The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About12 December 14, 2011 CommissionRECORDS • Riyerside COUnty Transportation Commission TIME/DATE: LOCATION: • • MEETING AGENDA 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 BOARDROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside ,. COMMISSIONERS ..,. Chair -Greg Pettis First Vice Chair -John J. Benoit Second Vice Chair -Karen Spiegel Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel/Steve Nolan, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russe" Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush t Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson / Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Michael Wilson, City of Indio Frank Johnston / Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi I Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Marcelo Co / Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna I Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik / William Kroonen, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / AI Landers, City of Perris Scott Hines I Gordon Moller, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams I Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Scott Miller I Andrew Kotyuk, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts I Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit I Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee Comments are welcomed by the Commission. H you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, December 08,2011 7:43 AM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC December Commission Agenda Your Commission agenda has been mailed to you. In addition, you can copy the link and paste it into a web page. http://www.rctc.org/downloads/current/agenda 2011 12.pdf Tara S. Byerly Senior AdIninistrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:42 AM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC December Commission Agenda Importance: High Good Morning Commission Alternates: Attached below is the link to the December 14, 2011 Commission Meeting Agenda. Please copy the link and paste it into a web page http://www.rctc.org/downloads/current/agenda 2011 12.pdf Thank you. Tara S. Byerly Senior Adnlinistrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:39 AM To: Tara Byerly Cc: Jennifer Harmon Subject: RCTC December Commission Agenda -For Ipad Users Attachments: Conflict of Interest Memo.pdf; Conflict of Interest Form.pdf Importance: High Good Morning Commissioners, The December Commission Agenda for the IPad Users is available. Please copy this link: http://www.rctc.org/downloads/current/agenda ipad.pdf In addition, attached is the conflict of interest memo and the form for your review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfu lIy, Tara S. Byerly Senior Adm.inistrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Riverside County Transpartatian Commission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager DATE: December 7, 2011 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues -Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of December 14, 2011 The December 14, 2011 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $ 250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 7F -Amendment with STV Incorporated to Provide Additional Advanced Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Services, Rnal Design, and Procurement and Construction Support for the Perris Valley line Project Consultant(s): STV Incorporated 9130 Anaheim Place #210 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Richard Quirk, Project Manager 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Item APN(s) Property Owner{s) 1 31 0-1 00-004 31 0-1 00-005 31 0-1 00-006 31 0-1 00-040 31 0-1 00-042 WLPX Perris Triangle, LLC Richard Lewis, Robert Lewis, Roger Lewis, Randall Lewis, and John Goodman " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, December 14, 2011 BOARDROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. " In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS -Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy " applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should no? take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -NOVEMBER 9,2011 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS -The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 213 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 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. 7 A~ PROPOSED 2012 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt its 2012 Commission/Committee Meetings and Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing Schedule. 7B. FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 COMMISSION AUDIT RESULTS Page 6 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the FY 2010/11: 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR); 2) Local Transportation Fund (L TF) Financial and Compliance Report; 3) State Transit Assistance (ST A) Fund Financial and Compliance Report; 4) Proposition 1 B Rehabilitation and Security Project Accounts Financial and Compliance Report; 5) Compliance Report; 6) Commercial Paper Compliance Report; 7) Auditor Required Communications Report; 8) Agreed-Upon Procedures Report related to the Appropriations Limit Calculation; 9) Agreed-Upon Procedures Report related to the Commuter Assistance Program incentives; and 10) Management certifications. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2011 • Page 3 7C. 70. 7E. • 7F. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 9 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2011 . QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Page 13 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 2 (Q2) 2011. 2011 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Page 21 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the 2011 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update . AMENDMENT WITH STV INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ADVANCED PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, FINAL DESIGN, AND PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PRO ..IECT Page 115 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-33-123-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement 07-33-123-00, with STY Incorporated (STV) for additional advanced preliminary engineering (APE)' final design, bid support, design support during construction, and additional support in the development of the federal supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) and state environmental impact report (EIR) for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) in the amount of $5,510,668, plus a contingency amount of $1.6 million, for a total amount not to exceed $7,110,668; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute • the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve the use of the contingency as may be required for the project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2011 Page 4 7G. AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF CALL ANSWERING CENTER SERVICES • Page 122 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 12-45-033-00 (C-12139) with San Bernardino Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies to provide for the reimbursement of call answering center services related to the operation of call boxes in an amount not to exceed $190,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7H. LETTER OF INTEREST -STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 139 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to prepare a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and • Innovation Act (TIFIA) letter of interest (LOn for credit assistance to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP); and 2) Authorize the Executive Director to submit the TIFIA LOI. 71. MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21 sT CENTURY Page 141 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 S ( Century (MAP-21). • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2011 • Page 5 8. LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY UPDATE Page 147 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize the Chair to execute the Bylaws and the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement that allow the Commission to be included as an ex officio member in the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency; 2) Receive an update on the current LOSSAN Strategic Efforts and Governance proposal; and 3) Take a modify position of the proposed governance approach with the condition that voting rights for the Commission will be required for both local and legislative support of the effort~ 9. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FUNDING REQUEST • Page 189 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Provide Measure A funding to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) in the amount of $3 million per year for two years as part of the Commission's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) funding obligation; 2) Revisit the continuation of this funding amount in two years; 3) Work with RCA to assist in fulfilling the MSHCP funding obligations if a federal loan guarantee program is not in place in two years; and 4) Direct staff to return to the Commission for approval of an agreement with RCA regarding the funding commitment. 10. ELECTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OFFICERS Page 194 Overview This item is for the Commission to conduct an election of officers for 2012 • Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair . Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2011 Page 6 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA • 12. COMMISSIONERS I EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Item APN{s) Property Owner(s) 1 31 0-1 00-004 31 0-1 00-005 31 0-1 00-006 310-100-040 310-100-042 WLPX Perris Triangle, LLC Richard Lewis, Robert Lewis, Roger Lewis, Randall Lewis, and John Goodman 14. ADJOURNMENT • The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 11, 2012, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET DECEMBER 14, 2011 EMAIL ADDRESSI:\GENCY "~~~... ... ;'~~/ ,:"r~ v:.~.;) I 1-/1:0'( « ~p~~ C, 'tV eJ 11' \J::::::> '-c ~ 1'(11 ~Va/PIA-. ,\ ~ \ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL DECEMBER 14, 2011 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Pa 1m Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Absent o ;X o o o o o ;;r' o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o jiIf' o o o o o o o DETACH AND SUBMIT T O THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: I2.U'f~!I , CH ECK IF SUBJ ECT OF PUB LIC C OMMENTS: t9. PU BLIC COMMENTS: tJ TZC ,2 c.,o. Ev"")'~ ~C'J?U:rr AGENDA ITEM NO.: C; SUBJECT OF ~Q.c. rtCC\ (A S USTED O N THE AGENDA) I ~V~fJ l~"':..Il~crr-r AGENDA ITEM:__-=-N..:."~(,.R~Ii~nw~..!<..5....JL-_________ NAME: ~tl b-f1. y,-S ~Nt>f2.'f PHONE NO.:_ QrT-'i rr=--r7(b ADDRESS:___________________________________ STREET CITY ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: ;ZG7;.fON~L CW$r;&VA7 /Q ,.! A'fflHIZ t~1 PHONE NO.: 9r;1-C?rr-Q7{)O NAME OF AGENCY I ORGANIZATION I GROUP /BUSINESS ADDRESS: CITY ZIP CODE STREET Ult-i ~ 1/ 1 0 pe-(I\ }{O,J 5 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, November 9, 2011 1 . CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Vice Chair John J. Benoit at 9:34 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Vice Chair Benoit led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL CommissionerslAlternates Present Commissioners Absent " Marion Ashley Steven Hernandez Steve Adams Ben Benoit Scott Hines Douglas Hanson John J. Benoit Frank Johnston Terry Henderson Roger Berg Andrew Kotyuk Steve Pougnet Bob Botts Darcy Kuenzi Ron Roberts Daryl Busch Bob Magee John F. Tavaglione Bob Buster Scott Matas Marcelo Co Glenn Miller Mary Craton Adam Rush Joseph DeConinck Larry Smith Kathleen DeRosa Karen Spiegel Rick Gibbs Jeff Stone Berwin Hanna Ray Wolfe Jan Harnik Ella Zanowic 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public . " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -OCTOBER 12, 2011 • M/S/C (Kuenzi/Craton) to approve the minutes of October 12, 2011 meetings as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Ashley/Craton) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment report for the quarter ended September 30, 2011. 7B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the first • quarter ended September 30, 2011. 7C. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CORONA FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1) Approve Agreement No. 12-31-023-00, a cooperative agreement between the Commission and the city of Corona (Corona) related to the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP); and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7D. AGREEMENT WITH TROPICAL PLAZA NURSERY, INC. TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT THE FIVE COMMISSION-OWNED COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS AND PERRIS TRANSIT CENTER 1) Award Agreement No. 11-24-145-00 to Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc. (Tropical) to perform landscape maintenance and repair services at the five Commission-owned commuter rail stations • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes. • November 9, 2011 Page 3 for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in the amount of $918,590, plus a contingency amount of $91,859, for a total amount not to exceed $1,010,449; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. 8. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vice Chair Benoit introduced and welcomed Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), to present the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Mr. Ikhrata explained the focus of this presentation is on three areas: 1) preservation and maintenance of the system; 2) the finances; and 3) how the plan is doing in order to meet the state and federal requirements, discussing the following areas: • Definition of a RTP and its key components; • • Anticipated future growth and population growth by county from 2008 2035; • Regional strategies for a sustainable urban future an interconnected regional transit system, transit oriented development, and transit-ready development opportunities; • Riverside County Metrolink expansions to Temecula and San Jacinto, Perris Valley line extension, smart growth concept map, Western Riverside County of Governments sustainability framework, and Temecula's Old Town specific plan; • A map depicting Riverside County today and in 2035; • Proposal and recommendation over and beyond current commitments; • Passenger rail and high-speed rail recommendations; • Proposed high-speed rail improvements in SCAG region; • Benefits of the proposed draft 2012 RTP emission budgets for 2020 and 2035; • Goods movement recommendations and rising truck volumes in the region; • East-West freight corridor strategy description and rail strategy; • System preservation recommendations; • State highway bridge conditions in the SCAG region; • Bridge condition definition; • Recommendation for system preservation; • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9. 2011 Page 4 • Gas tax revenue has not kept pace with vehicle miles traveled and •population; • Extensive reliance on local sales taxes to backfill declining state and federal sources and substantial unfunded investment needs; • Importance of bridging the funding gap; • Estimates of new revenues and recommended funding plan; and • Next steps. Commissioner Ray Wolfe, Governor's Appointee, discussed the ranking system of the federal requirements for the national bridge inventory and bridge conditions. Caltrans funds the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) at approximately $1.3 billion per year and it is estimated the SHOPP needs $4-5 billion for maintenance, which means a number of issues are going unaddressed each year. Vice Chair Benoit expressed concern the state is seriously underfunded for not only maintenance of bridges but pavement maintenance. Commissioner Wolfe replied Caltrans is assessing the pavement distress at a statewide level. He expressed there clearly needs to be another source to fund the maintenance needs. Commissioner Roger Berg expressed concern for the lack of road and bridge •maintenance, which also impacts the environmental issues. He suggested dealing with the environmental issues at the federal and state levels and identify funding sources to deal with maintenance. Vice Chair Benoit concurred with Commissioner Berg's comments In response to Commissioner Mary Craton's question about the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax, Hasan Ikhrata replied the VMT tax is included in the RTP and by 2025 the assumption is to replace the existing federal and state gas tax with a VMT tax. Vice Chair Benoit clarified the RTP is not a tax proposal but an outline of options that may be considered in the next 20 years by the taxing authorities. Commissioner Darcy Kuenzi expressed appreciation to Hasan Ikhrata for his leadership on the RTP. She then discussed the meetings held with Riverside County elected officials appointed to SCAG regarding the RTP. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes • November 9, 2011 Page 5 Commissioner Karen Spiegel thanked Hasan Ikhrata for his thorough • discussion of the RTP, including the east-west corridors and maintenance of bridges and roads. She stated New York receives 54 percent of federal funding and recommended Mr. Ikhrata look into this region's share. Anne Mayer commended Hasan Ikhrata and SCAG staff for their work efforts on the RTP. She explained it is challenging to have an RTP that acknowledges the difference between the counties within the SCAG region. She discussed the system preservation issue, noting local agencies are not responsible for funding the system preservation. She then discussed a potential situation, as local officials, to take to the voters a fee or tax to pay for preservation of the state highway system and discussed the issues and challenges that could arise. Hasan Ikhrata concurred with Anne Mayer's comments and stated that to acquire the maintenance of state highway system without identifying a funding source is dangerous. He stated it is equally 'dangerous to remain silent about who is responsible for the system preservation and funding for maintenance. Commissioner Wolfe commended the self-help counties for helping to address congestion issues by funding the majority of the improvements on the facilities, resulting in lane miles added to the system. Ashe previously stated, the current funding level of $1.3 billion is insufficient to fund existing maintenance needs, not including these additional lane miles that will begin to require maintenance in the next 10 years. He suggested pressuring the state legislators and the federal congress to seek action to address the lack of funding to maintain facilities. In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's question regarding the causes of the maintenance funding gap, Mr. Ikhrata replied it is due to increased traffic and the lack of funding for maintenance. He explained several county commissions and state programs build a project but do not prepare a lifecycle cost to determine what it will cost to maintain it. Additionally, the state gas tax has been declining significantly. In response to Vice Chair Benoit's question as to when the gas tax was last raised, Hasan Ikhrata replied in 1991 and by 2020 there will be 85 percent less generated than today due to the increase of fuel efficient vehicles . • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2011 Page 6 9. 2012 STATE TRANSPORTATION IIVIPROVEIVIENT PROGRAM • RECOMMENDATIONS Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Manager, presented the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) recommendations, highlighting the following areas: • What is a STIP; • Riverside County available STIPprogramming capacity; • Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley projects programming recommendations; • Palo Verde Valley programming recommendations; • STIP Transportation Enhancements (TEL future TE program, and current TE projects; • 2012 STIP submittal timeline; and • Staff recommendations. M/S/C (DeConinck/Craton) to: 1) Approve 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) programming for Western Riverside County including the use of Palo Verde Valley STIP funds; 2) Approve swapping Palo Verde STIP ftmds with 2009 Measure A • Western County highway funds and the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the city of Blythe (Blythe) to reflect the fund swap; 3) Submit Western County projects and Coachella Valley Association of Governments' (CVAG) project recommendations to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by the December 15, 2011 deadline; 4) Approve programming 2012 STIP Western County new capacity funding to highway projects; and 5) Approve converting current Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects from the 2005 TE Funds Call for projects to federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to streamline delivery. 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes • November 9, 2011 Page 7 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 11A. Commissioner Mary Craton announced: • The 2012 SCAG Regional Conference and General Assembly is scheduled for April 4-5, 2012, located at the SCAG office in Los Angeles; and • Transportation, Sustainability and Economic recovery Summit is scheduled for December 1, 2011, at the Wilshire Grand Hotel. 11 B. Commissioner Karen Spiegel congratulated Commissioners Steve Adams, Berwin Hanna, and Steve Pougnet for being re-elected. 11 C. Anne Mayer announced: 21 st• A summary of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the Century was distributed to the Commissioners; • The Commission's Annual Report for Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County was published in the Press Enterprise and the Desert Sun on October 23, and distributed to the Commissioners; • • The annual Commission workshop is scheduled for February 2-3, 2012, being held in the Coachella Valley; • Reappointment forms for 2012 will be sent out to the Commissioners from the Clerk of the Board during the week of November 14; • The Union Pacific Breakfast Reception on Friday I November 18 at 8:30 a.m.; • The SR-91 carpool lane project is advertised for construction and bids are scheduled to be open on November 17; • The California Transportation Commission (CTC) determined there is sufficient bond funding in the accounts to allow allocations to go forward; • The CTC will hold its December meeting in the Board Room at the CAC on December 14-1 5 in Riverside and a CTC reception is scheduled for December 14 at the Mission Inn; • October 31 was the deadline for the TIGER III application, which is the grant program for receiving funds for the SR-91 CIP and grants will be awarded by December 31; and • On November 3, the U.S. DOT issued the 2012 TIFIA notice of funding availability for the SR-91 CIP and a transit component that was added to this project and applications are due on December 30 . • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2011 Page 8 At this time, Vice Chair Benoit left the meeting due to a conflict of interest on the • closed session item and Second Vice Chair Spiegel assumed the Chair. Additionally, Commissioners B. Benoit, Gibbs, Kotyuk, and Magee left the meeting. 12. CLOSED SESSION 12A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 5495£.9 (a) Case No. RIC 1113896 There was no announcement from the Closed Session item. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :25 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, December 14, 2011, in the Board Room, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, • Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed 2012 Commission/Committee Meetings and Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing Schedule " STAFF RECOMMENDA TlON: This item is for the Commission to adopt its 2012 Commission/Committee Meetings and Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing Schedule. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: The Commission is scheduled to meet on the second Wednesday of each month at 9:30 a.m. Additionally, the Executive Committee is scheduled at 9:00 a.m. on the same day_ For 2012, the annual Commission Workshop will be held on Thursday and Friday, February 2 and 3 at the Embassy Suites La Quinta. Due to the timing of the annual workshop, the January Budget and Implementation and Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committees as well as the regular February Commission meeting will not be scheduled. Additionally, due to the unavailability of the Board Room for the regularly scheduled June meeting, the Commission meeting will be held on Thursday, June 7. The Commission's policy committees Budget and Implementation and Western Riverside County Programs and Projects meet on the fourth Monday of each month at 9:30 a.m. and 1 :30 p.m., respectively. For 2012, these Committees will not meet in May and December due to holidays. Additionally, the Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meets on the first Monday of each month at 10:30 a.m., except when the first Monday falls on a holiday or in the same week as a Commission meeting. There are times when a committee meeting may be cancelled due to lack of substantive agenda items. When this occurs, the Commissioners will be notified and items are forwarded directly to the Commission for final action. Included in the 2012 Schedule is a public hearing for transit needs. The Palo Verde Valley area intends to utilize 100% of its Transportation Development Act (TDA) allocation for transit operations in FY 2011112. Therefore, an unmet transit needs " public hearing in the Palo Verde Valley area is unnecessary. However, as part of Agenda Item 7 A 1 the Public Utilities Code Section 99238.5 related to TDA, the Commission is required to hold one public hearing in Riverside County to solicit the input of transit • dependent and transit disadvantaged persons. While the date, time, and location for the public hearing have not been confirmed, it will tentatively be held in May 2012 in the Pass area in conjunction with the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). It is anticipated the CAC will also meet in February and October, contingent on outcome of the four public hearing scheduled in January for the review of the transit-human services transportation coordination plan. Commissioners will be notified as soon as the public hearing is scheduled. Attachment: Proposed 2012 Commission/Committee Meetings Schedule • •Agenda Item 7 A 2 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION 2012 MEETING SCHEDULE Meeting Date (Wednesday) Commission location Executive Committee location January 11 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A February 2-3 Meeting I Workshop 1 :00 p.m. (Thursday) 8:30 a.m. (Friday) Embassy Suites La Quinta N/A N/A March 14 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A April 11 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A May 9 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A June 7 (Thursday) 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A July 11 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A August 8 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A September 12 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A October 10 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A November 14 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A December 12 9:30 a.m. Board Room 9:00 a.m. RCTC Conf Rm A Commission and the Executive Committee meetings are held on the second Wednesday of each month. 2012 RCTC Meeting Schedule -v1 3 " " " Meeting Date (Monday) Budget and Implementation Committee Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Location February 27 9:30 a.m. 1 :30 p.m. Board Room March 26 9:30 a.m. 1 :30 p.m. Board Room April 23 9:30 a.m. 1 :30 p.m. Board Room June 25 9:30 a.m. 1 :30 p.m. Board Room July 23 9:30 a.m. 1 :30 p.m. Board Room " August 27 9:30 a.m. 1 :30 p.m. Board Room September 24 9:30 a.m. 1 :30 p.m. Board Room October 22 9:30 a.m. 1 :30 p.m. Board Room November 26 9:30 a.m. 1 :30 p.m. Board Room The meetings of the Budget and Implementation Committee and the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Coml1littee~e held 0"the fourth Monday of each month, except on holidays. --�......-.-~ .............-�.........�..-� Meeting Date (Monday) Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee -.�..~- Location March 5 10:30 a.m. CVAG Office 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119 Palm Desert, CA 92260 April 2 10:30 a.m. July 2 10:30 a.m. October 1 10:30 a.m. November 5 10:30 a.m. December 3 10:30 a.m. The meetings of the East,ern Riverside County Pr~grams ~nd Projects Committee are ~el.d on th~ first Monday of the I month, except when the f,rst Monday falls on a holiday or In the same week as a CommISSIon meetIng. 2012 RCTC Meeting Schedule -v1 " " " Transit Needs Public Hearing -TBD - Meeting Date (Monday) Technical Advisory Committee Location January 30 10:00 a.m. Riverside -RCTC Conf Rm A March 19 10:00 a.m. Beaumont -City Hall May 21 10:00 a.m. Riverside -RCTC Conf Rm A July 16 10:00 a.m. Beaumont -City Hall September 1 7 10:00 a.m. Riverside -RCTC Conf Rm A November 19 10;00 a.m. Beaumont -City Hall The meetings of the Technical Advisory Committee are held on the third Monday of every other month, except for holidays. If the meeting falls on a holiday, the meeting is moved to the second Monday. Riverside -Commission Office, County Administrative Center, Beaumont -City Hall, Conference Room 2, 4080 Lemon Street, 3'd Floor, Riverside, CA 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA ----------� 2012 RCTC Meeting Schedule -v1 5 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino,. Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2010/11 Commission Audit Results AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the FY 2010/11: 1 ) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR); 2) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Financial and Compliance Report; 3) State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund Financial and Compliance Report; 4) Proposition 1 B Rehabilitation and Security Project Accounts Financial and " Compliance Report; 5) Compliance Report; 6) Commercial Paper Compliance Report; 7) Auditor Required Communications Report; 8) Agreed-Upon Procedures Report related to the Appropriations Limit Calculation; 9) Agreed-Upon Procedures Report related to the Commuter Assistance Program incentives; and 10) Management certifications. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 2008, McGladrey & Pullen LLP (McGladrey) was selected to perform the annual audit of the Commission's basic financial statements included in the CAFR, L TF, STA, and federal awards. Additionally, it was requested to perform agreed-upon procedures related to the annual Appropriations Limit Calculation and the Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) incentives and to report on compliance with commercial paper debt covenants. As a result of the receipt of Proposition 1 B funds for commuter rail rehabilitation and security projects, a separate audit is required. The scope of work for McGladrey was subsequently expanded to include the Proposition 1 B Rehabilitation and Security Projects audit. The audits, " agreed-upon procedures, and compliance procedures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, have been completed, and McGladrey has issued all reports . 6 Agenda Item 7B The Commission's CAFR consists of three sections: introductory, financial, and statistical. While the introductory and statistical sections were not audited by McGladrey, the basic financial statements included in the financial section were • audited by McGladrey. The Commission received an unqualified opinion on its basic financial statements from McGladrey, which is the highest form of assurance. Limited procedures were performed related to the required supplementary information, including Management's Discussion and Analysis; such information was not audited. The other supplementary information was subject to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and in the opinion of the auditors, it is fairly stated in relation to the basic financial statements. The basic financial statements include government-wide financial statements and fund financial statements. Additionally, Management's Discussion and Analysis is required and provides a narrative overview and analysis of the Commission's financial activities for the fiscal year. Financial highlights include net assets of approximately $636 million at June 30, 2011, representing an increase of approximately $22 million from the prior year, and governmental funds fund balances of approximately $589 million at June 30, 2011, representing an increase of approximately $38 million from the prior year. The audit reports related to the separately issued financial statements of the L TF, ST A, and Proposition 1 B Rehabilitation and Security Projects also reflect unqualified opinions from McGladrey. These financial statements are required to be issued separately under the Transportation Development Act (TDA), including the • provisions for Proposition 1 B Rehabilitation and Security Projects; however, the LTF and ST A financial position and operations are also included in the fund financial statements in the CAFR. The Proposition 1 B Rehabilitation and Security Projects Account financial position and operations are part of the Measure A Western County Commuter Rail accounts. These reports noted no matters considered to be a material weakness in internal control and no instances of noncompliance. The Compliance Report, often referred to as the Single Audit Report, includes the reports on compliance and internal control over financial reporting and over federal awards. These reports noted no matters considered to be material weaknesses in internal control and no instances of noncompliance. As a result of the establishment of the commercial paper program in March 2005, the bank reimbursement agreement requires a report from the auditor regarding compliance with certain covenants. The report issued by McGladrey indicated that nothing came to the auditor's attention that caused the auditors to believe that the Commission failed to comply with these covenants. • 7 Agenda Item 78 " A management letter usually includes recommendations for improvements and operational efficiencies related to internal control and other matters noted during the audit. Similar to prior years, McGladrey did not have any recommendations or comments on other matters; therefore, it did not issue a management letter. The Appropriations Limit Calculation and CAP reports are based on specific procedures agreed to by the Commission and other agencies. For the Appropriations Limit Calculation and CAP, the auditors noted no exceptions or findings related to the procedures performed. As required by AICPA Auditing Standards Board Statement of Audit No. 114, The Auditor's Communication With Those Charged With Governance, the Commission's auditor is required to make certain annual communications to the Commission's audit committee, or its equivalent, regarding the audit of the Commission's financial statements prior to the completion of the audit. The annual audit for FY 2010/11 conducted by McGladrey was completed in October 2011. The report to the Audit Ad Hoc Committee from the auditor contains the required communications about the audit. Representatives from McGladrey will review this information with the Audit Ad Hoc Committee as part of the required communications. " As part of the development of the Commission's Accountability Program that commenced following the June 30, 2005 audit, the directors have completed certifications relating to financial reporting and operational disclosures. Attachments: Posted on the Commission Website 1 ) 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2) 2011 Local Transportation Fund Financial and Compliance Report 3} 2011 State Transit Assistance Fund Financial and Compliance Report 4} 2011 Proposition 1 B Rehabilitation and Security Projects Account Financial and Compliance Report; 5) 2011 Compliance Report 6) 2011 Commercial Paper Compliance Report 7) 2011 Report to the Audit Ad Hoc Committee 8) 2011 Agreed-Upon Procedures Report on Appropriations Limit Calculation 9) 2011 Agreed-Upon Procedures Report on Commuter Assistance Program Incentives 1 0) 2011 Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer Certification 11 ) 2011 Directors Certification " 8 Agenda Item 78 Riverside County Transportation Commission COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County, California RiveRside County tRanspoRtation Commission RiveRside county, ca Comprehensive AnnuAl FinAnCiAl report Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2011 submitted by: theresia trevino, Chief Financial officer michele Cisneros, Accounting and human resources manager 215 at Clinton Keith Road Corona Transit Center CONTENTS Introductory Section Letter of Transmittal i Organizational Chart xii List of Principal Officials xiii Certificate of Achievement xiv Financial Section Independent Auditor’s Report 1 Management’s Discussion and Analysis 3 Basic Financial Statements Government-wide Financial Statements Statement of Net Assets 16 Statement of Activities 17 Fund Financial Statements Balance Sheet—Governmental Funds 18 Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Net Assets 19 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances —Governmental Funds 20 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities 21 Notes to Financial Statements 22 Required Supplementary Information Budgetary Comparison Schedules General Fund 46 Major Special Revenue Funds 47 Schedule of Funding Progress for Postretirement Health Care 48 Notes to Required Supplementary Information 49 Other Supplementary Information Nonmajor Governmental Funds 51 Combining Balance Sheet 52 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances 53 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances—Budget and Actual: Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds 54 Capital Projects and Debt Service Funds 55 Schedule of Expenditures for Local Streets and Roads by Geographic Area—All Special Revenue Funds 56 Schedule of Expenditures for Transit and Specialized Transportation by Geographic Area and Source— All Special Revenue Funds 57 CONTENTS, CONTINuED Statistical Section Statistical Section Overview 59 Net Assets by Component 61 Changes in Net Assets 62 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds 64 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds 65 Sources of County of Riverside Taxable Sales by Business Type 66 Direct and Overlapping Sales Tax Rates 67 Principal Taxable Sales Generation by City 68 Measure A Sales Tax Revenues by Program and Geographic Area 69 Measure A Sales Tax by Economic Category 70 Measure A Revenues and Pledged Revenue Coverage 71 Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type 72 Computation of Legal Debt Margin 73 Demographic and Economic Statistics for the County of Riverside 74 Employment Statistics by Industry for the County of Riverside 75 Full-time Equivalent Employees by Function/Program 76 Operating Indicators 77 Capital Asset Statistics by Program 78 i 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA Mailing Address: P. O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org October 31, 2011 To the Riverside County Transportation Commission Commissioners and Citizens of the County of Riverside: Letter of Transmittal State law requires that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission or RCTC) publish within six months of the close of each fiscal year a complete set of financial statements presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the united States (GAAP) and audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by independent certified public accountants. Pursuant to that requirement, we hereby issue the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. Management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all of the information presented in this report, based upon the Commission’s comprehensive framework of internal controls established for this purpose. Because the cost of internal control should not exceed anticipated benefits, the objective is to provide reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free of any material misstatements. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, has issued an unqualified opinion on the Commission’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2011. The independent auditor’s report is located at the front of the financial section of this report. Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) immediately follows the independent auditor’s report and provides a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis of the basic financial statements. MD&A complement this letter of transmittal and should be read in conjunction with it. Proﬁle of the Government The Commission was established by state law in 1977 to oversee the funding and coordination of all public transportation services within the county of Riverside (County). The Commission’s mission is to assume a leadership role in improving mobility in Riverside County and to maximize the cost effectiveness of transportation dollars in the County. The governing body is the Board of Commissioners (Board), which consists of all five members of the County Board of Supervisors, one elected official from each of the County’s 28 cities, and one non-voting member appointed by the Governor. This 34-member Board includes an official for a city newly incorporated in July 2011. The Commission is responsible for setting policies, establishing priorities, and coordinating activities among the County’s various transportation operators and agencies. The Commission also programs and/or reviews the allocation of federal, state, and local funds for highway, transit, rail, non- motorized travel (bicycle and pedestrian), and other transportation activities. The Commission also serves as the tax authority and implementation agency for the voter-approved Measure A Transportation Improvement Program, which imposes a half-cent sales tax to fund transportation improvements. Originally approved in 1988, Riverside County’s voters in 2002 approved a 30-year extension of Measure A commencing July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2039 (2009 Measure A). The Commission is also legally responsible for allocating Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, the major source of funds for transit in the County. The TDA provides two major sources of funding: Local Transportation Funds (LTF), which are derived from a one-quarter cent state sales tax, and State Transit Assistance, which is derived from the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Additionally, the Commission provides motorist aid services designed to expedite traffic flow. These services include the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), a program that provides call box service for motorists, and the Freeway ii Service Patrol (FSP), a roving tow truck service to assist motorists with disabled vehicles on the main highways of the County during peak rush hour traffic periods. These services and operations of the Inland Empire 511 (IE511) system are provided at no charge to motorists and are funded through a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations. The Commission is financially accountable for SAFE, a legally separate entity which is blended within the Commission’s financial statements. Finally, the Commission has been designated as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the County. As the CMA, the Commission coordinates with local jurisdictions in the establishment of congestion mitigation procedures for the County’s roadway system. The Commission is required to adopt a budget prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. The annual budget, which includes all funds, serves as the foundation for the Commission’s financial planning and control regarding staffing, operations, and capital plans. The budget is prepared by fund (financial responsibility unit), department, and function. Management has the discretion to transfer budgeted amounts within the financial responsibility unit according to function. During the fiscal year, all budget amendments requiring Board approval are presented to the Board for consideration and adoption. Local Economy Through FY 2005/06, the County experienced significant growth corresponding to the national economic expansion and amplified locally by competitive advantages of Riverside County over other coastal counties (Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego): (i) housing that was (and remains) more available and affordable; and (ii) plentiful commercial real estate and available development land at lower rates. Moreover, both transportation and communication access to employment centers in Los Angeles and Orange counties improved. 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 enjoyed a more diversified employment and commercial base and an increasing share of the regional economy. Today the economy in Riverside County reflects the continuing effects from the nationwide recession, as evidenced by high unemployment; low total personal income and taxable sales, residential building permits, and 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 has been amplified in the Inland Empire (i.e., Riverside and San Bernardino counties) due to its relatively greater recent growth and the relatively lower average income levels when compared to coastal areas. These factors have resulted in fluctuating Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues and Transportation uniform Mitigation Fees (TuMF). While economic reports indicate that the nationwide recession ended in June 2009 and economic growth has resumed, recovery in the local Inland Empire economy lags the nation and the rest of California. While sales tax revenues have rebounded slightly from the recent economic downturn’s low point in 2010, the Commission’s outlook for FY 2011/12 continues to be guarded, due to concerns regarding other economic indicators. 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 programs may be impacted. Regardless of the recent economic trends, the Commission faces formidable ongoing challenges in terms of providing needed infrastructure enhancements to support a population and an economy that has outgrown the capacity of its existing infrastructure. Fortunately, the foundation of the regional economy continues to retain many of the fundamental positive attributes that fueled its growth earlier in this decade, including lower priced real estate with proximity to coastal communities, a large pool of skilled workers, and increasing wealth and education levels. Long-term Financial Planning Proactive financial planning is a critical element for the success of the Commission as it builds for the future. Continually reviewing revenues and projecting expenditures ensures that the Commission’s expectations are realistic and goals are achievable. Scarce resources, especially at the state and federal level, can be directed to projects of regional significance or, with additional funding, project priorities can be expanded to address unfunded project requirements or developing needs. iii At the state level, there continues to be concerns regarding California’s overall budget situation. Governor Brown and the Legislature are faced with an ongoing, structural imbalance in the state budget which has impacted the state’s ability to sell infrastructure bonds approved by the voters in 2006. The state budget uncertainty has also impacted cash flow for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) which is also relied upon for funding several major projects. The news on the federal level is somewhat less predictable. The federal government is a source of highway funding through the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program. Federal dollars are also needed by the Commission’s transit partners for capital programs, and the Commission will utilize $75 million in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts funding to pay for its Metrolink expansion project to Perris. All of these programs depend on the authorization of federal funding by Congress and the President. The current federal authorization bill for transportation known as SAFETEA-Lu has expired and has been continued on a short-term basis until Congress can agree on a multi-month extension of the program. The Commission’s objective in working with Congress on the new authorization bill will be to secure predictable and substantial investments on key Riverside County transportation corridors including railroad grade separations on the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) and freeway improvements on major interstates (I) such as I-10 and I-215. Yet another priority will be to advocate for continued funding and support of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program. Obtaining TIFIA financing is a key component of the Commission’s $1.3 billion project to widen State Route (SR) 91 in Corona. The widening of SR-91 is part of a multi-year Western Riverside County Delivery Plan (Delivery Plan) that focuses on investing more than $2 billion in improvements along a number of major freeways during the first ten years of the 2009 Measure A program. The Delivery Plan was adopted by the Commission in December 2006 and was updated in January 2010. In order to make the needed investments, the plan relies on Measure A, STIP, and Proposition 1B dollars as well as the development of tolled express lanes on I-15 and the extension of the 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County. While the Delivery Plan is ambitious, it is only one portion of a much larger program of projects and services the Commission will provide throughout the County. Additional responsibilities and challenges include working cooperatively with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to fund projects, continued oversight and funding of transit services throughout the County, and a 22-mile expansion of Metrolink service to Perris. The success of all of these efforts will require a combination of funding sources that will depend on the State’s commitment to funding infrastructure and major investments from the federal government via the approval of a federal transportation bill. However, the primary—and most predictable—source of funding for the Commission will continue to be the Measure A half- cent sales tax program approved by Riverside County voters. 91 Freeway at the 15 Freeway iv Major Initiatives Capital Project Delivery and Implementation The Capital Project Development and Delivery Department is responsible for major highway, regional arterial, and rail capital projects from initial environmental study through preliminary engineering, fi nal design, right of way acquisition, and construction. This past year was one of signifi cant accomplishments for the Commission as progress was made on a number of major projects. Diffi cult funding decisions were made on how to spend millions of dollars on transportation projects to expand freeways, improve mobility on streets and roads, and improve rail passenger facilities. Highways. The Commission is currently working on the few remaining projects yet to be completed from the 1989 Measure A program. For example, the design phase for the 60/215 East Junction High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) connector project was completed during the year, and construction began this summer. This project will provide two HOV bridges that will connect the SR-60 HOV lanes constructed by the Commission in Moreno Valley to the HOV lanes that were constructed on the 60/91/215 interchange and corridor improvement project. The 60/215 East Junction project estimated completion date is Winter 2014. The SR-91 HOV project from Adams Street to the 60/91/215 interchange was approved for Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funding of $157.2 million related to the construction phase. The environmental document was approved in August 2007. Given the stringent deadlines associated with the CMIA projects, the Commission and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 are partnering on the design and right of way activities. It is anticipated that the project will begin construction in early 2012 with an estimated completion date of Summer 2015. Two other 1989 Measure A projects along SR-74 are the 74/215 interchange and the SR-74 curve widening. The 74/215 project, which is currently under construction, will realign and widen the on-ramps from SR-74 to I-215 and widen the Redlands Avenue overcrossing. The project is funded with TuMF zonal COLORADO RIVER BLYTHE RANCHO MIRAGE PALM SPRINGS CATHEDRAL CITY PALM DESERT DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN WELLS LA QUINTA INDIO COACHELLA BANNINGBEAUMONT SAN JACINTO MTNS. S A N T A R O S A M TNS. HEMET CALIMESA Spr i n g s Ro a d Gil m a n Ramona Expressway Alessandro Blvd. MORENO VALLEY Cajalco Road Van Buren Blvd. PERRIS RIVERSIDE JURUPA VALLEY EASTVALE NORCO LAKE ELSINORE CANYONLAKE MENIFEE MURRIETA TEMECULA SAN JACINTO CORONA 10 78 95 R3 79 79 74 15 79 60 10 62 111 243 74 74 86 111 195 371 WILDOMAR 74 215 91 74/215 Interchange v funding and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. Construction commenced in June 2010 and will take approximately 24 months to complete. With right of way acquisition underway, construction for the SR-74 curve widening from Calvert Avenue to California Avenue should begin in early 2012. The I-215 corridor will prove to be an important corridor for the Commission in the coming years, and three projects make up the I-215 widening projects included in the Delivery Plan. The first is the I-215 mixed flow lanes from I-15 to Scott Road. Construction of this project, which will provide a third mixed flow lane in each direction of the existing median of I-215, commenced in April 2011. The project is funded with STIP and CMIA funds. The second I-215 Widening Project is the I-215 mixed flow lanes from Scott Road to Nuevo Road. This project will also add a third mixed flow lane in each direction of I-215. Final design began in early 2011, and construction is anticipated to start in 2013. The project is funded with STIP, Measure A, STP, and other sources. The final project is the I-215 Southbound Connector Project which will widen the I-215 to I-15 southbound connector to three lanes. The preliminary engineering and environmental clearance phase began in Fall 2010, and construction is expected to begin in Summer 2015. Commuter Rail. Since 1993 the Commission has held title to and managed the 38-mile San Jacinto Branch Line and several adjacent properties in anticipation of offering Metrolink commuter rail service to a wider area of the County, initially including Moreno Valley and Perris and ultimately to Hemet/San Jacinto. The first major expansion for commuter rail along this corridor is known as the Perris Valley Line. In July 2011 the Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report for the Perris Valley Line and approved the project. In September 2007 a Small Starts application was submitted to the FTA requesting authorization to enter into project development for the Perris Valley Line rail extension project. In December 2007 the Commission received approval from the FTA with a project rating of medium-high. A total of $75 million in FTA Section 5309 Small Starts funding has been appropriated by Congress for this project. An additional $53 million in STIP funds is also identified for the project. New commuter rail service on the Perris Valley Line is anticipated to commence in late 2013. With the continued growth of patronage, commuter rail’s challenges for the future include Positive Train Control development to ensure safety, locomotive rehabilitation and emissions improvements, and additional train storage and maintenance facilities. Toll Program Moves Forward The State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) continues to make progress despite a challenging economy and state and federal project funding environment. The 91 Project is planned to include two tolled express lanes in each direction in the median of SR-91. The extension of these lanes will provide more choices for Riverside County drivers; improve congestion on the general purpose lanes; and ensure a speedy, uncongested trip for drivers willing to pay a toll. The 91 Project also includes numerous non-toll lane improvements including an additional general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 and substantive interchange improvements as detailed in the 2009 Measure A. 215 at Scott Road Downtown Perris Station vi Key to the timely completion of the 91 Project is the use of the design- build method of project delivery. Design-build combines the final engineering and construction of the project into a single contract with the chief benefit of saving time. In fact, the Commission estimates design-build will save a minimum of three years to open the project to traffic. The challenge within California is that most agencies do not have the legal authority to use this method of project delivery. To overcome this challenge, Assembly Bill (AB) 2098 (Miller) was initiated in early 2010 which sought design-build authority for the Commission for the 91 Project. In September 2010, after a significant effort by project proponents, AB2098 successfully passed the State Legislature and was signed into law by former Governor Schwarzenegger—marking a truly significant milestone for the 91 Project and the Commission. In addition to obtaining design-build authority for the 91 Project, all phases of project development have moved forward. Environmental studies and preliminary engineering are proceeding as planned, and this work is expected to be completed in Spring 2012. The Commission made significant progress on several key interagency agreements that will define the project’s design and construction and future operation and maintenance. The Commission initiated a procurement of a design-build contractor in September 2010, and a design-build contract award is anticipated in Spring 2013. The project’s overall finance plan has been developed by a finance team, which includes Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch serving as co-managing underwriters for a future toll revenue bond issue. The Commission hired Stantec, Inc. in July 2010 to perform an investment-grade traffic and revenue study in connection with the financing strategy. In March 2011 the Commission applied for federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) II grant funding to pay the estimated subsidy payment for a future federal TIFIA loan. Although this effort was not successful, the Commission submitted another application for TIGER III funding in late October 2011. Lastly, purchasing property needed for the project has commenced with efforts focused on open-market/willing seller and hardship transactions. The Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project (I-15 CIP) is planned to include two tolled express lanes in each direction in the median of I-15. The first phase of these lanes is planned to extend from SR-74 in the south to SR-60 to the north, approximately 31 miles. The lanes will have the same benefits mentioned previously for the 91 Project. The I-15 CIP includes these tolled express lanes as well as numerous non-toll lane improvements including an additional lane in each direction on I-15 as detailed in the 2009 Measure A. This project’s environmental studies and preliminary engineering work continue to progress and are scheduled for completion in 2012. The Commission initiated a level 2 toll feasibility study for the I-15 CIP in 2010 in light of negative developments in the general economy, socio-economic factors, capital markets, Measure A sales tax revenues, and other factors. This study updated previous feasibility results using current factors, exploring project phasing options to implement the project over time, reviewing alternative project scopes of work, and similar efforts to ensure that a plan of improvements to I-15 can be maintained and is financially feasible. As a result of this study, the Commission will determine a funding plan for the project following completion of the environmental work. TUMF Plays an Important Role In the Coachella Valley, a TuMF program was established shortly after the passage of the 1989 Measure A. The program requires developers to pay a fee on new development to fund arterial improvements. Cities are required to participate in the program or forfeit Measure A local dollars to the CVAG, which oversees the arterial program and has been successful in funding a number of important arterial and freeway interchange projects. With the passage of the 2009 Measure A, a TuMF program with participation requirements similar to that in the Coachella Valley is now in place in western Riverside County (Western County). As provided for in the 2009 Measure A, the first $400 million in TuMF funding is to be allocated to the Commission to be split evenly between new corridors and regional arterials. In order to prevent a disruption of funding for TuMF projects, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and 91 Freeway Congestion in Corona vii the Commission amended the memorandum of understanding and Administrative Plan in 2008 to lift the $400 million cap, resulting in the Commission receiving an equal share of the TuMF regional arterial revenue indefinitely. In fiscal year 2005, the Commission took its first steps to allocate its share of Western County TuMF revenues with allocations for the development of the Mid County Parkway and the SR-79 realignment and to project development for 24 regional arterial projects throughout Western County. Since the inception of the program, the Commission has programmed more than $99 million in TuMF funding related to the approval of approximately $188 million in funding the regional arterial projects through construction. To date, four projects have been completed, and four projects are under construction. The majority of the remaining projects are currently in the project development stage with construction on seven projects scheduled to begin in FY 2011/12. Rail Development, Operations and Support The County’s participation in commuter rail service began with the 1989 Measure A. Riverside County voters were the first to specify commuter rail service in Southern California as a priority transportation improvement project. The subsequent passage of similar measures in adjoining counties and the passage of statewide rail infrastructure bonds in 1990 provided enough capital funding to build the initial system. As one of five funding partners in the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, which operates the Metrolink commuter rail service, the Commission is engaged in a continual exercise of consensus building with its partners. Now consisting of seven lines, serving origins and destinations in six counties, the system carries an average of 41,000 passengers each weekday. The Commission owns and operates five stations served by the three Metrolink lines operating through the County: Riverside Line (1993): Originates in the Downtown Riverside station and stops at the Pedley station before proceeding through Ontario, Pomona, Industry, and Montebello to Los Angeles union Station. Ridership approximates 5,100 daily riders. Inland Empire Orange County (IEOC) Line (1995): Begins in nearby San Bernardino with stops in the Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, North Main Corona, and West Corona stations before entering Orange County with stops in Anaheim Canyon, Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin, Irvine, Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, and Oceanside. When initiated, this service was described as the first suburb-to-suburb commuter rail service in the nation. The IEOC line has experienced a slight increase in patronage with an average daily ridership of 3,800. 91 Line (2002): Provides another alternative to commute from Riverside to Los Angeles with stops in Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles counties. Patronage on the line has increased slightly with an average daily ridership of 2,300. In addition to regular weekday service, the Commission partnered with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to provide weekend service along the IEOC. With two round trip trains on weekends during the summer and one round trip train the rest of the year, the IEOC serves as another link between Orange and Riverside counties and provides an effective transportation alternative for weekend travel. Planning for the Future In terms of future progress, the Commission has given its unanimous support to the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) and its transportation component, the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). Downtown Riverside Station viii The RCIP was intended to be a model for streamlining the environmental process while providing for the long-term development and economic growth of the County. The County and the Commission worked together in a first-of-its kind endeavor to provide for new transportation options and land use planning to support the economic growth of the County while providing for preservation of open space and protection for endangered species. CETAP addresses the impact of future population and economic growth on the existing transportation system by identifying and establishing new transportation corridors and arterial system improvements. The entire CETAP program was recognized under President Bush’s Executive Order for Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship. The Commission’s CETAP effort focuses on four new transportation corridors: two located within the County and two that would link Riverside County with the neighboring counties of Orange and San Bernardino. Each of the corridors is progressing on differing schedules. Another large planning effort affecting the Hemet and San Jacinto communities is the realignment of SR-79. This 2009 Measure A project is undergoing early project development funded through the TuMF program and federal earmarks. An environmental document is being prepared in cooperation with local, state, and federal agencies to allow the realignment of SR-79 between Domenigoni Parkway, south of SR-74, and Gilman Springs Road, north of San Jacinto. The project would realign the highway to provide a more direct route within the San Jacinto Valley. A draft document is anticipated to be available for public review in 2012. Motorist Assistance Programs In cooperation with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Caltrans, the Commission, in its capacity as the SAFE, assists motorists who experience accidents, mechanical breakdowns, or other unforeseen problems by providing access to cellular call boxes along the County’s major highways. The Commission’s system includes 613 call boxes serving more than 540 centerline miles of highways. The call box program is funded by an annual $1 surcharge added to vehicle registrations. Each call box is a battery-powered, solar-charged roadside terminal containing a microprocessor and cellular telephone. Spacing between call boxes ranges from one mile in high traffic areas to two miles in remote areas of the County. Call boxes are installed on the three interstates, u.S. Route 95, and the 14 state routes located within the County. The phones are programmed to call a private call answer center, and the call box operator responds to the call by routing emergency calls to the CHP for appropriate services (i.e., ambulance, tow truck, fire, or police unit) or providing a direct connection to routine service through auto clubs or other private tow and service providers. Call box operators answered approximately 5,250 calls during FY 2010/11. In an effort to relieve congestion and reduce pollution, the Commission provides an additional motorist assistance program with the FSP. The FSP program is a special team of 22 tow trucks traveling along portions of SR-60, SR-91, I-15, and I-215 within the County during peak, weekday commuter hours to assist drivers when their vehicles break down or experience other mechanical problems. The purpose of the FSP is to clear debris and remove disabled vehicles from the freeway as quickly as possible to help keep freeway traffic moving during rush hour periods. Services provided are free to the motorist and include changing a flat tire, providing one gallon of fuel, taping radiator hoses, or towing the vehicle off the freeway to designated locations where the motorist can make other arrangements for repair. Another effort augments existing FSP service with additional tow trucks in construction areas as another means of construction-related congestion mitigation. The FSP is funded by the Riverside County SAFE and the State. During FY 2010/11, the FSP provided assistance to approximately 45,750 motorists. To further promote mobility, the Commission, in partnership with SANBAG, provides motorists with access to real-time freeway travel information and incident information on Southern California highways through its Inland Empire 511 (IE511) Traveler Information system. IE511 is available via the telephone by dialing 511 from any land line or cell phone within Riverside Freeway Service Patrol ix or San Bernardino County or online at www.ie511.org. IE511 is designed to promote mobility by fostering more informed travel decisions to avoid congestion as well as provide more choices for the individual commuter by identifying all travel options available to Riverside and San Bernardino County residents. Inland Empire commuters can access transit, Metrolink, carpooling, vanpooling, carpool lane, and toll road information, as well as detailed park and ride lot information for the entire Southern California region. IE511 is funded with Riverside County SAFE funds in addition to SANBAG reimbursements. In FY 2010/11, IE511 serviced approximately 244,000 web visits and 489,000 phone calls. Commuter Assistance Program The Commission’s Commuter Assistance Program provides a variety of rideshare services and programs both to employers and commuters. Through voluntary participation, commuters and employers receive a direct benefit from their sales tax dollars, and the entire region benefits from reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality as a result of trip elimination or use of alternative means of transportation. The Commission’s continued success in serving commuters and employers within the County resulted in SANBAG’s renewal of its contract with the Commission, for the fifteenth year, to provide an identical commuter assistance program for San Bernardino County residents. At the core of the Commuter Assistance Program are employer partnerships. To support voluntary efforts by local employers in implementing and maintaining rideshare activities at work sites, there are several rideshare services, employee programs, and resources provided to Western Riverside and San Bernardino County employers. using Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) funds, the Commission also continued the provision of rideshare services and programs to employers in the Coachella Valley. Employer partners function as an efficient and effective channel for rideshare marketing and programs designed to reach and benefit their employees. The most prominent commuter product continues to be the Rideshare Incentives, a short-term incentive project, which offers $2 per day for each day new ridesharers use an alternate mode of transportation in a three-month period. Long-term ridesharers are recognized and rewarded for their continuing commitment to use alternate modes of transportation to and from work through RidesharePlus Rewards. In providing commuter benefits to employers and employees during FY 2010/11, the program attracted 1,061 drive alone commuters to rideshare and participate in the Rideshare Incentives program. RidesharePlus Rewards had 5,518 participants for the same period. In total, the Commuter Assistance program resulted in over 1.4 million one-way trips reduced, 35.6 million miles saved, and approximately 631,980 pounds of emissions reduced in Riverside County. Another component of the Commuter Assistance program is the provision of leased park and ride lots to supplement Caltrans lots and to expand park and ride capacity. Working in partnership with Caltrans, which provides signage and insurance, the Commission leases excess parking from business and civic institutional partners at a reasonable rate. There are over 2,000 park and ride spaces available to Riverside County commuters. Finally, the Commission’s program also extends beyond the borders of the Inland Empire. To support coordinated and efficient ridematching throughout a five-county region that includes transportation agencies in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, the Commission operates the Regional Rideshare Database. This application serves as a central depository for all commuter transportation surveys and as the region’s primary ridematching application. Commuter Assistance Program x Specialized Transit The Commission has maintained a long-term commitment to assist in the mobility of those with specialized transit needs. Through its Specialized Transit Program, the Commission has provided millions of dollars to public and nonprofi t transit operators to assist in the provision of special transit services to improve the mobility of seniors, persons with disabilities and persons with low incomes. Along with support of traditional dial-a-ride services, the Commission supports innovative programs providing transit assistance in hard-to-serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs. The Commission’s Public Transit-Human Services Coordinated Plan (Coordinated Plan) makes the Commission eligible for federal funding of specialized transit in Riverside County. Concurrent with the adoption of the Coordinated Plan, staff conducted a universal Call for Projects for Specialized Transit (universal Call) and evaluated and selected projects eligible to receive the new federal funds under the JARC and New Freedom (NF) programs. using this competitive process allowed the Commission to seek proposals from a wide range of providers and make decisions with respect to funding specialized transit projects that result in the most effi cient delivery of trips. The 2011 universal Call included approximately $2.7 million in new federal funding to augment the $4.1 million in Measure A funds committed locally by the Commission for FY 2011/12 and FY 2012/13. During FY 2010/11, the nonprofi t operators provided approximately 363,300 Measure A/JARC/NF one-way trips in both Western County and Coachella Valley, slightly exceeding the countywide goal for the year. The Commission will be conducting another cycle of universal Call for Projects for Specialized Transit in 2013. Goods Movement The impact of delays caused by freight trains traveling through Riverside County is one of the area’s most pressing transportation concerns. In fact, the Commission adopted, as its number one priority for the upcoming federal reauthorization bill, a robust federal investment in ACE grade separations. Previously there were 61 at- grade ACE crossings in Riverside County presenting confl icts between rail and highway traffi c. Of the 61 crossings, four have been completed (Avenue 48/Dillon Road, Avenue 50, Columbia Avenue, and Jurupa Avenue); an additional crossing (Magnolia Avenue) will be completed in early 2012; two additional crossings (Auto Center Drive and Iowa Avenue) will start construction in 2012. Additionally, the ground access improvement project at the I-215 Van Buren interchange will start construction in 2012. Twenty-nine of the remaining 53 at-grade crossings remain as a Commission priority requiring additional funds. The cost of constructing grade separations at the 29 locations is currently estimated at $1.7 billion, yet only $414.8 million is currently committed through federal, state, and local funding sources. At the October 2008 Commission meeting, the Commission approved a strategy for funding 20 of the 31 crossings for a total project cost of $980.5 million. The balance of the needed funds—$565.7 million—will Specialized Transit Magnolia Avenue Grade Separation xi be included as part of the Commission’s strategy for the upcoming federal transportation reauthorization bill. The 2008 Grade Separation Funding Strategy is in the process of being updated. Awards and Acknowledgements The Government Finance Officers Association of the united States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the Commission for its CAFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. This was the 18th straight year the Commission has received this prestigious national award, which recognizes conformance with the highest standards for preparation of state and local government financial reports. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized CAFR conforming to program standards. Such CAFR must satisfy both GAAP and applicable legal requirements. This award for financial reporting excellence is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current report continues to conform to the GFOA program’s requirements, and we are submitting it to the GFOA for consideration for another certificate. The CAFR each year is a collaborative effort by Commission staff and its independent auditors. The undersigned are grateful to all staff for their willingness to expend the effort necessary to ensure the financial information contained herein is informative and completed within established deadlines. Special thanks must be extended to the Finance staff, Commission’s auditors, and the program management and staff for the time, effort, and commitment so vital for the final completion of the CAFR. In closing, without the leadership and the support of the Board, preparation of this report would not have been possible. Its prudent management must be credited for the strength of the Commission’s fiscal condition, and its vision ensures that the Riverside County Transportation Commission will be on the move planning for and building a better future for Riverside County residents and commuters. Very truly yours, ANNE MAYER THERESIA TREVIÑO Executive Director Chief Financial Officer xii Riverside County Transportation Commission Organizational Chart Fiscal Year 2010/11 Board of Commissioners Executive Director Legal Counsel Deputy Executive Director Procurement & AssetsAdministrator Accounting Supervisor Rail Manager Staff Analyst Transit Manager Staff Analyst Staff Analyst Multimodal ServicesManager Capital Projects Manager Community Relations Manager Programming & Planning Manager Senior Staff Analyst Staff Analyst Capital Projects Manager (2) Capital Projects Contract & ClaimsManager Right of WayManager Senior Staff Analyst Staff Analyst Toll Project Manager Senior Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant (3)Senior OfficeAssistant Office & Board Services Manager Procurement & AssetsManager Accounting & HumanResources Manager Accounting Technician (2) Accounting Assistant Accounting Clerk Chief Financial Officer Multimodal ServicesDirector Project DevelopmentDirector Project DeliveryDirector Toll ProgramsDirector Goods MovementManager Government RelationsManager xiii Riverside County Transportation Commission List of Principal Ofﬁcials As of June 30, 2011 Board of Commissioners Name and Position Title Agency Greg Pettis Chair (Commission City of Cathedral City John J. Benoit 1st Vice Chair (Commission) County of Riverside, District 4 Karen Spiegel 2nd Vice Chair (Commission) City of Corona Bob Botts Member City of Banning Roger Berg Member City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck Member City of Blythe Ella Zanowic Member City of Calimesa Mary Craton Member City of Canyon Lake Steven Hernandez Member City of Coachella Scott Matas Chair (Budget & Implementation Committee); Vice Chair (Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee) City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush Vice Chair (Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee) City of Eastvale Larry Smith Member City of Hemet Douglas Hanson Member City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller Member City of Indio Terry Henderson Chair (Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee) City of La Quinta Bob Magee Member City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi Chair (Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee) City of Menifee Marcelo Co Member City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs Member City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna Member City of Norco Jan Harnik Member City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet Member City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch Member City of Perris Scott Hines Member City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams Member City of Riverside Scott Miller Member City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts Vice Chair (Budget & Implementation Committee) City of Temecula Ben Benoit Member City of Wildomar Bob Buster Member County of Riverside, District 1 John F. Tavaglione Member County of Riverside, District 2 Jeff Stone Member County of Riverside, District 3 Marion Ashley Member County of Riverside, District 5 Raymond Wolfe Governor’s Appointee Caltrans, District 8 Management Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director Michael Blomquist, Toll Programs Director Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director Theresia Treviño, Chief Financial Officer Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director xiv 1 1 Independent Auditor’s Report Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the Commission’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Commission’s management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to previously present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Commission as of June 30, 2011, and the respective changes in financial position for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The management’s discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison and other post-employment benefits information, as listed in the table of contents, are not a required part of the basic financial statements but are supplementary information required by the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the Commission’s basic financial statements. The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and other schedules, listed in the table of contents as supplementary information, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. 1 Independent Auditor’s Report Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the Commission’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Commission’s management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to previously present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Commission as of June 30, 2011, and the respective changes in financial position for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The management’s discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison and other post-employment benefits information, as listed in the table of contents, are not a required part of the basic financial statements but are supplementary information required by the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the Commission’s basic financial statements. The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and other schedules, listed in the table of contents as supplementary information, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. 2 2 The accompanying introductory and statistical sections, as listed in the table of contents, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. This information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 3 Riverside County Transportation Commission Management’s Discussion and Analysis Year Ended June 30, 2011 As management of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), we offer readers of the Commission’s financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the Commission’s financial activities for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. We encourage readers to consider the information on financial performance presented here in conjunction with the transmittal letter on pages i-xi and the Commission’s financial statements which begin on page 16. Financial Highlights • Total net assets of the Commission were $635,864,022 and consisted of invested capital assets, net of related debt, of $341,912,094; restricted net assets of $587,098,179; and unrestricted net asset (deficit) of ($293,146,251). • The unrestricted net asset (deficit) results primarily from the recording of the debt issued for Measure A highway, local street and road, and regional arterial projects. As title to substantially most of those assets vests with the State of California (State) Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or local jurisdictions, there is no asset corresponding to the liability. Accordingly, the Commission does not have sufficient current resources on hand to cover current and long-term liabilities; however, future Measure A sales taxes are pledged to cover Measure A debt service payments when made. • Net assets increased by $21,752,753 during fiscal 2011. General revenues consisting primarily of sales taxes and investment earnings are the major funding source for the governmental activities. The change in net assets was higher than the prior year due to increased Measure A sales taxes and program revenues. • Total capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, were $367,332,959 at June 30, 2011, representing an increase of $42,708,520, or 13%, from June 30, 2010. The increase in capital assets was primarily related to the land acquisition and construction in progress costs related to the Perris Valley Line extension and tolled express lane projects. • The Commission’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $589,364,644, an increase of $37,796,716 compared to fiscal 2010. Approximately 77% of the governmental fund balances represent amounts available for the Measure A program, including debt service and funding from the issuance of sales tax revenue bonds and commercial paper notes, and the TuMF program. Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the Commission’s basic financial statements, which are comprised of three components consisting of government-wide financial statements, fund financial statements, and notes to the financial statements. This report also contains required supplementary information and other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements. Government-wide Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the Commission’s finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. The statement of net assets presents information on all of the Commission’s assets and liabilities, with the difference between assets and liabilities reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the Commission is improving or deteriorating. 4 The statement of activities presents information showing how the Commission’s net assets changed during the fiscal year. All changes in net assets are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. The government-wide financial statements report the functions of the Commission that are principally supported by sales taxes and intergovernmental revenues, or governmental activities. The governmental activities of the Commission include general government, the Measure A program, CETAP, regional arterials, commuter rail, transit and specialized transportation services, planning and programming, bicycle and pedestrian facilities projects, motorist assistance services, and right of way management. Measure A program services are divided within the three regions of Riverside County (County), namely Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. The government-wide financial statements include only the Commission and its blended component unit. The government- wide financial statements can be found on pages 16-17 of this report. Fund Financial Statements A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. Fund accounting is used to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the Commission’s funds are governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements; however, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources and on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government’s near-term financing requirements. Since the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. As a result, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government’s near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and related statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The Commission maintains 12 individual governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the related statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances for the Commission’s major governmental funds comprised of the General fund; Measure A Western County, Measure A Coachella Valley, Transportation uniform Mitigation Fee, and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Special Revenue funds; Commercial Paper and Sales Tax Bonds Capital Projects funds; and Debt Service fund. Data from the other four governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these nonmajor governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements in the other supplementary information section. The Commission adopts an annual appropriated budget for the General fund, all Special Revenue funds, all Capital Projects funds, and the Debt Service fund. Budgetary comparison schedules have been provided for the General fund and major Special Revenue funds as required supplementary information and for the nonmajor Special Revenue funds and the Capital Projects and Debt Service funds as other supplementary information to demonstrate compliance with these budgets. The governmental fund financial statements, including the reconciliation between the fund financial statements and the government-wide financial statements, can be found on pages 18-21 of this report. Notes to the Financial Statements The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the financial statements can be found on pages 22-44 of this report. 5 Other Information Other information is in addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes to the financial statements. This report also presents certain required supplementary information concerning the Commission’s budgetary results for the General fund and major Special Revenue funds as well as the schedule of funding progress for postretirement health care benefits. Required supplementary information can be found on pages 46-49 of this report. Other supplementary information is presented immediately following the required supplementary information. Other supplementary information includes the combining statements referred to earlier relating to nonmajor governmental funds; budgetary results for the nonmajor Special Revenue funds, all Capital Projects funds, and the Debt Service fund; and schedules of expenditures for local streets and roads and expenditures for transit and specialized transportation. This other supplementary information can be found on pages 52-57 of this report. Government-wide Financial Analysis As noted previously, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial position. At June 30, 2011, the Commission’s assets exceeded liabilities by $635,864,022, a $21,752,753 increase from June 30, 2010. Our analysis below focuses on the net assets and changes in net assets of the Commission’s governmental activities. Net Assets Approximately 54%, compared to 48% in 2010, of the Commission’s net assets reflect its investment in capital assets (i.e., construction and development in progress; land and improvements; rail operating easements; rail stations; office improvements; and office furniture, equipment, and vehicles), less any related outstanding debt used to acquire those assets, primarily related to land and tolled express lane projects in progress. The Commission uses these capital assets to provide transportation services to the residents and business community of the County. The increase of $47,693,831 in net assets invested in capital assets, net of related debt, from governmental activities resulted primarily from the land acquisition and construction in progress for the Perris Valley Line and tolled express lane projects. The most significant portion of the Commission’s net assets represents resources subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. Restricted net assets from governmental activities represented approximately 92% and 90% of the total net assets at June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Restricted net assets from governmental activities increased by $37,316,765, as a result of 2010 Measure A revenues available for Western County economic development, new corridor, and regional arterial projects compared to the 1989 Measure A program and the use of commercial paper proceeds and issuance of sales tax bond proceeds for certain 2009 Measure A Western County highway projects rather than the revenues from the 2009 Measure A sales taxes. These increases to restricted assets for highways were offset by increased highway expenses. unrestricted net assets represent the portion of net assets that can be used to finance day-to-day operations without constraints established by debt covenants, enabling legislation, or other legal requirements. unrestricted net assets from governmental activities changed from a $229,888,408 deficit at June 30, 2010 to a $293,146,251 deficit at June 30, 2011. This deficit results primarily from the impact of recording of the Commission’s long-term debt, consisting of sales tax revenue bonds and commercial paper notes, issued for Measure A highway, local street and road, and regional arterial projects. While a significant portion of the debt has been incurred to build these projects which are capital assets, upon completion for most projects, these projects are transferred to Caltrans or the local jurisdiction. Accordingly, these projects are not assets of the Commission that offset the long-term debt in the statement of net assets. 6 The following is condensed financial data related to net assets at June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2010: Net Assets June 30, 2011 June 30, 2010 Current and other assets $ 660,756,107 $ 615,127,022 Capital assets not being depreciated Capital assets being depreciated, net of accumulated depreciation 297,920,072 69,412,887 252,736,828 71,887,611 Total assets 1,028,089,066 939,751,461 Long-term obligations 324,044,547 264,605,365 Other liabilities 68,180,497 61,034,827 Total liabilities 392,225,044 325,640,192 Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 341,912,094 294,218,263 Restricted 587,098,179 549,781,414 Unrestricted (deficit) (293,146,251) (229,888,408) Total net assets $ 635,864,022 $ 614,111,269 Changes in Net Assets The Commission’s total program and general revenues were $240,615,727, while the total cost of all programs was $218,862,974. Total revenues increased by 6%, and the total cost of all programs increased by 21%. Approximately 23% of the costs of the Commission’s programs were paid by those who directly benefited from the programs or by other governments that subsidized certain programs with grants and contributions. Sales taxes ultimately financed a significant portion of the programs’ net costs. Governmental activities increased the Commission’s net assets by $21,752,753, and condensed financial data related to the change in net assets is presented in the table below. Key elements of this increase are as follows: • Operating grants and contributions increased by $16,756,192, or 72%, primarily due to federal and state reimbursements related to 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A highway projects including the State Route (SR) 91 HOV lanes, 74/215 interchange project, and SR-91 Green River interchange project and to the federal cash subsidy related to the 2010 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Bonds), Series B (Taxable Build America Bonds); • Capital grants and contributions decreased by $3,057,831, or 25%, because of federal, state, and local grants in the previous year which funded completed rail capital projects related to the Perris Transit Center, North Main Corona commuter rail station parking structure, and station rehabilitation and security projects; • Measure A sales tax revenues increased by $8,913,579, or 8%, due to a modest economic recovery in the region; • Transportation Development Act (TDA) sales taxes decreased by $8,727,046, or 13%, as a result of the previous year’s unanticipated receipt of State Transit Assistance funds following the revised state budget approval of a gas tax swap which was offset by an increase in Local Transportation fund revenues due to the modest economic recovery in the region; • unrestricted investment earnings decreased $1,576,799, or 26%, because of lower interest rates; 7 Year Ended Changes in Net Assets June 30, 2011 June 30, 2010 Revenues Program revenues: Charges for services $ 211,691 $ 196,527 Operating grants and contributions 39,886,648 23,130,456 Capital grants and contributions 9,199,268 12,257,099 General revenues: Measure A sales taxes 123,439,833 114,526,254 Transportation Development Act sales taxes 60,772,795 69,499,841 Unrestricted investment earnings 4,411,122 5,987,921 Other miscellaneous revenue 2,694,370 1,680,322 Total revenues 240,615,727 227,278,420 Expenses General government 8,453,876 7,024,517 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities 1,940,499 317,048 CETAP 5,490,993 2,362,393 Commuter assistance 2,868,630 3,266,834 Commuter rail 27,792,375 20,544,634 Highways 40,113,092 24,828,958 Local streets and roads 36,856,925 34,258,313 Motorist assistance 3,530,695 2,987,136 Planning and programming 4,683,272 5,321,121 Right of way management 1,270,487 1,428,066 Regional arterials 29,362,894 26,371,339 Transit and specialized transportation 44,699,650 43,820,225 Interest expense 11,799,586 7,099,038 Total expenses 218,862,974 179,629,622 Increase in net assets 21,752,753 47,648,798 Net assets at beginning of year 614,111,269 566,462,471 Net assets at end of year $ 635,864,022 $ 614,111,269 • General government expenses increased by $1,429,359, or 20%, primarily as a result of professional fees related to liquidity facilities for the commercial paper program and 2009 variable rate sales tax revenue bonds; • Bicycle and pedestrian facilities expenses increased by $1,623,451, or 512%, due to an increase in claims for approved projects; • CETAP expenses increased by $3,128,600, or 132%, due to an increase in consultant efforts related to the Mid County Parkway project; • Commuter assistance expenses decreased by $398,204, or 12%, due to the detection station installations on Interstate (I) 15 and I-215 and Inland Empire 511 (IE511) implementation costs incurred during the prior year; • Commuter rail expenses increased by $7,247,741, or 35%, as a result of increased right of way acquisitions related to the Perris Valley Line extension project; • Highway expenses increased by $15,284,134, or 62%, due to preliminary engineering, right of way, and construction activities on various 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A Western County projects; • Local streets and roads expenses increased by $2,598,612, or 8%, because of an increase in the overall Measure A sales tax revenues compared to the prior year; • Motorist Assistance expenses increased by $543,559, or 18%, due to the newly implemented IE511 operations costs during the year; 8 • Planning and programming expenses decreased by $637,849, or 12%, due to the decrease in costs resulting from the completion of geotechnical fi eld exploration and evaluation activities for the proposed Irvine-Corona Expressway project and consultant services related to goods movement activities which was offset by an increase in funding for grade separation projects; • Regional arterial expenses increased by $2,991,555, or 11%, as a result of an increase in reimbursements to local jurisdictions for approved regional arterial projects; • Transit and specialized transportation expenses increased by $879,425, or 2%, due to a net increase in Western County bus transit operating and capital claims; and • Interest expenses increased by $4,700,548, or 66%, primarily as a result of the issuance of the 2010 Bonds which provided funding for the 2009 Measure A projects and retired the all of the outstanding commercial paper notes. The graph below presents the program and general revenues by source for the Commission’s governmental activities for the fi scal year ended June 30, 2011: fi scal year ended June 30, 2011: Measure A sales taxes 51% Transportation Development Act sales taxes 25% Unrestricted investment earnings 2% Operating grants and contributions 17% Other 1% Charges for services 0% Capital grants and contributions 4% The following graph depicts program expenses for the Commission’s governmental activities for the fi scal year ended June 30, 2011: 9 Financial Analysis of the Commission’s Funds As of June 30, 2011, the Commission’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $589,364,644, an increase of $37,796,716 compared to 2010. About 9%, or $5,533,172, and 1%, or $6,270,944, are nonspendable and unrestricted fund balances, respectively. The nonspendable balances relate to prepaid amounts, and the unrestricted balances are assigned for right of way management and general government administration activities. The remainder of the fund balance is restricted to indicate the following externally enforceable legal restrictions: • $3,270,222 in TDA funds that have been allocated to jurisdictions within the County for bicycle and pedestrian projects; • $44,904,194 for new CETAP corridors in Western County; • $14,063,225 for commuter assistance activities such as expansion of park-and-ride facilities and other projects and programs that encourage commuters to use alternative modes of transportation; • $85,312,866 for commuter rail capital projects including the Perris Valley Line extension which is expected to be completed in 2013; • $53,894,069 related to debt service that is to be paid over the next year, a debt service reserve for the 2009 Bonds, and excess reserve funds remaining following the retirement of all debt related to the 1989 Measure A program; • $170,974,134 for highway, economic development, and new corridor projects related to the 1989 Measure A program and the 2009 Measure A program; • $32,341,705 in advances receivable from cities and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments for funds that were loaned to them to enable the construction and improvement of streets and roads as well as highways and regional arterials and that are to be repaid from their future 2009 Measure A funds; • $150,000 in advances receivable from the Freeway Service Patrol fund for amounts loaned by the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies fund, both of which are nonmajor governmental funds, that were to repaid in fiscal 2012; • $2,578 for local streets and roads programs that are returned to the jurisdictions within the County for maintenance of their roads and local arterials under the 2009 Measure A program; • $6,896,938 for motorist assistance services; • $1,786,515 for planning and programming activities; • $41,962,114 for regional arterial projects in Western County; • $10,050,980 of Measure A funds for transit and specialized transportation in the Western County and $881,733 for specialized transportation in the Coachella Valley; and • $111,069,255 in TDA funds available to the commuter rail and bus transit operations and capital in the County. The following table presents the changes in fund balances for the governmental funds for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010: Fund Balances Year Ended June 30 2011 2010 % Change General fund $ 13,524,354 $ 13,261,438 2% Special Revenue major funds: Measure A Western County 258,599,521 260,141,532 (1)% Measure A Coachella Valley 10,162,008 4,029,697 152% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 73,294,737 83,618,281 (12)% Local Transportation Fund 82,210,219 74,875,969 10% Capital Projects major funds: Commercial Paper 33,227,032 29,571,329 12% Sales Tax Bonds 25,226,581 – N/A Debt Service fund 53,894,069 45,738,294 18% Nonmajor governmental funds 39,226,123 40,331,388 (3)% 10 Key elements for the changes in fund balances are as follows: • The 152% increase in the Measure A Coachella Valley Special Revenue fund was attributed to excess 2009 Measure A revenues over expenditures for highway and regional arterial projects; • The 12% decrease in the Transportation uniform Mitigation Fee Special Revenue fund was due to increased regional arterial expenditure claims for approved regional arterial projects and CETAP project costs, net of transfers in; • The 10% increase in the Local Transportation Fund resulted from the excess of sales tax revenues over claims of allocations for transit operations and for bicycle and pedestrian facility projects; • The 12% increase in the Commercial Paper Capital Projects fund was attributed primarily to a state reimbursement for the SR-91 Green River interchange project; and • The 18% increase in the Debt Service fund was due primarily to transfers in from the Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund for debt service and a cash subsidy payment received from the Internal Revenue Service related to the 2010 Bonds, Series B (Taxable Build America Bonds). General Fund Budgetary Highlights Differences between the original budget and the final amended budget for the General fund resulted in a $24,513,040 increase in appropriations and were related to the following changes: • $283,100 increase to general government for election costs related to a ballot initiative to increase the Measure A debt limit in November 2010; • $21,919,167 increase to the commuter rail program for an amendment to the FY 2010/11 Short Range Transit Plan related to an obligation of funds for Metrolink’s rail car procurement and positive train control project; • $2,344,619 increase for various planning and programming activities including allocations to local jurisdictions for grade separation projects; • $100,000 decrease to right of way management for a transfer of highway property management expenditures to the Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund; • $25,500 increase to debt service for capital lease payments; and • $40,654 increase to capital outlay related to the Commission’s commuter rail station improvements. During the year, General fund revenues were below budgetary estimates by $19,094,802 primarily as a result of the reclassification, for financial reporting purposes only, of intrafund transfers for the TDA’s Local Transportation and State Transit Assistance sales tax revenue allocations for general government, planning and programming, and commuter rail operations. Expenditures were less than budgetary estimates resulting in no need to draw upon available fund balance reserves. General fund budgetary variances between the final amended budget and actual amounts are as follows: 11 Year Ended June 30, 2011 General Fund Budgetary Variances Final Amended Budget Actual % Variance Revenues Sales taxes $ 21,354,519 $ 2,700,000 (87)% Intergovernmental 3,059,276 2,626,434 (14)% Interest 39,200 62,479 59% Other 285,000 254,280 (11)% Total revenues $ 24,737,995 $ 5,643,193 (77)% Expenditures Current General government $ 4,977,800 $ 4,454,700 11% Commuter rail 33,436,967 12,850,446 62% Planning and programming 9,651,119 4,564,597 53% Right of way management 1,420,100 1,270,487 11% Transit and specialized transportation 189,800 146,565 23% Debt service 25,500 77,480 (204)% Capital outlay 211,254 69,043 67% Total expenditures $ 49,912,540 $ 23,433,318 53% Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in $ 22,643,121 $ 18,053,041 (20)% Transfers out (790,000) – 100% Total other financing sources (uses) $ 21,853,121 $ 18,053,041 (17)% Significant budgetary variances between the final amended budget and actual amounts are as follows: • $18,654,519 negative variance in sales tax revenues primarily related to the reclassification of LTF revenues as operating transfers in for financial reporting purposes only; • $432,842 negative variance for intergovernmental revenues primarily related to the reclassification of STA revenues as operating transfers in for financial reporting purposes only; • $523,100 positive variance for general government expenditures primarily related to professional services and other expenditures such as insurance, training, and travel; • $20,586,521 positive variance for commuter rail expenditures related to Metrolink operations and capital; • $5,086,522 positive variance for planning and programming expenditures related to grade separation project funding; • $4,590,080 negative variance for transfers in related to the anticipated needs for administrative cost allocations as well as commuter rail and property management activities; and • $790,000 positive variance for transfers out from right of way management for a 1989 Measure A highway project. Capital Assets and Debt Administration Capital Assets As of June 30, 2011, the Commission had $367,332,959, net of accumulated depreciation, invested in a broad range of capital assets including construction in progress; land and land improvements; rail operating easements and stations; and office improvements, furniture, equipment, and vehicles. The total increase in the Commission’s total capital assets, net for FY 2010/11 was 13%. 12 Major capital asset additions during 2011 included construction in progress related to preliminary engineering costs for the SR- 91 and I-15 corridor improvement and the Perris Valley Line extension projects, design-build activities for the SR-91 corridor improvement project, and land acquisition for the Perris Valley Line extension and the SR-91 corridor improvement projects. The table below is a comparative summary of the Commission’s capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation: June 30, 2011 June 30, 2010 Capital Assets not being depreciated: Land and land improvements $ 154,926,116 $ 143,088,211 Rail operating easements 39,484,143 39,484,143 Construction and development in progress 103,509,813 70,164,474 Total capital assets not being depreciated 297,920,072 252,736,828 Capital Assets being depreciated, net of accumulated depreciation: Rail stations 68,822,531 71,448,965 Office improvements, furniture, equipment, and vehicles 590,356 438,646 Total capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 69,412,887 71,887,611 Total capital assets $ 367,332,959 $ 324,624,439 More detailed information about the Commission’s capital assets is presented in Note 4 to the financial statements. Debt Administration As of June 30, 2011, the Commission had $324,700,000 outstanding in 2009 and 2010 Bonds. The total debt increased from the $181,000,000 outstanding as of June 30, 2010, as a result of the issuance in November 2010 of $150,000,000 in sales tax revenue bonds to provide funding for the 2009 Measure A projects and retire $103,284,000 of the commercial paper notes. The Commission’s bonds are rated “AA+” from Standard & Poor’s (S&P), “Aa1” from Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s), and “AA” from Fitch Ratings (Fitch). In March 2005 the Commission established a $185,000,000 commercial paper program to provide advance funding for 2009 Measure A capital projects; the program was reduced in February 2010 to $120,000,000 as a result of the extension of the letter of credit and reimbursement agreement. The commercial paper notes are rated “A1+” by S&P and “P1” by Moody’s. As of June 30, 2011, the Commission had no commercial paper notes outstanding. The sales tax revenue debt limitation for the Commission under the 2009 Measure A program is $975,000,000, which exceeds the total outstanding debt of $324,700,000. The Commission has also authorized the issuance of toll revenue bonds not to exceed $900,000,000. Additional information on the Commission’s long-term debt can be found in Note 6 to the financial statements. Economic Factors and Other Factors During its March 2011 Commission meeting, the Commission adopted guiding principles for use in the preparation of the FY 2011/12 Budget. These principles have been incorporated in goals of the Commission and will continue to be updated annually in response to the ever-changing social, political, and economic environment. The principles are a business planning tool designed to assist the Commission in implementing its strategic goals and objectives and lays the foundation for future financial planning for the annual budget process. 13 The Commission adopted the FY 2011/12 annual budget on June 8, 2011. Over 62% of the $441,207,100 balanced budget is related to capital project expenditures, including: $67,355,800 for preliminary engineering, right of way acquisition, and design-build activities related to the SR-91 corridor improvement project consisting of tolled express and general purpose lanes and interchange improvements; $34,514,300 for various Western County TuMF regional arterial projects; $34,459,400 for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension project engineering, final design, construction, and right of way acquisition; $15,298,600 for construction related to the I-215 corridor improvements from I-15 to Scott Road; $15,231,400 for final design and right of way acquisition related to the SR-91 HOV lanes from Adams Street to the 60/91/215 interchange; $14,184,000 for preliminary engineering, final design, right of way acquisition, and construction management related to the I-215 corridor improvements from Scott Road to Nuevo Road; $10,682,000 for preliminary engineering/environmental and right of way acquisition related to the Mid County Parkway; $9,483,100 for construction and right of way acquisition related to the 74/215 interchange project; $7,309,000 for preliminary engineering services related to the I-15 corridor improvements consisting of tolled express lanes, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and general purpose lanes; and $6,900,000 for highway and regional arterial projects and land mitigation in the Coachella Valley. Distributions to the local jurisdictions for local streets and roads are budgeted at $33,168,000. Budgeted expenditures related to funding of public bus transit operations and capital projects in the County aggregate $87,042,800, and budgeted transfers out related to funding of commuter rail operations and capital are $11,423,000. Debt service costs are $20,195,000, or 5% of the budget. Leading economic indicators show that the local economy continues to be impacted by the last national recession, particularly in decreased spending and a housing slowdown. These factors were considered in preparing the Commission’s 2012 fiscal year budget, including the sales tax and TuMF fee revenue projections. There are obvious variables in terms of project financing available from federal and state funds. There is continuing uncertainty related to the fiscal condition of the state of California and the impact on transportation as well as the status of the federal transportation trust fund and appropriation bill. The Commission continues to study alternative financing alternatives such as tolled express lane facilities and federal financing programs to support the delivery of 2009 Measure A projects. Contacting the Commission’s Management This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the Commission’s finances for all those with an interest in the government’s finances and to show the Commission’s accountability for the money it receives. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional information should be addressed to the Chief Financial Officer, Finance Department at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, P.O. Box 12008, Riverside, California 92502-2208. 14 15/91 Interchange 15 Basic Financial Statements 215 at Van Buren Boulevard 16 16 Governmental Activities Assets Cash and investments 482,416,703$ Receivables: Accounts 64,221,952 Advances to other governments 32,341,705 Interest 657,933 Prepaid expenses and other assets 7,586,848 Deferred outflow of resources 19,021,234 Restricted investments held by trustee 54,509,732 Capital assets not being depreciated 297,920,072 Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 69,412,887 Total assets 1,028,089,066 Liabilities Accounts payable 47,268,331 Interest payable 1,036,446 Other liabilities 854,486 Derivative instrument-Swap 19,021,234 Long-term liabilities: Due within one year 6,741,295 Due in more than one year 317,303,252 Total liabilities 392,225,044 Net assets Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 341,912,094 Restricted for: Bicycle and pedestrian facilities 3,270,222 CETAP 44,904,194 Commuter assistance 14,138,095 Commuter rail 85,314,022 Debt service 53,894,069 Highways 204,449,277 Local streets and roads 7,200,765 Motorist assistance 7,046,938 Planning and programming 1,786,515 Regional arterials 43,092,114 Transit and specialized transportation 122,001,968 Unrestricted (deficit)(293,146,251) Total net assets 635,864,022$ See notes to financial statements Riverside County Transportation Commission Statement of Net Assets June 30, 2011 17 17 Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Assets Charges for Operating Grants Capital Grants Governmental Functions/Programs Expenses Services and Contributions and Contributions Activities Primary Government Governmental Activities: General government 8,453,876$ 27,681$ 89,073$ -$ (8,337,122)$ Bicycle and pedestrian facilities 1,940,499 - - - (1,940,499) CETAP 5,490,993 - 3,246,458 - (2,244,535) Commuter assistance 2,868,630 - 518,477 - (2,350,153) Commuter rail 27,792,375 - 256,048 9,199,268 (18,337,059) Highways 40,113,092 - 27,862,211 - (12,250,881) Local streets and roads 36,856,925 - - - (36,856,925) Motorist assistance 3,530,695 - 3,579,890 - 49,195 Planning and programming 4,683,272 - 843,114 - (3,840,158) Right of way management 1,270,487 184,010 - - (1,086,477) Regional arterials 29,362,894 - 3,491,377 - (25,871,517) Transit and specialized transportation 44,699,650 - - - (44,699,650) Interest expense 11,799,586 - - - (11,799,586) Total governmental activities 218,862,974$ 211,691$ 39,886,648$ 9,199,268$ (169,565,367) General Revenues: Measure A sales taxes 123,439,833 Transportation Development Act sales taxes 60,772,795 Unrestricted investment earnings 4,411,122 Other miscellaneous revenue 2,694,370 Total general revenues 191,318,120 Change in net assets 21,752,753 Net assets at beginning of year 614,111,269 Net assets at end of year 635,864,022$ See notes to financial statements Riverside County Transportation Commission Statement of Activities Year Ended June 30, 2011 Program Revenues 18 18TransportationCommercialOtherMeasure A Measure AUniform LocalPaperSalesNonmajorWestern Coachella Mitigation Transportation CapitalTaxDebt GovernmentalGeneral County ValleyFeeFund Projects Bonds Service Funds TotalAssetsCash and investments10,891,341$ 237,719,596$ 7,849,606$ 76,224,958$ 73,322,371$ 793,364$ -$ 32,562,391$ 43,053,076$ 482,416,703$ Receivables:Accounts2,152,422 37,677,113 5,703,299 2,440,184 11,925,643 2,304,900 - - 2,018,391 64,221,952 Advances875,253 - - - - 32,041,891 299,814 - 150,000 33,366,958 Interest12,866 313,575 10,522 105,078 92,719 1,860 1,628 61,385 58,300 657,933 Due from other funds6,612,744 9,195,130 - 256,508 - 680,464 - - - 16,744,846 Prepaid expenditures143,397 4,259,775 - 1,130,000 - - - - - 5,533,172 Restricted investments held by trustee- - - - - 30 32,705,912 21,803,790 - 54,509,732 Total assets20,688,023$ 289,165,189$ 13,563,427$ 80,156,728$ 85,340,733$ 35,822,509$ 33,007,354$ 54,427,566$ 45,279,767$ 657,451,296$ Liabilities and Fund BalancesLiabilities:Accounts payable6,993,169$ 29,916,302$ 2,760,254$ 5,555,626$ 716,212$ -$ 48,419$ 533,497$ 744,852$ 47,268,331$ Advances payable- - - 875,253 - - - - 150,000 1,025,253 Due to other funds- 369,198 641,165 431,112 2,414,302 - 7,730,277 - 5,158,792 16,744,846 Other liabilities170,500 280,168 - - - 2,595,477 2,077 - - 3,048,222 Total liabilities7,163,669 30,565,668 3,401,419 6,861,991 3,130,514 2,595,477 7,780,773 533,497 6,053,644 68,086,652 Fund balances Nonspendable-prepaid amounts143,397 4,259,775 - 1,130,000 - - - - - 5,533,172 Restricted for:Bicycle and pedestrian facilities- - - - 3,270,222 - - - - 3,270,222 CETAP- - - 44,904,194- - - - - 44,904,194 Commuter assistance- 14,063,225 - - - - - - - 14,063,225 Commuter rail5,372,869 79,939,997 - - - - - - - 85,312,866 Debt service- - - - - - - 53,894,069 - 53,894,069 Highways - 135,583,480 9,278,746 - - 1,185,141 24,926,767 - - 170,974,134 Loans and advances receivable- - - - - 32,041,891 299,814 - 150,000 32,491,705 Local streets and roads- 493 1,529 - - - - - 556 2,578 Motorist assistance- - - - - - - - 6,896,938 6,896,938 Planning and programming1,737,144 - - - 49,371 - - - - 1,786,515 Regional arterials- 14,701,571 - 27,260,543- - - - - 41,962,114 Transit and specialized transportation- 10,050,980 881,733 - 78,890,626 - - - 32,178,629 122,001,968 Assigned:Right of way management551,991 - - - - - - - - 551,991 General government5,718,953 - - - - - - - - 5,718,953 Total fund balances 13,524,354 258,599,521 10,162,008 73,294,737 82,210,219 33,227,032 25,226,581 53,894,069 39,226,123 589,364,644 Total liabilities and fund balances20,688,023$ 289,165,189$ 13,563,427$ 80,156,728$ 85,340,733$ 35,822,509$ 33,007,354$ 54,427,566$ 45,279,767$ 657,451,296$ See notes to financial statementsSpecial RevenueMajor FundsRiverside County Transportation CommissionBalance Sheet - Governmental FundsJune 30, 2011Capital Projects 19 19 Total fund balances - Governmental funds (page 18)589,364,644$ Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets (page 16) are different because: Capital assets, less related accumulated depreciation, used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported in the funds.367,332,959 Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current-period expenditures and, therefore, are deferred in funds.2,193,736 Interest payable on bonds outstanding is not due and payable in the current period and therefore is not reported in the funds. (1,036,446) Debt issuance costs are not current financial resources and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds.2,053,676 Long-term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds. Those liabilities consist of: Compensated absences (452,599) Capital lease obligation (54,874) Debt issuance payable (324,700,000) Discount on debt issuances 1,162,926 Net adjustment (324,044,547) Net assets of governmental activities (page 16)635,864,022$ See notes to financial statements Riverside County Transportation Commission Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Net Assets June 30, 2011 20 20TransportationCommercialOtherMeasure A Measure AUniform Local Paper Sales NonmajorWestern Coachella Mitigation Transportation Capital Tax Debt GovernmentalGeneral County ValleyFee Fund Projects Bonds Service Funds TotalRevenuesSales taxes2,700,000$ 91,274,334$ 28,598,703$ -$ 60,772,795$ -$ -$ -$ 866,796$ 184,212,628$ Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee- 2,664,946 - 6,492,917 - - - - - 9,157,863 Intergovernmental2,626,434 30,001,925 - - - 2,304,900 - 1,499,340 3,579,889 40,012,488 Interest62,479 1,318,150 38,702 426,079 359,798 1,772,311 41,929 258,868 245,903 4,524,219 Other254,280 1,320,036 - 695,100 - - - - 608,964 2,878,380 Total revenues5,643,193 126,579,391 28,637,405 7,614,096 61,132,593 4,077,211 41,929 1,758,208 5,301,552 240,785,578 ExpendituresCurrent:General government4,454,700 3,847,776 - - 12,000 25,787 - - - 8,340,263 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities- - - - 1,940,499 - - - - 1,940,499 CETAP- - - 5,490,993 - - - - - 5,490,993 Commuter assistance- 2,816,392 - - - - - - - 2,816,392 Commuter rail12,850,446 22,632,065 - - - - - - - 35,482,511 Highways- 73,361,790 1,649,908 - - - - - - 75,011,698 Local streets and roads- 25,828,983 10,121,777 - - - - - 906,165 36,856,925 Motorist assistance- - - - - - - - 3,530,695 3,530,695 Planning and programming4,564,597 - - - 109,800 - - - - 4,674,397 Right of way management1,270,487 - - - - - - - - 1,270,487 Regional arterials- - 8,638,637 20,724,257 - - - - - 29,362,894 Transit and specialized transportation 146,565 4,673,196 3,773,000 - 35,301,507 - - - 805,382 44,699,650 Total programs23,286,795 133,160,202 24,183,322 26,215,250 37,363,806 25,787 - - 5,242,242 249,477,404 Debt service:Principal23,230 - - - - 103,284,000 - 6,300,000 - 109,607,230 Interest2,012 - - - - 151,133 4,791,737 6,351,386 - 11,296,268 Cost of issuance52,238 - - - - - 1,440,958 - - 1,493,196 Total debt service77,480 - - - - 103,435,133 6,232,695 12,651,386 - 122,396,694 Capital outlay69,043 78,254 - - - - - - - 147,297 Total expenditures23,433,318 133,238,456 24,183,322 26,215,250 37,363,806 103,460,920 6,232,695 12,651,386 5,242,242 372,021,395 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures(17,790,125) (6,659,065) 4,454,083 (18,601,154) 23,768,787 (99,383,709) (6,190,766) (10,893,178) 59,310 (131,235,817) Other financing sources (uses):Debt issuance- - - - - 20,000,000 150,000,000 - - 170,000,000 Discount on debt issuance- - - - - - (967,467) - - (967,467) Transfers in18,053,041 32,006,488 1,678,228 8,699,301 - 103,284,000 - 20,727,181 906,600 185,354,839 Transfers out- (26,889,434) - (421,691) (16,434,537) (20,244,588) (117,615,186) (1,678,228) (2,071,175) (185,354,839) Total other financing sources (uses)18,053,041 5,117,054 1,678,228 8,277,610 (16,434,537) 103,039,412 31,417,347 19,048,953 (1,164,575) 169,032,533 Net change in fund balances262,916 (1,542,011) 6,132,311 (10,323,544) 7,334,250 3,655,703 25,226,581 8,155,775 (1,105,265) 37,796,716 Fund balances at beginning of year13,261,438 260,141,532 4,029,697 83,618,281 74,875,969 29,571,329 - 45,738,294 40,331,388 551,567,928 Fund balances at end of year13,524,354$ 258,599,521$ 10,162,008$ 73,294,737$ 82,210,219$ 33,227,032$ 25,226,581$ 53,894,069$ 39,226,123$ 589,364,644$ See notes to financial statementsSpecial RevenueMajor FundsRiverside County Transportation CommissionStatement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental FundsYear Ended June 30, 2011Capital Projects 21 21 Net change in fund balances - Total governmental funds (page 20)37,796,716$ Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities (page 17) are different because: Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However in the statement of activities, the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. The adjustment combines the net changes of the following amounts: Capital outlay 46,184,561 Depreciation expense (3,476,041) Net adjustments 42,708,520 Revenues in the statement of activities that do not provide current financial resources (169,851) are not reported as revenues in the funds. The issuance of long-term debt (e.g., bonds) provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the principal of long-term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net assets. Also, governmental funds report the effect of issuance costs, premiums, discounts, and similar items when debt is first issued, whereas these amounts are deferred and amortized in the statement of activities. The adjustment combines the net changes of the following amounts: Principal payments for commercial paper notes 103,284,000 Principal payments for sales tax revenue bonds 6,300,000 Issuance of commercial paper notes (20,000,000) Issuance of sales tax revenue bonds (150,000,000) Discount on sales tax revenue bonds 967,467 Issuance costs on sales tax revenue bonds 1,493,196 Amortization of bond discount (72,842) Amortization of debt issuance costs (133,328) Capital lease payments 23,230 Change in accrued interest (503,318) Net adjustments (58,641,595) Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of current financial resources and therefore are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. The adjustment combines the net changes of the following amounts: Compensated absences 58,963 Change in net assets of governmental activities (page 17)21,752,753$ See notes to financial statements Riverside County Transportation Commission Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 22 Note 1. Summary of Signiﬁcant Accounting Policies Reporting entity: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) was formed in 1976 under Division 12 (commencing with Section 130000) of the California Public utilities Code. The Commission is a special district governed by a 33 member board of commissioners (Board) consisting of one representative from each city in the county, all five county supervisors, and a nonvoting state representative. In July 2011, the Board increased to 34 members as a result of the addition of a representative from a newly incorporated city. The Commission provides short-range transportation planning and programming for Riverside County (County), which includes the administration of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance (STA) programs created under the Transportation Development Act (TDA) by the State of California (State). The LTF is administered by the Commission on behalf of the County. The purpose of this program is to allocate funds for public transportation needs, local streets and roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and multimodal transportation terminals. The STA program allocates funds for public transportation purposes to those geographic areas with special public transportation needs, which cannot be met otherwise. On November 8, 1988, the Commission was empowered by the voters of the County, under Ordinance No. 88-1 (1989 Measure A), to collect a one-half of one percent sales tax for the purpose of improving the transportation system of the County. Measure A was enacted, in part, pursuant to the provisions of Division 25 (commencing with Section 240000) of the California Public utilities Code and Section 7252.22 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. On November 12, 2002 Riverside County’s voters approved a 30-year renewal of Measure A under Ordinance No. 02-001 (2009 Measure A). The voter action ensures the replacement of the 1989 Measure A program when it expired in 2009 with a new 30 year program that will continue funding transportation improvements until June 2039. In connection with the 2009 Measure A program, the County and cities in the Western County area implemented a Transportation uniform Mitigation Fee (TuMF) program to fund a regional arterial system to handle the traffic demands in the Western Riverside County (Western County) area as a result of future development. under the 2009 Measure A program, the Commission shall receive the first $400 million of TuMF revenues to fund the regional arterial projects and new Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridors included in the 2009 Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan. under the Memorandum of understanding (MOu), the majority of net revenues are allocated in equal amounts to the Commission for regional arterial projects and to Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) for local arterial projects; a small percentage is allocated for public transit. In September 2008, the Commission approved an amendment to the MOu whereby the $400 million cap was lifted and the Commission will continue to receive its share of TuMF revenues indefinitely. Accounting principles generally accepted in the united States require that the reporting entity include the primary government, organizations for which the primary government is financially accountable, and other organizations for which the nature and significance of their relationship with the primary government are such that exclusion would cause the reporting entity’s financial statements to be misleading or incomplete. The basic financial statements include all funds of the Commission including those of the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), a component unit, for which the Commission is considered financially accountable. SAFE was created under Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2550) of Division 3 of the California Streets and Highways Code and Sections 2421.5 and 9250.1 of the Vehicle Code. SAFE receives monies from fees levied on registered vehicles to be used to implement and maintain an emergency motorist aid system, as specified, on portions of the California Freeway and Expressway System in the County. The governing body of SAFE is substantially identical to that of the Commission and is responsible for approval of SAFE’s budget. SAFE is presented as a special revenue fund. Separate financial statements are not issued for SAFE. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 23 Note 1. Summary of Signiﬁcant Accounting Policies, Continued There are many other governmental agencies, including the County of Riverside, providing services within the area served by the Commission. These other governmental agencies have independently elected governing boards and consequently are not under the direction of the Commission. Financial information for these agencies is not included in the accompanying financial statements. Basis of presentation: The Commission’s basic financial statements consist of government-wide financial statements, including a statement of net assets and a statement of activities, and fund financial statements which provide a more detailed level of financial information. Government-wide statements: The statement of net assets and the statement of activities report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the Commission. The effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements. These statements report governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues. The Commission does not have any business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on charges and fees for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the program expenses of a given function are offset by program revenues. Program expenses include direct expenses, which are clearly identifiable with a specific function, and allocated indirect expenses. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function. Taxes and other internally dedicated resources, which are properly not included among program revenues, are reported instead as general revenues. Fund financial statements: The fund financial statements provide information about the Commission’s governmental funds; the Commission has no proprietary or fiduciary funds. The emphasis of fund financial statements is on major governmental funds, each displayed in a separate column. The Commission has categorized the Sales Tax Bonds Capital Projects Fund and Debt Service Fund as major funds for public interest reasons. The Commission believes that these judgmentally determined major funds are particularly important to the financial statement users. All remaining governmental funds are aggregated and reported as nonmajor funds. The Commission reports the following major governmental funds: General Fund: The General Fund is the general operating fund of the Commission and accounts for financial resources not required to be accounted for in another fund. Measure A Western County Special Revenue Fund: This fund accounts for the revenues from sales taxes which are restricted to expenditures for 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A Western County programs. Measure A Coachella Valley Special Revenue Fund: This fund accounts for the revenues from sales taxes which are restricted to expenditures for 2009 Measure A Coachella Valley programs. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Special Revenue Fund: This fund accounts for TuMF revenues, which are restricted to expenditures for Western County regional arterial and CETAP projects. Local Transportation Fund: This special revenue fund accounts for the one-quarter percent of the state sales tax collected within the County under TDA for planning and programming, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit operations including the Commission’s commuter rail operations. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 24 Note 1. Summary of Signiﬁcant Accounting Policies, Continued Commercial Paper Capital Projects Fund: This fund records proceeds from the issuance of commercial paper notes and the use of these proceeds for capital projects included in the 2009 Measure A. Sales Tax Bonds Capital Projects Fund: This fund records proceeds from the issuance of sales tax revenue bonds and the use of these proceeds for capital projects included in the 2009 Measure A. Debt Service Fund: This fund accounts for the resources accumulated and payments made for principal and interest on the sales tax revenue bonds. Measurement focus and basis of accounting: The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned, and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the Commission considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 180 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred; however, principal and interest expenditures on long-term debt as well as compensated absences and claims and judgments are recorded only when payment is due. Those revenues susceptible to accrual include sales taxes collected and held by the State at year-end on behalf of the Commission, TuMF, intergovernmental revenues when all applicable eligibility requirements have been met, interest revenue, and vehicle registration user fees. Cash and investments: The Commission maintains cash and investments in accordance with an investment policy adopted initially by the Board on September 13, 1995, and most recently amended May 11, 2011. The investment policy complies with, or is more restrictive than, applicable state statutes. Investments of bond and commercial paper proceeds as permitted by the applicable bond documents are maintained by u.S. Bank as custodial bank, and the earnings for each bond and commercial paper issue are accounted for separately. Cash from other Commission revenue sources is commingled for investment purposes, with investment earnings allocated to the different accounts based on average monthly dollar account balances. The Commission’s investment policy authorizes investments in u.S. Treasury notes and bonds, federal agency notes, repurchase agreements, corporate bonds, commercial paper, banker’s acceptances, money market mutual funds, the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund (RCPIF), the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), and certificates of deposit. Other investments permitted by the California Government Code (Code) are permitted but only with prior Board authorization, except for securities that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity that are ineligible. LAIF is regulated by Code Section 16429 and is under the management of the State Treasurer with oversight provided by the Local Agency Investment Advisory Board. Oversight of the RCPIF is conducted by the County Treasury Oversight Committee. All investments, except for those related to bond reserve funds, are subject to a maximum maturity of five years unless specific direction to exceed the limit is given by the Board. Local Transportation Fund moneys are legally required to be deposited in the RCPIF. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 25 Note 1. Summary of Signiﬁcant Accounting Policies, Continued The RCPIF and the LAIF are carried at fair value based on the value of each participating dollar as provided by the RCPIF and LAIF, respectively. The fair value of the Commission’s position in the RCPIF and LAIF is the same as the value of the pool shares. Investments in u.S. government and agency securities are carried at fair value based on quoted market prices. Money market mutual funds are carried at fair value based on each fund’s share price. Bank balances are secured by the pledging of a pool of eligible securities to collateralize the Commission’s deposits with the bank in accordance with the Code. Accounts receivable: Accounts receivable consist primarily of Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues from the State Board of Equalization on all taxable sales within the County of Riverside, California through June 30, 2011. Interfund transactions: During the course of operations, numerous transactions occur between individual funds involving goods provided or services rendered. There are also transfers of revenues from funds authorized to receive the revenue to funds authorized to expend it. Outstanding interfund balances are reported as due from/to other funds; internal financing balances are reported as advances to/from other funds. Prepaid items: Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items using the consumption method in both the government-wide and fund financial statements. Restricted investments held by trustee: Restricted investments held by trustee represent unexpended bond proceeds, interest earnings thereon, and capitalized interest and reserve amounts of sales tax revenue bonds. under the related bond resolutions and indentures, any remaining bond proceeds are restricted for the use of future construction improvements to the respective projects, for debt service, or for reserve requirements in accordance with applicable debt covenants. Capital assets: Capital assets consisting of land and land improvements; construction in progress; rail easements; rail stations; and office furniture, equipment, and vehicles are reported in governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the Commission as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 and an estimated useful life in excess of three years and are primarily included within the function of current expenditures in the fund financial statements. Such assets are recorded at historical costs or estimated historical costs if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair value at the date of donation. Highway construction and certain purchases of right of way property, for which title vests with the California Department of Transportation, are included in highway program expenditures. Infrastructure consisting primarily of highway construction and right of way acquisition is not recorded as a capital asset, because the Commission does not have title to such assets or rights of way. However, costs related to the development of toll lanes are recorded as intangible assets within construction in progress. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend the life of the asset are not capitalized. Rail stations, furniture and equipment, and vehicles of the primary government are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: Asset Type useful Life Rail stations 10 to 30 years Office furniture and equipment 3 to 5 years Vehicles 5 years Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 26 Note 1. Summary of Signiﬁcant Accounting Policies, Continued Compensated absences: Vacation leave in governmental funds that is due and payable at year-end is reported as an expenditure and a liability of the General fund. Earned vacation leave that is not currently due is reported as a long-term liability in the government-wide financial statements. Sick leave is recorded as an expenditure in the General fund when taken by the employee. Employees with continuous five years of service have the option of being paid for sick leave accumulated in excess of 240 hours at a rate of 50% (i.e., one hour’s pay for every two hours in excess of 240). Any sick leave in excess of 240 hours is accrued at fiscal year end, and a liability is reported in the government-wide financial statements. Sick leave that is due and payable at year-end is reported as an expenditure and a fund liability of the General fund. Risk management: The Commission is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, or destruction of assets; and errors or omissions. The Commission protects itself against such losses by a balanced program of risk retention, risk transfers, and the purchase of commercial insurance. Loss exposures retained by the Commission are treated as normal expenditures and include any loss contingency not covered by the Commission’s purchased insurance policies. Construction projects and rail properties are protected through a combination of commercial insurance, insurance required of Commission consultants, and a self-insurance fund established by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). Settled claims have not exceeded insurance coverage in any of the past three fiscal years. Fund equity: The Commission early implemented the provisions of GASB Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, for the year ended June 30, 2010. In the fund financial statements, the governmental funds may report nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balances to show the level of constraint governing the use of the funds. Nonspendable fund balances cannot be spent, because they are in nonspendable form such as prepaid expenditures or are required to be maintained intact. Restricted fund balances are restricted for specific purposes by third parties or enabling legislation. Committed fund balances include amounts that can be used only for specific purposes determined by formal action of the Board. These committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the Commission removes or changes the specified use through the same type of formal action taken to establish the commitment. Assigned fund balances comprise amounts intended to be used by the Commission for specific purposes but are not restricted or committed. The Board delegates the authority to assign amounts to be used for specific purposes to the Chief Financial Officer. Unassigned fund balances are residual positive net resources of the General Fund in excess of what can properly be classified in one of the other four categories. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for an incurred expenditure, it is the Commission’s policy to spend restricted resources first and then unrestricted resources, as necessary. When unrestricted resources are available for an incurred expenditure, it is the Commission’s policy to use committed amounts first, followed by assigned amounts, and then unassigned amounts. The Commission established a policy on reporting and classifying fund balance in the General fund in June 2011 that complies with GASB Statement No. 54. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 27 Note 1. Summary of Signiﬁcant Accounting Policies, Continued Net assets: In the government-wide financial statements, net assets represent the difference between assets and liabilities and are classified into three categories: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, reduced by the outstanding balances of any borrowings used for the acquisition, construction, or improvement of those assets and excludes unspent debt proceeds. Restricted net assets represent the net assets that are not accessible for general use because their use is subject to restrictions enforceable by third parties and enabling legislation. Unrestricted net assets (deﬁcit) represent those net assets that are available (unavailable) for general use. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the Commission’s policy to use restricted resources first and then unrestricted resources, as they are needed. Administration expenditures: The Commission’s staff and resources are used in the performance of its responsibilities relating to the activities of the Commission and its component unit. Accordingly, the Commission allocates salaries and benefits to each applicable fund on the basis of actual hours spent by activity, and other indirect overhead is allocated based on management’s budgetary estimates. Administrative salaries and benefits of $1,102,517 allocated to Measure A in 2011 were less than 1% of revenues and in compliance with the law. Note 2. Cash and Investments Cash and investments at June 30, 2011 consist of the following: Unrestricted Restricted Investments Cash Investments Total Total Cash in bank $ 891,727 $ – $ 891,727 $ – $ 891,727 Petty cash 1,016 – 1,016 – 1,016 RCPIF – 477,926,404 477,926,404 14,363,120 492,289,524 LAIF – 3,597,556 3,597,556 – 3,597,556 Investments with fiscal agents – – – 40,146,612 40,146,612 Total cash and investments $ 892,743 $ 481,523,960 $ 482,416,703 $ 54,509,732 $ 536,926,435 As of June 30, 2011, the Commission had the following investments: Investment Maturities Fair Value First American Government Obligations mutual fund 51 days average $ 2,646,683 LAIF 237 days average 3,597,556 RCPIF 478 days average 492,289,524 US Bank Money Market mutual fund 51 days average 37,499,929 Total investments $ 536,033,692 Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 28 Note 2. Cash and Investments, Continued Custodial credit risk: Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of the failure of a depository financial institution, a government will not be able to recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty (e.g., broker-dealer) to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of its investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of another party. The Commission’s investment policy requires that a third party bank trust department hold all securities owned by the Commission. All trades are settled on a delivery versus payment basis through the Commission’s safekeeping agent. The Commission has deposits with a bank balance of $3,987,591 with a financial institution; bank balances over $5,000,000 are swept daily into a money market account. Of the bank balance, up to $250,000 is federally insured under the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation with balances in excess of $250,000 collateralized in accordance with the Code; however, the collateralized securities are not held in the name of the Commission. Interest rate risk: While the Commission does not have a formal policy related to the interest rate risk of investments, the Commission’s investment policy follows the Code as it relates to limits on investment maturities as a means of managing exposure to fair value losses arising from increasing interest rates. Credit risk: As of June 30, 2011, the Commission’s investment in the RCPIF was rated Aaa/MR1 by Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s) and AAA/V1+ by Fitch Ratings (Fitch). The investments in the uS Bank Money Market mutual fund and First American Government Obligations mutual fund were both rated AAA by both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s Rating Service (S&P). LAIF is not rated. The Commission’s investment policy only requires credit quality ratings for repurchase agreements, u.S. corporate debt, commercial paper, bankers acceptances and certificates of deposit. Concentration of credit risk: The Commission’s investment policy places a limit of 10% on the amount of investment holdings with any one non-governmental issuer. More than 5 percent of the Commission’s investments are in the RCPIF. This investment is 91.8% of the Commission’s investments. The investments in the Sales Tax Bonds Capital Projects fund are unexpended bond proceeds invested in the uS Bank Money Market fund. The investments in the Debt Service fund are reserve funds invested in the RCPIF, First American Government Obligations fund, and uS Bank Money Market fund for interest and principal as required by the bond agreements. Note 3. Advances The Commission has approved interest-bearing advance loans, which are to be funded by debt proceeds, to the cities of Blythe, Canyon Lake, and Indio and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) in the amounts of $1,500,000, $600,000, $4,000,000, and $43,300,000, respectively. The cities have pledged their share of 2009 Measure A local streets and roads revenues, and CVAG has pledged its share of 2009 Measure A highway and regional road revenue allocations in accordance with repayment terms specified in each agreement for actual advances. Repayment amounts are withheld from revenue allocations on a monthly basis. The final maturities of the cities of Blythe and Indio loans are due on or before September 1, 2019; the final maturity of the city of Canyon Lake loan is due within ten years following the initial advance; and the final maturities of the CVAG loans are due on or before September 1, 2029. No amounts were advanced to the city of Canyon Lake as of June 30, 2011. The outstanding advances, including capitalized interest of $2,173,335, as of June 30, 2011 were as follows: City of Blythe $ 1,553,411 City of Indio 4,428,415 Coachella Valley Associated Governments 26,359,879 Total loans receivable $ 32,341,705 Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 29 Note 3. Advances, Continued Additionally, the General Fund has incurred $875,253 related to administration on behalf of the Transportation uniform Mitigation Fee Special Revenue Fund and will be reimbursed in the next fiscal year. The Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Special Revenue Fund advanced $150,000 to the Freeway Service Patrol Special Revenue Fund on a short- term basis for cash flow purposes. This advance was repaid in August 2011 upon the receipt of amounts due from the State. Note 4. Capital Assets Capital assets activity for the year ended June 30, 2011 was as follows: Balance July 1, 2010 Additions/ Transfers Retirements/ Transfers Balance June 30, 2011 Governmental activities Capital assets not being depreciated: Land and land improvements $143,088,211 $ 11,837,905 $ – $154,926,116 Construction in progress 69,889,170 33,620,643 – 103,509,813 Development in progress 275,304 – (275,304) – Rail operating easements 39,484,143 – – 39,484,143 Total capital assets not being depreciated 252,736,828 45,458,548 (275,304) 297,920,072 Capital assets being depreciated: Rail stations 97,829,374 748,010 (35,497) 98,541,887 Office improvements 72,782 – – 72,782 Office furniture, equipment and vehicles 1,203,374 288,804 – 1,492,178 Total capital assets being depreciated 99,105,530 1,036,814 (35,497) 100,106,847 Less accumulated depreciation for: Rail stations (26,380,409) (3,338,947) – (29,719,356) Office improvements (38,977) (10,307) – (49,284) Office furniture, equipment and vehicles (798,533) (126,787) – (925,320) Total accumulated depreciation (27,217,919) (3,476,041) – (30,693,960) Total capital assets being depreciated, net 71,887,611 (2,439,227) (35,497) 69,412,887 Governmental activities capital assets, net $324,624,439 $ 43,019,321 $ (310,801) $367,332,959 Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the Commission’s governmental activities during the year ended June 30, 2011 as follows: General government $ 86,580 Commuter rail 3,343,834 Commuter assistance 36,752 Planning and programming 8,875 Total depreciation expense $ 3,476,041 Note 5. Interfund Transactions Due from/to other funds: The composition of balances related to due from other funds and due to other funds at June 30, 2011 is as follows: Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 30 Note 5. Interfund Transactions, Continued Receivable Fund Payable Fund Amount Explanation General fund Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund $ 112,690 Fringe benefits General fund Measure A Coachella Valley Special Revenue fund 70 Fringe benefits General fund Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Special Revenue fund 9,421 Fringe benefits General fund Nonmajor Governmental funds 4,999 Fringe benefits General fund Local Transportation Fund Special Revenue fund 2,414,302 Allocation for grade separation costs General fund Nonmajor Governmental funds 3,325,000 Allocation for commuter rail capital costs General fund Nonmajor Governmental funds 324,571 Administrative cost allocation General fund Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Special Revenue fund 421,691 Administrative cost allocation Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund Sales Tax Bonds Capital Projects fund 7,730,277 Highway project costs Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund Nonmajor Governmental funds 1,464,853 Allocation for commuter rail capital costs Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Special Revenue fund Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund 256,508 Highway project costs Commercial Paper Capital Projects fund Measure A Coachella Valley Special Revenue fund 641,095 Advance loan payment adjustments Commercial Paper Capital Projects fund Nonmajor Governmental funds 39,369 Advance loan payment adjustment Total due from/to other funds $ 16,744,846 Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 31 Note 5. Interfund Transactions, Continued Interfund transfers: During 2011, interfund transfers were as follows: Transfers Out Transfers In Amount Explanation Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Special Revenue fund $ 8,699,301 Highway project costs Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund Debt Service fund 18,190,133 Debt service related to highways for Western County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Special Revenue fund General fund 421,691 Administrative cost allocation Local Transportation Fund General fund 16,414,537 Allocation for administration, planning and programming, commuter rail operating and station maintenance, and grade separation costs Local Transportation Fund Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund 20,000 Allocation for commuter rail capital costs Commercial Paper Capital Projects fund Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund 17,707,540 Highway and economic development project costs Commercial Paper Capital Projects fund Debt Service fund 2,537,048 Debt service related to loan agreements for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley jurisdictions Sales Tax Bonds Capital Projects fund Measure A Western County Special Revenue fund 14,278,948 Highway and economic development project costs Sales Tax Bonds Capital Projects fund Commercial Paper Capital Projects fund 103,284,000 Transfer of bond proceeds for retirement of commercial paper notes Sales Tax Bonds Capital Projects fund General fund 52,238 Funding of debt issuance costs Nonmajor Governmental funds General fund 840,004 Allocation for commuter rail costs Nonmajor Governmental funds General fund 324,571 Administrative cost allocation Nonmajor Governmental funds Nonmajor Governmental funds 906,600 Call box program augmentation of freeway service patrol operations Debt Service fund Measure A Coachella Valley Special Revenue fund 1,678,228 Transfer of remaining debt service reserve for project costs Total transfers $185,354,839 Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 32 Note 6. Long-term Obligations and Subsequent Events The following is a summary of the changes in long-term obligations for the year ended June 30, 2011: Balance July 1, 2010 Additions Reductions Balance June 30, 2011 Due Within One Year Bonds payable: 2009 Bonds $ 181,000,000 $ – $ (6,300,000) $ 174,700,000 $ 6,500,000 2010 Bonds – 150,000,000 – 150,000,000 – Total bonds payable 181,000,000 150,000,000 (6,300,000) 324,700,000 6,500,000 Less: Issuance discounts (268,301) (967,467) 72,842 (1,162,926) (101,037) Total bonds payable, net 180,731,699 149,032,533 (6,263,094) 323,537,074 6,398,963 Commercial paper notes 83,284,000 20,000,000 (103,284,000) – – Capital lease 78,104 – (23,230) 54,874 24,654 Compensated absences 511,562 685,817 (744,780) 452,599 317,678 Total long-term obligations $ 264,605,365 $149,718,350 $ (90,315,104) $ 324,044,547 $ 6,741,295 The Commission has pledged a portion of future sales tax revenues to repay $174,700,000 and $150,000,000 in sales tax revenue bonds payable issued in October 2009 and November 2010 and outstanding at June 30, 2011. The bonds and commercial paper notes are payable solely from the 2009 Measure A sales tax revenues. Annual principal and interest payments on the bonds and notes are expected to require less than 18% of 2009 Measure A revenues. For the current year, interest paid on the bonds and commercial paper notes was $4,791,737 and $151,133, respectively. Toll revenue bonds payable: In July 2010, the Commission authorized the issuance and sale of not to exceed $900 million of toll revenue bonds related to the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project. No toll revenue bonds were issued as of June 30, 2011. Sales tax revenue bonds payable: under the provisions of the 2009 Measure A, as amended by Measure K approved by the voters in November 2010, the Commission has the authority to issue bonds subject to a bond debt limitation of $975,000,000. The following is a summary of bonds issued and secured by 2009 Measure A revenues that are outstanding at June 30, 2011: 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A, B, and C: In October 2009, the Commission issued sales tax revenue bonds consisting of the $85,000,000 Series A, $65,000,000 Series B, and $35,000,000 Series C, for a total issuance of $185,000,000 (2009 Bonds). A portion of the 2009 Bonds was used to current refund all, or $126,395,000, of the 2008 Bonds and retire $53,716,000 of the outstanding commercial paper notes with the remaining proceeds used to fund a portion of the debt service reserve and pay costs of issuance for the 2009 Bonds. The 2009 Bonds mature in annual installments ranging from $4,000,000 to $13,700,000 on various dates through June 1, 2029 with variable interest rates set in connection with remarketing efforts on a weekly basis. The 2009 Bonds are integrated with the interest rate swaps that became effective in October 2009, thereby creating synthetic fixed rate debt. The 2009 Bonds are subject to purchase on the demand of the holder at a price equal to principal plus accrued interest on seven days’ notice and delivery to the Commission’s applicable remarketing agent. Barclays Capital Inc., E.J. De La Rosa & Co., Inc., and Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC are the remarketing agents for the 2009 Bonds Series A, B, and C, Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 33 Note 6. Long-term Obligations and Subsequent Events, Continued respectively. The remarketing agent is required to use its best efforts to sell the repurchased bonds at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount by adjusting the interest rate. The 2009 Bonds are secured by Standby Bond Purchase Agreements (SBPAs) with JPMorgan Chase Bank (JPMorgan) which expire in September 2011; however, in July 2011, the SBPAs with JPMorgan were amended and renewed for an additional three-year period through September 2014. under the SBPAs, if the 2009 Bonds are not successfully remarketed or repaid according to their terms or if the existing SBPAs are not renewed and the Commission does not replace the SBPAs or otherwise refinance the 2009 Bonds, JPMorgan is required to purchase the 2009 Bonds. Any of the 2009 Bonds purchased by JPMorgan constitute bank bonds that bear interest at the bank rate, which may not exceed the maximum rate of 18%. If the Commission does not reimburse JPMorgan within 180 days following JPMorgan’s purchase of any 2009 Bonds or the expiration of the SBPAs, the Commission would be required to redeem the bank bonds over a period of five years. The Commission is required to pay to JPMorgan an annual commitment fee for the SBPAs of 0.79% of the outstanding principal amount of the 2009 Bonds plus 34 days of interest at an interest rate of 12%. Additionally the Commission is required to pay the remarketing agents an annual fee of 0.10% of the outstanding principal amount of the bonds. The required reserve amount is $14,213,201; however, upon the effective date of the amended SBPAs in September 2011, the required reserve was released in its entirety.$174,700,000 In accordance with the bond maturity schedule and assuming the bonds are remarketed, annual debt service requirements to maturity for the 2009 Bonds payable, based on the rates of the interest rate swaps and the costs of liquidity and the renewal or replacement of the SBPAs, throughout the term of the bonds are as follows: Year Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2012 $ 6,500,000 $ 7,694,555 $ 14,194,555 2013 6,800,000 7,194,368 13,994,368 2014 7,100,000 6,905,762 14,005,762 2015 7,400,000 6,604,707 14,004,707 2016 7,800,000 6,304,887 14,104,887 2017-2021 44,400,000 26,205,406 70,605,406 2022-2026 55,300,000 15,897,408 71,197,408 2027-2029 39,400,000 3,569,528 42,969,528 $ 174,700,000 $ 80,376,621 $ 255,076,621 If the SBPAs with JPMorgan are not renewed or replaced upon expiration in September 2014 and the Commission does not otherwise refinance the 2009 Bonds, the annual debt service requirements for the succeeding fiscal years based on an assumed interest of 8.50% are as follows: Year Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2015 $ 15,430,000 $ 8,476,566 $ 23,906,566 2016 30,860,000 10,747,524 41,607,524 2017 30,860,000 8,095,677 38,955,677 2018 30,860,000 5,472,577 36,332,577 2019 30,860,000 2,849,477 33,709,477 2020 15,430,000 441,974 15,871,974 $ 154,300,000 $ 36,083,795 $ 190,383,795 Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 34 Note 6. Long-term Obligations and Subsequent Events, Continued The Commission believes it is highly unlikely that the SBPAs will not be renewed or replaced and that the 2009 Bonds, in that event, would not be refinanced. 2010 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A (Tax-exempt) and Series B (Taxable Build America Bonds): In November 2010, the Commission issued sales tax revenue bonds consisting of the $37,630,000 Series A and $112,370,000 Series B, for a total issuance of $150,000,000 (2010 Bonds). A portion of the Series B Build America Bonds (BABs) was designated as recovery zone economic development bonds (RZEDBs). A portion of the 2010 Bonds was used to retire $103,284,000 of the outstanding commercial paper notes with the remaining proceeds used to fund 2009 Measure A Western County and Coachella Valley capital projects and pay costs of issuance for the 2010 Bonds. The 2010 Bonds Series A mature in annual installments ranging from $12,105,000 to $12,815,000 on various dates from June 1, 2030 through June 1, 2032 at an interest rate of 5.00%, and the 2010 Bonds Series B mature in annual installments ranging from $530,000 to $17,980,000 on various dates from June 1, 2032 to June 1, 2039 at an interest rate of 6.807%. The Commission expects to receive a cash subsidy from the united States Treasury equal to 35% of the interest payable on the BABs or 45% of the interest payable on the Series B bonds additionally designated as RZEDBs. $150,000,000 In accordance with the bond maturity schedule, annual debt service requirements to maturity for the 2010 Bonds payable throughout the term of the bonds are as follows: Year Ending June 30 Principal Interest Subsidy Total, net 2012 $ – $ 9,530,500 $ (2,982,100) $ 6,548,400 2013 – 9,530,500 (2,982,100) 6,548,400 2014 – 9,530,500 (2,982,100) 6,548,400 2015 – 9,530,500 (2,982,100) 6,548,400 2016 – 9,530,500 (2,982,100) 6,548,400 2017-2021 – 47,652,600 (14,910,600) 32,742,000 2022-2026 – 47,652,600 (14,910,600) 32,742,000 2027-2031 24,815,000 47,047,400 (14,910,600) 56,951,800 2032-2036 73,215,000 32,849,100 (12,797,700) 93,266,400 2037-2039 51,970,000 7,165,000 (3,175,500) 55,959,500 $ 150,000,000 $ 230,019,200 $ (75,615,500) $ 304,403,700 Commercial paper notes payable: In February 2005, the Commission authorized the issuance of tax-exempt commercial paper notes in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000 for the primary purpose of financing right of way and mitigation land acquisition and project development costs of capital projects under the 2009 Measure A. From inception through 2008, the Commission issued commercial paper notes aggregating $110,005,000, which were refinanced in June 2008 by the 2008 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. During 2009 the Commission issued $110,000,000 in commercial paper notes, of which $53,716,000 were retired by the 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. During 2010 and in September 2010, the Commission issued commercial paper notes of $27,000,000 and $20,000,000, respectively. In December 2010 the Commission retired $103,284,000 representing all of the outstanding commercial paper notes with the proceeds of the 2010 Bonds. At June 30, 2011, there were no outstanding commercial paper notes. The source of revenue to repay the commercial paper notes and any subsequent long-term debt refinancing is the 2009 Measure A sales tax. Interest is payable on the respective maturity dates of the commercial paper notes, which is up to 270 days from the date of issuance. The maximum allowable interest rate on the commercial paper notes is 12%. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 35 Note 6. Long-term Obligations and Subsequent Events, Continued As a requirement for the issuance of the commercial paper notes, the Commission entered into a $190,000,000 irrevocable direct draw letter of credit and reimbursement agreement with Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America) as credit and liquidity support for the commercial paper notes. In February 2010, the agreement was amended for $121,500,000 and extended through March 2012. Funds are drawn under the letter of credit to pay debt service on the commercial paper notes, and the Commission is required to reimburse Bank of America for such drawings. Amounts drawn on the letter of credit and not reimbursed within 30 days are not due until five years after the date of such draw. Accordingly, the commercial paper notes are classified as long-term liabilities in the Commission’s government-wide financial statements. There were no unreimbursed draws by the Commission on this letter of credit authorization during the year ended June 30, 2011, nor were there any amounts outstanding under this letter of credit agreement at June 30, 2011. The Commission’s commercial paper program functions similar to bond anticipation notes for reporting purposes, as the commercial paper notes are issued and retired with long-term debt issuances. Commercial paper notes are classified as long-term debt as long as the Commission’s letter of credit facility extends at least one year past its fiscal year end; otherwise, the commercial paper notes are classified as a fund liability. Capital lease obligation: The Commission has entered into a lease agreement for financing the acquisition of office equipment. This lease agreement qualifies as a capital lease for accounting purposes and, therefore, has been recorded at the present value of its future minimum lease payments. The office equipment value of $117,127 is recorded as a capital asset in the governmental activities. Total future minimum lease obligations and the net present value of these minimum lease payments as of June 30, 2011 are as follows: Y ear Ending June 30 Total 2012 $ 25,241 2013 25,241 2014 6,321 Total minimum lease payments 56,803 Less am ount representing interest (1,929) Present value of minimum lease payments $ 54,874 Interest rate swaps: As a means to achieve a greater level of interest rate stability, specifically rising interest rates that would negatively impact cash flows, the Commission entered into two forward-starting interest rate swaps in August 2006 for a total notional amount of $185,000,000 whereby it swapped obligations to pay fixed rates for those that pay a floating rate. The swaps are part of a synthetic fixed rate financing with the Commission’s 2009 Bonds. The floating rate receipts under the swaps correspond to the floating rate payments on the 2009 Bonds. The fixed rate payment remains for the Commission as its primary interest obligation. The counterparty for the first swap ($100,000,000 notional amount) is Bank of America, and the counterparty for the second swap ($85,000,000 notional amount) is Deutsche Bank AG (Deutsche Bank). under the swap agreements which became effective on October 1, 2009, the Commission will pay Bank of America and Deutsche Bank (Counterparties) a fixed rate of 3.679% and 3.206%, respectively, for twenty years, the term of the 2009 Bonds; the Counterparties will pay the Commission a floating rate equal to 67% of the one-month London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR). The Commission has implemented GASB Statement No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments. This standard prescribes the accounting and financial reporting required for derivative instruments that hedge identified financial risks. If the derivative instrument is determined to be effective in reducing the identified exposure, hedge accounting provides that changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument—in this instance, the interest rate swap—be reported as Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 36 Note 6. Long-term Obligations and Subsequent Events, Continued either deferred inflows or deferred outflows in a government’s statement of net assets. To evaluate the effectiveness of the swaps, the Synthetic Instrument Method prescribed by the standard was employed. The resulting analysis indicates the swaps are effective as hedging instruments. The fair value or marked-to-market value of the Bank of America and Deutsche Bank swaps as of June 30, 2011 are ($12,302,700) and ($6,718,534), respectively. This is the amount the Commission would owe as of this date should the swap be terminated. The terms and fair values of the outstanding swaps as of June 30, 2011 are as follows: Associated Debt Issue Counterparty Notional Amount Effective Date Fixed Rate to be Paid Variable Rate to be Received Fair Value Swap Termination Date 2009 Bonds Bank of America $ 94,400,000 10/01/2009 3.679% 67% of LIBOR $ (12,302,700) 06/01/2029 2009 Bonds Deutsche Bank 80,300,000 10/01/2009 3.206% 67% of LIBOR (6,718,534) 06/01/2029 $ 174,700,000 $ (19,021,234) The interest rate swaps are, among other things, subject to credit, interest rate, basis, and termination risk. Credit risk: The following table compares the counterparty credit ratings at June 30, 2011 against their threshold rating for termination: Bank of America Moody’s S&P Senior Debt Aa3 A+ Threshold Amount $20,000,000 $20,000,000 Deutsche Bank Moody’s S&P Senior Debt Aa3 A+ Threshold Amount $20,000,000 $20,000,000 under the agreements, a swap termination event may occur if the Counterparties’ credit ratings fall to the threshold level and, after 30 days’ notice, collateral in the form of u.S. treasury and certain federal agency securities as required by the agreements is not delivered in favor of the Commission. Interest rate risk: The Commission is exposed to interest rate risk on its pay fixed, receive variable interest rate swaps. As LIBOR decreases, the District’s net payments on the swaps increase. It is expected that this is offset partly by a decrease in payments on the 2009 Bonds. Basis risk: The Commission is exposed to basis risk on the swaps because the variable rate payments received by the Commission are based on an index other than interest rates the Commission pays on hedged variable rate debt. For the year ended June 30, 2011, the Commission’s 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series A, which are hedged by the Deutsche Bank swap, and 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series B and C, which are hedged by the Bank of America swap, had weighted average variable rates of 0.22% and 0.24%, respectively. Over the same period, the weighted average of 67% of one-month LIBOR was 0.17%, an approximate 5 and 7 basis point loss for the Commission related to the Deutsche Bank and Bank of America swaps, respectively. Termination risk: The swaps may be terminated by the Commission or its Counterparties if the other party fails to perform under the terms of the contract or at the Commission’s option to terminate the transaction. If, at the time of termination, the swap is in a liability position, the Commission would be obligated to pay the counterparty the liability position. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 37 Note 6. Long-term Obligations and Subsequent Events, Continued Arbitrage rebate: The Tax Reform Act of 1986 instituted certain arbitrage restrictions with respect to the issuance of tax- exempt bonds and commercial paper notes after August 31, 1986. In general, arbitrage regulations deal with the investment of all tax-exempt bond and commercial paper note proceeds at an interest yield greater than the interest yield paid to bondholders or noteholders. Failure to follow the arbitrage regulations could result in all interest paid to bondholders or noteholders retroactively rendered taxable. In accordance with the arbitrage regulations, if excess earnings were calculated, 90% of the amount calculated would be due to the Internal Revenue Service at the end of each five-year period. The remaining 10% would be recorded as a liability and paid after all bonds had been redeemed. During the current year, the Commission performed calculations of excess investment earnings on all bond and commercial paper financings. There was no arbitrage liability at June 30, 2011. Note 7. Net Assets and Fund Balances Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt, as reported on the government-wide statement of net assets represents capital assets of $367,332,959, net of related debt of $25,420,865. The related debt includes the portion of the sales tax revenues bonds that were used for the development of the toll lane capital assets. Additionally, the government-wide statement of net assets reports $587,098,179 of restricted assets, of which $586,500,806 is restricted by enabling legislation. Fund balances Measure A: Measure A sales tax revenues are allocated to the three defined geographic areas of Riverside County, consisting of Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley in proportion to the funds generated within those areas. Revenues must then be allocated to the programs of the geographic areas according to percentages as defined by Measure A and are legally restricted for applicable program expenditures. Bond and commercial paper note proceeds are allocated to the geographic areas based on the estimated uses. Accordingly, the related fund balances are classified as follows: Loans and advances receivable: Amounts advanced to certain cities and CVAG under 2009 Measure A funding agreements are reflected as restricted as use of the proceeds from the collection of these receivables is restricted. Highways: Funds are to be used for project costs including engineering, right of way acquisitions, and construction of the Western County highways and Coachella Valley highways and regional arterials. Funds for new corridors are to be used for environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, and construction of four new Western County transportation corridors identified through CETAP. In order to attract commercial and industrial development and jobs in the Western County, funds are expended to create an infrastructure improvement bank to improve and construct interchanges, provide public transit linkages or stations, and make other improvements to the transportation system. Funds are also provided to support bond financing costs. These program funds are intended to supplement existing federal, state, and local resources. Coachella Valley highway and regional arterial funds are matched by TuMF revenues generated in the Coachella Valley. Accordingly, funds for highways, Coachella Valley regional arterials, new corridors, economic development, and bond financing are reflected as restricted for these specific purposes as stipulated by the 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A. Commuter rail: Commuter rail projects anticipate the use of existing rail lines, and 1989 Measure A funds are restricted for costs related to planning, capital improvements, right of way purchase, and/or use rights agreements. Funds for rail operations and to match federal funds for capital are restricted as stipulated by the 2009 Measure A Western County public transit program. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 38 Note 7. Net Assets and Fund Balances, Continued Regional arterials: Funds for regional arterials are used to implement the planned Western County regional arterial system, as defined by WRCOG. Local streets and roads: Funds to be expended by local jurisdictions for the construction, repair, and maintenance of local streets and roads are reflected as restricted as stipulated by Measure A. The County and local cities are required to supplement those expenditures with other previously dedicated revenue sources to maintain road improvements. Monies are disbursed to the jurisdictions which comply with the requirements to maintain the same level of funding for streets and roads as existed prior to the passage of Measure A and participate in TuMF(as applicable in the Western County and Coachella Valley areas) and the MSHCP in Western County and which annually submit a five-year capital improvement plan. Commuter assistance and transit: Funds for public transit are used to promote and subsidize commuter assistance programs such as ridesharing and telecommuting and specialized transportation to guarantee reduced transit fares, expand existing transit services, and implement new transit services for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds are restricted as stipulated by the 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A. Funds for intercity bus services in Western County and bus replacement and more frequent service in the Coachella Valley are restricted as stipulated by the 2009 Measure A. Debt service: Certain bond proceeds that have been used to make required sinking fund payments in the Debt Service fund as required by the bond agreements are classified as restricted. Amounts held by the trustee equal to the maximum annual debt service are recorded in the Debt Service fund as restricted. Public Transit Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 39 Note 7. Net Assets and Fund Balances, Continued Transportation Development Act: Restricted fund balance for the Local Transportation Fund represent the unclaimed apportionments related to claims for transit programs by geographic area, allocations available for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and unapportioned and earned but not received revenues. Restricted fund balance for the State Transit Assistance represents the unclaimed apportionments related to claims for transit by geographic area. The TDA restrictions at June 30, 2011 are as follows: Local Transportation Fund State Transit Assistance Total Bicycle and pedestrian facilities $ 3,270,222 $ – $ 3,270,222 Planning and programming, allocated and unclaimed $ 49,371 $ – $ 49,371 Transit and specialized transportation Western County: Bus transit: City of Banning $ – $ 784,346 $ 784,346 City of Beaumont – 1,200,290 1,200,290 City of Corona – 292,792 292,792 City of Riverside – 405,000 405,000 Riverside Transit Agency – 8,761,376 8,761,376 Apportioned and unallocated 43,284,856 12,839,275 56,124,131 Commuter rail: Commission 2,480,768 837,487 3,318,255 Apportioned and unallocated 17,823,807 2,665,894 20,489,701 Total Western County 63,589,431 27,786,460 91,375,891 Coachella Valley: SunLine Transit Agency 836,298 1,050,375 1,886,673 Apportioned and unallocated 3,381,041 2,974,873 6,355,914 Total Coachella Valley 4,217,339 4,025,248 8,242,587 Palo Verde Valley: Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 517,989 194,644 712,633 Apportioned and unallocated for transit and local streets and roads 265,267 172,277 437,544 Total Palo Verde Valley 783,256 366,921 1,150,177 Unapportioned funds 10,300,600 – 10,300,600 Total transit and specialized transportation $ 78,890,626 $ 32,178,629 $ 111,069,255 Commuter rail: Restricted fund balance in the General fund represents TDA monies to be used for commuter rail operations. Planning and programming: Restricted fund balance in the General fund represents TDA monies to be used for planning and programming services. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee: TuMF revenues to be received by the Commission are to be used for new CETAP corridors and the regional arterial system in Western County and are restricted as follows: CETAP: Funds for the development of new transportation corridors are used to provide congestion relief and mobility within the County and between the County and its neighboring Orange and San Bernardino counties. Funds will be matched by revenues of $370 million generated from the 2009 Measure A. Regional arterials: Funds for regional arterials are used to implement the planned Western County regional arterial system. Funds will be matched by revenues of $300 million generated from the 2009 Measure A. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 40 Note 7. Net Assets and Fund Balances, Continued Prepaid amounts: Prepaid amounts are reported as nonspendable fund balance as they are in nonspendable form. Advances receivable: The restricted amount in the nonmajor governmental funds of $150,000 represents an advance to a fund which is to repaid in the subsequent year. Motorist assistance: Funds in the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies and Freeway Service Patrol Special Revenue funds, which are reported as nonmajor governmental funds, of $6,299,565 and $597,373, respectively, to assist motorists on County roads are restricted as stipulated by the State. Right of way management: Highway and rail lease monies to be used for the management of Commission properties have been assigned by the Commission. General government: Funds allocated by Measure A, TuMF, LTF, and motorist assistance programs to the General Fund have been assigned by the Commission for general government administration. Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies Operating lease: The Commission has entered into an operating lease agreement for office facilities. The term of the lease is for a period of ten years expiring on October 30, 2012 and may be extended for two additional five-year terms. Rental expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 were $363,456. The total minimum rental commitment at June 30, 2011 is due as follows: Year Ending June 30 Amount 2012 $ 347,845 2013 119,428 Total minimum rental commitment $ 467,273 Real property and project agreements: The Commission has entered into other agreements in the ordinary course of business with companies and other governmental agencies for the acquisition of real property as well as the engineering and construction of certain highway and commuter rail projects. Litigation: Certain claims involving disputed construction costs have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Additionally, the Commission is a defendant in lawsuits. Although the outcome of these matters is not presently determinable, management does not expect that the resolution of these matters will have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Commission. Project funding advances: In January 2006, the Commission authorized the TuMF Special Revenue fund to advance $3,114,600 to the State to replace state and federal funding for the State Route (SR) 91/Green River interchange project. During the year ended June 30, 2011, there were no additional advances to the State from the TuMF Special Revenue fund for the SR-91/Green River interchange project. In December 2004, the Commission authorized the TuMF Special Revenue fund to advance $13,046,000 to the State to replace state and federal funding for the SR-60 widening project from Interstate (I) 15 to Valley Way. The final agreement with the State resulted in a reduction of the Commission’s commitment to $8,881,000. During the year ended June 30, 2011, there were no additional advances to the State from the TuMF Special Revenue fund for the SR-60 widening project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 41 Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies, Continued Cumulative advances as of June 30, 2011 for the SR-91/Green River interchange and SR-60 widening projects were $3,114,600 and $8,636,096, respectively. The advances are to be repaid in the form of a commitment of future State funding on TuMF projects; in various actions since 2006, the Commission approved programming the County’s share of State funding to the SR-91/Van Buren interchange, a TuMF project, and the future State funding commitment to the 60/215 East Junction high occupancy vehicle lane connectors project. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) allocated the funds for the SR-91/Van Buren interchange and the 60/215 East Junction projects in October 2009 and May 2010, respectively. Note 9. Joint Agreements Joint venture: The Commission is one of five members of the SCRRA, an independent joint powers authority created in June 1992. The SCRRA’s board consists of one member from the Ventura County Transportation Commission; two each from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the San Bernardino Associated Governments, and the Commission; and four members from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The SCRRA is responsible for implementing and operating a regional commuter rail system (Metrolink) in five southern California counties. As a member of SCRRA, the Commission makes capital and operating contributions for its pro rata share of rail lines servicing the County. The Commission expended $9,498,110 during 2011 for its share of Metrolink capital and operating costs. As of June 30, 2011, cumulative capital contributions were $32,330,908. Other funds for rail service are contributed to the SCRRA by the State from state rail bonds on behalf of the Commission. Separate financial statements are prepared by and available from the SCRRA, which is located at 700 N. Flower Street, 26th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017. Cooperative agreement: In May 2006 the Commission entered into a cooperative agreement, Riverside Orange Corridor Authority, with OCTA and the Transportation Corridor Agencies to jointly exercise the common powers of the parties to manage geotechnical studies regarding the Riverside Orange Corridor. The Commission is the recipient and administering entity of federal and state funds as may be necessary to accomplish this work, and the three agencies will share in meeting the local agency matching requirements. As of June 30, 2011, the Commission was not required to make any contributions. Note 10. Employees’ Pension Plans Public Employees’ Retirement System: The Commission contracts with the State of California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) to provide its employees retirement as well as death and retirement disability benefits, which are paid by the PERS under a cost sharing multiple-employer plan. Copies of the PERS’ annual financial report may be obtained from its executive office located at 400 P Street, Sacramento, California 95814, or by visiting the PERS website at www.calpers.ca.gov. Through the June 30, 2003 valuation, the PERS plan was an agent multiple-employer retirement plan. Effective July 1, 2003, due to the Commission having less than 100 active members, the Commission’s PERS plan was converted from an agent multiple-employer plan (former plan) to a cost sharing multiple-employer plan. The former plan is an aggregation of single employer plans, where separate accounts are maintained for each employer and contributions by the employer benefit only the employees of the employer. under this plan, separate actuarial valuations are performed for each employer, and the results are attributed to and accounted for by the employer. The cost sharing multiple-employer plan is a pooling arrangement whereby risks, rewards, and benefit costs are shared and not attributed individually to any single employer. Periodic employer pension expense can be significantly different between the plan types. The change to the pooling arrangement was initially effective for the Commission’s required contribution rate during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006. At the time of joining the risk pool under the cost-sharing multiple-employer plan, a side fund (the amount that the Commission would owe PERS if it exited the plan) was created to account for the difference between the funded status of the pool and the funded status of the Commission’s plan. As of the June 30, 2009 valuation (most current valuation available), the estimated amount of the side fund liability was $1,693,388. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 42 Note 10. Employees’ Pension Plans, Continued All permanent Commission employees are eligible to participate in PERS. Employees attaining the age of 55 with five years of credited California service (service) are eligible for normal retirement and are entitled to a monthly benefit of 2.7% of their final compensation for each year of service. Final compensation is defined as the highest annual salary earned. Retirement may begin at age 50 with a reduced benefit rate. The plan also credits employees for unused sick leave. upon separation from the plan prior to retirement, members’ accumulated contributions are refundable with interest credited through the date of separation. The Commission pays the employees’ required contribution of 8% of regular earnings. New employees hired after November 28, 2002 are responsible for 1% of the 8% required contribution. The Commission is required to contribute the remaining amounts necessary to fund the benefits of its members, using the actuarially determined rate, which was 19.729% for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. Three-year trend information for PERS: Fiscal Year Ended June 30 Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Percentage of ARC Contributed Net Pension Obligation 2011 $ 1,016,336 100% $ – 2010 807,367 100% – 2009 893,063 100% – 401(a) plan: The Commission offers its employees a 401(a) defined contribution plan referred to as the Money Purchase Plan & Trust (Plan), which covers all permanent full-time employees. Employees are fully vested in the Plan after five years. The Plan, which is administered by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), requires the Commission to make a contribution of 7.5% of the employees’ earnings for the Plan year. Fiduciary responsibility and reporting of the Plan assets rests with ICMA. The Commission has the authority to amend the contribution requirements. Total payroll for covered employees for the current year was $3,791,900. The Commission’s contributions to the Plan were $274,656 for the year ended June 30, 2011. Note 11. Other Postemployment Beneﬁts (OPEB) Plan information: Per Resolution of the Board, the Commission provides postretirement health benefits for eligible retirees and their dependents at retirement. For employees hired on or after January 1, 2007, retirees must have a minimum of 10 years of PERS service and no less than five years of Commission service in order to receive postretirement health benefits in accordance with PERS as per Government Code Section 22893. For employees hired prior to January 1, 2007, retirees are not required to meet the eligibility criteria and may receive postretirement health benefits at the monthly health benefit rate paid for active employees, which is currently at $600. The Commission’s contributions toward premiums for retiree health insurance are coordinated with Medicare and other benefits provided by federal and state law, when available, to the extent it reduces the cost of insurance premiums. In June 2007 prior to the adoption of GASB Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions, the Commission adopted a resolution for an election of the Commission to prefund postretirement health benefits through the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT), an agent multiple- employer defined benefit health care plan administered by PERS. The System accepted the Commission’s application to participate in the CERBT in September 2007. Copies of the CERBT Prefunding Plan annual financial report may be obtained from its executive office or its website. Plan funding policy: The contribution requirements of plan members are established and may be amended by the Commission. Currently, OPEB contributions are not required from plan members. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 43 Note 11. Other Postemployment Beneﬁts (OPEB), Continued The Commission has adopted a policy to fund 100% of the future ARC. The ARC represents a level of funding that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover the annual normal cost and the amortization of unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (or funding excess) over a 20-year period. The Commission is required to contribute the amounts necessary to fund the benefits of its members, using the actuarially determined rate, which was 6.2% for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. Annual OPEB cost: For 2011, the Commission’s OPEB cost of $249,000 was equal to the ARC. The Commission’s annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan, and the net OPEB obligation for 2011 and the preceding two years were as follows: Fiscal Year Ended June 30 OPEB Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Percentage of OPEB ARC Contributed Net OPEB Obligation 2011 $ 249,000 100% $ – 2010 241,000 100% – 2009 172,000 100% – Funded status and funding progress: The funded status of the plan as of June 30, 2011, was as follows: Actuarial accrued liability (AAL) $ 3,543,000 Actuarial value of plan assets 2,340,000 Unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) $ 1,203,000 Funded ratio (actuarial value of plan assets/AAL) 66.0% Covered payroll (active plan members) $ 3,791,900 UAAL as a percentage of covered payroll 31.7% Actuarial valuations: Actuarial valuations of an ongoing plan involve estimates of the value of the reported amounts and assumptions about the probability of occurrence of events far into the future. Examples include assumptions about future employment, mortality, and the healthcare cost trend. Amounts determined regarding the funded status of the plan and the ARC of the Commission are subject to continual revision, as actual results are compared with past expectations and new estimates are made about the future. Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan (the plan as understood by the Commission and plan members) and include the types of benefits provided at the time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of benefit costs between the Commission and plan members to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques that are designed to reduce short-term volatility in the AAL and the actuarial value of assets, consistent with the long-term perspective of the calculations. In the June 30, 2011 actuarial valuation, the entry age normal actuarial cost method was used. The actuarial assumptions included a 6.75% investment rate of return. The annual healthcare cost trend rate for non-Medicare eligible premiums were 9.5%; Medicare eligible premiums were 10.0%. The trend rate was reduced by decrements to an ultimate rate of 5.0% after ten years. A 3.25% annual rate of increase in future salaries is also assumed in the valuation. The Commission’s uAAL will be amortized as a level percentage of projected covered payroll on a closed basis over a 20-year period. Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2011 44 Note 12. Measure A Conformance Requirements Measure A requires that the sales taxes collected may only be used for transportation purposes including administration and the construction, capital acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, highways including state highways, and public transit systems and for related purposes. These purposes include expenditures for planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right of way acquisition. Note 13. Pronouncements Issued, Not Yet Effective The GASB issued pronouncements prior to June 30, 2011 that have an effective date that may impact future financial presentations. Management has not currently determined what, if any, impact implementation of the following statements may have on the financial statements of the Commission. • GASB Statement No. 59, Financial Instruments Omnibus; • GASB Statement No. 60, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Service Concession Arrangements; • GASB Statement No. 61, The Financial Reporting Entity: Omnibus, an amendment of GASB Statements No. 14 and No. 34; • GASB Statement No. 62, Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in Pre-November 30, 1989 FASB and AICPA Pronouncements; • GASB Statement No. 63, Financial Reporting of Deferred Outflows of Resources, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Net Position; and • GASB Statement No. 64, Derivative Instruments: Application of Hedge Accounting Termination Provisions—an Amendment of GASB Statement No. 53. . 45 Bike Lockers at Riverside Metrolink Station Required Supplementary Information 46 45 Variance with Final Budget Original Final Positive Budget Budget Actual (Negative) Revenues Sales taxes 19,009,000$ 21,354,519$ 2,700,000$ (18,654,519)$ Intergovernmental 1,568,800 3,059,276 2,626,434 (432,842) Interest 39,200 39,200 62,479 23,279 Other 285,000 285,000 254,280 (30,720) Total revenues 20,902,000 24,737,995 5,643,193 (19,094,802) Expenditures Current: General government 4,694,700 4,977,800 4,454,700 523,100 Commuter rail 11,517,800 33,436,967 12,850,446 20,586,521 Planning and programming 7,306,500 9,651,119 4,564,597 5,086,522 Right of way management 1,520,100 1,420,100 1,270,487 149,613 Transit and specialized transportation 189,800 189,800 146,565 43,235 Total programs 25,228,900 49,675,786 23,286,795 26,388,991 Debt service: Principal - 23,400 23,230 170 Interest - 2,100 2,012 88 Cost of issuance - - 52,238 (52,238) Total debt service - 25,500 77,480 (51,980) Capital outlay 170,600 211,254 69,043 142,211 Total expenditures 25,399,500 49,912,540 23,433,318 26,479,222 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (4,497,500) (25,174,545) (17,790,125) 7,384,420 Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in 2,299,100 22,643,121 18,053,041 (4,590,080) Transfers out (770,000) (790,000) - 790,000 Total other financing sources (uses)1,529,100 21,853,121 18,053,041 (3,800,080) Net change in fund balances (2,968,400)$ (3,321,424)$ 262,916 3,584,340$ Fund balances at beginning of year 13,261,438 Fund balances at end of year 13,524,354$ See notes to required supplementary information Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual - General Fund Year Ended June 30, 2011 General 47 46Variance withVariance withVariance withVariance withFinal BudgetFinal BudgetFinal BudgetFinal BudgetOriginal FinalPositive Original FinalPositive Original FinalPositive Original FinalPositiveBudget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative)RevenuesSales taxes77,397,000$ 86,040,100$ 91,274,334$ 5,234,234$ 25,153,000$ 27,741,600$ 28,598,703$ 857,103$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 52,500,000$ 56,700,000$ 60,772,795$ 4,072,795$ Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 5,000,000 5,000,000 2,664,946 (2,335,054) - - - - 5,000,000 4,300,000 6,492,917 2,192,917 - - - - Intergovernmental55,774,500 48,774,500 30,001,925 (18,772,575) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest913,200 913,200 1,318,150 404,950 4,300 4,300 38,702 34,402 205,600 205,600 426,079 220,479 265,300 265,300 359,798 94,498 Other- - 1,320,036 1,320,036 - - - - - - 695,100 695,100 - - - - Total revenues139,084,700 140,727,800 126,579,391 (14,148,409) 25,157,300 27,745,900 28,637,405 891,505 5,205,600 4,505,600 7,614,096 3,108,496 52,765,300 56,965,300 61,132,593 4,167,293 ExpendituresCurrent:General government3,901,000 3,901,000 3,847,776 53,224 - - - - - - - - 712,000 712,000 12,000 700,000 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities- - - - - - - - - - - - 2,660,000 2,660,000 1,940,499 719,501 CETAP- - - - - - - - 7,482,000 11,556,000 5,490,993 6,065,007 - - - - Commuter assistance4,157,600 4,152,600 2,816,392 1,336,208 - - - - - - - - - - - - Commuter rail71,170,700 67,331,790 22,632,065 44,699,725 - - - - - - - - - - - - Highways159,102,400 152,591,900 73,361,790 79,230,110 14,661,700 2,783,700 1,649,908 1,133,792 - - - - - - - - Local streets and roads22,343,000 25,828,984 25,828,983 1 8,129,600 10,121,777 10,121,777 - - - - - - - - - Planning and programming- - - - - - - - - - - - 1,690,300 2,104,600 109,800 1,994,800 Regional arterials- - - - - 14,000,000 8,638,637 5,361,363 49,404,000 59,093,500 20,724,257 38,369,243 - - - - Transit and specialized transportation 4,232,500 5,007,592 4,673,196 334,396 3,773,000 3,773,000 3,773,000 - - - - - 57,362,000 58,517,227 35,301,507 23,215,720 Total programs264,907,200 258,813,866 133,160,202 125,653,664 26,564,300 30,678,477 24,183,322 6,495,155 56,886,000 70,649,500 26,215,250 44,434,250 62,424,300 63,993,827 37,363,806 26,630,021 Capital outlay417,000 117,670 78,254 39,416 - - - - - - - - - - - - Total expenditures265,324,200 258,931,536 133,238,456 125,693,080 26,564,300 30,678,477 24,183,322 6,495,155 56,886,000 70,649,500 26,215,250 44,434,250 62,424,300 63,993,827 37,363,806 26,630,021 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures(126,239,500) (118,203,736) (6,659,065) 111,544,671 (1,407,000) (2,932,577) 4,454,083 7,386,660 (51,680,400) (66,143,900) (18,601,154) 47,542,746 (9,659,000) (7,028,527) 23,768,787 30,797,314 Other financing sources (uses)Transfers in90,770,000 99,790,000 32,006,488 (67,783,512) - - 1,678,228 1,678,228 6,350,000 16,050,000 8,699,301 (7,350,699) - - - - Transfers out(21,130,000) (55,474,021) (26,889,434) 28,584,587 (2,352,800) (1,812,774) - 1,812,774 (1,362,200) (6,062,200) (421,691) 5,640,509 - - (16,434,537) (16,434,537) Total other financing sources (uses)69,640,000 44,315,979 5,117,054 (39,198,925) (2,352,800) (1,812,774) 1,678,228 3,491,002 4,987,800 9,987,800 8,277,610 (1,710,190) - - (16,434,537) (16,434,537) Net change in fund balances(56,599,500)$ (73,887,757)$ (1,542,011) 72,345,746$ (3,759,800)$ (4,745,351)$ 6,132,311 10,877,662$ (46,692,600)$ (56,156,100)$ (10,323,544) 45,832,556$ (9,659,000)$ (7,028,527)$ 7,334,250 14,362,777$ Fund balances at beginning of year260,141,532 4,029,697 83,618,281 74,875,969 Fund balances at end of year258,599,521$ 10,162,008$ 73,294,737$ 82,210,219$ Riverside County Transportation CommissionSchedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund BalanceBudget and Actual - Major Special Revenue FundsYear Ended June 30, 2011Local Transportation FundMeasure A Western CountyMeasure A Coachella ValleyTransportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 48 47 Actuarial Valuation Date Actuarial Value of Assets Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)- Entry Age Unfunded AAL (UAAL) Funded Ratio Covered Payroll UAAL as a Percentage of Covered Payroll June 30, 2011 2,340,000$ 3,543,000$ 1,203,000$ 66.0%3,791,900$ 31.7% January 1, 2009 1,583,000 2,145,000 562,000 73.8% 3,805,596 14.8% June 30, 2007 - 1,794,000 1,794,000 0.0% 2,396,757 74.9% See notes to required supplementary information Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Funding Progress for Postretirement Health Care 49 Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Required Supplementary Information June 30, 2011 Budgetary Data In February of each year, department heads begin the process of compiling budget data for the upcoming fiscal year. Budget numbers along with supporting documentation are provided to the Chief Financial Officer by March 15. That budget data is compiled and presented to the Executive Director for review and approval and is submitted to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its April meeting. After review by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the proposed budget is scheduled for preliminary review and comment as well as public hearing at the Commission’s May meeting. The final budget for the new fiscal year is then adopted by motion of the Board of Commissioners (Board) no later than June 15 of the current year. This appropriated budget covers substantially all Commission expenditures by financial responsibility unit [e.g., General fund and Measure A (for each of the three county areas), Local Transportation Fund, and Transportation uniform Mitigation Fee special revenue funds] by fund. All appropriated amounts are as originally adopted or as amended by the Commission. unexpended appropriations lapse at year-end. All budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. As adopted by the Board, expenditure activities of the funds with adopted budgets are controlled at the budgetary unit, which is the financial responsibility level, for each function (i.e., administration, programs, intergovernmental distributions, and capital outlay). These functions provide the legal level of budgetary control (i.e., the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated amount). Management has the discretion to transfer the budgeted amounts within the financial responsibility unit according to function. Supplemental budget appropriations were necessary during the year. Funding Progress for Postretirement Health Beneﬁts The schedule of funding progress presents multiyear trend information that shows whether the actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liabilities for benefits. 50 Columbia Avenue Grade Separation Other Supplementary Information 51 Riverside County Transportation Commission Nonmajor Governmental Funds Description Special Revenue Funds Measure A Palo Verde Valley: This fund is used to account for the revenues from sales taxes which are restricted to expenditures for Palo Verde Valley programs and activities. Freeway Service Patrol: This fund is used to record the revenues received for the purpose of implementing a freeway service patrol for motorists. Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies: This fund is used to record the revenues received from Department of Motor Vehicle user registration fees for the purpose of implementing an emergency call box system for motorists. State Transit Assistance: This fund is used to account for revenues from sales taxes on gasoline restricted for transit projects. 52 52 Service Total Measure A Freeway Authority State Nonmajor Palo Verde Service for Freeway Transit Governmental Valley Patrol Emergencies Assistance Funds Assets Cash and investments 556$ 81,192$ 5,963,100$ 37,008,228$ 43,053,076$ Receivables: Accounts 172,861 1,075,941 769,589 - 2,018,391 Advances - - 150,000 - 150,000 Interest - 137 8,055 50,108 58,300 Total assets 173,417$ 1,157,270$ 6,890,744$ 37,058,336$ 45,279,767$ Liabilities and fund balances Liabilities: Accounts payable 133,492$ 256,683$ 264,823$ 89,854$ 744,852$ Advances payable - 150,000 - - 150,000 Due to other funds 39,369 153,214 176,356 4,789,853 5,158,792 Total liabilities 172,861 559,897 441,179 4,879,707 6,053,644 Fund balances: Loans and advances receivable - - 150,000 - 150,000 Local streets and roads 556 - - - 556 Motorist assistance - 597,373 6,299,565 - 6,896,938 Transit and specialized transportation - - - 32,178,629 32,178,629 Total fund balances 556 597,373 6,449,565 32,178,629 39,226,123 Total liabilities and fund balances 173,417$ 1,157,270$ 6,890,744$ 37,058,336$ 45,279,767$ Special Revenue Riverside County Transportation Commission Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Governmental Funds June 30, 2011 53 53 Service Total Measure A Freeway Authority State Nonmajor Palo Verde Service for Freeway Transit Governmental Valley Patrol Emergencies Assistance Funds Revenues Sales taxes 866,796$ -$ -$ -$ 866,796$ Intergovernmental - 1,911,572 1,668,317 - 3,579,889 Interest (1) 1,683 32,097 212,124 245,903 Other - 141 608,823 - 608,964 Total revenues 866,795 1,913,396 2,309,237 212,124 5,301,552 Expenditures Current: Local streets and roads 906,165 - - - 906,165 Motorist assistance - 2,369,291 1,161,404 - 3,530,695 Transit and specialized transportation - - - 805,382 805,382 Total programs 906,165 2,369,291 1,161,404 805,382 5,242,242 Total expenditures 906,165 2,369,291 1,161,404 805,382 5,242,242 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (39,370) (455,895) 1,147,833 (593,258) 59,310 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in - 906,600 - - 906,600 Transfers out - (150,405) (1,080,766) (840,004) (2,071,175) Total other financing sources (uses)- 756,195 (1,080,766) (840,004) (1,164,575) Net change in fund balances (39,370) 300,300 67,067 (1,433,262) (1,105,265) Fund balances at beginning of year 39,926 297,073 6,382,498 33,611,891 40,331,388 Fund balances at end of year 556$ 597,373$ 6,449,565$ 32,178,629$ 39,226,123$ Special Revenue Riverside County Transportation Commission Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds Year Ended June 30, 2011 54 54Variance withVariance withVariance withVariance withFinal BudgetFinal BudgetFinal BudgetFinal BudgetOriginal FinalPositive Original FinalPositive Original FinalPositive Original FinalPositiveBudget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative)RevenuesSales taxes750,000$ 866,800$ 866,796$ (4)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Intergovernmental- - - - 2,602,900 2,602,900 1,911,572 (691,328) 1,811,500 1,811,500 1,668,317 (143,183) - - - - Interest- - (1) (1) 3,000 3,000 1,683 (1,317) 29,200 29,200 32,097 2,897 73,000 73,000 212,124 139,124 Other- - - - - - 141 141 46,800 46,800 608,823 562,023 - - - - Total revenues750,000 866,800 866,795 (5) 2,605,900 2,605,900 1,913,396 (692,504) 1,887,500 1,887,500 2,309,237 421,737 73,000 73,000 212,124 139,124 ExpendituresCurrent:Local streets and roads513,800 906,165 906,165 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Motorist assistance- - - - 3,087,500 3,100,500 2,369,291 731,209 1,363,000 1,350,000 1,161,404 188,596 - - - - Transit and specialized transportation- - - - - - - - - - - - 5,839,800 5,839,800 805,382 5,034,418 Total programs513,800 906,165 906,165 - 3,087,500 3,100,500 2,369,291 731,209 1,363,000 1,350,000 1,161,404 188,596 5,839,800 5,839,800 805,382 5,034,418 Total expenditures513,800 906,165 906,165 - 3,087,500 3,100,500 2,369,291 731,209 1,363,000 1,350,000 1,161,404 188,596 5,839,800 5,839,800 805,382 5,034,418 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures236,200 (39,365) (39,370) (5) (481,600) (494,600) (455,895) 38,705 524,500 537,500 1,147,833 610,333 (5,766,800) (5,766,800) (593,258) 5,173,542 Other financing sources (uses)Transfers in- - - - 906,600 906,600 906,600 - - - - - - - - - Transfers out(236,200) (236,200) - 236,200 (208,200) (208,200) (150,405) 57,795 (1,055,300) (1,055,300) (1,080,766) (25,466) - - (840,004) (840,004) Total other financing sources (uses)(236,200) (236,200) - 236,200 698,400 698,400 756,195 57,795 (1,055,300) (1,055,300) (1,080,766) (25,466) - - (840,004) (840,004) Net change in fund balances-$ (275,565)$ (39,370) 236,195$ 216,800$ 203,800$ 300,300 96,500$ (530,800)$ (517,800)$ 67,067 584,867$ (5,766,800)$ (5,766,800)$ (1,433,262) 4,333,538$ Fund balances at beginning of year39,926 297,073 6,382,498 33,611,891 Fund balances at end of year556$ 597,373$ 6,449,565$ 32,178,629$ Measure A Palo Verde ValleyFreeway Service PatrolService Authority for Freeway EmergenciesState Transit AssistanceRiverside County Transportation CommissionSchedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund BalancesBudget and Actual—Nonmajor Special Revenue FundsYear Ended June 30, 2011 5554Variance withVariance withVariance withVariance withFinal BudgetFinal BudgetFinal BudgetFinal BudgetOriginal FinalPositive Original FinalPositive Original FinalPositive Original FinalPositiveBudget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative)RevenuesSales taxes750,000$ 866,800$ 866,796$ (4)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Intergovernmental- - - - 2,602,900 2,602,900 1,911,572 (691,328) 1,811,500 1,811,500 1,668,317 (143,183) - - - - Interest- - (1) (1) 3,000 3,000 1,683 (1,317) 29,200 29,200 32,097 2,897 73,000 73,000 212,124 139,124 Other- - - - - - 141 141 46,800 46,800 608,823 562,023 - - - - Total revenues750,000 866,800 866,795 (5) 2,605,900 2,605,900 1,913,396 (692,504) 1,887,500 1,887,500 2,309,237 421,737 73,000 73,000 212,124 139,124 ExpendituresCurrent:Local streets and roads513,800 906,165 906,165 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Motorist assistance- - - - 3,087,500 3,100,500 2,369,291 731,209 1,363,000 1,350,000 1,161,404 188,596 - - - - Transit and specialized transportation- - - - - - - - - - - - 5,839,800 5,839,800 805,382 5,034,418 Total programs513,800 906,165 906,165 - 3,087,500 3,100,500 2,369,291 731,209 1,363,000 1,350,000 1,161,404 188,596 5,839,800 5,839,800 805,382 5,034,418 Total expenditures513,800 906,165 906,165 - 3,087,500 3,100,500 2,369,291 731,209 1,363,000 1,350,000 1,161,404 188,596 5,839,800 5,839,800 805,382 5,034,418 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures236,200 (39,365) (39,370) (5) (481,600) (494,600) (455,895) 38,705 524,500 537,500 1,147,833 610,333 (5,766,800) (5,766,800) (593,258) 5,173,542 Other financing sources (uses)Transfers in- - - - 906,600 906,600 906,600 - - - - - - - - - Transfers out(236,200) (236,200) - 236,200 (208,200) (208,200) (150,405) 57,795 (1,055,300) (1,055,300) (1,080,766) (25,466) - - (840,004) (840,004) Total other financing sources (uses)(236,200) (236,200) - 236,200 698,400 698,400 756,195 57,795 (1,055,300) (1,055,300) (1,080,766) (25,466) - - (840,004) (840,004) Net change in fund balances-$ (275,565)$ (39,370) 236,195$ 216,800$ 203,800$ 300,300 96,500$ (530,800)$ (517,800)$ 67,067 584,867$ (5,766,800)$ (5,766,800)$ (1,433,262) 4,333,538$ Fund balances at beginning of year39,926 297,073 6,382,498 33,611,891 Fund balances at end of year556$ 597,373$ 6,449,565$ 32,178,629$ Measure A Palo Verde ValleyFreeway Service PatrolService Authority for Freeway EmergenciesState Transit AssistanceRiverside County Transportation CommissionSchedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund BalancesBudget and Actual—Nonmajor Special Revenue FundsYear Ended June 30, 201155Variance withVariance withVariance withFinal BudgetFinal BudgetFinal BudgetOriginal FinalPositive Original FinalPositive Original FinalPositiveBudget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Budget Actual (Negative)RevenuesIntergovernmental-$ -$ 2,304,900$ 2,304,900$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,499,340$ 1,499,340$ Interest39,200 579,226 1,772,311 1,193,085 16,000 16,000 41,929 25,929 242,000 242,000 258,868 16,868 Total revenues39,200 579,226 4,077,211 3,497,985 16,000 16,000 41,929 25,929 242,000 242,000 1,758,208 1,516,208 ExpendituresCurrent:General government- 26,000 25,787 213 - - - - - - - - Highways12,770,000 8,961,700 - 8,961,700 - 50,400 - 50,400 - - - - Regional arterials- 2,479,900 - 2,479,900 - 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - Total programs12,770,000 11,467,600 25,787 11,441,813 - 250,400 - 250,400 - - - - Debt service:Principal 83,300,000 102,134,200 103,284,000 (1,149,800) - - - - 9,000,000 6,300,000 6,300,000 - Interest1,305,000 155,000 151,133 3,867 - 4,791,800 4,791,737 63 11,100,000 6,640,500 6,351,386 289,114 Cost of issuance- - - - 1,500,000 1,520,000 1,440,958 79,042 - - - - Total debt service84,605,000 102,289,200 103,435,133 (1,145,933) 1,500,000 6,311,800 6,232,695 79,105 20,100,000 12,940,500 12,651,386 289,114 Total expenditures97,375,000 113,756,800 103,460,920 10,295,880 1,500,000 6,562,200 6,232,695 329,505 20,100,000 12,940,500 12,651,386 289,114 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures(97,335,800) (113,177,574) (99,383,709) 13,793,865 (1,484,000) (6,546,200) (6,190,766) 355,434 (19,858,000) (12,698,500) (10,893,178) 1,805,322 Other financing sources (uses)Debt issuance50,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 - 135,000,000 150,000,000 150,000,000 - - - - - Discount on debt issuance- - - - - (967,500) (967,467) 33 - - - - Transfers in83,300,000 82,759,974 103,284,000 20,524,026 - - - - 28,789,000 28,789,000 20,727,181 (8,061,819) Transfers out(50,000,000) (50,000,000) (20,244,588) 29,755,412 (130,300,000) (130,300,000) (117,615,186) 12,684,814 (5,000,000) (5,000,000) (1,678,228) 3,321,772 Total other financing sources (uses) 83,300,000 52,759,974 103,039,412 50,279,438 4,700,000 18,732,500 31,417,347 12,684,847 23,789,000 23,789,000 19,048,953 (4,740,047) Net change in fund balances(14,035,800)$ (60,417,600)$ 3,655,703 64,073,303$ 3,216,000$ 12,186,300$ 25,226,581 13,040,281$ 3,931,000$ 11,090,500$ 8,155,775 (2,934,725)$ Fund balances at beginning of year29,571,329 - 45,738,294 Fund balances at end of year33,227,032$ 25,226,581$ 53,894,069$ Capital Projects FundsCommercial PaperDebt Service FundRiverside County Transportation CommissionSchedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Budget and Actual—Capital Projects and Debt Service FundsYear Ended June 30, 2011Sales Tax Bonds 56 56 Western County: City of Banning 408,413$ City of Calimesa 110,431 City of Canyon Lake 138,402 City of Corona 2,849,242 City of Eastvale 498,435 City of Hemet 1,207,542 City of Lake Elsinore 847,049 City of Menifee 962,095 City of Moreno Valley 2,673,955 City of Murrieta 1,584,599 City of Norco 469,600 City of Perris 865,506 City of Riverside 5,104,817 City of San Jacinto 512,903 City of Temecula 2,133,511 City of Wildomar 420,522 Riverside County 5,041,348 Other 613 25,828,983 Coachella Valley: City of Cathedral City 1,075,796 City of Coachella 463,251 City of Desert Hot Springs 319,372 City of Indian Wells 193,223 City of Indio 1,249,858 City of Palm Desert 2,061,817 City of Palm Springs 1,525,417 City of Rancho Mirage 712,811 Riverside County 1,260,099 Coachella Valley Association of Governments 1,260,133 10,121,777 Palo Verde Valley: City of Blythe 736,940 Riverside County 169,225 906,165 Total local streets and roads expenditures 36,856,925$ Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Expenditures for Local Streets and Roads by Geographic Area - All Special Revenue Funds Year Ended June 30, 2011 57 57 Local State Transportation Transit Measure A Fund Assistance Total Western County: Beaumont Unified School District 18,948$ -$ -$ 18,948$ Blindness Support Services, Inc.57,410 - - 57,410 Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County 189,058 - - 189,058 CASA for Riverside County 53,460 - - 53,460 Care-A-Van 351,848 - - 351,848 Care Connexxus 242,678 - - 242,678 City of Banning - 998,274 - 998,274 City of Beaumont - 1,018,000 - 1,018,000 City of Corona - 1,503,217 - 1,503,217 City of Norco 78,591 - - 78,591 City of Riverside - 2,191,371 - 2,191,371 Community Connect 199,673 - - 199,673 Friends of the Moreno Valley Senior Citizens 61,942 - - 61,942 Independent Living Partnership 485,492 - - 485,492 Inland Aids Project 69,036 - - 69,036 Operation Safe House 20,000 - - 20,000 Riverside County Regional Medical Center 189,697 - - 189,697 Riverside Transit Agency 2,281,350 19,408,234 751,509 22,441,093 Valley Resource Center 46,655 - - 46,655 Other 327,358 - - 327,358 4,673,196 25,119,096 751,509 30,543,801 Coachella Valley: SunLine Transit Agency 3,773,000 9,592,414 45,232 13,410,646 3,773,000 9,592,414 45,232 13,410,646 Palo Verde Valley: Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency - 589,997 8,641 598,638 - 589,997 8,641 598,638 Total transit and specialized transportation expenditures 8,446,196$ 35,301,507$ 805,382$ 44,553,085$ Sales Taxes Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Expenditures for Transit and Specialized Transportation by Geographic Area and Source - All Special Revenue Funds Year Ended June 30, 2011 58 71/91 Interchange 59 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STATISTICAL SECTION OVERVIEW This part of the Riverside County Transportation Commission’s comprehensive annual financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the Commission’s overall financial health. Financial Trends: These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the government’s financial performance and well-being have changed over time. The schedules include: Net Assets By Component Changes in Net Assets Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Revenue Capacity: These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the government’s most significant local revenue source, the Measure A sales tax. These schedules include: Sources of County of Riverside Taxable Sales by Business Type Direct and Overlapping Sales Tax Rates Principal Taxable Sales Generation by City Measure A Sales Tax Revenues by Program and Geographic Area Measure A Sales Tax by Economic Category Debt Capacity: These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the government’s current levels of outstanding debt and the government’s ability to issue additional debt in the future. These schedules include: Pledged Revenue Coverage Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type Computation of Legal Debt Margin Demographic and Economic Information: These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the government’s financial activities take place. These schedules include: Demographic and Economic Statistics for the County of Riverside Employment Statistics by Industry for the County of Riverside Operating Information: These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the government’s financial report relates to the services the government provides and the activities it performs. These schedules include: Full-time Equivalent Employees by Function/Program Operating Indicators Capital Asset Statistics by Program 60 This page intentionally left blank 60 at Valley Way 61 Net Assets by Component612011201020092008200720062005200420032002Governmental activities:Invested in capital assets, net of related debt341,912,094$ 7294,218,263$ 6266,647,382$ 5207,478,034$ 4147,874,291$ 137,129,082$ 133,225,528$ 3104,716,712$ 2128,247,454$ 1130,051,343$ Restricted587,098,179 549,781,414 505,474,075 521,711,172 531,154,177 442,129,220 325,504,623 232,719,198 2154,913,051 1(44,501,093) Unrestricted(293,146,251) (229,888,408) (205,658,986) (149,004,964) (118,675,049) (102,074,881) (124,274,292) (121,829,477) 2(174,443,946) 15,985,213 Total governmental activities net assets 635,864,022$ 614,111,269$ 566,462,471$ 580,184,242$ 560,353,419$ 477,183,421$ 334,455,859$ 215,606,433$ 108,716,559$ 91,535,463$ Source: Finance Department1234567Invested in capital cassets, net of related debt, increased in 2010 primarily as a result of the planning and development of toll projects and the completion of construction of the Perris Transit Center and North Main Corona station parking structure.Invested in capital cassets, net of related debt, increased in 2011 primarily as a result of the planning and development of toll projects and right of way acquisiton for the SR-91 corridor improvement and Perris Valley Line extension projects.Riverside County Transportation CommissionNet Assets by ComponentLast Ten Fiscal Years(Accrual Basis)Fiscal YearInvested in capital assets, net of related debt, increased in 2009 primarily as a result of right of way purchases related to the Mid County Parkway project, the planning and development of toll projects, and the construction of a multimodal transit facility and a commuter rail station parking structure.Invested in capital assets, net of related debt, increased in 2008 primarily as a result of right of way purchases related to the Mid County Parkway project.Beginning net assets in 2003 were restated as a result of corrections to capital assets and revenue recognition, resulting in a net decrease of $20,492,947. Additionally, certain components of beginning net assets were reclassified to conform to the presentation in the 2003 financial statements. Prior year amounts in this presentation have not been revised to reflect these changes.The Local Transportation Fund, previously reported as a fiduciary fund, was reclassified as a special revenue fund in the 2004 financial statements, resulting in an increase to beginning net assets of $34,295,645. Additionally, certain components of beginning net assets were reclassified to conform to the presentation in the 2004 financial statements. Prior year amounts in this presentation have not been revised to reflect these changes.The beginning balance of invested in capital assets, net of related debt, was restated due to a correction in the accounting for certain rail capital assets in the 2005 financial statements, resulting in an increase of $19,283,259. Prior year amounts in this presentation have not been revised to reflect these changes. $(400,000,000) $(200,000,000) $- $200,000,000 $400,000,000 $600,000,000 $800,000,000 $1,000,000,000 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Net Assets by Component Unrestricted Restricted 62 622011201020092008200720062005200420032002ExpensesGovernmental activities:General government8,453,876$ 7,024,517$ 5,525,963$ 5,299,048$ 5,592,637$ 4,848,292$ 4,115,907$ 3,909,942$ 4,307,544$ 5,407,800$ Bicycle and pedestrian projects1,940,499 317,048 2,747,151 1,436,710 760,840 848,959 1,021,637 927,138 1- - CETAP5,490,993 2,362,393 4,832,008 8,017,024 5,433,499 3,549,683 4,147,758 608,882 2- - Commuter assistance2,868,630 3,266,834 5,199,032 3,464,834 3,122,306 2,888,451 2,599,448 2,959,732 2,318,033 2,088,746 Commuter rail27,792,375 20,544,634 16,038,028 14,832,473 12,458,895 11,350,220 8,907,828 8,702,803 5,659,863 14,772,034 Highways40,113,092 24,828,958 143,532,009 59,988,334 42,436,979 36,226,705 35,362,793 35,456,330 29,812,083 27,850,447 Local streets and roads36,856,925 34,258,313 45,661,155 54,520,115 60,099,526 60,389,876 53,333,169 46,208,968 40,256,464 36,541,323 Motorist assistance3,530,695 2,987,136 2,623,184 3,983,252 2,408,612 2,280,646 2,191,061 1,978,380 1,843,017 2,559,409 Planning and programming4,683,272 5,321,121 10,126,142 7,931,869 6,561,185 5,976,647 4,328,038 4,287,696 2,978,044 5,890,377 Right of way management1,270,487 1,428,066 1,399,316 551,960 631,996 622,498 580,224 338,353 154,582 145,158 Regional arterials29,362,894 26,371,339 20,948,530 31,131,731 30,756,287 17,164,803 17,621,505 13,996,300 28,428,021 11,720,342 Transit and specialized transportation44,699,650 43,820,225 77,417,741 83,927,945 75,567,829 62,527,276 55,905,814 53,411,921 19,913,504 8,680,284 Interest expense11,799,586 7,099,038 9,515,282 6,281,232 6,881,128 7,832,733 8,348,928 11,736,129 10,381,790 - 3Total governmental activities expenses218,862,974 179,629,622 345,565,541 281,366,527 252,711,719 216,506,789 198,464,110 184,522,574 116,052,945 115,655,920 Program RevenuesGovernmental activities:Charges for servicesCommuter assistance- - - - - - - 573,864 948,532 1,566,840 Commuter rail- - 2,525,314 352,826 463 382 2,564 146,349 394,924 3,794,146 4Right of way management184,010 196,527 421,738 507,298 497,656 445,313 547,075 395,305 213,311 - Highways- - - - - 50 - - - 2,928,573 4Motorist assistance- - 19,778 - - - - - - - Planning and programming- - - - - - - - - 3,507,520 4Other27,681 - 46 2,331 2,367 26,273 24,972 55,255 4,498 7,293 Operating grants and contributions39,886,648 23,130,456 90,280,426 28,391,787 47,313,916 90,389,018 72,202,430 61,412,882 210,489,860 4,746,603 Capital grants and contributions9,199,268 12,257,099 25,321,886 9,742,280 620,292 997,362 877,665 1,183,922 21,190,027 - 3Total governmental activities program revenues 49,297,607 35,584,082 118,569,188 38,996,522 48,434,694 91,858,398 73,654,706 63,767,577 33,241,152 16,550,975 Net Revenues (Expenses)Governmental activities(169,565,367) (144,045,540) (226,996,353) (242,370,005) (204,277,025) (124,648,391) (124,809,404) (120,754,997) (82,811,793) (99,104,945) General RevenuesGovernmental activities:Measure A sales taxes123,439,833 114,526,254 119,688,289 142,537,548 154,539,723 157,236,314 138,921,247 120,564,890 105,782,595 95,797,287 Transportation Development Act sales taxes 60,772,795 69,499,841 77,920,485 93,042,150 104,160,163 90,927,244 77,818,565 69,133,102 17,488,638 6,876,656 Vehicle registration fees- - - - - - - - - 1,288,655 5Unrestricted investment earnings4,411,122 5,987,921 14,211,197 25,055,456 23,897,399 11,639,575 5,146,325 3,115,232 4,932,021 5,942,480 Other miscellaneous revenue2,694,370 1,680,322 1,454,611 1,565,674 1,571,716 1,698,024 2,366,380 536,002 2,282,582 4,888,250 Gain on sale of capital assets- - - - 3,278,022 5,874,796 123,054 - - - Total governmental activities general revenues 191,318,120 191,694,338 213,274,582 262,200,828 287,447,023 267,375,953 224,375,571 193,349,226 120,485,836 114,793,328 Changes in Net AssetsGovernmental activities21,752,753$ 47,648,798$ (13,721,771)$ 19,830,823$ 83,169,998$ 142,727,562$ 99,566,167$ 72,594,229$ 37,674,043$ 15,688,383$ Source: Finance Department123Interest expense of $12,242,557 in 2002 was classified within each respective program.45Riverside County Transportation CommissionChanges in Net AssetsLast Ten Fiscal YearsVehicle registration fees were classified as charges for services in subsequent years.Federal and state reimbursements were classified as charges for services in fiscal year 2002 but were classified as operating or capital grants and contributions in subsequent years.(Accrual Basis)The Local Transportation Fund, previously reported as a fiduciary fund, was reclassified as a special revenue fund in the 2004 financial statements, resulting in an increase in sales tax revenues as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit and specialized transportation expenditures. Prior year amounts in this presentation have not been revised to reflect these changes.The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program was implemented in fiscal year 2004, resulting in a new revenue source for expenditures related to the CETAP and regional arterials programs.Fiscal Year Ended June 30 63 63 Riverside County Transportation Commission Changes in Net Assets (Continued) Last Ten Fiscal Years (Accrual Basis) - 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000 300,000,000 350,000,000 400,000,000 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Expenses by Function Interest expense Transit and specialized transportation Regional arterials Right of way management Planning and programming Motorist assistance Local streets and roads Highways Commuter rail Commuter assistance CETAP Bicycle and pedestrian facilities General government - 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000 300,000,000 350,000,000 400,000,000 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Revenues by Source Gain on sale of capital assets Other miscellaneous revenue Unrestricted investment earnings Vehicle registration fees Transportation Development Act sales taxes Measure A sales taxes Capital grants and contributions Operating grants and contributions Charges for services 64 642011201020092008200720062005200420032002GENERAL FUNDGeneral fund:Nonspendable143,397$ 253,819$ Restricted7,110,013 7,266,584 2Committed- 1,606,976 2Assigned6,270,944 4,134,059 2Total general fund13,524,354$ 13,261,438$ General fund:Reserved6,756,708$ 6,886,986$ 7,070,115$ 7,215,579$ 6,304,837$ 5,821,023$ 5,001,493$ 5,594,227$ Unreserved3,348,711 3,238,251 2,877,923 2,014,480 2,215,643 1,531,151 756,299 885,890 Total general fund10,105,419$ 10,125,237$ 9,948,038$ 9,230,059$ 8,520,480$ 7,352,174$ 5,757,792$ 6,480,117$ ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNDSAll other governmental funds:Nonspendable5,389,775$ 2,554,136$ Restricted570,450,515 535,752,354 2Total all other governmental funds575,840,290$ 538,306,490$ All other governmental funds:Reserved487,425,652$ 520,874,648$ 533,276,158$ 438,453,362$ 323,219,025$ 233,973,154$ 149,911,558$ 152,810,730$ Unreserved, reported in:Special revenue funds8,289,036 7,297,744 6,936,417 5,745,792 4,895,792 4,049,038 3,225,168 5,375,669 Capital projects funds(49,576,636) (7,253,535) - - - - - - Total all other governmental funds446,138,052$ 520,918,857$ 540,212,575$ 444,199,154$ 328,114,817$ 238,022,192$ 1153,136,726$ 158,186,399$ Source: Finance Department12In FY 2010 the Commission implemented GASB Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. Prior year amounts in this presentation have not been revised to reflect this change.Riverside County Transportation CommissionFund Balances of Governmental FundsLast Ten Fiscal Years(Modified Accrual Basis)Fiscal YearThe Local Transportation Fund, previously reported as a fiduciary fund, was reclassified as a special revenue fund in the 2004 financial statements, resulting in an increase to beginning fund balance of $34,295,645. 65 652011201020092008200720062005200420032002RevenuesSales taxes184,212,628$ 184,026,095$ 197,608,774$ 235,579,698$ 258,699,886$ 248,163,558$ 216,739,812$ 189,697,992$ 1117,982,195$ 107,420,546$ Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee9,157,863 8,618,231 10,957,420 14,556,029 40,757,248 85,228,383 46,325,334 35,615,226 2- - Intergovernmental40,012,488 26,769,324 105,512,656 22,249,107 5,498,660 4,365,183 25,241,083 23,276,534 26,765,599 11,804,372 Interest4,524,219 5,663,178 13,567,938 23,744,305 23,897,399 11,639,575 5,146,325 3,115,232 4,932,021 5,942,480 Vehicle registration user fees- - 1,677,374 1,684,088 1,681,130 1,629,087 1,541,216 1,435,098 1,332,707 1,288,655 Other2,878,380 1,853,641 1,876,349 2,072,972 2,175,372 2,143,330 3,118,002 3,976,721 2,714,466 4,888,250 Total revenues240,785,578 226,930,469 331,200,511 299,886,199 332,709,695 353,169,116 298,111,772 257,116,803 153,726,988 131,344,303 ExpendituresCurrent:General Government8,340,263 6,920,479 5,368,677 5,290,616 5,545,466 4,674,157 3,827,427 3,663,957 4,120,493 3,122,035 Programs:Bicycle and pedestrian facilities1,940,499 317,048 2,747,151 1,436,710 760,840 848,959 1,021,637 927,138 1- - CETAP5,490,993 2,362,393 35,809,396 21,098,240 5,433,499 3,549,683 8,600,659 608,882 2- - Commuter assistance2,816,392 3,228,709 5,155,263 3,377,881 3,097,534 2,883,352 2,583,679 2,943,963 2,296,177 2,088,746 Commuter rail35,482,511 33,733,888 40,704,106 21,470,133 14,044,435 10,570,931 7,580,484 13,016,707 29,345,902 8,382,102 Highways75,011,698 45,698,211 165,100,551 65,697,249 48,359,404 37,073,826 36,340,818 33,133,748 29,459,603 11,959,224Local streets and roads36,856,925 34,258,313 45,661,155 54,520,115 60,099,526 60,389,876 53,333,169 46,208,968 40,260,340 36,030,413 Motorist assistance3,530,695 2,987,136 2,623,184 3,983,252 2,408,612 2,280,646 2,191,061 1,978,380 1,843,017 2,559,409 Planning and programming4,674,397 5,312,246 9,193,944 6,939,409 5,586,992 4,884,556 3,621,810 3,537,513 2,310,810 5,284,892 Right of way management1,270,487 1,428,066 1,399,316 551,960 631,996 622,498 580,224 338,353 154,582 145,158 Regional arterials29,362,894 26,371,339 20,948,530 59,841,509 30,756,287 19,462,949 22,174,406 8,896,300 28,445,554 9,734,705 Transit and specialized transportation 44,699,650 43,820,225 77,417,741 83,927,945 75,567,829 62,527,276 55,905,814 53,411,921 19,913,503 8,680,284 Debt service:Principal109,607,230 57,738,548 33,646,475 141,870,000 30,225,589 28,669,418 27,228,073 26,316,788 25,199,054 24,068,939 Interest11,296,268 5,240,307 12,026,942 6,657,569 6,564,973 7,679,019 8,400,410 9,191,799 10,381,795 11,476,956 Cost of Issuance 1,493,196 675,464 - 1,261,668 - 236,058 2,580,124 - - - Intergovernmental distributions- - 975,833 992,460 974,193 1,092,091 706,228 750,183 667,234 605,485 Capital outlay147,297 124,080 1,055,997 335,023 161,268 290,461 179,818 8,000 315,240 569,041 Total expenditures372,021,395 270,216,452 459,834,261 479,251,739 290,218,443 247,735,756 236,855,841 204,932,600 164,713,304 124,707,389 Other financing sources (uses):Sales of capital assets- - - - 4,240,148 11,360,556 - - - - Capital lease- - 117,127 - - - - - - - Debt issuance170,000,000 268,284,000 53,716,000 160,249,021 50,000,000 - 30,005,000 - - - Discount on debt issuance(967,467) (278,685) - - - - - - - - Payment to refunded bond escrow agent- (129,394,875) - - - - - - - - Transfers in185,354,839 104,833,227 33,466,298 164,063,070 34,745,015 34,517,083 37,050,167 41,523,149 77,308,990 68,714,250 Transfers out(185,354,839) (104,833,227) (33,466,298) (164,063,070) (34,745,015) (34,517,083) (37,050,167) (41,523,149) (77,308,990) (68,714,250) Total other financing sources (uses)169,032,533 138,610,440 53,833,127 160,249,021 54,240,148 11,360,556 30,005,000 - - - Net change in fund balances37,796,716$ 95,324,457$ (74,800,623)$ (19,116,519)$ 96,731,400$ 116,793,916$ 91,260,931$ 52,184,203$ (10,986,316)$ 6,636,914$ Debt service as a percentage ofnoncapital expenditures37.6%527.4%412.1%35.4%313.1%15.0%16.8%17.9%25.5%30.0%Source: Finance Department12345Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures in 2010 increased significantly as a result of the retirement of $53,716,000 of commercial paper, which is included in principal payments.Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures in 2011 increased significantly as a result of the retirement of $103,284,000 of commercial paper, which is included in principal payments.Riverside County Transportation CommissionChanges in Fund Balances of Governmental FundsLast Ten Fiscal Years(Modified Accrual Basis)The Local Transportation Fund, previously reported as a fiduciary fund, was reclassified as a special revenue fund in the 2004 financial statements, resulting in an increase in sales tax revenues as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit and specialized transportation.The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program was implemented in fiscal 2004, resulting in a new revenue source for expenditures related to the CETAP and regional arterials programs.Fiscal YearDebt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures in 2008 increased significantly as a result of the refinancing of $110,005,000 of commercial paper, which is included in principal payments. 66 662009 1200820072006200520042003200220012000Apparel stores1,293,271$ 1,121,543$ 1,171,013$ 1,080,385$ 990,129$ 867,276$ 746,015$ 610,388$ 565,295$ 538,578$ General merchandise stores2,855,733 3,389,936 3,593,134 3,553,554 3,304,474 3,026,335 2,671,971 2,459,046 2,275,736 2,062,738 Food stores1,251,220 1,254,366 1,352,609 1,309,782 1,197,438 1,079,972 1,028,392 967,171 930,232 889,894 Eating & drinking2,266,853 2,340,554 2,388,039 2,316,422 2,157,801 2,007,338 1,775,146 1,617,674 1,521,717 1,422,153 Household858,098 816,379 843,945 948,217 964,629 862,551 691,051 594,049 526,083 517,578 Building materials1,237,518 1,435,337 1,961,911 2,390,236 2,424,898 2,596,661 1,678,347 1,427,831 1,339,020 1,210,838 Automotive4,749,994 6,126,512 7,137,075 6,956,756 6,751,648 6,240,712 5,198,391 4,803,171 4,358,688 4,011,068 Other retail sales1,442,875 3,250,335 2,794,790 1,024,551 944,155 1,191,029 592,415 1,151,821 1,109,093 1,112,012 Total all other outlets6,272,315 6,268,633 7,781,093 10,236,334 9,521,319 7,365,274 7,327,407 5,867,843 5,605,691 5,214,590 22,227,877$ 26,003,595$ 29,023,609$ 29,816,237$ 28,256,491$ 25,237,148$ 21,709,135$ 19,498,994$ 18,231,555$ 16,979,449$ Measure A Ordinance 88-1 direct sales tax rate0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50%Source: State Board of Equalization1Year represents most recent data available.Riverside County Transportation CommissionSources of County of Riverside Taxable Sales by Business TypeLast Ten Calendar Years (In Thousands)Apparel stores 6% General merchandise stores 13% Food stores 6% Ea8ng & drinking 10% Household 4% Building materials 6% Automo8ve 21% Other retail sales 6% Total all other outlets 28% Sources of County of Riverside Taxable Sales by Business Type for 2009 67 67 Fiscal Year Measure A Direct Rate 1 County of Riverside 2011 0.50%8.75%3 2010 0.50%8.75% 2009 0.50%8.75%2 2008 0.50%7.75% 2007 0.50%7.75% 2006 0.50%7.75% 2005 0.50%7.75% 2004 0.50%7.75% 2003 0.50%7.75% 2002 0.50%7.75% Source: Commission Finance Department and California State Board of Equalization. 1 The Measure A sales tax rate may be changed only with the approval of 2/3 of the voters. 2 The State of California increased the state sales tax rate 1% in April 2009. 3 Effective July 1, 2011, the State of California will decrease the state sales tax rate by 1%. Riverside County Transportation Commission Direct and Overlapping Sales Tax Rates Last Ten Fiscal Years 68 68 Taxable Sales (in thousands) Rank Percentage of Total Taxable Sales (in thousands) Rank Percentage of Total 3,500,514$ 2 15.7% 3,219,894$ 2 19.0% City of Corona 2,426,746 3 10.9% 1,731,757 3 10.2% City of Temecula 2,055,847 4 9.2% 1,411,051 4 8.3% City of Palm Desert 1,213,935 5 5.5% 1,217,986 5 7.2% City of Moreno Valley 1,018,353 6 4.6%789,232 6 4.6% City of Murrieta 874,619 7 3.9%354,251 13 2.1% City of Palm Springs 763,354 8 3.4%601,316 9 3.5% City of Hemet 713,003 9 3.2%672,174 8 4.0% City of La Quinta 623,012 10 2.9%318,057 16 1.9% City of Indio 566,670 11 2.5%473,781 10 2.8% City of Lake Elsinore 560,924 12 2.6%371,686 12 2.2% City of Cathedral City 546,894 13 2.5%680,502 7 4.0% City of Perris 489,591 14 2.2%333,045 14 2.0% City of Rancho Mirage 360,711 15 1.6%322,987 15 1.9% City of Menifee3 343,867 16 1.5%N/A -N/A City of Norco 340,697 17 1.5%396,535 11 2.3% City of Beaumont 268,725 18 1.2%89,639 20 0.5% City of Coachella 243,176 19 1.1%132,640 18 0.8% City of San Jacinto 175,394 20 0.8%75,195 21 0.4% City of Banning 156,232 21 0.7%192,644 17 1.1% City of Blythe 135,631 22 0.6%129,240 19 0.8% City of Wildomar2 100,049 23 0.5%N/A -N/A City of Desert Hot Springs 79,192 24 0.4%63,475 23 0.4% City of Indian Wells 74,343 25 0.3%68,599 22 0.4% City of Calimesa 53,092 26 0.2%30,188 24 0.2% City of Canyon Lake 10,493 27 0.0%10,909 25 0.1% Incorporated 17,695,064 79.6% 13,686,783 80.6% Unincorporated 4,532,813 1 20.4% 3,292,666 1 19.4% Countywide 22,227,877$ 100.0% 16,979,449$ 100.0% California 456,492,945$ 441,854,412$ Source: California State Board of Equalization for the calendar year indicated. 1 Year represents most recent data available. 2 2 City of Menifee was incorporated on October 1, 2008. 2009 2000 Riverside County Transportation Commission Principal Taxable Sales Generation by City Current Year and Nine Years Ago City of Wildomar was incorporated on July 1, 2008. $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 Taxable Sales by City 2009 2000 32 69 69 General Western Coachella Palo Fund County Valley Verde Total Administration 2,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,700,000$ Highways - 27,708,280 - - 27,708,280 Regional arterials - 8,149,494 - - 8,149,494 Highways and regional arterials - - 14,299,352 - 14,299,352 New corridors - 10,051,043 - - 10,051,043 Economic development incentives - 1,086,599 - - 1,086,599 Local streets and roads - 26,350,031 10,009,546 866,796 37,226,373 Public transit: Commuter assistance - 1,358,249 - - 1,358,249 Commuter rail - 5,541,656 - - 5,541,656 Bus - 1,385,414 - - 1,385,414 Specialized transportation - 2,309,023 - - 2,309,023 Bus and specialized transportation - - 4,289,805 - 4,289,805 Bond financing - 7,334,545 - - 7,334,545 2,700,000$ 91,274,334$ 28,598,703$ 866,796$ 123,439,833$ Source: Finance Department Special Revenue Funds Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A Sales Tax Revenues by Program and Geographic Area Year Ended June 30, 2011 General Fund 2% Western County 74% Coachella Valley 23% Palo Verde 1% Geographic Distribution by Area $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 Sales Tax Revenues by Program and Geographic Area Palo Verde Coachella Valley Western County General Fund 70 70 2010¹2009 2008 2007 2006 30.9 30.9 28.2 26.8 25.5 25.0 22.8 24.9 26.1 26.5 17.0 17.8 16.0 14.4 13.3 14.5 15.2 16.4 15.9 15.3 10.5 11.1 12.3 14.4 16.9 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: MuniServices LLC. Prior years' information is not available. ¹Year represents most recent data available. Economic Category General retail Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A Sales Tax by Economic Category Last Five Calendar Years % of Total Transportation Food products Business to business Construction Miscellaneous Total 71 71 Fiscal Year Net Measure A Sales Tax Revenues2 Measure A Sales Tax Revenue Growth (Decline) Rate Senior Lien Debt Service Senior Lien Coverage Ratio Subordinate Lien Debt Service Total Debt Service Total Debt Service Coverage Ratio 2011 $ 123,439,833 7.78% 12,651,386$ 9.76 -$ 12,651,386$ 9.76 2010³114,526,253 -4.31% 8,918,183 12.84 - 8,918,183 12.84 2009⁴119,688,289 -16.03% 34,020,724 3.52 1,452,634 35,473,358 3.37 2008 142,537,548 -7.77% 34,002,732 4.19 1,470,388 35,473,120 4.02 2007 154,539,723 -1.71% 34,005,357 4.54 1,469,588 35,474,945 4.36 2006 157,236,314 13.18% 34,012,634 4.62 1,470,587 35,483,221 4.43 2005 138,921,247 15.23% 34,013,294 4.08 1,472,237 35,485,531 3.91 2004 120,564,890 17.69% 34,004,981 3.55 1,472,237 35,477,218 3.40 2003 102,442,647 6.95%34,076,553 3.01 1,472,925 35,549,478 2.88 2002 95,782,282 6.77% 34,075,484 2.81 1,470,412 35,545,896 2.69 Source: Finance Department 1 This schedule meets the requirements for Continuing Disclosure of historical Measure A sales tax revenues. 2 Sales tax revenue bonds are backed by the sales tax revenues, net of Board of Equalization fees, during the fiscal year. 3 4 In FY 2009 all bonds related to the 1989 Measure A program matured as the 1989 Measure A program expired on June 30, 2009. In FY 2010 the 2008 bonds related to the 2009 Measure A program were current refunded. The payment to escrow agent is excluded from debt service. Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A Revenues and Pledged Revenue Coverage 1 Last Ten Fiscal Years Sales Tax Revenue Bonds 72 72 Year Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Commercial Paper Contract Payable Note Payable Capital Leases Total Governmental Activities Percentage of Personal Income 1 Debt per Capita 1 2011 324,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ 54,874$ 324,754,874$ N/A 146.43$ 2010 181,000,000 83,284,000 - - 78,104 264,362,104 N/A 121.28 2009 126,395,000 110,000,000 - - 100,652 236,495,652 0.37% 110.48 2008 160,025,000 - 1,100,000 - - 161,125,000 0.25% 76.63 2007 65,495,000 80,005,000 2,100,000 - - 147,600,000 0.24% 72.00 2006 95,695,000 30,005,000 3,100,000 - 25,591 128,825,591 0.22% 65.20 2005 124,335,000 30,005,000 4,100,000 - 55,009 158,495,009 0.30% 83.61 2004 151,535,000 - 5,100,000 - 83,082 156,718,082 0.32% 86.37 2003 177,352,519 - - - 109,870 177,462,389 0.39% 102.57 2002 201,983,730 - - 58,490 - 202,042,220 0.48% 122.06 1 See the Schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics on page 74 for personal income and population data. Governmental Activities Riverside County Transportation Commission Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type Last Ten Fiscal Years Sources: Finance Department for outstanding debt for the fiscal year ended June 30 and California State Department of Finance for population as of January 1. 73 732011201020092008200720062005200420032002Measure A Ordinance No. 02-001, as amended by Ordinance No. 10-0022Total debt limit authorized 975,000,000$ 500,000,000$ 500,000,000$ 500,000,000$ 500,000,000$ 500,000,000$ 500,000,000$ 500,000,000$ 500,000,000$ Amount of debt applicable to debt limit324,700,000 264,284,000 236,395,000 126,395,000 80,005,000 30,005,000 30,005,000 - - Legal debt margin650,300,000$ 235,716,000$ 263,605,000$ 373,605,000$ 419,995,000$ 469,995,000$ 469,995,000$ 500,000,000$ 500,000,000$ % of debt to legal debt limit33.3% 52.9% 47.3% 25.3% 16.0%6.0%6.0%0.0%0.0%Measure A Ordinance No. 88-1, as amended by Ordinance 92-13Total debt limit authorized 525,000,000$ 525,000,000$ 525,000,000$ 525,000,000$ 525,000,000$ 525,000,000$ 525,000,000$ 525,000,000$ Amount of debt applicable to debt limit- 33,630,000 65,495,000 95,695,000 124,335,000 151,535,000 177,352,519 201,983,730 Legal debt margin525,000,000$ 491,370,000$ 459,505,000$ 429,305,000$ 400,665,000$ 373,465,000$ 347,647,481$ 323,016,270$ % of debt to legal debt limit0.0%6.4% 12.5% 18.2% 23.7% 28.9% 33.8% 38.5%Source: Finance Department123Riverside County Transportation CommissionComputation of Legal Debt Margin1Last Ten Fiscal YearsThe Commission's debt limits were approved by the voters of Riverside County as part of the sales tax ordinances and are specific to the Commission; accordingly, there are no overlapping debt considerations.Ordinance No. 88-1 expired on June 30, 2009. All outstanding debt related to Ordinance 88-1 matured prior to the expiration date.Fiscal YearOrdinance No. 02-001 was approved by a 2/3 majority of the voters in November 2002. In November 2010, a majority of the voters approved Ordinance No. 10-002 to increase the debt limit from $500 million to $975 million. $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Measure A Ordinance No. 88-1, as amended by Ordinance 92-1 Total debt limit authorized Amount of debt applicable to debt limit $- $200,000,000 $400,000,000 $600,000,000 $800,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $1,200,000,000 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Measure A Ordinance No. 02-001, as amended by Ordinance No. 10-002 Total debt limit authorized Amount of debt applicable to debt limit 74 74 Calendar Year Population1 Personal Income (thousands)2 Per Capita Personal Income 2 Unemployment Rate3 2011 2,217,778 N/A N/A N/A 2010 2,179,692 N/A N/A 14.7% 2009 2,140,626 63,228,086$ 29,748$ 13.4% 2008 2,102,741 64,503,728 30,676 8.5% 2007 2,049,902 61,023,518 29,769 6.0% 2006 1,975,913 57,666,983 29,185 5.0% 2005 1,895,695 52,850,398 28,157 5.4% 2004 1,814,485 49,443,185 27,827 6.0% 2003 1,730,219 45,016,790 26,393 6.5% 2002 1,655,291 42,010,066 25,549 6.5% Sources: 1 2 3 California State Department of Finance as of January 1. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. Represents most recent data available. Riverside County Transportation Commission Demographic and Economic Statistics for the County of Riverside Last Ten Calendar Years Riverside County Economic Development Agency. Represents most recent data available. 75 75 Industry Type 2009 1 % of Total Employment 2000 % of Total Employment Agricultural services, forestry, fishing and other 12,400 2.3%17,600 3.8% Mining 500 0.1%500 0.1% Construction 40,400 7.4%48,400 10.4% Manufacturing 39,000 7.1%51,800 11.1% Transportation, warehousing, and public utilities 19,700 3.6%10,200 2.2% Wholesale trade 18,700 3.4%13,500 2.9% Retail trade 78,800 14.4%60,000 12.9% Professional & business services 53,600 9.8%42,200 9.0% Education & health services 57,900 10.6%44,000 9.4% Leisure & hospitality 68,700 12.6%55,400 11.9% Finance, insurance, and real estate 20,700 3.8%16,000 3.4% Other services 26,600 4.9%22,800 4.9% Federal government, civilian 6,900 1.3%6,800 1.5% State government 15,800 2.9%12,800 2.8% Local government 86,600 15.9%64,500 13.8% Total employment 546,300 100.0%466,500 100.0% Source: State of California Economic Development Department 1 Year represents most recent data available. Riverside County Transportation Commission Employment Statistics by Industry for the County of Riverside Calendar Year 2009 and Nine Years Prior 76 76 Function/Program 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Management services and administration 12.7 8.9 12.7 17.6 15.0 12.2 12.7 12.5 13.0 13.3 Planning and programming 5.2 5.5 5.1 5.4 6.4 5.0 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.6 Rail operations 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.1 2.8 3.1 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.5 Right of way management 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.1 2.0 1.7 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.7 Specialized transit/transportation 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.3 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.4 Commuter assistance 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.3 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.2 1.6 Motorist assistance 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 Capital project development and delivery 10.6 12.5 9.7 6.8 4.4 3.0 2.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 Total full-time equivalents 38.0 37.0 36.0 38.0 35.0 30.2 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Source: Finance Department Riverside County Transportation Commission Full-time Equivalent Employees by Function/Program Last Ten Fiscal Years As of June 30 77 772011201020092008200720062005200420032002Commuter rail operations:Weekday trips11,321 11,340 12,224 12,30411,696 11,391 9,721 9,532 8,818 7,589 Growth of average daily ridership on commuter lines:Riverside line5,177 5,124 5,2695,1844,769 4,370 4,566 4,462 4,241 4,200 IEOC line3,855 4,011 4,6114,8594,651 4,149 3,634 3,641 3,169 2,923 91 line2,289 2,205 2,3442,2612,276 2,107 1,876 1,700 1,557 240 Farebox recovery ratio:Riverside line59.8%52.5%51.0% 53.01% 67.07%48.5%46.9%51.1%49.8% 55.3%IEOC line31.1%28.3%37.3% 42.60% 42.19%45.5%48.7%56.6%49.3% 46.3%91 line54.6%49.3%53.0% 45.53% 49.02%57.2% 107.0% 101.4%71.3% 16.6%Specialized transit/transportation:Specialized transit grants awarded2222 2214159 10 8 10 9 Commuter assistance:Club Ride membersN/AN/A7,3785,8604,436 3,901 2,837 1,994 1,960 1,792 Rideshare Incentive members1,061 1,131 N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ARideshare Plus Rewards members5,518 7,080 N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AIncoming 1-866-RIDESHARE telephone calls1,257 2,145 2,4233,7092,613 2,433 801 829 1,243 N/ARideshare Connection bulletins produced13 N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ARideSmart Tips producedN/AN/AN/AN/A145,304 27,790 32,379 9,335 N/AN/ARideguides produced29,052 43,319 34,940 23,121 24,676 N/AN/AN/AN/AN/ACommuter Exchange events52 50 737160 23 5 9 8 10 Motorist assistance:Call boxes613 614 614630682979 1,058 1,083 1,090 1,085 Calls made from call boxes5,251 5,934 6,5747,5439,595 15,390 19,945 23,713 28,404 37,730 Contracted Freeway Service Patrol vehicles22 22 20201715 15 15 13 13 Vehicles assisted by Freeway Service Patrol45,751 48,312 43,119 45,50040,025 31,838 32,542 32,564 27,485 25,952 IE511 web vists244,277 N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AIE511 call volumes489,036 N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ATransportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program:Approved regional arterial projects24 24 24242424 24 - - - Measure A program:Highways75,011,698$ 45,698,211$ 165,100,551$ 65,697,249$ 48,359,404$ 37,073,826$ 36,340,818$ 33,133,748$ 29,459,603$ 11,959,224$ Commuter rail22,632,065 20,312,056 32,089,238 12,419,675 14,044,435 2,784,423 2,250,187 8,116,270 24,973,615 4,254,712 Regional arterials8,638,637 11,920,846 12,645,090 18,220,540 30,756,287 10,350,500 10,056,326 8,246,797 8,445,554 9,734,705 Local streets and roads36,856,925 34,258,313 45,661,155 54,520,115 59,202,631 60,389,876 53,333,169 46,208,968 40,260,340 36,030,413 Specialized transit and commuter assistance11,262,588 10,161,780 9,838,990 9,071,302 6,358,224 7,887,298 7,458,994 7,238,299 6,295,180 6,403,786 Total program expenditures154,401,913$ 122,351,206$ 265,335,024$ 159,928,881$ 158,720,981$ 118,485,923$ 109,439,494$ 102,944,082$ 109,434,292$ 68,382,840$ Source: Commission Departments1This brochure was discontinued beginning FY 2007/08.Riverside County Transportation CommissionOperating IndicatorsLast Ten Fiscal YearsAs of June 30 78 78 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Commuter rail: Commuter rail stations owned and managed 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Miles of commuter rail easements 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 Commuter Assistance: Commuter Exchange Vehicle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Source: Commission Departments Riverside County Transportation Commission Capital Asset Statistics by Program Last Ten Fiscal Years As of June 30 (951) 787-7141 www.rctc.org 4080 lemon street, 3rd Floor p.o. