Loading...
04 April 28, 2014 Budget & implementation• TIME: DATE: LOCATION: • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9:30 a.m. Monday, April 28, 2014 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside ~ COMMITTEE MEMBERS~ Douglas Hanson, Chair I Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Roger Berg, Vice Chair I David Castaldo, City of Beaumont Ella Zanowic I Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton I Randy Bonner, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis I Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez/ Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Scott Matas I Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Larry Smith I Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Bob Magee I Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Rick Gibbs I Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Steve Adams I Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Ron Roberts I Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District II Jeff Stone, County of Riverside, District Ill ~STAFF~ 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 RECORDS 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. COMM-BI-00019 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: To: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1 :54 PM Tara Byerly Cc: Jennifer Harmon Subject: RCTC: Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda -04.28.2014 Importance: High Good afternoon Budget and Implementation Committee Members: Attached below is the link to the Budget and Implementation Committee agenda for the meeting scheduled @ 9:30 a.m. on Monday, April 28. http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/budget-and-implementation-committee-april-28-2014.original.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30a.m. Monday, April 28, 2014 BOARDROOM 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.org. 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 (951} 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. 2. 3. 4. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS -Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or Jess. 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. 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. Budget and Implementation Committee April 28, 2014 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -MARCH 24, 2014 6. 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.) 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. 7A. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Pagel Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) 2) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4 2013 (Q4 2013); and Forward to the Commission for final action. 78. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Page9 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2014; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 Page11 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the proposed FY 2014/15 Budget; and • • 2) Forward to the Commission to open the public hearing in order to receive input and • comments on the proposed FY 2014/15 Budget on May 14 and on June 11, 2014, and thereafter close the public hearing. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee April 28, 2014 Page 3 9. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REVENUE PROJECTION Page30 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the revised Fiscal Year 2013/14 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenue projection of $7.4 million, comprised of $3.7 million related to regional arterials and $3.7 million to Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridors; 2) Approve the budget decrease adjustments to TUMF revenues of $2.3 million related to regional arterials and $2.3 million to CETAP corridors; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM -METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION REGIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE AND METHODOLOGY FOR ASSIGNING ADDITIONAL POINTS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROJECT APPLICATIONS Page32 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Regional Program Guidance and Methodology for assigning an additional 10 points to Riverside County Active Transportation Program (ATP) project application scores, subsequent to the California Transportation Commission's (CTC) evaluation process; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. AGREEMENTS FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL COORDINATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM Page37 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-65-106-00 with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for $1.25 million to fund traffic flow improvements located within Riverside County; Budget and Implementation Committee April 28, 2014 Page4 2) Approve the following agreements for a total amount not to exceed $1.25 million: a) Agreement No. 14-65-107-00 with Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) in the amount not to exceed $310,375; b) Agreement No. 14-65-108-00 with the city of Eastvale in an amount not to exceed $74,625; c) Agreement No. 14-65-109-00 with the city of Moreno Valley in an amount not to exceed $490,000; d) Agreement No. 14-65-110-00 with the city of Riverside in an amount not to exceed $375,000; 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; 4) Replace $939,625 in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funding previously allocated to the cities of Eastvale, Moreno Valley, and Riverside through the Commission's 2013 Multi-funding Call for Projects approved on January 8, 2014, with funding available through SCAQMD'·s Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) Program; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE • Overview Page40 • This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on MAP-21 reauthorization; 2) Adopt the following state bill positions: a) AB 2036 (Mansoor) -Oppose Unless Amended; b) AB 2651 (Linder) -Support; c) AB 2728 (Perea) -Support; d) HR 29 (Gomez) -Oppose; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. 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. 14. ADJOURNMENT AND THE NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at • 9:30 a.m., Monday, June 23, 2014, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE SIGN-IN SHEET APRIL 28, 2014 . J NAME -AGENCY E_MAIL ADDRESS 5 ftwe /{PI rl« /J t.f!I 7-l'l)~/.W ffer L ,/\.,~Ji < V\I\, {, --ri.. I '\-1: Y1VI g:, 1T 1f-L://, 1 A If.« J 10 Id~ U///J/y-il~ v~v 11v -~-r~lle-fA.t A. °'VAi" v ~ll;~C'>tf\C -'1>+41L~ ~ lJft~U tl AJ'" ~ J ,..,.,J1 "' ~ I .,.-i ) .01A rJ ILJ' H~V1r~Y'\ I~ /j~/JVl WyO \\_; -((r0 ~t-11.-" '-~ ~ -1 l A~ ri--lo rz., c .,D\..) W) ;s r-/, 01..1~_/(Jft { I M ~"l\.IV ~ ~,"'r ... ~ -?~,) c K 0 $1)1.:I .s ~ I £.vYt l. c UL.t j . , Ei.1-A. Y~-~ -· . , ; ~.L.: ·-~ ~ -c:;;,,71 /J/l~~o 1>r5c:::...~i/ /1f, _;;--<-~ :;--., .", u\ R r ct<. G;f;,~5 / 1-1 ol1-J2teTA I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ROLL CALL APRIL 28, 2014 County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District Ill City of Beaumont City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Lake Elsinore City of Murrieta City of Riverside City of Temecula Absent LI LI LI l:J ~ LI l:J LI l:J LI LI LI l:J • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, March 24, 2014 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chair Douglas Hanson at 9:36 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 Larry Smith led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL 4. Members/ Alternates Present Steve Adams Roger Berg Mary Craton Rick Gibbs Douglas Hanson Steven Hernandez Bob Magee Scott Matas Greg Pettis Ron Roberts Larry Smith Jeff Stone* Ella Zanowic *Arrived after the meeting was called to order PUBLIC COMMENTS Members Absent John Tavaglione Arnold San Miguel, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), announced SCAG's 2014 Regional Conference and General Assembly are scheduled for May 1-2, 2014 at the Renaissance Esmeralda Indian Wells Resort and Spa. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes March 24, 2014 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-FEBRUARY 24, 2014 M/S/C (Adams/Craton) to approve the minutes of February 24, 2014 meeting as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS/ REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. REVISED PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 BUDGET John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, presented the updates to the proposed policy goals and objectives for FY 2014/15 Budget. Commissioner Steven Hernandez concurred with the updates to the policy goals and objectives. He asked if it is prudent to identify funding sources when discussing future rail expansions. John Standiford concurred and replied the purpose of this item is to identify policy priority and goal and direct staff to come back to the Commission with the details needed in order to focus the Commission's efforts. Commissioner Ron Roberts expressed appreciation for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project and concurred with the focus on its extension into the Hemet/San Jacinto area. He explained the city of Temecula is within 15 minutes of the closest Metrolink station and he does not believe the residents expect the Commission to bring commuter rail into the city of Temecula. He suggested the Commission determine the next steps as there may be future funding opportunities available for rail. Anne Mayer explained there was a series of feasibility studies prepared for the expansion of commuter rail, which included the Hemet/San Jacinto extension, the city of Temecula, the San Gorgonio Pass Area to Coachella Valley extension, and an extension from the city of Corona to the city of Lake Elsinore. Ms. Mayer explained staff plans to update the feasibility studies for discussion about those corridors and the potential costs moving forward. She expressed there are significant funding challenges for any decision made, however it will help get to the point in the right of way acquisition as it will be an enormous cost and could be a deciding'fa!=tor in evaluating next steps. • • Commissioner Mary Craton asked if the environmental documents are in danger of • expiring for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) and State Route 79 projects. At this time, Commissioner Jeff Stone joined the meeting. • • • RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes March 24, 2014 Page 3 Anne Mayer replied no and explained staff went out for public review and comment on the MCP project in 2013, and comments were received. She stated staff has re-circulated a couple of sections of that document and the Commission is on track for early 2015 for a record of decision on the MCP. M/S/C (Pettis/Zanowic) to: 1) Approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2014/15 Budget; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. SUPPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION AS A MANUFACTURING COMMUNITY AS PART OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INVESTING IN MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP John Standiford presented the request to support the University of California, Riverside application for designation as a manufacturing community investing in Manufacturing Communities partnership. M/S/C (Pettis/Roberts) to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to provide a letter of support for the University of California (UC) Riverside's application for designation as a manufacturing community (Manufacturing Community) as part of the U.S. Department of Commerce Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (ICMP); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 14-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Support for the University of California Riverside's Application for Designation as a Manufacturing Community as Part of the U.S. Department of Commerce Investing and Manufacturing Communities Partnership''; 3) Work in cooperation with UC Riverside and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) in providing information and support for the application; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, presented an update on state legislative activities highlighting the following: • • AB 515 Dickinson -Staff recommendation: Seek Amendments; AB 2197 (Mullin) -Staff recommendation: Support; RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes March 24, 2014 Page4 11. • AB 785 (Wolk) -Staff recommendation: Support if Amended; • SB 969 (DeSaulnier) -Staff Recommendation: Oppose Unless Amended; and • SB 990 (Vidak) -Staff Recommendation: Oppose. Commissioner Roger Berg expressed support for AB 2197 and suggested including used vehicles as part of this bill. Aaron Hake concurred and stated he will raise that question. M/S/C (Adams/Craton) to: 1) Adopt the following state bill positions: a. AB 515 (Dickinson) -Seek Amendments; b. AB 2197 (Mullin) -Support; c. SB 785 (Wolk) -Support if Amended; d. SB 969 (DeSaulnier) -Oppose Unless Amended; and e. SB 990 (Vidak) -Oppose. 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. COMMISSIONERS/ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT There were no Commissioners or Executive Director comments. 12. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:04 a.m. The next meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee is scheduled for April 28, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 28, 2014 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 2013 (Q4 2013}; 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. As part of the recurring contracts process, the Commission approved a five-year extension through June 30, 2018. 