springs O 2r City of Hemet O City of Indian Wells O City of Lake Elsinore .0'' O City of Murrieta egf. O City of Rancho Mirage O City of Riverside ier O City of Temecula X O RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE SIGN -IN SHEET MAY 23, 2011 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS L, R.e.0 Smi:#14 14C 1- (... ‘/k e i_ 1 rE 0e 1 `/ EC L 1f L A .2A,�c c9�✓ � � 6-t r� 5.,1- k / c.__, 6- B .A -S dY cv A-4 (.,� -7," IC O,“" It 6 6 —b 6 eafrpt., 1,-‘- J--)43uG-LecS 14 ftrr,,i(3..i zrinlia,, \Sfel1S a -eoe-n 1 -ceoc elac z C o ct_c_Les. " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Monday, May 23, 2011 BOARD ROOM County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, California 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.orq. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (9511 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Budget and Implementation Committee May 23, 2011 Page 2 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. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2011 6. 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee 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.) 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. 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 7 • 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2011; 2) Approve a budget adjustment to decrease debt proceeds by $15 million, decrease debt service interest expenditures by $1 million, and increase debt service principal expenditures by $17,284,000 for a net increase in FY 2010/1 1 expenditures of $1,284,000; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. " " " Budget and Implementation Committee May 23, 2011 Page 3 7B. APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 9 1) Approve Resolution No. 1 1-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year.2011/12"; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7C. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 15 1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4 (Q4) 2010; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7D. FUND BALANCE POLICY Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 23 1) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-007, Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Fund Balance Policy'; and 2) Adopt the Fund Balance Policy; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee May 23, 2011 Page 4 7E. FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR • RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 28 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required fare box recovery ratio; 2) Approve the FY 2011 /12 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 17.04% for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and 17.80% for the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12; 2) Close the public hearing to receive input on the proposed FY 2011 /12 at the June 8 Commission meeting; 3) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Page 32 Budget for 9. FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2009/10 - 2010/11 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5310 CAPITAL GRANT APPLICATIONS Page 35 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the local review committee (LRC); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan", certifying that the projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan; 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan • (RTIP); and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. " Budget and Implementation Committee May 23, 2011 Page 5 10. FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 41 1) Approve the FY 2011 /12 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program recommended funding of $1,094,143; 2) Authorize staff to fund unfunded projects in rank order through the 70t percentile using project savings and returned allocations; and 3�% Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. GRAPHIC DESIGN AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 46 1) Award Agreement No. 1 1-15-067-00 to Geographics for the provision of graphic design and communications services on an as -needed, time and expense basis, pursuant to its proposed fixed unit rates, for a two-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $1 million; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following state bill positions: " AB 1229 (Feuer)  Support; " SB 545 (Anderson)  Monitor; " SB 862 (Lowenthal)  Monitor; " SB 867 (Padilla)  Monitor; 3) Adopt the following federal bill positions: " S. 826 (Feinstein)  Support; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Page 49 Budget and Implementation Committee May 23, 2011 Page 6 13. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 14. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 15. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Monday, June 27, 2011, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, April 25, 2011 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chair Scott Matas at 9:30 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Ron Roberts led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Steve Adams Mary Craton Rick Gibbs Douglas Hanson Bob Magee Scott Matas Greg Pettis Ron Roberts Larry Smith* Jeff Stone John Tavaglione Ella Zanowic Roger Berg Steven Hernandez Scott Hines *Arrived after the meeting was called to order 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes April 25, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 28, 2011 M/S/C (Craton/Adams) to approve the minutes as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. M/S/C (Pettis/Craton) to approve the following Consent Calendar item(s): 7A. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2011; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2011; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager, presented the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12, and discussed the following areas: • Budget process; • Commission policy goals; • FY 2011 /12 Budget considerations; • Budget summary; • Sources by breakdown and comparison; • Expenditures by department, expenditures breakdown by department, and comparison; • Capital department expenditure highlights; • Functional expenditures breakdown and comparison; and • Next steps. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes April 25, 2011 Page 3 Commissioner Rick Gibbs expressed appreciation for the decline in debt service for FY 2011/12 and for proactive management. Anne Mayer noted the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle lane project is dependent on $157 million of bond funding. When the state conducts its bond sale, the project will be delivered next fiscal year as anticipated. M/S/C (Roberts/Zanowic) to: 1) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the proposed FY 2011/12 Budget; and 2) Forward to the Commission to open the public hearing in order to receive input and comments on the proposed FY 2011/12 Budget on May 11 and on June 8, 2011, and thereafter close the public hearing. 9. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Greg Moore, Procurement and Assets Manager, presented the recurring contracts for FY 2011/12. In response to Commissioner Roberts' question for Best Best & Krieger LLP (BB&K) general legal services increase of $565,000, Greg Moore replied there are several projects progressing and require additional effort such as the SR-91 CorridorImprovement Project, Perris Valley Line, and Interstate 215 widening projects. Commissioner Roberts suggested working with BB&K to lower the legal services amount to $500,000. Anne Mayer stated the two large increases for the recurring contracts are with Bechtel Infrastructure (Bechtel) and BB&K. These increases are directly related to specific projects and services, which requires the technical teams and legal counsel to be engaged. M/S/C (Craton/Gibbs) to: 1) Approve the recurring contracts for FY 2011/12; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Abstain: Stone and Tavaglione RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes April 25, 2011 Page 4 10. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer investment policy review. , provided an update on the annual In response to Commissioner Gibbs' question, Theresia Trevino change in the Investment Policy was suggested by the County Office as it could be perceived that the Commission might be in trading. M/SIC (Tavaglione/Adams) to: replied the Treasurer's active day 1) Adopt Resolution No. 11-004, ''Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Investment Policy-; 2► Adopt the Annual Investment Policy; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. AGREEMENTS TO THOMPSON, COBB, BAZILIO & ASSOCIATES, P.C., AND MACIAS GINI O'CONNELL LLP FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE MEASURE A RECIPIENTS AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIMANTS Theresia Trevino provided an overview of the procurement and scope of services for the agreements with Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C., and Macias Gini O'Connell LLP for audit services for the Measure A recipients and Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants. M/S/C (Pettis/Adams) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 11-19-063-00 to Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C. (TCBA) to perform audit and related services pertaining to the Western County Measure A recipients and Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, for the amount of $576,400, plus a contingency amount of $57,600 for additional services that may be required due to additional recipients or claimants to be audited, for a total amount not to exceed $634,000; RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes April 25, 2011 Page 5 2) Award Agreement No. 11-19-103-00 to Macias Gini & O'Connell (Macias) to perform audit and related services pertaining to the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley (Eastern County) Measure A recipients and TDA claimants for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, for the amount of $443,740, plus a contingency of $44,260 for additional services that may be required due to additional recipients or claimants to be audited, for a total amount not to exceed $488,000; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including options years, on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action.' 12. UPDATE ON THE INLAND EMPIRE 511 SYSTEM AND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ITERIS, INC. FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR INLAND EMPIRE 511 Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager, presented the Inland Empire 511 (IE51 1) system update and the amendment with Iteris, Inc., highlighting the following areas: • 1E511 system overview; • Continuous development; • 1E511 recognition; • Monthly web and phone traffic; • Phone minutes year one - original projected average, actual, and actual monthly average; • Goal - adjust minutes, save money; • Solution - different interactive voice response (IVR) platform; • Results - more minutes, lower costs; • Adjusted annual minutes projected for each fiscal year, graph reflecting phone costs if the system remains on Voxeo platform, graph with phone costs associated with transitioning to Meridian; • Summary of actions; and • 1E511 future enhancements. In response to Commissioner Larry Smith's question if additional staff time is required to manage the increase in minutes, Brian Cunanan replied the actual minutes are separate from the project management costs, which are stable. • RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes April 25, 2011 Page 6 Anne Mayer expressed appreciation to Caltrans, the Commission, and San Bernardino Associated Governments for the success of the 1E511 system. She stated that since the call volumes exceeded year one projections, it means commuters are using and finding value with this service. M/S/C (Pettis/Zanowic) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-45-067-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 09-45-067-00, with Reds, Inc. for operations and maintenance services for the Inland Empire 511 11E511) system in an amount not to exceed $1,503,056; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, presented the bill positions and an overview of state and federal legislative activities. In response to Commissioner Bob Magee's question regarding the status of SB 851(Anderson), Aaron Hake replied SB 851 has not gained any traction and has not had a committee hearing. Anne Mayer replied there is no bill language for analysis. Once staff receives the bill language, it will be evaluated and a bill position will be forwarded to the Commission for approval. In response to Chair Matas' question regarding the financial impacts of AB 296 (Skinner), Aaron Hake replied this bill passed the Assembly Transportation Committee and will go through two more committees within the Assembly. Anne Mayer discussed the AB 296 language for cool pavements and potential financial impact. She stated Caltrans is engaged in research to help reduce the heat generated by asphalt pavement. M/S/C (Roberts/Zanowic) to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: • AB 427 (Perez) - Monitor • AB 296 (Skinner) - Oppose • " " " RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes April 25, 2011 Page 7 " SB 693 (Dutton) - Support In Concept " SB 468 (Kehoe) - Oppose " AB 1134 (Bonilla) - Support; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Abstain: Smith 14. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 15. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF There were no comments by Commissioners or staff. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:18 a.m. The next meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee is scheduled for May 23, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2011; 2) Approve a budget adjustment to decrease debt proceeds by, $15 million, decrease debt service interest expenditures by $1 million, and increase debt service principal expenditures by $17,284,000 for a net increase in FY 2010/11 expenditures of $1,284,000; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the last nine months of the fiscal year, staff 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 these funds 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 2011. On a cash basis, the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues are 7.33% and 6.35% higher, respectively, than the same period last Agenda Item 7A 1 fiscal year. This continued increase is an encouraging sign that economic recovery in the region is broadening. Staff will continue to monitor the trends in the sales tax receipts and report to the Commission any necessary adjustments to the FY 2010/11 budget for sales tax revenues. Federal, state, and local revenues are on a reimbursement basis. The Commission will receive these revenues as eligible project costs are incurred and invoiced to the respective agencies. During the FY - 2010/11 budget process, the Commission took a conservative approach in estimating the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $4.3 million passed through from the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) as a result of the housing crisis and the significant impact this has had on the Inland Empire's local economy. Of these TUMF revenues, 92% was earned through March 2011. The balance of $5 million relates to TUMF zone reimbursements from WRCOG, which had not been billed through March 2011. Other revenues exceeded the estimate by 157% as a result of unbudgeted property management revenues generated from properties acquired in connection with the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP). The Commission took a conservative approach in estimating interest income for FY 2010/11, due to flat interest yields on invested balances. Interest income is at 149% of the budget as a result of this conservative approach. Other than capital project expenditures that are discussed separately, the other expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget with the following exceptions: • Professional services are under budget due to ongoing contract negotiations with Burlington Northern Santa Fe regarding the 4`h Main track, downscaled toll feasibility work on the Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project (1-15 CIP) due to market conditions, and unused budget authority for level 2 and level 3 toll feasibility work on the SR-91 CIP. • Support costs are slightly under budget due to unused budget authority for station maintenance and repair and utilities. This category is expected to be in line with the overall budget in the fourth quarter. • Program operation expenditures are slightly under budget and reflect vendor invoices for Freeway Service Patrol towing and program management submitted through the period of February 2011. • Special studies are under budget due to unused budget authority for Ca!trans project initiation documents (PID) related to planning, programming, and Agenda Item 7A • • • 2 " " " monitoring. Due to the state's budget uncertainty, additional funds were budgeted in FY 2010/11, should the Commission be required to reimburse Caltrans for PIDs. " Local streets and roads expenditures are related to the timing of the Measure A sales tax revenues as previously explained. These financial statements reflect expenditures made to the local jurisdictions for collections through January 2011. " Regional arterial expenditures are administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). CVAG requests reimbursements from the Commission based on available funds and sufficient budget authority. " Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority for financial software improvements. Staff expects these improvements to be completed by the fourth quarter of FY 2010/11. In September 2010, the Commission issued $20 million in commercial paper notes. In December 2010, the Commission issued $150 million in sales tax revenue bonds to provide funding for the 2009 Measure A projects and retire $103,284,000 of commercial paper notes. Sales tax revenue bonds debt service interest expenditures are made in December and June, while related principal payments are made in June. The debt service expenditures as of the third quarter include principal payments made to retire all of the outstanding commercial paper notes in December 2010, with the proceeds from the 2010 sales tax revenues bonds. A bond principal payment of $6.3 million is due on June 1, 2011, resulting in a projected overbudget variance of $17,284,000 in debt service principal expenditures. Debt service interest expenditures for FY 2010/11 are estimated at $11,405,000, resulting in an underbudget variance of $1 million. Staff requests that the Commission approve an increase in debt service principal expenditures of $17,284,000 offset by a decrease in debt proceeds of $15 million and decrease in debt service interest expenditures of $1 million, for a net increase in expenditures of $1,284,000. The cost of issuance expenditures relate to the 2010 sales tax revenue bonds issued in December 2010. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and will notify the Commission of any unusual events. Listed below are the significant capital projects and the 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. Agenda Item 7A Highway Engineering/Construction/Design-Build/Right of Way/Land SR-60/Valley Way Interchange Project - The county of Riverside (County) is the lead agency for this project. The construction contract started in March 2010 and is essentially complete with the contractor clearing punch list items. Remaining invoices of approximately $1 million are expected to be received from the County in the fourth quarter of FY 2010/11. 74/215 Interchange Project - Construction is progressing as planned; one right of way acquisition is currently in condemnation proceedings. SR-79 Realignment Project - The draft project report and environmental document is being reviewed by Caltrans to receive approval to release for public circulation. Due to the size and complexity of the project, this phase has taken longer than anticipated. SR-91 /Van Buren Boulevard Interchange Project - The city of Riverside is the lead agency for this project. Construction started in March 2010 and the project is progressing. Vendor invoices for the Measure A funded portion of construction for $5 million will be submitted in the fourth quarter of FY 2010/11 for $3,million and the remaining $2 million to be billed in the first quarter of FY 2011/12. SR-91 HOV Lanes Project - Caltrans is performing design and is on schedule. Expenditures remain within the budget authority, although billings from the state are lagging. Utility relocation contractors continue to perform relocation of utilities; however, no invoices for expenditures incurred to date have been submitted for payment. Staff is performing right of way acquisition, and negotiations continue to progress and are on schedule, while several acquisition payments are pending settlements. Construction managed by Caltrans is currently forecasted to start in the first quarter FY 201 1 /12; however, this may be delayed due to the lack of state bond sales. 71 /91 Interchange Project - The preliminary engineering and environmental phase is scheduled to be completed in late FY 2010/11. The availability of federal earmark funds allows the design phase of work to move forward. SR-91 CIP (design -build) - A third limited notice to proceed (NTP) was issued in the first quarter FY 2010/11. A letter of intent for a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan was submitted in March 2011. The Commission anticipates an invitation to apply for the TIFIA loan in the first quarter FY 201 1 /12. Early right of way acquisition work was approved by Caltrans in April 2011. Following a public comment period scheduled for June 2011, the anticipated forecast date for early acquisition is scheduled for the first quarter FY 201 1 /12. Agenda Item 7A 4 " " 1-15 CIP  Work on the environmental phase continues. The toll feasibility model was completed at the end of the second quarter FY 2010/11. Staff is currently analyzing the results of the toll feasibility model and developing a scoping and an implementation plan to present to an ad hoc committee in the fourth quarter FY 2010/11. 60/215 East Junction Interchange Project  Right of way certification was approved in the first quarter of FY 2010/11. The project was advertised for construction and the bids were opened in the third quarter FY 2010/11. Construction is currently forecasted to start in the first quarter FY 201 1 /12. 1-215 Bi-County HOV Project  Environmental work has been completed; however, all costs incurred to date have not been invoiced. 1-215 Central Widening Project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road  A full NTP with final design was issued and the draft environmental document was approved in the second quarter FY 2010/11. Invoices have been submitted by the contractor starting in the third quarter of FY 2010/11 and the project is on schedule. 1-215 South Widening Project from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road  The required prerequisites for construction took longer than expected, moving the start date of construction to the fourth quarter FY 2010/11. Mid County Parkway Project  Right of way acquisitions have been curtailed as property development has subsided, and the critical need to acquire property for protection has been delayed due to the substantial rescoping of the project. Rail Engineering/Construction/Right of Way/Land Perris Valley Line Project  Advance preliminary engineering is approximately 90% complete and right of way acquisition has started. Environmental clearances are scheduled to be obtained in the first quarter of FY201 1 /12, which would release activity for final right of way procurement and start of the final design phase. Riverside Downtown Station Layover Facility Project  The consultant selection process was completed and contract award for engineering was approved by the Commission in September 2010, and a NTP was issued in the second quarter FY 2010/11. Delay in right of way access to perform geotechnical and environmental sampling caused preliminary engineering to start later than scheduled. Subsequently, the Commerce Street portion of the design and construction work has been suspended, as well as the construction of the northern facility due to funding issues. Agenda Item 7A 5 La Sierra Station Parking Expansion Project - Final design activities were in progress and completion was expected in the second quarter FY 2010/11, followed by submitting the plan check to the city of Riverside. However, the project has been placed on hold due to availability of funding. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements - March 2011 Agenda Item 7A • • 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 3RD QUARTER FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED 3/31/2011 FY 2010/11 3RD QUARTER REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 190,054,519 $ 112,410,905 $ (77,643,614) 59% Federal reimbursements 28,870,700 7,459,682 (21,411,018) 26% State reimbursements 25,210,100 2,793,804 (22,416,296) 11% Local reimbursements 830,700 475,159 (355,541) 57% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 9,300,000 3,966,183 (5,333,817) 43% Other revenues 178,000 280,005 102,005 157% Interest 1,830,000 2,719,179 889,179 149% Total revenues 256,274,019 130,104,917 (126,169,102) 51% Expenditures Salaries and benefits 6,225,000 4,080,966 2,144,034 66% Professional and support Professional services 21,814,101 7,666,730 14,147,371 35% Support costs 4,671,079 2,517,487 2,153,592 54% Total Professional and support costs 26,485,180 10,184,217 16,300,963 38% Projects and operations Program operations - general 12,806,426 6,161,143 6,645,283 48% Engineering 62,261,327 13,640,165 48,621,162 22% Construction 51,326,122 10,977,883 40,348,239 21% Design Build 22,991,000 10,839,692 12,151,308 47% Right of way/land 149,577,800 37,307,136 112,270,664 25% Operating and capital disbursements 111,510,440 56,572,582 54,937,858 51% Special studies 1,514,700 358,527 1,156,173 24% Local streets and roads 33,668,400 20,164,590 13,503,810 60% Regional arterials 15,195,000 5,716,971 9,478,029 38% Total projects and operations 460,851,215 161,738,689 299,112,526 35% Debt service Principal 92,300,000 103,284,000 (10,984,000) 112% Interest 12,405,000 4,381,053 8,023,947 35% Cost of issuance 1,520,000 79,042 95% Total debt service 106,225,000 109,106,011 (2,881,011) 103% Capital outlay 330,424 120,406 210,018 36% Total Expenditures 600.116,819 285,230,289 314.886,530 48°70 Excess revenues over(under)expenditures (343,842,800) (155,125,372) 363,586,734 45% Other financing sources/(uses) Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Debt proceeds Bond discount Total financing sources/(uses) 251,478,721 142,090,909 (109,387,812) (251,478,721) (142,090,909) 109,387,812 185,000,000 170,000,000 (15,000,0001 C967,4671 (967 467) 185, 000, 000 169, 032, 533 15, 967, 467 57% 57% 92% N/A 91% Net change in fund balances (158,842,800) 13,907,161 379,554,201 _9% Fund balance July 1, 2010 500,458,200 551,567,928 51,109,728 110% Fund balance March 31, 2011 $ 341,615,400 $ 565,475,089 $ 430,663,929 166% 7 8 590'549'99S $ 6E1 991'E9 $ EE8822 P4 $ 819'L60'OE $ 98Z L40'94 $ P91. 9L9'ZE $ Z6L'94S 99 $ 908'929'9 $ 9SS $ Z66'Z61 6£Z $ 969'419 9$ 890'22l'4L $ 9Z6'L9S'L99 46Z'9EL'99 - 6ZE'LL962 18Z 81.9'£8 16811.9'EE 696'SL9'9L L69'6Z0'4 9Z6'6E ZCS1.4009Z 1L9'6499 8E9'L9Z'CL 191406'EL 968'53,'L EE9'9L2'99 699'929 (L66'OL9'9) (2.24'9£6) (LZZ'LEE'01) 601'999'1. (99C'6£) (04S'946'0Z) (948'991 029'916 I IOZ'Lf yoJen eoueleq pund OLOZ'L hlnl aoueleq pound seoueleq pun; ul e6uego Lary E£S'ZEO'691. 