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 10 at Bob Hope drive Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Financial and Compliance Report Year Ended June 30, 2011 Contents Independent Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information 1-2 Financial Statements Balance Sheet 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance 4 Notes to Financial Statements 5-7 Supplementary Information Schedule of Allocations and Disbursements 8 Schedule of Unclaimed Apportionments (Articles 4 and 8) 9 Schedule of Unclaimed Apportionments (Article 3) 10 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control O ver Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance W ith Government Auditing Standards 11-12 1 Independent Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Commission’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the Local Transportation Fund and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission or the County of Riverside, California, as of June 30, 2011, and the change in its financial position for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Commission, as of June 30, 2011, and the change in its financial position for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 31, 2011 on our consideration of the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. 2 The Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside has not presented a Management’s Discussion and Analysis that accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires to supplement, although not to be part of, the financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements of the Local Transportation Fund of the Commission taken as a whole. The schedules listed in the table of contents as supplementary information are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the financial statements of the Local Transportation Fund. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 3 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Balance Sheet June 30, 2011 Assets Cash and investments in Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund 73,322,371 $ Accounts receivable 11,925,643 Interest receivable 92,719 Total assets 85,340,733 $ Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable 716,212 $ Due to other Commission funds 2,414,302 Total liabilities 3,130,514 Restricted: Unapportioned Local Transportation Funds 10,300,600 Rail and bus transit and local streets and roads apportionments 68,590,026 Bicycle and pedestrian projects 3,270,222 Planning and programming 49,371 Total fund balance 82,210,219 Total liabilities and fund balance 85,340,733 $ See Notes to Financial Statements. 4 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance Year Ended June 30, 2011 Revenues: Sales taxes 60,772,795 $ Interest 359,798 Total revenues 61,132,593 Expenditures: Bicycle and pedestrian projects 1,940,499 Transit 49,046,759 Planning and programming 2,811,085 Total expenditures 53,798,343 Excess of revenues over expenditures 7,334,250 Fund balance, beginning of year 74,875,969 Fund balance, end of year 82,210,219 $ See Notes to Financial Statements. Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements 5 Note 1. Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies The Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission), in its capacity as the transportation planning agency for the County of Riverside, California (the County), is responsible for administering funds provided through the Local Transportation Fund (the Fund), which was created in accordance with the provisions of the Transportation Development Act of 1971. The significant revenue to the Fund is derived from 0.25 percent of the 8.25 percent statewide sales tax collected in the County by the State Board of Equalization (State). On July 1, 2011, the statewide sales tax decreased to 7.25 percent. The accounting policies of the Commission conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States as applicable to governmental units. Presentation: The accompanying financial statements of the Fund are intended to present the financial position and the changes in financial position of only that portion of the governmental activities of the Commission that is attributable to the transactions of the Local Transportation Fund of the Commission. They do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission as of June 30, 2011 and the changes in its financial position, where applicable, for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Basis of accounting: In accordance with the requirements for governmental funds, the modified accrual basis of accounting is followed in the Fund. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures are recorded when they are expected to be liquidated with expendable available resources, and revenue is recorded when it becomes both measurable and available. “Measurable” means the amount of the transaction can be determined, and “available” means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the Commission considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 180 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Those revenues susceptible to accrual include sales taxes collected and held by the State at year-end on behalf of the Commission and interest revenue. Funding: There is a three-step process for obtaining funds from the Fund: apportionment, allocation and payment. Annually, the Commission determines each area’s share of the anticipated Fund. This share is the area apportionment. Once funds are apportioned to a given area, they are typically available only for allocation to claimants in that area. Allocation is the discretionary action by the Commission which designates funds for a specific claimant for a specific purpose. Payment is authorized by disbursement instructions issued by the Commission. Expenditures: Expenditures represent disbursements to the Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, cities, the County of Riverside and transit operators that have met the claimant eligibility requirements to receive Fund monies per various Public Utilities Code Sections. All disbursements are to be used for transportation purposes. Accounts receivable: Accounts receivable consists primarily of LTF sales tax revenues from the State on all taxable sales within the County of Riverside, California through June 30, 2011. Accounts payable: Accounts payable consist primarily of claims approved by the Commission, but not paid by the Commission, to the appropriate transit operators by June 30, 2011. Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements 6 Note 1. Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) Due to other Commission funds: Due to other Commission funds represents allocations to the Commission’s General fund for grade separation costs. Fund balance restrictions: The Fund reports restricted fund balances to show the level of constraint governing the use of the funds. Restricted fund balances are restricted for specific purposes by third parties. Note 2. Cash and Investments with County Treasurer The funds in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund (RCPIF) are pooled with those of other entities and invested in accordance with the County’s investment policy. These pooled funds are carried at fair value. Fair value is based on quoted market prices and/or direct bids, when needed, from government dealers on some variable or floating rate items. Monies in the Fund are legally required to be deposited in the County Treasury pool. An Investment Oversight Committee has been established by the County, which acts as a regulator of the pool. As of June 30, 2011, the Commission had $73,322,371 invested in the RCPIF, with an average maturity of 478 days. Interest rate risk: While the Commission does not have a formal policy related to the interest rate risk of investments, the Commission’s investment policy follows the California Government Code as it relates to limits on investment maturities as a means of managing exposure to fair value losses arising from increasing interest rates. Credit risk: As of June 30, 2011, the Commission’s investment in the RCPIF was rated Aaa/MR1 by Moody’s Investors Service and AAA/V1+ by Fitch Ratings. The Commission’s investment policy only requires credit quality ratings for repurchase agreements, U.S. corporate debt, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances and certificates of deposit. Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements 7 Note 3. Fund Balance The restricted fund balance represents the apportionments related to transit programs by geographic area, bicycle and pedestrian projects, planning and programming, and unapportioned Local Transportation Funds. For Western County transit programs, commuter rail and bus allocations are in accordance with the Commission’s policy. At June 30, 2011, amounts in fund balance are restricted as follows: Rail and Bus Transit and Local Streets and Roads Apportionments: Western County: Commuter rail: Allocated and unclaimed 2,480,768 $ Apportioned and unallocated 17,823,807 Bus transit: Apportioned and unallocated 43,284,856 Total rail and bus transit—Western County 63,589,431 Coachella Valley apportioned and unallocated: Allocated and unclaimed 836,298 Apportioned and unallocated 3,381,041 Total bus transit—Coachella Valley 4,217,339 Palo Verde Valley: Allocated and unclaimed—Transit 517,989 Apportioned and unallocated for transit and local streets and roads 265,267 Total bus transit and local streets and roads - Palo Verde Valley 783,256 Total for rail and bus transit and local streets and roads apportionments 68,590,026 $ Bicycle and pedestrian projects: Allocated and unclaimed 2,516,238 $ Unallocated 753,984 Total for bicycle and pedestrian projects 3,270,222 $ Planning and programming, allocated and unclaimed 49,371 $ Unapportioned Local Transportation Funds 10,300,600 $ 1 Supplementary Information 8 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Allocations and Disbursements Year Ended June 30, 2011 Unclaimed Allocations Disbursements Allocations Disbursements Allocations Disbursements Allocations Disbursements Amount Expenditures: City of Banning 321,720 $ 287,647 $ 998,274 $ 998,274 $ -$ -$ 1,319,994 $ 1,285,921 $ 34,073 $ City of Beaumont 292,500 142,142 1,018,000 1,018,000 - - 1,310,500 1,160,142 150,358 City of Canyon Lake 70,000 - - - - - 70,000 - 70,000 City of Cathedral City 108,000 57,747 - - - - 108,000 57,747 50,253 City of Coachella 198,592 - - - - - 198,592 - 198,592 City of Corona 109,516 67,112 1,503,217 1,503,217 - - 1,612,733 1,570,329 42,404 City of Hemet 178,500 92,509 - - - - 178,500 92,509 85,991 City of Indio 186,240 92,240 - - - - 186,240 92,240 94,000 City of Lake Elsinore 329,475 225,975 - - - - 329,475 225,975 103,500 City of La Quinta 87,300 81,472 - - - - 87,300 81,472 5,828 City of Moreno Valley 150,000 - - - - - 150,000 - 150,000 City of Rancho Mirage 111,588 111,588 - - - - 111,588 111,588 - City of Riverside 744,000 222,307 2,191,371 2,191,371 - - 2,935,371 2,413,678 521,693 City of San Jacinto 145,000 - - - - - 145,000 - 145,000 City of Temecula 132,000 - - - - - 132,000 - 132,000 City of Wildomar 472,010 186,760 - - - - 472,010 186,760 285,250 County of Riverside: Auditor/Controller - - - - 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 - Road Department 1,056,000 373,000 - - - - 1,056,000 373,000 683,000 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency - - 674,809 589,997 - - 674,809 589,997 84,812 Commission - - 19,210,347 13,745,252 2,689,285 2,689,285 21,899,632 16,434,537 5,465,095 Riverside Transit Agency - - 19,408,234 19,408,234 - - 19,408,234 19,408,234 - SCAG - - - - 109,800 109,800 109,800 109,800 - Sunline Transit Agency - - 10,428,712 9,592,414 - - 10,428,712 9,592,414 836,298 4,692,441 $ 1,940,499 $ 55,432,964 $ 49,046,759 $ 2,811,085 $ 2,811,085 $ 62,936,490 $ 53,798,343 $ 9,138,147 $ Article 3 Planning, Programming and Administrative TotalsSB 821 Article 3 Article 4 9 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Unclaimed Apportionments (Articles 4 and 8) Year Ended June 30, 2011 Total Unclaimed Amounts Unclaimed Amounts Unclaimed Interest Apportionment Apportionment Claimed Apportionment Apportionment Claimed Apportionment Allocation June 30, 2011 Western County: Rail 9,596,183 $ 9,596,183 $ -$ 24,348,980 $ 4,149,069 $ 20,199,911 $ 104,664 $ 20,304,575 $ Bus 34,022,829 25,119,096 8,903,733 34,153,090 - 34,153,090 228,033 43,284,856 Coachella Valley 11,645,424 9,314,807 2,330,617 2,151,318 277,607 1,873,711 13,011 4,217,339 Palo Verde Valley: Transit 736,313 586,662 149,651 369,061 3,335 365,726 2,612 517,989 Unallocated - - - 263,709 - 263,709 1,558 265,267 Total transportation 56,000,749 44,616,748 11,384,001 61,286,158 4,430,011 56,856,147 349,878 68,590,026 Auditor/Controller 12,000 12,000 - - - - - - Commission administration 700,000 700,000 - - - - - - Commission planning 1,989,285 1,989,285 - 49,081 - 49,081 290 49,371 SCAG planning 109,800 109,800 - - - - - - Total administration and planning 2,811,085 2,811,085 - 49,081 - 49,081 290 49,371 Total apportionments 58,811,834 $ 47,427,833 $ 11,384,001 $ 61,335,239 $ 4,430,011 $ 56,905,228 $ 350,168 $ 68,639,397 $ Prior Fiscal YearFiscal Year 2010/2011 10 Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Unclaimed Apportionments (Article 3) Year Ended June 30, 2011 Unclaimed Unclaimed Apportionment Interest Apportionment July 1, 2010 Apportionment Disbursements Allocations June 30, 2011 Bicycle and pedestrian projects 3,931,233 $ 1,269,858 $ 1,940,499 $ 9,630 $ 3,270,222 $ BLANK 11 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have audited the financial statements of the Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, and have issued our report thereon dated October 31, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Management of the Commission is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting as it relates to the Local Transportation Fund as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the Local Transportation Fund’s financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. 12 Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Local Transportation Fund’s financial statements, as administered by the Commission, are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. This included those provisions of laws and regulations identified in the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended, and corresponding regulations of the California Government Code. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management of the Commission, the Audit Ad Hoc Committee, the Board of Commissioners, and the State of California’s Department of Transportation and State Controller’s Office, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Financial and Compliance Report Year Ended June 30, 2011 Contents Independent Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information 1-2 Financial Statements Balance Sheet 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance 4 Notes to Financial Statements 5-7 Supplementary Information Schedule of Allocations and Disbursements Approved During the Year 8 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance W ith Government Auditing Standards 9-10 1 Independent Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Commission’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statem ents are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the State Transit Assistance Fund and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission or the County of Riverside, California, as of June 30, 2011, and the change in its financial position for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Commission, as of June 30, 2011, and the change in its financial position for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 31, 2011 on our consideration of the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. The State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside has not presented a Management’s Discussion and Analysis that accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires to supplement, although not to be part of, the financial statements. 2 Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund of the Commission taken as a whole. The schedule listed in the table of contents as supplementary information is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 3 State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Balance Sheet June 30, 2011 Assets Cash and investments 37,008,228 $ Interest receivable 50,108 Total assets 37,058,336 $ Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities Accounts payable 89,854 $ Due to other Commission funds 4,789,853 Total liabilities 4,879,707 Fund Balance Restricted allocations available for programming 18,652,319 Restricted for unclaimed allocations 13,526,310 Total fund balance 32,178,629 Total liabilities and fund balance 37,058,336 $ See Notes to Financial Statements. 4 State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance Year Ended June 30, 2011 Revenues: Interest 212,124 $ Total revenues 212,124 Expenditures: Disbursements to claimants 1,645,386 Net change in fund balance (1,433,262) Fund balance, beginning of year 33,611,891 Fund balance, end of year 32,178,629 $ See Notes to Financial Statements. State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements 5 Note 1. Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies The Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission), in its capacity as the transportation planning agency for the County of Riverside, California (the County), is responsible for administering funds provided through the State Transit Assistance Program, which was created in 1979 under Chapter 161 (SB 620) of the California statutes to provide a second source of Transportation Development Act funding for the development of transit systems. The funds are derived from fuel sales tax revenue and are budgeted through legislation and appropriated to the State Controller’s Office (State) for allocation to local agencies. The accounting policies of the Commission conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States as applicable to governmental units. A summary of the Commission’s significant accounting policies is as follows: Presentation: The accompanying financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund (the Fund) are intended to present the financial position and the changes in financial position of only that portion of the governmental activities of the Commission that is attributable to the transactions of the Fund of the Commission. They do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission as of June 30, 2011 and the changes in its financial position, where applicable, for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Basis of accounting: In accordance with the requirements for governmental funds, the modified accrual basis of accounting is followed in the Fund. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures are recorded when they are expected to be liquidated with expendable available resources, and revenue is recorded when it becomes both measurable and available. “Measurable” means the amount of the transaction can be determined, and “available” means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the Commission considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 180 days of the end of the fiscal year. Those revenues susceptible to accrual include fuel sales tax revenue and interest revenue. Allocations to local agencies: State transit assistance funds are allocated to the operators within the County. Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99313 allocates funds to regional transportation planning agencies based on the ratio of area population to state population. PUC Section 99314 allocates funds to public operators based on their share of fares and local support to other operators in the state. The allocations must be made in a resolution adopted by the Commission. Cash: It is the Commission’s policy to deposit all funds received with the County of Riverside Tax Collector-Treasurer for investment until the funds are required for disbursement. Interest income is earned while these funds are so deposited. State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements 6 Note 1. Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) Fund balance restrictions: The Fund reports restricted fund balances to show the level of constraint governing the use of the funds. Restricted fund balances are restricted for specific purposes by third parties. The restricted fund balance for allocations available for programming represents amounts apportioned but not allocated to claimants. The restricted fund balance for unclaimed allocations represents amounts allocated by the Commission and due to claimants but not yet paid, as claimants have not yet provided the appropriate claim documentation to the Commission as of June 30, 2011. Disbursements to claimants: Disbursements to claimants represent funds disbursed to transit operators that have met the eligibility requirements to receive State Transit Assistance Program funds per PUC Sections 99313 and 99314. All disbursements are to be used for transit purposes. Note 2. Cash and Investments Cash and investments at June 30, 2011 consist of the following: Cash and investments with County Treasurer 37,005,630 $ Cash in bank 2,598 37,008,228 $ The funds in the County Treasury are pooled with those of other entities in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund (RCPIF) and invested in accordance with the County’s investment policy. These pooled funds are carried at fair value. Fair value is based on quoted market prices and/or direct bids, when needed, from government dealers on some variable or floating rate items. The Commission is a voluntary participant in the pool. An Investment Oversight Committee has been established by the County, which acts as a regulator of the pool. As of June 30, 2011, the Commission had $37,005,630 invested in the RCPIF, with an average maturity of 478 days. Interest rate risk: While the Commission does not have a formal policy related to the interest rate risk of investments, the Commission’s investment policy follows the California Government Code as it relates to limits on investment maturities as a means of managing exposure to fair value losses arising from increasing interest rates. Credit risk: As of June 30, 2011, the Commission’s investment in the RCPIF was rated Aaa/MR1 by Moody’s Investors Service and AAA/V1+ by Fitch Ratings. The Commission’s investment policy only requires credit quality ratings for repurchase agreements, U.S. corporate debt, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances and certificates of deposit. State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements 7 Note 3. Fund Balance At June 30, 2011, amounts are restricted for apportioned and unallocated amounts and for unpaid allocations by geographic area. For Western County transit programs, commuter rail and bus allocations are in accordance with the Commission’s policy. Restricted for allocations available for programming: Western County: Commuter rail 2,665,894 $ Bus 12,839,275 Coachella Valley 2,974,873 Palo Verde Valley 172,277 18,652,319 Restricted for unclaimed allocations: Western County: Commuter rail 837,487 City of Banning 784,346 City of Beaumont 1,200,290 City of Corona 292,792 City of Riverside 405,000 Riverside Transit Agency 8,761,376 Coachella Valley: SunLine Transit Agency 1,050,375 Palo Verde Valley: Palo Verde Transit 194,644 13,526,310 Total fund balance 32,178,629 $ Supplementary Information 8 State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside, as Administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Allocations and Disbursements Approved During the Year Year Ended June 30, 2011 California Code of Regulations Amount Amount Section No. Recipient Allocated Disbursed Reference Riverside Transit Agency -$ 751,509 $ 6730 Commission Commuter Rail Program - 840,004 6730 Total Western County - 1,591,513 SunLine Transit Agency - 45,232 6730 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 5,730 8,641 6730 Other - - 5,730 $ 1,645,386 $ BLANK 9 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have audited the financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, and have issued our report thereon dated October 31, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Management of the Commission is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting as it relates to the State Transit Assistance Fund as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the State Transit Assistance Fund’s financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the State Transit Assistance Fund’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, as administered by the Commission, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. This included those provisions of laws and regulations identified in the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended, and corresponding regulations of the California Government Code. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances 10 of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management of the Commission, the Audit Ad Hoc Committee, the Board of Commissioners, and the State of California’s Department of Transportation and State Controller’s Office, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, Accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Financial and Compliance Report Year Ended June 30, 2011 Contents Independent Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information 1-2 Financial Statements Balance Sheets 3 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Account Balance 4 Notes to Financial Statements 5-7 Supplementary Information Combining Balance Sheets—By Project Combining Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Account Balance—By Project 8-9 10-11 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control O ver Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards 12-13 1 Independent Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission), as of and for the years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Commission’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission as of June 30, 2011 and 2010, and the changes in their financial position for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts of the Commission as of June 30, 2011 and 2010, and the changes in its financial position for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our reports dated October 31, 2011 and October 28, 2010 on our consideration of the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of those reports is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. Those reports are an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audits. 2 The Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, accounts of the Commission, has not presented a Management’s Discussion and Analysis that accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require to supplement, although do not require to be a part of, the financial statements. Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements of the Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, accounts of the Commission, taken as a whole. The schedules, listed in the table of contents as supplementary information, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements of the Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audits of the financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 3 Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, Accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Balance Sheets June 30, 2011 and 2010 Assets PTMISEA CTSGP-CTAF Total PTMISEA CTSGP-CTAF Total Cash and investments in Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund 2,034,052 $ 547,423 $ 2,581,475 $ 2,547,946 $ 347,393 $ 2,895,339 $ Interest receivable 2,789 247 3,036 7,055 618 7,673 Total assets 2,036,841 $ 547,670 $ 2,584,511 $ 2,555,001 $ 348,011 $ 2,903,012 $ Liabilities and Account Balance Liabilities Accounts payable -$ -$ -$ 175,188 $ -$ 175,188 $ Accrued payroll - - - 1,172 - 1,172 Total liabilities - - - 176,360 - 176,360 Account Balance Restricted: Rail projects 2,036,841 547,670 2,584,511 2,378,641 348,011 2,726,652 Total account balance 2,036,841 547,670 2,584,511 2,378,641 348,011 2,726,652 Total liabilities and account balance 2,036,841 $ 547,670 $ 2,584,511 $ 2,555,001 $ 348,011 $ 2,903,012 $ See Notes to Financial Statements. 2011 2010 4 Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, Accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Account Balance Years Ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 PTMISEA CTSGP-CTAF Total PTMISEA CTSGP-CTAF Total Revenues: State allocations -$ 347,496 $ 347,496 $ 870,637 $ 347,600 $ 1,218,237 $ Interest 13,840 1,790 15,630 35,974 981 36,955 Total revenues 13,840 349,286 363,126 906,611 348,581 1,255,192 Expenditures: Rail 355,640 149,627 505,267 2,454,324 65,776 2,520,100 Net change in account balance (341,800) 199,659 (142,141) (1,547,713) 282,805 (1,264,908) Account balance, beginning of year 2,378,641 348,011 2,726,652 3,926,354 65,206 3,991,560 Account balance, end of year 2,036,841 $ 547,670 $ 2,584,511 $ 2,378,641 $ 348,011 $ 2,726,652 $ See Notes to Financial Statements. 2011 2010 Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, Accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements 5 Note 1. Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies On November 7, 2006, the voters of California approved the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Bond Act or Proposition 1B). Proposition 1B included a state program of funding in the amount of $4 billion and $1 billion to be deposited in the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) and Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA), respectively. The California Transit Security Grant Program-California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) is a TSSSDRA program. The PTMISEA funds, which are administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the CTSGP- CTAF funds, which are administered by the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), are to be made available to project sponsors in California for eligible public transportation projects and related security and safety projects, respectively. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission) owns and operates six commuter rail stations in Riverside County (the County). As a project sponsor, the Commission has applied for and obtained approval for PTMISEA and CTSGP-CTAF funds for various projects related to its commuter rail stations. These funds are accounted for in the Measure A Western County Rail Special Revenue Fund in project accounts (the Accounts). The significant revenue to the Accounts is derived from allocations approved by the Controller of the State of California (the Controller). The accounting policies of the Commission conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States as applicable to governmental units. A summary of the Commission’s significant accounting policies is as follows: Presentation: The accompanying financial statements of the Accounts are intended to present the financial position and the changes in financial position of only that portion of the governmental activities of the Commission that is attributable to the transactions of the PTMISEA and CTSGP-CTAF, Accounts of the Commission. They do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission as of June 30, 2011 and 2010 and the changes in its financial position for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Basis of accounting: In accordance with the requirements for governmental funds, the modified accrual basis of accounting is followed in the PTMISEA and CTSGP-CTAF Accounts. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures are recorded when they are expected to be liquidated with expendable available resources, and revenue is recorded when it becomes both measurable and available. “Measurable” means the amount of the transaction can be determined, and “available” means collectible within the current period, or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the Commission considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 180 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Those revenues susceptible to accrual include PTMISEA and CTSGP-CTAF allocations and interest revenue. For the year ended June 30, 2011, the Commission received an allocation of $347,496 for the Station Security project and has recorded this allocation as revenue. For the year ended June 30, 2010, the Commission received allocations of $870,637 for the La Sierra Parking Lot rehabilitation project and $347,600 for the Station Security project, for a total of $1,218,237, and has recorded these allocations as revenue. Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, Accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements 6 Note 1. Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) Funding: Project sponsors may submit applications for funding of eligible transit capital projects to Caltrans or CalEMA, which approves projects for funding related to PTMISEA and CTSGP-CTAF, respectively. PTMISEA eligible projects include rehabilitation, safety or modernization improvements; capital service enhancements or expansions; new capital projects; bus rapid transit improvements; and rolling stock procurement, rehabilitation, expansion or replacement. CTSGP-CTAF eligible projects include capital projects that provide increased protection against a security or safety threat; increase the capacity of transit operators to prepare for disaster-response transportation systems to move people, goods, emergency personnel and equipment in the aftermath of a disaster; and other allowable costs under California Government Code 16727(a). The Controller will disburse funds upon receipt of the approved PTMISEA and CTSGP-CTAF projects. Funds must be encumbered within three years of receipt and must be expended within three years of being encumbered. Cash: It is the Commission’s policy to deposit all funds received with the County of Riverside Tax Collector-Treasurer for investment until the funds are required for disbursement. Interest income is earned while these funds are so deposited. Fund balance restrictions: The Accounts report restricted fund balances to show the level of constraint governing the use of the funds. Restricted fund balances are restricted for specific purposes by third parties. Expenditures: Expenditures represent rail capital projects as identified in PTMISEA and CTSGP-CTAF applications submitted by the Commission. For the year ended June 30, 2011, the Commission incurred qualifying expenditures of $29,328 for the Perris Multimodal Facility project, $312,406 for the Station Rehabilitation project, $13,906 for the La Sierra Parking Lot project, and $149,627 for the Station Security project, for a total of $505,267. For the year ended June 30, 2010, the Commission incurred qualifying expenditures of $774,144 for the Perris Multimodal Facility project, $1,626,400 for the Station Rehabilitation project, $53,780 for the La Sierra Parking Lot project, and $65,776 for the Station Security project, for a total of $2,520,100. Note 2. Cash and Investments With County Treasurer The funds in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund (RCPIF) are pooled with those of other entities and invested in accordance with the County’s investment policy. These pooled funds are carried at fair value. Fair value is based on quoted market prices and/or direct bids, when needed, from government dealers on some variable or floating rate items. The Commission is a voluntary participant in the pool. An Investment Oversight Committee has been established by the County, which acts as a regulator of the pool. As of June 30, 2011 and 2010, the Account has $2,581,475 and $2,895,339, respectively, included in the Commission’s investment with the RCPIF, with an average maturity of 478 days and 372 days, respectively. Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, Accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements 7 Note 2. Cash and Investments With County Treasurer (Continued) Interest rate risk: While the Commission does not have a formal policy related to the interest rate risk of investments, the Commission’s investment policy follows the California Government Code as it relates to limits on investment maturities as a means of managing exposure to fair value losses arising from increasing interest rates. Credit risk: As of June 30, 2011 and 2010, the Commission’s investment in the RCPIF was rated Aaa/MR1 by Moody’s Investors Service and AAA/V1+ by Fitch Ratings. The Commission’s investment policy only requires credit quality ratings for repurchase agreements, U.S. corporate debt, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, and certificates of deposit. Supplementary Information 8 Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, Accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Combining Balance Sheet—By Project June 30, 2011 CTSGP-CTAF Perris Multimodal Station La Sierra Station Assets Facility Rehabilitation Parking Lot Total Security Total Cash and investments in Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund 588,937 $ 635,847 $ 809,268 $ 2,034,052 $ 547,423 $ 2,581,475 $ Interest receivable 807 872 1,110 2,789 247 3,036 Total assets 589,744 $ 636,719 $ 810,378 $ 2,036,841 $ 547,670 $ 2,584,511 $ Account Balance Account Balance Restricted: Rail projects 589,744 $ 636,719 $ 810,378 $ 2,036,841 $ 547,670 $ 2,584,511 $ Total account balance 589,744 $ 636,719 $ 810,378 $ 2,036,841 $ 547,670 $ 2,584,511 $ PTMISEA 9 Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, Accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Combining Balance Sheet—By Project June 30, 2010 CTSGP-CTAF Perris Multimodal Station La Sierra Station Assets Facility Rehabilitation Parking Lot Total Security Total Cash and investments in Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund 613,598 $ 1,116,820 $ 817,528 $ 2,547,946 $ 347,393 $ 2,895,339 $ Interest receivable 1,460 3,524 2,071 7,055 618 7,673 Total assets 615,058 $ 1,120,344 $ 819,599 $ 2,555,001 $ 348,011 $ 2,903,012 $ Liabilities and Account Balance Liabilities Accounts payable -$ 174,517 $ 671 $ 175,188 $ -$ 175,188 $ Accrued payroll - 1,172 - 1,172 - 1,172 Total liabilities - 175,689 671 176,360 - 176,360 Account Balance Restricted: Rail projects 615,058 944,655 818,928 2,378,641 348,011 2,726,652 Total account balance 615,058 944,655 818,928 2,378,641 348,011 2,726,652 Total liabilities and account balance 615,058 $ 1,120,344 $ 819,599 $ 2,555,001 $ 348,011 $ 2,903,012 $ PTMISEA 10 Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, Accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Account Balance—By Project Year Ended June 30, 2011 CTSGP-CTAF Perris Multimodal Station La Sierra Station Facility Rehabilitation Parking Lot Total Security Total Revenues: State allocations -$ -$ -$ -$ 347,496 $ 347,496 $ Interest 4,014 4,470 5,356 13,840 1,790 15,630 Total revenues 4,014 4,470 5,356 13,840 349,286 363,126 Expenditures: Rail 29,328 312,406 13,906 355,640 149,627 505,267 Net change in account balance (25,314) (307,936) (8,550) (341,800) 199,659 (142,141) Account balance, beginning of year 615,058 944,655 818,928 2,378,641 348,011 2,726,652 Account balance, end of year 589,744 $ 636,719 $ 810,378 $ 2,036,841 $ 547,670 $ 2,584,511 $ PTMISEA 11 Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, Accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Account Balance—By Project Year Ended June 30, 2010 CTSGP-CTAF Perris Multimodal Station La Sierra Station Facility Rehabilitation Parking Lot Total Security Total Revenues: State allocations -$ -$ 870,637 $ 870,637 $ 347,600 $ 1,218,237 $ Interest 11,058 22,845 2,071 35,974 981 36,955 Total revenues 11,058 22,845 872,708 906,611 348,581 1,255,192 Expenditures: Rail 774,144 1,626,400 53,780 2,454,324 65,776 2,520,100 Net change in account balance (763,086) (1,603,555) 818,928 (1,547,713) 282,805 (1,264,908) Account balance, beginning of year 1,378,144 2,548,210 - 3,926,354 65,206 3,991,560 Account balance, end of year 615,058 $ 944,655 $ 818,928 $ 2,378,641 $ 348,011 $ 2,726,652 $ PTMISEA BLANK 12 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have audited the financial statements of the Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts, accounts of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Comm ission), as of and for the years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, and have issued our report thereon dated October 31, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Management of the Commission is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting as it relates to the Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts’ financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. 13 Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Proposition 1B Rehabilitation, Safety and Security Project Accounts’ financial statements, accounts of the Commission, are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. This included those provisions of laws and regulations identified in the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended, and corresponding regulations of the California Government Code. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management of the Commission, the Audit Ad Hoc Committee, the Board of Commissioners, and the State of California’s Department of Transportation and State Controller’s Office, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 Riverside County Transportation Commission Compliance Report June 30, 2011 Contents Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Note to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 1 2 Independent Auditor’s Report on: Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards 3-4 Compliance With Requirements That Could Have a Direct and Material Effect on Its Major Program and Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance With OMB Circular A-133 and on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 5-6 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs 7-8 Summary Schedule of Prior Year Audit Findings 9 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Year Ended June 30, 2011 Catalog of Federal Domestic Pass-Through Entity Grantor/Pass-Through Grantor/Assistance Identifying Number/Federal Cluster Program Title Number Grant Number Expenditures U.S. Department of Transportation: Highway Planning and Construction Program: Pass-through State Department of Transportation: 60/215 East Junction 20.205*07-31-082-01 192,071 $ State Regional Rideshare 20.205*08-41-042-00 85,943 Riverside to Orange Counties Major Investment Study 20.205*07-65-085-00/07-65-084-00/ 07-65-083-00 280,289 State Route 91 Utilities Relocation 20.205*08-31-002-01 1,387,139 Pass-through Orange County Transportation Authority: Regional Ridematching Services Project 20.205*07-41-115-02/C-6-0678/C-4-0329 66,346 Pass-through Ventura County Transportation Commission: Regional Ridematching 20.205*06-41-082-05 24,990 2,036,778 Pass-through State Department of Transportation: ARRA - 74/215 Interchange ARRA-20.205*10-31-025-00 8,339,519 Total Highway Planning and Construction Program 10,376,297 Federal Transit, Formula Grant: Urbanized Area Formula: Direct Program, Perris Valley Line 20.507 CA-90-Y637-02/CA-95-X135-00/7,383,903 CA-90-Y827-00 Direct Program, North Main Corona Rail Station Parking Structure 20.507 CA-95-X031-00 (68,415) Total Federal Transit, Formula Grant 7,315,488 Public Transportation Research: Pass-through State Department of Transportation: Rising Stars in Transit 20.514 MOU M-004-10/10-25-089-00 19,291 Job Access - Reverse Commute Pass-through SunLine Transit Agency Jobs Access - Reverse Commute Grant 20.516 10-26-054-00 24,502 Total expenditures of federal awards 17,735,578 $ * Denotes major program See Note to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Riverside County Transportation Commission Note to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 2 Note 1. Basis of Presentation The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (the Schedule) presents the activity of all federal award programs of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission). The Schedule includes federal awards received directly from federal agencies, as well as federal awards passed through other agencies. The Commission’s reporting entity is defined in Note 1 to the Commission’s basic financial statements. Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the Commission, it is not intended to, and does not, present the financial position of the Commission. The accompanying Schedule is presented on the modified-accrual basis of accounting. The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations. Therefore, some amounts presented in this Schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in the preparation of, the basic financial statements. 3 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the Commission’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated October 31, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Management of the Commission is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing opinions on the effectiveness of the Commission’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the District’s internal control over financial reporting. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. 4 Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Commission’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. This included those provisions of laws and regulations identified in the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended, and corresponding regulations of the California Government Code. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Commissioners, the Audit Ad Hoc Committee, management, federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 5 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance With Requirements That Could Have a Direct and Material Effect on Its Major Program and Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance With OMB Circular A-133, and on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA Compliance We have audited the Riverside County Transportation Commission’s (the Commission) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on the Commission’s major federal program for the year ended June 30, 2011. The Commission’s major federal program is identified in the summary of auditor’s results section of the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to its major federal program is the responsibility of the Commission’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Commission’s compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on the major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Commission’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination on the Commission’s compliance with those requirements. In our opinion, the Commission complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on its major federal program for the year ended June 30, 2011. Internal Control Over Compliance Management of the Commission is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Commission’s internal control over compliance with the requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program in order to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Commission’s internal control over compliance. 6 A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Commission as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the Commission’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated October 31, 2011. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming opinions on the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is presented for the purposes of additional analysis as required by OMB Circular A-133, and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Commissioners, the Audit Ad Hoc Committee, management, federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year Ended June 30, 2011 7 I. Summary of Auditor’s Results Financial Statements Type of Auditor’s Report Issued: Unqualified Internal control over financial reporting: • Material weakness(es) identified? Yes X No • Significant deficiency(ies) identified that are not considered to be material weaknesses? Yes X None Reported • Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? Yes X No Federal Awards Internal control over major programs: • Material weakness(es) identified? Yes X No • Significant deficiency(ies) identified that are not considered to be material weaknesses? Yes X None Reported Type of auditor’s report issued on compliance for major programs: Unqualified • Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with Section 510(a) of OMB Circular A-133? Yes X No Identification of major programs: CFDA Number(s) Name of Federal Program or Cluster 20.205 Highway Planning and Construction Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs: $ 532,067 Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? X Yes No Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs (Continued) Year Ended June 30, 2011 8 II. Financial Statement Findings A. Internal Control Matters None reported. B. Compliance Findings None reported. III. Findings and Questioned Costs for Federal Awards A. Internal Control Matters None reported. B. Compliance Findings None reported. Riverside County Transportation Commission Summary Schedule of Prior Year Audit Findings Year Ended June 30, 2011 9 There were no audit findings reported for the year ended June 30, 2010. Independent Auditor’s Report Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the Commission’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon, dated October 28, 2011. In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the Commission failed to comply with the terms, covenants, provisions or conditions of Section 6.2(g) or Section 6.2(l) contained in the Reimbursement Agreement dated March 1, 2005, with Bank of America, N.A., a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States of America, relating to the Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds) Series A and Series B, insofar as they relate to accounting matters. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Commissioners and management of the Commission and Bank of America, N.A., and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 18401 Von Karman, 5th Floor Irvine, CA 92612-8531 O 949.255.6500 F 949.255.5091 www.mcgladrey.com Riverside County Transportation Commission Report to the Audit Ad Hoc Committee November 4, 2011 BLANK November 4, 2011 To the Audit Ad Hoc Committee Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We are pleased to present this report related to our audit of the basic financial statements and compliance of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission) for the year ended June 30, 2011. This report summarizes certain matters required by professional standards to be communicated to you in your oversight responsibility for the Commission’s financial and compliance reporting process. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Audit Ad Hoc Committee, the Board of Commissioners and management, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. It will be our pleasure to respond to any questions you have regarding this report. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to be of service to the Commission. BLANK Contents Required Communications 1-2 Summary of Accounting Estimates 3-4 Exhibit A—Certain Written Communications Between Management and Our Firm Representation Letter BLANK 1 Required Communications Statement on Auditing Standards No. 114 requires the auditor to communicate certain matters to keep those charged with governance adequately informed about matters related to the financial statement audit that are, in our professional judgment, significant and relevant to the responsibilities of those charged with governance in overseeing the financial reporting process. The following summarizes these communications: Area Comments Auditor’s Responsibility Under Professional Standards Our responsibility under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the provisions of the Single Audit Act, OMB Circular A-133 and OMB’s Compliance Supplement has been described to you in our arrangement letter dated May 10, 2011 and in our meeting with you on June 8, 2011. Accounting Practices Adoption of, or Change in, Accounting Policies Management has the ultimate responsibility for the appropriateness of the accounting policies used by the Commission. The Commission did not adopt any significant new accounting policies nor have there been any changes in existing significant accounting policies during the current period. Significant or Unusual Transactions We did not identify any significant or unusual transactions or significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. Alternative Treatments Discussed With Management We did not discuss with management any alternative treatments within generally accepted accounting principles for accounting policies and practices related to material items during the current audit period. Management’s Judgments and Accounting Estimates Summary information about the process used by management in formulating particularly sensitive accounting estimates and about our conclusions regarding the reasonableness of those estimates is in the attached Summary of Accounting Estimates. Financial Statement Disclosures In our meeting with you, we will discuss with you the following items as they relate to the neutrality, consistency and clarity of the disclosures in the financial statements:  Debt issuances  Capitalization of toll road costs 2 Area Comments Audit Adjustments There were no audit adjustments made by us to the original trial balance presented to us to begin our audit. Disagreements With Management We encountered no disagreements with management over the application of significant accounting principles, the basis for management’s judgments on any significant matters, the scope of the audit or significant disclosures to be included in the financial statements. Consultations With Other Accountants We are not aware of any consultations management had with other accountants about accounting or auditing matters. Significant Issues Discussed With Management No significant issues arising from the audit were discussed or were the subject of correspondence with management. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We did not encounter any difficulties in dealing with management during the audit. Certain Written Communications Between Management and Our Firm Copies of certain written communications between our Firm and the management of the Commission are attached as Exhibit A. 3 Riverside County Transportation Commission Summary of Accounting Estimates Year Ended June 30, 2011 Accounting estimates are an integral part of the preparation of financial statements and are based upon management’s current judgment. The process used by management encompasses its knowledge and experience about past and current events and certain assumptions about future events. You may wish to monitor throughout the year the process used to compute and record these accounting estimates. The following describes the significant accounting estimates reflected in the Commission’s June 30, 2011 basic financial statements: Area Accounting Policy Estimation Process Comments Useful Lives of Long- Lived Assets The estimated useful lives of assets generally have the following ranges: rail stations 10- 30 years; office furniture and equipment three to five years; vehicles five years. These assets are depreciated using the straight-line method. Land and rail operating easements are not depreciated and construction in process is not depreciated until ready for service and capitalized. Management reviews for changes in the useful lives of long-lived assets by evaluating prominent events or changes in circumstances affecting capital assets to determine whether impairment of a capital asset has occurred. A capital asset is considered impaired if both the decline in the service utility of the capital asset is large in magnitude and the event or change in circumstances is outside the normal life cycle of the capital asset. Common indicators of impairment include evidence of physical damage where effort is needed to restore service utility, enactment or approval of laws or regulations setting standards that the capital asset would not be able to meet, technological develop- ment or evidence of obsolescence, a change in the manner or expected duration of use of a capital asset, or construction stoppage. We tested the reasonableness of information underlying management’s estimate. Based on our procedures, we concluded that assigned useful lives of capital assets are reasonable. 4 Area Accounting Policy Estimation Process Comments Pension Obligations and Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions Pension and postemployment benefits are recorded at cost based on an estimated annual contribution rate. For postemployment benefits other than pensions, management utilizes an actuarial consulting firm to perform an evaluation using the entry age actuarial cost method. Management reviewed and approved the actuarial assumptions and calculations used to determine the postemployment benefit costs. For pension obligations, management utilizes CalPERS actuaries for cost sharing multiple- employer plans. A cost sharing multiple- employer plan is a pooling arrangement whereby risks, rewards and benefit costs are shared and not attributed individually to any single employer. Management reviewed the actuarial assumptions and calculations used to determine the pension costs. We tested the reasonableness of the information underlying the actuarial evaluations. Based on our procedures, we concluded that the costs recorded are reasonable. Exhibit A—Certain Written Communications Between Management and Our Firm BLANK 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA Mailing Address: P. O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502.2208 (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951 j 787-7920 • www.rctc.org Riverside County Transportation Commission October 31, 2011 McGladrey & Pullen, LLP 18401 Von Karman Ave., 5th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 In connection with your audit of the basic financial statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), California as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011; the financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund (STAF) and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) of the County of Riverside, as administered by the Commission, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011; and the financial statements of the Proposition 1B Rehabilitation and Security Project Accounts (Prop 1B), accounts of the Commission, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011; we confirm that we are responsible for the fair presentation in the financial statements of financial position, changes in financial position, and cash flows in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, as of October 31, 2011 the following representations made to you during your audit. 1. The financial statements referred to above are fairly presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 2. We have identified for you all organizations that are a part of this reporting entity or with which we have a relationship, as these organizations are defined in Section 2100 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board's Codification of Governmental Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards, that are component units and jointly governed organizations in which we participated. In that regard, the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) is a component unit of the Commission. The jointly governed organizations that the Commission is a member of are the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority. 3. We have identified for you all of our funds and governmental functions. 4. We have properly classified all funds and activities. 5. We have properly determined and reported the major governmental funds based on the required quantitative criteria. We have determined the Debt Service fund to be major for public interest reasons. We believe that this judgmentally determined major fund is particularly important to the financial statement users. 6. We are responsible for compliance with laws and regulations applicable to the Commission, LTF, STAF, and Prop 1B, including adopting, approving, and amending budgets. 7. We have identified and disclosed to you all laws and regulations that have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts including legal and contractual provisions for reporting specific activities in separate funds. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP October 31, 2011 Page 2 8. We have made available to you: a. All financial records and related data of all funds and activities, including those of all special funds, programs, departments, projects, activities, etc., in existence at any time during the period covered by your audit. b. All minutes of the meetings of the Board of Commissioners and committees of board members or summaries of actions of recent meetings for which minutes have not yet been prepared. 9. There have been no communications from grantors, lenders, other funding sources, or regulatory agencies concerning noncompliance with: a. Statutory, regulatory, or contractual provisions or requirements. b. Financial reporting practices that could have a material effect on the financial statements. 10. We have no knowledge of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the Commission involving: a. Management or employees who have significant roles in internal control. b. Others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. 11. We acknowledge our responsibility for the design and implementation of programs and controls to provide reasonable assurance that fraud is prevented and detected. 12. We have no knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the Commission received in communications from employees, former employees, analysts, regulators, or others. 13. We are aware of no significant deficiencies, including material weaknesses, in the design or operation of internal controls that could adversely affect the entity's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data. 14. There have been no communications from regulatory agencies concerning noncompliance with, or deficiencies in, financial reporting practices. 15. We have no plans or intentions that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets and liabilities. 16 The following have been properly recorded and/or disclosed in the financial statements: a. Related -party transactions, including those with SAFE for which the Commission is considered accountable, jointly governed organizations in which the Commission participates, and those with STAF and LTF, as defined in Section 2100 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board's Codification of Governmental Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards, and interfund transactions, including interfund accounts and advances receivable and payable, all of which have been recorded in accordance with the economic substance of the transaction and appropriately classified and reported. There are no related party transactions other than those noted above. b. Security agreements in effect under the Uniform Commercial Code. c. Revenue which was pledged as collateral for debt liability. d. The fair value of investments. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP October 31, 2011 Page 3 e. Amounts of contractual obligations for construction and purchase of real property or equipment not included in the liabilities or encumbrances recorded on the books. f. Debt issue provisions. g. All leases and material amounts of rental obligations under long-term leases. h. All significant estimates and material concentrations known to management which are required to be disclosed in accordance with the AICPA's Statement of Position No. 94-6, Disclosure of Certain Significant Risks and Uncertainties. Significant estimates are estimates at the balance sheet date which could change materially within the next year. Concentrations refer to volumes of business, revenues, available sources of supply, or markets for which events could occur which would significantly disrupt normal finances within the next year. i. Authorized but unissued bonds and/or notes. j. Risk financing activities. k. Derivative financial instruments. I. The effect on the financial statements of Statement No. 59, Financial Instruments Omnibus; Statement No. 60, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Service Concession Arrangements; Statement No. 61, The Financial Reporting Entity: Omnibus, an amendment of GASB Statements No. 14 and 34 and Statement No. 62, Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in Pre - November 30, 1989 FASB and AICPA Pronouncements, GASB Statement No. 63, Financial Reporting of Deferred Outflows of Resources, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Net Position, and GASB Statement No. 64, Derivative Instruments: Application of Hedge Accounting Termination Provisions - an Amendment of GASB Statement No. 53, which have been issued, but which we have not yet adopted. m. Unpaid requests for disbursements to STAF or LTF claimants that have not been paid by June 30, 2011. The unapportioned fund balances for STAF and LTF are free and unencumbered for future use as outlined in the Transportation Development Act. n. Deposits and investment securities categories of risks. o. Credit facility related to variable rate demand bonds. 17. We are responsible for making the accounting estimates included in the financial statements. Those estimates reflect our judgment based on our knowledge and experience about past and current events and our assumptions about conditions we expect to exist and courses of action we expect to take. In that regard, adequate provisions have been made to reduce receivables to their estimated net collectible amounts and for pension obligations, post -retirement benefits other than pensions and deferred compensation agreements attributable to employee services rendered through June 30, 2011. 18. There are no: a. Material transactions that have not been properly recorded in the accounting records underlying the financial statements. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP October 31, 2011 Page 4 b. Violations or possible violations of laws or regulations whose effects should be considered for disclosure in the financial statements or as a basis for recording a loss contingency. In that regard, we specifically represent that we have not been designated as, or alleged to be, a "potentially responsible party" by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency or any equivalent state agencies in connection with any environmental contamination. c. Other material liabilities or gain or loss contingencies that are required to be accrued or disclosed by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 and/or GASB Statement No. 10. d. Allocations to STAF or LTF claimants which are in violation of the statute of limitations as outlined in the Transportation Development Act. e. Guarantees, whether written or oral, under which the Commission is contingently liable. f. Arrangements with financial institutions involving compensating balances or other arrangements involving restrictions on cash balances. g. Agreements to repurchase assets previously sold. h. Other liens or encumbrances on assets or revenues or any assets or revenues which were pledged as collateral for any liability or which were subordinated in any way. i. Liabilities which are subordinated in any way to any other actual or possible liabilities. j. Debt issue repurchase options or agreements, or sinking fund debt repurchase ordinance requirements. k. Special or extraordinary items. I. Arbitrage rebate liabilities. m. Impairments of capital assets. n. Investments, intangible or other assets that have permanently declined in value. o. Provisions necessary for risk retention, including uninsured losses or loss retentions attributable to events occurring through June 30, 2011 and/or for expected retroactive insurance premium adjustments applicable to periods through June 30, 2011. p. Inventories. q. Material losses to be sustained as a result of purchase commitments or service commitments. r. Environmental cleanup obligations. s. Lines of credit or similar arrangements. 19. There are no unasserted claims or assessments that our lawyer has advised us are probable of assertion and must be disclosed in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 and/or GASB Statement No. 10. 20. We have no direct or indirect, legal or moral obligation for any debt of any organization, public or private that is not disclosed in the financial statements. 21. We have satisfactory title to all owned assets. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP October 31, 2011 Page 5 22. We have complied with all aspects of contractual agreements that would have a material effect on the financial statements in the event of noncompliance. 23. Net asset components (invested in capital assets, net of related debt; restricted; and unrestricted) and fund balance restrictions, commitments and assignments are properly classified and, if applicable, approved. 24. Expenses or expenditures have been appropriately classified in or allocated to functions and programs in the statement of activities, and allocations have been made on a reasonable basis. 25. Revenues are appropriately classified in the statements of activities within program revenues and general revenues. 26. Capital assets, including amounts for right-of-way, are properly capitalized, reported, and depreciated if applicable. 27. Required supplementary information is properly measured and presented. In connection with your audit, conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we confirm: 28. We are responsible for: a- Compliance with the laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements applicable to the Commission. b. Establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. 29. We have identified and disclosed to you: a. All laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements that have a direct and material effect on the determinations of financial statement amounts or other financial data significant to audit objectives. b. We are aware of no violations (or possible violations) of laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements whose effects should be considered for disclosure in the auditor's report on noncompliance. 30. We are aware of no instances of fraud, illegal acts, violations of provisions of contracts or grant agreements, or abuse. 31. We have a process to track the status of audit findings and recommendations. 32. We have identified for you previous audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or other studies related to the objectives of the audit being undertaken and the corrective action taken to address significant findings and recommendations. In connection with your audit of federal awards conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations, we confirm: 33. We are responsible for complying, and we have complied, with the requirements of OMB Circular A-133. 34. We are responsible for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards and we have prepared the schedule in accordance with Circular A 133 section 310b. We have included expenditures made during McGladrey & Pullen, LLP October 31, 2011 Page 6 the period being audited for all awards provided by federal agencies in the form of grants, federal cost - reimbursement contracts, loans, loan guarantees, property (including donated surplus property), cooperative agreements, interest subsidies, insurance, food commodities, direct appropriations, and other assistance. We further acknowledge that: a. The methods of measurement or presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period or, if the methods of measurement have changed, we have provided you with the reasons for such changes. b. We are responsible for understanding and complying with the compliance requirements related to the preparation of the schedule. 35. We are responsible for establishing and maintaining, and have established and maintained, effective internal control over compliance for federal programs that provides reasonable assurance that the Commission is managing federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a material effect on our federal programs. 36. We are responsible for complying with the requirements of laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements related to each of the Commission's federal programs and have complied, in all material respects, with those requirements. 37. We have identified and disclosed to you the requirements of laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements that are considered to have a direct and material effect on our major program. 38. There are no instances in which the Commission has its own interpretation of any compliance requirements that have varying interpretations. 39. We have made available all contracts and grant agreements (including amendments, if any) and any other correspondence relevant to federal programs and related activities that have taken place with federal agencies. 40. There are no amounts questioned or known noncompliance with the requirements of federal awards, including those resulting from other audits or program reviews. 41. We have charged costs to federal awards in accordance with applicable cost principles. 42. We have made available to you all documentation related to the compliance requirements, including information related to federal program financial reports and claims for advances and reimbursements. 43. Federal program financial reports and claims for advances and reimbursements are supported by the books and records from which the basic financial statements have been prepared. 44. The copies of federal program financial reports provided to you are true copies of the reports submitted, or electronically transmitted, to the federal agency or pass -through entity, as applicable. 45. The copies of federal program financial reports provided to you are true copies of the reports submitted, or electronically transmitted, to the federal agency or pass -through entity, as applicable. 46. We have no subrecipients of federal awards. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP October 31, 2011 Page 7 47. We are responsible for and have accurately prepared the summary schedule of prior audit findings to include all findings required to be included by Circular A-133. 48. We have accurately completed the appropriate sections of the data collection form. 49. We have disclosed all contracts or other agreements with service organizations. We are not aware of noncompliance at these organizations. 50. We have disclosed whether any changes in internal control over compliance or other factors that might significantly affect internal control, including any corrective action taken by management with regard to significant deficiencies (including material weaknesses), have occurred subsequent of the date as of which compliance is audited. No such changes in internal control over compliance have been made. 51. There have been no material modifications to our joint venture agreement with the SCRRA that would materially impact the Commission's participation. 52. All designated employees have filed the required Statements of Economic Interest as outlined in the Commission's conflict of interest code. 53. Amounts reserved for transit purposes for LTF total $82,210,219 as of June 30, 2011. Allocations reserved for transit purposes for STAF total $18,652,319 and reserves for unclaimed allocations total $13,526,310. All allocated amounts have been approved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission. 54. In May 2006, the Commission entered into a cooperative agreement, Riverside Orange Corridor Authority, with the Orange County Transportation Authority and the Transportation Corridor Agencies to jointly exercise the common powers of the parties to manage geotechnical studies regarding the Riverside Orange Corridor. The Commission is the recipient and administering entity of federal and state funds as may be necessary to accomplish this work, and the three agencies will share in meeting the local agency matching requirements. As of June 30, 2011, the Commission was not required to make any contributions. 55. In January 2006, the Commission authorized the TUMF Special Revenue fund to advance $3,114,600 to the State to replace state and federal funding for the State Route (SR) 91/Green River interchange project. During the year ended June 30, 2011, there were no additional advances to the State from the TUMF Special Revenue fund for the SR-91/Green River interchange project. In December 2004, the Commission authorized the TUMF Special Revenue fund to advance $13,046,000 to the State to replace state and federal funding for the SR-60 widening project from Interstate(1) 15 to Valley Way. The final agreement with the State resulted in a reduction of the Commission's commitment to $8,881,000. During the year ended June 30, 2011, there were no additional advances to the State from the TUMF Special Revenue fund for the SR-60 widening project. Cumulative advances as of June 30, 2011 for the SR-91/Green River interchange and SR-60 widening projects were $3,114,600 and $8,636,096, respectively. The advances are to be repaid in the form of a commitment of future State funding on TUMF projects; in various actions since 2006, the Commission approved programming the County's share of State funding to the SR-91/Van Buren interchange, a TUMF McGladrey & Pullen, LLP October 31, 2011 Page 8 project, and the future State funding commitment to the I-215/SR-60 East Junction high occupancy vehicle lane connectors project. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) allocated the funds for the SR-91/Van Buren interchange and the 60/215 East Junction projects in October 2009 and May 2010, respectively. 56. In February 2005, the Commission authorized the issuance of tax-exempt commercial paper notes in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000 for the primary purpose of financing right of way and mitigation land acquisition and project development costs of capital projects under the 2009 Measure A. From inception through 2008, the Commission issued commercial paper notes aggregating $110,005,000, which were refinanced in June 2008 by the 2008 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. During 2009 the Commission issued $110,000,000 in commercial paper notes, of which $53,716,000 were retired by the 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. In 2010 and 2011, the Commission issued commercial paper notes of $27,000,000 and $20,000,000, respectively. In December 2010 the Commission retired $103,284,000 representing all of the outstanding commercial paper notes with the proceeds of the 2010 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. At June 30, 2011, there was no ou tstanding commercial paper notes. The source of revenue to repay the commercial paper notes and any subsequent long-term debt refinancing is the 2009 Measure A sales tax. Interest is payable on the respective maturity dates of the commercial paper notes, which is up to 270 days from the date of issuance. The maximum allowable interest rate on the commercial paper notes is 12%. As a requirement for the issuance of the commercial paper notes, the Commission entered into a $121,500,000 irrevocable direct draw letter of credit and reimbursement agreement with Bank of America, N.A. as credit and liquidity support for the commercial paper notes. In February 2010, the agreement was amended and extended through March 2012. Funds may be drawn under the letter of credit to pay debt service on the commercial paper notes in the event that the commercial paper dealers are unable to market commercial paper notes at the maturity dates of the outstanding commercial paper notes. Amounts drawn on the letter of credit are not due until expiration of the letter of credit in March 2012. Accordingly, the commercial paper notes are classified as long-term debt in the Commission's financial statements. The Commission did not draw on this letter of credit authorization during the year ended June 30, 2011, nor were there any amounts outstanding under this letter of credit agreement at June 30, 2011. 57. From time to time, the Commission's agreements with various third parties are modified or amended to adjust for cost overruns and other factors. These modifications are considered to be ordinary courses of action and are incorporated into the Commission's budgetary process as revisions to the original adopted budget. 58. The Commission early implemented GASB Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund -Type Definitions. This statement sets out new standards of accounting and financial reporting intended to improve the clarity and consistency of the fund balance information provided to financial report users. The changes in fund balance reporting provide new classifications including: nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned and unassigned based on the relative strength of the constraints that control how specific amounts can be spent. Restricted fund balances are externally imposed by creditors (such as through debt covenants), grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments or McGladrey & Pullen, LLP October 31, 2011 Page 9 imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. Committed fund balances include amounts that can be used only for specific purposes determined by formal action of the Board. Assigned fund balances comprise amounts intended to be used by the Commission for specific purposes as determined by the Board. When committed and assigned resources are available for use, it is the Commission's policy to use committed resources first and then unrestricted resources, as they are needed. We believe we have sufficiently identified the classifications of fund balance and have disclosed these classifications in the financial statements. 59. As a means to achieve a greater level of interest rate stability, specifically rising interest rates that would negatively impact cash flows, the Commission entered into two forward -starting interest rate swaps in August 2006 for a total notional amount of $185,000,000. The counterparty for the first swap ($100,000,000 notional amount) is Bank of America, N.A (Bank of America), and the counterparty for the second swap ($85,000,000 notional amount) was Lehman Brothers Derivative Products Inc. (Lehman Brothers DP). In September 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings filed for bankruptcy, which was a trigger event under the swap agreement with Lehman Brothers DP. As a result of the trigger event, the swap agreement was terminated on September 23, 2008. A termination payment of $3,452,453 was paid to Lehman Brothers DP on October 1, 2008. The Commission entered into a replacement swap with Deutsche Bank AG (Deutsche Bank) for a notional amount of $85,000,000 on September 24, 2008. Under the swap agreements which become effective on October 1, 2009, the Commission will pay Bank of America and Deutsche Bank (Counterparties) a fixed rate of 3.679% and 3.206%, respectively, for twenty years, the term of the 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds; the Counterparties will pay the Commission a floating rate equal to 67% of the one -month London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR). The Commission is exposed to interest rate risk on its pay fixed, receive variance interest rate swaps. As LIBOR decreases, the District's net payments on the swaps increase. The Commission is exposed to basis risk on the swaps because the variable rate payments received by the Commission are based on an index other than interest rates the Commission pays on hedged variable rate debt. For the year ended June 30, 2011, the Commission's 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series A, which are hedged by the Deutsche Bank swap, and 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series B and C, which are hedged by the Bank of America swap, had weighted average variable rates of 0.22% and 0.24%, respectively. Over the same period, the weighted average of 67% of one -month LIBOR was 0.17%, an approximate 5.0 and 7.0 basis point loss for the Commission related to the Deutsche Bank and Bank of America swaps, respectively. The swaps may be terminated by the Commission or its Counterparties if the other party fails to perform under the terms of the contract or at the Commission's option to terminate the transaction. If, at any time of termination, the swap is in liability position, the Commission would be obligated to pay the counterparty the liability position. As of June 30, 2011, the negative fair values for the $100,000,000 swap with Bank of America and the $85,000,000 swap with Deutsche Bank were estimated by an independent third -party to be $12,302,700 and $6,718,534, respectively. Therefore, if the swaps were terminated on June 30, 2011, the Commission would have paid a termination payment of $12,302,700 and $6,718,534 to Bank of America and Deutsche Bank, respectively, for a total termination payment of $19,021,234. The termination payments that would McGladrey & Pullen, LLP October 31, 2011 Page 10 have been paid by the Commission if the swaps were terminated on June 30, 2011 are a result of the change in interest rate levels and certain interest rate relationships. The rates used to calculate the fixed swap payment owed by the Commission to the Counterparties are 3.679% for Bank of America and 3.206% for Deutsche Bank. As of June 30, 2011, this fixed rate was higher than the current rate for a swap of identical terms and conditions. The Commission has implemented GASB Statement No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments. This standard prescribes the accounting and financial reporting required for derivative instruments that hedge identified financial risks. If the derivative instrument is determined to be effective in reducing the identified exposure, hedge accounting provides that changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument (interest rate swap) be reported as either deferred inflows or deferred outflows in the statement of net assets. To evaluate the effectiveness of the swaps, the Synthetic Instrument Method prescribed by the standard was employed. The resulting analysis indicates the swaps are effective as hedging instruments. Refer to the footnotes to the financial statements for disclosures related to the Commission's interest rate swaps. No events or transactions other than those disclosed in the financial statements have occurred subsequent to the balance sheet date that would require adjustment to, or disclosure in, the financial statements. During the course of your audit, you may have accumulated records containing data which should be reflected in our books and records. All such data have been so reflected. Accordingly, copies of such records in your possession are no longer needed by us. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 17:1--te-e1 nne Mayer, Executive !rector it,C4,M, ti �Gte/� �, Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer www.mcgladrey.com McGladrey is the brand under which RSM McGladrey, Inc. and McGladrey & Pullen, LLP serve clients’ business needs.The two firms operate as separate legal entities in an alternative practice structure. McGladrey & Pullen is a licensed CPA firm providing assurance services. RSM McGladrey provides tax and consulting services. RSM McGladrey, Inc. and McGladrey & Pullen, LLP are members of the RSM International (“RSMi”) network of independent accounting , tax and consulting firms. The member firms of RSMi collaborate to provide services to global clients, but are separate and distinct legal entities which cannot obligate each other. Each member firm is responsible only for its own acts and omissions, and not those of any other party. McGladrey, the McGladrey signature, The McGladrey Classic logo, The power of being understood, Power comes from being understood and Experience the power of being understood are trademarks of RSM McGladrey, Inc. and McGladrey & Pullen, LLP. ©2010 McGladrey & Pullen, LLP Certified Public Accountants and RSM McGladrey, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 1 Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have performed the procedures enumerated below to the accompanying Appropriations Limit Calculation of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission) for the year ended June 30, 2011. These procedures, which were agreed to by the Commission and the League of California Cities (as presented in the publication entitled Agreed-upon Procedures Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIII-B of the California Constitution), were performed solely to assist the Commission in meeting the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution. The Commission’s management is responsible for the Appropriations Limit Calculation. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficienc y of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in this report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. The procedures performed and our findings were as follows: 1. We obtained the completed internal calculations from management and compared the limit and annual adjustment factors included in those calculations to the limit and annual adjustment factors that were adopted by a resolution of the Board of Commissioners. We also compared the population and inflation options included in the aforementioned calculations to those that were selected by a recorded vote of the Board of Commissioners. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. 2. For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Calculation, we added line A, last year’s limit, to line E, total adjustments, and compared the resulting amount to line F, this year’s limit. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. 3. We compared the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Calculation to the supporting calculations described in item 1 above. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. 18401 Von Karman, 5th Floor Irvine, CA 92612-8531 O 949.255.6500 F 949.255.5091 www.mcgladrey.com 2 4. We compared the prior year Appropriations Limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Calculation to the prior year Appropriations Limit adopted by the Board of Commissioners during the prior year. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the accompanying Appropriations Limit Calculation of the Commission. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. No procedures have been performed with respect to the determination of the appropriations limit for the base year, as defined by Article XIII-B of the California Constitution. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Commissioners and management of the Commission, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. Irvine, CA October 31, 2011 3 Riverside County Transportation Commission Appropriations Limit Calculation Year Ended June 30, 2011 Amount Source A.Last year’s limit 322,761,463 $ B.Adjustment factors: 1. Population change 0.9746000 State Finance 2. Per capita change 1.0140000 State Finance Total adjustments [(B.1 x B.2)-1.0](0.0117556) C.Annual adjustment (3,794,255) (BxA) D.Other adjustments: 1. Lost responsibility (-)- 2. Transfer to private (-)- 3. Transfer to fees (-)- 4. Assumed responsibility (+)- Subtotal - E.Total adjustments (3,794,255) (C+D) F.This year’s limit 318,967,208 $ (A+E) Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, CA We have performed the procedures enumerated below, which were agreed to by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) solely to assist the specified parties with respect to the purchase of gift cards and the payment of incentives related to the Commuter Assistance Program (Program) administered by Inland Transportation Services (ITS) for the year ended June 30, 2011. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in this report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below, either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. As background information for this engagement to perform agreed-upon procedures, we were provided with: Resolution No. 03-025, Resolution of the Commission Amending Guidelines for the Administration of the Measure A Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as part of its Program, and Agreement No. 09-41-079-00, Agreement for Commuter Assistance Program Operation and Implementation Services with Inland Transportation Services, entered into as of July 1, 2009. In addition, we received an explanation of the ITS registration process with the employer and employee from the program manager of ITS. The procedures and related findings are as follows: 1. We obtained a list of all disbursements recorded by the Commission to vendors for the purchase of gift cards for the year ended June 30, 2011 and judgmentally selected a sample of 10 disbursements for selected testing (see Exhibit 1). Our procedures and findings related to Exhibit 1 are as follows: a. We agreed the amount recorded as disbursed by the Commission to canceled checks without exception. b. We agreed the amount recorded as disbursed to ITS to check requests without exception. c. We agreed the amount recorded and the payee to the log of requested gift cards maintained by ITS without exception. 2. We obtained the “Rideshare Payment” Reports that list recorded disbursements made to recipients by ITS for the year ended June 30, 2011 and judgmentally selected a sample of 10 items for selected testing (see Exhibit 2). Our selected testing and findings related to Exhibit 2 are as follows: a. We obtained the Employer Information Form and Statement of Participation (SOP) for the employer indicating its participation with ITS. No exceptions were noted. b. We obtained the Employee Enrollment Form indicating the employee is registered with ITS as a participant. No exceptions were noted. Riverside County Transportation Commission Page 2 c. We agreed ITS’s disbursement to the employee claim form, noting proper approval of the claim, without exception. d. We recalculated the number of days the employee participated in each rideshare mode and the incentive earned for each rideshare mode and agreed those totals to the amounts listed on the monthly incentive claim form without exception. e. We agreed the daily amount of reimbursement per mode of transportation on the monthly incentive claim form to the amount approved on the SOP without exception. f. We agreed the recorded disbursement amount per the Incentive Payment Report to the employer transmittal letter without exception. 3. We compared ITS’s total gift card inventory balance from gift card inventory schedules provided by ITS as of June 30, 2011 to the actual gift cards maintained by ITS by judgmentally selecting the following four gift cards for recounting: (a) Vons and Target gift cards under the RCTC Advantage Rideshare program noting an inventory balance of $42,490 and $3,170, respectively; (b) Stater Brothers gift cards under the SANBAG Option Rideshare Program, noting an inventory balance of $60,941; and (c) Vons gift cards under the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), noting an inventory balance of $8,285. No exceptions were noted. The gift certificate inventory balance per the inventory schedules as of June 30, 2011 is $199,632. We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the specified elements, accounts or items thereof related to the program. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Commissioners and management of the Riverside County Transportation Commission and is not intended to be and, should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Irvine, CA November 8, 2011 Exhibit 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission and Inland Transportation Services (Contractor) Schedule of Selected Purchases of Gift Cards by the Contractor Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 Project Vendor Voucher Date Amount Check # Advantage Stater Brothers 9/29/2010 15,000 $ 49393 CVAG Stater Brothers 9/29/2010 5,000 49394 Advantage Vons 9/29/2010 15,000 49398 CVAG Vons 9/29/2010 10,000 49399 Advantage Stater Brothers 12/28/2010 5,000 50276 Advantage Vons 12/28/2010 20,000 50283 Option Vons 12/28/2010 10,000 50283 Advantage & Option Stater Brothers 3/17/2011 45,000 51105 CVAG, Advantage & Option Vons 3/17/2011 41,000 51111 Advantage & Option Stater Brothers 5/17/2011 70,000 51708 BLANK Exhibit 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission and Inland Transportation Services (Contractor) Schedule of Selected Employee Incentive Payments Made by the Contractor Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 Employee Commute Disbursement Initials Employer Name Incentive Type Mode Date Amount D. S. City of Palm Desert Vons Carpool 5/23/2011 60 $ Y. C. Desert Springs JW Marriott Resort & Spa Vons Carpool 5/11/2011 130 A. K. A Check America Vons Public Bus 10/13/2010 105 D. M. California Baptist University Vons Bicycle 5/4/2011 110 I. R. First Data Remitco Vons Carpool 7/12/2010 130 I. G. Pechanga Resort & Casino Vons Carpool 11/18/2010 135 J. Z. California Expanded Metals Products Vons Carpool 6/22/2011 150 K. G. County of Riverside Vons Vanpool 12/23/2010 90 C. M. Epic Management/Beaver Medical Group Vons Walk 1/19/2011 60 M. E. Ashley Furniture Industries Stater Brothers Carpool 5/23/2011 155 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA Mailing Address: P. O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org Riverside County Transportation Commission October 31, 2011 Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) for the year ended June 30, 2011 is hereby submitted for your receipt and acceptance. The CAFR is presented in three sections consisting of Introductory, Financial, and Statistical. The Financial Section includes the audited financial statements and other supplementary information and the independent auditor's report on those financial statements. Management of the Commission is responsible for the financial statements and other information presented in the CAFR. As the Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Commission, we have reviewed the CAFR for the year ended June 30, 2011. Based on our knowledge, the CAFR does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made in the CAFR not misleading with respect to the period covered by the CAFR. Additionally, based on our knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in the CAFR fairly present in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Commission as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011. Anne Mayer, Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA Mailing Address: R O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org Riverside County Transportation Commission October 31, 2011 Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California In connection with the submission of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) for the year ended June 30, 2011, as the management and Directors of the Commission, we understand that we are responsible for the operations and activities of the Commission's programs, projects, and administration. Accordingly, we hereby make the following representations based upon our knowledge. We are responsible for establishing and maintaining controls and procedures related to these operations and activities. We have designed such controls and procedures to ensure that material information is made known to us, particularly during the year ended June 30, 2011. The controls and procedures have been effective for the year ended June 30, 2011 and through the date of this letter. There have been and are no significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls regarding financial reporting for the same period which could adversely affect the Commission's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data. There have been and are no material weaknesses in internal controls. There have been no significant changes in internal control or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to June 30, 2011. Management also recognizes its responsibility for fostering a strong ethical climate so that the Commission's affairs are conducted according to the highest standards of personal and organizational conduct. In connection with this responsibility, we are not aware of any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Commission's internal controls. Anne Mayer, Execut. a Director Cathy Bechtel oject Development Director Director tes, Multi od 'I Services Director i John Standifor• Deputy Executive Director Michael Blomquist, Toll( rogramiDirector V--keAttt Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENT A TION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION; This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2011. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: " During the first three months of the fiscal year, staff monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The first quarter of the year is primarily directed toward completing fiscal year end closing activities. Staff expects most of the categories to present a more realistic outlook beginning in the second quarter . The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the first quarter at 6 percent of the budget. This is a result of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure A funds and Local Transportation Fund (L TF) funds and remits them to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two-month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections for July 2011. On a cash basis, the Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues are 7.5 percent and 7.9 percent higher, respectively than the same period last fiscal year. This continued increase is an encouraging sign that economic recovery in the region is broadening. Staff will continue to monitor the trends in the sales tax receipts and report to the Commission any necessary adjustments to the FY 2011112 budget for sales tax revenues. Federal, state, and local revenues are on a reimbursement basis. The Commission will receive these revenues as eligible project costs are incurred and invoiced to the respective agencies . " Agenda Item 7C 9 During the FY 2011/12 budget process, the Commission took a conservative • approach in estimating the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $4.3 million passed through from the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) as a result of the struggling housing sector. The budgeted balance of $ 2.7 million relates to TU MF zone reimbursements from WRCOG for the 74/21 5 interchange project. Staff will invoice WRCOG for TUMF zone reimbursements as eligible expenditures are incurred. Other revenues have exceeded the budget by 177 percent as a result of unbudgeted proceeds from sale of Commission rail easements to other agencies for their projects. The Commission took a conservative approach in estimating interest income for FY 2011112 as a result of flat interest yields on invested balances. Interest income is in line with the overall budget. The expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget with the following exceptions: • Salaries and benefits are slightly over as a result of a prepayment for the FY 2011/12 employer retirement contribution, which provides a discount of half a year's interest. • Construction reports a negative actual amount as a result of the accounting reversal for estimated expenditure accruals for construction activities as of June 30, 2011, but not yet invoiced through September 2011. • Debt service interest expenditures on the 2010 Bonds are made in December and June, while interest expenditures on the 2009 Bonds are made monthly due to the variable rate nature of the bonds. Principal payments on the 2009 Bonds and 2010 Bonds are made in June. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and will notify the Commission of any unusual events. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements -September 2011 Agenda Item 7C • 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANPORT ATION COMMISSION • QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 1ST QUARTER FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/3012011 FY 2011112 1ST QUARTER REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 180,937,000 $ 11,268,599 $ (169,668.401) 6% Federal reimbursements 23,650,700 606,565 (23,044,135) 3% State reimbursements 23,935,100 1,032,394 (22,902,706) 4% Local reimbursements 1,364,000 317,895 (1,046,105) 23% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 7,084,300 264,482 (6,819,818) 4% Other revenues 310,200 548,613 238,413 177% Interest 1,824,200 486,057 (1,338,143) 27% Total revenues 239,105,500 14,524,605 (224,580,895) 6% Expenditures Salaries and benefits 6,576,900 2,046,531 4,530,369 31% Professional and support Professional services 16,464,800 1,736,799 14,728,001 11% Support costs 5,387,600 1,180,218 4,207,382 22% Total Professional and support costs 21,852,400 2,917,017 18,935,383 13% • Projects and operations Program operations -general 17,233,900 1,332,929 15,900,971 8% Engineering 41,568,800 2,056,702 39,512,098 5% Construction 59,777,600 (306,761) 60,084,361 -1% Design Build 29,438,000 1,912,372 27,525,628 6% Right of waylland 85,927,000 9,710,524 76,216,476 11% Operating and capital disbursements 109,109,300 15,733,464 93,375,836 14% Special studies 770,000 9,415 760,585 1% Local streets and roads 33,168,000 2,171,690 30,996,310 7% Regional arterials 15,215,000 684,996 14,530,004 5% Total projects and operations 392,207,600 33,305,331 358,902,269 8% Debt service Principal 6,500,000 6,500,000 NIA Interest 13,695,000 1,007,290 12,687,710 Total debt service 20,195,000 1,007,290 19,187,710 Capital outlay 475,200 1,650 473,550 0% Total Expenditures 441307,100 39,277,819 402,029,281 !}1Yo Excess revenues over (under) expenditures (202,201,600) (24,753,214) 441,541,379 12% Other financing sources/(uses) Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Debt proceeds Total financing sources/(uses) 169,301,100 (169,301,100) 38,000,000 38,000,000 18,039,356 (18,039,356) (151,261,744) 151,261,744 /38,000,000l 38,000,000 11% 11% NJA N/A Net change in fund balances Fund balance July 1, 2011 Fund balance September 30, 2011 $ (164,201,600) 530,978,300 366,776,700 $ (24,753,214) 589,364,644 564,611,430 $ 479,541,379 58,386,344 537,927,723 15% 111% 154% • 11 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANsPORTATION COMMISSION OUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUALS BY FUND 1ST QUARTER FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 913012011 MEASURE A SALES TAX PALO LOCAL TRANSPORTA nONFSPf WEsTERN COACHELLA STATE TRANSIT COMMERCIAL SALES TAX GENERAL FUND VERDE TRANsPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION DEBT sERViCE COMBINED TOTAL SAFE COUNTY VALLEY ASSisTANCE PAPER BONDSVALLEY FUND FEE (TUMFI Revenues Sales tax $ 270,000 $ $ 5,524,358 $ 49,668 $ 1,705,973 $ 3,718,600 $ $ $ $ $ $ 11,268,599 Federal reimbursements 1,567 604,998 606,565 State reimbursements 196,751 835,643 1,032,394 Local reimbursements 2,784 99,448 215,663 317,895 Transoortation Uniform Mitioation Fee 264.482 264,482 Other revenues 4,164 168 544,281 546,613 Interest 477,816 8.241 486,057 Total revenues Expenditures Salaries and benefits Professional and support Professional services Professional and support costs Projects and operations Program operations -general Engineering Construction Design Build Right of waynand Operating and capital disbursements Special studies Local streets and roads Regional arterials Total projects and operations Debt service Interest 278,515 296,367 7,724,943 49,668 1,705,973 3,718,600 264,482 477,816 8,241 14,524.605 1,503,103 25,580 485,697 108 32,043 2,046,531 (210,071) 127,692 1,755,228 1,661 62,289 1,736,799 969,042 92.050 119.083 43 758,971 219,742 1,874.311 1,661 62,332 248,932 367,485 707,455 9,054 1.332,929 1,589,463 467,239 2,056,702 (306,761) (306,761) 1.912,372 1,912,372 10.382,126 (671,602) 9,710,524 (1,308,958) 1,023.968 1,064.221 14.548.780 405,453 15,733.464 9,415 9,415 1,526.659 47,941 597,090 2,171,690 684,996 (1.060,026) 367,485 16,844,700 47,941 2,346.307 14,548,180 405,453 (195,309) 1,007,290 TDial debt service 1,007,290 Capitat outlay 1,650 1,650 Total Expenditures 1,203,698 612.807 19,204,708 47,941 2,348,076 14,548,750 405,453 (100,934) 1,007,290 Excess revenues over (under) expenditures (925,183) (316,440) (11,479.765) 1,727 (642.103) (10,830,180) (405,453) 365,416 477,816 8.241 (1,007.290) (24,753,214) Other financing sources/(uses) Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Total finanCing sources/(uses) 6,098,033 6,098,033 800,000 (1.114,300) (314,300) 6.317 ,290 (4,857,300) 1,459,990 (5,783,733) ~,733~ (6.28"',0_?~) (fj,28"'&?~) 4,824,033 4,82.4,033 18,039,356 (18,039,356) Net change in fund balances Fund balance July " 2011 Fund balance September 30,2011 5,172,850 13,524.354 $18,697204 (630.740) 7,046.938 $ 6,416.198 $ (10,019,775) 258,599,521 248,579,746 1,727 556 2,283 (642,103) 10.162,008 $9,519,905 $ (16,613,913) 82.210,219 65,596,306 (405,453) 32,178,629 $ 31,773,176 $ 365,416 73,294.737 73,660.153 $ 477,816 33227,032 33,704,848 $ (6,275,782) 25.226.581 18,950,799 $ 3.816,743 53,894,069 57,710.812 (24,753,214) 589,364,644 $ 564.611,430 12 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Ouarterly Sales Tax Analysis BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Ouarter 2 (02) 2011. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: " At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement to MuniServices, LLC (MuniServices) for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional fees contingent on additional sales tax revenue generated from the transactions and use tax (sales tax) audit services. The services performed under this agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales tax revenues. Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices submitted an audit update, which reported findings that have been generated and submitted to the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) for review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 189 businesses. Through 01 2011 for January through March 2011, the SBOE has approved corrections for 115 of these accounts for a total sales tax revenue recovery of $1,859,365. An update to the sales tax revenue recovery through 02 2011 may be made subsequent to the Committee meeting and prior to the December Commission meeting. If the SBOE concurs with the error(s) for the remaining claims, the Commission would receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues. Additionally, MuniServices provided the Commission with the quarterly sales tax summary report for the first quarter of calendar 2011 for April through June 2011 (02 2011). Most of the 02 2011 Measure A sales tax revenues was received by the Commission in the third quarter of calendar 2011, during July through " September 2011, due to a lag in the sales tax calendar. The summary section of Agenda Item 7D 13 the 02 2011 report is attached and includes an overview of California sales tax • receipts, local results, historical cash collections analysis, summary of the top 25 sales tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, sales tax by business category, economic trends for a significant business category (business to business), and results. The following observations were noted in the 02 2011 report: • Sales tax receipts for Riverside County were 10.5 percent higher compared to the 02 2010, and slightly higher than the· state. This supports the previous quarterly reports' analyses that an economic recovery statewide and locally is underway; however, the Commission should continue to be cautious as service stations is one of the top three economic segments throughout the state leading this recovery. A significant portion of this growth is attributable to the high fuel prices. • Taxable transactions for the top 25 tax contributors in Riverside County, which generated 23 percent of the taxable sales for the year ended 02 2011, increased 5.7 percent compared to the year ended 02 2010. For the top 100 tax contributors, which generated 37 percent of the taxable sales, the growth was 7.3 percent. • For the second consecutive period, ~ economic categories experienced increases in the 02 2011 benchmark year comparison to 02 2010; however, 02 2011 construction amount of $12,417,936 was slightly less than the 01 2011 benchmark year amount. Transportation had the largest increase at 17.0 percent, which was primarily related to the service station segment increase. General retail had the next highest increase at 6.1 percent. These two categories represent 56.9 percent of total sales taxes. The remaining • four economic categories had increases ranging from 2.1 percent to 5.0 percent. 16.612.1 19.111.0. 19.913.2 10..112,1 8.510.2 8,311.5 10,210..8 lDAI3.D 7.9/0..1 9,813.0. 26,5117.0. 23A19,1 2DA19.8 26,0.110..2 25.D114A 23.718,2 27,2114,8 14,312.6 17,6/5.3 20..817.5 14,0./0..2 13.8/12.0. 17,6/4,8 General Retail: Apparel stores, Department Stores, FurnnureiAppliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, FlorisVNursery, 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, lighllnduslry, and leasing Miscellaneous: Health &Govemment, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Accrunt Adjustments Agenda Item 70 • 14 " " Over the last two-year period, the 02 2011 sales tax levels were at the low point for one of the top 10 economic segments (building materials-retail). Half of the top 10 segments (service stations, department stores, auto sales new, miscellaneous retail, and apparel stores) sales reached a new high point during 02 2011 . " Service stations, department stores, and restaurants continue to represent the three largest economic segments for Riverside County; department stores were the largest segment and service stations the second largest segment in 01 2011. Stations 12.6120.6 13.011.8 13.5/4.2 13.9/1.5 Department Department Department Service Department Department ServicesRestaurants Stores Stores Stores Stations Stores Stores Stations 12.214.4 11.1/0.9 9.711.8 10.711.7 119/21.0 10.710.8 11.613.7 1401223 Service ServiceRestaurants Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Stations Stations %of Total I % 9.9/1.3 10.3/14.1 3.3 9.811.2 9.7119.4 " During the review of the 02 2011 detailed report with MuniServices, information regarding sales tax comparisons by city and change by economic category from 02 2010 to 02 2011 was provided, and is attached. 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 for 02 2011 2) Sales Tax Comparison by City for 02 2010 to 02 2011 " Agenda Item 7D 15 " Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Digest Summary Collections through September 2011 Sales through June 2011 (2011Q2) CALIFORNIA'S OVERVIEW California's recovery is slowly unfolding at a sluggish pace, but the outlook is not quite as dismal as expected. On a cash basis, statewide sales tax receipts during July-September 2011 grew by 10.3%. Northern California grew by 11.7% and Southern California grew by 9.2%. As for the RCTC, its sales tax receipts changed by 10.5% from July-September 2010 to July-September 2011. CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE General Retail, Restaurants and Service Stations continue to lead economic growth. Construction continues to contract as the housing market seeks to find bottom. low home prices, precipitous rise in gas prices, slow job growth and natural disasters that disrupted major world economics continue to impact consumer spending habits. In order to fully establish an economic rebound, California needs job growth both locally and regionally to increase spending as well as business travel. Housing prices must stabilize and begin growing in order to restore some levels of equity and wealth effect, which should bolster consumer confidence and spending once again. " LOCAL RESULTS Net Cash Receipts Analysis local Collections $32,913,452 Share of County Pool 0.0% 0 Share of State Pool 0.0% 0 SBE Net Collections 32,913,452 Less: Amount Due County 0.0% .00 Less: Cost of Administration (329,200) Net 2Q2011 Receipts 32,584,252 Net 2Q201O Receipts 29,481,404 Actual Percentage Change 10.5% Business Activity Performance Analysis Local Collections $32,913,452 Less: Payments for Prior Periods (1,997,172) Preliminary 2Q2011 Collections 30,916,279 Projected 2Q2011 Late Payments 986,245 Projected 2Q2011 Final Results 31,902,524 Actual 2Q2010 Results 29,150,584 " Projected Percentage Change 9.4% www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 Pagel 16 RCTC HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER (in tbousands or S) • IQ200!l2Q200!l3QZOO!l4QZOO!llQ2010 ZQ2010 3QZ010 4QZOIO IQ2011 2QZOll -SBOE Adm S35,OOO ,..-------------------------------r 5400 HO,OOO +-------,0,-..--- 5:1.5,000 " ~ $20,000 J:t, -$15,000 S10,000 S5,OOO so Sl50 S300 USO r.. c noo -s SI SO < StoO S50 so TOP 2S SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS The following list identifies RCTC's Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order and represents sales from July 2010 through June 2011. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 23.3% of RCTC's total sales and use tax revenue. BEST BUY STORES RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY CARMA)( THE AUTO SUPERSTORE RITE AID DRUG STORES • CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS ROSS STORES CIRCLE K FOOD STORES SAM'S ClUB COSTCO WHOlESALE SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES SHELL SERVICE STATIONS HOME DEPOT STATER BROS MARKETS J C PENNEY COMPANY TARGET STORES K MART STORES VERIZON WIRELESS KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES W.W. GRAINGER LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAl MART STORES MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE WALGREEN'S DRUG STORES MOBIL SERVICE STATIONS •www.MuniServiceS.com (800) 800-8181 Page 2 17 RCTC • HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS The following chart shows the sales tax level from sales through June 2011, the highs, and the lows for each segment over the last two years. (in thousands orS) SIS,OOO .-----------------------------...:.====:; 0.... "'~~ ",'" c,," ,,<-'" .:f.. ~'" ,r;:.'" "," 0:," ,,' "'" ~ ",0 ~ ~ "'~ c" ~..,r;:. ~.. ~.. .... ...0 ~. q;.,<:: 'r'o:, 1;,'" ,I> ,?:> " ~..." ~ ~ • ANNUAL SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY ~ill thou ,ands of$) 2Q2DII I Q 2 011 4Q2010 3Q2010 2Q2Ql0 lQ2010 4Q2009 3Q2009 32,562 30.983 19,303 18.274 15,685 2QZ009 1(/2009 SO S 20,0 °0 540,000 5'0,000 58.,000 S 10 0,000 5120,000 S I 40,41 41 ° • www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 Page 3 18 RCTC FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: Business To Business (in thousand. orS) • S7,000 ,-------------------------------------, S6,000 55,000 $4,000 $3,000 Sl,OOO SI,OOO $0 FINAL RESULTS: January-March 2011 Sales Local Net Cash Collections $30,718,317 Less: Pool Amounts ($-281,780) Less: Prior Quarter Payments ($1,337,356) Add: Late Payments $1,370,146 • Local Net Economic Collections after Adjustments $31,032,887 Percent Change from January-March 2010 Sales UP BY 9.6% MUNISERVICES' ON-GOING AUDIT RESULTS This Quarter $166,684 Total to Date $1,394,813 •www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 Page 4 19 MuniServices, LLC 20 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: TO: FROM: f----' THROUGH: SUBJECT: December 14, 2011 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager Anne Mayer, Executive Director 2011 Congestion Management Program BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the 2011 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: " CMP legislation was adopted by the state of California under Proposition 111 in 1990. The legislation required each metropolitan county to designate a congestion management agency (CMA) to be responsible for preparing and implementing a CMP. The intent of the CMP is to directly fink land use and transportation decisions in an effort to improve congestion and air quality. In 1996, the CMP legislation changed the requirement of CMPs from mandatory to voluntary programs. However, federal metropolitan planning regulations called for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to implement a congestion management system (CMS) or risk losing federal funds. In the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, it was decided that county CMPs were best suited to address the federal CMS requirements. The Commission was designated as the CMA and prepared its first CMP, in conjunction with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), in 1991. At this time, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) was implementing a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, and the newly formed Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) had begun discussions regarding the development of a TUMF program in Western Riverside County_ Due to the development of TUMF programs and the passage of Measure A in 1989, for Riverside County the Commission had in place a comprehensive and countywide approach to improving congestion and air quality _ Therefore, a minimum approach was taken by the Commission to meet CMP requirements emphasizing monitoring of level of service (LOS) conditions on highways and key local arterials and " Agenda Item 7E 21 ensuring that planned transportation improvement projects address the most congested areas. Key elements or chapters included in the Riverside County CMP • are: • Designation of the CMA • Designation of CMP System • Transportation Modeling • Multimodal System Performance Standards • Enhanced Transportation System Management Program • LOS Deficiency Plans • Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality • Capital Improvement Program • CMP Conformance and Monitoring • CMP Development and Implementation/Update Process Each of the above elements were reviewed with most of the update focusing on the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program (traffic monitoring results) and the TOM/Air Quality section to incorporate Federal Highway Administration recommendations for CMS plans and references to SCAG's SB 375/Sustainability Communities Strategy (SCS). 2011 level of Service Results The 2011 CMP update primarily consisted of monitoring the CMS to evaluate LOS • conditions that are at or near a LOS "F". Coachella Valley CMP Arterials In the Coachella Valley, traffic count information was obtained from CVAG's 2011 Traffic Census report. The LOS analysis indicated that there is one deficiency along Ramon Road between Bob Hope Drive and Interstate 10. This deficiency is expected to correct itself once the construction of the 1-10/Ramon Road Bob Hope Drive interchange project is complete. Western County CMP Arterials Western Riverside County traffic information was obtained by local agencies as well as applying growth rates to 2009 CMP traffic count data. Two deficiencies were identified on Van Buren Boulevard between Washington Street and Wood Road and between Orange Terrace Parkway and 1-215. The Van Buren Boulevard segment, from Washington Street to Wood Road, is a TUMF Regional Arterial project and is scheduled to begin construction in FY 2011/12. The segment from Orange Terrace Parkway to 1-215 is expected to be mitigated by the •Agenda Item 7E 22 " 1-215IVan Buren Boulevard interchange improvement project scheduled to begin construction in early 2012. These improvement projects are expected to alleviate the deficiencies. State Highways Monitoring of state highways was accomplished through the use of Caltrans 2010 Traffic Monitoring report and Caltrans Performance Measurement System (reMS) as well as Smart Call Boxes. In addition, peak hour traffic counts were collected from various transportation studies. The LOS analysis revealed that three segments along 1-15 (SR-60 to Limonite Avenue, Second Street to SR-91, Magnolia Avenue to Weirick Road) and one segment on 1-215 (Nuevo Road to SR-74) are deficient. The 1-15 segments will continue to be monitored as future improvements in the vicinity of the deficiency progress such as the SR 91 and 1-15 Corridor Improvement Projects. The 74/215 interchange improvement project is currently under construction and it is expected to fully mitigate the deficiency on 1-215 upon its completion. Further, the Perris Valley Line project is also expected to reduce vehicle trips on 1-215 further improving the LOS conditions on 1-215. " Monitoring of these segments will continue to ensure that the planned projects address and mitigate the deficiencies within a reasonable timeframe. Deficiency plans are not being recommended at this time due to the fact that the projects scheduled to be constructed along the deficient segments are likely to mitigate the deficiencies. TOM/Air Quality The TOM/Air Quality chapter was updated to reflect current TOM efforts undertaken by the Commission and other local agencies. This chapter was expanded to include a discussion regarding TOM strategies and the SCAG Compass Blueprint effort that several local agencies in Eastern and Western County participated in. Lastly, this chapter was updated to mention SB 375 requirements and its relationship to TDM efforts currently underway in Riverside County. Staff presented the draft 2011 CMP to the TAC at its November 2011 meeting. Comments will continue to be reviewed and incorporated in the final draft that will be forwarded to the December 2011 Commission. Upon the Commission's approval of the 2011 CMP, staff will submit the document to SCAG as part of its federal CMS certification requirement. There is no financial impact of the 2011 CMP. Attachment: Draft 2011 Riverside County CMP " Agenda Item 7 E 23 sitle COUfltJJ porlalion ComtJ'lissiOIl Riverside County Transportation Commission County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Ph: (951) 787-7141 Fax: (951) 787-7920 24 " Draft 2011 ID CON November 3,2011 Prepared For: " Riverside County Transportation County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Ph: (951) 787-7141 Fax: (951) 787-7920 Prepared By: Tech Inc, 4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105 Fresno, CA 93722 Ph: (559) 271-1200 Fax: (559) 271-1269 " 26 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 2 3 4 5 " 6 7 8 9 10 DESCRIPTION PAGE� Executive Summary ES-1 Designation of the Congestion Management Agency 1-1 Designation of the CMP System of Highways and 2-1 Roadways Transportation Modeling 3-1 Multimodal System Performance Standards 4-1 Enhanced Transportation System Management 5-1 Program LOS Deficiency Plans 6-1 Transportation Demand Management! 7-1 Air Quality Capital Improvement Program 8-1 CMP Conformance and Monitoring 9-1 CMP Development and Implementationl 10-1 Update Process " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 28 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program •LIST EXHIBITS EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-1 Riverside CMP System 2-2 4-1 Level of Service on CMP System 4-3 5-1 Smart Call Box (SCB) Implementation Sites 5-2 5-2 Transportation Management Center 5-5 (TMC) Implementation Sites LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1 4-1 4-2 4-3 5-1 9-1 DESCRIPTION PAGE System of Highways & Roadways 2-5 Exempt Facilities in 2011 4-7 • Highway Capacity Manual-Based LOS Methodology 4-8 Applications Transit System Performance Indicators 4-11 Floating Car Run Deficiency Analysis 5-9 CMP Updates Since Inception 9-4 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. •ii 29 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • • The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was first established in 1990 under Proposition 111. Proposition 111 established a process for each metropolitan county in California to designate a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) that would be responsible for development and implementation of the CMP within county boundaries. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) was designated as the CMA in 1990, and therefore, prepares the CMP updates in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee (T AC), which consists of local agencies, the County of Riverside, transit agencies, and subregional agencies. CMP legislation is provided in Appendix 1. The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality. Counties within California have developed CMPs with varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. The Riverside County CMP was significantly modified in 1997 to focus on federal Congestion Management System (CMS) requirements as well as incorporate elements of the State CMP requirements. The 1997 CMP also focused on development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition of the CMS, as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the state and federal levels. This monitoring effort was completed in 2004, which consisted of installing Smart Call Boxes (traffiC counters in Call Box equipment) and traffic counters at Caltrans' Traffic Management Center (TMC) sites along the state highway system. Monitoring of the CMP system on local arterials will continue to occur through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments' (CVAG) monitoring program and through local agency monitoring efforts in Western Riverside County. RCTC's adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) threshold is LOS "E". Therefore, when a CMP street or highway segment falls to "F", a deficiency plan must be required. Preparation of a deficiency plan will be the responsibility of the local agency where the deficiency is located. Other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency will also be required to coordinate with the development of the plan. The plan must contain mitigation measures, including consideration of Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategies and transit alternatives, and a schedule for mitigating the deficiency. To insure that the CMP is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of LOS deficiencies, it is the responsibility of local agencies, when reviewing and approving development proposals, to consider the traffic impacts on the CMP System. When a deficiency is identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process, further detailed analysis of LOS must be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is only considered to be a "screening" level analysis, therefore additional, more detailed assessment of a potential deficiency would be required before a deficiency is formally identified. Coordination with the affected local • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. ES-1 30 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information • is applied to calculate LOS. During preparation of the 2011 CMP, deficiencies were found on the CMP System based upon this year's monitoring effort. These segments will continue to be monitored to determine if the deficiencies reflect temporary or permanent conditions. If it is determined that deficiencies are permanent and not related to construction or other activities along a segment or elsewhere, a deficiency plan will be required to address the deficiency. PROGRAM HiGHLIGHTS This document is prepared to address each elements the State CMP legislation and federal CMS requirements. Below is a summary of each chapter highlighting the Riverside County CMP's approach in meeting 'the state CMP and federal CMS requirements. Chapter 1 • Designation of the CMP Lead Agency: • The County Board of Supervisors, and a majority of cities representing a majority of population in the incorporated area, must designate by resolution, a public agency to prepare and adopt the Congestion Management Program. The Riverside County Transportation Commission was designated as the CMA for Riverside County on June 11, 1990. The County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population supported the designation. • Chapter 2 • Designation of the System of Highways and Roadways: • The CMA must designate a system of highways and roadways to include, at a minimum, all state highways and principal arterials. RCTC has designated, based upon a set of optional criteria referenced in Chapter 2, a system of Highways and Principal Arterials. All State highways within Riverside County have been included in accordance with CMP statutes, and a set of Principal Arterials has been identified (reference Exhibit 2-1 and Table 2-1). Chapter 3 • Transportation Modeling: • The CMA is to provide a uniform database of traffic impacts afor use in a countywide transportation computer model. ff For purposes of this Program, the Commission has recognized use of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) transportation model, the Coachella Valley Area Transportation System (CVATS) sub-regional transportation model, the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) Final Report (May 2009), and local agency models to analyze traffic impacts associated with development proposals or land use plans. SCAG is currently in the process of preparing the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to address requirements set forth in SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SB 375 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission • Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. ES-2 31 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program also requires enhancements to the regional transportation model(s). Specific model enhancements will be reflected in the 2013 CMP following completion of modeling activity by SCAG. Chapter 4� Multimodal System Performance Standards: " AB 1963 identifies requirements in CMP legislation including development of multimodal system performance standards focusing on street and highway level of service and transit standards. This Chapter therefore incorporates minimum standards for both these important forms of transportation. CMP Street and Highway Standards The methodology for measuring LOS must be that contained in Circular 212 or the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM); and traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS for any segment or intersection on the CMP system, unless the current LOS is lower (i.e., "F"). For purposes of this CMP, LOS analysis for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways, under current or existing conditions, is required to be developed using HCM� based methods. " Considering the transportation financing program in Riverside County established through Measure A, there are no advantages to set a higher minimum LOS standard than required by CMP legislation, LOS "EO. As a result, the minimum LOS standard for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways shall be "E" unless the intersection or segment had a lower LOS (LOS "F") in 1991 (reference Table 4-1 and Exhibit 4-1). Such facilities are exempt from CMP deficiency plan requirements. Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit System Standards Transit standards must be established for service frequency (i.e., headways), routing, and coordination among multiple transit agencies operating within the CMP jurisdiction. To meet the requirements of the Statutes, the performance measures outlined in the Short Range Transit Plans prepared by transit agencies in Riverside County are included in this chapter. In 2005, RCTC approved a Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency. The PIP identifies performance targets in which transit operators will strive to meet in developing its SRTP service and financial plan. Chapter 5-Enhanced Transportation System Management Program: " The CMP must include a program to analyze the impact of land use decisions by jurisdictions on the regional transportation system, including an estimate of costs to mitigate those impacts. This element describes the traffic data collection process to assess land use decision impacts on the " Congestion Management System. Under the program, RCTC, CVAG and Caltrans would be the agencies Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. ES-3 32 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program in Riverside County responsible for the traffic count data collection process. The count data can also be applied to comply with State and federal Congestion Management Plan/Congestion Management • System/Transportation Management System (CMP/CMSfTMS) data collection requirements. CVAG currently has a Traffic Monitoring Program in place that addresses CMP System Monitoring requirements in the Coachella Valley. RCTC has implemented the Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program using Smart Call Box (SCB) and Caltrans' Traffic Management Center (TMC) equipment at selected sites along the State Highway system in Riverside County. Chapter 6· LOS Deficiency Plans: • California Government Code Sections 65088 and 65089 provide for the development of deficiency plans. The Code states that "a city or county may designate individual segments or intersections as deficient when they do not meet the established level of service standards, if prior to the designation at a noticed public hearing, the city or county has adopted a deficiency plan". Deficient segments or intersections will be identified through the biennial traffic monitoring process. When a deficiency is identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is only considered to be a ·screening" level analysis, therefore additional, more detailed assessment of a potential deficiency would be required before a deficiency is formally identified. Coordination with the affected local jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. The local agency where the deficiency is located will be responsible for the preparation of the deficiency •plan. RCTC will prepare deficiency plans on the State Highway System when deficiencies are identified and will coordinate the development of the deficiency plan with affected local jurisdictions. Chapter 7 • Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality: • The CMP must include alternatives to single occupant auto use, such as transit, and van and carpooling; and must promote strategies to manage overall travel demand, such as a jobs/housing balance, flextime, telecommuting and parking strategies. Local agencies must also adopt a transportation demand management (TOM) ordinance to comply with CMP statutes. In 1991, all local agencies adopted TDM ordinances. In 1996, the State changed the CMP from a mandatory program to a voluntary program; therefore, RCTC has not required agencies to update their respective TDM ordinances. There are effective ways of achieving trip reduction in Riverside County other than through the adoption of local agency Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinances, which was the focus of TDM efforts in the past. RCTC believes that there are other approaches that can be more effective and has facilitated the implementation of TDM projects through the Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Programs, and the implementation of a number of TDM projects (in cooperation with Caltrans and local agencies in Riverside County and in adjoining counties) to achieve TDM objectives. Such TDM strategies include the development of Park-N-Ride lots, commuter rail stations, and public transit feeder services. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. •ES-4 33 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • In addition to TDM, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies also provide for smoother traffic flow, especially along congested streets and highways in the County. Types of TSM strategies already implemented in Riverside County include bus bays, signal coordination systems, signal preemption for transit vehicles, improved signal timing projects, ramp metering, and focused intersection improvements. Taken together, the individual programs, projects, and TOM ordinances that continue to be implemented by local agencies constitute a broad base effort to reduce reliance on the single occupant vehicle and address CMP objectives. Chapter 8 -Capital Improvement Program (CIP): • The CIP is a 7-year program; projects in the CIP may be incorporated into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTlP) for the programming of Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) and Urban and Commuter Rail funds; CIP Projects must maintain or improve performance of the multi-modal system; and projects must conform to transportation-related emission air quality mitigation measures. To comply with the statutes, the 2011 CIP incorporates all CMP System projects listed in the most recent TIP including STIP, Measure "A", Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), and other federally funded projects. To streamline this process, CIP requirements shall be the same as, and accomplished through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) development. • Chapter 9· CMP Conformance and Monitoring Process: • RCTC must make a determination that its member cities and the county are conforming to the CMP, including consistency with traffic LOS and transit performance standards and implementation of a program to monitor and evaluate the performance of the transportation system. SCAG must also find the CMP consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and certify that the CMP meets federal CMS requirements. The specific requirements of Conformance and Monitoring Process are described in Chapter 9. Chapter 10· CMP Development and Implementation Update Process: • This chapter focuses on the procedural, administrative, and coordination activities related to CMP development, adoption, and update in accordance with CMP legislatiOn. The CMP includes a process that addresses each of the activities identified above including CMP development, adoption, and update. Environmental Assessment -The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) identifies the CMP as an exempt project. As a result, compliance with CEQA requirements is not required . • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. ES-5 34 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 1• DESIGNATION OF THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY According to CMP legislation (AB 471, AB 1791, AB 1963, and AB 2419), the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and a majority of cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area, must designate by resolution, a public agency to prepare and adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has the authority to monitor compliance with the adopted program. An amendment to the Govemment Code requires the CMA to update and adopt the CMP every two years (biennially) consistent with development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTI Pl. A copy of AB 2419 is provided as Appendix 1. A key feature of AB 471 is the requirement that every urbanized county with a population of 50,000 or more must prepare and adopt a comprehensive CMP. The CMP represents a directive for local governments to measure and mitigate the impact of land use decisions on streets, highways, and regional transportation systems. In 1996, the State of Califomia amended the CMP legislation to change the requirement from mandatory to voluntary. However, federal Metropolitan Planning provisions require Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) serving a transportation management area (TMA) (i.e. area with a population over 200,000) to include a Congestion Management System (CMS) component as part of their transportation planning process. Each of the six counties in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region has adopted and implemented a CMP. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) jointly determine if the MPO's planning process meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 among other provisions. In the event that the FHWNFTA determines that the planning process in a TMA does not substantially meet the requirements and do not certify the process, they may withhold federal project and funding approvals. • On June 11, 1990, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTe) was designated as the CMA for Riverside County by resolution from member agencies. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) also supported the designation. It is the Commission's intent to continue working closely with WRCOG, CVAG, the cities and the County, toward development and implementation of an effective CMP. The Commission will continue to develop and biennially update the CMP to coincide with the development of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) in cooperation with local govemments, Air Quality Management Districts, and subregional planning agencies (WRCOG and CVAG). The CMP must also be submitted to the MPO, which for • Riverside County is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is responsible for Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc 1-1 36 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program determining consistency of each CMP within the SCAG region with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) • and air quality management plans. The Riverside County Congestion Management Program combines the requirements of the State's CMP and the federal CMS with a greater emphasis on the CMS, resulting in an enhanced transportation monitoring system. • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc •1-2 37 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program DESIGNATION OF THE CMP SYSTEM OF HIGHWA YS AND ROADWAYS 2 " STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089(a), referenced in AB 1963, requires development of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) to establish traffic level of service (LOS) standards for a system of highways and roadways designated by RCTC as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA). This system must include, at a minimum, all state highways and principal arterials, both new and existing facilities. Once designated, components of the system cannot be removed. Designated System of Highways and Principal Arterials: " All State Highway facilities in Riverside County. Consideration may be given to the following conditions when designating Principal Arterials: ./ Routes identified on Caltrans' "Functional Classification System" as "Principal Arterials"; ./ Designated expressways; and ./ Facilities linking cities/communities (interregional facilities), and major activity centers (shopping malls, major industrial/business parks, stadiums, etc). CMP SYSTEM UPDATE PROCESS An update to the CMP System considers the criteria identified above, including arterial facilities added to the Federal Functional Classification System. Local agencies may nominate arterials for inclusion on the CMP System at any time. Nominated arterials will be reviewed by the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) for approval and forwarded to the RCTC Board for final approval. The CMP System of Highways and Roadways in Riverside County is displayed on Exhibit 2-1. Based upon review of the revised Functional Classification System and the considerations listed above, no additional facilities were designated as principal arterials during the 2011 CMP update process . " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies. Inc. 2-1 38 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • • r--~ I ~----------------~ 15 ..c x LU E ill E+Q) ~ 1;; >(f) en CL EE Q)::;:;: Q)a.. 1;;u ~ >en~ C en 0 0 CL CL ::;:;:en ::;:;:0 0 u"'" Q) U C Cill z t: 0 0""0 W <C en0 U) Q)-V; w >>---' 0 Q. 0 '0 12?li ..c 3: Q)c".:= .Ql-~ CL ::t: C 0::: • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies. Inc. 2-2 40 --- 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program " ::j::' C 0 () ~ .- I N + :0 ...c x LU .- Q) D "(/) '-~ C:: c '- Q) +(/) ~ E Q) +(/) (/)> D... ~ 0 Q) D "(/) '-~ C:: Ul OJI -J • z-.-~~ ~ '" i I ! ~ ! E l (j) E0.. E •2 (j) 0 ~ iCf)c 0..0 0.. 2!£1 20 00 'CZ (j) 0 c c W 0 (!) « (j)w ~ t 0 '" -' 8. j 0 '0 'P! (j) if. c I OJ :£ \~, MI Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies. Inc. • 2-3 " " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program o--+�c o o ~I-------------------~ ...� I N -+� :0 ...c: x w --.. >0) g 0 0) ..c 0 0 0 Q E 0) 1n >U) CL ~ U 0) D ott) ~ o~ C2::. 0 z W l!) w -' E (J.) ~ 0�E E ::;! (J.) (J.) 0 "t; ~ >�(f)c (f) 0 0�0� <n ::;! ::;! 0 0 0 'C: Q) C C t 0 0 � U) U) Q) 0 6' 00. 5 '�'0 ..c (J.)c ,Ql ~ :r: � " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies. Inc. 2-4 42 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CMP SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS AI\ID ROADWAYS " State Highways: Facility Name 1. 1-10 2. 1-15 3. 1-215 4. US 95 5. SR 60 6. SR 62 7. SR 71 8. SR 74 9. SR 78 10. SR 79 11.SR 86 12. SR 91 13. SR 111 I Highway 111'1 14. SR 177 15. SR 195 16. SR 243 17. SR 371 Limits San Bernardino Co. Line to the Arizona State Line San Bernardino Co. Line to the San Diego Co. Line San Bernardino Co. Line to 1-15 San Bernardino Co. Line to 1-10 San Bernardino Co. Line to 1-10 San Bernardino Co. Line to 1-10 San Bernardino Co. Line to SR 91 Orange Co. Line to SR 111 Imperial Co. Line to 1-10 1-10 to San Diego Co. Line SR 111 to Imperial Co. Line Orange Co. Line to 1-215 1-10 to Imperial Co. Line SR 62 to 1-10 SR 86 to SR 111 1-10 to SR 74 SR 79 to SR 74 " Facility Name 1. Alessandro Blvd. 2. Agua Mansa Rd. 3. Arlington Blvd. 4. Armstrong Rd.IValley Way 5. Country Village Rd. 6. La Sierra Ave. 7. Limonite Ave. 8. Magnolia Ave. 9. Main St.lFirst St. 10. Market St.lRubidoux Blvd. 11. Mission Inn and University " Principal Arterials -Western Riverside County: 12. Sierra Ave. 13. Etiwanda Ave. 14. Van Buren Blvd. " Principal Arterials � Facility Name 1. Monterey Ave. 2. Ramon Rd. Limits Intersection of Central, Arlington & Chicago to 1-215 San Bernardino County Line to Market SI. California to Intersection of Central, Alessandro &ChicC1go Sierra Ave. to SR 60 San Bernardino County Line to SR 60 Arlington Blvd. to SR 91 San Bernardino County Line to Mission Blvd. SR 91 to Market SI. San Bernardino County Line to Market SI. San Bernardino County Line to Magnolia Ave. Market to SR 91 San Bernardino County Line to Valley Way/Armstrong Rd. Limonite Ave. -San Bernardino County Line San Bernardino County Line to 1-215 Coachella Valley: Limits SR 111 to 1-10 SR 111 to 1-10 " '1 SR 111 in Riverside County is a designated State Route (SR) between 1-10 and Golf Club Drive and between SR 74 and the Imperial County Line. That section between Golf Club Drive and SR 74 was relinquished to adjacent jurisdictions. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies. Inc. 2-5 44 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • CHAPTER 3 TRANSPORTATION MODELING REQUIREMENTS Section 65089.3 (c) of the Government Code requires that RCTC, as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), in consultation with the Southern California Association of Govemments (SCAG), cities and the County, develop a uniform database on traffic impacts for use in a countywide transportation model. Further, RCTC, in consultation with SCAG, must approve transportation computer models that will be used by local jurisdictions and the county to determine the quantitative impacts of development on the circulation system. Local transportation models shall be consistent with the databases used by SCAG. MODELING • Transportation computer models applied in Riverside County include the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) and the SCAG Regional Transportation Model. The newly developed RIVTAM model was a multi-agency effort to develop a more detailed roadway network than the SCAG Regional Model. RIVT AM added 570 centerline miles of roadways to the network and incorporates all facilities in the Riverside County General Plan classified as Secondary and above. In addition, some Collectors were included, as necessary, to insure that all Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) are connected to the network of General Plan roadways. A Memorandum of Understanding has been approved by the Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD), CVAG, WRCOG, and RCTC to establish roles and responsibilities for updating and maintaining the model including use of the model by the local agencies. The RCTD serves as the lead agency for RIVTAM. During 2008, SCAG prepared an update to the SCAG models based upon new growth forecasts developed for the Year 2035. The RIVTAM model is based on the SCAG 2008 model with refinements to reflect local conditions within Riverside County. Local transportation models are also developed by local agencies to determine land use impacts on its transportation system. SCAG is currently in the process of preparing the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to address requirements set forth in SB 375 -Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SB 375 also requires enhancements to the regional transportation model(s). Specific model enhancements will be reflected in the 2013 CMP following completion of modeling activity by SCAG. MODEL IMPROVEMENTS The SCAG model was last revised/updated (calibrated/validated) in 2008 and has been available for use by local agencies in reviewing regionally significant development projects, or projects that generate greater than 500 peak hour trips through the Intergovernmental Review (IGR) process. In addition, SCAG developed a regionwide demographic database system to collect accurate data for • development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP is the region's long range transportation Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 3-1 46 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program plan that considers land use development patterns, transportation systems, population and housing needs to develop policies and strategies that will accommodate future growth and demand. Locally, WRCOG, •CVAG, and the County of Riverside have taken lead roles in the development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) to monitor growth in the County so that socioeconomic and land use databases can be easily developed and maintained. SCAG has developed model consistency guidelines to assist public agencies and traffic engineering professionals with the development of local models that are consistent with the SCAG regional transportation model. The objective of these guidelines is to comply with CMP consistency requirements, improve communications between affected agencies to simplify the exchange of data, and improve databases and modeling results at both the local and regional level. A copy of the current Consistency Guidelines for Transportation Modeling -Riverside and San Bernardino Counties is available at RCTC or at the SCAG Inland Empire Office in Riverside. MODELING FOR CMP PURPOSES During implementation of the Riverside County CMP, transportation computer models are used for several purposes, including: • Determining and monitoring traffic levels of service (LOS) for the current and future years; • Analyzing the impacts of land use decisions resulting from the IGR or CEQA processes and when an LOS defiCiency occurs along the CMP System; and • Evaluating and prioritizing transportation improvement projects, such as capital projects, transit •projects. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) projects, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and other programs that improve the transportation system and air quality. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. •3-2 47 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Section 65089{b){2) of the Government Code states that the Congestion Management Program (CMP) must contain a performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. At a minimum, the performance measures must incorporate highway and roadway system performance measures established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. The performance measures must also support mobility, air quality, land use, and economic objectives, and must be used in the development of the Riverside County Capital Improvement Program {CIP} required pursuant to paragraph (5), deficiency plans required pursuant to Section 65089.4, and the land use analysis program required pursuant to paragraph (4) of the Government Code. " According to AB 471 and AB 1791, traffic level of service (LOS) must be measured by: a) Circular 212; b) the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual {HCM} prepared by the Transportation Research Board (TRB); or c) by an alternative uniform methodology adopted by the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), which the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) determines is consistent with the HCM. In no case can the standards established be below LOS "E" or the current level, whichever is farthest from LOS "AI). This Chapter describes the multimodal system performance standards for Riverside County in accordance with CMP legislation. Therefore, standards are presented in this Chapter for the CMP System of Streets and Roads and for the Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit System. CMP System of Streets and Highways + Established Minimum Level of Service With the intent of the legislation in mind, the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) CMP Subcommittee approved a "two-tiered" approach to establish the minimum LOS standard. Tier 1 involves the "locally established minimum traffic LOS -or -ceiling," while Tier 2 involves the CMP minimum LOS standard -or -"floor." " Most local agencies in Riverside County and Caltrans have adopted LOS standards of "C" or "0" (representing the "ceiling" in Tier 2) in an effort to maintain a desired LOS for the local circulation system. To address CMP legislative requirements, and establish a minimum LOS along the regional system of roadways and highways within the County (representing the "floor" in Tier 2), RCTC approved a minimum traffic LOS standard of HE." Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-1 48 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • Exempt Facilities • Table 4-1 and Exhibit 4-1 identify facilities (roadway segments or intersections) along the CMP System that had a LOS of "F" in 1991. As a result, these facilities continue to be "exempt" from CMP requirements in accordance with CMP Statutes. • Methodology to Determine Level of Service RCTC determined that the traffic LOS method that incorporated a "delay· analysis was the most applicable for CMP purposes. Consideration of delay through HCM-based software programs provided a closer approximation of LOS than under the Circular 212 or similar methodologies. For purposes of this Program, LOS analysis for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways (under current or existing conditions), should be developed or established using the following HCM-based methods in the order presented: 1. Segment (freeway and principal arterial) floating car runs or stopped delay LOS analysis at intersections; 2. Segment and intersection LOS analysis using HCM; and 3. Segment analysis using the Modified HCM LOS Tables (or revised Florida LOS Tables). Staff continues to recommend the use of HCM methods through applicable software packages • applied to various types of facilities (reference Table 4-2 -LOS Methodology Applications). Appropriate defaults to be applied by local agencies in their analysis of LOS are referenced in Appendix 2. HCM-based methodologies applied to calculate LOS for CMP purposes will be the responsibility of local agencies as new development or land use plan revisions/updates (reflective of specific development proposals) are considered. This process shall be consistent with the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program described in Chapter 5. The initial LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is considered to be a "screening" level analysis. A more detailed assessment is conducted on key critical segments. If the analysis results in LOS deficiencies, the LOS analysis would continue on a quarterly basis to determine the average peak hour LOS and determine if the LOS deficiencies are due to temporary or permanent conditions. Coordination with the affected local agency(s) also will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS . Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission • Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-2 49 " " " ~ , CIJ ~ ~ III ca Q. 0�;, :::0 ~. ill Q:~(1) (1)1.")-go ca � Q.~ ~=:;i'. III :�~ ~oS;t:::, <"10 :::-:1 :II.")e. O o EI'S, EI ~ (ij'" C/)S-...,0<"1" :I f'iitl~)t'1 f'a~'f> Rd l HC"iWrucl: St --~-'~ " w+ lolorm::;(,.,AL� 2011 -Level of Service on CMP System in Western Riverside EXHIBIT 4�1A Legend � LOS A, B, C, D or F desigft,;,ltio!\ for Sf:9ml!thts based on 2011 eM? Dala xxx _ Not Dencient Per ?eMS Speed Da:a ...D.r,,~.nl Pw PeMS Speed Oai:; __Noi DefiCient Per 2009 Floatlng Car Runs VRPA 1".'OUIliQIO(~/f.f, f~< ~ ...... ...... :::0 ~' ~,g- I.") o � ~ I.") ~ !Jl ::!'. g i ~ :I .... ~ ~ iil EI 50 " " " ;? i;aQ.~ 1. 0' :"! :::tJ ~' iii ~g: '0 0 QI g;a :::lQ.-< ~;t .. Q.j ~~ ~o ~ iD'~ n 0 ::r:::l ~o 0-0 I.OS-'S " ~ iii'(I) 5' o� fl :::l " W'. l? Norro S-cIil.E 201 1 -Level of Service on CMP System in Coachella Valley EXHIBIT 4-1B L,egelld � LOS A. 8, C. D, E. Of F d" " Ig""tio~ (nr ""g"'on,s based on 2011 CMP Data xXX Pe~'l-k HO\H VC.llume (80th Dlrect;on~) ba~ed 00 2011 Coun1y of Riverside 201() Traffic Counts. CVAG MOl and Caltr"8flS 0I.!J1,icl8 2010 Peak HOOf Traffic CO\lnt$. ..Not C.ncienl Per POMS Spoed Oat. ..Defic.ienl Per PI':MS Spe~ OoM ...Not DefiGient PfJr 2000 Floatinv ew Runs 4~ VRPA TFt:IPIU{M.JH IV(: .. .. ~ :::tJ ~' g: ~ � -< g ~ g'� 1 ~ 2 - "'0 a 1.0 iil S 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • • N 1.0 !:: 030-,....::J:. X'll' W .; a J!l1'J ! 0'" ](J> !' "n: '" 0 '" c '" '".2 <J) 8.::; !II'" (/)" (;; ::e.. u. [!J g " 0.. Q. E ~.S! ,g 1:' 23 ..;g IL E., 0 i 0 ~ " 0 II 15 z I o ('\J ",,'=' ~ jj 3 '"a a.::;; 0 <> N :5 ~ '" -" '" 1 ill ,g c 0 ~ ~ -!l u 5 ui 0 0 ai <i (j) 0 -' x ® X x • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Techn%gies,/nc. 4-5 " " " ()1 ~ VJ 0, "tl ~ -g ~Q. 0�;, ::tJ ~. ~ en"tlg: ~(") 't:I 0 III t: ~ :;,Q.-< ~~ :�~ ~o 61 ~~ (') 0 ::r:;, :;,(")a. ot83-'3 ~ -. ~ !:lS-...., fI g ... .( ---"" -------� , ,," !Ii *eWe, 'F ::' /-' ' nor roSCALE ,-Riverside \ City limit \ ~~ ~.. ..,......<> .,," I I I I i� '" " " "�" " " ,, \ " .... _---� 201 1 -Level of Service on CMP System in North Wes,tern Riverside EXHIBIT 4-1D k~~1!!! � LOS A, B, C, r), E, or F l.1esignatlon for segments based on 20t1 CMP Data XXX Peak Hour Votume (Both Directions) based on 2011 CMP Oat., County of Riversid. 2010 TraificCounts, CVAG MonitOring Report. and Callrans District 8 2010 Peak Hour Traffic Counts. _ Not Deficient Per PeMS SP"~ Data _ Deficient Per PeMS Speed Data _ Not Doffci.nt Per 2009 Floating Car Runs VRPA Ttfr.HNOAI1fiI.F:.f. ,~<: N Q """ """ ::tJ ~. Crig: Q � -< (") o :;, IQ ~ g. :;, ~ ~ (I) 3 !g.... "tJ a IQ iii 3 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program GRAND AVENUE TO LAKESHORE DRIVE LAKESHORE TO 1-15 SANDERSON AVENUE TO CORNELL STREET CORNELL STREET TO HEMET AVENUE " RIVERSIDE COUNTY LINE TO JCT SR 71 JCT SR 71 TO MAPLE STREET MAPLE STREET TO JCT 1-15 JCT 1-15 TO 0.6 MILE WEST OF MCKINLEY 0.6 MILE WEST OF MCKIt\ILEY TO MAGNOLIA AVENUE MAGNOLIA AVENUE TO 14TH STREET 14TH STREET TO JCT SR 60/SR 9111-215 DISTRICT 11 BOUt\IDARY TO JCT SR 74 JCT SR 74 TO GENE AUTRY TRAIL PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS -WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY ON LA SIERRA AVENUE: ARLINGTON TO GRAMERCY ON VAN BUREN BOULEVARD: NORTHERLY CITY LIMIT TO JURUPA JURUPA TO CENTRAL CENTRAL TO ARLINGTON EXEMPT FACILITIES IN 2011 EAST JCT SR 60 TO JCT SR 60/SR 9111-215 JCT SR 60/SR 91/1-215 TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-7 54 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 4-2 •HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL BASED· LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY APPLICATIONS 9 :E o ::J: o W u:: 2i o :E x x x x • '1 -Current ,ear traffic conditions '2 -Future ,ear (2030) traffic conditions '3 -Used as an example only, other HCM compatible software will also be accepted. '4 -Results of analysis should be evaluated considering actual intersection conditions or 4-or 2-way stop or signal warrants. •Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-8 55 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • • 2011 Level of Service (LOS) Results ./ Coachella Valley The Coachella Valley Associated Governments (CVAG) has implemented a valleywide traffic monitoring program for many years. Count information contained in CVAG's 2011 Traffic Census Report was utilized in the LOS analysis as well as a growth rate applied to 2009 CMP traffic count data. The analysis conducted by VRPA Technologies indicates that there is one (1) defiCiency in the Coachella Valley for 2011 along Ramon Road between Bob Hope Drive and 1-10 . ./ Western Riverside County Based on LOS calculations along the CMP system in Western Riverside County using Caltrans and local agency counts as well as a growth rate applied to 2009 CMP traffic count data, two (2) deficiencies were found. The deficiencies occur along Van Buren Boulevard between Washington Street and Wood Road and between Orange Terrace and 1-215 . ./ State Highways • Traffic count information was collected from the Caltrans 2010 Traffic Monitoring Report, from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS), and from existing Smart Call Boxes (SCB) located along the State Highway system. In addition, peak hour traffic counts were collected from various transportation studies and local qgencies. The data was then adjusted and evaluated by VRPA Technologies using HCM-based LOS tables. • Previous deficiencies in 2009 along State Highways included one (1) segment along 1-15 (SR 60 to Weirick Rd) and one (1) segment along 1-215 (1-15 to Scott Rd). After additional monitOring and the analysis of PeMS speed data in 2011, a portion of the 1-15 segment still remains deficient as noted below. Results of this process are provided in Chapter 5 and indicate that three (3) smaller segments of the larger segment along 1-15 (SR-60 to Limonite Ave, 2nd St to SR-91 , and MagnOlia Ave to Weirick Rd) are currently operating at LOS "F" and therefore are deficient. These segments however, will likely be improved to LOS "E" or better once construction of the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) is initiated and completed. In addition, one (1) segment along 1-215 (Nuevo Rd to SR-74/4th St) is operating at LOS "F". This segment will likely be improved to LOS "E" or better once construction of the 1-215 widening project is initiated and completed and the 1-215/SR-74 interchange reconstruction project (currently under construction) is completed. Each of these deficient segments will be monitored using PeMS speed data over the next 9 months on a quarterly basis to determine the LOS. Results of this monitoring process will be provided to the TAC following the 12 month monitoring process or during preparation of the 2013 CMP Update. It will also be important to closely monitor LOS "E" segments on a quarterly basis. Once a LOS "E" segment falls to LOS "F" during the quarterly monitoring process, the segment will be further analyzed as to what the cause may be. If the LOS is at "F" for more than one (1) year and is the average annual peak hour condition with no extenuating circumstances causing the deficiency (e.g., construction, special event, etc), the local agency will be notified to prepare a deficiency plan in accordance to Chapter 6 . Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-9 56 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit Standards • • Statutory Requirements Section 65089.(b)(2) of the Government Code specifically requires development of standards established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. • Public Transit and Alternative Mass Transit Facility Standards RCTC, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, is responsible for planning and coordinating all public mass transit services within the jurisdiction of the Commission and between the jurisdiction of other county commissions or transit operators. On an annual basis, transit operators prepare a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), which is a three-year document detailing the operating and capital costs that are planned for transit services. Each operator adopts such a plan and then provides quarterly data to RCTC regarding performance. Once the SRTPs are approved by RCTC, transit operators are charged with the responsibility for providing the service levels and purchasing the capital equipment identified in year-one of the SRTP. Once approved by RCTC, the SRTPs must be amended if an operator wants to deviate from the original plan. The Commission encourages all operators to coordinate public transportation services including routes, fare structure and transfer agreements as the overall goal is the improvement of public transportation services to the general public. To assist with the coordination efforts, quarterly meetings are held with the public transit operators to ensure that efficient. effective transportation • services are provided. Public Utilities Code Section 99244 requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators through the SRTP process. This process requires the transit operators to address recommendations made through the triennial performance audit. In 2005, the Commission reaffirmed its commitment to a Productivity Improvement Program (PIP), which was originally adopted in 1998 as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency. Table 4-3 details the performance targets as identified in the PIP that transit operators will strive to meet in developing its SRTP service and financial plan: As an alternative mode to the single-occupant vehicle, mass transit services (commuter rail services) should be considered during the assessment or local development proposals that impact the Congestion Management System and during the development of deficiency plans by local agencies. Further, future rail passenger services should be considered as appropriate mitigation measures to offset potential deficiencies. If feasible, future transit and passenger rail facility systems should be described as potential services that could reduce vehicle trips and relieve congestion at or above the minimum LOS standard. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission • Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-10 57 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Performance Indicator Method for Establishing Performance Targets 1) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Increases no more than CPI 2) Fare Box Recovery Ratio Per PUC requirements and RCTC policy 3) Subsidy per Passenger +/-15% variance 4) Subsidy per Passenger Mile +/-15% variance ~_ Subsidy ~er Revenue Hour +/-15% variance _6) Subsidy per Revenue Mile +/-15% variance 7) Passengers per Revenue Hour +/-15% variance 8) Passengers per Revenue Mile +/-15% variance 9) Ridership growth 2% minimum growth annually (Applies to Commuter Rail) " CONFORMANCE AND MONITORING PROCESS It is the local agency's responsibility to ensure implementation of development project mitigation measures identified by the project proponent. RCTC and local agencies will monitor the implementation of deficiency plans that include transit and roadway improvements intended to irnprove traffic LOS. If through the biennial traffic monitoring process, the LOS along a deficient arterial or highway facility improves to LOS "E" or better, mitigation measures that have not been implemented as specified in the deficiency plan, would no longer be required for CMP compliance purposes . " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-11 58 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • ENHANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Section 65089 (b}(4) of the Govemment Code requires that RCTC develop a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems, including an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating those impacts. In no case must the program outlined in this Chapter include an estimate of the costs of mitigating the impacts of interregional travel, but it must provide credit for local public and private contributions to improvements on regional transportation systems. In the case of toll road facilities, credit must only be allowed for local public and private contributions, which are unreimbursed from toll revenues or other state or federal sources. RCTC must calculate the amount of the credit to be provided. RCTC • The RCTC CMP Enhanced Transportation System Management Program was deSigned to meet the federal Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and Congestion Management SystemlTraffic Management System (CMSITMS) requirements, as well as to monitor the CMP System of Highways and Roadways. The intent of the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program is to effectively identify those facilities that have congestion problems, track the degree of congestion, and apply evaluation criteria to the system so that federal and State funds are targeted or programmed to relieve the congestion. The Enhanced Transportation System Management Program utilizes "loop or pavement sensors" currently installed along the State Highway system at call boxes (reference Figures 5-1A through 5-1 C) and Caltrans' Performance Measurement System (PeMS) sites (reference 5-2A through 5-2C). Traffic counters were installed at these sites allowing RCTC and Caltrans to retrieve count data. Many PeMS sites now have the capability to retrieve speed, truck flow, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and delay data. The Enhanced Transportation System Management Program will improve traffic monitoring for the CMP and other planning or technical purposes. The federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that metropolitan transportation planning processes include a Congestion Management Process similar to the federal CMS requirements. To address the SAFETEA-LU requirements, SCAG and the county Congestion Management AgenCies (CMAs) established and implemented a Congestion Management Process, which is designed to relieve traffic congestion and maintain high levels of service on the roadway network in the SCAG region. The Congestion Management Process includes the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the counties' CMPs, and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which should all maintain a level of consistency with each other. A review of Federal CMS/TMS requirements is provided in Appendix 3 . • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-1 60 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program " , ... . , . , . " .. ,~ ~ I-m<-,...:I:. x"" 7f� W :$ W C CIJ ct W >0:: z ct W I� CIJ w 3: z CIJ w !:: CIJ .. J'lZ iii 0 0 III " 0 Z "iii~ 0LU t.) " III(!) 