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 generated and submitted to the State Board of Equalization (SBOE} for review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 282 businesses. For Q3 2013, the SBOE approved corrections for 209 of these accounts for a total sales tax revenue recovery of $3,867,090. Updated amounts through Q4 2013 will be provided once received from MuniServices. If the SBOE concurs with the error(s} for the remaining claims, the Commission will 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 Q4 2013. Most of the Q4 2013 Measure A sales tax revenues were received by the Commission in the first quarter of calendar 2014, during January through March 2014, due to a lag in the sales tax calendar. The summary section of the Q4 2013 report is attached and includes an overview of California sales tax receipts, local results, historical cash collections Agenda Item 7 A 1 analysis, summary of the top 25 sales tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, sales tax by • business category, economic trends for significant business category (general retail), and results. The following observations were noted in the Q4 2013 report: • Sales tax receipts for Riverside County were 9.3 percent compared to Q4 2012. While auto sales-new and auto parts/repair receipts had the largest gains in Q4 2013 compared to Q4 2012, staff noted the largest declines during the same period from electronic equipment and light industry. The declines were attributable to certain energy-related companies, which may be attributable to the completion of renewable energy developments in Riverside County. • Taxable transactions for the top 25 tax contributors in Riverside County, which generated 23 percent of the taxable sales for the year ended Q4 2013, which was comparable to the year ended Q4 2012. The top 100 tax contributors generated 37 percent of the taxable sales for the year ended Q4 2013, which was comparable to the year ended Q4 2012. • All six economic categories experienced increases in the Q4 2013 benchmark year compared to Q4 2012. Construction had the largest increase at 16.0 percent and experienced significant increases for several recent quarters. The construction increase was primarily related to the building materials wholesale segment. The other top five economic categories had increases ranging from 1.1 percent to 6.0 percent. General Retail 28.7 I 5.5 28.7 I 3.1 28/ 3.5 28.6 I 2.9 30.5 I 4 29.1I2.6 27.3 I 4 28.6 I 3.3 Food Products 16.1 I 4.5 19.2 I 4.1 20.3 I 5.9 16.3 I 2.2 15.9I1.7 20.i I 3.8 16.S I 4.2 18.1I3.2 Transportation 21.0 I 6.o 25.1I4.3 22.3 I 6.9 28.6 I 6.4 21I5.5 24.7 I 2.6 28.8 I 5.1 31I1.5 Construction 11.8 I 16.o 9.1I8.3 9.1I12.8 10.8I12.9 11.3 I 9.1 8/ 4.5 11/ 10.5 12.6I10.9 Business to Business 14.5 I 1.1 16.8 /0.2 19.2/-3.3 14.1/ 5.6 14.1I1.7 11 I o.6 15.3 I 4.7 8.9 I 3.4 Miscellaneous 1.9 I 3.2 1.1 I -4.9 1.1 I ·1.4 1.7 I 5.6 1.2 I ·1.3 1 I ·1.8 1.1/-18.9 0.8/-7.1 Total 100.0 I s.9 100 / 3.5 100 / 4 100 / 5.2 100 / 4.2 100 / 2.6 100 / 4.8 100 / 3.5 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales -New, Auto Sales-Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, and Leasing Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments 32.2/ 3.6 30.3I1.5 21.5I1.9 9.5I16 5.3 I ·2.1 1.1I7.6 100 / 3.4 • For seven of the top ten segments (department stores, auto sales-new, restaurants, building materials-wholesale, miscellaneous retail, apparel stores, and food markets), sales taxes reached a new high point in the past two years during Q4 2013. These seven segments represent 55.9 percent of the total sales tax receipts. Service stations, one of the top ten segments representing 11.1 percent of the total sales tax receipts, decreased to a new low point in the past two-year period during Q4 2013. The high Agenda Item 7 A 2 • • • • • • point for service stations occurred in Q4 2012. The other two top ten segments (building materials-retail and light industry) were under the high point, which occurred in Q4 2011. These two segments represent 8.8 percent of the total sales tax receipts. The top ten segments represent 75.8 percent of the total sales tax receipts. For the other segments representing 24.2 percent of the total sales tax receipts, the segments representing 22.5 percent of the total sales tax receipts reached new high points in the past two years during Q4 2013. Service stations, department stores, and auto sales-new represent the three largest economic segments for Riverside County, or 32.6 percent of total sales taxes. This is the fifth consecutive quarter since Q3 2008 that auto sales-new has been in the top three economic segments, as the restaurants segment held that position since the recession. It should also be noted the growth seen in previous quarters for the service stations segment has been declining as shown by the 1.7 percent decrease for the year ended Q4 2013 due to lower gas prices. The recent increase in gas prices will affect calendar 2014. Largest Segment Service Department Department Auto Sales· Department Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Stations Stores Stores New Stores % ofTotal I% Change 11.l I -1.7 13.3 I 5.3 14.l I 6.5 11.9 I 3.0 14.3 I 3.6 14.2 I 5.1 11.6I15.2 13.6/ 1.3 20.5 /2.3 2nd Largest Segment Department Department Auto Sales· Auto Sales· Service Department Service Service Department Stores Stores New New Stations Stores Stations Stations Stores % of Total I% Change 10.8 I 3.8 10.5 I 3.6 9.5 I 20.8 11.4I18.9 11.9 I 0.2 10.2 /3.6 11.2 /-1.5 13.3 /-1.9 9.7I15.l 3rd Largest Segment Auto Sales· Auto Sales· Department Auto Sales· Department Misc. Retail Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants New New Stores New Stores % of Total I% Change 10.7 I 14.l 10.i I 14.7 9.3 I 3.9 10.4 I 4.5 9.6 I 4.2 10.2/ 11.8 10.4 I 2.7 9.6 I 4.6 9.6 /-0.3 During the review of the Q4 2013 detailed report with MuniServices, information regarding sales tax comparisons by city and change by economic category from Q4 2012 to Q4 2013 was provided. The city of Jurupa Valley is currently included in the list since sufficient comparative information is available. Staff continues to monitor monthly sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine the need for any adjustment to the revenue projections. Staff will utilize the forecast scenarios included with the complete report and recent trends in assessing such projections. Attachments: 1) Sales Tax Analysis Q4 2013 2) Sales Tax Comparison by City for Q4 2012 to Q4 2013 Agenda Item 7 A 3 • • • ATTACHMENT 1 :-r,CTC ~\"°"'"'~~tr,;#.,,-,«!<)&<'cf0''"W"'- Sales Tax Digest Summary Collections thn)ugh Match 2014 Sales th?Qugh 'O~ceinbet 2013'<&01SQ4} .snate.~f ~ca?llihf}l~r,jl·~·~WS,'' ' ,' -: ' ; ' '-( jf\_,> j <~f~)'." ,7~ "''('H , snore, <wf~Statta 1~dloF'l!t~11 ,. ' ' ~ , ' ' , ' ,' , ' , 8B!~•f ~coft'ectiQJ:is L~ss: J\mount ()~e Coub1y ct* Less:· Cost of Admln~trclti~n Net 4Q2CH3 ,Recelp~. Net 4Q2.0l2 Receipt~ ActUC:)I Percenta~~ Chc::i.ri~~: Lo~ql carr~c [ks· · ·· · · Less: Payments for Prior Periods Preliminary 4Q2013 Collections Projected 4Q2013 Late Payments (8Q_O) 800-8181 <l~Ji>~ij\(ljt:eiv 'ft4>M: tasf: year; r~,fk can~niltll's · 1 : ·1e'sa1ss ,ere rs; fvp ·5.<i~). :f¢fa 11& . Ralllhg; Jfii,fffif ttm~ in .'E):: . <r ,'Ji;:,°"' ',, , ',,JL' ,c ~l'196>1 t).' L ', I 16'~ 37,688,4~ 9.3% . . 4E6~;201 i2;360,219} 39,283,981 1,225,795 Pagel I\CTC 40,509.776 39,297:.030 3.1% Projected 4Q2013 Final Results Actuol 4Q201 :2 Results Pf'Oj$9ted Percentaga;CJl\o:ngEt .Nl&TOttlCAJ. cam CCt.tS:nQNa AM41.YSJS &Y QUAITll . tOlSUP&RSTOrlE·· *~~lstMior-is: ":~\S7PR!S d ~ WfiGketAL&. P~ftf QF•MP1'~~·.v~~1eees oSq~SUNU&HT > GfiN~IS SOl/i\tt H®M~OEPOT'i K M:ARTSTOReS· . ~P~k;S OEP . M&NtsTORa5 t0 · · · • ·· ,,1:a£S~lii1~r11.·n1 ·· • ··.· ·. • ··· We'S HO 1~1~w~:~~g,.~'~!~I'.'! . ~·· :;;7:, MA,6t/" RAl:RK 1s; RITE AJllHS>RU.G.811 ROSS ST~R!S SAM~·OUL;Jif£ .\,•. :;: · STAleRBRO$~~~~$.•, · T A~GEi STORES .. .. . .. USA SER\<'1~~$JATION! ···· ·· •·· VONS.SfiRVICE·STATIONS· WAL MARJ s:{QR~ .. ·.. . . . WALGRMN'SO"Ru&sic:)i,nS . WHIRLP00.L.OORPO!tATION (800) 800;;~1J1 5 • • • P°tige2 • • • HISTORICAL SALB TAX AMOUNTS The fol11:>win~ Ghan $hows 1he 'SCf:lht! tdx leve~ from sales through December 2013,. the J:1jgfl~r and tt:lE? ~9W~ f~t~~~b ~m,~f\t oy~r 'tb~ last two yeqrs . 4cqtuu acu0c.u $140,1)00 SH0,000 laG en ua I ~!t,aU a110.1iil P;.oil 11 ct1 •Tr•• ;i! lirta.tloul··lllC oal tr11 ctlo11 lllB u 1111 eu T er JI .11 #lneu •M luell•nu111 I ~.MunfSmnaes;~cm ($(){;) 800--8181 6 Rages &ere PIVE· YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: General Retail (i!'l tfU!llU~~.~f:.~lr , Slll,1100 ----~------.....:··-·· !!'!!". -· ·-· -....:·-....:····....:"N.*1 .,,.;.···,.;.· _....;_....;-....:-....:_....;_....;_...,;_...,;_....;~ .in~a;• _,:~Jan t~~dl::N.tC~l°li . &m:tti)n! · .. ···'4i~·p~~tAmQ~is. ~~iPrf1>r. ~~~rter:trQYfuenfs• ·~*tit.Q;J.1~ent~· :·"~f(l~(r·~·~t:i®~©rDl.~.CQIJ@O'flo.~ 4f1~t' Kt:J 6ttm~n:tS · · · · · · "; »-;._' "f• ,' www.MuniServices.com (800) 800~8181 7 Page 4 •• • Banning 0.3% 5.6% 8.4% -7.5% 3.4% -56.4% 440,795 423,642 4.0% Service Stations Misc. Vehicle Sales Health & Government Bldg.Matls-Whsle Beaumont 3.9% 1.3% -12.1% 2.6% 2.9% 2.4% 931,318 943,635 -1.3% Department Stores Misc. Vehicle Sales Service Stations Auto Parts/Repair Blythe -3.3% 0.0% 1.9% -44.4% -8.0% -13.6% 420,461 455,620 -7.7% Auto Sales -New Energy Sales Bldg.Matls-Whsle light Industry Calimesa 4.5% 6.8% -4.1% 94.1% 18.2% -16.2% 157,505 154,590 1.9% Restaurants Food Markets Service Stations Misc. Vehicle Sales Canyon Lake 10.1% -34.6% 233.9% -6.8% 54.4% 0.8% 45,419 43,602 4.2% Service Stations Department Stores liquor Stores Food Markets Cathedral City 5.3% -1.5% 14.4% -16.7% 8.4% 7.2% 1,842,845 1,700,298 8.4% Auto Sales -New Leasing Bldg.Matls-Whsle Business Services Coachella 0.5% 7.2% -0.1% 25.9% -11.1% -37.1% 797,123 776,854 2.6% Bldg.Matls-Whsle Food Markets Florist/Nursery Service Stations Corona -0.6% 1.5% 2.9% 29.0% 6.2% 0.7% 8,144,425 7,517,215 8.3% Bldg.Matls-Whsle Light Industry Leasing Miscellaneous Retail Desert Hot Springs -8.5% 5.1% 0.4% -2.8% 25.0% 3.6% 338,922 336,448 0.7% Office Equipment Restaurants Heavy Industry Department Stores Eastvale 0.1% 24.8% -2.8% 15.9% 6.6% 56.2% 1,502,500 1,411,526 6.4% Food Markets Bldg.Matls-Whsle Miscellaneous Retail Electronic Equipment Hemet 1.8% 4.9% 11.1% -3.3% 3.5% -24.9% 2,303,969 2,179,247 5.7% Auto Sales -New Restaurants Service Stations light Industry Indian Wells 3.1% 5.4% 56.8% -48.1% -64.0% 1345.8% 220,290 213,536 3.2% Restaurants Recreation Products Light Industry Food Markets Indio 1.5% -0.4% 10.6% 10.6% 34.2% 3.7% 2,067,029 1,916,425 7.9% Heavy Industry Auto Sales -New Food Markets light Industry Jurupa Valley 16.2% 1.6% -4.9% 25.8% 22.7% -23.6% 2,197,554 1,997,889 10.0% Department Stores Bldg.Matls-Whsle Service Stations Leasing La Quinta -0.8% 0.9% 6.2% -14.5% 9.9% 36.8% 1,997,609 1,997,290 0.0% Auto Sales -New Restaurants Bldg.Matis-Retail Service Stations Lake Elsinore -1.7% 4.4% 1.0% 18.0% -3.0% -55.7% 1,809,107 1,780,970 1.6% Bldg_Matls-Whsle Auto Sales -New Service Stations Miscellaneous Retail Menifee 2.8% 4.3% -1.2% 2.6% 12.9% 16.5% 1,249,446 1,213,502 3.0% Restaurants Misc. Vehicle Sales Service Stations Leasing Moreno Valley 2.8% 2.4% 6.3% 28.2% 16.3% -19.0% 3,598,192 3,395,702 6.0% Bldg.Matls-Whsle Auto Sales -New Office Equipment Food Markets Murrieta 1.7% 5.7% 16.9% 9.5% 20.9% 14.6% 3,050,262 2,811,712 8.5% Auto Sales -New Leasing Florist/Nursery Recreation Products Norco 1.2% 8.1% 8.5% 23.6% 6.0% -34.6% 1,221,939 1,136,814 7.5% Auto Sales -Used Auto Sales -New Service Stations Auto Parts/Repair Palm Desert 4.0% 10.0% -5.5% 0.9% 7.1% 23.6% 4,459,921 4,259,023 4. 7% Apparel Stores Restaurants Auto Sales -New Service Stations Palm Springs 3.2% 5.8% 2.1% -3.3% -11.4% 20.6% 2,595,559 2,558,824 1.4% Restaurants Drug Stores Energy Sales Bldg.Matis-Retail Perris 0.0% 4.8% 10.2% 28.1% 22.1% 31.2% 1,887,302 1,659,454 13. 7% Auto Sales -New Electronic Equipment Misc. Vehicle Sales Miscellaneous Retail Rancho Mirage 9.7% 1.8% 30.5% -6.9% 12.0% -14.9% 1,101,287 1,017,348 8.3% Auto Sales -New Miscellaneous Retail Misc. Vehicle Sales Bldg.Matis-Retail Riverside 2.7% 17.4% 9.9% 15.0% 11.7% 10.4% 12,519,753 11,403,637 9.8% Auto Sales -New Food Processing Eqp Service Stations Business Services Riverside County 6.6% 15.1% -3.1% -14.5% -65.9% -17.8% 7,134,212 8,120,210 -12.1% Food Processing Eqp Miscellaneous Retail Electronic Equipment Bldg.Matls-Whsle San Jacinto 0.9% 2.7% -4.4% 41.9% 2.2% -20.7% 534,400 525,657 1. 7% Bldg.Matls-Whsle Restaurants Auto Sales -Used Auto Parts/Repair Temecula -0.7% 3.9% 1.6% 5.6% 10.1% -9.3% 6,991,361 6,863,392 1.9% Auto Sales -Used Energy Sales Miscellaneous Retail Service Stations Wildomar 8.4% 3.3% -2.9% -24.7"/o 5.4% -4.0% 308,980 309,012 0.0% Food Markets Restaurants Service Stations Bldg.Matls-Whsle 8 MuniServices, LLC • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 28, 2014 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Marla Dye, Procurement Analyst Matt Wallace, Procurement Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2014; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Certain contracts are executed under single signature authority as permitted in the Commission's Procurement Policy Manual adopted in December 2012. The Executive Director is authorized to sign services contracts that are less than $100,000 individually and in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1 million in any given fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 130323(c), the Executive Director is authorized to sign contracts for supplies, equipment, materials, and construction of all facilities and works under $50,000 individually. The attached report details all contracts that have been executed for the third quarter ended March 31, 2014 under the single signature authority granted to the Executive Director. The unused capacity of single signature authority for services at March 31, 2014 is $555,473. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of March 31, 2014 Agenda item 78 9 • CONSULTANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2013 Green Com, Inc. Southern California Regional Rail Authority Corner Stone Right of Way AECOM ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Baretel Associates, Inc Express Transportlon Systems, Inc Smith, Watts & Marinez LLC Arellano Associates Avila & Putnam, PLC AMOUNT USED AMOUNT REMAINING through March 31, 2014 None Marla Dye Prepared by • SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF March 31, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Public outreach services on the 1-215, Blaine St. to MLK Blvd Project Switching Passenger Train Traffic at Pachappa Crossing over SR-91 HOV Project Relocation Appeal Hearing Officer Services Construction Contract Change Order Support for the 1-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV Project Elevator Maintenance Service • North Main Corona Station Actuarial Valuation Serfvces for OPEB Calculatlon Taxi Service During the Malntenanace of the Pedestrian Crossing Extra Work Public Opinion Survey. Quality of Life lssures In Riverside County Release sponsorship funds for specific event purposes necessary for the SR-91 CIP and PVL groundbreaking events Legal Services for Emlnet Domain on the SR-91 CIP. Agreements that fall under Public Utilities Code 130323 (C) N/A Theresia Trevino Reviewed by 10 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ $1,000,000.00 10,000.00 30,000.00 10,000.00 58,175.23 54,000.00 2,500.00 1,257.20 63,800.00 60,000.00 50,000.00 444,527.43 $565,472.57 PAID AMOUNT 10,000.00 0.00 5,548.59 0.00 11,981.60 0.00 1,257.20 10,000.00 48,590.03 15,756.17 $ REMAINING CONTRACT AMOUNT 0.00 30,000.00 4,451.41 58,175.23 42,018.40 2,500.00 0.00 63,800.00 11,409.97 34,243.83 $ • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 28, 2014 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Finance Manager/Controller THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2014/15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the proposed FY 2014/15 Budget; and 2) Forward to the Commission to open the public hearing in order to receive input and comments on the proposed FY 2014/15 Budget on May 14 and on June 11, 2014, and thereafter close the public hearing. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff completed the initial budget preparation process, and attached is an executive summary for the proposed FY 2014/15 Budget. The policy goals and objectives approved by the Commission on April 9 were the basis of this budget. The policy 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, as well as financial and administration policies. Staff will present highlights of significant items included in the budget and is seeking review of and input on the proposed FY 2014/15 Budget. Based on input received from Commissioners, staff will update the document, as necessary, and present the proposed budget for the opening of the public hearing and for the Commission's review on May 14. As a result of input received from the public and the Commission, staff will make any necessary changes to the budget document for final review, close of the public hearing, and adoption at the June 11 Commission meeting. The executive summary document contains a summary of all departmental budgets and summarizes the information for the entire Commission. The department budgets present the goals and objectives, the resources needed to accomplish the goals, and the appropriations required to accomplish the tasks. Staff also included the budgets by governmental fund type, as this table provides a summary of the budgeted revenues and expenditures from a fund perspective. Preliminary funding estimates for transit operating and capital expenditures have Agenda Item 8 11 been included in the budget, although the draft Short Range Transit Plans are still under review . An adjustment for a revised estimate of these transit expenditures may be included in the final budget document presented in June 2014. At the June 11 Commission meeting, staff will present the entire budget document with detailed narratives. A summary of the proposed FY 2014/15 Budget is as follows: Revenues and other financing sources: Sales taxes-Measure A and Local Transportation Funds $ Reimbursements (federal, state, and other) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Funds, including reimbursements State Transit Assistance Other revenues Interest on investments Debt proceeds Transfers in Total revenues and other financing sources Expenditures and other financing uses: Personnel salary and fringe benefits Professional services Support services Projects and operations Capital outlay Debt service (principal, interest and costs of issuance) Transfers out Total expenditures and other financing uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses Beginning fund balance (projected) Ending fund balance (projected) $ Attachment: Executive Summary for the Proposed FY 2014/15 Budget Agenda Item 8 12 FY 2014/15 Budget 248,500,000 188,920,500 8,154,600 12,944,700 575,000 2,467,000 191,600,000 334,434, 700 987,596,500 8,280,300 16,146,100 5,299,600 927,449,400 3,750,000 54,696,200 334,434,700 1,350,056,300 (362,459,800) 979,339,400 616,879,600 • • • • • • Executive Summary Introduction The budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014/15 is presented to the Board of Commissioners (Board) and the citizens of Riverside County. The budget outlines the projects the Commission plans to undertake during the year and appropriates expenditures to accomplish these tasks. The budget also shows the funding sources and fund balances that will be used for these projects. This document will serve as the Commission's monetary guideline. To provide the reader a better understanding of the projects, staff has included descriptive information regarding each department and major projects. The discussion in each department includes a review of accomplishments, major initiatives, and key assumptions. Staff used the goals and objectives approved at the Commission meeting on April 9, 2014, to prepare this budget. In addition to the Commission's long-term goals and strategic plan, the shorNerm factors listed below were used to guide the development of the budget: Operational • Aggressively pursue completion of the environmental, design, and construction processes on the State Route (SR) 91, Interstate (I) 15, and 1-215 corridor improvement projects; the SR-60 truck climbing lane project; and Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension (Perris Valley Line) included in the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan. ., • • ... • • • • • • • • Enhance corridor mobility and traveler choice by continuing property acquisition and construction on the SR-91 corridor improvement project and continuing to develop tolled express lanes on 1-15. Provide leadership in the planning and development of the Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor rail service. Work closely with local jurisdictions to administer the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program and fadlitate the delivery of eligible arterial improvements in western Riverside County (Western County). Work closely with partners in the Coachella Valley to ensure the implementation of Measure A funding priorities. Complete projects and programs included in the 1989 Measure A ordinance and determine uses for any unexpended revenues. Continue the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance for the Mid County Parkway and SR-79 realignment projects. Work with local and regional agencies in developing resources for preservation and maintenance of the highways and regional arterials. Continue active engagement in state and federal efforts to streamline and reform CEQA and NEPA . Consider future rail expansion opportunities including the potential for extension of the Perris Valley Line to the Hemet/San Jacinto and Temecula areas. Support innovative programs that provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders with special transit needs. Support cost controls and promote operating efficiency for transit operators . Maintain effective partnerships among commuters, employers, and government to increase the efficiency of our transportation system by encouraging and promoting motorized and non-motorized transportation alternatives. • Continue to provide a motorist aid system that ensures safety and convenience to freeway motorists. • Maintain an active involvement in state and federal legislative matters to ensure that the Commission receives proper consideration for transportation projects and funding. • Explore local options for sustainable funding in addressing long-term transportation and quality-of-life needs for Riverside County. • Maintain close communication with Commissioners and educate policy makers on all issues of importance to the Commission . 13 Financial • Fund administrative costs with allocations from Measure A, LTF, FSP, SAFE, and TUMF funds. • • Maintain administrative program delivery costs below the policy threshold of 4% of Measure A revenues; the FY 2014/15 Management Services budget is 2.37% of Measure A revenues. • Maintain administrative salaries and benefits at less than 1% of Measure A revenues; the FY 2014/15 administrative salaries and benefits is .88% of Measure A revenues. • Continue to maintain prudent cash reserves to provide some level of insulation for unplanned expenditures. • Maintain current positive bond ratings with rating agencies. • Move forward on Measure A projects for highways and regional arterials using sales tax revenues, TUMF revenues, and state and federal funding as well as financing alternatives such as commercial paper, sales tax revenue bonds, toll revenue bonds, and federal loans. ·~. Establish and maintain reserves for toll operations, capital improvements, and debt service in accordance with toll supported debt agreements. • Conduct enhanced outreach to businesses and contractors located in Riverside County regarding opportunities to provide competitive and qualified goods and/or services to the Commission. • Leverage and protect past Measure A investments in rail with state and federal funding for additional rail improvements, including the Perris Valley Line. • Maintain the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system to integrate project accounting needs and improve accounting efficiency. Budget Overview Total sources (Table 1) are budgeted at $987,596,500, which is a decrease of 37% over FY 2013/14 projected sources and a 49% decrease over the FY 2013/14 revised budget. Total sources are comprised of revenues of $461,561,800, transfers in of$334,434,700, and debt proceeds of $191,600,000. The projected fund balance at June 30, 2014 available for expenditures (excluding reserves for debt service of $144,250,800 and advances • receivable of $34,456,400) is $800,632,200. Accordingly, total funding available for the FY 2014/15 budget totals $1, 788,228;700. Table 1-S~urces FY 2013·2015 Measure A Sales Tax 10,000,000 LTF Sales Tax 72,828,800 76,500,000 5,000,000 7% STA Sales Tax 14,170,200 13,298,000 (353,300) -3% Intergovernmental 38,817,400 234,644,200 (45,723,700} -19% TUMF Revenue 12,421,100 6,723,400 1,431,200 21% Other Revenue 1,540,600 1,090,400 (515,400) -47% Investment Income 1,769,900 4,026,500 (1,559,500) -39% Operating Transfers In 133,065,300 637,010,600 (302,575,900) -47% Debt Proceeds 60,000,000 810,774,000 (619,174,000) -76% TOTAL Sources $ 484,041,400 $ 1,941,067,100 $ (953,470,600) -49% Riverside County has specific competitive advantages over nearby coastal counties (Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego) including housing that was (and remains) more available and affordable and plentiful commercial real estate and land available for development at lower costs. Prior to the national recession, Riverside County's economy thrived, reflecting the area's competitive advantages over its neighboring counties, largely as a result of the County's continuing ability to draw jobs, residents, and affordable housing away from the Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego county areas. As a result, the County's employment and commercial base diversified and the County's share of the regional economy increased. 14 • • • • During the nationwide recession, the County experienced high unemployment; reduced personal income, taxable sales, and residential building permits; a decrease in the rate of home sales and the median price of single-family residences; and high rates of notices of default on mortgage loans secured by single-family residences. The impact of the recession was amplified in the Inland Empire (i.e., Riverside and San Bernardino counties) due to its relatively greater growth and the relatively lower average income levels when compared to coastal areas. These factors resulted in fluctuating Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues and TUMF fees; however, as noted on Chart 1 the sales tax revenues appear to have stabilized following the recession. Chart 1 -Commission Sources Trend $800,000,000 ----·--· .... ·------~·"""----- $700,000,000 T,-----~· ·~-------'----"----------------c $500,000,000 ---·----~-~. FY10/11 FYll/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 .-Measure A Sales Tax .....LTFSalesTax ......,.. STA Sales Tax .._TUMF --federal, State, Local Revenues -+-Operating Transfers In ......... Debt Proceeds While recovery from the nationwide recession in the local Inland Empire economy has lagged the nation and other areas of California, the local economy is experiencing significant improvement. Sales tax revenues have rebounded from the recent economic downturn's low point in 2010. The Commission's Measure A and L TF sales tax revenues for FY 2013/14 are projected to reach their highest annual level. The Commission's economic outlook for FY 2014/15 continues to be cautiously optimistic; however, the state and federal budget issues continue to affect funding of the Commission'~ capital projects and programs. Ongoing problems with funding of the Federal Highway Trust Fund could cause delays in receipt of federal funding. Should Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues continue to fluctuate and the availability of federal and state revenues continue to be uncertain, the timing and scope of the Commission's projects and pr.ograms may be impacted. While the Commission's primary revenues are the Measure A and LTF sales taxes, other revenues and financing sources are required to fund the Commission's programs and projects as illustrated in Chart 2 . 