949'S66 LI S6Z'969'SP 91.9'929'901. LS8`906`b (4004098) 922'9[9'1 - (LL9'61.9'1) - Z1,2'269 (sasn)lsewnos Bunueuy Imo' (L99 L96) - (429'L96) lunooslp puo9 000'000'OLL - 000'000'091 000'000'0Z - - - spesowd lga4 (606'060'2bl) (9Z2'9494) (8EZ'9EE'E01.) (991;699'90 (400'048) - - (969'049'90 (009'906) Ino Jelsue4 BugeJedp 606'060'Z4l 906'EL L'BL - 000'99Z'E0L L59'908'9 - - BZZ'BL9'L - 9L0'15Z'LL 009'905 Z9Z'Z69 ul Jelsue4 6upeJ800 (sesn)/semnos Bwoueuy Je910 (ZLE'SZ0991.) (1.E8'SLO'9) (Z94'Ll4'1.) (L29'960'900 (999'9L9'£0 (£2L'S6) (L2Z'LEE'01) (6t VZZ) (89E'6E) (£96'829'60 (9L9'49) £14VPZ salnllpueclke(Japun) JOAO sanueneJ ssesxg 69Z'0E2 S92 L26'6ZZ'4 996 090 l 228'061.LOL 69991L LI, 40L'£2Z 661'EL8'CP L97 ZE9'91 Z26'L L9 51Z'99£9L 8E9'99L'Z PEE 299'EL samppuadxd ploy 906'021 4S2'9L ZSL'Z9 hero lelldep L1.0'901'601 LZ6'6ZZ'9 956'0917'1 ZEVSEti EOL 958'044'1 - 856'094'1 £50'L8E'9 1Z8'62Z'4 - ZEL'L91 000'48Z'E01 - 000'98Z'EOL - - eoques lgap Ie701 eouenssl to IsoO • - - - Imam lednuud aowas map 689'9EL'191. - 1.96'6ZL'£ L29'99£'2L 9OL'EZZ 661'E2.9'E9 1.64 LE9'S1 286'L LS 24969L'OL SS4'1.99'l B29'Z6C'8 suopeJedo pue sloafexl!poi 1.46'914'S - - - - - LL6•91.L'9 - - sleueue leuo6ed 069'991:0Z - 992'699'9 Z96'1 LS Z9L'290'9L - - spew pue slewis 19001 L29'999 - - - E9l'L9 - 99E'LLE salpnls lepeds 29S'ZL9'9S - - - - 46L'EZZ 661;929'99 00C'EOL'Z I99'696'Z 925'8Z8'9 sluawasJngsip leydea pue 6u4eJadp 9EL'LOE'L£ - - 420'6LZ'L 599'S29'E1 - - - 296'L4£'ZZ 005'0L puephem to 446w Z69'6E9'01. - - - - - Z69'6E8'0L - - piing u&sap £88'LL6'Dl - 99L'9LE'Z 6L0'602 9901E9'1 - P69'09[9 - uoyom4suo0 59l'099'E1 ZL L'4L 989'LEE'£ - L002Z2'0L - 6upaem6ud 990191:9 - - - LL0'2ZL 60Z'Ol 9Z0'LES'E 996'199'1 9E9'9E0'L leJaua6-suogeAdo we36wd suogeAdo pue spelwd LL2'4800L - 69L'SZ LLZ'9E2 - - - - I.le998'S LL4'Z99 6ZS'I29'E also, Uoddns pue leuolssa;md le;a1 L94'LLS'Z - 92C - - 9S2'892 169'0ZZ C17890'2 moo poddns 0£L'999'L 68L'SZ 666'LEZ - - - - 996'LL9'9 OM'L29 910E96'L Sa,Was leuaissalmd poddns pue leuolsselmd 996'090'9 - 999'1E1 - 966 80£'099'1 2LL'l9 $2Z'922'2 sg;euaq pue saueles 5am4puadxg L1.6140L'OEl 060'951. 969'92 S99760'1 Sl L'9£Z'4 086'LZI 2L6'04S'£E 99E'019'9l 919'ZL9 29Z'SE9'99 29L'OOL'Z 2L1'LO6'E1 sanuanaJ lelol 6/051.L'Z 080'45L 969'EZ SSS'Z60'L ZES'ZLZ 196'2ZI 000'00Z 221 LI - 6L96LL Lb8'61, LL9 lE psaem 900'09Z - - - - - - S95'68 06 OSE'061 senueneJ Ay* ES 0996'9 - EeL-996-E - - - - - - aad uo6eolLIW Lum lull uoyepoasueJl 69l'SL9 - - - - - 24 L'SSZ 299'0L SSL'691 slUewesJnqulaJ lex-1 909'£6L'2 - - - - - - - 866'EC9 !MEM't 62Z'9E speweunqueJ elelg Z99'696'4 - - - - 696'690'4 9£4'99 2e2'E92 swewesmgwle1 leleped 906'01.9'2L1$ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ ZL6'l4f'EE $ 94Z'E6S'St$ 01.9'ZL9$ 40L'99L'64 $ - $ 69£'9LZ'EL$ 4E1 sales sanuanaa (d41414.1 33A ONOd A311VA 1V101 SONOS N3dtld3ONVISISSV A311VA A1N000 3iVS ONN 03NISW0O 30IAtl39 1930 XVI S3lVS 1VION3WY0O NOI1tl0111W Wtl031N0 11SNtl11131V15 NOI1tl1N0d3NtlN1 tl113HOVOO oiwd NN31S3M ldSd 1VN3N30 NO11V190,MM. 1V001 OI Vd XVI S31VS tl 31IRSV3W IL,ZIVCIC 030N3 SHIMMY 3NIN NOd 2131NV00 ONC ONOd A9 Sl Vn10V SA 1300118 A12918tl00 NOISSIWY00 NOIIV1NOdSNVN1 ALN000 301SN3AIN • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2011 /12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1► Approve Resolution No. 1 1-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2011/12 '; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make documentation used to determine the appropriations limit available to the public 15 days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit. Staff has performed the calculations necessary to determine the limit. The resolution and documents supporting the calculation are attached. The Commission chose to use the percentage change in the California per capital personal income and the population change within Riverside County as the factors in determining the appropriations limit. As required, the adoption of the Commission's FY 201 1 /12 Appropriations Limit was posted in the local newspaper. Attachments: 2) California Per Capital Income and Population, Riverside County - California Department of Finance Agenda Item 7B 9 " " " RESOLUTION NO. 11-009 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 201 1 /12 WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California Constitution places an annual limitation upon appropriations from proceeds of taxes by each local government of the State of California; and WHEREAS, in 1988, pursuant to Article XIIIB, section 4 of the California Constitution, the Riverside County Transportation Commission established its appropriations limit at $75 million for fiscal year 1988-1989 under ordinance No. 88-1; and WHEREAS, Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make the documentation used in determining the appropriations limit available to the public fifteen days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 1 approved by the voters of the State effective June 6, 1990, beginning with fiscal year 1990-1991 and for each fiscal year thereafter, the Commission's Board of Commissioners is required to select either the percentage change in California per capita personal income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll due to the addition of local non- residential construction, and either the population change within the Commission or the population change within Riverside County, as the two factors to be applied in calculating the appropriations limit for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, this Commission has documented its calculations of the Commission's appropriations limit for fiscal year 201 1 /12 and said calculations have been made available to the public at least fifteen days prior to the adoption of this resolution. 10 " 1. For fiscal year 201 1 /12, the factors selected for calculating the appropriations limit are (a) the percentage change in California per capita personal income, and (b) the population change within the County of Riverside. 2. The appropriations limit applicable to this Agency pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for fiscal year 201 1 /12 are hereby established and determined to be $332,891,501. 3. A copy of the documentation used in the determination of the appropriations limit for fiscal year 201 1 /12 shall be affixed hereto and shall be available for public inspection. 4. Pursuant to Section 7910 of the California Government Code, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the establishment of the appropriations limit as set forth herein must be commenced within forty-five days of the adoption of this resolution. " ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2011. Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 11 " 2011-2012 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 2010-2011 Appropriations Limit $ 318,967,208 201 1-2012 adjustment: Change in California per capita personal income = 2.51 % Change in Population, Riverside County = 1.81 % Per Capital Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 2.51 + 100 = 1.0251 100 Population converted to a ratio: 1.81 + 100 = 1.0181 100 Calculation of factor for FY 201 1-2012: 1.0251 x 1.0181 = 1.04365431 $ 318,967,208 X 1.04365431 = $ 332,891,501 2011-2012 Appropriations Limit $ 332,891,501 Source: California per capita income  California Department of Finance Population, Riverside County  California Department of Finance 12 010 May 2011 Enclosure 1 A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost -of -living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost -of -living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the 2011-2012 appropriation limit is: Per Capita Personal Income Fiscal Year Percentage change (FY) over prior year 2011-2012 2.51 B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in Califomia per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2011-2012 appropriation limit. 2011-2012: Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 2.51 percent Population Change = 0.77 percent Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: Population converted to a ratio: Calculation of factor for FY 2011-2012: 2.51 + 100 = 1.0251 100 0.77 + 100 = 1.0077 100 1.0251 x 1.0077 = 1.0330 Enclosure II Annual Percent Change In Population Minus Exclusions January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2011 and Total Population, January 1, 2011 Total County Percent Change Pmutation Pal us.EXcluai°ns - Population City 2010-2011 1-1.10 1-1-11 1-1-2011 Riverside Banning 1.14 29,507 29,844 29,844 Beaumont 4.68 36,496 38,195 38.195 Blythe 1.09 13,153 13206 20,158 Cakmesa 1.12 7,853 7,941 7,941 Canyon Lake 1.13 10,528 10,647 10,647 Cathedral City 1.12 50,984 51,556 51,603 Coachella 2.57 40,464- 41,502 - 41,502 Corona 1.18 151,854 153,649 153,649 Desert Hot Springs 5.92 25,652 27,383 27,383 Hemet 1.62 78,335 79,607 79,607 Indian Wells 1.40 4,941 5,010 5,010 Ind° 2.72 75,122 77,165 77,165 Lake Elsinore 2.06 51,445 52,503 52,503 La Quirda 1.42 - 37,307 37,836 37,836 Mends* 2.82 77,267 79,444 79,444 Moreno Valley 1.33 192,654 195.216 195.216 Murrieta 1.33 103,085 104,459 104,459 Norco 1.13 22,673 22,929 27,060 Palm Dosed 2.03 48.132 49,111 49,111 Palm Springs 1.39 44,385 45,002 45,002 Penis 2.80 67,879 69,781 69,781 Rancho Mirage 1.72 17,168 17,463 17,463 Riverside 1.31 302.814 306,779 306,779:. San Jacinto 1.26 44,043. 44,597 44,597 Temecula 2.05 99,611 101,657 101,657 Wildomar 1.68 32,006. 32,543 32.543 Unincorporated 1.92 501,859 511,518 511,623 County Total 1.81 2,167.417 2,206,633 2,217,778 (1 Exclusions include residents on federal maw/ Installations and group quarters residents In state mental Institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. Page 1 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4 (Q4) 2010; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement to MuniServices, LLC (MuniServices) 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 tax revenues. Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices 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 138 businesses. Through Q3 2010 for July through September 2010, the SBOE has approved corrections for 98 of these accounts for a total sales tax revenue recovery of $1,094,053. An update to the sales tax revenue recovery through Q4 2010 will be made subsequent to the Committee meeting and prior to the June Commission meeting. 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 provided the Commission with the quarterly sales tax summary report for the fourth quarter of calendar 2010 for October through December 2010 (Q4 2010). Most of the Q4 2010 Measure A sales tax revenues was received by the Commission in the first quarter of calendar 2011, during Agenda Item 7C 15 January through March 2011, due to a lag in the sales tax calendar. The summary section of the Q4 2010 report is attached and includes an overview of California sales tax receipts, local results, historical cash collections analysis, summary of the top 25 sales tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, sales tax by business category, economic trends for a significant business category, and results. The following observations were noted in the Q4 2010 report: • Sales tax receipts for Riverside County were 7.4% higher compared to the Q3 2009, and slightly higher than the state. This supports the previous quarterly reports' analyses that an economic recovery statewide and locally is underway. • Taxable transactions for the top 25 tax contributors in Riverside County, which generated 24% of the taxable sales for the year ended Q4 2010, increased 4.4% compared to the year ended Q4 2009. For the top 100 tax contributors, which generated 38% of the taxable sales, the growth was 6.7 %. • Over the last two-year period, the Q4 2010 sales tax levels were at the low points for three of the top 10 economic segments; these three segments (food markets, building materials -retail, and light industry) were also the three low points in Q3 2010. Apparel store sales reached a new high point during Q4 2010. • Department stores, service stations, and restaurants continue to represent the three largest economic segments for Riverside County. • Largest Segment %of Total/% Change 2nd Largest Segment %of Total/% Change 3rd largest Segment % of Total/ % Change Department Stores 12.6/3.2 Service Stations 11.6/ 17.4 Restaurants 10.7/-0.9 Restaurants 13.2/-1.4 Department Stores 11.4/0.0 Service Stations 9.6 / 12.0 ECONO .111C SEGMENTS ANALYSIS Restaurants 13.6/-0.1 Department Stores 10.3/ 1.4 Service Stations 8.2 / 13.1 Department Stores 13.0/3.4 Restaurants 10.8/-0.8 Service Stations 9.8/ 13.9 Department Stores 15.9/0.1 Service Stations 10.9/ 14.2 Restaurants 10.2/-2.9 Restaurants 14.0/-1.0 Department Stores 10.9/0.2 Service Stations 9.6 / 11.5 Department Stores 12.0/-7.1 Service Stations 11.4 / 7.8 Restaurants 10.8/-9.1 Department Stores 13.2/0.4 Services Stations 12.8/ 19.1 Restaurants 10.0/-1.2 Restaurants 19.8/0.2 Misc. Retail 10.5/-5.2 Department Stores 9.3/-0.5 • Similar to the Q3 comparisons in the prior quarter's report, the general retail and transportation economic categories were the only categories with increases in the Q4 2010 benchmark year comparison to Q4 2009. Construction and business to business, which comprised 25% of the Q4 2010 sales tax receipts, had smaller declines of 2.6% and 1.2%, respectively, compared with the prior Q3 2010 report declines of 8.8% and 7.3%, respectively. Of the two remaining categories, the food products decline was comparable to the prior quarter and miscellaneous (2.1 % of the total receipts) declined 1.9% compared to 1.1 % in the prior quarter. Agenda Item 7C • 16 " General Retail % of Total/% Change Food Products %of Total/% Change Construction % of Total/ % Change Transportation %of Total/%Change Business to Business %of Total/ % Change Miscellaneous %of Total/% Change Total 30.9/3.5 17.0/-1.4 10.5/-2.6 25.0/ 12.2 14.5/-1.2 2.1 /-1.9 100.0/3.1 30.7/-0.6 19.3/-1.9 8.6/-4.1 22.5/5.8 17.6/ 1.5 