1::.. uI-W '" Z -' VI E iii'" W :E 0 w ..J D.. :E ><0 CO ..J ..J <(.) I� ct <:E CIJ ~ ~ ;!ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-2 62 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program I \ I l ! i i i ! ! i i I \ i ! i \ \ ! i i ! i i • ~+.. '" g "' iii )( 0 0:1CJ ,..z 'i 0UJ u 0:1 t: .J< UJ 0 ...J '"E " til iii" • 00 t f ~ ~ ! ffimz"7 >(10 WI \ 1 I >i W i ...J1 ...J I ! ~ j i <...Ji ...Ji W! i :I: 0 <0 0 Z CJ) w t: CJ) i zi i 0 ~ ... Z W :iE W ...J Il. :iE-X 0 OJ ...J ...J <0 l-e::: <:iE CJ) '! Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. •5-3 63 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program i i 1 1 \ .'-"'-"/'-"'" .,....... \ ............ • .... mo-..... z~-~~ :1:.xU') ",./ ~ W :::: W C CI) n:: w >ii: z n:: w I CI) <t w \ z! I CI)i wj i !::\ CI) I to i Z 0 ~ ..\ i CD0 .. 0 "! 0 • I UJ U ~ Z CD 1:: ""U ..-01 Z l.U E '" .E!.J! II> CDW\ I :liE 0l W ..J! i c..\ :liEi - i ><1 0i [Qi i ..Ji ..J <t 0 ! l i n:: j <tj :liEi CI)l j ii r----;--------~ ~\ ;:::si I ~ g if ~ • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-4 64 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program I iii«-NJ:. )(ID W w a-tila:: w > a:: za:: w Ico til ! .. ..: ~ W .. 3.QII ~ ..i! 12.. z 0 > ~ 00 " .. tJl .. (l) :e -:e« w Z 0.0.(!)w W -' '" ~ '"" « 0 " s 0-'" GO W (!) I , ~ w ~ 0 til :i! (l) Il. • • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-5 • 65 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program I-~ + ~ moo ~ -N Z J, ~J:. hxl() ~ W S9t\'(\~~1,\ c""�~~~~ ;; let i ! 1 i i I 3i i \ ! i ! i i " \ i i l i ! ! i i >�W ..J ..J ~ or:( ..J ..J W J: 0 or:( 0 0 -Z 0or:( Z W W (9 w~ -' or:( W (!) or:( ~ W >0 0 en :E (1) a.. ~ .. .. f E <t: � .. .. ;'" I!'" ~ 0 (.) 0 II) ~ II) :I::l!i., <II ~ ~ E ", ~E t::; .. (.) 6: ;:, iii " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-6 66 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program i l i i l i i i i i i \ i i i i ! i i i I i \ i i i \ \." .............. , .. .. I fI ./".'-..\ ,'It .•. , ..""....., \ Irou -(',I:r;. ~It) • • ~ i i \ i i i ! i ! i i ! I i ! i I ! ! i \ i \ ! i \ I \ i i i i i i i i j \ i w -0 II) 0::: w > 0::: Z 0::: w l- II) II( W Z-0II( Z W UJ 0 UJ0::: -' II( W C) II( 0::: W >0 (.) II) :E (I) a.. .. .. « ~l! «.. &'"e ~ ~ ~ 0 u(,) tJ)::;; '" :il.,.. a..a.. ..,c; .. ~ ..c c 0" ir I . ~ I. ~ ! ~ Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. •5-7 67 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program TRAFFIC MONITORING State Highways Monitoring the state highways for CMP purposes involves the downloading of traffic count data from Caltrans' PeMS Website (as necessary) and from Smart Call Box (SCB) sites (on a monthly basis). A level of service analysis will be performed to determine the condition of the CMP System. When a deficiency or LOS "F" is identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The best approach to determine LOS along freeway segments is through the use of floating car runs or PeMS speed data on a quarterly basis. In 2011, PeMS speed data was downloaded and analyzed by RCTC's CMP consultant, VRPA Technologies. Results of this analysis are provided in Chapter 4. Local Arterials Local arterial monitoring involves the continuation of the CVAG Traffic Monitoring Program in the Coachella Valley and the local traffic counting efforts on behalf of the local agencies in Western Riverside County. " To further insure that the CMP System is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, proposed development projects are evaluated by each affected agency to determine potential impacts along the regional and sub-regional Systems. As a result, these evaluations will likely reduce the incidence of LOS deficiencies along the CMP System given that each local agency has established LOS thresholds at higher levels. To insure that major development projects and plans are evaluated and reflected in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Transportation Model and local models, local agencies are encouraged to work with affected agencies to mitigate the impacts conSidering the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). Monitoring of Potential Deficiencies As a result of the 2011 LOS screening analysis, three (3) LOS "F" segments along 1-15, one (1) along 1� 215, two (2) along Van Buren Boulevard, and one (1) along Ramon Road were identified using PeMS speed data and/or recent traffic count data (reference Table 5-1). " 1�15 The segments along 1-15 (SR-60 to Limonite Avenue, 2nd Street to SR-91, and Magnolia Avenue to Weirick Road) are operating at LOS "F" based on PeMS speed data. These segments are expected to be improved to LOS "E" or better once the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) and/or SR-91 CIP are completed. The 1-15 CIP (SR-60 to just north of 1-1511-215) includes the potential construction of one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and one general purpose lane in each direction from SR-74 to SR-60, or two tolled express lanes and one general purpose lane in each direction from SR-74 to SR-60. Both alternatives propose one HOV lane from 1-215 to SR� 74. The SR-91 CIP (Orange County Line to 1-15) includes the potential construction of a general purpose traffic lane in each direction, improved ramps and intersections in Corona, better connections between 1-15 and SR-91 , and the extension of SR-91 Express Lanes . " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-8 68 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program •eM? Deficient Per I O,Ii,''"''" I 0,,,,,I,9 I Reason fOT Overriding R Segment Floating Car Traffic Volumes Considerations Multi-Modal Aspect..d~y I ConsiderationsRuns (YIN) (YIN) I (YIN)I I 1-15 Corridor Improvement PrOject.SR-60 to Limonite Ave Y NIA Toiled Express LanesfHOV LanesY SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project.1-15 2nd Sf to SR-91 Y NfA Y Tolled Express LanesfHOV LanesSR-91 Corridor Improvement Project 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project.Magnolia Ave to Weirick Rd Y NlA Tolled Express LanesfHOV LanesY SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project 1-215 Widening Project, 1-215fSR-741-215 Nuevo Rd to SR-74 (4th St) NlA Perris Valley LineY Y Interchange Reconstruction Project Washington St to Wood Rd NfA Y Existing RT A transit service Van Buren Blvd Y TUMF Regional Arterial Project Existing RTA transit service, PerrisOrange Terrace to 1-215 NfA Y Y 1-215 Interchange Project Valley Line Existing SunLine Transit AgencyRamon Rd 1-10 to Bob Hope Dr NJA Y Y 1-10 Interchange Project service • 1·215 The segment along 1-215 (Nuevo Road to SR-7414th Street) is operating at LOS "F" based on • recent Caltrans' traffic counts. It is expected, however, that the segment will be improved to LOS "E" or better once the 1-215 widening and 1-215/SR-74 interchange reconstruction projects are completed. The central portion of the 1-215 widening project (Scott Road to Nuevo Road) includes construction of a general purpose lane in each direction. The 1-215/SR-74 interchange reconstruction project includes construction of a new 8-lane bridge over 1-215 and improvements to freeway ramps, local streets and intersections. LOS along 1-215 may also improve with construction of the Perris Valley Line, which is planned to run parallel to 1-215 along this segment with a stop located in Downtown Perris. • Van Buren Boulevard The segments along Van Buren Boulevard (Washington Street to Wood Road and Orange Terrace to 1-215) are operating at LOS "F" based on the County's recent counts. It is expected, however, that the segments will be improved to LOS "E" or better once the TUMF regional arterial and interchange projects are completed. The TUMF regional arterial project includes construction of one additional lane in each direction between Washington Street and Wood Road. The 1-215 interchange project includes reconstruction of the existing interchange, widening of 1-215, local street improvements, and modification and signalization of the ramp intersections. The March Joint Powers Authority (,IPA) is expecting future improvements to Van Buren Boulevard west of 1-215 when development north and south of Van Buren occurs. These improvements could include a Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. •5-9 69 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program multi-use trail. Both deficient Van Buren segments currently experience RTA bus service. LOS along Van Buren Boulevard may also improve with construction of the Perris Valley Line, which is " planned to run parallel to 1-215 in this area with a stop located in Moreno Valley/March Field Station. + Ramon Road The segment along Ramon Road (1-10 to Bob Hope Drive) is operating at LOS "F" based on CVAG's recent traffic counts. It is expected, however, that the segment will be improved to LOS "E" or better once the interchange project is completed. The 1-10 interchange project includes a new interchange at Bob Hope Drive, new 8-lane overcrossing on Bob Hope Drive, new 6-lane bridge over Union Pacific (UP) railroad, modifications to Varner Road and Rio Del Sol, and ultimate removal of most ramps on Ramon Road. This segment currently experiences SunLine Transit Agency's Sun Bus service. Each of these deficient segments will continue to be monitored using PelVIS speed data and recent traffic counts over the next 9 months on a quarterly basis to determine the LOS. If the LOS is at "F" for more than one (1) year with no extenuating circumstances causing the deficiency (e.g., construction, special event, etc), the affected local agency will be notified that a deficiency plan must be prepared in accordance with requirements set forth in Chapter 6. As a result, it will be important to continue to monitor the LOS along these segments to identify the LOS through the use of traffic counts or PeMS speed data on a quarterly basis in 2012 and 2013 . It will also be important to closely monitor critical LOS "E" segments. Once a LOS "E" segment falls to LOS "F", the segment will be further analyzed as to what the cause may be. If the LOS is at "F" for more than one (1) year and is the average annual peak hour condition with no extenuating circumstances causing the deficiency (e.g., construction, special event, etc), the local agency will be notified that a deficiency plan must be prepared in accordance with requirements set forth in Chapter 6 . " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-10 70 6• 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program LOS DEFICIENCY PLANS Section 65089(b)(1)(8} of the Government Code specifically states that the Level of Service (LOS) standards established by RCTC, as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in Riverside County, not be below LOS "E" or the current level, whichever is farthest from LOS "AD. Applicable Government Code Sections are included in Appendix 1. When the LOS on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the established level of service standard, a deficiency plan must be adopted pursuant to Section 65089.4. In addition, Section 65089.4 requires a local jurisdiction to prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway LOS standards are not maintained on segments or intersections of the designated system. The deficiency plan must be adopted by the city or the County at a noticed public hearing. DEFICIENCY PLAN • RCTC will prepare deficiency plans or identify rnitigation strategies for deficient segments along the State Highway System on behalf of local agencies. RCTC will coordinate development of such plans with affected local agencies, WRCOG or CVAG, and Caltrans. These agencies will have an opportunity to work with RCTC during the development of a deficiency plan, provide comments, and meet with other affected agencies to discuss issues prior to completion of a plan. To comply with the intent of the CMP legislation, a deficiency plan prepared by a city, the County or RCTC must include the principal elements speCified in the CMP Legislation (reference Appendix 1). To date, the CMP minimum LOS threshold has been met for a majority of the CMP system, therefore deficiency plans have not been required. In the cases where the CMP minimum LOS threshold has been exceeded, there have either been overriding considerations (e.g. construction, traffic diversions, etc) or improvements already programmed to improve the facility. The procedure for identifying deficient segments or intersections along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways is documented in Chapter 5, Enhanced Transportation System Management Program. Deficient segments would be identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process. Upon initial identification of a deficiency, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred or if the initial analysis identified a deficiency due to extenuating circumstances (e.g. construction, incident, etc.) or faulty data (e.g. traffic counter equipment malfunction, etc.). Coordination with the affected local jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. If a deficiency is identified, affected agencies will be notified. A review of mitigation measures, including capital improvement, transit, and TOM projects, will be conducted to determine how the deficiency can be mitigated. The recommended mitigation measure(s) will be reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 6-1 72 TO 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • Mitigation strategies that measurably improve the CMP System must be identified in the deficiency plan. Such strategies would include capital improvement projects or other measures that shift trips to alternative modes that may be included in or consistent with local Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinances. Further, mitigation measures should be developed considering both the existing and planned circulation system and the highest peak hour trip estimates or forecasts. Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County TUMF Programs Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County local agencies and the County of Riverside have adopted Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs. In general, the programs impose fees on development specifically to address transportation impacts on local arterials. The fees are then used for selected transportation improvement projects along the adopted TUMF arterial network. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) implements the TUMF program in the Coachella Valley and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) implements the program in Western Riverside County. If, during the annual LOS monitoring process, an intersection or segment along the CMP system within the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) areas fall below LOS HE: an. evaluation of planned improvements necessary to mitigate the deficiency must be undertaken. The adopted TUMF programs would then be reviewed to determine if the deficiency would be mitigated through the implementation of TUMF projects, and within a reasonable timeframe. If an improvement project(s) is programmed that will mitigate the deficiency, the arterial program would be considered as a deficiency plan for CMP purposes. If projects in the arterial program do not meet the required mitigation for the deficiency, then RCTC will work •with the appropriate agency(s) to identify mitigation measures. Agencies that do not partiCipate in the TUMF programs would be required to prepare a deficiency plan in accordance with this chapter. PLANS Deficiency Plans will be reviewed by the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) with a recommendation of approval or non approval forwarded to the RCTC Board for action. In accordance with Chapter 5 -Enhanced Transportation System Management Program, mitigation measures must be identified to offset deficiencies. The Deficiency Plan preparation/approval schedule and process will be in accordance with Section 65089 (reference Appendix 1). Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. •6-2 73 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program HAPTER 7 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENTI AIR QUALITY STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089(b)(3)(A) of the State code requires that RCTC prepare a CMP trip reduction and travel demand element that promotes alternative transportation methods. Such methods must include, but are not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and park-and-ride lots; improvements in the balance between jobs and housing; and other strategies, such as, flexible work hours, telecommuting, and parking management programs. CMP Legislation also requires consideration of parking cash-out programs. INTRODUCTION " There are effective ways of achieving trip reduction in Riverside County other than through the adoption of local agency Transportation Oemand Management (TOM) Ordinances, which was the focus of TOM efforts in the past. RCTC believes that there are other approaches that can be more effective and has facilitated the implementation of TOM projects through the Measure UP\' Commuter Assistance Programs, and the implementation of a number of TOM projects (in cooperation with Caltrans and local agencies in Riverside County and in adjoining counties) to achieve TOM objectives. Such TOM strategies include the development of Park-N-Ride lots, commuter rail stations, and public transit feeder services. Taken together, the individual programs and projects constitute a broad base effort to reduce reliance on the single occupant vehicle in Riverside County. In addition to TOM, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies also provide for smoother traffic flow, especially along congested streets and highways in the County. Types of TSM strategies already implemented in Riverside County include bus bays, signal coordination systems, signal preemption for transit vehicles, improved signal timing projects, ramp metering, and focused intersection improvements. A study completed in the Coachella Valley that integrates both TOM and TSM solutions is the Washington Street and Highway 111 Commercial Corridors TDMrrSM Study affecting the cities of La Quinta, Palm Desert, Indio, Indian Wells, and the County of Riverside. TSM and TOM alternatives were analyzed to determine cost effective ways of easing future congestion and reducing delay along the Washington/Highway 111 corridors. These alternatives included adding capacity, through traffic synchronization (if feasible), encouraging motorists to use transit, car/van pooling, encouraging motorists to travel at less congested times, and/or encouraging pedestrian and bicycle usage. The Study explored a number of transportation solutions and strategies for getting people where they need to go by auto, foot, bicycle, or bus, and it provides a baseline of data and analysis for helping to make those decisions in the future. RCTC's approach to trip reduction and congestion relief through TOM and TSM can be particularly effective in a rapidly growing county such as Riverside. This chapter identifies the types of strategies that local agencies can also implement to achieve further reductions in trips and enhance traffic flow, especially along already congested CMP facilities and other major streets and highways. " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-1 74 TRAVEL 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • The intent of this section is to identify ways that local agencies can seek to maximize the efficient use and capacity of a roadway and/or transit facility, often with lirnited transportation resources. Oeveloping a viable transportation system not only includes building new roadways and adding transit, but also involves rnanaging the dernand for travel on these systems. TOM is a term applied to a broad range of strategies that are primarily intended to reduce and reshape demand (use) of the transportation systems. TOM strategies are designed to make best use of existing transportation facilities and maximize future transportation investments. Using strategies that promote alternative modes, increase vehicle occupancy, maximize the efficient use of parking, reduce travel distances, and ease peak-hour congestion, TOM increases the efficiency of the transportation system. TOM includes programs and strategies to promote alternatives to single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel as well as methods of eliminating incident based traffic congestion and pre-trip traffic information, including such activities as carpools, van pools, transit, bicycles, park-and-ride lots, freeway service patrols, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). These programs will contribute to improved air quality in the region and meet the goals of Air Quality Attainment Plans, including climate change goals. It is important that RCTC, Caltrans, and local governments throughout the County consider the application of TOM strategies during preparation of transportation plans, circulation elements, and transportation corridor studies, and traffic impact studies. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has prepared a resource document (Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures -A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010) that can be used to quantify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips (VT) reductions associated with TOM measures • within the State of California Planning and preliminary engineering of major corridor investment projects in Riverside County present significant opportunities for the coordinated integration of TOM strategies. TOM is recognized as the quickest and least expensive component of transportation solutions, resulting in reduced construction impacts, increased use of new and existing transit services, and extension of the life of a roadway through reduced congestion. In addition, a basic tenet of TOM programs is developing partnerships between multiple organizations that have influence on commuting and travel habits necessary to develop programs and policies that will reduce congestion, increase accessibility and mobility, and improve air quality. The solutions to contemporary transportation problems can no longer be found solely in the construction of new or even wider roadways. The TOM strategy recommendations presented below have been drafted with an understanding that any viable solution must include the participation of all available players in the County. RCTC, local agencies, land developers, local employers and their employees, transit agencies, as well as the general public all need to work together cooperatively to resolve the transportation related issues that are currently affecting, and will continue to affect, Riverside County's economic viability and environmental health. TOM strategies that can be effective in the region have been organized under the following five categories: • Enhance Vehicle Occupancy {carpools/vanpoolslpark-n-ride} • Shift auto travel to Transit {bus and rail system improvements} • Shift auto travel to Non-Motorized Transportation modes (bicycling and walking) Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission • Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-2 75 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • • Shift travel demand to "nonpeak" periods or eliminate trips through Alternative Work-Hour Programs and Telecommuting • Maximize the efficient use of parking resources through Parking Management Recommended strategies within any of these categories should be used as individual TOM methods where appropriate, but will have the most significant impact when they are used in combination with other strategies. One example is when a company offers a flex time work schedule to its employees who live within moderate distances. The employees may change their commute travel mode from a single occupant vehicle to walking or bicycling due the increased flexibility of starting times. The research suggests that for shorter commute distances, the vehicle trips for an employment site may be reduced by 1%. However, when that same employer also provides lockers and shower facilities, employees that begin their work commute from an even further distance may also feel comfortable with a walking or bicycling commute increasing the reduction in vehicle trips up to 9%. The "TOM web or net" becomes much wider in terms of capturing more mode shifting employees based on a wider geographic scope. The actual trip reduction under the right conditions may be increased to as high as 30%. Following are some potential strategies: • • Complete Streets Analysis or Multimodal Level of Service (LOS): The modes analyzed in the multimodal LOS analysis should be dependent on the place type. For example, in most cases, rural inter-city travel need not look at pedestrian capacity. The plan should provide mitigation and a monitoring program to offset impacts to an modes through incident and demand management strategies. • Corridor Analysis: Corridor impacts to a mode may be mitigated by providing capacity on a parallel facility. For example, an impacted facility may lack pedestrian and bike facilities; however, a paranel bike/pedestrian path within the corridor could offset this deficiency. In addition, impacts to transit buses stuck in the same traffic congestion as single occupancy vehicles could be mitigated by the provision of a transit/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in the congested travel direction during peak periods. Additional mitigation for congestion could be through the provision of a freeway service patrol to rapidly clear traffic accidents and disabled vehicles during peak periods. • Multimodal Circulation Plans: Local traffic circulation elements should consider multimodal LOS standards and meet requirements set forth in the Federal and State Complete Streets Acts. These acts reqUire that the road network and circulation plans consider include bike, pedestrian, and transit networks. The bike/pedestrianltransit networks should provide for transit oriented development (TOO) centers that could serve as transfer points and nodes for future express and/or regional service. The centers also should provide a connected network linking to the future High Speed Trains and passenger rail stations. These centers should be reflected in the Land Use Elements of local agency General Plans with higher densities and a mix of land uses that make for a vibrant pedestrian oriented destination. The centers should use multi-modal LOS standards within their boundaries to ensure capacity for bike, walk, and transit. Enhancing Vehicle Occupancy TOM strategies designed to increase vehicle occupancy including casual and organized ridesharing, have been categorized under the concept of Enhancing Vehicle Occupancy. Ridesharing requires a match of people that reside in the same general area and work at the same location or in close proximity. The • region can promote the activity through marketing the services of ridematching firms and encouraging local Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-3 76 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program companies to make the rideshare services a part of their TOM program. If a group of employees are • interested in forming a formal rideshare arrangement, local agencies should assist them in applying for funding or in connecting them to another appropriate agency. Peer-to-peer carpooling programs are also available through smart phones such as AVEGO. This service allows a commuter to connect with other commuters in their area directly Perhaps the most Significant deterrent to participating in a carpool of van pool is the fear of not having a personal vehicle to use in case an emergency arises while at work. Local agencies in the region should develop a guaranteed ride home program for employees that participate in any alternative transportation mode, including walking or bicycling. RCTC, through Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS), offers these services and more to local employers. By partnering with IECS, employers have access to rideshare marketing materials and services to extend to their employees at no cost such as region-wide ridematching, a guaranteed ride home program, and RCTC's Rideshare Incentive and Rideshare Plus Rewards programs. Transit System Improvements The region and its communities share a common goal of insuring transit services are available to provide alternative mobility for its residents. The presence of viable and sustainable transit services is critical to ensure the economic viability and the region's general well being. Transit system improvements that should continue to be implemented or researched include: • Expansion of transit services, including additional regular or express service, Metrolink service, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems, and other similar transit services. • • Multi-modal transit centers linking alternative modes of transportation including transit, non-motorized transportation, rail, etc., allowing intercity and regional connections • Provision of alternative methods of transportation for paratransit riders • Provision of current schedules, rates (including procedures for obtaining transit passes), and routes of mass transit service to employment sites or service areas. • On-site waiting and loading facilities for transit. • Provision of a convenient and safe shuttle service to transport workers/patrons to and from their residences, a park-and-ride lot, or other staging area to a workplace/service area. • A monthly transit or rail pass subsidy of 50% or the maximum taxable benefit limit, whichever is greater. • Transit shelters along a deSignated bus route or posting a bond for future construction when the transit route is extended to an employment/service site. Credit is given when the transit shelter is constructed in conformance with city/county regulations and when the employment/service site is on, or adjacent to, an existing or planned bus route. Each of the local agencies in the County should work with affected transit providers to study transit enhancements and systems that will effectively reduce auto trips, especially along congested corridors. Non-Motorized Transportation Improvements The system of bicycle and pedestrian facilities must continue to be designed for all users. The skill level and preferences of bicycle riders can vary greatly. Riders who use bicycles to commute to work are likely Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. • 7-4 77 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program comfortable on the majority of roads, including those without designated bicycle facilities. However, the casual user may be uncomfortable on routes that do not include separate bicycle designations. There are several types of bicycle facilities that can accommodate the various types of bicyclists. All type of accommodations should be considered in the effort to provide the area with the best system of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. The most common type of bicycle facilities is: " Bicycle Lanes: Bicycle lanes are established by pavement markings and signage along streets where there is significant bicycle demand and the necessary street conditions to accommodate bike lanes. Bike lanes delineate the right of way by assigning separate lanes to motorists and bicyclists and lead to more predictable movements by each. " Paved Shoulders: These are primarily implemented in rural areas, often on state and local highways. Paved shoulders provide a separated space for bicyclists, similar to bicycle lanes. " Signed Shared Roadway: These roads are designated by bike route signs, generally either to provide continuity with other bicycle facilities (such as bike lanes) or to designate preferred routes through high� demand corridors. The purpose of signing the shared roadway is to indicate to bicyclists that there are advantages to using that particular route over others. Signage also alerts vehicle drivers that bicyclists are likely to be present. " Shared Roadway (I'lo Separate Bicycle Facility or Signage): Most minor residential streets would qualify as shared roadways as they have minimal and low-speed traffic and, therefore, do not need any bicycle designations or accommodations. " There are many factors to consider when determining the best type of bicycle accommodation for a particular road, including traffic volume, speed limit, lane widths, parking, and so on. It should be kept in mind that many streets, espeCially low-volume residential ones, are safe for bicycling without any modifications. Arterials and collectors may be best suited by signage, wide outside lanes, or designated bike lanes. When planning for new facilities with consideration to peak hour trip reduction and mitigation, the following issues should be considered: " Traffic Signal Design: Traffic Signals are not always capable of responding to the presence of a cyclist. In areas where signals change due to the presence of vehicles, a bicyclist may have to wait an excessive amount of time for a green light or may cross on a red light. Where appropriate, new traffic signal detectors should be implemented to recognize the presence of cyclists and cyclists should be educated on how to utilize detectors so the signal will change for them. Also, crossing lights for biCYClists/pedestrians and motorists should be examined, particularly on busy roadways, to ensure minimal points of conflict between road users. " Bicycle Parking: Bike racks, lockers, or some other form of bicycle parking must be provided throughout the metropolitan area. While providing the route to get to a destination is often the primary consideration, bicyclists must have a place to secure their bikes once there. Areas that should provide bicycle parking include all public buildings, parks, transit stops, and places near businesses and multi� unit residential dwellings. " Bicycle Racks on Transit Buses: Bicycling and transit are two transportation modes that are often used on the same trip. Bicycle racks on buses increases the mobility of bicyclists as it enables them to travel across the metropolitan area. Transit agencies should have bike racks installed on all new bus purchases. " " Showers/Locker Rooms: Bicycling to work would likely be more attractive to people if they were able to shower or freshen up and change in comfortable facilities. Local agencies can work on providing Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-5 78 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program shower and changing areas in public buildings and work with private employers to provide these facilities to encourage bicycling to work. Recently, there has been a movement to plan for and implement "Complete Streets". According to the Complete the Streets organization (www.completestreets.org), complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street There are many benefits to complete streets, the most prominent being improved safety for all users. In addition, complete streets encourage other modes of travel besides personal automobile, thereby improving health, decreasing air pollution from emissions, and decreasing congestion. The design of a complete street can vary greatly, depending on the characteristics of the roadway. Local, residential streets that are low-speed and have low traffic volumes are likely already complete streets as they do not require separate accommodations for other modes of travel. Busier streets may require more infrastructure to make them complete. Items that could be part of a complete street include: • Sidewalks • Bike lanes • Wide shoulders • Separate trails • Crosswalk striping/raised crosswalks • Median refugeS/islands • Bus pullouts/bus only lanes • Audible pedestrian Signals/countdown pedestrian Signals The optimal design for a particular street will depend upon many factors, including its traffic volume, speed limit, lane widths, parking, and so on. RCTC encourages each local agency to consider the elements noted above when designing new or improved transportation corridors, preparing transportation plans and circulation elements, developing a non-motorized transportation plan, or when reviewing new development proposals. Article 3 of the California Transportation Development Act establishes 2% of Local Transportation Funds to be made available to cities and the county to build facilities for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicyclists. Every April, the Commission releases a call for projects (SB 821) for pedestrian and bicycle facilities in which all Riverside County jurisdictions are eligible to apply for funding. Alternative Work Schedules/Telecommuting Alternative work schedules (also known as variable work hours) are comprised of three different strategies: flextime, compressed work weeks, and staggered shifts. The definition of each follows: • Flextime-Employees work specified hours each week, but are given flexibility on when they arrive to work, take lunch, and leave work. • Compressed work weeks-Employees work more hours than typical, but work fewer days per week or pay period. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission • .' • Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-6 79 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program " Staggered shifts-Employees arrive and depart work at different times in shifts. Shifts may be staggered anywhere from 15 minutes to two hours. In general, altemative work schedule strategies provide the following benefits: " Reduce peak period congestion directly " Make ridesharing and transit use more feasible " Reduce parking lot and entrance/exit congestion " Less employee stress/better productivity " Facilitate better employee morale/retention " Reduce tardiness " Are economical to provide " Can offer flexibility needed for other commute solutions " Staggered hours allow for more coverage because of extended workday " More flexibility for personal and work time " Can offer flexibility needed for other commute solutions " Often reduces commute time by avoiding rush hour traffic " Less traffic congestion during peak hours " Better air quality from reduced congestion " Telecommuting involves a situation where an employee is working anywhere but in his/her traditional office. A typical scenario involves employees working at home either full or part time, but they could also be working on travel assignments, at remote work centers, or on the road day-by-day. Telecommuting benefits include: " Reduced parking needs " Reduced office space needs and overhead costs " Less employee stress/better productivity " Better employee morale/retention " Decreased absenteeism and sick leave " More flexibility for personal and work time " Higher productivity " Less traffic congestion " Better air quality " Reducedfueluse " Eligibility in the IECS Rideshare Incentive/Rideshare Plus Rewards programs Alternative work schedules and telecommuting should continue to be highlighted as TOM plans and programs are required by local agencies during review of development and redevelopment proposals. Both of these TOM strategies have the greatest potential for significant trip reduction in the region. Parking Management " Parking management techniques include a range of practices, such as preferred parking spaces for high occupancy vehicles and altemative fuel vehicles, reduced parking charges for carpools and vanpools, shared parking facilities, daily rather than monthly parking charges,establishing parking maximums for new Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-7 80 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program developments, and the taxing of parking facHities. As is the case with most other TOM strategies, parking management can be even more effective when combined with other TOM techniques such as free transit • passes, cash-incentive programs, and the availability of high-quality transit service. Local agencies should consider these management strategies as new developments and redevelopment projects are proposed and reviewed. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT Transportation Systems Management (TSM) is defined as a program to reduce demand on, and increase the capacity of, the existing transportation system. Specifically, TSM is an integrated program that will optimize the performance of existing infrastructure through the implementation of systems, services, and projects designed to preserve capacity and improve security, safety, and reliability. TSM strategies include the following: • 511 Traveler Information Service which provides Riverside County with real-time traffic information and commute alternatives by calling 511 or visiting ie511.org • Ramp metering • Congestion pricing • Changeable message signs • Signal coordination • Roadway improvements • Improved signal timing • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements, such as detection and video surveillance • • Re-routing of traffic to less congested routes • Pedestrian facilities including restricted pedestrian crossings and consideration of pedestrian overcrossings • Placement of transit stops and bus bays • Corridor access improvements • Advanced traffic signal timing programs, such as SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique) or SCAT (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive TraffiC) systems • Neighborhood Electric Vehicles RCTC, Caltrans, and each of the local agencies within the County should consider the design and implementation of TSM improvements (where feasible) as they plan for and design street and highway improvement projects; especially along heavily congested streets and highways. Local agencies that fund ITS projects with federal or state funds are required to be consistent with the Regional Architecture Plan. This Plan is incorporated into SCAG's RTP. SCAG COMPASS BLUEPRINT The Southern California Council of Governments' (SCAG) Compass Blueprint was enacted to encourage creative and sustainable development strategies that fit local needs and support shared regional values. The SCAG Compass Blueprint is regional in scope and supports the integration of land use, transportation, and resource planning. The planning process considers the "Three Es" of sustainable communities: prosperous gconomy, quality gnvironment, and social gquity. Blueprint planning is a comprehensive undertaking that requires innovation, collaborative planning, thinking on a macro scale, and a willingness to • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-8 81 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program follow through to implementation. Through partnerships with local governments, the SCAG Compass Blueprint serves communities by applying the best available tools to create successful examples to accommodate regional growth. A principal objective of the Compass Blueprint is to balance job growth with housing growth in order to reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Local agencies in Riverside County that have completed or are currently working with SCAG on Compass planning include Cathedral City, Coachella, Corona, Desert Hot Springs, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, Riverside, Murrieta, and Temecula. Some of the various Compass-related projects in Riverside County that these and other agencies are currently implementing or will initiate shortly include the following: " City of Alhambra -Alhambra Vision 2035 " City of Anaheim Anaheim Platinum Necklace Urban Greenways " City of Calimesa -Calimesa Creek Riverwalk Master Plan " City of Fullerton -Fullerton Smart Growth 2030 " City of La lVIirada, California Air Resources Board (ARB), Caltrans La Mirada 1-5 Corridor Specific Plan " Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMA/Metro) -Los Angeles Metro Orange Line Sustainable Corridor Implementation Plan " City of Los Angeles, Caltrans, Metro, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) -Los Angeles PARK 101 District Phase 2 " " City of Bellflower -Bellflower Alondra Mixed-Use Overlay Zone " City of Cathedral City -Cathedral City Date Palm Drive Connector Phase 2 " City of Highland, San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG), Omnitrans -Highland Base Line Corridor Study " City of Los Angeles, LADOT -Los Angeles Transit Oriented Development (TOO) Parking Data Collection " City of Moreno Valley -Moreno Valley Alessandro Boulevard Corridor Vision Phase 2 " City of Oxnard -Oxnard Downtown East Transit Oriented Development Study " City of Rancho Mirage, The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) -Rancho Mirage Interim Energy Park Study " City of Santa Clarita -Santa Clarita North Newhall Specific Plan 375 SB 375 (Steinberg) is California state law that became effective January 1, 2009. This new law requires California's Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regional reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Future growth and development in California and within the Riverside County region will be planned consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 375, which calls for the integration of transportation and land use and housing planning through the development of "Sustainable Community Strategies" (SCS). California's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have been tasked with creating SCSs and demonstrating actions necessary to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035. According to SCAG, by April 2012, the SCS will be included as a required element in its 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); thereby providing "a plan for meeting emissions " reduction targets set forth by CARB." On September 23,2010, CARB issued a regional reduction target of Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-9 82 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 8% per capita for the planning year 2020, and a 13% conditional target for 2035. SCAG is in the process of identifying how it will meet the targets focusing on a variety of strategies to be incorporated in the 2012 • RTP/SCS. The efforts presented in this Chapter are consistent with the objectives of SB 375 and AB 32 by supporting sustainable community strategies for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, improving air quality, aligning planning for transportation and housing, and creating opportunities for the implementation of TDM and TSM strategies that reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled. Once the 2012 RTP/SCS is adopted, RCTC will use strategies listed in the 2012 RTP/SCS in the 2013 CMP Update. • •Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-10 83 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 8 • Section 65089(b}(5) of the CMP Statutes requires that RCTC prepare a seven-year capital improvement program, developed using the performance measures described in paragraph (2) to determine effective projects that maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods, and to mitigate regional transportation impacts identified pursuant to paragraph (4). PROGRAM For purposes of this CMP Update, the 2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consists of the STIP, Measure "A", TUMF programs, and other federally funded projects programmed on the CMP system. RCTC submits state, local and federally funded projects to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the FTIP. Locally funded non-regionally significant projects are not required to be included in the FTIP. The following list of goals and objectives from SCAG's 2008 RTP reflect a vision that guides the transportation planning process, including development of the RTP, FTIP, and subregional CMPs: • Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region • Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region • Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system • Maximize the productivity of our transportation system • Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency • Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments • Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies The following performance measures are also identified to determine whether the goals and objectives are being met: • Mobility -speed delay • Accessibility -percent PM peak period work trips within 45 minutes of home • Reliability -percent variation in travel time • Productivity percent capacity utilized during peak conditions • Safety -accident rates • Sustainability -total cost per capita to sustain system performance at Base Year levels • Preservation -maintenance cost per capita to preserve system at Base Year conditions • Cost-Effectiveness -benefit to cost (B/C) ratio • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 8-1 84 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • Environmental-emissions generated by travel • Environmental Justice -distribution of benefits and costs • The RTP Subcommittee is contemplating the addition of several performance measures as part of the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS and includes the following: • Location Efficiency focus on transit viability and alternative modes of travel • Reliability -variability of travel time for trucks • Safety and Health -focus on location of roadways in relation to residential land uses and rates of noise and air quality impacts • System Sustainability -cost per capita to preserve multi-modal system • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission • Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 8-2 85 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 9 CMP CONFORMANCE AND MONITORING " STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 65089.3 of the Government Code requires RCTC to monitor the implementation of all elements of the Congestion Management Program (CMP). Caltrans is responsible for data collection and analysis on State highways, unless the agency designates that responsibility to another entity. RCTC may also assign responsibility of data collection and analysis to other owners and operators of facilities or services if the responsibilities are specified in its adopted program. RCTC must also consult with Caltrans and other affected owners and operators in developing data collection and analysis procedures and schedules prior to program adoption. CONFORMANCE AND MONITORING At least biennially, RCTC will determine if the County and cities are conforming to the CMP, including, but not limited, to the following: (a) Consistency with levels of service standards, except as provided in Section 65089.4 . (b) Evaluation of performance of the transportation system. (c) Adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4 when highway and roadway level of service standards are not maintained on portions of the deSignated system. In addition to conformity requirements referenced in specific sections of the Government Code, the County and cities must work with the Congestion Man(:lgement Agency (CMA) to provide Level of Service (LOS) monitoring information along the CMP System. This process is detailed in Chapter 5, Enhanced Transportation System Management Program. RCTC will continue to work with its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to introduce new or revised requirements. Additional CMP workshops, to be held at the request of individual jurisdictions, offer the opportunity for planning and engineering staff to gain a better understanding of the CMP in an informal environment. 1) Consistency with LOS Standards To simplify the process of collecting traffic counts from Caltrans and the local agencies, RCTC has implemented the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program. LOS calculations will primarily be based upon the newly installed traffic counting equipment along the state highway system. Counts along the local arterial system will be provided by the subregional agencies, affected local agencies, or from counts conducted by RCTC. Currently, 28 Smart Call Boxes (SCB) sites have been installed by " RCTC to collect traffic counts along the State highway system. RCTC also coordinates with Caltrans for traffic count data collected from its Performance Measurement System (PeMS). Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 9-1 86 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program The Enhanced Transportation System Management Program utilizes "loop or pavement sensors" currently installed along the State Highway system at call boxes and PeMS sites along the highway system. The • program provides Caltrans and RCTC the ability to retrieve real-time count information. Chapter 5 of this CMP contains a full explanation of the SCB and PeMS implementation program. 2) Program to Manage and Ana/yze the System To insure that the CMP System is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, proposed development projects can be evaluated by each affected agency to determine potential regional and sub-regional impacts along the CMP Systems. As a result. such evaluation will reduce the incidence of LOS deficiencies along the CMP System. Local agencies are encouraged to work with other affected agencies to mitigate the impacts considering California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Intergovernmental Report (IGR) requirements to insure that major development projects and plans are evaluated and reflected in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Transportation Model. When a LOS deficiency is identified as part of the CMP Update, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is only considered to be a "screening" level analysis, and a more detailed assessment of a potential deficiency would be required before a deficiency is formally identified. Coordination with the affected local jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. 3) Transportation Model Consistency Requirements • Transportation Modeling Guidelines have been developed by SCAG to assist local agencies in developing transportation models to analyze the circulation system within their jurisdiction or for special transportation studies. These guidelines are available at RCTC and at the SCAG Inland Empire office in Riverside. In addition, the Riverside County Transportation Department, in coordination with RCTC, WRCOG, CVAG, and local agencies, developed transportation modeling guidelines for the RIVT AM model. RCTC requires that these guidelines be followed during development of traffic models for all projects of regional significance. The guidelines have several objectives; however, the primary objective is to insure that the legislative requirements for transportation modeling and database consistency are achieved. In addition, the guidelines have been designed to ease the transfer of information from the regional and subregional models to local models and vice-versa. REQUIRED UPDATES The CMPs were required to be updated annually between 1992 and 1995. An amendment to the CMP legislation changed the update to occur biennially. Table 9-1 outlines the updates approved since inception: The 2011 CMP update consists of monitoring the CMP System, and reporting the results of the analYSis including deficiencies. Update of the 2011 CMP is required to be updated and adopted by December 2011. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. • 9-2 87 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • The 2011 CMP will be reviewed by SCAG for consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and with CMPs of adjoining counties (San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties). Under the MPO planning regulations, SCAG is required to certify that it meets federal eMS requirements, which includes a review and consistency deterrnination of all CMPs within the SCAG region . • • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 9-3 88 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Year AdoptedMajor Effort/Revisions 1992 December 1992 1993 The Commission originally adopted the CMP December 1993 1994 The CMP was revised focusinQ on LOS evaluation December 1994The Commission updated Chapt~rs 3 and 5 of the CMP .. ..---~ December 19951995 The CMP was revised and updated, primarily focusing on Chapter 5, Land Use Coordination and the inclusion of leQislative amendments 1997 _. December 1997 Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) process contained in the Land Use Coordination Program (Chapter 5). The TIA process was replaced with the Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program 1999 The CMP was thoroughly amended focusing on replacement of the December 1999The CMP was revised focusinQ on LOS evaluation'--.. December 2001 RFP for the traffic counter installations at Smart Call Box and Traffic ManaQement Center Sites. 2003 2001 Minor revisions were included in the update and RCTC issued the December 2003 the CMP to meet Federal Congestion Management System (CMS) requirements. The traffic counter installations project was nearing completion. Test runs were initiated. 2005 The 2003 CMP Update was focused on continued implementation of The 2005 CMP Update focused on a review of LOS and monitoring " May 2006 of various street and highway segments that were approaching deficient levels of service. Several segments were identified as deficient through the application of floating car runs. These segments fell deficient due to construction activity and road closures in adjacent areas. 2007 December 2007The 2007 CMP Update also focused on a review of LOS and monitoring of various street and highway segments that were approaching deficient levels of service as referenced for 2005. Several segments were identified as deficient through the application of floating car runs. These segments fell deficient due to construction activity and road closures in ad;acent areas. CMP UPDATES SINCE INCEPTION 2009-2010 The CMP Update focused on a review of LOS, monitoring of various street and highway segments that were approaching deficient levels of service as referenced in the 2007 CMP, and incorporating TDM and TSM efforts implemented by RCTC and local agencies. Several segments were identified as deficient in 2007 through the application of floating car runs. These segments fell deficient due to construction activity and road closures in adjacent areas. In 2010, the LOS improved along some of these segments as a result of construction and road closures being completed. For the other segments where construction is affecting the existing LOS, continued monitoring of the segments was undertaken. In addition, there were a few segments that were identified as deficient; however, short-term future improvement projects are programmed to address those deficiencies and other modal services are available to address mode shift oj)portunities along the segments . March 2010 " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 9-4 90 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • CHAPTER 10 CMP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATIONI UPDATE PROCESS Section 65089(a) of the Government Code requires that the Congestion Management Program (CMP) must be developed, adopted, and updated biennially, consistent with the schedule for the adoption and update of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), for every county that includes an urbanized area, and must include every city and the county. Development of the CMP must also be coordinated with the Southern Califomia Association of Governments (SCAG), regional transportation providers, local governments, Caltrans, and respective air districts. ReTe DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND UPDATE PROCESS As described above, CMP legislation requires that the Program be developed, adopted, implemented, monitored, and updated biennially. This chapter primarily focuses on procedural, administrative, and coordination activities related to CMP development, adoption, implementation and update. To meet the requirements of the legislation, the CMP shall be developed, adopted, implemented, and updated in accordance with procedures described in the following sections . • DEVELOPMENT The CMP is developed to meet federal CMS reqUirements and also includes elements of the State's CMP guidelines. State CMP statutes AB 471, 1791, AB 3093, AB 1963, and AB 2419 (reference Appendix 1). ADOPTION PROCEDURE The following procedure has been developed to outline the process toward preparation and adoption of the CMP. RCTC staff shall coordinate the development of the CMP with the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). • Local agencies should continue to monitor the CMP System. It is suggested that the local agency collect ground counts at least every four (4) months to provide for average annual traffic conditions. • Beginning in April of each odd numbered year, RCTC will obtain counts, PeMS speed data or LOS analysis from Caltrans, CVAG, and local agencies. • In May of each odd numbered year, RCTC must initiate a CMP update. RCTC staff will review individual Chapters with the RCTC TAC, as necessary. • In October of each odd numbered year, RCTC mlJst submit a Preliminary Draft of the CMP to SCAG and the RCTC TAC CMP Subcommittee for review and comment. • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 10-1 92 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • In November of each odd numbered year, RCTC staff will submit the Draft CMP to the TAC for formal review and approval. • • . Between November and December of each odd numbered year, RCTC staff will submit the Final Draft to the Commission for review and approval CMP IMPLEMENTATION The CMP is to be implemented and monitored in accordance with procedures described in Chapter 9 CMP Conformance and Monitoring. CMP UPDATE PROCEDURE The CMP update process should be initiated at least six months prior to adoption. Revision of the CMP may occur any time during the year to address specific issues. The update should include a thorough review of each Chapter or required element contained in the current CMP. A suggested review process follows: • Legislative revisions or new enactments to CMP statutes should be thoroughly reviewed and incorporated into the CMP update. (Chapter 1, 2) • Review agency requests for adding road segments to the CMP System. According to the CMP legislation, facilities may only be added to CMP system. All facilities included in the adopted CMP must be retained. (Chapter 1, 2) • • Review adjacent county CMP Systems to determine if facilities were added or are proposed for addition. Review and analyze any additions considering SCAG's Consistency Guidelines on file at RCTC. (Chapter 2) • Review, in coordination with SCAG and local agencies, the existing and future year databases used for transportation modeling purposes to insure consistency in the development of socioeconomic estimates and projections. (Chapter 3) • Review the adopted CMP Minimum level of service (LOS) standard. The CMP LOS standard can only be increased above the level identified in the adopted Program. (Chapter 4) • Review LOS estimates to determine if the LOS along CMP facilities has dropped below LOS "E". • Document the purpose for, and status of, deficiency plans that may have been prepared by local agencies during the previous year including proposed mitigation measures. • Document segments or intersections that are at LOS liE", close to falling below the adopted CMP threshold. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 10-2 • 93 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • • Review the Productivity Improvement Program Transit System Performance Indicators for any changes/updates. • Document whether public transit or passenger rail service was identified as a mitigation measure or potential mitigation measure in the development of deficiency plans. • Review the CMP Conformance and Monitoring Process to determine whether the process is consistent with changes or revisions identified within other CMP elements. • Review federal MPO planning regulations for any changes and additions to federal CMS requirements . • • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 10-3 94 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • 1 CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENTS STATUTES REFERENCING CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS (Sections 65088-89) 65088, The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) Although California's economy is critically dependent upon transportation, its current transportation system relies primarily upon a street and highway system designed to accommodate far fewer vehicles than are currently using the system. (b) California's transportation system is characterized by fragmented planning, both among jurisdictions involved and among the means of available transport. (c) The lack of an integrated system and the increase in the number of vehicles are causing traffic congestion that each day results in 400,000 hours lost in traffic, 200 tons of pollutants released into the air we breathe, and three million one hundred thousand dollars ($3,100,000) added costs to the motoring public. (d) To keep California moving, all methods and means of transport between major destinations must be coordinated to connect our vital economi.c and population centers. • (e) In order to develop the California economy to its full potential, it is intended that federal, state, and local agencies join with transit districts, business, prtvate and environmental interests to develop and implement comprehensive strategies needed to develop appropriate responses to transportation needs, mIn addition to solving California's traffic congestion crisis, rebuilding California's cities and suburbs, particularly with affordable housing and more walkable neighborhoods, is an important part of accommodating future increases in the state's population because homeownership is only now available to most Californians who are on the fringes of metropolitan areas and far from employment centers, (g) The Legislature intends to do everything within its power to remove regulatory barriers around the development of infill housing, transit-oriented development, and mixed use commercial development in order to reduce regional traffic congestion and provide more housing choices for all Californians. (h) The removal of regulatory barriers to promote infill housing, transit-oriented development, or mixed use commercial development does not preclude a city or county from holding a public hearing nor finding that an individual infill project would be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment or transportation patterns. 65088.1. As used in this chapter the following terms have the following meanings: (a) Unless the context requires otherwise, "regional agency" means the agency responsible for preparation of the regional transportation improvement program. (b) Unless the context requires otherwise, "agency" means the agency responsible for the preparation and adoption of the congestion management program. (c) "Commission" means the California Transportation Commission. (d) "Department" means the Department of Transportation . • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-1 96 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program (e) "Local jurisdiction" means a city, a county, or a city and county. (D "Parking cash-out program" means an employer-funded program under which an employer offers to • provide a cash allowance to an employee equivalent to the parking subsidy that the employer would otherwise pay to provide the employee with a parking space. "Parking subsidy" means the difference between the out-of-pocket amount paid by an employer on a regular basis in order to secure the availability of an employee parking space not owned by the employer and the price, if any, charged to an employee for use of that space. A parking cash-out program may include a requirement that employee participants certify that they will comply with guidelines established by the employer designed to avoid neighborhood parking problems, with a provision that employees not complying with the guidelines will no longer be eligible for the parking cash-out program. (g) "Infill opportunity zone" means a specific area designated by a city or county, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65088.4, zoned for new compact residential or mixed use development within one-third mile of a site with an existing or future rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, an intersection of at least two major bus routes, or within 300 feet of a bus rapid transit corridor, in counties with a population over 400,000. The mixed use development zoning shall consist of three or more land uses that facilitate significant human interaction in close proximity, with residential use as the primary land use supported by other land uses such as office, hotel, health care, hospital, entertainment, restaurant, retail, and service uses. The transit service shall have maximum scheduled headways of 15 minutes for at least 5 hours per day. A qualifying future rail station shall have broken ground on construction of the station and programmed operational funds to provide maximum scheduled headways of 15 minutes for at least 5 hours per day. (h) "Interregional travel" means any trips that originate outside the boundary of the agency. A "trip" means a one-direction vehicle movement. The origin of any trip is the starting point of that trip. A roundtrip consists of two individual trips. (i) "Level of service standard" is a threshold that defines a deficiency on the congestion management •program highway and roadway system which requires the preparation of a deficiency plan. It is the intent of the Legislature that the agency shall use all elements of the program to implement strategies and actions that avoid the creation of deficiencies and to improve multimodal mobility. 0) "Multimodal" means the utilization of all available modes of travel that enhance the movement of people and goods, including, but not limited to, highway, transit, nonmotorized, and demand management strategies including, but not limited to, telecommuting. The availability and practicality of specific multimodal systems, projects, and strategies may vary by county and region in accordance with the size and complexity of different urbanized areas. (k) "Performance measure" is an analytical planning tool that is used to quantitatively evaluate transportation improvements and to assist in determining effective implementation actions, considering all modes and strategies. Use of a performance measure as part of the program does not trigger the requirement for the preparation of deficiency plans. (I) "Urbanized area" has the same meaning as is defined in the 1990 federal census for urbanized areas of more than 50,000 population. (m) "Bus rapid transit corridor" means a bus service that includes at least four of the following attributes: (1) Coordination with land use planning. (2) Exclusive right-of-way. (3) Improved passenger boarding facilities. (4) Limited stops. (5) Passenger boarding at the same height as the bus. (6) Prepaid fares. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. •A1-2 97 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • (7) Real-time passenger information. (8) Traffic priority at intersections. (9) Signal priority. (10) Unique vehicles. 65088.3. This chapter does not apply in a county in which a majority of local governments, collectively comprised of the city councils and the county board of supervisors, which in total also represent a majority of the population in the county, each adopt resolutions electing to be exempt from the congestion management program. 65088.4. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build infill housing and mixed use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities, downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these sometimes competing needs. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, level of service standards described in Section 65089 shall not apply to the streets and highways within an infill opportunity zone. The city or county shall do either of the following: (1) Include these streets and highways under an alternative areawide level of service standard or multimodal composite or personal level of service standard that takes into account both of the following: • (A) The broader benefits of regional traffic congestion reduction by siting new residential development within walking distance of, and no more than one-third mile from, mass transit stations, shops, and services, in a manner that reduces the need for long vehicle commutes and improves the jobs-housing balance. (8) Increased use of alternative transportation modes, such as mass transit, bicycling, and walking. (2) Approve a list of Hexible level of service mitigation options that includes roadway expansion and investments in alternate modes of transportation that may include, but are not limited to, transit infrastructure, pedestrian,infrastructure, and ridesharing, vanpool, or shuttle programs. (c) The city or county may deSignate an infill opportunity zone by adopting a resolution after determining that the infill opportunity zone is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. A city or county may not deSignate an infill opportunity zone after December 31, 2009. (d) The city or county in which the infill opportunity zone is located shall ensure that a development project shall be completed within the iofill opportunity zone not more than four years after the date on which the city or county adopted its resolution pursuant to subdivision (c). If no development project is completed within an infill opportunity zone by the time limit imposed by this subdivision, the infill opportunity zone shall automatically terminate. 65088.5. Congestion management programs, if prepared by county transportation commissions and transportation authorities created pursuant to Division 12 (commencing with Section 130000) of the Public Utilities Code, shall be used by the regional transportation planning agency to meet federal requirements for a congestion management system, and shall be incorporated into the congestion management system . • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-3 98 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 65089. (a) A congestion management program shall be developed, adopted, and updated biennially, consistent •with the schedule for adopting and updating the regional transportation improvement program, for every county that includes an urbanized area, and shall include every city and the county. The program shall be adopted at a noticed public hearing of the agency. The program shall be developed in consultation with, and with the cooperation of, the transportation planning agency, regional transportation providers, local governments, the department, and the air pollution control district or the air quality management district, either by the county transportation commission, or by another public agency, as designated by resolutions adopted by the county board of supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the county. (b) The program shall contain all of the following elements: (1) (A) Traffic level of service standards established for a system of highways and roadways designated by the agency. The highway and roadway system shall include at a minimum all state highways and principal arterials. No highway or roadway designated as a part of the system shall be removed from the system. All new state highways and principal arterials shall be designated as part of the system, except when it is within an infill opportunity zone. Level of service (LOS) shall be measured by Circular 212, by the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, or by a uniform methodology adopted by the agency that is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual. The determination as to whether an alternative method is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual shall be made by the regional agency, except that the department instead shall make this determination if either (i) the regional agency is also the agency, as those terms are defined in Section 65088.1, or (ii) the department is responsible for preparing the regional transportation improvement plan for the county. (1) (B) In no case shall the LOS standards established be below the level of service E or the current level, whichever is farthest from level of service A except when the area is in an infill opportunity zone. When the level of service on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the • established level of service standard outside an infill opportunity zone, a deficiency plan shall be adopted pursuant to Section 65089.4. (2) A performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. At a minimum, these performance measures shall incorporate highway and roadway system performance, and measures established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. These performance measures shall support mobility, air quality, land use, and economic objectives, and shall be used in the development of the capital improvement program required pursuant to paragraph (5), deficiency plans required pursuant to Section 65089.4, and the land use analysis program required pursuant to paragraph (4). (3) A travel demand element that promotes alternative transportation methods, including, but not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and park-and-ride lots; improvements in the balance between jobs and housing; and other strategies, including, but not limited to, flexible work hours. telecommuting. and parking management programs. The agency shall consider parking cash-out programs during the development and update of the travel demand element. (4) A program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems. including an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating those impacts. This program shall measure. to the extent possible. the impact to the transportation system using the performance measures described in paragraph (2). In no case shall the program include an Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-4 • 99 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • estimate of the costs of mitigating the impacts of interregional travel. The program shall provide credit for local public and private contributions to improvements to regional transportation systems. However, in the case of toll road facilities, credit shall only be allowed for local public and private • contributions which are unreirnbursed from toll revenues or other state or federal sources. The agency shall calculate the amount of the credit to be provided. The program defined under this section may require implementation through the requirements and analysis of the California Environmental Quality Act, in order to avoid duplication. (5) A seven-year capital improvement program, developed using the performance measures described in paragraph (2) to determine effective projects that maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods, to mitigate regional transportation impacts identified pursuant to paragraph (4). The program shall conform to transportation-related vehicle emission air quality mitigation measures, and include any project that will increase the capacity of the multi modal system. It is the intent of the Legislature that, when roadway projects are identified in the program, consideration be given for maintaining bicycle access and safety at a level comparable to that which existed prior to the improvement or alteration. The capital improvement program may also include safety, maintenance, and rehabilitation projects that do not enhance the capacity of the system but are necessary to preserve the investment in existing facilities. (c) The agency, in consultation with the regional agency, cities, and the county, shall develop a uniform data base on traffic impacts for use in a countywide transportation computer model and shall approve transportation computer models of specific areas within the county that will be used by local jurisdictions to determine the quantitative impacts of development on the circulation system that are based on the countywide model and standardized modeling assumptions and conventions. The computer models shall be consistent with the modeling methodology adopted by the regional planning agency. The data bases used in the models shall be consistent with the data bases used by the regional planning agency. Where the regional agency has jurisdiction over two or more counties, the data bases used by the agency shall be consistent with the data bases used by the regional agency. (d) (1) The city or county in which a commercial development will implement a parking cash-out program that is included in a congestion management program pursuant to subdivision (b), or in a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4, shall grant to that development an appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise in effect for new commercial development. (2) At the request of an existing commercial development that has implemented a parking cash-out program, the city or county shall grant an appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise applicable based on the demonstrated reduced need for parking, and the space no longer needed for parking purposes may be used for other appropriate purposes. (e) Pursuant to the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and regulations adopted pursuant to the act, the department shall submit a request to the Federal Highway Administration Division Administrator to accept the congestion manClgement program in lieu of development of a new congestion management system otherwise required by the act. 65089.1. (a) For purposes of this section, "plan" means a trip reduction plan or a related or similar proposal submitted by an employer to a local public agency for adoption or approval that is designed to facilitate employee ridesharing, the use of public transit, and other means of travel that do not employ a single occupant vehicle . • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-5 100 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program (b) An agency may require an employer to provide rideshare data bases; an emergency ride program; a • preferential parking program; a transportation information program; a parking cash-out program, as defined in subdivision (D of Section 65088.1; a public transit subsidy in an amount to be determined by the employer; bicycle parking areas; and other noncash value programs which encourage or facilitate the use of alternatives to driving alone. An employer may offer, but no agency shall require an employer to offer, cash, prizes, or items with cash value to employees to encourage participation in a trip reduction program as a condition of approving a plan. (c) Employers shall provide employees reasonable notice of the content of a proposed plan and shall provide the employees an opportunity to comment prior to submittal of the plan to the agency for adoption. (d) Each agency shall modify existing programs to conform to this section not later than June 30, 1995. Any plan adopted by an agency prior to January 1, 1994, shall remain in effect until adoption by the agency of a modified plan pursuant to this section. (e) Employers may include disincentives in their plans that do not create a widespread and substantial disproportionate impact on ethnic or racial minorities, women, or low-income or disabled employees. (D This section shall not be interpreted to relieve any employer of the responsibility to prepare a plan that conforms with trip reduction goals specified in Division 26 (commencing with Section 39000) of the Health and Safety Code, or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.). (g) This section only applies to agencies and employers within the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 65089.2. (a) Congestion management programs shall be submitted to the regional agency. The regional agency shall evaluate the consistency between the program and the regional transportation plans required pursuant to Section 65080. In the case of a multicounty regional transportation planning agency, that • agency shall evaluate the consistency and compatibility of the programs within the region. (b) The regional agency, upon finding that the program is consistent, shall incorporate the program into the regional transportation improvement program as provided for in Section 65082. If the regional agency finds the program is inconsistent, it may exclude any project in the congestion management program from inclusion in the regional transportation improvement program. (c) (1) The regional agency shall not program any surface transportation program funds and congestion mitigation and air quality funds pursuant to Section 182.6 and 182.7 of the Streets and Highways Code in a county unless a congestion management program has been adopted by December 31, 1992, as required. pursuant to Section 65089. No surface transportation program funds or congestion mitigation and air quality funds shall be programmed for a project in a local jurisdiction that has been found to be in nonconformance with a congestion management program pursuant to Section 65089.5 unless the agency finds that the project is of regional significance. (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the designation of an urbanized area, pursuant to the 1990 federal census or a subsequent federal census, within a county which previously did not include an urbanized area, a congestion management program as required pursuant to Section 65089 shall be adopted within a period of 18 months after designation by the Governor. (d) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature that the regional agency, when its boundaries include areas in more than one county, should resolve inconsistencies and mediate disputes which arise between agencies related to congestion management programs adopted for those areas. (2) It is the further intent of the Legislature that disputes which may arise between regional agencies, or agencies which are not within the boundaries of a mUlticounty regional transportation planning agency, should be mediated and resolved by the Secretary of Business, Housing and Transportation Agency, or an Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission • Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-6 101 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • employee of that agency designated by the secretary, in consultation with the air pollution control district or air quality management district within whose boundaries the regional agency or agencies are located. (e) At the request of the agency, a local jurisdiction that owns, or is responsible for operation of, a trip generating facility in another county shall participate in the congestion management program of the county where the facility is located. If a dispute arises involving a local jurisdiction, the agency may request the regional agency to mediate the dispute through procedures pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65089.2. Failure to resolve the dispute does not invalidate the congestion management program. 