15 Chart 2 -Sources: Major Categories Oper.iing Transfers In 34% Measure A Sales Tax 17% Oiher Revenue 0% The State Board ofEqualization (SBOE) recently provided to cities and other agencies its projections that statewide taxable sales over the next fiscal year will increase X%. However, given the tenuous local economy, the Commission Is not basing its estimate of revenues on the SBOE's projection and will continue its conservative projection practices. After taking the state of the local economy and recent revenue trends Into consideration, staff projects Measure A sales tax revenues of $167,000,000 for FY 2014/15. This is a 6% increase from the FY 2013/14 revised projection of $157,000,000. At midyear the Commission will reassess sales tax revenue projections based on the economy and revenue trends. On behalf of the County, the Commission administers the L TF for public transportation· needs, local streets and roads, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The majority of L TF funding received by the County and available for allocation is distributed to all public transit operators in the County, and the Commission receives allocations for administration, planning, and programming in addition to funding for western county rail operations included in the commuter rail Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The LTF sales tax revenue received from the St.ate is budgeted at $81,500,000; an increase of 7% from the FY 2013/14 revised projection of $76,500,000. STA funds generated from the statewide sales tax on motor vehicle fuel are allocated by formula by the State Controller to the Commission for allocations to the County's public transit operators; however, these funds have been subject to suspension in past years due to the State's budget issues. The STA transit allocation, which is based on recent State estimates, for FY 2014/15 is $12,944,700. Intergovernmental revenues include reimbursement revenues from federal sources of $83,566,500, state sources of $99,143,000, and local agencies of $6,211,000 for highway and rail capital projects, rail operations and station maintenance, commuter assistance, and motorist assistance programs as well as planning and programming activities. Reimbursement revenues vary from year to year depending on project activities and funding levels. As a result of an amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Western Riverside Council of Governments {WRCOG), the Commission will receive 48.7% of TUMF revenues {as updated by the most recent Nexus study). TUMF represents fees assessed on new residential and commercial development in Western County. FY 2014/15 TUMF fees are projected at $8,000,000 compared to the FY 2013/14 revised projection of $7,400,000 and reflect the slow but encouraging signs in the housing market in the Inland Empire. Additional TUMF zone reimbursements of $154,600 are expected for the 74/215 interchange project. Other revenue of $575,000 is projected to decrease 47% from the prior year's budget of $1,090,400 and is related to property management revenues from properties acquired in connection with the SR-91 corridor improvement project. Investment incoi;ne is anticipated to decrease in FY 2014/15 as a result of increased activity with the Perris Valley line and the SR-91 corridor improvement projects. Staff continues to actively manage its resources and make appropriate investments to maximize the return to the Commission without sacrificing security and affecting short- term cash requirements. 16 • • • • • • Transfers in of $334,434,700 relate primarily to the transfer of available debt proceeds for highway projects; LTF funding for general administration, planning and programming, rail operations and station maintenance, and grade separation project allocations; approved interfund allocations for specific projects; and debt service requirements from highway, regional arterial, and local streets and roads projects. Debt proceeds consist of drawdowns of $191,600,000 from the federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan related to the SR-91 corridor improvement project. Total uses (Table 2), including transfers out of $334,434,700, are budgeted at $1,350,056,300, a decrease of 20% from the prior year budget amount of $1,681,429,900. Program expenditures and transfers out totaling $1,335,994,400 represent 99% of total budgeted uses in FY 2014/15. Program costs have decreased by 20% from $1,667,844,500 in FY 2013/14. Table 2 -Uses FY 2013-2015 Capital Highway, Rail, and Regional Arterials Capital Local Streets and Roads 44,594,900 46,865,900 3,016,100 6% Commuter Assistance 3,019,700 4,523,900 (1,063,500) -24% Debt Service 22,229,400 136,660,400 (81,964,200) -60% Management Services 11,712,500 13,585,400 476,500 4% Motorist Assistance 4,889,300 6,755,500 (1,176,7001 ·17% Planning and Programming 3,099,800 5,767,000 3,241,400 616,300 11% Public and Specialized Transit 71,344,100 121,409,100 98,205,600 2,174,900 2% Rail Maintenance and Operations 11,278,600 15,800,500 15,042,SOO 2,254,100 14% TOTAL Uses $ 437,433,100 $ );681,429,900 $ 1,205,7.94,100 (331,373,600) ·20% Note: Management Services includes Executive Management, Administration, Legislative Affairs and Communications, and Finance. Capital highway, rail, and regional arterials budgeted uses of $1,074,355,100 are 19% lower compared to the FY 2013/14 budget due to completion of construction on the 1-215 corridor improvement project and completion of final design, right of way acquisition, and utility relocations on SR-74 curve realignment project in addition to decreased operating transfers out of debt proceeds from capital projects funds to special revenue funds to finance 2009 Measure A Western County highway projects costs. Local streets and roads expenditures of $49,882,000 reflect an increase of 6% over the FY 2013/14 budget and represent the disbursements to local jurisdictions for the construction, repair, and maintenance of local streets and roads. Debt Service of $54,696,200 has decreased 60% as a result of the retirement of $60 million of outstanding commercial paper notes in FY 2013/14 from sales tax revenue bond proceeds issued in connection with the SR-91 corridor improvement project financing. Additionally, actual debt service requirements related to the SR-91 corridor improvement project current plan of finance are lower than estimated in the original plan of finance . 17 Commuter Assistance budgeted expenditures of $3,460,400 are 24% lower than FY 2013/14 budget due to decreased expenditures related to completion of the new ridematching system and streamlined media outreach • for projects and operations activities. Management Services expenditures have increased 4% from the .FY 2013/14 budget due to information technology equipment upgrades and administration support. Motorist Assistance expenditures have decreased 17% or $1,176,700 from the FY 2013/14 budget as a result of decreased demand for freeway service patrol services supporting construction projects and streamlining media outreach for the IE511 service. Planning and Programming budgeted expenditures of $6,383,300 reflect an 11% increase from the FY 2013/14 budget due to increased projects and operations activities in connection with L TF disbursements for planning and programming and grade separation projects. Public and Specialized Transit budgeted expenditures of $123,584,000 are 2% higher than FY 2013/14 budget due to increased transit capital expenditures for public transit. The 14% increase in Rail Maintenance and Operation's budgeted expenditures of $18,054,600 is primarily due to additional consultant work needed to perform planning and modeling for rail projects including the SR- 91/Perris Valley Line expansion and Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor rail service. Total uses included in the FY 2014/15 budget by major categories are illustrated In Chart 3. Chart 3 -Uses: Major categories Commission Personnel Plannlng and Programming °" Publlcand Raft Mlllrlten111ce The Commission's salary and benefits total $8,280,300 for FY 2014/15. This represents an increase of $330,900 or 4% over the FY 2013/14 budget of $7,949,400 (Chart 4). The increase relates to a 3% cost of living adjustment to offset the employee's contribution for their share of normal pension costs; a 3% pool for merit-based salary increases; an increase in the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) employer contribution rate and dental, vision, and workers' compensation premiums; and an increase in the annual required contribution for the postretirement health care costs based on a recent actuarial valuation. Beginning with FY 2013/14, the Commission implemented a phased approach over a three-year period requiring employees to pay their share of normal pension costs. The current 5% employer-paid member contribution by the Commission will be eliminated in FY 2015/16. 18 • • • • • Chart 4-Salary and Benefits Costs: Five-Year Comparison $9,000,000 ---·---·--·-·~-~·~----· ·····-······-·········-----·--·-·-·---·----- $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- FYl0/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 The FY 2014/15 FTE of 46 positions is comparable to the FY 2013/14 level (Table 3) as the Commission prepares for significant organization changes that include large transportation capital projects resulting in toll operations and the investment of billions of dollars requiring substantial attention at many staff levels. Management continues to be firmly committed to the intent of the Commission's enabling legislation that called for a small staff. Staff will continue to be provided the tools needed to ensure an efficient and productive work environment. However, it must be recognized that small is not viewed in an absolute context; it is relative to the required tasks to be performed and the demands to be met. Table 3-Full-Time Equivalents by Department FY 2013-2015 Administration 4.5 5.5 Legislative Affairs and Communications 2.2 2.4 Finance 6.8 6.9 Planning and Programming 4.7 5.3 Rail Maintenance and Operations 2.9 4.0 Public and Specialized Transit 2.5 2.4 Commuter Assistance 1.8 1.8 Motorist Assistance 0.9 1.2 Capital Project Development and Delivery 13.4 16.2 TOTAL 40.0 46.0 The Commission provides a comprehensive package of benefits to all permanent, salaried employees. The package includes: health, dental, vision, and life insurance, short and long-term disability, workers' compensation, tuition assistance, sick and vacation leave, retirement benefits in the form of participation in California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), postretirement health care, deferred compensation, and employee assistance program. The compensation components are shown in Chart 5 . 19 Chart S -Personnel Salary and Benefits Department Initiatives The preparation of each department's budget was based on key assumptions, accomplishments in FY 2013/14, major initiatives for FY 2014/'.l.5, and department goals and related objectives. Following are the key initiatives and summary of expenditures for each department (Tables 4 through 13). Executive Management • Continue project development and delivery as the key Measure A priority. • Continue construction on Riverside County's largest transportation project, the SR-91 corridor improvement project. • Advance public transit with the construction of the Perris Valley Line. • Launch a planning effort to advance passenger rail service in the Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor. • Advocate for state investments in transportation and approval of a federal transportation bill to fund needed transportation priorities in the County and stimulate the local economy. • Maintain regional cooperation and collaboration as a significant effort consistent with the philosophy and mission of the Commission. • Enhance external communications with media, business and civic groups, and the community. • Maintain an effective mid-sized transportation agency with a small and dedicated staff. Table 4 -Executive Management Professional s .AArt TOTAL Administration $ 308,900 $ • Provide high quality support services to the Commission and to internal and external customers. • Continue to enhance the electronic records management system. 17% 53% • Continue to provide timely communications to Commissioners with continued emphasis on the utilization of electronic mail. • Continue to update technology to streamline processes and provide easier access to Commission records. • Support and develop a motivated workforce with a framework of activities and practices that comply with employment laws and regulations. 20 • • • • • • Table S -Administration Professional Support Capital Outlay . Debt Service toTAl 578,100 32,700 Legislative Affairs and Communications 651,600 383,500 29,800 5% 51,500 13% N/A 22t100' 13 • Continue efforts to protect and seek greater state and federal investment in transportation infrastructure and goods movement. • Develop effective partnerships with transportation providers to communicate a unified message to Congress regarding mobility needs. • Advocate positions in the State Legislature and in Congress that advance the County's transportation interests. • Continue a leadership role in formulating a countywide direction on federal transportation policies. • Take a leadership role on the modernization of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). • Continue to develop a broad public information program regarding the Commission's responsibilities and accomplishments through a variety of media formats and presentation opportunities including expanding the use of social media and other emerging technologies. • Continue to place an emphasis on providing proactive public communications support related to major project development efforts. • Conduct a concerted outreach effort to new federal and state representatives on local transportation issues. • Provide new Commissioner-orientation meetings and other continuing education opportunities for Commissioners . Table 6 -Legislative Affairs and Communications Professional Support TOTAL Finance $ $ 189,200 1,203,600 $ 15,500 {33,700) (14,200) ·18% ·1% • Continue appropriate uses of long-. and short-term financing to advance 2009 Measure A projects of the Commission and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). • Apply the sales tax revenue forecast update to update a financing plan to support the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan and CVAG highway and regional arterial projects. • Continue to keep abreast of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASS) technical activities affecting the Commission's accounting and financial reporting activities and consider early implementation of new pronouncements. • Continue to strengthen the ERP system to benefit all staff in the management of accounting and project information and automation of a paperless workflow system. • Continue to implement a centralized procurements process in order to strengthen controls and ensure consistency in the application of procurement policies and procedures and adherence to applicable laws and regulations. • Conduct outreach activities to encourage disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) and small business enterprise (SBE) participation in various contracts. 