1.3/-7.6 100.0/0.5 ECONOMIC CATEGORY ANALYSIS 30.3/0.7 19.7/-1.0 8.2 /-2.1 19.6/8.2 21.0/4.1 1.2 /-7.4 100.0/2.1 30.8/1.4 17.5/0.3 10.3/-3.0 24.8/4.7 15.1 / 1.9 1.6/-4.3 100.0/ 1.5 33.5/0.6 17.4/-2.3 10.6/-4.6 23.9/7.7 13.5/3.3 1.2 /-0.6 100.0/ 1.4 30.5/-1.0 19.8/-1.6 8.0/-3.6 22.8/5.2 17.6/0.6 1.2/-6.7 100.0/0.2 29.2/-4.5 17.3/-8.3 9.9/-11.8 25.7/2.2 15.9/-2.9 2.0/-12.3 100.0/-4.3 30.6/0.4 19.4/0.1 12.2/-9.4 27.7/9.8 9.1 / 7.8 1.0/-60.9 100.0/0.5 33.4/-1.2 30.3/1.0 9.3/0.4 19.6/ 14.9 6.0/-2.1 1.4/5.9 100.0/ 2.5 During the review of the Q4 2010 detailed report with MuniServices, information regarding sales tax comparisons by city and change by economic category from Q4 2009 to Q4 2010 was provided, and is attached- The city of Eastvale is not presented due to lack of data. Staff continues to monitor monthly sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine the need for any additional adjustment to the revised revenue projections in FY 2010/11 as well as the revenue projections for FY 201 1 /12. Staff will utilize the forecast scenarios included with the complete report and recent trends in assessing such projections. Attachments: 1) Sales Tax Analysis for Q4 2010 2) Sales Tax Comparison by City for Q4 2010 to Q4 2009 Agenda Item 7C " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Digest Summary Collections through March 2011 Sales through December 2010 (2O1OQ4) CALIFORNIA OVERVIEW California experienced overall sales tax growth for the fourth quarter in a row. Continuing the emerging trend of a 'broader' recovery, Department Stores, Apparel Stores, New Auto Sales and Service Stations sales led the gain. On a cash basis, statewide sales tax receipts during January -March 2011 grew by 6.5% from the same three months in 2010. Northern California grew by 7.2% and Southern Califomia grew by 6.0%. As for RCTC, its sales tax receipts changed by 7.4% from January -March 2010 to January -March 2011. CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE Expect General Retail to grow between 3.5% and 4.5% through FY 2015. While Service Station sales are driving current growth in local sales tax, the industry's ongoing volatility will continue to affect local sales tax fluctuations. Construction will continue its drop during FY 2011 by 5.0 to 10.0% before growing by 2.5% per year through FY 2013 and eventually rebounding through FY 2015. Food Products, which includes Restaurants and Supermarkets, should grow with core CPI of 2.4% per year with price pressures upward of 3.5% into FY 2014 and FY 2015. Auto sales will remain flat during the first half of FY 2011 until pent up demand causes buyers, who will be seeking lower -priced vehicles, to increase purchases during FY 2012 and 2013 by 3.0% to 5.0%. County Pool receipts will follow the auto sales trends as third -party vehicle sales resume along with overall car sales volume. In order to establish an economic rebound, Califomia still needs job growth both locally and regionally to increase spending as well as business travel. Housing prices must stabilize and begin growing in order to restore some levels of equity and wealth effect, which should bolster consumer confidence and spending once again. LOCAL RESULTS 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 4Q2010 Receipts Net 4Q2009 Receipts Actual Percentage Change $32,542,268 0 0 32,542,268 .00 (347,300) 32,194,968 29,966,847 7.4% www.Mundervices.com (800) 800-8181 Page 1 18 Riverside County Transportation Commission Business Activity Performance Analysis Local Collections Less: Payments for Prior Periods Preliminary 4Q2030 Collections Projected 4Q2010 Late Payments Projected 4Q2010 Final Results Actual4Q2009 Results Projected Percentage Change HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER $32,542,268 (1,717,664) 30,824,605 708,645 31,533,250 29,932,445 5.3% S33,000 S32,000 S31,000 $30,000 S29,000 $28,000 S27,000 $26,000 S25,000 S24,000 (in t0onsands of S) II I WA IA 111 ME II WA 1 19 I I I 1 II II II 11111111111111 3Q2008 402008 1Q2009 2Q2009 3Q2009 4Q2009 102010 2Q2010 3Q2010. 4Q 2010 _Net Receipts .e'''$BOE Ades in Rees Due TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS The following list identifies RCTC's Top 25 Sales/Use and represents sales from January 2010 through Dece generate 23.8% of RCTC's total sales and use tax reven ALBERTSON'S FOOD CENTERS BEST BUY STORES CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS CIRCLE K FOOD STORES COSTCO WHOLESALE DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES HOME DEPOT 1 C PENNEY COMPANY K MART STORES KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE MOBIL SERVICE STATIONS S450 S400 S350 S300 $230 S200 S150 5100 $50 $0 Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order mber 2010. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors ue. RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY RITE AID DRUG STORES ROSS STORES SAM'S CLUB SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY SHELL SERVICE STATIONS STATER BROS MARKETS TARGET STORES VERIZON WIRELESS W.W. GRAINGER WAL MART STORES WALGREEN'S DRUG STORES www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 Page 2 • • 19 " Riverside County Transportation Commission HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS The following chart shows the sales tax level from sales through December 2010, the highs, and the lows for each segment over the last two years. SIs,000 S 16,00 0 S14,000 S 12,000 SI0,000 S8,000 S6,000 S4,000 S2,000 SO (in thousands of S) �%4Q2010 f& High " Low r i��111 IN II II II I a4a yDV Oa D Oa ��e der ts av a , a 4 D ��} D 4 . ``0.," es ��'*4S �D,� qas�� `D`ya Dt ga`z4 ��9aJ t. 9DR4`. mat, Pa.0 " S`��.s.' 4��a ��' P4��4 "k D' ��,D �� v��% ANNUAL SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY (in thousands of 5) 4Q2010 $Q2010 2Q20f0 1Q2010 4Q 2009 3142009 2Q 2009 1Q 2009 4Q2008 302008 SO $20,000 540,000 S60,000 S00,000 $100,000 S120,000 S140,000 $160,000 �General Ratan 010iond Products 1E0Transporta Han �Construction 1711usiness To Business NiM tscellaneous www.MuniServicescom (800) 800-8181 Page 3 20 Riverside County Transportation Commission FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: General Retail (in Ihosean de of S) S14,000 S12,000 S10,000 .... _:. 38,000 So1LI111111i1I1I11I11.1.11 I I ', I 1..1._- o o a o o ee o 0 0 o o o o o e e ,. .. ,. .. o a e es 0 e e o o e o 0 0 o e e 0. o e 0 e N N IS M M R N VI VI HI N VIa a a a 'a a CO a a a a a -a a re a c a a a a a a .. M n a v •r. ..l er -. rr n a .o rr of a .- ra n a FINAL RESULTS: July -September 2010 Sales Local Net Cash Collections Less: Pool Amounts Less: Prior Quarter Payments Add: Late Payments Local Net Economic Collections after Adjustments Percent Change from July -September 2010 Sales MUNISERVICES' ON -GOING AUDIT RESULTS This Quarter $97,636 Total to Date $696,382 $27,942,296 ($-347,300) ($1,522,913) $1,165,663 $27,932,346 UP BY 2.5% www.MuniServices com (800) 800-8181 Page 4 21 Southern California: Sales Tax Comoarisoillin Oct -Dec 2009 Sales to Oct -Dec 2010 Sales Jurisdica,un r�, 1 PRO. 1.: "w�us �'wrt eL TAANSeafh71.WOAtl7fiQR1TY 'General Retail Food Products- r Trans, Cons[, �iaFT% "} iz'`a s � �: Business -, to Business .."::I,.?;,..(...;: Misc. ;.:. Oct -Dec 201u =Oct -Dec 2009 '`%Chg largest Gain Total '. Total ' x Gtttt,F li=2i 'r�) 1 15`L �) Iy I����� 2nd Largest Gain largest Decline 2nd Largest Decline - iilt �f �ti _ RCTC i':`..":_ .,4.6% i12B.a, �.4°�p(i ;2 °�` "1 .5' ji � ?�rri6.f4,'- '295„ rM1N k,»h''s9 �: �71� Fw`i( ) 5eFvtsis-5tat'Ipnkr' ��rl .,-4klgIs:REt 01,111'Y,, ghf_Ihdu5t'ry ',i1, RIVERSIDE COUNTY Banning 2.0% 2.5% 5.5% -30.2% 1.7% -7.5% 376,156 369,432 1.8%Auto Sales - New Restaurants BIdg.Matls-Whsle Office Equipment Beaumont -1.3% -0.9% 60.1% -10.7% 9.8% •11.2% 790,265 722,187 9.4% Service Stations Department Stores Miscellaneous Retail Bldg,Matls-Whsle Blythe -5.7% -9.7% -6.6% 8.1% -8.0% -51.2% 340,773 363,251 -6.2%Energy Sales Auto Parts/Repair Service Stations Restaurants Calimesa 15.3% 4.2% 9.3% -87.5% -85.4% -60.6% 131,582 163,259 -19.4% Service Stations Restaurants Light Industry Bldg.Matls-Retail Canyon Lake -5.3% -10.3% -40.6% 9.0% -38.5% -25.4% 23,645 27,787-14.9%Bldg .Matls-Whsle Electronic Equipment Misc. Vehicle Sales Light Industry Cathedral City •7.7% -0.9% 16.7% -37.0% -13, 9% 25.1% 1,469,005 1,409,042 4.3%Auto Sales - New Service Stations BIdg.Matls-Whsle Furniture/Appliance Coachella 3.4% -2.0% 14,9% 1,5% 12,8'% -17.9% 669,739 628,747 6.5% Service Stations Food Processing Eqp Food Markets Miscellaneous Retail Corona 7.8% 2, 6"% 17.2"% 15.3% -5.4% -29.4% 6,645,901 6,148,220 8.1%Bldg. Matls-Whsle Service Stations Chemical Products Heavy Industry Desert Hot Springs 2.0% 1.9% 745% 17 0% 14 2% 5.6% 264,223 215,992 22.3% Service Stations Auto Parts/Repair BIdg.Matls-Retail Miscellaneous Retail Hemet -3.3% -2.7% 22.6% 4,4% -15,2% -16.8% 2,039,321 1,952,470 4.4%Auto Sales - New Service Stations Electronic Equipment Food Markets Indian Wells 5.1% 15.1% -38.1% -94.2% 71.3°% -43.3% 202,024 179,234 12.7% Restaurants Light Industry Misc. Vehicle Sales Bldg.Matls-Whsle Indio 9.8% -5.1% 16.9% -3.5% 18.1% 12.6% 1,518,332 1,406,402 8.0% Auto Sales - New Department Stores Restaurants BIdg.Matls-Whsle La Quinta -2.7°% 5.1% 30.1% -8.4% 17.5% 46.2% 1,795,749 1,739,157 3.3% Auto Sales - New Light Industry Department Stores Furniture/Appliance Lake Elsinore 3.4% -3.1% 11.7% 0.2% 16.0% -3.2% 1,586,156 1,515,403 4.7% Auto Sales - New Department Stores Food Markets Misc. Vehicle Sales Mendee 11.6% 10.1% 7.9% -5.6°% -8.0% -50.5% 1,016,268 950,572 6.9%Furniture/Appliance Restaurants Energy Sales BIdg.Matis-Whsle Moreno Valley 7.6% 3.0% 12.3% 10.6% 1.1% 14.3% 2,909,732 2,707,057 7.5%Auto Sales - New Department Stores Heavy Industry Auto Parts/Repair Murrieta 3.5% -0.2% 0.2% -6.0% -12.3% 24.0% 2,408,799 2,420,326 -0.5% Department Stores Service Stations Leasing Auto Sales - New Norco 2.3% 1.0% 12,8% -8.5% 2.9°% -9.4% 909,129 860,211 5.7% Auto Parts/Repair Auto Sales - Used Light Industry Apparel Stores Palm Desert 9.2% 1.1% 11,8% .10.0% -91% -20.0% 3,748,352 3,548,666 5.6% Department Stores Furniture/Appliance BIdg.Matls-Whsle Office Equipment Palm Springs 13.8% 2.8% 2.6% 1.5% 7.6% -27,0% 2,157,572 2,046,648 5.4% Furniture/Appliance Restaurants BIdg.Matls-Retail Health &Government Perris 1.1% 3.9% 30.9% 24.9% -10.0% -62,8% 1,227,778 1,248,883 -1.7% Service Stations BIdg.Matls-Whsle Miscellaneous Dther Heavy Industry Rancho Mirage -4.5% 4.6% 155% 4.5% -14,2% -4.3% 967,342 944,257 2.4% Auto Sales - New Restaurants Misc. Vehicle Sales Miscellaneous Retail Riverside 5.1% 1.2% 12,4% 4,7% 11,3% 4.8% 9,834,298 9,150,865 7.5%Auto Sales - New Electronic Equipment Leasing Heavy Industry Riverside County 5.9% -0.4% 3.5% -5.5% 3.0% -71.4% 6,794,322 6,693,059 1.5%Apparel Stores Service Stations BIdg.Matls-Whsle Closed Acct-Adjustmt San Jacinto 2.5°% 0.5% 14.4% -11.5% -16.2% -20.2% 471,290 457,181 3.1% Service Stations Auto Parts/Repair Light Industry BIdg.Matls-Whsle Temecula 3.8% 5.1% 17.9% 0.0% 7.0% -8.5% 5,935,063 5,540,228 7.1% Auto Sales - New Service Stations Light Industry Heavy Industry Wildomar -23.9% 3.4% -3.6% -35.6% -19.8% 13.3% 251,285 262,962 -4.4% Food Markets Food Processing Eqp Service Stations Furniture/Appliance MuniServices, LLC 22 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Fund Balance Policy STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-007, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Fund Balance Policy"" and 2) Adopt the Fund Balance Policy; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued GASB Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, which will be effective for fiscal years beginning July 1, 2010. This statement sets out new standards of accounting and financial reporting intended to improve the clarity and consistency of the fund balance information provided to financial report users. As a result of the new financial system, staff elected an early implementation of this statement in FY 2009/10. While GASB Statement No. 54 was implemented in the prior year, another part of the Commission's implementation of this statement is the formal adoption of a fund balance policy. Attached is the Fund Balance Policy that explains the five components of fund balance and formally delegates to the Chief Financial Officer the assignment of fund balance for specific purposes for inclusion in the annual financial reports. No formal commitment by the Commission of any unrestricted fund balance amount is required. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 1 1-007 2) Draft Fund Balance Policy Agenda Item 7D 23 RESOLUTION NO. 11-007 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE FUND BALANCE POLICY WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") currently retains the authority to add, delete or otherwise modify the Commission's policies and procedures; WHEREAS, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has issued its Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, with the intent of improving financial reporting by providing fund balance categories that will be more easily understood; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the Fund Balance Policy, attached as Exhibit A. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8'h day of June, 2011. Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board 24 FUND BALANCE POLICY I. Introduction EXHIBIT A The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued its Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. The requirements of this statement are intended to improve financial reporting by providing fund balance categories and classifications that will be more easily understood by financial report users. The categories are more clearly defined to make the nature and extent of the constraints placed on a government's fund balance more transparent. Additionally, the reporting of restricted fund balance will enhance the consistency between information reported in the government -wide statements and information in the governmental fund financial statements. This Fund Balance Policy establishes the procedures for reporting unrestricted fund balances in the governmental fund financial statements. Certain commitments and assignments of fund balance will help ensure that there will be adequate financial resources to protect the Commission against unforeseen circumstances and events such as revenue shortfalls and unanticipated expenditures. The policy also authorizes and directs the Chief Financial Officer to prepare financial reports which accurately categorize fund balance as per GASB Statement No. 54. II. Scope Fund balance is essentially the difference between the assets and liabilities reported in a governmental fund. The Commission's governmental funds consist of the General fund, special revenue funds, capital projects funds, and a debt service fund. There are five separate components of fund balance, each of which identifies the extent to which the Commission is bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts can be spent. • Nonspendable — Fund balance includes amounts that are not in spendable form or are required to be maintained intact (e.g., loans receivable and endowments). These amounts are inherently nonspendable. • Restricted — Fund balance includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes stipulated by external resource providers, constitutionally or 25 through enabling legislations. These amounts have externally enforceable limitations on use. • Committed — Fund balance includes amounts that can be used only for specific purposes determined by formal action of the government's highest level of decision -making authority. These amounts have self-imposed limitations on use. • Assigned — Fund balance comprises amounts intended to be used by the government for specific purposes. In governmental funds other than the general fund, assigned fund balance represents the amount that is not restricted or committed. These amounts have limitations resulting from intended use. • Unassigned — Fund balance is the residual classification for the general fund and includes all amounts not contained in the other classifications. Nonspendable and restricted fund balance are not addressed in this policy due to the nature of their restrictions. For the Commission, an example of nonspendable fund balance is prepaid amounts. Restricted fund balance amounts in the General fund, special revenue funds, capital projects funds, and debt service fund are related to the limitations imposed by Measure A, the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), the Transportation Development Act for Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Transit Assistance, federal and state grants and programs, and debt agreements. This policy is focused on financial reporting of unrestricted fund balance, or the last three components listed above. These three components are further discussed below. III. Procedures Committed Fund Balance The Board of Commissioners, as the Commission's highest level of decision -making authority, may commit fund balance for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal actions taken, such as an ordinance or resolution. These committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the Commission removes or changes the specified use through the same type of formal action taken to establish the commitment. Commission action to commit fund balance needs to occur within the fiscal reporting period; however, the amount can be determined subsequently. Assigned Fund Balance Amounts that are constrained by the Commission's intent to be used for specific purposes, but are neither restricted nor committed, should be reported as assigned fund balance. This policy hereby delegates the authority to assign amounts to be used for specific purposes to the Chief Financial Officer for the purpose of reporting these amounts in the annual financial statements. An example of assigned fund balance follows: Adopted June 8, 2011 • 26 " " Genera! Government Administration  Funds allocated by Measure A, TUMF, LTF and motorist assistance programs to the General fund for general government administration. Unassigned Fund Balance These are residual positive net resources of the General fund in excess of what can properly be classified in one of the other four categories. Fund Balance Classification The accounting policies of the Commission consider restricted fund balance to have been spent first when an expenditure is incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted fund balance is available. Similarly, when an expenditure is incurred for purposes for which amounts in any of the unrestricted classifications of fund balance could be used, the Commission considers committed amounts to be reduced first, followed by assigned amounts and then unassigned amounts. This policy is in place to provide a measure of protection for the Commission against unforeseen circumstances and to comply with GASB Statement No. 54. No other policy or procedure supersedes the authority and provisions of this policy. Adopted June 8, 2011 27 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2011 /12 Minimum Fare Revenue Ratio for Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 2) 3) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate ratio; Approve the FY 201 1 /12 minimum fare 17.04% for the Riverside Transit Agency Transit Agency (SunLine); and Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: the required fare box recovery revenue to operating cost ratio of (RTA) and 17.80% for the SunLine RTA and SunLine serve both urbanized and non -urbanized areas of Riverside County. As required by state law, these agencies' minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio would fall between the 10%. requirement for non -urbanized area services and 20% requirement for urbanized area services. The Commission developed a methodology to calculate the required minimum ratio and it was subsequently approved by the state. Per the Transportation Development Act, Section 99270.1 , Ca[trans must review and approve the methodology on an annual basis. Ca[trans staff has concurred in writing that the methodology developed by the Commission is still applicable. The formula used is as follows: R=.1Cn+.2Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Costs of Services in Non -Urbanized Areas Cu = Costs of Services in Urbanized Areas Agenda Item 7E 28 The costs for new or expanded services are exempted from the calculation for the year of implementation plus two fiscal years of operation. For FY 201 1 /12, RTA has six routes and SunLine has two routes that are also exempt from the farebox recovery calculation. Using the above formula and the Short Range Transit Plans, the FY 2011 /12 minimum required ratio for RTA is 17.04% and SunLine is17.80%. This means that passenger fares for RTA and SunLine should cover at least 17.04% and 17.80%, respectively, of the actual cost to operate services. The balance of the operating cost is covered by federal, state, and local funding. The farebox recovery ratios for FY 2011 /12 have been reviewed and approved by RTA and SunLine staff. The ratios are then fixed for the fiscal year upon adoption of the required ratio by the Commission and cannot be changed, even though actual revenues and expenses may differ from the Short Range Transit Plan estimates. Attachment: Rules and Regulations for Determining Required Fare Revenue Agenda Item 7E • 29 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DETERMINING REQUIRED FARE REVENUE TO OPERATING COST RATIOS FOR TRANSIT OPERATORS SERVING BOTH URBANIZED AND NON -URBANIZED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY I. Based on the latest annually adopted Short Range Transit Plans for Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission with the cooperation of the transit operator will determine separately the operating cost of those transit services provided in non -urbanized areas and the operating cost of those services in urbanized areas. • For the purpose of this calculation, the operating cost in the urbanized areas shall include the cost of fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within an urbanized area. The operating cost in the non -urbanized area shall include the cost of all fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within a non -urbanized area. • For fixed route lines operating partly within an urbanized area and partly within a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to the urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the route miles in the non -urbanized area and the route miles in the urbanized area. • For demand response systems serving both an urbanized area and a non - urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the population of the urbanized area served and the population of the non -urbanized area served. • The costs of extension of public transit service pursuant to Section 99268.8 of the Public Utilities Code (PUC) shall not be included in any of these calculations. II. The required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost in compliance with PUC Sections 99268.3 and 99268.4 shall be calculated as follows: R = .1 Cn + .2 Cu Cn + Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Operating Cost in Non -Urbanized Areas Cu = Operating Cost in Urbanized Areas III. Annually, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall calculate the required revenue to operating cost ratio for each transit operator serving both urbanized and non -urbanized 30 areas and submit this calculation to Caltrans. Caltrans shall approve the methodology used to calculate the blended fare box ratio prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Once approved, the ratio is not subject to change. • • • 31 " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 23, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 201 1 /12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 201 1 /12; 2) Close the public hearing to receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 201 1 /12 at the June 8 Commission meeting; 3) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 201 1 /12; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The annual fiscal budget is the result of staff determining the operating and capital needs for FY 2011/12 and identifying the resources to fund those needs. The budget process began in December 2010. The goals and objectives approved by the Commission on March 9 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 efficiencies, environmental stewardship, economic development, intermodalism and accessibility, and public and agency communications, and financial and administrative policies. On May 11, 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 $36,636,900 to ending fund balance: Adjustments to Fiscal Year 2010/11 Projected Amounts " Net increases of $3,461,900 in reimbursements and operating transfers in less net increases of $6,055,200 in projects and operations and operating transfers out after further review and analysis of department budget worksheets. 32 Agenda Item 8 Adjustments to Fiscal Year 2011 /12 Budgeted Amounts • A $2.2 million decrease in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues included in beginning fund balance; • A $183,400 decrease in investment income as a result of a net increase in revenues and the correlating increase in the estimated cash balance; • A $10 million decrease in debt proceeds due to a reduction in commercial paper notes issuances; • A $23,000 net increase in operating transfers in offset by a $23,000 increase in operating transfers out related to changes in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funding of rail operations and analysis of the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) submissions; • A $16,442,700 increase in operating transfers in offset by a $16,442,700 increase in operating transfers out related to changes in available debt proceeds resulting primarily from release of debt service reserve fund for project costs; • A $590,000 decrease in professional services related to an anticipated decrease in liquidity facility fees for the 2009 Bonds as a result of preliminary negotiations to extend the facility for an additional three years to September 2014; • A $36,500 increase in professional services related to financing costs and programming database services; • A $225,800 increase in program management expenditures for Bechtel Infrastructure (Bechtel) services based on a reconciliation to the Bechtel contract amount; • An $8,100 increase in engineering costs related to the 60/215 East Junction project; • A $1,060,000 increase in right of way costs related to the Interstate 215 Central widening project; • A net increase of $10,549,800 in STA expenditures based on the review and analysis of the SRTP submissions; • Increases of $12,143,000 in LTF expenditures based on the review and analysis of the SRTP submissions; • A $49,000 increase in planning studies; • A $75,000 decrease in debt service expenditures related to the decrease in interest cost as a result of decreased commercial paper notes outstanding; and • A $1,747,000 decrease in debt service expenditures related to a revision of the variable rate interest factor for the 2009 Bonds. 