65089.3. The agency shall monitor the implementation of all elements of the congestion management program. The department is responsible for data collection and analysis on state highways, unless the agency designates that responsibility to another entity. The agency may also assign data collection and analysis responsibilities to other owners and operators of facilities or services if the responsibilities are specified in its adopted program. The agency shall consult with the department and other affected owners and operators in developing data collection and analysis procedures and schedules prior to program adoption. At least biennially, the agency shall determine if the county and cities are conforming to the congestion management program, including, but not limited to, all of the following. (a) Consistency with levels of service standards, except as provided in Section 65089.4. (b) Adoption and implementation of a program to analyze the impactsof land use decisions, including the estimate of the costs associated with mitigating these impacts. (c) Adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4 when highway and roadway level of service standards are not maintained on portions of the designated system. • 65089.4 . (a) A local jurisdiction shall prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway level of service standards are not maintained on segments or intersections of the designated system. The deficiency plan shall be adopted by the city or county at a noticed public hearing. (b) The agency shall calculate the impacts subject to exclusion pursuant to subdivision (f) of this section, after consultation with the regional agency, the department, and the local air quality management district or air pollution control district If the calculated traffic level of service following exclusion of these impacts is consistent with the level of service standard, the agency shall make a finding at a publicly noticed meeting that no deficiency plan is required and so notify the affected local jurisdiction. (c) The agency shall be responsible for preparing and adopting procedures for local deficiency plan development and implementation responsibilities, consistent with the requirements of this section. The deficiency plan shall include all of the following: (1) An analysis of the cause of the deficiency. This analysis shall include the following: (A) Identification of the cause of the deficiency. (8) Identification of the impacts of those local jurisdictions within the jurisdiction of the agency that contribute to the deficiency. These impacts shall be identified only if the calculated traffic level of service following exclusion of impacts pursuant to subdivision (f) indicates that the level of service standard has not been maintained, and shall be limited to impacts not subject to exclusion. (2) A list of improvements necessary for the deficient segment or intersection to maintain the minimum level of service otherwise required and the estimated costs of the improvements. (3) A list of improvements, programs, or actions, and estimates of costs, that will (A) measurably improve multimodal performance, using measures defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) of • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-7 102 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Section 65089, and (8) contribute to significant improvements in air quality, such as improved public transit service and facilities, improved non motorized transportation facilities, high occupancy vehicle facilities, parking cash-out programs, and transportation control measures. The air quality management district or the • air pollution control district shall establish and periodically revise a list of approved improvements, programs, and actions that meet the scope of this paragraph. If an improvement. program, or action on the approved list has not been fully implemented, it shall be deemed to contribute to significant improvements in air quality. If an improvement, program, or action is not on the approved list, it shall not be implemented unless approved by the local air quality management district or air pollution control district. (4) An action plan, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000). that shall be implemented, consisting of improvements identified in paragraph (2), or improvements. programs, or actions identified in paragraph (3), that are found by the agency to be in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. The action plan shall include a specific implementation schedule. The action plan shall include implementation strategies for those jurisdictions that have contributed to the cause of the deficiency in accordance with the agency's deficiency plan procedures. The action plan need not mitigate the impacts of any exclusions identified in subdivision (n. Action plan strategies shall identify the most effective implementation strategies for improving current and future system performance. (d) A local jurisdiction shall forward its adopted deficiency plan to the agency within 12 months of the identification of a deficiency. The agency shall hold a noticed public hearing within 60 days of receiving the deficiency plan. Following that hearing, the agency shall either accept or reject the deficiency plan in its entirety, but the agency may not modify the deficiency plan. If the agency rejects the plan, it shall notify the local jurisdiction of the reasons for that rejection, and the local jurisdiction shall submit a revised plan within 90 days addressing the agency's concerns. Failure of a local jurisdiction to comply with the schedule and requirements of this section shall be considered to be nonconformance for the purposes of Section 65089.5. (e) The agency shall incorporate into its deficiency plan procedures, a methodology for determining if deficiency impacts are caused by more than one local jurisdiction within the boundaries of the agency. •(1) If, according to the agency's methodology, it is determined that more than one local jurisdiction is responsible for causing a deficient segment or intersection, all responsible local jurisdictions shall participate in the development of a deficiency plan to be adopted by all participating local jurisdictions. (2) The local jurisdiction in which the deficiency occurs shall have lead responsibility for developing the deficiency plan and for coordinating with other impacting local jurisdictions. If a local jurisdiction responsible for participating in a multi-jurisdictional deficiency plan does not adopt the deficiency plan in accordance with the schedule and requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, that jurisdiction shall be considered in nonconformance with the program for purposes of Section 65089.5. (3) The agency shall establish a conflict resolution process for addressing conflicts or disputes between local jurisdictions in meeting the multi-jurisdictional deficiency plan responsibilities of this section. (n The analysis of the cause of the deficiency prepared pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) shall exclude the following: (1) Interregional travel. (2) Construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance of facilities that impact the system. (3) Freeway ramp metering. (4) Traffic signal coordination by the state or multi-jurisdictional agencies. (5) Traffic generated by the provision of low-income and very low income housing. (6) (A) Traffic generated by high-density residential development located within one-fourth mile of a fixed rail passenger station, and (8) Traffic generated by any mixed use development located within Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-8 • 103 " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program one-fourth mile of a fixed rail passenger station, if more than half of the land area, or floor area, of the mixed use development is used for high density residential housing, as determined by the agency. (g) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "High density" means residential density development which contains a minimum of 24 dwelling units per acre and a minimum density per acre which is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the maximum residential density allowed under the local general plan and zoning ordinance. A project providing a minimum of 75 dwelling units per acre shall automatically be considered high density. (2) "Mixed use development" means development which integrates compatible commercial or retail uses, or both, with residential uses, and which, due to the proximity of job locations, shopping opportunities, and residences, will discourage new trip generation. 65089.5. (a) If, pursuant to the monitoring provided for in Section 65089.3, the agency determines, following a noticed public hearing, that a city or county is not conforming with the requirements of the congestion management program, the agency shall notify the city or county in writing of the specific areas of nonconformance. If, within 90 days of the receipt of the written notice of nonconformance, the city or county has not come into conformance with the congestion management program, the governing body of the agency shall make a finding of nonconformance and shall submit the finding to the commission and to the Controller. " (b) (1) Upon receiving notice from the agency of nonconformance, the Controller shall withhold apportionments of funds required to be apportioned to that nonconforming city or county by Section 2105 of the Streets and Highways Code. (2) If, within the 12-month period following the receipt of a notice of nonconformance, the Controller is notified by the agency that the city or county is in conformance, the Controller shall allocate the apportionments withheld pursuant to this section to the city or county. (3) If the Controller is not notified by the agency that the city or county is in conformance pursuant to paragraph (2), the Controller shall allocate the apportionments withheld pursuant to this section to the agency. (c) The agency shall use funds apportioned under this section for projects of regional Significance which are included in the capital improvement program required by paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 65089, or in a deficiency plan which has been adopted by the agency. The agency shall not use these funds for administration or planning purposes. 65089.6. Failure to complete or implement a congestion management program shall not give rise to a cause of action against a city or county for failing to conform with its general plan, unless the city or county incorporates the congestion management program into the circulation element of its general plan. 65089.7. A proposed development specified in a development agreement entered into prior to July 10, 1989, shall not be subject to any action taken to comply with this chapter, except actions required to be taken with respect to the trip reduction and travel demand element of a congestion management program pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 65089 . " Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-9 104 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 65089.9. •The study steering committee established pursuant to Section 6 of Chapter 444 of the Statutes of 1992 may designate at least two congestion management agencies to partiCipate in a demonstration study comparing multimodal performance standards to highway level of service standards. The department shall make available, from existing resources, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) from the Transportation Planning and Development Account in the State Transportation Fund to fund each of the demonstration projects. The designated agencies shall submit a report to the Legislature not later than June 3D, 1997, regarding the findings of each demonstration project. 65089.10. Any congestion management agency that is located in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and receives funds pursuant to Section 44241 of the Health and Safety Code for the purpose of implementing paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 65089 shall ensure that those funds are expended as part of an overall program for improving air quality and for the purposes of this chapter. • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. •A1-10 105 N 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • RECOMMENDED HCM-BASED LEVEL OF SERVICE PROGRAM DEFAULTS • • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A2-1 106 3• 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program FEDERAL CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMSrrMS) REQUIREMENTS • Summation of FHWAIFTA Final Rule: Management and Monitoring Systems RULE The Final Rule is effective January 21, 1997, making Congestion Management Systems (CMS) in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) and traffic monitoring systems (TMS) mandatory. The Final Rule requires the Secretary of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration) to issue regulations for state development, establishment, and implementation of: • BMS (Bridge Management Systems); • CMS (Congestion Management Systems); • IMS (Intermodal Management Systems); • PMS (Pavement Management Systems); • PTMS (Public Transportation Management Systems); and • SMS (Safety Management Systems). All above management systems are optional [as of the 1995 National Highway Designation Act (NHS)), except for CMS and TMAs. In addition to the CMS, the development, establishment, and implementation of a TMS are required under the Final Rule. TMAs are defined as: "An urbanized area with a population over 200,000 (as determined by the latest decennial census) or other area when TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the MPO (or affected local officials), and officially designated by the Administrators of the FHWA and the FTA. The TMA designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning area(s)." Issues mentioned in the Final Rule concerning Federal Funds include: • Federal funds may not be programmed in a carbon monoxide and/or ozone non-attainment TMA for any project that will result in a significant increase in SOV (single-occupant-vehicle) capacity unless the project is based on an approved CMS; and • Amendments in the 1995 NHS Act allow a state to elect not to implement, in whole or in part, any one or more of the management systems (except for CMS in TMAs, and the TMS). In addition, the certification requirement was removed and the Secretary may not impose any sanction on or wtlhhold any benefit from a state that elects to take this approach . • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-1 108 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Congestion Management Systems (CMS) • In all TMAs, the CMS shall be developed, established, and implemented as part of the metropolitan planning process in accordance with 23 CFR 450.3200 and shall include: • Methods to: > Monitor and evaluate the performance of the mullimodal transportation system; > Identify the causes of congestion; > Identify and evaluate alternative actions; > Provide information supporting the implementation of actions; and > Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented actions. • Definition of parameters for measuring the extent of congestion and for supporting the evaluation of the effectiveness of congestion reduction and mobility enhancement strategies for the movement of people and goods. • Establishment of a program for data collection and system performance monitoring to: > Define the extent and duration of congestion; > Help determine the causes of congestion; and > Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented actions. • To the extent pOSSible, existing data sources should be used, as well as appropriate application of the real-time system performance monitoring capabilities available through Intelligent •Transportation System (ITS) technologies. • Identification and evaluation of the anticipated performance and expected benefits of appropriate traditional and nontraditional congestion management strategies that will contribute to the more efficient use of existing and future transportation systems based on the established performance measures. The following categories of strategies, or combination. of strategies, should be appropriately considered for each area: > Transportation demand management (TOM) measures, including growth, management, and congestion pricing; > Traffic operational improvements; > Public transportation improvements; > ITS technologies; and > Additional system capacity (where necessary). • Identification of an implementation schedule, implementation responsibilities, and possible funding sources for each strategy (or combination of strategies) proposed for implementation. Section 500.102 -Policy (1}) of the Final Rule states: ·Whether the systems are developing under the provisions of this part or under the State's own procedures. the following categories of FHWA administered funds may be used for development, establishment, and implementation of any of the Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. •A3-2 109 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • management systems and the traffic monitoring system; National highway system; surface transportation program; state planning and research and metropolitan planning funds (including the optional use of minimum allocation funds authorized under 23 U.S.C. 157© and restoration funds authorized under Sec. 202 (Q of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-59) for carrying out the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 307©(1} and 23 USC 134{a)): congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program funds for those management systems that can be shown to contribute to the attainment of national ambient air quality standard; and apportioned bridge funds for development and establishment of the bridge management system. The following categories of FTA administered funds may be used for the development, establishment, and implementation of the CMS, PTMS, IMS, and TMS: Metropolitan planning; state planning and research, and formula transit funds: • Implementation of a process for periodic assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented strategies, in terms of the area's established performance measures. The results of this evaluation shall be provided to decision makers to provide guidance on selection of effective strategies for future implementation. • • In a TMA designated as non-attainment for carbon monoxide and/or ozone, the CMS shall provide an appropriate analysis of all reasonable (including multi modal) travel demand reduction and operational management strategies for the corridor in which a project that will result in a significant increase in capacity for SOVs (adding general purpose lanes to an existing highway or constructing a new highway) is proposed. If the analysis demonstrates that travel demand reduction and operational management strategies cannot fully satisfy the need for additional capacity in the corridor and additional SOV capacity is warranted, then the CMS shall identify all reasonable strategies to manage the SOV facility effectively (or to facilitate its management in the future). Other travel demand reduction and operational management strategies appropriate for the corridor, but not appropriate for incorporation into the SOV facility itself shall also be identified through the CMS. All identified reasonable travel demand reduction and operation management strategies shall be incorporated into the SOV project or committed to by the State and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for implementation. • Compliance with the requirement that the planning process in all TMAs include a CMS will be addressed during metropolitan planning process certification reviews for all TMAs specified in 23 CFR 450.334. If the metropolitan planning process in a TMA does not include a CMS that meets the requirements of this Section, deficiencies will be noted and corrections will need to be made in accordance with the schedule established in the certification review. • Federal funds may not be programmed in a carbon monoxide and/or ozone non-attainment TMA for any project that will result in a significant increase of SOV (single occupant vehicle) capacity unless the project is based on an approved CMS . • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-3 110 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Traffic Monitoring Systems (TMS) General Requirements • • Each state shall develop, establish, and implement, on a continuing basis, a TMS to be used for obtaining highway traffic data when the data are: );> Supplied to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT); );> Used in support of transportation management systems; );> Used in support of studies or systems which are the responsibility of the U.S. DOT; );> Supported by the use of Federal funds provided from programs of the U.S. DOT; );> Used in the apportionments or allocation of Federal funds by the U.S. DOT; );> Used in the design or construction of an FHWA funded project; or );> Required as part of a federally mandated program of the U.S. DOT. • The TMS for highway traffic data should be based on the concepts described in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guidelines for Traffic Data Programs" and FHWA "Traffic Monitoring Guide (TMG}," and shall be consistent with the FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual. • The TMS shall cover all public roads except those functionally classified as local or rural minor collector or those that are federally owned. Coverage of federally owned public roads shall be determined cooperatively by the state, the FHWA, and the agencies that own the roads . • The state's TMS shall apply to the activities of local governments and other public or private non state government entities collecting highway traffic data within the state of the collected data are to • be used for any of the purposes enumerated in Section A of this subpart. • Procedures other than those referenced in this subpart may be used if the alternative procedures are documented by the state to furnish the precision levels as defined for the various purposes enumerated in Sec. A of this subpart and are found acceptable by the FHWA. • Nothing in this subpart shall prohibit the collection of additional highway traffic data if such data are needed in the administration or management of a highway activity or are needed in the design of a highway project. • Transit traffic data shall be collected in cooperation with MPOs and transit operators. • The TMS for highways and public transportation facilities and equipment shall be fully operational and in use by October 1,1997. • Components for Highway Traffic Data. Each state's TMS, including those using alternative procedures, shall address the following components: );> A state's TMS shall meet the statistical precisions established by FHWA for the HPMS. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission • Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-4 111 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • );> Continuous counter operations. Within each state, there shall be sufficient continuous counters of traffic volumes, vehicle classification, and vehicle weight to provide estimates of changes in highway travel patterns and to provide for the development of day-of~week, seasonal, axle correction, growth factors, or other comparable factors approved by the FHWA. As appropriate, sufficient continuous counts of vehicle classification and vehicle weight should be available to address traffic data program needs. );> Count data for traffic volumes collected in the field shall be adjusted to reflect annual average conditions. );> Vehicle classification activities on the National Highway System (NHS). On a cycle of no greater than three years, every major system segment (Le., segments between interchanges or intersections of principal arterials of the I\IHS with other principal arterials of the NHS) will be monitored to provide information on the numbers of single-trailer combination trucks, multiple trailer combination trucks, two-axle four-tire vehicles, buses and the total number of vehicles operating on an average day. );> Vehicle occupancy monitoring. Such vehicle occupancy data shall be reviewed at least every three years and updated as necessary. Acceptable data collection methods include roadside monitoring, traveler surveys, the use of administrative records (e.g., accident reports or reports developed in support of public transportation programs), or any other method mutually acceptable to the responsible organizations and the FHWA . • );> Field operations. (1) Each state's TMS for highway traffic data shall include the testing of equipment used in the collection of the data. (2) Documentation of field operations shall include the number of counts, the period of monitoring, the cycle of monitoring, and the spatial and temporal distribution of count sites. );> Source data retention. For estimates of traffic or travel, the value or values collected during a monitoring session, as well as information on the date(s} and hour(s} of monitoring will remain available until the traffic or travel estimates based on the count session are updated. );> Office factoring procedures. (1) Factors to adjust data from short-term monitoring sessions to estimates of average daily conditions shall be used to adjust for month, day of week, axle correction, and growth or other comparable factors approved by FHWA. These factors will be reviewed annually and updated at least every three years. (2) The procedures used by a state to edit and adjust highway traffic data collected from short -term counts at field locations to estimates of average traffic volume shall be documented . • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-5 112 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • • fNITORI I REQUIREMENTS PROGRAMS CMS TMS HPMS CMP Monitor/Evaluate the Multimodal Transportation System X X Identify Parameters for Evaluating the Extent of Congestion X Evaluate the Effectiveness of Implemented Actions X Identify/Implement a Program for Data Collection X X X X Cover all Public Roads X . Collect TransitlTraffic Data X X X i Meet AASHTO and FHWA Standards X X , Continuous Counter Operations (volumes, vehicle class, weights, and highway travel patterns) X X Short-term Traffic Monitoring Every Two Years X Short-term Traffic Monitoring Every Three Years (sample data) X X i Vehicle Classification (single/multi-trailer truck, 2-axle, 4-axle vehicles, buses, totals) Every Three Years, Every Major System Segment X X Vehicle Occupancy (reviewed every three years) X ~Testing/Documentation of Field Operations X X Factoring Procedures (reviewed annually and updated every three years) X X i Interstate and State Highway System (Caltrans responsibility) X X X i X Principal Arterials (CMAIlocal agency responsibility) X1 X X X Minor Arterials (local agency responsibility) X1 X X Collectors X1 X X Recreational Routes X X 1 All are eligible under CMS requirements depending on whether or not federal funds are to be allocated to the facilities . • Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-6 114 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager FROM: Richard Bryan, Bechtel Rail Projects Manager Nisa Hester, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director Amendment with STV Incorporated to Provide Additional Advanced Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Services, Final Design, S UB...I ECT: and Procurement and Construction Support for the Perris Valley i Line Project " WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDA TION: This item is for the Commission to: 1 ) Approve Agreement No. 07-33-123-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement 07-33-123-00, with STV Incorporated (STV) for additional advanced preliminary engineering (APE). final design, bid support, design support during construction, and additional support in the development of the federal supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) and state environmental impact report (EIR) for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) in the amount of $5,510,668, plus a contingency amount of $1.6 million, for a total amount not to exceed $7,110,668; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve the use of the contingency as may be required for the project. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: At its September 12, 2007 meeting, the Commission approved the selection process and awarded Agreement No. 07-33-123-00 to STV to provide planning, environmental, and preliminary engineering services for the PVL for an amount not to exceed $17.3 million including a $5.3 million contingency, contingent on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approval to enter into preliminary engineering which was received on December 14, 2007 . " Agenda Item 7F 115 During the past four years, significant progress has been made including issuance • of the APE, 65% design, 90% design, advanced 90% design revision packages, and submittal of the state EIR for public review and comment with receipt of certification by the Commission on July 25, 2011. Staff issued Amendment Nos. 1 through 6 to STV to cover the following additional services: • On August 5, 2008, the Executive Director approved Agreement No. 07-33-123-01, Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $46,919 for railway flagging. This amendment was subsequently deleted in Amendment 3. • At its October 8, 2008 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 07-33-123-02, Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $255,000 for preliminary landscape design for the Greenway Corridor Transportation Enhancement project. • On July 15, 2009, the Executive Director approved Agreement No. 07-33-123-03, Amendment No.3 in the amount of $1,427,600 for additional work requested by the FTA for environmental clearance. The amendment was funded from the original agreement's general contingency. • At its May 13, 2009 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 07-33-123-04, Amendment NO.4 in the amount of $16,147,935 for additional environmental services, APE, final design, support for the • procurement of construction materials, support during bid/award phase of construction contractor procurement, and design support during construction. • On November 2, 2010, the Commission approved Agreement No. 07-33-123-05, Amendment No.5 in the amount of $1.9 million for APE as it relates to the evaluation of revised Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) design standards, right of way aerial topography, Marlborough Station design, FT A Level Boarding Report, Orange Empire Railway Museum (OERM) design, and 2 nd Street pedestrian crossing design. The amendment was funded from Amendment No.4 contingency. • At its December 8, 2010 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 07-33-123-06, Amendment No.6 in the amount of $255,000 for closed circuit television (CCTV) design. At its May 13, 2009 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment No.4 to STV for the development of a new federal SEA and a new state EIR. Additional public comments were received on the documents and STV, along with the Commission's legal counsel, developed responses to the comments. STV was tasked with a number of special studies to assist in formulating the response to the comments, Agenda Item 7F • 116 " which resulted in additional work and time that was not anticipated in the original scope of Amendment No.3. Funding for out of scope work was reallocated to STV through funds remaining in the APE budget and amendments resulting in a shortfall in funding for the APE phase and subsequent final design, bid/award services, and design support during construction. A portion of Amendment No.7 will replenish those funds to support the SEA and EIR scope changes and environmental schedule extension. Additional Services for Amendment No.7 Staff is requesting the Commission to approve Amendment No.7 to replenish the budgets for final design, bid/award services, and design services during construction and provide contingencies for a hiatus, due to FT A's delay in approval of the federal environmental document, as well as potential future schedule extension and design. These Amendment No.7 funds will also be used to support the entitlement and permitting process, including fees to external agencies and jurisdictions, and to support the completion of additional design scope, design changes, and schedule extension in the APE phase consisting of: " External agency and jurisdictional fees ($1.5 million); " " SEA and EIR scope changes and environmental schedule extension ($2.5 million); " Additional design scope and design changes ($1 .8 million); " Additional design submittal package resulting from the extension of the project schedule past the originally estimated completion date ($ 515,000); " Design schedule extension resulting from additional scope, design changes, supporting additional environmental work, and a project design hiatus due to FTA delay in approving the federal environmental document ($800,000); " Future schedule extension contingency ($1 million); and " General design contingency ($600,000). This additional work includes, but is not limited to, the following design activities: " Design of the Marlborough Connection with the Union Pacific (UP) due to the abandonment of the Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead (UPRIL); " Additional engineering design and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) field diagnostic meetings for the railroad at-grade crossings in the cities of Riverside and Perris required due to redesign requests by both cities; " Development of the Level Boarding report to address FTA's Civil Rights office's comments including a comparative cost analysis for construction, operations/maintenance, and life cycle costs between alternative approaches to level boarding; " Development of various design alternatives for the Poarch Road at-grade " railroad crossing, including analysis and a written report discussing options Agenda Item 7F 117 to both retain and close the crossing; including extensive coordination with the county of Riverside Transportation and Fire Departments, the •Commission, SCRRA and the CPUC; • Design development and cost estimation for the incorporation of fiber optic lines from the Riverside Hunter Park Station to the South Perris Station for use by the train signal system, communications, CCTV signal transmission, and Caltrans in lieu of microwave towers; • Additional design efforts for coordination and incorporation of OERM track at the Perris Multimodal Station and at the ]lh and 4th Street crossings, including supplemental diagnostic meetings and coordination with the CPUC, SCRRA, the city of Perris, and OERM representatives; • Additional design effort to address project revision requests from the city of Perris including but not limited to the relocation of the pedestrian crossing at 2 ndDowntown Perris Station from 1st Street to Street and the required modifications to the existing Perris Multimodal platform; • Development of legal descriptions and plats for temporary construction easements (TCE) needed at Riverside Hunter Park Station, Moreno Valley/March Field Station, grading in the Box Springs Canyon area, and installation of soundwalls in Riverside; • Development of design alternatives to assist in addressing comments on the SEA/EIR including options and engineering analysis for a station site at Highgrove; • Additional design effort to address the environmental mitigation measures required by the EIR in both design drawings and specifications; •• Analysis and inclusion of revised SCRRA design criteria that was provided to the STY design team subsequent to the 65 % design requiring a differential analysis matrix, modifications of two existing bridge designs, and revisions due to drainage impacts among other design changes; • Preparation of submittals for entitlement approvals for four station sites not anticipated in the original APE scope of work, including estimated entitlement fees; • Preparation of building plan check submittals for four station sites not anticipated in the original APE scope of work, including estimated plan check fees; • Additional survey support for design changes resulting from an expanded scope of work including updating aerial survey data due to significant changes in the of various segments of the PVL; • Additional geotechnical investigation support for design changes resulting from expanded scope of work; • Federal Emergency Management Agency No-Rise Application for South Perris Station and layover Facility; and • Design submittal updates beyond those anticipated in the original scope of work resulting from additional scope and a design timeline extending past the originally estimated completion date. Agenda Item 7F • 118 " During the past few years, a number of significant issues and decisions have resulted from joint Commission-SCRRA-FTA consultation on the project including: " FTA approval of the Project Management Plan; " Receipt and resolution of comments from FT A on the Safety and Security Management Plan and related documents; " Coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) including a site visit and project briefing with senior FRA staff as part of the Threat Hazard Analysis; " Coordination with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security including a site visit and project briefing with senior staff as part of the Threat Hazard Analysis; " Selection of the construction management (CM) consultant, HDR; " Commencement of the pre-construction activities with HDR; " Development of the Construction Execution Plan in coordination with the CM and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF); " Advancement of the project to a 90% + design level; " Selection of the Marlborough parcel for the Riverside Hunter Park station; " " Selection of the final station designs and development of those designs to the 90% + level; " Commencement of the permitting process for the stations; " Identification of conflicting utilities and initial resolution of those conflicts, including meetings with utility companies to initiate required relocations; " Additional analysis of the feasibility of a Highgrove Station; " Coordination with the city of Riverside regarding the Riverside Quiet Zone Study, involving four grade crossing designs; " Design of the alignment to connect the PVL to the BNSF Main Line and receipt of the cost estimate from BNSF to perform the work; " Elimination of the UP Diamond Crossing at Marlborough Avenue that will be replaced by a switch track connecting the San Jacinto Branch Line to the UPRIL; " Development of the contractor pre-qualification process; " Value engineering revisions to design documents to reduce the overall project budget through descoping or design alternatives; " Coordination with the CPUC on crossing designs and CPUC approval of 3 of the 18 grade crossing applications (including two new pedestrian crossings); " Implementation of the new SCRRA design standards and criteria; " Commission certification of the final EIR; " Addressing the legal challenge filed as a result of the final EIR; and " Preparation for the submittal of the Project Construction Grant Agreement to the FTA . " Agenda Item 7F 119 Budget Summary • STV has provided a detailed scope of work, cost, and schedule for this proposed Amendment No.7. The information provided was reviewed in detail by staff, and negotiations were held with STV to obtain the best value for the proposed work. The total cost for the proposed services is $7,11 5,000 plus a contingency of $1.6 million for a not to exceed amount of $8,715,000. Unused contract funds of $1,604,332 are available to partially fund this amendment, resulting in a net increase for this amendment to the contract value in the amount of $5,510,668, plus a contingency amount of $1.6 million, for a total authorized amount of $7,110,668. The Commission has approved a total of $33,957,935 to STV through the original agreement and Amendments No.1 through 6. With the approval of this proposed amendment the total authorized amount for the STV agreement will be $41,068,603. Financiallnforrnation In Fiscal Year Budget: I No I I FY 2011/12 I\j/A Year: FY 2012/13 + Amount: I $4,000,000 $3,110,668 S f F d ILocal Agency Reimbursements, ource 0 un s: P .. 1 B M Aroposltlon , easure Budget Adjustment: IYes NIA GLlProject Accounting Nos.: 00382381101 221 3381101 -$3,176,166 (FY 2011/12) 003825 81101 221 3381101 - $ 79,950 (FY 2011/12) 00382781101 221 3381101 - $ 151,300 (FY 2011/12) 00382881101 221 3381101 - $ 62,565 (FY 2011/12) 00382981101 221 33 81101 $ 17,539 (FY 2011/12) 00383081101 221 3381101 $ 262,480 (FY 2011/12) 00383081101 221 3381101 - $ 250,000 (FY 2011/12) 00382381304221 3381301-$3,110,668 (FY 2012/13+) Fiscal Procedures Approved: I ~~ IDate: I 11/15/11 • Attachment: STV Amendment Log •Agenda Item 7F 120 " Attachment 1 Summary of STV Agreement No. 07-33-123-00 231,007 1,427,600 13,683,052 1,900,000 231,285 32,305,895 7,115,000 $ 39,420,895 " Original Authorization: Amendments 2 3* 4** 5* 6 Subtotal 7 (proposed)*** Totals Commission Authorized Amount $ 12,000,000 231,007 14,247,935 231,285 26,710,227 5,510,668 $ 32,220,895 Commission Authorized Contingency $ 5,300,000 23,993 1,900,000 23,715 7,247,708 1,600,000 $ 8,847,708 Commission Authorized Total $ 17,300,000 255,000 16,147,935 255,000 33,957,935 7,110,668 $ 41,068,603 * Includes use of contingency **Includes use of contingency and unspent funds ***Includes use of unspent funds " Rev. 0 121 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement for Reimbursement of Call Answering Center Services WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: " 1) Approve Agreement No. 12-45-033-00 (C-12139) with San Bernardino Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies to provide for the reimbursement of call answering center services related to the operation of call boxes in an amount not to exceed $190,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: In 1986, the Commission established itself as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) after the enactment of SB 1199 in 1985. The purpose of the formation of SAFEs in California was to provide call box services and, with excess funds, provide additional motorist aid services. Funding for RC SAFE is derived from a one dollar per vehicle registration fee on vehicles registered in Riverside County. Initially, these funds were used only for the call box program. As additional motorist aid services were developed, SAFE funds were also used to provide Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) and the Inland Empire 511 traveler information services as part of a comprehensive motorist aid system in Riverside County. The Commission, acting in its capacity as the RC SAFE, has operated a system of call boxes along the freeways and highways in Riverside County since 1990. At its peak, the call box program had 1,149 call boxes in operation throughout Riverside County. With the advancement of technology and the proliferation of cellular " phone owners over the past several years, the Commission has taken steps to reduce the number of call boxes in the Riverside County system. The reduction of Agenda Item 7G 122 call boxes over time to nearly half of its peak number has led to significant cost savings, in addition to a more efficient operation of the call box program. Today, • the Commission operates and maintains 614 call boxes. The process by which a call box may be used by the motoring public is as follows: A motorist who becomes stranded on a Riverside County freeway locates a call box and picks up the receiver; a trained call answering center operator addresses the motorist. In communicating with the motorist, the operator is able to understand the problem the motorist is experiencing and determines a solution. Solutions range from transferring the motorist to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) dispatch in a freeway emergency situation to helping to dispatch FSP when on duty to assist in the repair of vehicles experiencing mechanical problems. The Commission and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), serving as the SAFE for San Bernardino County, jointly operate a private call answering center through a SAN BAG contract with Professional Communications Network (PCN) that was procured on a competitive basis. The Commission's agreement with SANBAG for call answering center services provided by PCN is set to expire on December 31, 2011. Consistent with years passed, the Commission, in conjunction with SAN BAG and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), serving as the SAFE for Orange County, has conducted a joint procurement for call answering services in an effort to obtain a lower cost per call and eliminate the need to develop a new software application to support the program. Execution of a cooperative agreement is necessary to finalize this joint procurement. • DISCUSSION: The joint procurement in which the Commission participated with SAN BAG and OCTA for call box call answering center services was conducted in September 2011. Because call box call volumes have dropped exponentially for all three agencies, it was anticipated that the combined call volume would result in a lower cost per call for alJ agencies. Additionally, the call answering protocols and training materials used in the handling of call box calls were previously developed and are owned by SANBAG. The Commission will reap the benefit of not having to develop these procedures and seek approval from the California Highway Patrol, resulting in a savings of approximately $100,000. Currently, through its contract with SAN BAG for PCN's services, the Commission pays $3.58 per call, plus language translation services when needed. Including the language translation service, the average cost per call is $4.35. It should be noted that calls for assistance made from Riverside County call boxes have dropped from 15,532 in FY 2005/06, when PCN began the contract, to 5,251 in FY 2010/11. In addition to calls for assistance, PCN also handles approximately 2,700 call box maintenance calls each year. •Agenda Item 7G 123 Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, the Commission will reimburse• SANBAG for Phase I implementation costs which include the setup of a remote messaging system at the Commission to monitor call box calls. Reimbursement of Phase II costs will include a flat rate per call answered, annual preventative maintenance of equipment located in Riverside County, and any additional programming needed. Attachment 1 includes an estimate of all costs to be reimbursed under the agreement, along with anticipated call volumes through the term of the agreement. Procurement Process This procurement was handled by SANBAG in accordance with its procedures for professional and technical services. Award is recommended to the firm offering the most effective overall proposal considering such factors as staffing and project organization, prior experience with similar projects, work plan, and a fair and reasonable price structure. • On August 3, Request for Proposals (RFP) 12005 was issued by SANBAG. The project was advertised in newspapers of general circulation in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. Publications in Riverside County occurred on August 5 and August 11. A pre-proposal conference was held on August 1 2 with seven attendees representing five firms: Alston Tascom, Aspire Answering Service, Covenant Industries, MAP Communications, Inc., and Professional Communications Network. On September 16, two proposals were received: Professional Answering Service and Professional Communications Network. An evaluation committee comprised of staff from SANBAG, the Commission, and aCTA met to review the submitted proposals. A SANBAG contracts procurement consultant was present to ensure all procedures were properly followed. Technical factors used to evaluate the proposers under this procurement included elements such as the firm's staffing capacity, qualifications, facilities and equipment, work plan and operations. Price comprised of 15 percent of the maximum possible points under the evaluation criteria. The evaluation committee first evaluated the written proposals based on technical merit reviewing the above criteria. Based on the totals of each committee member's score of the technical evaluation criteria for each proposal, both firms were invited for an interview. The interviews consisted of a site visit to each firm's facility, followed by questions and answers. After the interviews, the evaluation committee met to complete the • evaluation. The firms were evaluated based on technical merit, proposed rates, Agenda Item 7G 124 and the interviews. SANBAG issued a request for a best and final offer (BAFO) to each firm on September 30, 2011. • Based on the evaluation of the written proposals, the firms' qualifications, the proposed rates received from the BAFO, and the information obtained from the interviews and site visits, the evaluation committee recommended the selection of PCN as the top-ranked firm to provide call box call answering center services. Conclusion PCN has extensive experience in operating a call box call answering center. The firm currently provides these services for SANBAG, the Commission, and OCTA, and was one of the first private call box call answering centers in California. The firm has an excellent working relationship with the California Highway Patrol communications centers and is extremely knowledgeable with prioritizing calls received from motorists stranded on the freeway. PCN has exceeded all level of service standards. Additionally, PCN offered the best overall price, with initial equipment/start-up costs $3,150 lower than the other proposer. Moreover, the cost per call rate for stationary call boxes offered by PCN was $1.30 lower than the other proposer during the first fiscal year of the agreement, and $2.25 lower than the other proposer during the last option term of the agreement. The rate per call for the initial year of the agreement for stationary call boxes is $4.85. This rate is inclusive of all translation services and is approximately • 11.5 percent higher than the amount the Commission currently pays. The rate per call escalates an average of 3.2 percent per year for the initial term of the agreement, and 2.5 percent per year for each option term. The SAN BAG Board of Directors took action on November 2 to approve the agreement. The final step in the joint procurement is to enter into a cooperative agreement with SANBAG for the reimbursement of costs associated with answering stationary call boxes in Riverside County. SANBAG's Cooperative Agreement No. C-12139 is attached. Based on the information provided, staff recommends executing Agreement No. 12 45-033-00 (C-12139) with SANBAG, in an amount not to exceed $190,000 over a six and a half year term, for call box call answering services provided by PCN procured through a joint procurement process. •Agenda Item 7G 125 " Financiallnfonnation In Fiscal Year Budget: Y N/A Year: FY 2011/12 FY 2013 + Amount: $17,752 $172,248 Source of Funds: ISAFE Budget Adjustment: I N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 00217481016000000000 2024581002 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 11/14/11 Attachments: 1) Cost Estimate for Call Box Call Answering Center Services 2) Agreement No. 12-45-033-00 (C-12139) Between Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino County Association of Governments, acting as San Bernardino County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) for the Provision of Call Box Call Answering Services for Riverside County " " Agenda Item 7G 126 " " " Cost Estimate for Call Box Call Answering Center Services Phase I Cost Summary ATTACHMENT 1 Implement Remote Messaging System IFY 11/12 I $ 3,750.00 I I $ 3,750.00 I Phase II Cost Summary for the first Three and a Half Years Annual Call Cost per Annual Programming Volume Call Annual Cost Maintenance CostsMileage Total FY 11/12 (6 Months) $ 4.85 $ 13,182.30 $ 750.00 $ 70.00 $ �$ 14,002.30 FY 12/13 2,718 $ 772.50 $ 70.00 $ 1,850.00 $ 28,168.58 FY 13/14 5,085 $ 5.01 $ 25,476.08 $ 5.17 $ 26,025.86 $ 795.68 $ 70.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 27,891.53 FY 14/15 5,034 $ 26,564.35 $ 819.55 $ 70.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 28,453.89 Phase II Expenses�' 4,984 $ 5.33 $ 98,516.30 Phase 1 Expense $ 3,750.00 $ 102,266.30 Phase II Cost Summary for the Three One-Year Option Terms Annual Call Volume Cost per Call Annual Cost Annual Maintenance Mileage Program~ing Costs Total FY 15116 4,934 $ 5.45 $ 26,889.46 $ 844.13 $ 70.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 28,803.59 FY 16117 4,885 $ 5.57 $ 27,207.81 $ 869.46 $ 70.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 29,147.26 FY 17118 4,836 $ 5.69 $ 27,514.36 $ 895.54 $ 70.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 29,479.90 $ 87,430.75 Total Potential Cooperative Agreement Value $ 189,697.05 127 ATTACHMENT 2 • COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C-12139 BETWEEN • SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUHORITY ACTING AS, SAN BERNARDINO SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE) AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORATION COMMISSION ACTING AS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE) FOR THE PROVISION OF CALL BOX CALL ANSWERING SERVICES FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Cooperative Agreement is effective as of this day of 201 I, by and between the San Bernardino County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, a public agency (the "SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE") whose address is ] 170 W. 3rd Street, San Bernardino, California 92410-1715, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, acting in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, a public agency (the "Riverside County SAFE"), located at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, California 92502-2208. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYSAFE and RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE, are each a "Party" and collectively "Parties" herein. 2. RECITALS WHEREAS, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE is the regional public agency created pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code section 2550 et seq.; and WHEREAS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE is the regional public agency created pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code section 2550 et seq.; and WHEREAS, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE has engaged Professional Communications Network ("PCN") as the contractor ("Contractor") to render services for the provision of call box call answering center services within San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and Orange County ("Services"), as set forth in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE Contract No. C 12005, executed on November 2, 201 I (the "Primary Agreement"), attached as Exhibit "A" • and incorporated herein by reference; and 128 WHEREAS, this Cooperative Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") defines the specific terms and conditions between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE and SAN • BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE only as they may relate to the subject matter and no other purpose; NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereto wish to enter into this Agreement in order to allocate the costs of paying Contractor for Services under the Primary Agreement in accordance with the call box phone calls serviced by the Contractor within the geographical areas of the respective Parties hereto. In consideration of their mutual obligations set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows: 3. TERMS. 3.1 Tenn. The Agreement shall commence on the date first set forth above, and shall continue in full force and effect through June 30, 2018, concurrent with the Primary Agreement unless earlier terminated or extended as provided in this Agreement. Should one or more of the option terms of the Primary Agreement not be exercised, this Agreement shall terminate. In the event this Agreement is terminated by one Party, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE shall notify Contractor of such termination and may thereafter enter into an agreement for the provision of Services. 3.2 Primary Agreement. The terms of the Primary Agreement, including without limitation, the definitions provided therein, are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. The Parties hereto shall use their best efforts to perform and uphold the obligations of the respective Parties hereto and ofthe Primary Agreement, including, without • limitation, the prosecution to conclusion or settlement of any remedy provided by law for the breach thereof by the Contractor. 3.3 Payment. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall pay to SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE, in consideration for the Services rendered to the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE through SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE by the Contractor, quarterly payments, with the first invoice commencing three (3) months after effective date of this Agreement. The RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall pay for Phase I and Phase 11 costs set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein (the "Compensation and Payment"). 3.4 Maximum Obligation. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE and SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE mutually agree that Riverside County SAFE's maximum cumulative payment obligation shall be One Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($190,000) which shall include all amounts payable to the Contractor in payments as set forth in Exhibit "A." 3.5 Termination. 3.5.1 Notice; Reason. The Parties hereto may, by written notice, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, by giving a written notice of such termination 90 Page 2 of II • 2 129 " days prior to the effective date thereof ("Notice of Tennination"). This Agreement shall terminate on the effective date of the Notice of Termination . 3.5.2 Such tennination may be for Party's convenience or because of the failure of the other Party to perfonn its duties and obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the failure of SAN BERNARDINO SAFE to obtain timely and full perfonnance ofthe Services pursuant to the Primary Agreement described in Exhibit "A". In the event RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE tenninates this Agreement, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE shall, in accordance with Article 17 of the Primary Agreement, terminate the obligations and rights of the Contractor under the Primary Agreement as to the geographical area encompassed within Riverside County SAFE's jurisdiction and shall, if requested by RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE, assign any and all rights to perfonnance of the Services under the Primary Agreement to RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE. In the event this Agreement is tenninated by SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE shall, in accordance with Article 39 of the Primary Agreement assign the rights and obligations of the Primary Agreement as requested by RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE in writing. Should the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE tenninate the Agreement for convenience or cause, RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall bear all reasonable costs associated with transitioning the call answering center calls from the Contractor to another location. 3.5.3 Documents and Data. Upon receipt of the written Notice of Tennination, thetenninating Party shall be entitled to receive certain Documents and Data related to RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE, as defined in Article 16 and Article 23 of the Primary Agreement and as provided in the Notice of Termination. 3.5.4 Effect of Tennination for Convenience. If the tennination is for" the convenience of the Party, the terminating Party, shall compensate the non-tenninating party, or, in the event SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE is the terminating Party, the Contractor, for Services fully and adequately provided through the effective date of tennination as provided in the Notice of Tennination and in accordance with the Exhibit "B" of this agreement. Such payment shall include a pro-rated amount of profit, as applicable to the tenninating Party, up through the date of such effective date, but no amount sha11 be due for anticipated profit on unperfonned Services past such effective date. 3.5.5 Effect of Tennination for Cause. If the tennination is for cause, the tenninating party shall compensate the non-tenninating Party, or, in the event SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE is the tenninating Party, the Contractor, for those Services which have been fully and adequately completed and accepted in accordance with the Compensation and Payment. In such case, the tenninatingParty may take over the Services to be rendered to the tenninating Party and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise. 3.5.6 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.5.7 Procurement of Similar Services. In the event this Agreement is " Page 3 ofll 3 130 terminated, in whole or in part, as provided by this Section, the terminating Party may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it deems appropriate, Services similar to those terminated. • 3.6 Trend Meetings. The Parties' Representatives shall participate in trend meetings with the Contractor and other interested parties, as provided in Scope of Services, Attachment "A" of the Primary Agreement. 3.6.1 Progress Reports. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE shall submit to the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE the Contractor's monthly progress report required under Article 9 of the Primary Agreement. Submission of such progress report by SAN BERNARDINO SAFE shall be a condition precedent to receipt of payment from the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE for each monthly invoice submitted. 3.7 Delay in Performance. 3.7.1 Excusable Delays. Should either Party be delayed or prevented from the timely performance of any act or Services required by the terms of this Agreement by reason of acts of God or of the public enemy, acts or omissions of the other Party or other governmental agencies in either their sovereign or contractual capacities, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes or unusually severe weather, performance of such act or Services shall be excused for the period of such delay. 3.7.2 Written Notice. If a Party believes it is entitled to an extension of time due to conditions set forth in subsection 3.7.1, it shall provide written notice to the other Party within seven (7) working days from the time the Party knows, or reasonably should have known, that performance of the applicable act or Services will be delayed due to such conditions. Failure to provide such timely notice shall constitute a waiver of any right to an excusable delay in time of performance. • 3.7.3 Mutual Agreement. Performance of any Services under this Agreement may be delayed upon mutual agreement of the Parties. 3.8 Status of Contractor/Subcontractors. 3.8.1 Independent Contractor. The Services under the Primary Agreement shall be performed by the Contractor or under its supervision. The Contractor will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of the Primary Agreement. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE has retained Contractor on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee, agent or representative of the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE or RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE. The parties hereto acknowledge that: (I) Contractor retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of the Primary Agreement; (2) Any additional personnel performing the Services under the Primary Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exelusive direction and control; (3) Contractor shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services and as required by law; and (4) Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting Page 4 of II • 4 131 " such personnel, including but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholdings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance . 3.9 Indemnification of RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE shall indemnify and hold the Riverside County SAFE, its directors, officials, " officers, agents, contractors, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE, Contractor and/or their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE shall defend, at its own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE shall reimburse the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, ineIuding reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE's obligation to indemnity, defend and hold harmless shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE, or their directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, and shall continue in existence past the termination of this Agreement or the Primary Agreement by either of the Parties hereto or thereto, respectively. 3.10 Indemnifieation of SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall indemnify and hold the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE, its direetors, officials, officers, agents, contractors, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall defend, at its own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE, its directors, officials, officers, agents, contractors, consultants, employees and volunteers. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall reimburse the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses " Page 5 ofll 5 132 and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE's obligation to • indemnity, defend and hold harmless shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE, or their directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, and shall continue in existence past the termination of this Agreement or the Primary Agreement by either of the Parties hereto or thereto, respectively. 3.11 Right to Employ Other Contractors. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE and RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE reserve right to employ other contractors in connection with the Services to be rendered under the Primary Agreement. 3.12 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be subject to the law and jurisdiction of the State of California. The Parties agree that the venue for any action or claim brought by any Party to this Agreement shall be in San Bernardino County. 3.13 Attorneys' Fees. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any Party's rights hereunder, each Party, including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorney's fees. This section shall not apply to those costs and attorney's fees directly arising from any third party legal action against a Party hereto and payable under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. 3.14 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.15 Headings. Article and section headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. • 3.16 Notices. Any and all notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: To SAN BERNARDJNO COUNTY SAFE To RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE: San Bernardino Associated Governments Riverside County Transportation Commission 1 170 W. 3rd Street, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92410-1715 P.O. Box 12008 (Mailing Address) Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: SAFE Program Manager Attn: SAFE Program Manager Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless ofthe method of service. Page 60fll • 6 133 " 3.17 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provIsions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. In the event that provisions of this Agreement conflict in any way with the provisions of the Primary Agreement, the request for proposal, and/or Contractor's response thereto ("Contract Documents"), the terms of this Agreement shall control. Otherwise, the Contract Documents are intended to be complementary. Acts or Services required by one of the Contract Documents and not by others shall be performed as required by all. 3.18 Amendment or Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 3.19 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements or understandings. 3.20 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. " 3.21 No Waiver. Fai1ure of the Parties hereto to insist on anyone occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at anyone time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.22 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts, anyone of which shall be effective as an original document. " Page 70fll 7 134 This Agreement shall be made effective upon execution by both Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Cooperative Agreement No. C 12139 to be executed on the date first above written. • SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE By: Larry McCallon Board President APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Penny Alexander-Kelley General Counsel CONCURRENCE: By: Kathleen Murphy-Perez Contracts Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: • Page 80fll • 8 135 " EXHIBIT "A" Insert executed C12005 Link to C12005 on SANBAG portal: http://porta1.sanbag.ca.gov!mgmt/APOR� Mgmnt/Shared%20Documents!C12005.docx " " Page90fll 9 136 EXHIBIT "B" • COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE and SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE agree to share the call box answering services center costs as set forth below: I. PHASE I -RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE and SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE agree to share the call box answering services center costs incurred for Phase I under the Primary Agreement as follows: a. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall reimburse SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE $3,750 of the Phase I invoices paid by SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE. Said invoices will be submitted by Contractor to SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE within 10 days of the completed and accepted milestone. b. Phase I includes the following activities: 1. Implementation of remote agents. II. PHASE II -The RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE and SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE agree to share the call box answering services center costs incurred for Phase II under the "Primary Agreement" as follows: • a. The RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall reimburse SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE for the actual number of calls answered by the Contractor from stationary call boxes located in Riverside County based on the following rate per call: Initial Term Rate per call Fiscal Year 201 1-12 $4.85 Fiscal Year 20] 2-13 $5.0] Fiscal year 2013-14 $5.17 Fiscal Year 2014-15 $5.33 Option Terms Rate per call Fiscal Year 2015-16 $5.45 Fiscal Year 2016-] 7 $5.57 Fiscal Year 2017-J 8 $5.69 b. The RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall reimburse SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE for Riverside County's share of the actual costs associated with annual maintenance and cleaning of equipment located at the CHP Inland and Indio Communication Centers and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE. These costs shall not exceed $750 for Fiscal Year 2011-12 plus mileage reimbursement at the current year's Internal Revenue Services mileage reimbursement rate. The maintenance and cleaning costs shall escalate at a rate of three percent per fiscal year. Page 10 Qfll • 10 137 c. The RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE shall fully reimburse SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE any programming costs it requests. Any programming costs requested by all Parties that benefit all Parties shall be shared at 33.3% of the total • costs. The rate for fiscal year 2011-12 shaH be $60 per hour to be escalated by three percent each fiscal year thereafter. d. Phase II is the operational element and includes the following activities: I. staffing and training, 2. commencing actual operations ofthe call center, all monitoring and statistical data collection elements for perfonnance monitoring must be in place prior to beginning Phase II, 3. annual maintenance and cleaning of equipment located at traffic management centers and call box providers' locations, and 4. programming based on the needs of the call box program. • Page II of II •11 138 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Letter of Interest -State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project " WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to prepare a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) letter of interest (LOI) for credit assistance to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP); and 2) Authorize the Executive Director to submit the TIFIA LOI. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21) established the TIFIA Act of 1998 authorizing the U.S. DOT to provide credit assistance in the form of secured (direct) loans, lines of credit, and loan guarantees to public and private applicants for eligible surface transportation projects. In 2005, Congress enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which made a number of amendments to TIFIA including lowering the estimated project cost thresholds and expanding eligibility for TIFIA credit assistance. SAFETEA-LU authorized $122 million annually from the Highway Trust Fund for FYs 2004/05-2008/09 in TIFIA budget authority to pay the subsidy cost of credit assistance. Extensions of the surface transportation reauthorization act have been enacted continuing highway programs that were authorized through FY 2008/09, and the expectation is that Congress will reauthorize an equivalent amount of budget authority for the TIFIA program in FY 2011/12. After reductions for administrative expenses and application of the annual obligation limitation, TIFIA has " Agenda Item 7H 139 approximately $110 million available annually to provide credit subsidy support to • projects. U.S. DOT has estimated that the $110 million can support approximately $1.1 billion in TIFIA credit assistance. As in other programmatic years, it is projected that demand for TIFIA credit assistance for FY 2011/12 will exceed budgetary resources. U.s. DOT TIFIA LOI Process The TIFIA notice of funding availability (NOFA) was released by U.S. DOT on November 3, 2011. The NOFA identifies eligible TIFIA projects as highway, passenger rail, transit, intermodal projects, and intelligent transportation systems. For consideration in the FY 2011/12 funding cycle, LOis must be submitted by December 30, 2011. SR-91 CIP The SR-91 CIP features the extension of the 91 Express Lanes and freeway widening of the general purpose lanes, and is estimated to cost $1.35 billion with approximately two-thirds of the funding anticipated to come from the sale of toll revenue bonds and Measure A funds. To supplement this planned funding, staff is seeking a loan for the remaining one-third of the funding needed through the federal TIFIA program and is requesting Commission approval to submit the SR-91 CIP for FY 2011/12 TIFIA LOI consideration. • The Commission applied for a TIFIA payment on three separate occasions in the past and is currently awaiting notification from the United States Department of Transportation regarding the status of its most recent application as part of the TIGER program in October. TIFIA remains a very competitive program with a demand that exceeds the amount of funding that is made available, although there are current proposals to increase the amount of money available. Given the importance of TIFIA funding for the project, and since the SR-91 CIP continues to be the Commission's most pressing highway project, staff seeks Commission's approval to submit another' application for the newest TIFIA program available in December. Agenda Item 7H • 140 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 sl Century BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTA TION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDA TION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21 ). BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: " Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), introduced S. 1813, MAP-21 on Friday evening of November 4, 2011. MAP-21 is a two-year surface transportation authorization bill that keeps funding at FY 2008/09 baseline levels and accounts for inflation. The new legislation makes several significant federal transportation policy reforms. The long anticipated bill marks the first time since 2009 that a Congressional committee has attempted to advance a specific proposal to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation program. MAP-21 was crafted with bipartisan input from high ranking Senators on the EPW Committee and was ultimately passed on a unanimous 18-0 vote with several amendments from committee members. Currently, the bill contains only highway policy elements within the jurisdiction of EPW. Several key components of the bill are waiting to be drafted by other committees, namely: Senate Commerce Committee for the rail portions of the bill, Senate Banking Committee for public transit, and Senate Finance Committee for funding. MAP-21 contains several policy elements of interest to the Commission and this staff report will attempt to summarize these elements. Enhancements to Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program Staff is pleased that MAP-21 emphasizes improving the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA} program. The Commission adopted policy priorities for this program due to its major impacts on the SR-91 " Agenda Item 71 141 Corridor Improvement Project and future corridor projects in Riverside County that are likely to require TIFIA loans. Highlights of MAP-21's changes to TIFIA include: • • The total program size is increased from approximately $120 million to $1 billion for FYs 2011/12 and 2012113, nearly increasing by tenfold the loan capacity of TIFIA; • Project sponsors (such as the Commission) may pay for its own credit subsidy if the program is oversubscribed and a project is otherwise worthy of a loan; • Master credit agreements are authorized, which allow upfront loan commitments for mUltiple related sets of projects in future years; and • TIFIA can finance a greater share of project costs. Currently only 33 percent of project costs can be financed by a TIFIA loan; MAP-21 increases the TIFIA share to 49 percent. With the exception of master credit agreements, the above reforms are nearly verbatim the policy priorities supported by the Commission. These reforms are likely to also be included in the House of Representatives version of this bill. Projects of National and Regional Significance This program may be familiar to some Commissioners and returns from SAFETEA LU in a somewhat different form. The original program was 100 percent earmarked for Congressionally-designated projects, rather than distributed on the •basis of merit and competition. Alameda Corridor East in Southern California was the recipient of $125 million from the original Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) program; Riverside County's share of these funds has been invested on grade separations. In MAP-21, PNRS is a one-time, $1 billion competitive pot of funding that closely resembles the current TIGER program that U.S. DOT administers. National Freight Program Senator Boxer proposes a new program for freight projects that is distributed to states on a formula basis. The U.S. Transportation Secretary is charged with designating a national primary freight network of highways and a national freight strategic plan. Each state receives funding based on the total route miles of primary freight network and interstate highway miles within the state, as a proportion to all other freight network and interstate miles in the entire U.S. Given California's large size and high likelihood of having a sizeable portfolio of primary freight network mileage, staff is still evaluating whether this is the most effective measure of goods movement needs for California and the nation. Highway-rail grade separations are eligible for funding from this program, a key Commission priority. It is important to note that nearly all of the funds from this program must •Agenda Item 71 142 " be spent on highway projects, primarily for the reason that gas tax revenues, which are the source of funding for this program, are paid by motorists and truckers and not paid by railroads. Overall, it is an exciting development to see a dedicated freight funding program included in authorizing legislation. For many years, the Commission has prioritized a national freight policy in its mission to Washington, D.C. Senator Boxer's recognition of California's need for funding for freight projects is a significant step forward. Formula Programs Restructured Today, the Commission receives two primary streams of funding via formula programs from the federal government: the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program. STP funds are distributed based on regional population and lane miles while CMAQ is mostly determined based on air quality needs. Southern California and Riverside County tend to get their fair share based on these factors. Transportation Mobility Program " MAP-21 proposes to eliminate STP and replace it with the Transportation Mobility Program (TMP) and increase its size by approximately two-thirds. MAP-21 also removes a 10 percent off-the-top set-aside of funding for Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects, such as bicycle/pedestrian facilities and landscaping. Instead, TE projects are moved into the CMAQ program (discussed below in further detail). Today, STP requires that 62.5 percent of funds be spent in urban areas based on a region's share of the state's population. The other 37.5 percent can be spent anywhere in the state, at the state's discretion. In California, state law dictates that the 62.5 percent be directly sub-allocated to the various urban regions of the state based on population. This sub-allocation to regions directly benefits the Commission. The state retains discretion over the remaining 37.5 percent. MAP-21 proposes to split TMP funds 50/50 between the regions and state. The raw amount available to regions remains roughly the same as with today's STP, due to the larger overall size of TMP and the lack of a set-aside for TE. However, California transportation stakeholders are discussing whether it is believed to be best that the 62.5 percent/37.5 percent split between regions and states should remain in federal law. TMP generally retains its broad flexibility to be used on a variety of types of projects. Such flexible funding is important to the Commission, as it allows the " Commission to mix and match funding sources to move projects ahead most expeditiously. Nonetheless, the clear policy direction of this new TMP program is Agenda Item 71 143 to focus on projects that do not add highway capacity that is primarily for single•occupant drivers. As with many other provisions of MAP-21, the emphasis is on HOV lanes, congestion pricing, transit, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), traffic demand management (TOM)' maintenance and rehabilitation and other operational and efficiency improvements. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality CMAQ is proposed to double in size while creating more specificity about how the funds can be spent. Half of all CMAQ funds are sent to regions that need assistance in meeting national air quality standards established by the Clean Air Act. Southern California receives a healthy share of funding from this program. A continuous policy concern on the CMAQ program is which regions are eligible to receive funding. Funding is based on air quality attainment; the areas with the greatest needs are eligible for the most money. Thus, the air quality thresholds to determine who can receive funding is important in determining how many different ways this finite pot of funding is divided up across the nation. The Commission will want to ensure that strict standards are applied to allow regions to have access to CMAQ funds. Like the new TMP program, CMAQ has a long list of types of eligible projects that • the Commission can advance using CMAQ funds. Because CMAQ has an air quality focus, new highway capacity projects that are not HOV or congestion pricing are not eligible. This is consistent with the existing CMAQ program structure. A new feature of CMAQ policy is the requirement that regions adopt performance plans for the use of the funds. Detailed measurements must be taken of air quality benefits achieved by CMAQ-funded projects to ensure that air quality benefits are maximized by the program. Staff has some initial questions regarding how such a plan would be implemented and whether the congestion mitigation benefits of CMAQ projects should also be assessed with the air quality benefits to ensure that both policy goals are advanced by projects funded from this program. A major new feature of the new CMAQ program requires that regions spend half of their funding on projects that reduce fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) on projects such as diesel retrofits. Of this half, 30 percent is required to be spent on clean construction equipment. These new directives are of concern to the Commission and to several other agencies in California that currently enjoy broad flexibility to allocate CMAQ funds according to regional priorities. Mandates on how to spend this flexible funding may complicate efforts to achieve the performance measures required in other portions of MAP-21 and could also limit the ability of regions to • Agenda Item 71 144 " match funds to voter-approved priorities. Staff will work with stakeholders in California and Washington, D.C. and the EPW Committee to address this policy concern. Performance Management Performance is a key theme of MAP-21. Nearly every program in the bill requires states and regions, as well as the U.S. Transportation Secretary, to develop performance criteria for the transportation system, as well as methods to measure achievement of performance standards. States and regions are held accountable for meeting their targets. What the Commission knows as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is altered in terminology to be a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and is required to established clear metrics such on safety, freight movement, congestion, and bridge and road conditions. Regional MTP's must conform to statewide targets for the same criteria. Project Delivery Acceleration and Enhancements " MAP-21 takes a few steps towards improving today's overly lengthy bureaucratic� processes to approve transportation projects for construction. A dispute resolution process is established for projects to ensure that decisions are made in a timely fashion, mandating that high-level meetings take place within a certain period of time. The process of acquiring right of way early for projects is greatly enhanced by MAP-21, as well as some provisions that give greater flexibility in negotiations with property owners. Right of way staff has responded very positively to this portion of the bill. Summary MAP-21 is a positive step forward for Riverside County. Key policy victories include an expanded TIFIA program, creation of a national freight program, and larger formula programs that send money directly to the region, based on factors that help the Commission receive its fair share of federal funding. On a larger scale, it is also positive that the bill maintains current funding levels during a time of pressure to maintain fiscal austerity in Washington, D.C. As with anything that is 600 pages long, the details are important. Staff continues to review the bill while consulting with partner agencies and stakeholders in California, as well as major associations in Washington to find areas of common " Agenda Item 71 145 interest and concern to affect changes to MAP-21. Commission lobbyists are in • communication with EPW Committee staff and Members of Congress regarding the bill, relaying daily reports back to staff. Commissioner questions and comments on MAP-21 are welcomed and encouraged to assist staff in locating areas of greater interest and priority as the Commission prepares to weigh-in with Congress. • Agenda Item 71 • 146 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 14,2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency Update WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDA TlON: This item is for the Commission to: " 1 ) Authorize the Chair to execute the Bylaws and the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement that allow the Commission to be included as an ex-officio member in the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency; 2) Receive an update on the current LOSSAN Strategic Efforts and Governance proposal; and 3} Take a modify position of the proposed governance approach with the condition that voting rights for the Commission will be required for both local and legislative support of the effort. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency is a joint powers authority (JPA) created to oversee the intercity passenger rail service in the travel corridor between San Diego and Los Angeles. This agency has evolved as rail service has been extended to Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties and now includes all counties along the Pacific Surfliner Corridor from San Diego to San Luis Obispo County. The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency is tasked with the following functions: " Plan, recommend programs, promote, and identify funding sources for improvements to passenger rail services and facilities in the LOSSAN corridor; " " Negotiate for and accept funds to be expended for the purpose of providing and improving intercity and commuter passenger rail services and activities; 147 Agenda Item 8 " Review and comment on facility, service, and operational plans and programs of the agency or agencies operating sub-corridor commuter rail service in the " LOSSAN corridor; " Coordinate facility, service, and operational plans and programs with other organizations providing passenger rail service in the Southern California region; and " Advocate improvements to services and facilities for the corridor before local, regional, state, and federal officials and agencies. The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency does not currently pay for the operation of any of the passenger rail services within the corridor, but it is a means to help coordinate operations and planning. There are no full time staff members working for the agency, but it is supported by staff from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and a consulting firm developing a strategic plan. Each voting member agency is required to pay annual dues to facilitate the planning and support needs of the JPA and the hiring of consultants or staff. The current voting member agencies include: " Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) - 2 Votes, " Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) - 2 Votes, " San Diego Metropolitan Transit System - 1 Vote, " North County Transit District - 1 Vote, " SANDAG,(Votes when one of the other San Diego entities is not present), " " Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) - 1 Vote, " Santa Barbara County Association of Governments - 1 Vote, " San Luis Obispo Council of Governments - 1 Vote; and, " California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) - 1 Vote. The current ex-officio non-voting member agencies include: " Southern California Association of Governments; " National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak); and " California High-Speed Rail Authority. Voting Rights Discussion As identified above, the LOSSAN Board of Directors is well represented by almost every other major transportation planning agency in Southern California. The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency has worked for years to try to develop corridor improvements and coordinated services between Amtrak, Metrolink, and the Coaster passenger trains. The agency has completed several strategic plans and is currently working on its most ambitious effort yet to redefine passenger rail in 148 " Agenda Item 8 " " " Southern California. All of these plans have used assumptions on service levels for Metrolink trains that have been provided by OCTA, Metro, or VCTC. The 351-mile LOSSAN corridor operates in part over the Commission's commuter rail track rights specifically between Fullerton and Los Angeles Union Station. In 1992, the Commission purchased the exclusive commuter rights for this segment from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway as part of a shared use agreement for $23.7 million. Therefore, any planned commuter rail service or change to existing� service over this section would impact the track rights of the Commission. This fact is often overlooked in many of the planning efforts being conducted as identified above. Therefore, given the need to protect the assets belonging to the taxpayers of Riverside County (i.e. the track rights), staff determined that it is critical for the Commission to be an active LOSSAN member. The Commission has a vested interest in service patterns for both the Inland Empire-Orange County (lEOC) Line and the 91 Line service that currently operate on the LOSSAN corridor, which is why the rights to the Fullerton to Los Angeles Union Station were originally purchased. These rights are becoming even more critical with the impending construction of the Perris Valley Line extension. As such, staff determined that without participation in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency, the Commission would have limited opportunity to provide input or feedback to the plans being developed that could potentially impact the service levels for Riverside County residents. At the February 2011 Commission Workshop and based on a staff recommendation for the Commission to seek a voting membership in LOSSAN, a discussion was held and the Chair was given authority to submit a letter to request to participate as a voting member. Based on the letter submitted to LOSSAN by Chair Pettis, staff was invited to provide a presentation to both the LOSSAN Technical Advisory Committee and then the Board of Directors. During these presentations, staff explained the unique position of the Commission in holding track rights along the corridor. After much discussion, the issue was sent to vote and an alternate motion to allow the Commission to become an ex-officio member was ultimately approved. The primary reason stated for the change in status from full voting member to ex-officio member was that the Commission is not an operator of train service on the corridor nor does it have any stations along the current intercity Amtrak route. It was noted that LOSSAN Board is in the middle of a major governance discussion and that the Commission could seek voting membership in the near future once the new governance structure is adopted. While not the result hoped for, staff concluded that even with ex-officio status, the Commission will be able to participate in all meetings and voice concerns as needed. Also, there will be no 149 Agenda Item 8 annual dues required. Lastly, the discussion of the future governance plan will give the Commission the opportunity to again seek a voting membership. • A resolution of approval of the Commission's ex-officio membership was discussed at the November LOSSAN Board Meeting. Since April, staff has fully participated as a member of the LOSSAN Technical Advisory Committee and Modeling Group. Staff recommends giving the Chair the authority to execute the revised LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws and the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement so that the Commission can participate formally in the LOSSAN Board. LOSSAN Strategic Plan Improvements Contiguous with the discussion on governance, the LOSSAN Board has developed the following strategic vision for the corridor: • Collectively provide the infrastructure to allow more peak period trains, faster through express trains, and additional service improvements that meet current and future conventional and high-speed intercity, commuter, and freight demands both north and south of Los Angeles Union Station; • Integrate regional fare policy and develop common fare media that are based in part on early implementation lessons in the corridor, as appropriate (electronic revenue collection); and • Integrate and/or coordinate operations and develop efficient operating schedules and dispatching for corridor services. • The LOSSAN group is developing a comprehensive Strategic Implementation Plan, which includes short term improvements, development of a business case for new passenger rail services, and implementation of governance changes to assume local administrative responsibilities. Short-Term Service Improvements Analysis for the 2014 time frame is largely driven by the existing and near-term infrastructure to be constructed and in use within the next three years. In terms of new service, a number of changes were tested: • For the Pacific Surfliner, additional service between San Diego and Los Angeles, additional limited stop express service and schedule enhancements; • Additional Metrolink commuter service from the Inland Empire and Orange County to Los Angeles (3 new 91 Line trains, and 2 IEOC Trains); • New "thru" commuter trains, making all stops between San Diego and Los Angeles; and • New commuter service between Ventura and Santa Barbara. 150 Agenda Item 8 • " " " Local Authority for Intercity Passenger Rail Services California has three state-supported intercity passenger rail routes, the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin, all of which have been initiated and/or expanded largely as a result of the voter-approved bond measures passed in 1 990. These bonds have provided state capital funding and have successfully transformed these three routes into some of the busiest intercity passenger routes in the nation. Local Authority in the LOSSAN Corridor At its August 24, 2011, meeting, the LOSSAN Board, with input from the member agency chief executive officers (CEOs), unanimously approved in concept an initiative to explore the possibility of local authority for the corridor's state� supported intercity service, a function currently managed by the Caltrans Division of Rail in Sacramento. This would ultimately require legislation to grant authority to LOSSAN or a new JPA or other local entity. OCTA has taken the lead in developing this legislation, which is planned to be proposed in January 2012. Commission staff is engaged and participating in the development of the legislation. The overall goal of this local authority is to transform the existing Pacific Surfliner intercity rail service into a service under local control that is more responsive to local needs issues and consumer desires. The benefits of placing passenger rail service in the LOSSAN rail corridor under local management could potentially include the following: " A more efficient and effective allocation of resources and decision making related to service expansion, frequencies, extensions, connectivity, and schedules; " A unified voice at the state and federal level when advocating on passenger rail issues; " Consolidated passenger services such as fares, ticketing, marketing, advertising, and information systems; " Coordinated capital improvement priorities that benefit the entire corridor ; and " More focused oversight and management of on-time performance, schedule integration, mechanical issues, and customer service by local staff. One of the risks involved is that, due to federal changes in the funding of Amtrak, the state of California will need to pay a greater share of the operating costs for the LOSSAN service, potentially $7-15 million more each year. The unknown question is that if the state cannot afford these additional costs, will the local agencies be expected to contribute to maintain or grow the rail service. As an example of some of the challenges, there is currently a major discussion on the existing Rail to Rail program that allows Metrolink pass holders to ride free on 151 Agenda Item 8 Amtrak trains. The issue from Amtrak and Caltrans is that the reimbursement rate paid by Metrolink is not sufficient. Metrolink's position is that the seats would potentially go unused if the Metrolink riders were not there and it is a significant added convenience for local riders. One of the proposals is to have Metrolink trains replace the slots of peak commuting period Amtrak trains. This is a concern for the Commission since any new commuter trains operating in the corridor from Los Angeles to Fullerton would require the use of the Commission's track rights. • In giving approval to the local governance concept, the LOSSAN Board requested that detailed analysis be conducted to address potential risks or areas of concern identified by member agencies of LOSSAN prior to seeking legislation. These areas of risk include funding stability and reliability, maintenance of service levels, potential impact of changes on current operating agreements, and the impact of the proposed JPA on commuter rail operations on the corridor. The latest version of the detailed October 26 LOSSAN Board meeting. status in the new format. governance analysis was presented at the Changes include moving Caltrans to ex-officio Additionally, where earlier governance concepts included the Commission as a voting member, the latest recommendation from the CEOs' group was to draft legislation without addressing the Commission's voting rights status, preferring instead to maintain the status quo governance structure to begin legislative discussions. Commission staff believes that LOSSAN CEOs and board members should resolve the question of the Commission's voting rights prior to introduction of legislation in Sacramento. Furthermore, Commission staff recommends that the Commission amend its state legislative platform with the following policy item: • • Oppose any legislation that reforms LOSSAN operations and/or governance that does not include the Commission as a full voting member of the LOSSAN joint powers authority and recognition of rail service in Riverside County that is impacted by LOSSAN and/or the Commission's legal rights related to passenger rail in Southern California. There is no fiscal impact to the authorization to execute the agreement. Attachments: 1) LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws 2) LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement •152 Agenda Item 8 " ATTACHMENT 1 BYLAWS THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY PREAMBLE The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency is a Joint Powers Agency created at the recommendation of the Los Angeles-San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group which recognized the need for a public agency to oversee increases in the level of intercity passenger rail service in the travel corridor between San Diego and Los Angeles. This agency has evolved as rail service has been extended to Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties and now includes all counties along the Pacific Surfliner Corridor from San Diego to San Luis Obispo County. ARTICLE I -FUNCTIONS " The functions of the Agency to be accomplished in coordination with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority called for in Article 10 of Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code, Sections 130450-130455, are: Section A. Plan, recommend programs, promote and identify funding sources for improvements to intercity and commuter passenger rail services and facilities in the LOSSAN corridor, including the acquisition or leasing of rights-of-way, stations and station sites; the leasing or acquisition of equipment; and related activities. Section B. Negotiate for and accept funds to be expended for the purpose of providing and improving intercity and commuter passenger rail services and activities. Section C. Review and comment on facility, service, and operational plans and programs of the agency or agencies operating sub-corridor commuter rail service in the LOSSAN corridor. Section D. Coordinate facility, service, and operational plans and programs with other organizations proViding passenger rail service in the Southern California Region, adjacent regions or with whom the agency may share common facilities, including the agency or agencies operating sub-corridor commuter rail service in the LOSSAN corridor, the BNSF Railway Corporation and Union Pacific or their successor corporations, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). Section E. Advocate improvements to services and facilities for the corridor before local, regionat state, and federal officials and agencies . " IDSSAN Rail Corridor AgenClJ Bylaws, 2011. 153 1 ARTICLE II -DEFINITIONS • Section A. Section B. Section C. Section D. SectionE. Section F. Section G. SectionH. Section I. SectionJ. Section K. SectionJ. Agency means the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency. Governing Board or Board means the Board of Directors of the Agency. LOSSAN is the acronym for Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo. Voting member agencies mean Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, San Diego Association of Governments, Ventura County Transportation Commission, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and California Department of Transportation. Ex-officio non-voting member agency means the Southern California Association of Governments, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), California High-Speed Rail Authority, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Regional Transportation Planning Agency means an entity authorized to prepare a regional transportation plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65080. Corridor City means a city adjacent to the LOSSAN right-of-way. • Southern California Regional Rail Authority means the institutional structure developed under Article 10 of Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code, Sections 130450-130455, for coordination of Southern California commuter rail passenger services in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. LOSSAN North is defined as Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. LOSSAN South is defined as Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Fiscal Year means from July 1 to and including the following June 30. California State Rail Plan is prepared every two years by the California Department of Transportation as an examination of passenger and freight rail transportation in California, in accordance with Section 14036 of the Government Code. LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2011. 2 • 154 " ARTICLE III -MEMBERSHIP Section A. Voting Members of the Governing Board All powers of the Agency shall be exercised by the Governing Board. The Governing Board shaH be selected and composed as follows and each member agency's appointee(s) shall have one vote unless otherwise noted: 1. Two members appointed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; one from its own membership or former membership, and one from its own membership, former membership or selected by the Authority from a corridor city. 2. Two members appointed by the Orange County Transportation Authority selected from its own membership or former membership. 3. A member appointed by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System selected from its own membership or former membership. 4. A member appointed by the North County Transit District selected from its own membership or former membership. " 5. A member appointed by the San Diego Association of Governments selected from its own membership or former membership . 6. While three members of the Governing Board shall represent San Diego County (San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, and San Diego Association of Governments), these three members shall have a total of two votes. This voting procedure shall be specified by separate agreement among the three San Diego County member agencies. 7. A member appointed by the Ventura County Transportation Commission selected from its own membership or former membership. 8. A member appointed by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments selected from its own membership or former membership. 9. A member appointed by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments selected from its own membership or former membership. 10. The CaItrans Director or designee. 11. Each voting member agency may appoint alternates to serve in the absence of the regular appointee . " LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2011. 155 3 Section B. Ex-Officio Member of the Governing Board 1. The Southern California Association of Governments shall be a non-voting, • ex-officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the Board. The ex-officio member may appoint alternates to serve in the absence of the regular appointee. 2. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) shall be a non-voting, ex-officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the board, preferably from its Board of Directors. The ex officio member may appoint alternatives to serve in the absence of the regular appointee. 3. California High-Speed Rail Authority shall be a non-voting, ex-officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the board, preferably from its Board of Directors. The ex-officio member may appoint alternatives to serve in the absence of the regular appointee. 4. The Riverside County Transportation Commission shall be a non-voting, ex officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the board, preferably from its Board of Directors. The ex-officio member may appoint alternatives to serve in the absence of the regular appointee. ARTICLE IV -ADMINISTRATION Section A In General -The Officers shall consist of the Chair and a Vice-Chair, both of •whom shall represent a voting member of the Governing Board, a Treasurer, Auditor, and other officers as the Agency deems necessary and as set out in these ByLaws. Section B. Term of Office -The Chair and Vice-Chair shall serve one-year terms of office. Sectionc. Election of Officers -The Agency at its first meeting and at its first quarterly meeting every year thereafter, and at such other times as there may be a vacancy in either office, shall elect a Chair who shall preside at meetings and a Vice-Chair who shall preside in the Chair's absence. Section D. Executive Committee -There shall be a maximum of 4 voting members including the Chair, Vice-Chair and Past Chair if available or one person appointed by the Board with the Executive Director serving as a non-voting member. Among these members, there shall be at least one member from LOSSAN North and LOSSAN South. The Executive Committee will meet as needed. 1. The Executive Committee shall have the authority and duty to: a. Review and approve the agendas for the meetings of the Board as needed; LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylmos, 2011. 4 • 156 " b. Provide direction to the Executive Director; c. Make recommendations as needed to the Board regarding the work program, budget, positions to be taken on issues, contracts, and all other matters within the jurisdiction of the agency; d. Evaluate Executive Director in conjunction with the Board; e. Monitor the function of all agency committees. f. Minutes of Executive Committee shall be circulated to the Board of Directors. g. Executive Committee is authorized to act in emergency situations but all actions must be reported to the Board. Section E. Appointment of Executive Director -The Executive Director and such other officers as the Agency may deem necessary shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Governing Board. " 1. The Executive Director will serve at the pleasure of the Governing Board, which shall determine conditions of employment, including compensation. 2. At the discretion of the Governing Board, duties of the Executive Director may be assigned to a voting member agency's staff person. 3. Contested personnel decisions of the Executive Director may be appealed to the Board of Directors by any affected person with a statement of cause or purpose. The Board may make a determination to hear or not hear the matter solely at the Board's discretion by majority vote. Section F. Removal of Officers Officers may be removed from office by a majority vote of the member agencies. Voting on removal shall take place no sooner than at the next regular meeting following the meeting at which a motion to remove officers was introduced. The motion should include the reasons for removal. Section G. Duties of Various Officers 1. Duties of the Chair -The Chair shall, if present, preside at all meetings of the Agency and exercise and perform such other powers and duties as may from time to time be assigned to the Chair by the Agency or provided herein. In any case in which the execution of a document or the performance of an act is directed, the Chair, unless an act of the Agency otherwise provides, is empowered and directed to execute such document or perform such act. " LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2011. 157 5 2. Duties of the Vice-Chair The Vice-Chair shall perform, in order, the duties of the Chair in his or her absence and, when so acting, shall have all • the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chair. 3. Chair Pro Tempore -In the event of the absence of or inability to act of the Chair and Vice-Chair, the voting members present at any meeting of the Agency, by order entered in the minutes, shall select one of their voting members to act as Chair Pro Tempore, who, while so acting, shall have all the authority of the Chair. 4. Duties of the Treasurer -The Treasurer of one of the voting member agencies, designated by a majority of a quorum of the Governing Board, may serve as the Treasurer of the Agency. The Treasurer shall be the depository of funds and have custody of all funds of the Agency from whatever source. If staff from one member agency is performing the Executive Director functions, the Treasurer duties will be performed by another member agency. a. The Treasurer shall comply with all duties imposed under California Government Code, Section 6500 et.seq. 5. Duties of the Auditor The Auditor of one of the voting member agencies, designated by a majority of a quorum of the Governing Board, may serve as the Auditor-Controller of the Agency. The Auditor-Controller shall draw warrants or check warrants against the funds of the Agency in the Treasury when demands are approved by the Governing Board or such •other persons as may be specifically designated in the Bylaws. a. The Auditor shall comply with an duties imposed under California Government Code, Section 6500 et.seq. 6. Duties of the Executive Director -The Executive Director shall be an officer of the Agency. The powers and duties of the Executive Director are: a. To administer the personnel system, including contract and non contract employees, of the Agency. b. To administer all contracts. c. To cause to be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant and submitted to the Agency as soon as practical after the end of each fiscal year, a post audit of the financial transactions and records of the Agency for the preceding year. d. To keep the Agency advised as to the needs of the Agency. e. To have full charge of the administration of the business affairs of the Agency. LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenClJ Bylaws, 2011. 6 • 158 " f. To see that all ordinances, rules, and regulations, motions, or resolutions are implemented and enforced. g. To prepare and submi t to the Agency on or before the last meeting of March of each year a proposed budget for the succeeding fiscal year. h. The Executive Director is authorized to take any or all of the following actions in relation to non-contract employees of the Agency. (1) To hire employees at the appropriate salary range, as determined by the Board. (2) To promote, transfer, suspend with or without pay, or discharge any employee. i. The Executive Director is authorized to make disbursements of funds of the Agency not to exceed $5,000 each for the business of the Agency, provided that this limitation shall not apply to salary or to other disbursements that are necessary to meet contractual obligations that have been approved by the Agency per the authorized budget. " j . The Executive Director is authorized to contract for and execute, on behalf of the Agency, supplies, equipment and materials, and personnel service contracts not to exceed $5,000 without prior Agency approval. k. The Executive Director shall keep or cause to be kept a book of minutes of all meetings of the Agency. 1. The Executive Director shall give or cause to be given notice of all meetings as may be required by law, by these By Laws, or by motion or resolution of the Agency. m. The Executive Director shall: (1) Oversee the functions of the Treasurer and Auditor. (2) Execute a bond with one or more corporate sureties approved by the Agency in the sum of $250,000 payable to the Agency, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the duties of the office, and the payment of all money received by him according to law and the orders of the Agency. (3) Prepare or cause to be prepared a written report filed with the Agency quarterly (July, October, January, and April) and " circulated to the Board of each year reporting the amount of money held, the amount and source of receipts since the last LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenClJ Bylllws, 2011. 159 7 report, and the amount and recipient of the amounts paid out • since the last report prior to the meeting. (4) Keep a full and complete record of all financial transactions and records of the Agency. n. The Executive Director shall define an annual work program and report annually to the Board on progress. o. The Executive Director shall have such other duties, powers, and responsibilities as may from time to time be assigned by the Agency. p. At the discretion of the Board, duties of the Executive Director may be assigned to a voting member agency' staff person. Section H. Committees 1. Technical Advisory Committee -The Board shall form a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review, on behalf of the ~oard, technical issues associated with the improvements in passenger rail service and related facilities in the LOSSAN corridor. a. The membership of the Committee shall include representatives from the voting member agencies and Ex-Officio non-voting agencies as well as representatives from the California Public Utilities Commission, BNSF Railway, Union Pacific Railroad, Southern California Regional Rail Authority JMetrolink, and the Federal Railroad Administration. • b. Quorum -At least 5 members of the TAC including at least one member from each county of Orange, San Diego, and Los Angeles and at least one member from LOSSAN North shall constitute a quorum. c. All actions of the T AC require a majority vote of the voting members present. 2. The Board shall form other committees as necessary. 3. The Chair shall name all members of Board committees with consent of a majority of the Board. ARTICLE V -MEETINGS Section A. Agenda Matters to be placed on the agenda for any regular meeting may be filed with the Executive Director or the Chair of the Agency. The agenda for each regular meeting shall be prepared by the Executive Director. Copies of the agenda shall be mailed or delivered to each member three working days prior to the regular meeting date. Formal action, other than appointment of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2011. 8 • 160 " committee or subcommittee, will not ordinarily be taken with respect to any matter not included on the agenda unless a majority of the voting members of Section B. Section C. " Section D. Section E. Section F. Section G. SectionH. the Agency present at the meeting consent to such consideration. Regular Meetings Regular meetings of the Agency shall be held at least quarterly, on the date determined by the Chair. The meetings of the Agency will be held at a location at the discretion of the Board. 1. The meeting place may rotate among the member agencies. 2. The Chair shall announce the date and place of the next meeting. Special Meetings A special meeting may be called at any time by the Chair or, in the Chair's absence, by the Vice-Chair, in order, or by any six members by delivering personally or by mail written notice to the Executive Director and to each member. Such notice shall be delivered at least 24 hours before the time of such meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business transacted at such meeting. Such written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the Secretary a written waiver of notice. Such waiver may be given by telegram or facsimile. Such written notice shall be deemed waived as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes . Quorum -At least five of the voting member agencies of the Governing Board, including at least one member from each county of Orange, San Diego, and Los Angeles and at least one voting member from LOSSAN North shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and all official acts of the Agency. Ralph M. Brown Act -All meetings of the Agency shall be called, noticed, and conducted in the manner prescribed in the California Government Code, Section 54950,et.seq. Committee of the Whole -At any regular meeting not held because of a lack of a quorum, members present, if less than a quorum of the Agency, may constitute themselves a "Committee of the Whole" for purposes of discussing agenda matters or any other matter of interest to the members present. The committee shall automatically cease to exist if a quorum of the Agency is present at the meeting. Motions -Only voting members may make and second motions. Actions of the Board -All actions of the Board shall pass by a majority vote of the quorum. " LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenClJ Bylaws, 2011. 161 9 ARTICLE VI -PROCUREMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES • Section A. In General Ihe Agency may enter into contracts of any nature including, but not limited to, contracts to indemnify and hold harmless, to employ labor, and to do acts necessary and convenient for the full exercise of its powers. The Agency may contract with any public agency or with any other person or organization upon such terms and conditions as the approving authority finds are in the best interests of the Agency. 1. The Agency shall develop administrative procedures establishing proper procurement practices and authority to award contracts. 2. The Executive Director may authorize the purchase of goods or services for the Agency through the procurement department of any of the member agencies, counties, or other public agency if this would be advantageous to the Agency and if the purchase is conducted using acceptable contracting procedures. Approval of such purchases is reshicted to the same level of approval authority as would be required were the Agency to conduct the procurement itself. ARTICLE VII -BUDGET, DUES AND FINANCIAL RECORDS Section A. Budget Adoption -Each year no later than the Agency's last meeting in March, the Executive Director shall submit for the Board's adoption the Annual Budget for the succeeding fiscal year. Approval of a majority of a quorum of the Board • shall be required for adoption of the Budget and any amendments thereto. Section B. Board Approval of Expenditures 1. The Board's approval of an Annual Budget shall be deemed approval of expenditures made in accordance with the approved Budget. All expenditures in excess of the designations and limitations of the approved Annual Budget and in excess of $5,000 shall be made only upon the approval of a majority of a quorum of the Board. 2. The Board shall receive a quarterly report on expenditures of $5,000 and less. 3. With respect to procurements of goods and services, approvals of contract awards shall be made in accordance with the Agency's administrative procedures, but payment of a contractor or consultant in accordance with the terms of an approved contract is authorized without further Board approval. 4. Approvals of expenditures for travel, conference and business-related activities and reimbursement of Board Members and Agency employees LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenCl} Bylaws, 2011. 10 • 162 " " " for such expenditures shall be governed by the Travel, Conference and Business Expense procedures to be adopted by the Agency. Sectionc. Dues. The Member agencies shall be responsible for the payment annually, of dues and the amounts periodically budgeted by the Board, as and for the operating costs of the organization ("Dues"). Sixty (60) days notice shall be provided to Members of the date of the meeting at which any increase in the Dues is to be determined for the following year. If an increase in dues is proposed from the previous year, a majority affirmative vote of the total voting membership of the Board is required to set the new dues. Section D. Books and Accounts A full and complete record of all financial transactions of the Agency shall be maintained by the Executive Director, with the support of the Auditor and Treasurer in accordance with practices established by, or consistent with those utilized by the Controller of the State of California for like public agencies. In particular, the Executive Director or designee, with the support of the Auditor and Treasurer, shall comply with the requirements of the statute governing joint power agencies, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code commencing at Section 6500. Section E. Audit Reports -The Executive Director or designee and the Auditor shall cause to be prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant an audit of the financial transactions and records of the Agency for the preceding year. The audit shall be presented as soon as practical after the close of each fiscal year. In addition, the Executive Director or designee shall prepare and file with the Agency quarterly reports as stated in Article IV, Section G6m(4). Section F. Investment of Funds �All funds of the Agency from whatever source shall be deposited with the Treasurer who shall have custody of the funds. All funds of the Agency will be invested in the manner and upon the conditions set forth in Government Code Section 53601. In the event that receipt of funds from a particular source shall be conditioned upon investment requirements for those funds, and furthermore, that those requirements do not conflict with Government Code Section 53601, the Treasurer shall invest such funds in compliance with the requirements of the funding source. Section G. Should any provision of these Bylaws be found invalid or unenforceable, the decision shall affect only the provision interpreted, and all remaining provisions shall be severable and enforceable. ARTICLE VIII -AMENDMENTS Amendments to these Bylaws may be proposed by a Board Representative. The Amendment shall be submitted to the Board at a meeting at least one month prior to the meeting at which the Amendment is voted upon. A vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the total voting membership of the Board is required to adopt an Amendment. LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2011. 163 11 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority • Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: Clerk of the Board • Date 12LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2011. • 164 " Orange County Transportation Authority Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: " the Board Date " LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenClJ Bylaws, 2011. 165 13 North County Transit District • Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: Board • Date 14LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2011. • 166 " San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: " Clerk of the Board Date " LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenClJ Bylaws, 2011. 167 15 California Department of Transportation • Date • 16 LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenClj Bylaws, 2011. • 168 " Southern California Association of Governments Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: " Clerk of the Board ~......~---------------~--------- Date " LOSSAN I\ail Corridor AgenClJ Bylaws, 2011. 169 17 San Diego Association of Governments • Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: • Date 18LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylmlls, 2011. • 170 " Ventura County Transportation Commission Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: " the Board Date " LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenClJ Bylaws, 2011. 171 19 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments • Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: Board • Date 20LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenClJ Bylaws, 2011. • 172 " San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: " Clerk the Board Date " LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2011. 173 21 National Railroad Passenger Corporation • Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: Clerk of the Board • Date 22LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenClJ Bylatos, 2011. • 174 " California High-Speed Rail Authority Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: " the Board Date " LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2011. 175 23 Riverside County Transportation Commission • Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original document approved by the Board of Directors: Clerk of the Board • Date 24LOSSAN Rail Corridor AgenCl) Bylmlls, 2011. • 176 ATTACHMENT 2 • JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT • CONCERNING THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY (Signature Page) AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY INTRODUCTION This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California by and among the following public agencies that are parties of this Agreement: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Orange County Transportation Authority; North County Transit District; San Diego Metropolitan Transit System; California Department of Transportation; Southern California Association of Governments; San Diego Association of Governments; Ventura County Transportation Commission; Santa Barbara County Association of Governments; San Luis Obispo Council of Governments; National Railroad Passenger Corporation; California High-Speed Rail Authority; • Riverside County Transportation Commission 177 RECITALS •WHEREAS, some, but not all of the parties to this Agreement had entered into that certain joint exercise of powers agreement to establish the Los Angeles-San Diego Rail Corridor Agency, effective February 6, 1989, but desire to amend and restate such existing joint exercise of powers agreement as provided herein; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement recognize the need for a public agency to oversee increases in the level of intercity passenger rail service in the travel corridor between San Diego, Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo, and improvements to the facilities that will ensure reduced travel times and that will aid the joint operation of freight and passenger service in the Corridor; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles-San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group created pursuant to Senate Bill 1095 (Chapter 1313, Statutes of 1985) analyzed the feasibility of increasing the level of intercity passenger service in the corridor and instituting commuter rail service from San Clemente to Union Station in Los Angeles and from Oceanside to San Diego; identified and recommended improvements to track and right-of-way to accommodate the higher levels of service; and recommended the creation of a joint exercise of powers agency to oversee the implementation of additional intercity rail passenger service and the necessary track improve ments; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement believe that the joint exercise of their powers will provide an organization capable of implementing the recommendations contained in the State • Rail Corridor Study Group's June 1987 report entitled, Los Angeles-San Diego State Rail Corridor Study, and undertaking related efforts to improve corridor services and facilities and coordinate sub-corridor commuter rail services with corridor services; and WHEREAS, each party to this Agreement is authorized to contract with each other for the joint exercise of any common power under Article I, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California; WHEREAS, rail service on the coast corridor has been extended to Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, the parties to this Agreement agree to the following: 1.0 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Agency means the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency. 1.2 Governing Board or Board means the Board of Directors of the Agency. 1.3 LOSSAN is the acronym for Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo. • 178 " 1.4 Voting member agencies mean Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, San Diego Association of Governments, Ventura County Transportation Commission, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and California Department of Transportation. 1.5 Ex-officio non-voting member agency means the Southern California Association of Governments, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), California High-Speed Rail Authority and the Riverside County Transportation Commission. 1.6 Regional Transportation Planning Agency means an entity authorized to prepare a regional transportation plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65080. 1.7 Corridor City means a city adjacent to the LOSSAN right-of-way. " 1.8 Southern California Regional Rail Authority means the institutional structure developed under Article 10 of Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code, Sections 130450-130455, for coordination of Southern California commuter rail passenger services in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. 1.9 LOSSAN North is defined as Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. 1.10 LOSSAN South is defined as Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. 1.11 Fiscal Year means from July 1 to and including the following June 30. 1.12 California State Rail Plan is prepared every two years by the California Department of Transportation as an examination of passenger and freight rail transportation in California, in accordance with Section 14036 of the Government Code. 2.0 CREATION OF AGENCY There is hereby created an organization to be known as the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency, hereafter II Agency", which shall be a public entity separate and apart from any member agency. The Agency shall be governed by the terms of this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and any Bylaws passed and adopted by its Governing Board. 3.0 PURPOSES " The specific purposes for the creation of the Agency and the exercise of common powers are as follows: 179 3.1 Plan, program, and fund improvements for intercity rail passenger services and facilities in the LOSSAN corridor, including the acquisition or leasing of right-of• way, stations and station sites; the leasing or acquisition of equipment; and related activities. 3.2 Negotiate for and accept funds to be expended for the purpose of providing and improving intercity rail passenger services and activities. 3.3 Review and comment on facility, service, and operational plans and programs of the agency or agencies operating sub-corridor commuter rail service in the LOSSAN Corridor. 3.4 Coordinate facility, service, and operational plans and programs with other organizations providing rail passenger service in the Southern California Region or with whom the Agency may share common facilities, including the agency or agencies operating sub-corridor commuter rail service in the LOSSAN Corridor, the BNSF Railway and Union Pacific or their successor corporations, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). 3.5 Advocate before local, regional, state, and federal officials and agencies for improvements to services and facilities for the corridor. 4.0 POWERS OF THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY As may be necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement, the •Agency shall have the power in its own name to undertake the following: 4.1 To exercise in the manner provided by this Agreement the powers common to each of the voting members and necessary to the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement. 4.2 To make and enter into contracts. 4.3 To employ agents and employees. 4.4 To contract for the services deemed necessary to meet the purposes of the Agency. 4.5 To acquire, by lease, purchase, or lease-purchase, and to hold and dispose of real and personal property necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. 4.6 To construct, manage, and maintain facilities and services. 4.7 To sue and be sued in its own name. 4.8 To incur debts, liabilities, or obligations. However, the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Agency shall not constitute any debt, liability, or obligation of any of the agencies that are parties to this Agreement. • 180 " 4.9 To apply for and accept grants for financial aid pursuant to any applicable state or federal statutes. 4.10 To exercise any of the powers set forth in Section 6508 of the Government Code. In exercising these powers, the Agency is subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising the powers of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority or its successor agency. 4.11 To exercise such other powers and to engage in such other activities as are authorized by law (except bonding powers) and approved by the Board. 5.0 GOVERNING BOARD OF THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY The composition of the membership of the Governing Board shall be as follows: 5.1. Voting Members of the Governing Board All powers of the Agency Shall be exercised by the Governing Board. The Governing Board shall be selected and composed as follows and each member agency's appointee(s) shall have one vote unless otherwise noted: " 1. Two members appointed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; one from its own membership or former membership, and one from its own membership, former membership or selected by the Authority from a corridor city. 2. Two members appointed by the Orange County Transportation Authority selected from its own membership or former membership. 3. A member appointed by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System selected from its own membership or former membership. 4. A member appointed by the North County Transit District selected from its own membership or former membership. 5. A member appointed by the San Diego Association of Governments selected from its own membership or former membership. 6. While three members of the Governing Board shall represent San Diego County (San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, and San Diego Association of Governments), these three members shall have a total of two votes. This voting procedure shall be specified by separate agreement among the three San Diego County member agencies. 7. A member appointed by the Ventura County Transportation Commission selected from its own membership or former membership . " 181 8. A member appointed by the Santa Barbara County Association of • Governments selected from its own membership or former membership. 9. A member appointed by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments selected from its own membership or former membership. 10. The Caltrans Director or designee. 11. Each voting member agency may appoint alternates to serve in the absence of the regular appointee. 5.2 Ex-Officio Member of the Governing Board 1. The Southern California Association of Governments shall be a non-voting, ex-officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the Board. The ex-officio member may appoint alternates to serve in the absence of the regular appointee. 2. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) shall be a non voting, ex-officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the board, preferably from its Board of Directors. The ex officio member may appoint alternatives to serve in the absence of the regular appointee. 3. California High-Speed Rail Authority shall be a non-voting, ex-officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the • board, preferably from its Board of Directors. The ex-officio member may appoint alternatives to serve in the absence of the regular appointee. 4. The Riverside County Transportation Commission shall be a non-voting, ex officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the board, preferably from its Board of Directors. The ex-officio member may appoint alternatives to serve in the absence of the regular appointee. All powers of the Agency shall be exercised by the Governing Board. 6.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY TO EXISTING AND FUTURE SUB-CORRIDOR COMMUTER RAIL AGENCIES The Agency will endeavor to ensure that there is coordination between itself and any sub-corridor commuter rail agency which uses the same facilities to provide commuter rail services as are used by the intercity passenger rail corridor service. • 182 " 7.0 OFFICERS AND APPOINTEES OF THE GOVERNING BOARD AND THE AGENCY 7.1 The officers of the Governing Board, selected from among its voting membership, shall be a Chair and Vice-Chair. The term of office shall be one year. 7.2 The officers of the Agency shall be: 7.2.1 The Treasurer of one of the voting member agencies, designated by a majority of a quorum of the Governing Board, may serve as the Treasurer of the Agency. The Treasurer shall be the depository of funds and have custody of all funds of the Agency from whatever source. 7.2.2 The Auditor of one of the voting member agencies, designated by a majority of a quorum of the Governing Board, may serve as the Auditor-Controller of the Agency. The Auditor-Controller shall draw warrants or check-warrants against the funds of the Agency in the Treasury when the demands are approved by the Board of Directors or such other persons as may be specifically designated for the purpose in the Bylaws . " 7.3 The Auditor-Controller and the Treasurer shall comply with all duties imposed under Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title t of the California Government Code commencing with Section 6500. 7.4 The Executive Director shall serve at the pleasure of the Board: 7.4.1 The Governing Board may appoint such an Executive Director. The Agency shall obtain an official bond in an amount determined by the Board guaranteeing faithful performance of the Executive Director's duties. 7.4.2 At the discretion of the Governing Board, duties of the Executive Director may be assigned to a voting member agency's staff person. 8.0 ANNUAL BUDGET The Governing Board shall approve a preliminary administrative budget and a capital improvement program for the succeeding fiscal year no later than April 1 of each year. The Board shall adopt a final budget no later than June 30 of each year. No funding or financial obligations are created against any member agency solely as a cOIl.',equence of executing this Agreement. " 183 9.0 FUNDING FOR THE AGENCY • In addition to any funds derived from grants provided for in Section 4.9 of this Agree ment, the voting member agencies (except California Department of Transportation) shall consider, through their agency's budgetary process, contribution of funds neces sary to carry out the purposes and powers of the Agency, consistent with the Agency's adopted budget and any cost sharing formula adopted by the voting member agencies. 10.0 QUORUM At least five of the voting member agencies of the Governing Board, including at least one member from each county of Orange, San Diego, and Los Angeles and at least one voting member from LOSSAN North shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and all official acts of the Agency. 11.0 RALPH M. BROWN ACT All meetings of the Agency shall be called, noticed, held, and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the California Government Code). 12.0 BYLAWS The Board may adopt from time to time Bylaws as may be required for the conduct of its meetings and the orderly operation of the Agency. • 13.0 COMMITTEES The Board shall create the following committees: 13.1 The Board shall form a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review on behalf of the Board technical issues associated with the improvements in passenger rail service and related facilities in the LOSSAN Corridor, including stations and rights-of-way, the coordination of public mass transit services and facilities, the coordination of passenger and freight services in the Corridor and other technical matters. The membership of the Committee is authorized in the Bylaws. 13.2 The Board shall form other committees as are necessary. 14.0 COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES 14.1 In order to conserve fiscal resources, the Board shall take actions to ensure that the technical expertise, results of previous analysis related to passenger rail service in the LOSSAN Corridor, information bases, and other data available from member and other relevant agencies shall, to the extent feasible, be fully utilized. • 184 " 14.2 In order to ensure that improvements to intercity rail passenger services and facilities are consistent with the California State Rail Plan, the Agency shall submit an annual plan or program for expenditures in the Corridor prior to the beginning of each fiscal year to the California Department of Transportation. In order to coordinate improvements with the corridor's Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs), this annual plan or program for expenditures shall be submitted to the Southern California Association of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. Each RTP A shall determine whether or not the annual plan or program is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan for its area of jurisdiction. The Agency shall submit an annual plan or program for expenditures in the Corridor to Amtrak, for its review when developing its Strategic Guidance and Five-Year Financial Plan. 15.0 DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until such time that a majority of the voting member agencies determine it is in the public interest to dissolve the Agency. This does not preclude member agencies from exercising their right to withdraw their membership in the Agency. Ninety day written notice shall be given. 16.0 DISPOSITION OF ASSETS " Upon termination of this Agreement, any money in possession of the Agency after the payment of all liabilities, costs, expenses, and charges validly incurred under this Agreement shall be returned to the member agencies in proportion to their contributions determined as of the time of termination. Land and fixed facilities shall revert to the voting member agencies in which they are located. Rolling stocks shall become the property of California Department of Transportation for use in the Corridor. 17.0 NOTICE Addresses of the parties to the Agreement for the purpose of formal communications among the signatories. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1 Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 (213) 922-3041 Orange County Transportation Authority 550 S. Main St. P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 (714) 560-6282 " North County Transit District 810 Mission Avenue 185 Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 967-2828 • San Diego Metropolitan Transit System 1255 Imperial A venue, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 231-1466 California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 (916) 323-0742 Southern California Association of Governments 818 W 7th Street, 12 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 (213) 236-1800 San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 595-5300 Ventura County Transportation Commission 950 County Square A venue, Suite 207 Ventura CA 93003 •(805) 642-1591 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 260 North San Antonio Road, Suite B Santa Barbara CA 93110 (805) 961-8900 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1114 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-4219 Amtrak 510 Water Street, 5 th Floor Oakland CA 94607 (510) 238-4300 California High-Speed Rail Authority 925 L Street Suite 1425 Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 324-1541 • 186 " Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rt! Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 18.0 AUDIT The Agency shall provide for the accountability of all funds and shall provide for an annual audit pursuant to Section 6506 of the Government Code. 19.0 AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT This Agreement may be amended at any time by the unanimous Agreement of the voting member agencies. 20.0 AGREEMENT, COMPLETE This Agreement constitutes the full and complete Agreement of the parties. This Agreement shall be effective when all member agencies have approved and signed this Agreement. This Agreement shall supercede the Joint Powers Agreement to establish the Los Angeles San Diego Rail Corridor Agency dated February 6, 1989 and " . subsequent amendments adopted prior to the dates indicated below . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement by autho� rized officials on the dates indicated below. 21.0 COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. " 187 [AGENCY NAME HERE] • Date: By: { name, title} • • 188 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Funding Request WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: " 1 ) Provide Measure A funding to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) in the amount of $3 million per year for two years as part of the Commission's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) funding obligation; 2) Revisit the continuation of this funding amount in two years; 3) Work with RCA to assist in fulfilling the MSHCP funding obligations if a federal loan guarantee program is not in place in two years; and 4) Direct staff to return to the Commission for approval of an agreement with RCA regarding the funding commitment. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: Caltrans and the Commission are participants in the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The MSHCP, approved in June 2003, is a comprehensive, multi� jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on conservation of species and the associated habitat in Western Riverside County. Among other things, the MSHCP addresses project impact mitigation for proposed improvements to existing routes such as Interstates 10, 15, and 215, and State Routes 60,71,74,79, and 91, as well as coverage of anticipated new transportation projects in the covered area of Western Riverside County for the next 75 years. As part of the MSHCP, approximately 153,000 acres of additional reserve lands will be secured to add to the approximately 347,000 acres already in public/quasi� public lands. The MSHCP funding plan anticipates that the entire 153,000 " additional acres of conservation area will be assembled within 25 years of plan Agenda Item 9 189 approval (i.e. in 2029). Over the remaining 50 years of the state and federal permits, local mitigation will contribute to the long-term management and • monitoring of the MSHCP Conservation Area. Cattrans and Commission Obligations Caltrans' obligation under the plan requires "contributing to the assembly of additional reserve lands through acquisition of two conservation land areas pursuant to Section 8.4.4. of the MSHCP, one of approximately 2,000 acres in the eastern portion of the criteria area and one of approximately 1,000 acres in the western portion of the criteria area, within the first eight years of the permits" by June 2012 and creation of a $9.6 million endowment in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Game for the management and monitoring of additional reserve lands, in perpetuity. The Commission's obligations under the MSHCP and the implementing agreement include the contribution of $153 million for mitigation of its covered activities. The Commission's contributions shall occur proportionately prior to impacts to covered species or their habitats. The $9.6 million endowment was funded from the 2005 State Highway Operation Protection Program, so this obligation has been fulfilled. At the time of plan initiation, the anticipated cost for acquisition of the 3,000 acres was $40 million -$8 million from the Interregional Improvement Program and • $32 million from the Commission's Regional Improvement Program funds. This $32 million and the anticipated $121 million of Measure A funding identified in the 2009 Measure A results in the Commission's obligation of $153 million toward assembly of the reserve. To date, the Commission has contributed $128,649,708 to RCA toward the purchase of 8,663 acres, as summarized below: Fiscal Year Contribution Amount 2004/05 $ 1,271,250 2005/06 12,423,731 2006/07 28,158,388 2007/08 25,486,484 2008/09 61 5 Total $ 128,649,708 Of these acres purchased with Commission funding, the Caltrans obligation in the western and eastern portions of the criteria area has been met within the required eight-year time period. As to the Commission's funding obligation, the remaining balance is $24,350,292. •Agenda Item 9 190 " Since 2009 Measure A sales tax revenues did not commence until July 1, 2009, the Commission's funding consisted of debt financing through the Commission's " commercial paper program. The commercial paper notes were subsequently retired through the Commission's issuance of sales tax revenue bonds. Since the commencement of the 2009 Measure A, $335 million in bonds has been issued. Of this amount, 37.5 percent of the financing proceeds were used toward the MSHCP funding obligation, and the Commission has also incurred financing costs such as interest, which are being paid from 2009 Measure A Western County highway and bond financing program revenues. In 2008 when the Commission approved its last contribution of $72.4 million over two fiscal years (2007/08 and 2008109)' it was done with the understanding that the Commission had made significant progress on its 20-year obligation prior to the commencement of the 2009 Measure A and that the Commission would fund the remaining contribution after 2019 during the second decade of the 2009 Measure A. This understanding was due to the following: " The Commission's debt limit at that time was $500 million; it was increased in November 2010 to $975 million; and " Western County Measure A highway revenues were needed through 2019 for projects included in the 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (Delivery Plan) . Recently the Commission received the attached request from RCA to commit to pay $24 million over the next year eight years (i.e., through FY 2018/19) at $3 million per year to enable RCA "to continue to make important acquisitions while land values are low and RCA's development mitigation fees are significantly down." If the Commission were to approve this funding contribution commitment, it would fulfill the Commission's obligation; however, it would also strain the Commission's ability to adequately fund Western County highway and new corridor projects identified in or considered for the Delivery Plan. The Delivery Plan has already been revised to address funding shortfalls and some project schedules have been impacted. These projects include: " SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project " 1-215 Central Widening Project " 1-215 Bi-County High Occupancy Vehicle Project " French Valley Parkway, Phase 2 " 1-15 Widening from 1-215 to San Bernardino County Line " 1-10 Truck Climbing Lane " SR-60 Truck Lane " Mid County Parkway -Right of Way " " SR-79 Realignment -Right of Way Agenda Item 9 191 In addition, flexibility in other programs such as Measure A Regional Arterials could be impacted as a result of funding challenges in the Highway program. It is • impossible to say with certainty that a $24 million allocation to RCA will directly delay or impact a project because there are so many variables in play. Revenue fluctuations and bid prices are just two variables that could determine the Commission's available cash flow. It is reasonable to assume that $24 million is a significant enough sum that it could have an impact. The proposed commitment of $6 million will not have an impact on any eXisting project in the pipeline. It could result in limiting the Commission's ability to add projects. It is appropriate to time a re-evaluation of MSHCP funding support in two years. At that time, RCA will know the status of the proposed federal loan program and several of the large projects listed will be out to construction. Staff will have a more accurate understanding of the Commission's cash flow through 2019. Should the Commission support RCA's request in any amount, the Commission should authorize development and execution of an agreement between the Commission and RCA regarding the mUlti-year funding commitment and the fulfillment of the Commission's $153 million funding obligation. •Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: I ~~ I Year: I FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Amount: I $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Source of Funds: IMeasure A Western County Budget Adjustment: I Yes N/A GLlProject Accounting No.: 26X-31-81405 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 11/16/11 Attachment: RCA Letter Dated November 16, 2011 •Agenda Item 9 192 " Board of Directors I --~Wi;~'~~; I \!.arion Ashl,;y Cmmly (,i Hiv<'rsi&' K,�,vin Bash City William Balt'v City {!f ;\f~Wt"H(l \/nlft'}l 13e11 Benoi t John Benoit ROgPf Berg (f Be(~uJiJon.J Rand V s,)mwr -Lilkf Bob Bl1stt't " rvrafvann E(hv("lnlt:. {~ify (:{Tem('ct!!t~ Thomas FuhrrHim City A-l(~H~kc Linda Kmpa City (:f Hemd Machis;c tt{ [JliiluidS Eugk:l1e ~Y1nnt.)n('z Cfly (~f Cnrl1Ha Ad,11l1 Rush CitV ,,?l Er1~ttNI!{' Jdm Cmillhl Mark Yalbmugh Cily of Perris .!~:J\:grutiye51<l f� Chad"s Landrv Expell tive Direcl\;r 3403 J [Jti, Street" Suite 320 Riverside, Caliiorniil 92501 1",0_ l:I<)x 1667 !:Side, Calilnrnia 92502-1,,67" PhonE" (951) 'i55-9700 )'ax; (951) 955-8873 \Vw\v.\-vrc-rca.onr November 16, 2011 Anne Mayer, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RE: MEASURE A FUNDING FOR THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Dear Anne: The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) respectfully requests that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) provide the last increment of Measure A Funding for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), RCA requests that RCTC commit now approximately $24 million to be paid over the next eight years at $3 million per year. This commitment will then fulfill RCTC's $153 million obligation to the MSHCP for its Covered Activities. RCTC's commitment of funding now will enable us to continue to make important acquisitions while land values are low and RCA's development mitigation fees are significantly down. We sincerely appreciate the valuable contributions to MSHCP acquisitions that RCTC has already made_ RCTC's partnership and dedication has been key to the success of the MSHCP. RCA continues to be ready to assist RCTC in expediting projects through the environmental process. 193 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Election of Riverside County Transportation Commission Officers " STAFF RECOMMENDA TION: This item is for the Commission to conduct an election of officers for 2012 Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: Election of Officers In accordance with the Administrative Code, the Commission must annually hold an election of officers at its first meeting in December. The changes will be effective on January 1 of the following year. The officers of the Commission shall consist of the Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair. The Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair shall annually alternate between a regular member of the Commission representing a city and a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. In April 2011, the Executive Committee approved changes to the Administrative Code to define the mechanics of how elections are conducted for the offices of Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair, which are attached. This includes procedures for handling mUltiple nominees for an office including a balloting procedure. For 2011, Chair, Greg Pettis served as Chair, John J. Benoit as Vice Chair, and Karen Spiegel as Second Vice Chair. For 2012, the Chair and the Second Vice Chair shall be regular members of the Commission representing the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, and the Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission representing a city. Executive Committee In accordance with the Administrative Code, the term of the Executive Committee " members, other than the Chair, Vice Chair, Second Vice Chair, and Past Chair shall be two years. At the end of the two-year term, Executive Committee members Agenda Item 10 194 shall stand for reappointment for the following areas: 1) Two regular members of the Commission representing the cities of Corona, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, • Riverside, and Temecula; 2) A regular member of the Commission representing one of the following cities: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Eastvale Hemet, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Wildomar; 3) A regular member of the Commission representing the following cities: Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage. Such members shall be appointed by a majority vote of the members representing the cities referenced. In December 2010, Commissioners Rick Gibbs and Ron Roberts were appointed to represent the cities listed above under item 1. Commissioner Darcy Kuenzi was appointed to represent the cities listed above under item 2. Commissioner Terry Henderson was reappointment to represent the cities listed above under item 3. These two-year terms will expire in December 2012. Attachments: 1 ) List of Past Commission Chairs 2) Excerpt from the Administrative Code, Article III.A-B • •Agenda Item 10 195 " Riyer~de (OUllty TfOJl~PQrlolion (olDfl1i~sion " COMMISSION CHAIRS 2011 Greg Pettis City of Cathedral City 2010 Bob Buster County of Riverside -District 1 2009 Bob Magee City of Lake Elsinore 2008 Jeff Stone County of Riverside -District 3 2007 Terry Henderson City of La Quinta 2006 Marion Ashley County of Riverside -District 5 2005 Robin Lowe City of Hemet 2004 Roy Wilson County of Riverside -District 4 2003 Ron Roberts City of Temecula 2002 John T avaglione County of Riverside -District 2 2001 Will Kleindienst City of Palm Springs 2000 Tom Mullen County of Riverside -District 5 1999 Jack van Haaster City of Murrieta 1998 Bob Buster County of Riverside -District 1 1997 Bob Buster County of Riverside District 1 1996 Alex Clifford City of Riverside 1995 Alex Clifford City of Riverside 1994 Corky Larson County of Riverside -District 4 1993 AI Lopez City of Corona 1992 AI Lopez City of Corona 1991 Kay Ceniceros County of Riverside -District 3 1990 Kay Ceniceros County of Riverside -District 3 1989 Jack Clarke City of Riverside 1988 Don Baskett City of Hemet 1987 Melba Dunlap County of Riverside -District 2 1986 Jean Mansfield City of Riverside 1985 Susan Cornelison Public Member" 196 1984 Susan Cornelison Public Member 1983 Roy Wilson City of Palm Desert 1982 Norton Younglove County of Riverside -District 5 1981 Jean Mansfield City of Riverside 1980 Donald Schroeder County of Riverside -District 2 1979 Donald Schroeder County of Riverside -District 2 1978 Russell Beirich City of Palm Springs 1977 Russell Beirich City of Palm Springs • • • 197 ATTACHMENT 2 • EXCERPT FROM THE RCTC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ARTICLE III ADMINISTRATION A. IN GENERAL. The Officers of the Commission shall consist of the Chair, a Vice Chair, and a Second Vice Chair, all of whom shall be regular members of the Commission, an Executive Director, a General Counsel, Fiscal Officer, and other such officers as the Commission may deem necessary. • B. ELECTION OF CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, AND SECOND VICE CHAIR. The Commission annually, at its first meeting in December, and at such other times as there may be a vacancy in either office, shall elect a Chair who shall preside at all meetings, a Vice Chair who shall preside in the absence of the Chair, and a Second Vice Chair who shall preside in the absence of the Chair and the Vice Chair. The Chair, the Vice Chair and the Second Vice Chair shall be elected by the Commission at its first meeting in December for a one-year term. The changes will be effective on January 1 st. The election for each position is as follows: 1 . At the start of the agenda item, Commission Board members may nominate one or more regular members to fill the positions of Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair. Each nomination must be seconded in order to qualify that member for the election. Only those members nominated and seconded shall be shall be part of the selection process set forth below. 2. If no objections are made, the nominations will be closed when the Chair makes a formal announcement closing the nomination period. 3. If only one nomination is received for a position, the Chair shall call on the Commission's Board of Director's to approve the nomination. If more than fifty (50%) percent of the votes cast approve that nominee, the nominee shall be elected and the election for that position shall be consider complete. If the nominee fails to obtain more than fifty percent (50%) of votes cast by the Board, the process for electing a member to the desired position shall begin again from paragraph 1 . • 198 ATTACHMENT 2 4. . If two nominations are received for a position, the Chair shall • call for the Commission's Board of Director's to cast votes for one of the nominees. Both nominees shall be voted on using a single written ballot. If one of the nominees receives more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast, that nominee shall be elected and the election for that position shall be considered complete. If the election fails to result in a nominee with more than fifty percent (50%) of the vote, the nominee with the most votes will be placed before the Commission's Board of Directors for approval. The nominee must be approved by more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast by the Board in order to be elected to the desired position. If the nominee fails to obtain more than fifty percent (50%) of the Board's vote, the process for electing a person to the desired position shall begin again from paragraph 1. 5. If there are more than two nominees, the following steps shall be followed in the order set forth below: (a) The Chair shall call for the Commission's Board of Directors to cast votes for one of the nominees. All nominees shall be voted on using a single written ballot. If one nominee receives more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast that nominee shall be • elected and the election for that position shall be considered complete. If the vote fails to result in a nominee receiving more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast, the two nominees with the most votes will be placed in a runoff election. (b) The winning nominee in the runoff election is selected if that nominee receives more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast. In that case, the election for that position shall be considered complete. (c) If the runoff election fails to result in a nominee with more than fifty percent (50%) of the vote, the nominee with the most votes will be placed before the Commission's Board of Directors for approval. 199 • ATTACHMENT 2 • (d) If the nominee receives more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast, the nominee shall be elected and the election for that position shall be considered complete. (e) If the nominee placed before the Commission's Board of Directors fails to obtain more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast, the process for electing a person to the desired position shall begin again from Paragraph 1, above (f) If there is a tie in any step in the election process and the next step of the process cannot proceed, then one or more tie breaking votes will occur in which all members of the Commission's Board of Directors present at the meeting will be allowed to vote again. The winning nominee must receive more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast to be elected. • At any point the Commission may vote to suspend the vote until a subsequent meeting. If the Chair has been selected prior to the vote to suspend, the new Chair shall be seated when his or her term commences, but shall relinquish his or her seat as the Vice Chair if applicable. If the Chair and Vice Chair have been selected prior to the vote to suspend, the new Vice Chair shall also seated when his or her term commences, but shall relinquish his or he seat as second vice Chair, if applicable. The tally of all votes taken by written ballot hereunder shall be read aloud by the Clerk of the Board immediately following the vote. The written ballots shall be retained by the Clerk of the Board as part of the public record of the meeting. The Chair, the Vice Chair, and the Second Vice Chair shall annually alternate between a regular member of the Commission representing a city and a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. During the time in which the Chair is a regular member of the Commission representing a city, the Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and the Second Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission representing a city. During the time in which the Chair is a regular Commission member who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Vice Chair shall be a • regular member of the Commission representing a city and the Second Vice Chair 200 ATTACHMENT 2 shall be a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside • County Board of Supervisors. • 201 •