21 Table 7 -Finance Personnel Professional Support Capital Outlay Transfers Out TOTAL Planning and Programming 5,000,000 $ 9,364,500 $ 7,500 5,000,000 10,209,000 $ 17,500 47,700 105,800 0% -6% 233% 1% 1% • Monitor funding authority and responsibility related to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and impacts on the STIP caused by the state budget issues. • Ensure STIP and Pr<>position 18 funded projects are administered and implemented consistent with California Transportation Commission (CTC) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) policies. ~· Continue to strategically program projects and obligate funds in an expeditious manner for the maximum use of all available funding, including monitoring the use of such funding to prevent funds from lapsing. • Focus on interregional concerns and maintain effective working relationships involving various multi-county transportation issues, including goods movement. • Coordinate planning efforts with regional and local agencies retati'ng to the development of regional transportation plans (RTP) and green house gas reduction implementation guidelines. • Secure funding through the federal transportation bill for goods movement-related needs. • Monitor and track the TUMF regional arterial projects. • Work cooperatively with member agencies to continue the work efforts on the new Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridors. • Continue the Congestion Management Program (CMP) update and traffic monitoring along urban and rural highway systems. • Administer the SB821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. • Monitor the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach's {Ports) projectsfor impacts on Riverside County. Projects and Operations Transfers Out TOTAL $ 3,099,800 $ Rail Maintenance and Operations 23,400 4,301,500 5,767,000 $ • Continue active participation in governance and operations of the Metrolink commuter rail system. ·12% 5% N/A 11% • Continue the planning and implementation of capital improvements at the commuter rail stations in Riverside County, including the Perris Valley Line, security and rehabilitation projects, and parking requirements. • Continue to support activities related to the Perris Valley Line project and evaluate its operational impact. • Establish best approach to build, maintain, and operate cost effective and environmentally sustainable facilities that meet the public's transportation needs. • Lead the service development process and actively coordinate with all stakeholders along the Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor for intercity passenger rail service. 22 • • • • • • Table 9 -Rail Maintenance and Operations Projects and Operations Capital Outlay Transfers Out T.QTAl $. Public and Specialized Transit 1,202,800 9,334,700 42,900 12,800 . 11,278,600 127,300 7% 1,371,600 11% 86,800 180% N/A s 15,800;500 s 2,254,100 $. • Support innovative programs that provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs and monitor funding of these programs. • Complete the first year of specialized transit funding allocations related to the 2013 universal call for projects and continue to monitor performance. • Continue long-range planning activities to ensure that anticipated revenues are in line with projected levels of service by transit operators. • Continue public transit operator oversight and fiduciary responsibilities to ensure that annual fiscal audit and a state triennial performance audit are conducted in accordance with TOA regulations. • Provide availability for local matching funds to Western County applicants seeking FTA Section 5310 federal capital grants. • Coordinate with operators on major capital purchases and investments into new rolling stock and other system improvements in order to maintain a viable on-hand reserve . Professional Support Projects and Operations Transfers Out TOTAL Commuter Assistance $. 10,500 56,750,100 14,097,600 .7 100 ;$ 24,500 106,323;000 141411 l21,409,100 s 218,500 zna1,600 2,174,900 ·28% -8% 0% 14% 2% • Improve the suite of services and outreach to rideshare participants and employer partners, including personalized information and electronic access and distribution. • Maintain and grow employer partnerships through value-added services and tools for ridesharing programs. • Continue to provide leadership to the ongoing operation, maintenance, and enhancement of bi-county ridematching system with regional reach. • Maintain long-term partnership with San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG} to manage and implement a "sister" Commuter Assistance program for residents and employers in San Bernardino County. • Optimize park and ride facilities to support car/vanpool/buspool arrangements and facilitate transit connections . 23 Table 11-Commuter Assistance Professional Support Projects and Operations capital Outlay . Transfers Ol4 NlotoristAssistance $ 2,802,800 7,000 151,300 11~ 3,019,700 $ 4,523,900 $ • Assess opportunities for effieiency related to the call box program operations. • Maintain a high benefit-to-cost ratio related to the performance of the FSP program. (29,900) (502,800) -62% 194,300) -19% (481,800} -17% (2,0001 -29% 47 42% (1,063,500) -24% • Operate and maintain the IE511 system in accordance with national 511 implementation standards in partnership with SANBAG. • Enhance the IE511 with more personalized traffic information services. • Utilize the opportunity to enhance coordination between California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Caltrans on traveler information. Table 12 -Motorist Assistance Personnel Professional Support Projects and Operations Transfers Out .TOTAL s 515,700 514,900 2,428,300 1,325,800 4,8~,300 $ Capital Project Development and Delivery 14,000 766,500 {SQ,100) -7% sn,600 (246,700} ·28% 3,633,300 (504,700) ·14% 1,29Q,900 (389,200) -30% 6,75),500 s (1,176,700) -17% • Continue project development, right of way, and construction activities on remaining 1989 Measure A projects including SR-74 curve widening, SR-91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes/Adams Street to 60/91/215 interchange, and 60/215 East Junction HOV lane connectors. • Continue project activities on the 1-215 bi-county highway and Perris Valley Line rail projects, which were included in both the 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A programs. • Continue project work on the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan projects, including the 91/71 connectors; the SR-91, 1-15, and 1-215 corridor improvement projects; SR-60 truck climbing lane; SR-79 realignment; and Mid County Parkway. • Provide Western County Measure A regional arterial TUMF funding and support to local jurisdictions for regional arterial project engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction. • Provide 2009 Measure A funding to the incorporated cities, CVAG and the County for local streets and roads maintenance, repair, and construction. • Provide funding and support of 2009 Measure A highway and regional arterial projects. • Develop strategies to implement alternative financing structures including public toll roads. • Maintain a right of way acquisition and management program in support of capital projects. • Manage right of way acquisition in the most cost effective manner and within project schedules, while adhering to federal and state regulations. • • • Maintain and manage the access, use, safety, and security of Commission-owned properties including • commuter rail stations, properties in acquisition process, and income-generating properties. 24 • • • Table 13 -Capital Project Development and Delivery 3,339,800 10,507,300 -19% 879,300 -3% Projects and Operations 187,031,900 745,669,200 51,090,900 7% Capital Outlay 145,300 340,000 2,810,000 826% Debt Service 22,204,100 136,660,400 (81,964,200) -60% Transfers Out 112,477,800 616,192,500 (304,8l3,300 -49% TOTAL $ m,P63,800 $ 1,513,~88,SOO $ (334,655,200) -22% Fund Balances The total fund balance as of June 30, 2014 is projected at $979,339,400. The Commission's budgeted activities for FY 2014/15 are expected to result ih a $362,459,800 decrease of total fund balance at June 30, 2015 to $616,879,600. The primary cause of the decrease is related to the project activities in FY 2014/15 related to the SR- 91 corridor improvement project and the Perris Valley line project. Table 14 presents the components of fund balance by governmental fund type and program at Jun.e 30, 2015. Table 14 -projected Fund Balances by Governmental Fund Type and Program at June 30, 2015 Ma---Plannmt •rul ,,..., ... wn1111 RaD M.ointe-llldOperalklns Budget Summary $3,67&,400 Measwe A Western Cotlnty: l,470,000 Bond Ftnandnc 3,JG2,700 CommuterAsslstance Economic Development Hl&hwayi ~ Slreelund Roads -New Corridors Public and Specialized Transit Rail Recfonal Artariols Measure A Coachella Valley: Hl&hwlY$ and Rqlonal Arterial local Streets and Roads Specialized Transit Measure A Palo VOTde Valley local Streets and Roads Motorist Assistance State Transit Assistance Local Transpcrtotfon Fund TUMF: CETAP Relfonal Arterials $8,196,800 14,584,800 5,370,800 30,406,500 1,000 69,401,200 7,871,200 43,048,200 16,326,900 8,396,200 1,700 1,438,000 600 6,346,400 40,366,900 107,992,400 16,516,200 8,586,700 The overall budget for FY 2014/15 is presented in Table 15 by summarized line items, Table 16 by operating and capital classifications, and Table 17 by governmental fund type. Highway, rail, and regional arterial program expenditures by project are summarized in Table 18 . 25 Table 15 -Bud et Comparative by Summarized Line Item FY 2013-2015 • Revenues Measure A Sales Tax $ 149,428,100 $ 157,000,000 $ 157,000.000 10,000,000 6% L TF Sales Tax 72.828,800 76,500,000 76.500.000 5,000,000 7% STA Sales Tax 14,170,200 13,298,000 13,298.000 (353,300) -3% Federal Reimbursements 14,230,000 94,389.000 50,267,900 (10,822,500) -11% State Reimbursements 22,875,500 137;891,200 87,985,i;OO (38,748,200) -28% Local Reimbursements 1,711,900 2,364,000 3,1)48.800 3,847,000 163% TUMF Revenue 12,421,100 6,723,400 6,430,100 1,431,200 21% Other Revenue 1,540,600 1,090,400 (515,400) -47% Investment Income 1769900 4,026500 1,559 500 -39% TOTAL Revenues 290,976,100 493,282,500 (31,720,700) -6% Expenditures Personnel Salary and Benefits 6,342,400 7,949,400 330,900 ·~ Professional and Support Professional Seniices 12,100,400 17,911,700 (l,765,600) -10% Support Costs 3;798300 5577700 278100 -5% TOTAL Professional and Support Costs 15,898,700 23,489,400 (2,043,700) -9% Projects and Operations Program Operations -General 15,097,700 20,111,400 1,093,200 5% Engineering 15,736,200 22,026,000 (4,177,000) -19% Construction 37,534,200 238/179,800 1,865,100 1% Design Build 26,232,500 217,750,000 165,800,000 37,053,500 17% Right of Way/Land 44,974,600 l 79;087,800 103,123,400 4,763,600 3% Operating and Capital Disbursements 66,582,000 122,723.000 91,395,900 5,321,000 4% Specla I Studies 246,200 1,019,000 239,000 51,000 5% Local Streets and Roads 44,594,900 46,865,900 46,911,900 3,016,100 6% Regional Arterials 8678 00 27471000 25 315000 929000 11% • TOTAL Projects and Operations 259,676,800 875,533,900 571,590,$00 5i,915,500 6% Debt Service Principal Payments 6,824,700 86,100,000 -91% Interest Payments 15,404,700 41,075,800 15% Cost of Issuance 7051 00 -100% TOTAL Debt Service 22,229,400 134,227,100 -59% Capital Outlay 220500 786200 377% TOTAL Expenditures 304,367,800 1 041,986 000 -3% Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures (13,391,700) (548,703,500) (5,356,300) 1% Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers In 133,065,300 637,010,600 (302,575,900) -47% Transfers Out (133,065,300) (637,010,600) 302,575,900 -47% Debt Proceeds 60,000,000 632,1S8,000 {632,158,000) -100% TIFIA loan Proceeds 110,000,000 81,600,000 74% Bond Premium 68,616,000 (68,616,000) -100% Bond Discount 2 433,300 2433,300 -100% Net financing Sources (Uses) 60,000ooO 808 40,700 616,740,700) -76% Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources (Uses) 46,608,300 259,637,200 (622,097,000) -240% Beginning Fund Bala nee 575,S78,600 622,186,900 357,152 500 57% ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 622,186 00 $ 881,824,100 $ (264,944,500) -30% • 26 Table 16 -Operating and Capital Budget FY 2014/15 • s 15,605,000 s l TF Sales Tax 81,500,000 STA Sales Tax 12,944,700 Federal Reimbursements 396,900 83,169,600 State Reimbursements 9,059,000 90,084,000 Local Reimbursements 3,185,500 3,025,500 TUMF Revenue 8,154,600 Other Revenue 575,000 Investment Income 466 700 2 060 300 TOTAL Revenues 123,157,800 338,404,000 Expenditures Personnel Salary and Benefits 4,678,000 Professional and Support Professional Services 5,003,000 Support Costs 4429 00 TOTAL Professional and Support Costs 9,432,500 Projects and Operations Program Operations -General 7,235,300 13,969,300 .Engineering 210,000 17,639,000 Construction 1,900,000 238,444,900 Design Build 254,803,500 Right of Way and Land 183,851,400 Operating and Capital Disbursements 120,544,000 7,500,000 Special Studies 800,000 270,000 • Local Streets and Roads 49,882,000 Regional Arterials 30400000 TOTAL Projects and Operations 130,689,300 796,760,100 Debt Service Principal Payments Interest Payments .. TOTAL Debt Service Capital Outlay 600 000 TOTAL Expenditures 145 399 800 Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures (22,242,000) Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers In 18,487,700 315,947,000 Transfers Out (18,055,500) {316,379,200) TIFIA Loan Proceeds 191,600000 Net Financing Sources (Uses) 432,200 191,167 800 Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources (Uses) (21,809 ,800) Beginning Fund Balance 208,918600 ENDING FUND BALANCE s .187 108,800 s 429,770,800 • 27 Table 17 -Budget by Governmental Fund Type FY 2014/15 • Revenues Measure A Sales Tax $ 2,900,000 $ 164,100,000 $ -$ LTF Sales Tax 81,500,000 STA Sales Tax 12,944,700 Federal Reimbursements 20,000 80,564,400 State Reimbursements 834,000 98,309,000 Local Reimbursements 1,378,500 4,832,500 TUMF Revenue 8,154,600 Other Revenue 575,000 Investment Income 14 00 966 700 592100 TOTAL Revenues 5,146,800 451,946,900 592,100 Expenditures Personnel Salary and Benefits 4,056,100 4,224,200 Professional and Support Professional Services 3,251,200 12,894,900 •. Support Costs 3 90200 1909400 TOTAL Professional and Support Costs 6,641,400 14,804,300 Projects and Operations Program Operations -General 1,nS,700 19,428,900 Engineering 10,000 17,839,000 Construction 1,250,000 239,094,900 Design Build 254,803,500 Right of Way/Land 183,851,400 Operating and Capital Disbursements 14,002,500 114,041,500 Specia I Studies 800,000 270,000 • local Streets and Roads 49,882,000 Regional Arterials 30400000 TOTAL Projects and Operations 17,838,200 909,611,200 Debt Service Principal Payments . Interest Payments TOTAL Debt Service Capital Outlay 595000 3155 000 TOTAL Expenditures 29130700 931794,700 Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures (23,983,900) (479,847,800) 592,100 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers In 17,823,000 249,958,000 40,000,000 Transfers Out (547,700) (107,587,000) (226,300,000) TIFIA Loan Proceeds 191600000 Net Financing Sources (Uses) 1i21s oo 333 971000 (186,300 000 Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources (Uses) (6,708,600) (145,876,800) (185,707,900) Beginning Fund Balance 12400800 533,546 200 289141600 ENDING FUND BALANCE 5692 200 $ 387,669,400 $ 103,433,700 $ • 28 Projects and operations Bechtel program management • SCRRA program management Other TOTAL PROJECTS-GENERAL Highway engineering 91(11 interchange improvement project 1-15 corridor improvements 1-215 bi-county