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 11 Commission meeting. After the public hearing is closed on 33 • • • Agenda Item 8 " " June 8 adoption of the proposed Budget for FY 201 1 /12 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 2011 /12. This document contains the executive summary, as revised, that was presented at the May 11 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; 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 201 1 /12 is as follows: Revenues and other financing sources: Sales taxes -Measure A, LTF, and STA Reimbursements (federal, state, and other) TUMF 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 FY 2011/12 Budget $ 180,937,000 48, 724, 800 7,084,300 310,200 1,788,800 3.0,000,000 177,201,000 446,046,100 6,421,300 16,385,800 5,436,600 391,137, 600 475,200 20,195,000 177,201,000 617,252,500 (171,206,400) 530, 978, 300 $ 359, 771, 900 " Attachment: FY 201 1 /12 Proposed Budget  Posted on Commission Website 34 Agenda Item 8 5/23/2011 Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2011/12 Inataryiecarierna Budget Adjustments RCTC (Draft to Final) Fund Balance FY 2011/12 Ending Fund Balance (as reported 5/11/11) $ 396,408,800 Projected FY 2011 Adjustments: Decrease in stale and local reimbursements (840,000) Increase in professional and support and project operations Budget FY 2012 Adjustments: Decrease in TUMF reimbursements (2,200,000) Decrease in bond issuance Decrease in investment income (183,400) Decrease in professional costs 553,500 Increase in program management costs (225,1300) Decrease in engineering costs 791,900 Increase in construction costs (500000) Increase in right of way acquisition costs (1,060:0W) Increase in special studies (49,000) Increase in transit operating& capital distributions (22,692,800) Decrease in interest costs 1,822,000 Decrease in debt proceeds (10,000,000) FY 2011/12 Ending Fund Balance (per flnal budget 6/8/11) $ 359,771,903 (1,753,300) 1 5/23/2011 .ources • Revenues $238,845,100 • Debt Proceeds 30,000,000 •Transfers In 177,201,000 • Expenditures 419,856,500 • Debt Service 20,195,000 • Transfers Out 177,201,000 !Uses over Sources (offset by beginning fund balance) (171,206,400) Ending Fund Balance FY 2011/12 $359,771 900 •r. FY 2011/12 Sources Funding Sources Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax STA Sales Tax Federal reimbursements State reimbursements Local reimbursements TUMF Other revenues Investment income Debt proceeds Transfers in Total Sources y 114.700.000 56,/00,000 9,537.000 23,650,700 23,710,100 1,364,000 7,084,300 310,200 1,788,800 30,000,000 177,201,000 $ 446,046,100 ROTC 2 $200,000, $180,000, 5160,000, $140,000, $120,000, $3o0,o00, $so,000; $60,000, 540,000, 51o,000, Funding Sources Com•arison mo 100 300 )00 100 100 100 100 s- ti' (355 +6re' 9 ,' gip. ,1aQY� ,,p ,p tY 02' • ,,p p S- 0, •9 �Oy& •y�,• � 1fQ h pq ?, yam, ,�• ^*, o?o° ^�0 'C'� 4\ec� c`Y y ya�Y PY �a� �a�'a' 44 �ae,4` Soso' oc4,se b `t ¢c�aado c ` d- c¢4- Total $446,046,100 Summary of Uses RCTC 5/23/2011 3 5/23/2011 Planning & Programming Services $6,992,100 Regional Programs Total $ 124,995,500 Rail Maintenance & Operations $21,587,700 Public & Specialized Transit $87,034,000 6% 17% 70% RCTC Commuter Motori=: Assistance Assistan $4,220,800 $5,160,9E' 3% 4% 4 5/23/2011 Capital Program Uses $286,654,000 $167,834,600 RCTC • Salaries and benefits $2,730,100 • Professional services 9,601,700 • Support costs 852,800 • Projects and operations 273,334,400 li• Capital outlay 135,000 • Debt service • Transfers out 20,195,000 147,639,600 Capital Projects & Operations Expenditures S9,235,000 / /Projects& Operations 5273,336,400 Righ[ot Way awl Land f , 594, 952.000 4 5 5/23/2011 RCTC Capital Project Expenditure Highlights SR-91 HOV Lanes/Adams Street to 60/91/215 Interchange 74/215 Interchange SR-91, 1-15 and I-215 Corridor Improvements Perris Valley Line Professional 5 16,385,800 3% Support Costs $ 5,436,600 to Projects & Operations 3391,137,600 63% Debt Service $ 20,195,000 3°% 6 Measure A Management Services R`T` Next Steps Measure A management services salaries and benefits I Sales tax and TUMF revenue trends Funding needs for projects and transit operators Timeliness of federal and state reimbursements Finalize budget and related document Receive input for the proposed budget and continue the public hearing Review the final budget draft, close the public hearing, and adopt the final budget s RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Service Director SUBJECT: Federal Fiscal Years 2009/10 — 2010/11 Federal Administration's Section 5310 Capital Grant Applications Transit STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the FFYs 2009/10 — 2010/11 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the local review committee (LRC); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-008, 'Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan', certifying that the projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan; 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2011, Caltrans issued a call for projects to social service and public agencies for the FTA Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled Specialized Transit program covering two years of funding for FFYs 2009/10 — 2010/11. This capital - only program dedicated to specialized transit (serving elderly and persons with disabilities, where public transit is otherwise unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate) is used mostly for accessible vans and buses, computer hardware and software, and communication equipment. Caltrans is the lead agency on this statewide discretionary program. The Commission's role is to perform an advisory review of projects within the region, submit a regional priority list to Caltrans, and amend funded projects in the RTIP when approved. Program funds are apportioned among the states by a formula that is based on the number of elderly and persons with disabilities in each state according to the latest available U.S. census data. Projects funded by the Section 5310 program require coordination with other federally -assisted programs in order to make the most efficient use of federal resources. Program funds may be used to Agenda Item 9 35 provide up to 88.53% federal share of the capital cost and requires at least 11.47% in local match. For this funding cycle only, agencies will receive up to 100% in federal funds with the usage of toll credits. Approximately $25 million in federal funds is available for programming for the FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11 grant cycle, twice as much as the amount of $12.6 million made available during the last funding cycle in 2009. During the FFY 2009 grant cycle, Riverside County requested approximately $1.1 million of Section 5310 funds. All project proposals submitted by the eight agencies were funded. The LRCs in each county quantitatively evaluate all applications submitted for that area, rank them using state -mandated criteria, and submit a regional priority list to Caltrans. The Commission's evaluation committee for this year, after putting out a public request for volunteers, was comprised of one member of the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC), one non-public agency representative, one AMMA consultant staff, and one Commission staff. The scoring criteria used to evaluate Section 5310 project proposals is as follows: CALTRANS' EVALUATION CRITERIA Points Ability of the Applicant 32 Coordination Planning (12 pts.) and Coordinated Use of Vehicles (6 pts.) 18 Transportation Service (Replacement, Expansion or Other Equipment) 20 Service Effectiveness 30 Total Points Available to Evaluate FTA Sec 5310 Project Applications 100 A total of five agencies located in Riverside County submitted grant applications requesting $1,144,350 in total cost for 20 projects that include nine replacement vehicles, nine expansion vehicles, and two requests for computer equipment. Following a preliminary scoring earlier this year, staff worked with each applicant agency to improve its scores for the statewide competitive process. The attachment summarizes the LRC's proposed Regional Priority list for FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11 showing the regional scores, which was forwarded to Caltrans prior to the May 6, 2011 project submission deadline. This List will become final pending Commission approval of the staff recommendation along with the Commission's Resolution No. 1 1-008. All applicants have been notified of the LRC project scores and were given the opportunity to appeal. No appeals have been received. Caltrans is due to release the statewide results in July 2011 and it is anticipated that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) will adopt the final list of funded projects in August 2011. Upon final grant awards by the CTC, the Commission will include the FTA funded projects in the FY 201 1 /12 RTIP. The Agenda Item 9 36 " Commission is also required to certify by resolution that the projects are derived from the locally developed coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan. The Commission published its coordinated plan in April 2008 for use as a resource for Section 5310, Section 5316 (Job Access Reverse Commute) and Section 5317 (New Freedom) program applicants. There is no impact to the Commission budget as Caltrans disburses the Section 5310 funds directly to the recipients. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 1 1-008 2) Proposed Regional Priority List Agenda Item 9 37 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 11-008 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Local Review Committee of Riverside County ("Committee") is charged with reviewing applications for Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 funding for transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate; and WHEREAS, the Committee has received requests for 20 projects from five agencies in Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Committee has scored and ranked each such request; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission"), as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency ("RTPA"), adopted the scores and ranking of the applications as determined by the Committee; and WHEREAS, the Section 5310 process, as interpreted in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1 F, Section 4, requires the RTPA to include in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program each request awarded Section 5310 funding by Ca!trans and to certify by resolution that the evaluated projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission does hereby certify and resolve as follows: Section 1. The Commission has determined that the locally evaluated projects approved by the Committee for Section 5310 funding are derived from the Riverside County Public Transit — Human Services Transportation Coordinated Plan (adopted by the Commission on April 9, 2008). 38 Section 2. Each of the projects awarded Section 5310 funding by Ca!trans will be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program adopted for Riverside County. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8' day of June, 2011. Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • 39 " SECTION 5310 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL PRIORITY LIST FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11 ATT,ENT 2 Project No Agency Equipment' Type Section 1 (Max 32 pte) Section 2 (Max 18 to(Maxzo P ) Section 3 is3a 1 P ) Section d to (Max( p ) TOTAL (Max 100 pts) Federal Local Project Total 1 Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation, Inc. OE Computer Hardware 32 18 6 20 76 51,040 $135 $1,175 2 Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation, Inc. OE Computer Hardware 32 18 6 20 76 1,040 135 1,175 3 Care -A -Van Transit System Inc. SE Minivan 32 18 6 15 71 38,953 5,047 44,000 4 Care -A -Van Transit System Inc. SE Small Bus 32 18 6 15 71 57,545 7,456 65,000 5 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 - 20 73 66,398 8,603 75,000 6 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 20 73 66,398 8,603 75,000 7 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 20 73 66,398 8,603 75,000 8 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 20 73 66,398 8,603 75,000 9 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 20 73 66,398 8,603 75,000 10 Wildomar Senior Partners RE Large Bus Type III 32 18 6 20 76 66,398 8,603 75,000 11 Riverside - San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. SE Minivan 32 15 3 16 66 38,953 5,047 44,000 12 Riverside - San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. SE Minivan 32 15 3 16 66 38,953 5,047 44,000 13 Riverside -San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. SE Minivan 32 15 3 16 66 38,953 5,047 44,000 14 Riverside - San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. SE Minivan 32 15 3 16 66 38,953 5,047 44,000 15 Riverside - San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. SE Minivan 32 15 3 16 66 38,953 5,047 44,000 16 Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation, Inc. SE Medium Bus Type II 32 18 6 8 64 61,086 7,914 69,000 17 Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation, Inc. SE Medium Bus Type II 32 18 6 8 64 61,086 7,914 69,000 18 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 10 63 66,398 8,603 75,000 19 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 10 63 66,398 8,603 75,000 20 Desert Arc _ RE Large Bus Type III 31 ,17 5 5 58 66,398 8,603 75,000 'SE -Service Expansion; RE = Replacement Vehicle; OE= Other Equipment 5/11/11 Totals $1,013,093 $131,257 $1,144,350 40 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2011 /12 SB 821 Bicycle and Program Funding Recommendations Pedestrian Facilities STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 201 1 /12 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program recommended funding of $1,094,143; 2) Authorize staff to fund unfunded projects in rank order through the 70th percentile using project savings and returned allocations; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 2011, staff notified the cities and the county that an estimated $1,077,235 would be available for programming in FY 201 1 /12 through the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program, which is included in the FY 201 1 /12 Commission budget. The SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program is funded by an allocation of 2% of the total Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportioned to Riverside County by the state. DISCUSSION: The SB 821 proposals were due on April 21. The Commission received 30 project proposals, totaling $3,061,982 in SB 821 funding requests as attached. A diverse evaluation committee comprised of three members from the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee, two members from the Technical Advisory Committee, and one staff member from San Bernardino Associated Governments reviewed the proposals on May 10. All of the applicants were invited to give a presentation on the proposals and to answer questions from the Agenda Item 10 41 committee members. Based upon the Commission's adopted scoring criteria, which is attached, the proposals were evaluated and ranked by members of the evaluation committee. Eight projects totaling $1,094,143 are recommended for funding as indicated in the attachment. The difference between the new funding available and the amount recommended for funding this year exists for two reasons: 1) It is undesirable to partially fund projects due to the burden it places on the receiving agency; and 2) Using cost savings from claims that have been received in the past three months, the Commission is able to fully fund the eighth project on the list. Moving forward, additional project cost savings and returned allocations will be used to fund projects on the attached FY 201 1 /12 Recommended funding list in order from highest ranking through the 70'h percentile of projects. Staff concurs with the evaluation committee's recommendation. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 201 1 /12 Amount: $1,094,143 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 601 62 86106 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1164,..dao- Date: 05/1 1 /11 Attachments: 1) SB 821 FY 2011 /12 Recommended Funding 2) SB 821 Evaluation Criteria Agenda Item 10 • 42 " " Rank Agency 1 Moreno Valley 2 Hemet 3 Indio 4 Riverside 5 Riverside County 6 Riverside County 7 Wildomar 8 Riverside County RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FY 2011/12 RECOMMENDED FUNDING Project Description Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements Sidewalk and ADA Ramp Walkway Sungold Street Sidewalk to School Project Wheelchair Ramp Construction Whittier Avenue Paseo Grande Bike/Ped Sidewalk Safety Improvement Project 66th Avenue ATTACHMENT 1 Total SB 821 Funds Recommended Cummulative Average Costs Requested Allocation Funds Allocated Score $150,000 80,625 189,600 400,000 325,000 146,000 382,900 361,000 $75,000 40,313 94,800 200,000 162,500 73,000 268,030 180,500 $75,000 40,313 94,800 200,000 162,500 73,000 268,030 180,500 $75,000 89.5 115,313 86,8 210,113 86.0 410,113 84.9 572,613 81.3 645,613 80.3 913,643 79.5 1,094,143 77.7 9 Banning 10 Riverside 11 Coachella 12 Desert Hot Springs 13 Riverside 14 Lake Elsinore 15 Lake Elsinore 16 Lake Elsinore 17 Lake Elsinore 18 Lake Elsinore 19 Riverside 20 Rancho Mirage 21 Cathedral City 22 Murrieta 23 Murrieta 24 Murrieta 25 Rancho Mirage 26 Beaumont 27 Palm Springs Roberge Avenue Sidewalk Project Rutland Ave. Sidewalk Construction Citywide Sidewalks Project Cactus Drive Sidewalk Project Garfield, Stotts, McKenzie St. Sidewalk Const. Heald Avenue Sidewalk Project Lowell Street Sidewalk Project Sumner Avenue Sidewalk Project Matich Street/Sumner Avenue Sidewalk Project Campus Way Sidewalk Project Nebraska, Easy, Sunnyslope Ave. Sidewalk Class II Bike Lane and Striping on 4 Arterials Dream Homes Neighborhood Sidewalk Infill Nutmeg Street Sidewalk California Oaks Road Bike and Ped Pathway Citywide Bicycle Loop Installations Highway 111 Sidewalk Construction Project Noble Creek Class I Path and Ped Bridge Missing Link Sidewalks in Palm Springs 97,000 214,000 145,723 1,012,000 240,000 43,760 43,760 45,870 36,928 60,704 200,000 30,707 66,050 128,000 158,000 122,500 116,734 617,286 162,000 48,500 107,000 72,861 111,320 120,000 21,880 21,880 22,890 18,464 30,352 100,000 26,101 49,538 96,000 118,500 98,000 99,224 217,286 97,200 48,500 107,000 72,861 111,320 120,000 21,880 21,880 22,890 18,464 30,352 100,000 26,101 49,538 96,000 118,500 98,000 99,224 217,286 97,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77.4 77.2 77.0 76,1 73.9 73.6 73.3 73.0 73.0 73.0 72.6 70.8 69.4 69.4 67.8 65.7 64.7 63.5 62.6 43 Rank Agency 28 Beaumont 29 Palm Desert 30 Palm Desert RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FY 2011/12 RECOMMENDED FUNDING Proiect Description Cherry Avenue Sidewalk and Ped Bridge Gerald Ford Bike Lane Project Palm Valley Bike and Ped Path Improvements Total SB 821 Funds Costs Requested 301,685 150,843 206,250 165,000 218,750 175,000 Totals $4. 3.02,83Z JLE: 5/10/2011 II• •8 Recommended Allocation 150,843 165,000 175,000 S3,0 1,982 ATTACHMENT 1 Cummulative Funds Allocated 0 0 0 Average Score 53.8 51.1 29.8 • " ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTOR 1. USE The extent of potential use of a bicycle or pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project. 2. SAFETY Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems. 3. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile. 4. MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY Points are awarded to projects that link, are extensions of, or potentially connect to existing facilities. 5. MATCHING FUNDS This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding participation in the project - not just an application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. 6. POPULATION EQUITY The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit". (Calculated by RCTC) 7. PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT The purpose of this factor is to enhance the physical accessibility of existing pedestrian projects. Applicant agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for their project proposals which improve the physical access to existing facilities. RCTC: 04/12/1995 MAXIMUM POINTS 25 20 20 15 10 10 10 BONUS 45 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 23, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager Greg Moore, Procurement and Assets Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Graphic Design and Communication Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 11-15-067-00 to Geographics for the provision of graphic design and communications services on an as -needed, time and expense basis, pursuant to its proposed fixed unit rates, for a two-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $1 million; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission provides information to the public through various channels including public meetings, development of resource materials and fact sheets, the annual report, the Commission's website, the monthly newsletter, as well as the annual budget and financial report. The need for proactive public communication and outreach remains an important priority as the Commission continues to move forward with the delivery of the 2009 Measure A program. Outreach will continue to include a proactive effort to work closely with various media formats such as print, radio, internet, and television to increase the understanding and interest in transportation issues, as well as to generate a higher level of media coverage. To assist the Commission with the various graphic design and communication needs, a request for proposal (RFP) was developed and released to over 100 firms located throughout the region, advertised in a local newspaper of general circulation, and posted on the Commission's website. The work identified in the RFP was for the provision of services to support graphic design and communication services for various departments including communications, finance, goods movement, and legislation. Assistance is also needed for various capital projects, Agenda Item 11 46 including the Perris Valley Line and the Mid County Parkway. Lastly, consultant assistance is required for community outreach services. Staff sought a competitive solution to meet this requirement. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposals with price and technical factors considered. Non -price, technical factors include elements such as experience, qualifications, personnel, a proposer's ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of the RFP No. 11-15-067-00, and innovative and/or cost effective approaches to the required services that were not identified in the RFP. RFP No. 11-15-067-00 was released by staff and advertised on March 17. A pre -proposal conference was conducted on March 24, and staff responded to all requests for clarifications submitted by potential proposers. Nine firms — RW Creative Group, Simon Wong Engineering, Michele Raus, Seibert Perkins Design, Cook+Schmid, Consensus, Inc., Geographics, MBI Media, and Westbound Communications — submitted a proposal prior to the stateddeadline date. Each of the nine firms submitted a responsive and responsible proposal. The firm's proposals were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff and a representative from the Western Riverside Council of Governments. Scoring was based entirely upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. The evaluation committee scored each firm in order to establish a short list of the firms earning the highest total evaluation scores. The evaluation committee conducted interviews with four short listed firms and a subsequent scoring evaluation of each of those firms, based on both the written and interview components presented to the evaluation committee by each proposer, resulted in a final evaluation score for each firm. The firms, in descending order, ranked as follows: 1. Geographics 2. Westbound Communications 3. Consensus, Inc. 4. Simon Wong Engineering Geographics earned the highest total evaluation score. Therefore, the evaluation committee recommends an award of Agreement No. 11-15-067-00 to Geographics for a two-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, for communications and graphic design services on an as -needed, time and expense Agenda Item 11 i 47 " basis, pursuant to its proposed fixed unit rates. Staff is negotiating the terms and final cost with Geographics and expects to bring the final contract to the June Commission meeting. Geographies' labor rates were considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition under the procurement process, and staff evaluation of historical costs paid by the Commission for the same or similar services. Geographies offered the most advantageous combination of pricing, experience, and relevant qualifications. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A N/A Year: 2011/12 2012/13 Amount: $500,000 $500,000 Source of Funds: Measure A, LTF, TUMF Budget Adjustment: N/A N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: Various Funds and Departments, as needed 101 1 X 65520 (General fund departments) 106 67 65520 (Regional issues) 210 7X 65520 (TUMF) 221 33 65520 (1989 Measure A rail) 222 31 65520 (1989 Measure A highway) 262 31 65520 (2009 Measure A highway) Fiscal Procedures Approved: v Date: 05/16/11 Agenda Item 11 48 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 23, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following state bill positions: • AB 1229 (Feuer) - Support; • SB 545 (Anderson) - Monitor; • SB 862 (Lowenthal) - Monitor; • SB 867 (Padilla) - Monitor; 3) Adopt the following federal bill positions: • S. 826 (Feinstein) - Support; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update AB 1229 (Feuer) - Federal Highway Grant Anticipation Notes Recommended Position: Support AB 1229 would allow regional transportation agencies such as the Commission to utilize Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds to accelerate federal formula funds that are authorized by Congress. GARVEE is a borrowing mechanism that exists in state law today for projects that have achieved environmental clearance and design. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) can approve GARVEE financing to state -funded projects so these projects can be accelerated, in anticipation of federal funds due to the state in future years. This bill would expand the availability of GARVEE for up to 50% of federal funds under two formula programs that are due to regional transportation agencies. Under the provisions of this bill, the Commission could request GARVEE bonds from the CTC for half of its anticipated funding from the Surface Agenda Item 12 49 Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) programs - both of which are determined by a formula based on a variety of factors such as population, road miles and air quality attainment. This would provide additional flexibility to the Commission to advance projects, but also maximize funding streams to deliver the Commission's ambitious program in a time of tight revenues. The bill would also increase the amount of GARVEE bonds that could be issued by the State Treasurer from 15% of total federal funds received by the state, up to 25%. SB 545 (Anderson) Transportation Recommended Position: Monitor At the time of this report, SB 545 bill by a member of the Riverside County delegation stated the intent of the Legislature to, "enact legislation enabling the state to examine efficiency in administering solutions to California's transportation needs." Given the Commission's adopted platform, which expresses interest in increasing efficiencies to the process of delivering transportation projects, the ultimate disposition of this bill may be of interest to the Commission. A press conference held earlier in the year by Senator Joel Anderson indicated his interest in reforming Caltrans. SB 862 (Lowenthal): Southern California Goods Movement Authority Recommended Position: Monitor SB 862 establishes a multi -county governing board for goods movement projects in the Southern California region. Borrowing language from Senator Alan Lowenthal's previous legislation to levy container fees at the Ports of Los Angeles. and Long Beach, this bill provides the Commission and Mayor of Riverside with one appointee each to this authority. The Mayors of Anaheim, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino would also have appointees, as well as Orange County Transportation Authority, San Bernardino Associated Governments, Metro, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority. No funding is provided to the authority by this bill, nor is the specter of a container fee mentioned. However, the establishment of this body may become the precursor to future legislation to provide funding to goods movement projects. The Commission's primary concern with this bill is ensuring appropriate representation of Riverside County on any decision -making body for transportation funding, particularly goods movement, which has a dramatic impact on congestion and air quality in the Inland region. The Commission supported in concept Senator Lowenthal's last goods movement bill, SB 974, which was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governing structure proposed in SB 974 is identical to that proposed in SB 862. In SB 974, a container fee was levied for specific projects, including high -priority Agenda Item 12 • • 50 " grade separations in Riverside County in the Commission's Grade Separation Funding Strategy. The governing board was to allocate the container fee revenues to the specific projects listed in the bill. However, SB 862 simply stops at defining the representatives on the board without going into any further detail. Senator Lowenthal has indicated that SB 862 will become a two-year bill, which means that the bill will be put on hold until 2012 while outreach is conducted by Senator Lowenthal's office. The Commission will make every effort to be a stakeholder involved in the discussions surrounding SB 862 and Senator Lowenthal's efforts to address the goods movement challenges of Southern California. Due to the Commission's previous engagement with SB 974 and the Commission's legislative platform, which highlights goods movement as an economic priority and the need for adequate representation of Riverside County, staff encourages a monitor position on SB 862 while Senator Lowenthal conducts his outreach efforts prior to moving the bill forward next year. SB 867 (Padilla): Build California Bonds Recommended Position: Monitor SB 867 would emulate the Build America Bonds (BABs) program that was created and has since expired in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Build California Bonds (BCBs) would be a new lower cost financing mechanism for transportation agencies such as the Commission that have revenue streams (e.g. Measure A funds) to borrow against. The interest on the bonds would be reduced or eliminated by a subsidy from the state, just as the federal government did with BABs. The Commission took advantage of the BABs program, securing $1 12.37 million in BABs in last year's bond sale. This bill is sponsored by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The bill is a state policy component of Metro's much -publicized "30/10" initiative to accelerate its Measure R sales tax projects into the first 10 years. The Commission's Western Riverside County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan originally adopted in 2006 is similar in concept. The idea of leveraging local self-help sales tax funds is endorsed by the Commission's adopted legislative platform. This bill would reduce the Commission's borrowing costs and provide another tool to accelerate projects in Riverside County. However, the concern with this proposal from its first hearing at the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee was the approximately $250 million impact on the State's General Fund, which already faces a $25 billion deficit. In the face of major cuts to other areas of the state budget, Legislators are concerned with any proposal that further draws down the General Fund. Nonetheless, Metro Agenda Item 12 51 points out the significant opportunities for revenue generation by way of increased employment created by transportation projects, which could potentially offset General Fund impacts. An additional concern is the state's current inability to sell Proposition 1 B bonds, which were approved by California voters in 2006. Creating additional bonding authority on top of an already -struggling bond program may create additional pressures and complications. The Senate Transportation and Housing Committee has pledged to hold a hearing in Los Angeles on the idea of BCBs. Staff recommends an interim position of monitor on this bill as the Legislature and the transportation industry studies this policy idea. Federal Update S. 826 (Feinstein) — The Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2011 Recommended Position: Support S. 826 would create a federal loan and loan guarantee program for public agencies to purchase real property for habitat conservation plans, such as Western Riverside County's Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The proposed program would operate in the United States Treasury, with input from the U.S. Departments of Interior and Commerce. The Secretary of the Treasury is tasked with soliciting loan applications for habitat plans once every calendar year. The Interior Secretary then evaluates the loan applications based on: 1) Each habitat's plans eligibility status under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act; 2) The likelihood that the plan's habitat acquisition program will be completed; and 3) Whether the plan contemplates the mitigation of infrastructure projects. The Treasury Secretary then evaluates: 1) Financial soundness and sustainability of the habitat plan; 2) Ability to be repaid by the public entity requesting the loan; 3) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the Treasury Secretary; and 4) Recommendations from the Interior Secretary. S. 826 prescribes 120-day limit for review of an application, within which an approval or disapproval must be rendered by the Treasury Secretary. Agenda Item 12 • 52 " Senator Dianne Feinstein's legislation suits Riverside County well. The bill is tailored to habitat conservation plans that have a "complimentary plan for sustainable infrastructure development that provides mitigation of environmental impacts." This is true of the MSHCP. Preference for loans and loan guarantees is also given to, "biologically rich regions in which rapid growth and development threaten successful implementation of approved habitat conservation plans." Recent Census data shows that Riverside County grew 42% in the last decade; the MSHCP and the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) were devised in the early part of the last decade to anticipate this type of growth. Thus, S. 826 creates a financing tool that favors regions such as Riverside County. A dollar amount to be appropriated for this loan program is not specified in the bill; the program has a 10-year sunset clause. As this bill rewards and incentivizes proactive planning and habitat conservation as Riverside County began nearly a decade ago, staff recommends adopting a support position on Senator Feinstein's S. 826. Attachment: Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 12 53 RIV�IDE •COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIOIVSON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION —UPDATED May 1•011 l l t I, ` Autgr,. (. a F'; ?,n l .® , a M r. :'1 F m ti f& IC r=. wcset. Jr d4#1IT' s. ,a AB 105 (Committee on Budget) Clarifies and re-establishes Gas Tax Swap provisions of 2010 and provides a frameword for predictable tax revenue for the STIP and . State Transit Assistance. Mar. 24 Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 6, Statutes of 2011. Staff recommended position "Support" AB 296 (Skinner) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to address global warming caused by the emission of greenhouse gases by reducing the emission of those gases to certain specified levels. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would regulate the reflectivity (albedo) of pavement to reduce the urban heat island effect. May 3 From committee: Do pass and re -refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (May 2). Re -referred to Com. on APPR. Staff recommended position "Oppose" AB 427 (Perez) Existing law, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, authorizes the issuance of $19.925 billion of general obligation bonds for specified purposes. Existing law requires the deposit of $1 billion of the bond proceeds in the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account to be used, upon appropriation, for capital projects that provide increased protection against a security and safety threat, and for capital expenditures to increase the capacity of transit operators to develop disaster response transportation systems that can move people, goods, and emergency personnel and equipment in the aftermath of a disaster impairing that movement. Existing law requires the allocation of 25% of these funds for capital expenditures to regional public waterborne transit agencies authorized to operate a regional public water transit system, as specified, and requires the California Emergency Management Agency to administer a grant application and award program. May 9 Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Staff recommended position "Monitor" AB 1134 (Bonilla) Existing law, implementing the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, requires specified entities receiving an allocation of the proceeds of bonds issued under the act to expend those funds within 3 fiscal years of the fiscal year in which the funds were allocated. This bill would specify that for an allocation of the funds made prior to June 30, 2011, the entity receiving the allocation would be required to expend them within 4 fiscal years of the fiscal year in which the funds were allocated. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. May 4 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. Suspense file. Staff recommended position "Support" 54 ��, '���� �� .r ��.., .a2 � 2i ����z ..4'm! 7h;1i ^�� ��e )` )' x t e; 9k -0i, �� P ��"�� +t rt��} ,':.n t^i .�� :. �� I �� 'rn;��..a ( 4 ��i��(.����RP '+'"`���� j��,:..' 'i f`B r 4J1 Ibli AB 1308 (Miller) This bill, in any year in which the Budget Act has not been enacted by July 1, would provide that all moneys in the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax Fund, except as specified, are continuously appropriated and may be encumbered for certain purposes until the Budget Act is enacted. The bill would thereby make an appropriation. The bill would authorize the Controller to make estimates in order to implement these provisions. May 4 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. Suspense file. Staff recommended position "Support" AJR 4 (Miller) This measure would memorialize the President of the United States and the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation to award a federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan guarantee to enable the timely construction of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project in the interest of economic competitiveness of California and the United States. Apr. 25 In Senate. To Com. on RLS. Staff recommended position "Support" SB 468 (Kehoe) Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession and control of the state highway system. Existing law imposes various requirements for the development and Implementation of transportation projects. This bill would impose additional requirements on the department with respect to proposed capacity -increasing state highway projects in the coastal zone. The bill would also make legislative findings and declarations. May 9 Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Staff recommended position "Oppose" SB 693 (Dutton) Existing law sets forth requirements for the solicitation and evaluation of bids and the awarding of contracts by public entities for the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement. Existing law also authorizes specified state agencies, cities, and counties to implement alternative procedures for the awarding of contracts on a design -build basis. Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation and regional transportation agencies to enter into public -private partnerships for transportation projects under certain conditions. Existing law authorizes the department to delegate to any city or county any part of its powers and jurisdiction, except the power of approval, with respect to any portion of any state highway within the city or county, and to withdraw the delegation. This bill would specify that the delegation authority includes the authority to utilize private -public partnership agreements for . transportation projects. The bill would also make findings and declarations related to local agency contracting. May 2 Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Staff recommended position "Support in Concept" o+i 4c•r e rkYa;r�i' .?P 1 _" il L i ....*.. (� ("�i.-"—.�.=4�z ,ii9 r. .v V , r i�, CiL�:�f r}a t i 5xse �`z r � i i r i (lio-��".. x .fiIBS i r it a.la ._.. ., w H.R. 304 (Gallegly) To amend the limitation on liability for certain passenger rail accidents or incidents under section 28103 of title 49, United States Code, and for other purposes. Feb. 28 Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Staff recommended position "Oppose and Work with Author" H.R. 526 (Calvert) To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish and collect a fee based on the fair market value of articles imported into the United States and articles exported from the United States in commerce and to use amounts collected from the fee to make grants to carry out certain transportation projects in the transportation trade corridors for which the fee is collected, and for other purposes. Mar, 1 Referred to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. Staff recommended position "Support" 56