HOV Interim project Mid County Parkway SR-91 HOV lanes/Adams Street to 60/91/215 interchange SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY ENGINEERING Regional arterial engineering Various Western County TUMF regional arterial projects, Including SR-79 realignment Rail engineering La Sierra Station parking expansion Perris Valley Line and other rail projects Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor General SUBTOTAL RAIL ENGINEERING TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL ENGINEERING Highway construction SR-60/Valley Way interchange 60/215 East Junction HOV lane connectors 74/215 interchange 1·215 corridor Improvements (central segment)/Scott Road to Nuevo Road 1·215/Blaine Street to Martin Luther King Boulevard widening 1-15/Los Alamos Road bridge replacement S'R-74 curve widening SR-91 corridor improvements SR·91 HOV lanes/Mary Street to 7th Street Riverside quiet zones General (details presented in Section 6.3 Planning and Programming) SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION Regional arterial construction • Various We•tem County TU MF regional arterial projects, including SR-79 widening/Thompson to Domenigoni Various Western County Measure A regional arterial projects SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL CONSTRUCTION Rail construction Riverside station pedestrian improvements CCTV operations center La Sierra station Improvements Perris Valley Line and other rail projects North Main Corona station parking structure Perris Multimodal Facility Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor SUBTOTAL RAIL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL CONSTRUCTION Highway design build SR-91 corridor improvements TOTAL HIGHWAY DESIGN BUILD Highway right of way and land 74/215 interchange 60/215 East Junction HOllJane connectors 1-215 corridor improvement (central segment)/Scon Road to Nuevo Road Mid County Parkway SR-74 curve widening 1-15 corridor improvements SR-74/1·15 to 7th Street 91/71 interchange improvement project SR-91 corridor improvements SR-91 HOV lanes/Adams Street to 60/91/215 interchange Western County Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) General SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY ANO LAND Regional arterial right of way and land Various Western County TUMF regional arterial projects I right of way and land erris Valley Line and other rail projects eneral SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND GRAND TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL PROGRAMS 29 4/28/2014 Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2014/15 1 • Use of accumulated reserves for projects and programs • Flexibility to change scope and timing of projects • Small staff with heavy use of consultants • Interfund borrowing policy, if required • Impact on transit operations and capital project needs • Encouraging signs of economic recovery Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Debt Proceeds Transfers In Total Estimated Sources Expenditures Debt Service Transfers Out Total Estimated Uses 461,561,800 191,600,000 334,434,700 (960,925,400)1 · (54,696,200) ! (334,434, 700) !. ··.•· • .. ·· ... I ~87,596,SOO I .. : .· .'··<·I ;\;;<-,:J (1,aso;os6,ao91 I .. . . . /·.I . (362,459,800} i iL~~~ Uses Over Sources (offset by beginning fund balance) Ending Fund Balance 4/28/2014 2 4/28/2014 Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax 76,500,000 76,500,000 STA Sales Tax 13,298,000 13,298,000 Intergovernmental 234,644,200 141,302,300 TUMF Revenue 8,923,400 8,630,100 Other Revenue 1,090,400 639,100 Investment Income 4,026,500 5,292,000 Operating Transfers In 637,010,600 Debt Proceeds 810,774,000 TOTAL Sources $ 1,943,267,100 $ •FY 13/14 Projected •FY 13/14 Revised Budget 3 4/28/2014 Capital Highway, Rail, and Regional Arterials $ 713,869,700 $ 437,709,900 I s 762,975,900 i Capital Local Streets and Roads 46,865,900 46,911,900 49,882,000 • Commuter Assistance 4,411,700 4,455,600 1 · 3,300;900 .: Debt Service 134,227,100 118,979,200 i 54,696,:?,09 j Management Services 8,585,400 1,599,100 I 9,014,iooi I 4,6n;l;QO.; Motorist Assistance 5,464,600 4,805,200 ! Planning and Programming 5,767,000 3,241,400 I 5,883,3o6l Public and Specialized Transit 106,994,100 79,314,300 ! 107,137,400 : Rail Maintenance and Operations 15,800,500 15,042,500 ! 1s,0S4,600 ! TOTAL Expenditures $ 1,041,986,000 $ 118,059,100 1 s1,()~?,1J21,600 J 4 $800 r······························································································································································································································································································ $750 $700 -t-Cll!---tlR-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- $650 $600 •···· $550 $500 $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $-•••• T .... ---""T····--- m FY 14/15 Budget • FY 13/14 Projected Ill FY 13/14 Revised Budget 4/28/2014 5 $ Professional Services Sup po rt Costs Projects and Operations Debt Service Capital Outlay TOTAL Expenditures $325 $300 $275 $250 $22S $200 $17S $150 $12S $100 $75 // $ Personnel Salary and Benefits 4% Projects and Operations 6% Capital Outlay 377% Professional Services 10% Support Costs 5% Debt Service 59% 7,949,400 17,911,700 5,577,700 875,533,900 134,227,100 786,200 1,041,986,000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Personnel Salary and Professional Services Benefits Support Costs Projects and Operations $ $ . s,299,ooo i 571,590,500 921,449;400 I 118,979,200 ; . 54,696,200 i .·.····I 133,300 : . 3,750,000 l 718,059,100 $ 1,g1)>;§:1~,§oo I Debt Service ...... ~ ....... ·:;:_.')' ............................ -................ { Capital Outlay * FY 14/15 Budget •FY 13/14 Projected ~FY 13/14 Revised Budget 4/28/2014 6 4/28/2014 7 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 28, 2014 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projection STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the revised Fiscal Year 2013/14 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenue projection of $7.4 million, comprised of $3.7 million related to regional arterials and $3.7 million to Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridors; 2) Approve the budget decrease adjustments to TUMF revenues of $2.3 million related to regional arterials and $2.3 million to CETAP corridors; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • At its January 8, 2014 meeting, the Commission approved the FY 2013/14 mid-year revenue projections for Measure A, Local Transportation Fund, and TUMF. Staff continued to monitor the FY 2013/14 revenues to determine if any adjustments to the revenue projections are necessary. It appears TUMF revenues have slowed down during FY 2013/14 and compared to FY 2012/13 actual of $11.9 million. The mid-year TUMF revenue projection was $12 million, or $6 million for regional arterials and $6 million for CETAP corridors. The revised TUMF revenue projection is $7.4 million, or $3.7 million for regional arteriaJs and $3.7 million for CETAP corridors. This results in a $4.6 million decrease in the TUMF revenue projection and budgeted revenues, or $2.3 million decrease for each TUMF program. As a result of the revised TUMF revenue projection for FY 2013/14, the amount set aside in the TUMF regional arterial program for developer credit reimbursements is affected. In October 2013, the Commission approved a payment plan for a developer reimbursement agreement that included an initial payment of $665,000 for amounts set aside through FY 2012/13 plus 10 percent of annual budgeted revenues, commencing with FY 2013/14, until the $3,051,636 obligation is satisfied. Based on the revised TUMF revenue projection, the amount set aside in FY 2013/14 for the developer credit reimbursement agreement will be $370,000, or 10 percent of the TUMF regional arterial program revenues. A budget adjustment is not required for this expenditure, as there are sufficient budgeted TUMF regional arterial expenditures . Agenda Item 9 30 Financial Information • In Fiscal Year Budget: I No I Year: I FY 2013/14 Amount: I ($4,600,000) Source of Funds: lruMF Budget Adjustment: I Yes GLA No.: 1210 72 42110 ($2,300,000) 210 73 42110 ($2,300,000) Fiscal Procedures Approved: I~~ I Date: I 04/22/14 • • Agenda Item 9 31 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 28, 2014 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Active Transportation Program -Metropolitan Planning Organization SUBJECT: Regional Program Guidance and Methodology for Assigning Additional Points for Riverside County Project Applications STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Regional Program Guidance and Methodology for assigning an additional 10 points to Riverside County Active Transportation Program (ATP) project application scores, subsequent to the California Transportation Commission's (CTC) evaluation process; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action . BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Per SB 99, the ATP was created consolidating several funding programs intended for improving active transportation, which included federal Transportation Alternative Program funds, Highway Safety Improvement Program funds, and State Highway Account funds. The goals of the ATP are to: • Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking. • Increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users. • Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals as established pursuant to SB 375 and SB 391. • Enhance public health, including reduction of childhood obesity through the use of programs including, but not limited to, projects eligible for Safe Routes to School program funding. • Ensure disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program. • Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. The CTC is responsible for administering the ATP including developing guidelines, project selection criteria, evaluation of projects, and allocation of funds. On March 21, 2014, the CTC • released the first Call for ATP projects. Applications are due to Caltrans by May 21 Agenda Item 10 32 Funding Availability The ATP is divided into three categories: 50 percent to Statewide, 10 percent to small urban and rural areas, and 40 percent to MPO Urban Areas. The first call for ATP projects includes three years of funding totaling $360 million. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region will receive approximately $76 million with the Commission's target share at $8,757,000. Eligible Project Applicants The following agencies are eligible to apply for ATP funds: • Local, regional or state agencies {Caltrans, city, county, MPO, etc.) • Transit agencies • Public schools or school districts • Tribal governments • Natural resource or public land agencies (state or local park or forest agencies, state or local fish and game or wildlife agencies, Department of Interior Land Management agencies, U.S. Forest Service) • Private non-profit tax-exempt organizations • Other entities with responsibility for oversight of transportation or recreational trails that the CTC determines eligible Applicants must comply with all federal and state laws, regulations, policies and procedures required to enter into a local administering agency-state master agreement. Additionally, applicants must adhere to the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures manual for administering federal funds. CTC Evaluation Criteria The CTC developed project evaluation criteria and will score all project applications. The evaluation criteria include the following: • Potential for increased walking and bicycling, especially among students, including the identification of walking and bicycling routes to and from schools, transit facilities, community centers, employment centers, and other destinations; and including increasing and improving connectivity and mobility of non-motorized users. (O to 30 points) • Potential for reducing the number and/or rate of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries, including the identification of safety hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists. (0 to 25 points) • Public participation and planning, including identification of the community-based public participation process that culminated in the project proposal, which may include noticed meetings and consultation with local stakeholders. (0 to 15 points} Agenda Item 10 33 • • • • • • • • • • Cost-effectiveness. (0 to 10 points) Improved public health through the targeting of populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, or other health issues. (Oto 10 points) Benefit to disadvantaged communities. (Oto 10 points) Use of the California Conservation corps or a qualified community conservation corps . Points will be deducted if an applicant does not seek corps participation or if an applicant intends not to utilize a corps in a project in which the corps can participate. (0 to -5 points) • Applicant's performance on past grants. Applications from agencies with documented poor performance records on past grants may be excluded from competing or may be penalized in scoring. (0 to -10 points) The CTC will approve projects for the statewide and small urban and rural areas funding on August 20. The CTC will then provide the MPO's a listing of project applications that were not funded from the statewide funds for consideration for funding in the MPO 40 percent urban area regional program. MPO -Regional Program In the SCAG region, SB 99 requires the following: • • • SCAG must consult with county transportation commissions, the CTC, and Caltrans in the development of competitive selection criteria. The criteria used by SCAG should include consideration of geographic equity, consistent with program objectives. SCAG must place priority on projects that are consistent with plans adopted by local and regional governments within the county where the project is located. • SCAG must obtain concurrence from the county transportation commissions. MPOs are given the option of developing and approving separate project selection criteria as long as the criteria are consistent with the CTC's guidelines. Given the timing of this first cycle of funding and the need to quickly deliver projects in the region, SCAG opted to use the CTC's adopted project selection criteria. Additionally, SCAG will allow each respective county transportation commission to assign up to 10 points to the CTC's project scores for projects that are consistent with local and regional plans. Each county transportation commission in the SCAG region is responsible for defining "plans" and developing its guidance and methodology for assigning the additional 10 points. In addition, if a county transportation commission assigns points to a project for which it is the lead applicant, an explanation must be provided on how the scoring process resulted in an unbiased evaluation of projects. Applications submitted for planning activities that were not recommended for the statewide funds will be further reviewed by SCAG for inclusion in the 5 percent MPO set aside for planning activities, which may include the development of active transportation plans in Agenda Item 10 34 disadvantaged communities or non-infrastructure projects. SCAG will also ensure 25 percent of • the total regional program is dedicated for projects benefitting disadvantaged communities as required by state law. Per CTC guidelines, "disadvantaged communities" can be determined as follows: • The median household income is less than 80 percent of the statewide median based on the most current census tract level data from the American Community Survey. • An area identified as among the· most disadvantaged 10 percent in the state according to latest versions of the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool scores. • At least 75 percent of public school students in the project area are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program. If a project applicant believes a project benefits a disadvantaged community but the project does not meet the aforementioned criteria, the applicant must submit for consideration a quantitative assessment of why the community should be considered disadvantaged. The Commission Proposed Guidelines and Methodology for Assigning 10 Points Considering this is the first call for projects under the new ATP, staff recommends providing as much flexibility and discretion to Riverside County projects selected for the MPO Regional Program.· Therefore, for the purposes of defining consistency with adopted local and regional • "plans", plans may include, bu.tare not limited to, the following: • Measure A Expenditure Plan • Riverside County Public Transportation -Annual Countywide Performance Report • SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainability Communities Strategy (SCS) • Western Riverside County Non-motorized Transportation Plan • Coachella Valley Non-motorized Transportation Plan • City/County/School District Bicycle Plans • City/County/School District Pedestrian Facilities • Trail System -Regional or Multi-County Trail System (e.g. Santa Ana River Trail, CV-Link) • Other Consistency with the above and/or similar bicycle and pedestrian plans may include the following project improvements: Extensions, gap closures, safety enhancements, and other physical features that enhance the current or planned facilities or systems, and also encourage and/or increase usage of non- motorized or low emission vehicle transportation. Agenda Item 10 35 • • • • For projects determined to be consistent with local and regional plans, staff will assign 10 points to the CTC project score. Staff will also consult with the respective local or regional agencies regarding the consistency and adoption status of such plans. In addition, staff will consider the following as part of its submittal to SCAG: 1) The requirement that 25 percent of the funds distributed to each MPO must benefit disadvantaged communities as part of its project recommendation; and 2) Geographic equity, consistent with program objectives. Each county transportation commission will submit to SCAG its recommended project list and SCAG, in turn, will submit the MPO Regional Program recommendation (including all six counties within the SCAG region) to the CTC by September 30. The CTC ATP guidelines indicate the ATP MPO Regional Program of Projects will be approved by the CTC in November 2014. ATP funds are administered through the CTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. Therefore, there is no fiscal impact to the Commission's budget . Agenda Item 10 36 - ------------------------------ California Transportation Commission Active Transportation Program MPO Regional Program Guidance and Methodology Budget and Implementation Committee April 28,, 2014 Senate Bill 99 established the Active Transportation Program consolidating State Hwy Account and Federal Funding programs ~ SB 99 consolidated State and Federal funding programs creating the Active Transportation Program (ATP) It also charged the California Transp Commission with administering the ATP program including the development of guidelines, evaluation criteria, approval of projects, and allocation of funds ~ The California Transportation Commission (CTC) is charged with administering the program and adopting guidelines On March 2Q 1h the CTC approved the guidelines and released the 151 ATP Call for Projects ~ CTC adopted the guidelines and released the ATP Call for Projects on March 20, 2014 Project applications are due to the CTC on May 21st ~ May 21, 2014-Project Applications are due CTC 4/28/2014 1 There are 3 Categories of Funding Pots: o 50 percent will go to a Statewide Competition o 10 percent to Small Urban and Rural areas o and 40 percent to MPO Urban Areas Funding Available for 151 Cycle of ATP: Total Available SCAG Region's share of the MPO 40 $ 76.0million percent Goals of ATP: Increase biking and walking as a means of transportation Increase safety and mobility of non-motorized users Reduce vehicle use and greenhouse gas Enhance public health Ensure disadvantaged communities benefit from the program Provide a broad spectrum of ATP projects to benefit many types of users Project Types: New bikeways and walkways Improvements to existing bikeways and walkways Safe Routes to School projects Safe routes to transit Secure bicycle parking Bike share programs Bike, pedestrian, safe routes to schools or active transportation plans Education programs to increase bicycling and walking 4/28/2014 2 CTC adopted criteria for evaluating and scoring ATP project applications: 0 to 10 points O to 10 points 0 to 10 points 0 to -5 points 0 to -10 points Cost Effectiveness Improved public health through the targeting of populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, or other health issues Benefit to disadvantaged communities Use of the California Conservation Corps or local corps. Points will be deducted if an applicant does not seek corps participation or if an applicant intends not to utilize a corps in a project in which the corps can participate. Applicant's performance on past grants. Applications from agencies with documented poor performance records on past grants may be excluded from competing or may be penalized in scoring. Oto 30 pts 0-25 pts 0-15 pts Potential for increased walking & bicycling, especially among students Potential for reducing pedestrian & bicyclist fatalities and injuries Public Participation and planning SCAG CEO Agreement allows county transp comm to add 10 points to projects that are Consistent with local and regional plans ,,,1'"").AG CEO afjreement allows cts to define "plan" Plans= •MeasA •SCAG RTPISCS •CVAGIWRCOG Non- motorized •City/County/School Bike/Ped plans • Trail Systems •Other 4/28/2014 3 Per SCAG CEO agreement, County Transportation Commissions may assign up to 10 points to projects that are consistent with local and regional plans. The definition of "plans" are to be determined by each respective county transportation commission. For the purpose of the ATP Call for Projects, RCTC "Plans" consist of: -Measure A Expenditure Plan -Riverside County Public Transportation -Annual Countywide Performance Report -SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainability Communities Strategy (SCS) -Western Riverside County Non-motorized Transportation Plan -Coachella Valley Non-motorized Transportation Plan -City/County/School District Bicycle Plans -City/County/School District Pedestrian Facilities -Trail System -Other MRO Regional Approval Rrocess Per CTC guidelines, consideration must be given to geographic equity and a min. of 25 percent of funds towards !'.'.;:;~~::;;;: disadvantaged/':>;~;!%""" areas ,::.; · .. L.%''\~•,:: /,/ ~'~~-~-"'""' /(/ lrr:i ~st l~cle ~.: 4/28/2014 4 Projects Approved for ATP funding: • Project sponsors will need to be aware of project funding: state vs. federal Project sponsors will need to follow state and/or federal rules for allocating and/or obligating funds, meeting award deadlines and invoicing regularly Monitoring and Reporting: 1) Semi-annual -report on activities and progress made toward implementation 2) Final delivery -report on project implementation based on application versus completed project (compare scope, before and after photos, final costs, duration of schedule, performance outcomes, before and after pedestrian/bicycle counts, methodology to conduct counts, and work performed by California Conservation Corps) Future Calls: County Transportation Commissions and SCAG will work with SCAG on refining the criteria and developing a selection process that works best for the SCAG region Staff will continue to work with the CTC on refining the guidelines and streamlining the programming and allocation process Staff will work with WRCOG and CVAG on building upon their Non- motorized transportation plans, and with the Active Transportation community to coordinate other plans and perhaps consolidate into one Countywide Active Transportation Plan 4/28/2014 5 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 28, 2014 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreements for the Traffic Signal Coordination Partnership Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Approve Agreement No. 14-65-106-00 with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for $1.25 million to fund traffic flow improvements located within Riverside County; Approve the following agreements for a total amount not to exceed $1.25 million: a) Agreement No. 14-65-107-00 with Coachella Valley Association of Governments {CVAG) in the amount not to exceed $310,375; b) Agreement No. 14-65-108-00 with the city of Eastvale in an amount not to exceed $74,625; c) Agreement No. 14-65-109-00 with the city of Moreno Valley in an amount not to exceed $490,000; d) Agreement No. 14-65-110-00 with the city of Riverside in an amount not to exceed $375,000; Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; Replace $939,625 in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funding previously allocated to the cities of Eastvale, Moreno Valley, and Riverside through the Commission's 2013 Multi-funding Call for Projects approved on January 8, 2014, with funding available through SCAQMD's Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) Program; and Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: An element of MSRC's FYs 2011/12 -2013/14 Work Program set aside $5 million for projects to accelerate traffic flow improvements in the SCAQMD. Historically, the MSRC solicits proposals through a competitive call for projects process; however, for the traffic flow improvement program, MSRC elected to allocate $1.25 million to the four county transportation commissions on behalf of their member cities, county, and possibly regional Caltrans Districts to accelerate traffic signal coordination projects. The Commission's share of the $5 million allocation is $1.25 million. Agenda Item 11 37 The Commission's 2013 Multi-Funding Call for Projects In June 2013, the Commission approved the release of the 2013 Multi-Funding Call for Projects for CMAQ funds, Surface Transportation Program and 2009 Measure A Western Riverside County Regional Arterial funds. As a result of that call, $3,635,975 in CMAQ funding was allocated to the cities of Eastvale, Moreno Valley, and Riverside for traffic flow improvement projects at the Commission's January 8, 2014 meeting. Staff recommends $939,625 in MSRC funding be allocated to support these three projects and $939,625 in CMAQ funding be deprogrammed and returned to the Western Riverside County CMAQ funds for future allocations. If approved, a balance of $2,696,350 in CMAQ funding will remain allocated to the cities of Eastvale, Moreno Valley, and Riverside. The following table provides an overview of the three projects: Total Agency CMAQ Funding, Proposed Agency Project Title Project Cost Match as revised MSRC Funding Eastvale Hammer Avenue Traffic Signal Sync. $ 333,500 $116,725 $ 142,150 $ 74,625 Moreno Valley Transportation Management Center 2,300,000 268,300 1,541,700 490,000 Riverside Magnolia Avenue Signal Interconnect 1,850,000 462,500 1,012,500 375,000 $4,483,500 $847,525 $ 2,696,350 $ 939,625 CVAG's CMAQ Call for Projects CVAG's CMAQ call for projects identified an Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS) project to develop a region wide traffic monitoring system that monitors all traffic signals along the Highway 111 corridor from the city of Palm Springs to the city of Coachella. The estimated cost of the ATMS project is $2,634,500; CVAG is requesting $310,375 in MSRC funding be allocated to serve as match funds for the project. At the time of writing this staff report, CVAG's request is pending SCAQMD approval; however, staff is requesting approval to enter into an agreement with CVAG for $310,375 in MSRC funding based on CVAG's February 24, 2014, Executive Committee action to request the MSRC funding for the ATMS project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Bµdget: I N/A Year: I FY 2014/15+ Amount: I $1,250,000 Source of Funds: I MSRC Grant Funds Budget Adjustment: IN/A GL/ProjectAccounting No.: 106 65 41203 $1,250,000 Local agency revenues 106 65 81301 $1,250,000 Construction expenditures Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 04/21/14 Attachment: MSRC's Letter Dated April 10, 2014 Agenda Item 11 38 • • • "'•·:rtr~'lj r::: It: .;t: !-.?.:! ~~= ?!': ::~ !t! ;~~ """~ ·--~ ~ <t.~ 'H .t~ <·-S .. • "' ~ April 10, 2014 kJ~r.k~IDE COUNTY Tanya Love i.RANSPORTATION OOMMISSION Goods Movement Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission PO Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar CA 91765 909 .396.3269 fax 909 .396.3682 Subject: MSRC Funding To Implement Signal Synchronization Projects In Regionally Significant Corridors ~~~ Dear~e: The South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board approved funding for your project on April 4, 2014. Congratulations on the success of your MSRC proposal and subsequent award of funds in the amount of $939,625. MSRC staff will contact you with a contract detailing how work, payments, reports, etc., will occur. Generally, you should not start work until a contract has been executed. Any costs incurred prior to contract execution shall be incurred solely at your own risk. Please note that we need documentation of worker's compensation, general and automobile liability insurance before we can send you a contract for execution. If you have any questions regarding this award of funds or the process that will take place, please contact me at (909) 396-3269. I look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Cynthia Ravenstein MSRC Contracts Administrator cynthia@cleantransportationfunding~org • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 28, 2014 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 and file an update on MAP-21 reauthorization; 2) Adopt the following state bill positions: a) AB 2036 (Mansoor)-Oppose Unless Amended; b) AB 2651 (Linder) -Support; c) AB 2728 (Perea) -Support; d) HR 29 (Gomez) -Oppose; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • MAP-21 Reauthorization Picks Up Momentum In recent weeks the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, chaired by California Senator Barbara Boxer, acknowledged it is moving quickly toward markup of a multi-year reauthorization of MAP-21. In early April, Senator Boxer and Ranking Member David Vitter (R-LA) made a major announcement that a consensus had been reached with the top two members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of EPW, Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and John Barrasso (R-WY), on the basic principles of a bill. The "big four" agreement centers on: • Passing a long-term bill, as opposed to a short-term patch; • Maintaining the formulas for existing core programs; • Promoting fiscal responsibility by maintaining current levels of funding, plus inflation; • Focusing on policies that expand opportunities for rural areas; • Continuing efforts to leverage local resources to accelerate the construction of transportation projects, create jobs, and spur economic growth; and • Requiring better information sharing regarding federal grants . Agenda Item 12 40 Wholesale policy rewrites of MAP-21 are not to be expected. Many have viewed MAP-21 as a "six-year policy bill with only two years of funding." This round, the focus on major changes is expected to be on the funding issue. As stated in previous staff reports to the Commission, it will take upwards of $19 billion of new revenue to keep the federal highway program at flat funding levels for the next fiscal year plus inflation and more than $100 billion for a full six-year bill. Many are prognosticating this new revenue will need to come from the General Fund, and the most likely prospect for an offset for this new spending is from corporate tax reform. The prospects of tax reform are debatable, and tying transportation's success to the outcome of such a major legislative overhaul presents a fair amount of risk. The Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee will need to work swiftly on a solution. It is expected the Highway Trust Fund will sink below minimum levels by July, triggering a slowdown in reimbursements to states. Such a slowdown in federal payments to states could have a downstream impact to federally-funded projects. Worse yet, the sl.owdown would come during the peak of the summer construction season, meaning potentially significant job losses around the country. Commission staff is working closely with regional partners, national associations, and directly with congressional committees, on two primary issues: a new funding program for goods movement projects, and project delivery acceleration (mainly, National Environmental Policy Act -California Environmental Quality Act reciprocity). Freight issues appear to be front and center for both House and Senate Committees, however the issue of elaborating on the project delivery acceleration progress of MAP-21 does not have consensus. The Commission put forward draft legislative language to address the several gaps in the Primary' Freight Network (PFN) on State Routes 60 and 86, and Interstate 215, which the Commission identified as a major concern last winter. The Commission's proposal is to allow states and metro regions the flexibility to self-designate additional miles on the PFN that close gaps in the network and also add "first/last mile" connections to major goods movement hubs such as rail yards and intermodal facilities. This would help the national freight network map to be truly reflective of how the supply chain operates and ensure all of these critical facilities are eligible for funding from a future freight program. The Obama Administration signaled that it has drafted a legislative proposal for MAP-21 reauthorization and intends to release it soon. State Transportation Legislation Fills Committee Agendas Spring is peak season for policy committees to hear bills in Sacramento. This year the transportation committees in the Assembly and Senate have an unusually high volume of legislation to consider. Staff proposes the Commission adopt positions on the following bills: AB 2036 (Mansoor) -Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED • • This bill would require a two-thirds vote of the people of Orange County to authorize the • implementation of any toll facility within the boundaries of Orange County. As drafted, staff Agenda Item 12 41 • • • believes the bill would subject the Commission's SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project to a vote of the people of Orange County. The Commission's project transcends the Orange -Riverside County line for approximately one mile to construct the transition lane between the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 91 Express Lanes and the Commission's new extension of that facility. Staff believes, at the very least, an amendment to the bill is necessary to ensure the bill does not apply to projects previously authorized by the Legislature or under contract _for construction. Clarity should also be added to the bill regarding projects that cross the Orange County line. Staff identified a number of other legal and practical concerns with the bill, that if signed into law, could set precedent for future projects in other counties. AB 2036 is a direct reaction to the author's publicly-stated dissatisfaction with the potential tolling alternative that has been studied on OCTA's 1-405 widening project. AB 2651 (Linder) and AB 2728 (Perea) -Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT Two bills have been introduced in the Assembly to end the transfer of truck weight fees from the State Highway Account to the General Fund. During the FY 2010/11 budget crisis, the Administration and Legislature enacted a series of fiscal maneuvers that provided relief to the General Fund by way of transportation revenues. Following the passage of Proposition 22 in 2010, which further walled-off most other transportation funds from the General Fund, the state sought the diversion of truck weight fees to the General Fund for the purpose of servicing debt on the Proposition lB transportation bonds. The nexus of Proposition lB debt repayment to transportation purposes enabled the state to provide approximately $900 million of budget relief within the bounds of the Constitution. As the General Fund improves and as transportation revenues decline from erosion of the gas tax, the return of truck weight fees to the State Highway Account would boost funding available for transportation annually by nearly $1 billion. The Commission's adopted 2014 legislative platform states: "Revenue derived from transportation sources should be spent exclusively on transportation projects. Support measures to strengthen the relationship between transportation revenue and expenditures; oppose measures that weaken them." Therefore, staff recommends full support for two measures that restore truck weight fees to the State Highway Account: AB 2651 (Linder) and AB 2728 (Perea). The two proposals differ slightly: Agenda Item 12 42 Prohibits diversion of truck weight fees as of January 1, 2015 through January 1, 2019. In the interest of full disclosure, staff is aware the California State Association of Counties does not intend to be supportive of these bills because they would have the effect of reducing the General Fund. The California Association of Councils of Governments and other transportation industry groups are expected to support one or both of these bills. The California Transportation Commission expressed supportive statements about bills in this vein. HR 29 {Gomez) -Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE This nonbinding resolution of the State Assembly expresses opposition to "outsourcing of public services and assets, which harms transparency, accountability, shared prosperity, and competition." The resolution also supports, "processes that give public service workers the opportunity to develop their own plan on how to deliver cost-effective, high-quality services." The resolution references the Taxpayer Empowerment Agenda (TEA), a proposal by a group called "In the Public Interest", which is a project of a national coalition known as the Partnership for Working Families. HR 29 itself is sponsored by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. • TEA and HR 29 presents a blanket one-size-fits-all understanding of government services being • contracted to the private sector that does not fit the reality of several agencies, including the Commission and other special-purpose entities. Much of the Commission's work is project- focused, which means workload ebbs and flows with many jobs lasting only a few years, and many of those jobs requiring extremely specialized expertise. Hiring full-time public workers for these temporary, specialized jobs is impractical, cost inefficient, and would cause the Commission to move its work forward more slowly. Historically, the Commission has retained a lean staff of public servants, staying within the 1 percent statutory cap in voter-approved Measure A for administrative salaries and benefits, and the 4 percent Measure A administrative cost cap that has been Commission policy for many years. For FY 2013/14, the Commission's adopted budget provided for approximately $8 million for public staff salaries and benefits, accounting for less than 1 percent of the total Commission budget. The Commission's budget also includes the following stated objectives: • "Commission staffing levels will be consistent with the intent of its enabling legislation, which envisioned a small, but effective staff;" and • "Contract staff and consultants will be used to augment staff efforts as much as possible to support programs or workloads, which do not appear to be of a permanent nature." Agenda Item 12 43 • .------------------------------------------- • • • TEA outlines a number of policies the Commission currently adheres to, including, in general: ../ Contract audits and oversight; ../ Language allowing the Commission to cancel contracts if the company does not meet expectations; ../ Competitive bidding requirements and transparency for recurring contracts; ../ Transparency to public of contracting processes; and ../ Audits to ensure contractors have not broken the law. However, a number of provisions of TEA are problematic in that these provisions either run afoul of existing federal requirements and would slow the Commission's work dramatically while increasing costs of operating the agency. For example: TEA Provision RCTC Concern Require a study to determine how privatization would affect the larger community and post the results online before any contract is signed. Ban contract language that guarantees company profits. Ensure that public service workers have the opportunity to submit their own plan to save money and provide quality services. Would increase project delivery timelines and costs dramatically as a new study would need to be conducted for each phase of a project (environmental, design, right of way, construction). Conflicts with federal requirements to delineate "fees" (profits) in contractor invoices. Would increase project delivery timelines and costs for every contract as Commission staff would need to repeatedly evaluate contracting vs. hiring additional staff, rather than adhering the Commission's consistent adopted budget policy. The most concerning language of HR 29 is, "the Assembly intends to introduce and advocate for responsible outsourcing legislation," signaling that future bills will be coming forward to implement some of these provisions into state law. The resolution passed the Assembly on a 44-22 vote with 13 Members not voting. The resolution is supported and opposed by numerous organizations, including but not limited: Support Oppose AFSCME California Professional Firefighters Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG) Riverside Sheriff's Association Agenda Item 12 44 California Chamber of Commerce California Special Districts Association City of Indian Wells City of Riverside League of California Cities Southwest California Legislative Council ----------------------------- State and Federal Legislative Update Budget and Implementation Committee April 28, 2014 G . MBE'-21 !eauthmniizatioo • Highway Trust Fund on the brink • Senate EPW Committee (Boxer) moving swiftly • Obama Administration to unveil legislation • Corporate Tax Reform =Transportation Funding? • Focus on Goods Movement 4/28/2014 1 ~ lll~PHllL iea111~1ilorization RCTC Action • Meetings and calls with Senate and House Committee staff • Development of goods movement language to address gaps in Primary Freight Network • Collaboration with statewide and national associations on freight and NEPA reciprocity Southern California Priorities 1. Balance the Highway Trust Fund (long-term) 2. Fund a national goods movement program 3. Expand innovative financing (America Fast Fwd) 4. Accelerate Project Delivery (NEPA reciprocity) 4/28/2014 2 State Legislation • Requires 2/3 voter approval of implementation of any toll road in Orange County. • Impact: RCTC SR-91 Project would be subject to approval by Orange County voters. • Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED 4/28/2014 3 • Restores truck weight fee revenue to transportation projects. -"'$900 million impact. • Truck weight fees were diverted to the General Fund in 2011. • Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT • Blanket opposition to government contracting • Contrary to RCTC adopted budget policies • "Taxpayer Empowerment Agenda" -Some measures already in place at RCTC -Conflicts with federal law -Costly bureaucratic procedures • Expresses intent of Legislature to enact future binding legislation • Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE 4/28/2014 4 Questions? MAP-21 Reauthorization AB 2036 (Mansoor) AB 2651 (Linder) and AB 2728 (Perea} HR 29 (Gomez) 4/28/2014 5