Loading...
05 May 12, 1999 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00109 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION http:/iwww.rctc.org Hemet Neighborhood Center 305 E. Devonshire Avenue, Stage Room Hemet, CA 92543 (See attached Map) Wednesday, May 12,1999 10: 00 a.m. AGENDA • Action may be taken on any items listed on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2, COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS 3 WELCOME REMARKS BY HEMET MAYOR L YLE ALBERG 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items Not On The Agenda) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 14, 1999 and April 26, 1999 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 a 2/3 vote of the Commission, or if less than 2/3 of the Commission members are present, a unanimous vote.) 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ITEMS 7A 1. RESOLUTION NO. 99-04 REQUIRING LOCAL AGENCIES SEEKING CAL TRANS STIP FUNDING TO OBTAIN PRIOR COMMISSION CONCURRENCE Page 1 O vervie w This item is for the Commission to approve Resolution No. 99-04 requiring local agencies seeking STIP funding allocations to obtain prior Commission concurrence. RCTC Meeting Agenda May 12, 1999 Page 2 7A2. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY Page 4 O vervie w Commission authorization is requested for staff to 1) Approve the award of contract to Strategic Consulting & Research for an amount not to exceed $ 17,961 from the FY 98/99 Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Budget to perform a study pursuant to the proposal (Attachment B) to evaluate the effectiveness of Advantage Rideshare Local, Advantage Rideshare Freeway and Club Ride Programs; (Note: As part of this study, SANBAG's Option Rideshare in County and Out of County Programs will also be evaluated at SANBAG's expense); and 2) Execute the contract, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 7B. CONSENT CALENDAR - BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 7B1. ROUTE 91 SOUND WALL FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH CAL TRANS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK CONSTRUCTION BIDS Page 85 O vervie w This item is to: 1) Approve Construction Contribution Agreement No. 8-1097 with the State for Construction of Sound Wall #98 on Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe; and, 2) Authorize staff to Advertise for Constructions Bids for SW #98. 7B2. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9932 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING STRUCTURE AND SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS AT THE EXISTING LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS Page 97 Overview This item when approved will: 1) Authorize the reprogramming of CMAQ funds and Local Match funds as noted in the staff. memorandum; and, 2) Award Contract No. RO-9932 to construct the La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Overcrossing Structures and Security Systems, to Mallcraft Inc., for the amount of $3,459,000, with a 10% contingency of $341,000 to cover RCTC shared flagging costs and potential change orders encountered RCTC Meeting Agenda May 12, 1999 Page 3 during construction. The award is contingent on the recertification of WC Brown as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. 7B3. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 108 O vervie w This item is to support AB 1425, SB 481 with Amendments, SB 1043, and Seek Amendments AB 1571, and receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update. 7B4. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION REQUESTS FROM THE CITIES OF MURRIETA AND TEMECULA Page 127 Overview This item requests the Commission to grant extensions to the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula to complete their respective SB 821 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities projects. 7B5. ROUTE 74 - /-15 TO 7TH STREET, AMENDMENT # 10 WITH COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND AMENDMENT #1 WITH SC ENGINEERING FOR FINAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING OF RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES Page 129 Overview This item is to authorize: 1) A new Amendment #10 to Agreement RO 9337 with the County of Riverside at an estimated cost of $400,000; and, 2) Amendment #1 to SC Engineering Contract (RO 9954) for a total amount of $2, 662,915. 7B6. SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS Page 145 O vervie w It is recommended that Ernst & Young be selected as the Commission's independent auditors. RCTC Meeting Agenda May 12, 1999 Page 4 7B7. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS Overview Receive and file. Page 148 7B8. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1999 Page 152 Overview Receive and file. 7B9. UCLA FALL 1999 ARROWHEAD SYMPOSIUM SPONSORSHIP Page 162 O vervie w This is to approve co -sponsoring the annual UCLA Symposium, "The Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection," scheduled for October 24-26, 1999 at the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center in the amount of $5,000. 7610. CITY OF HEMET'S REQUEST FOR A LICENSE AGREEMENT Page 170 Overview The Budget and Implementation Committee appointed a Property Development Subcommittee to: 1) review the Hemet proposal to determine whether to declare the property as surplus; and, 2) if so, enter into a license agreement that would allow this property to be developed. A recommendation on Hemet's proposal will be presented to the Commission in June. RCTC Meeting Agenda May 12, 1999 Page 5 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8A. AMENDMENT TO FY 1998-99 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMENDMENT - RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO UZA 5 Minutes Page 182 O vervie w It is recommended that the Commission 1) hold a public hearing and approve the amended Program of Projects as proposed, and 2) amend Riverside Transit Agency's FY 1999 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. 8B. DRAFT FY 1999/2000 BUDGET Page 186 10 Minutes O vervie w Presented is the draft of the Commission's FY1999/2000 Budget. A public hearing is scheduled at the Commission meeting on May 12th and on June 9th. Final adoption of the budget is scheduled to be held at the Commission's June meeting. 9. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/00 Page 331 10 Minutes Overview It is recommended that the Commission adopt the proposed 1999/00 Metro/ink combined budgets and approval of RCTC's annual allocation to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in FY 1999/00 for an amount not to exceed $3.3 million. (This action does not relinquish nor convey to any other agency any of the operating rights or capacity entitlements which have been purchased by RCTC.) RCTC Meeting Agenda May 12, 1999 Page 6 10. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FINANCIAL POLICIES Page 487 5 Minutes O vervie w This item is to adopt the Riverside Transit Agency Financial Policies. 11. AMENDMENT TO FY 1998-99 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 499 10 Minutes Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 1999 Riverside Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan to reflect service changes totaling 7,801 revenue vehicle hours and 165,250 revenue miles; 2) Authorize the transfer of $8,000 from RTA's current LTF reserves as local match for the Section 5313(b) Mountain Communities planning study; and, 3) Authorize the transfer of $ 12, 000 from RTA's current LTF reserves as local match toward the Mountain Communities Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus Program demonstration project for the purchase of one additional paratransit vehicle. 12. STATUS OF STRATEGIC PLAN Page 503 5 Minutes O vervie w Sean Bo yea, Commission Consultant, will present a brief o vervie w of the progress in compiling the Strategic Plan. 13. 1998 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CONFORMITY SUSPENSION Page 504 10 Minutes O vervie w This item is to report a court decision impacting the ability to obligate federal funds for non-exempt projects in Western Riverside and Coachella Valley areas. RCTC Meeting Agenda May 12, 1999 Page 7 14. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Page 511 5 Minutes O vervie w The Executive Committee is scheduled to meet prior to the Commission meeting and will report on the status of the Public Information Officer position for RCTC. 15. PRESENTATION 15A. GAS PRICE INCREASE AND ITS BENEFITS 5 Minutes O vervie w David Shepherd, RCTC/SanBAG Director of Legislative Affairs, will make an oral presentation on the gas price increase and who is benefitting from the increase. 15B. ANNUAL INLAND EMPIRE ECONOMIC SURVEY Page 514 10 Minutes O vervie w This is a presentation by the Inland Empire Research Consortium on the results of the annual survey. 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 17. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 18. ADJOURNMENT - The June meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m. at UCR Chancellor's Conference Room in Riverside. w I— From the Riverside Area 215 South 74 East (Florida Avenue) Left on N. Carmelite Street Corner of N. Carmelite & E. Devenshire From the Desert 10 West 79 South Sanderson Avenue 74 East (Florida Avenue) Left on N. Carmelite Street Corner of N. Carmelite & E. Devenshire .OAK Pi =z r=i • yJt kf): E z; - MID ir OEVONSMIRE O E HErEr' _ _ S AY LL ' ✓ALLEY' Q ". AV-- �• V) 5 ! :::-- CC' i'"1—. �—; �i*- , CAMPUS 0-` WY N IA ; cn ›.. ; Q DATE i 1' ST Q o'� ;N ~' J ACKSON 3 WY PS CH Ft a i E■ e z` z LATHAM ` AV 7 ■ i CC i SA It4i "+ ifiELC0. zl N: MF1y IB Lf I �� PAR►1 ! E PARir N � N � ' ` 1, vS ; a t/9 1::., E KUMBAEL z' I =. AV a tN JOHN PL RAMONA E PLAZA N` MORTON 1�_ k AV" g C..) 1 Vn PL o z QicnY:iCC O Q; U Z. J 0: �i z; MID : � �/iyl ►¢— v¢i E ACACIA � L' I N Hemet Neighborhood Center 305 E. Devonshire Avenue, Stage Room Hemet, CA 92543 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE— MAY 12, 1999 CONTACT: ERIC HALEY—Executive Director DEAN MARTIN —Chief Financial Officer RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (909) 787-7141 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION GETS BOND RATING UPGRADE On Wednesday May 12th, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) received an upgrade in its bond ratings from Moody's Investor Service. The ratings upgrade, from Al to Aa3 on Senior Lien Sales Tax Revenue Bonds and from A2 to Al on Junior Lien Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, is the result of a six month long campaign by RCTC Commissioners and staff. The upgrade makes RCTC one of the highest rated transportation agencies in the nation. The campaign focused on two main points, the economic strength of Riverside County and the fiscal prudence of the Commission in managing its funds. "We made a presentation in which we gave several measures of Riverside County's economic strength," said Jack van Haaster, Commission Chair. "We demonstrated that the County had successfully weathered the recent recession using data on employment and sales tax growth. Basically, we argued that Riverside County, by continuing to post gains in both employment and sales tax, was strong and resilient —more so than other regions experiencing recession -driven shrinkage in those areas." Another factor in the decision was the financial strength of the Commission itself. "We showed that Riverside County is committed to meeting its transportation needs," commented Eric MORE... PAGE 2... BOND RATING UPGRADE Haley, RCTC Executive Director. "Measure A passed in 1988 with 79% of the vote and in 1992, when bond and sales tax measures uniformly failed statewide, voters approved. increasing RCTC's bonding limit by 55%." ` Moody's also cited the fiscal conservatism of the Commission. "ROTC has a policy of maintaining a two times debt coverage ratio and has established appropriate reserves in relation to that debt," stated Dean Martin, RCTC Chief Financial Officer. A two times ratio means that there are two dollars in revenue for every dollar borrowed. The effect of the upgrade will be to make the cost of money less when RCTC borrows by issuing bonds to pay for transportation construction projects. "The savings to Riverside County will be considerable," concluded van Haaster. "For example, if we borrow $100 million by issuing 20-year bonds, the interest we pay on those bonds will be 5 basis points —or .05%— lower. In today's dollars, that's a saving of approximately a half million dollars in interest." END For comment by RCTC Commissioners contact: RCTC Chair: Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta Councilmember (909) 698-1040 RCTC Vice Chair: Tom Mullen, Riverside County Supervisor (909) 955-1050 15/07/99 13:39 ET REF: NO�OD U01- FLNOODYS 1tT:MPS/PRO m l OT s kTTd: Dean Mar _tin '� / Zivers _. de County Transportation Commission -$f/T? lOODY'S UPGRADES THE UNDERLYING RATING OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION '.OMMISSION'S SENIOR LIEN SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS TO Aa3 FROM Al UNDERLYING RATING OF JUNIOR LIEN BONDS UPGRADED TO Al FROM A2 Ziverside County Transportation Commission, CA Cransportation :alifornia SEW YORK, May 7, 1999 -- Moody's has raised the underlying rating on the senior lien Sales Tax Revenue Bonds of Riverside County Transportation :ommission to Aa3 from Al, affecting $280 million in outstanding bonds. In addition, the underlying rating on the Commission's Junior Lien Sales Tax Zevenue Bonds has been raised to Al from A2. the upgrade reflects the Commission's commitment to maintaining debt service :overage of no less than two times on senior lien obligations; demonstrated resilience of pledged revenues to recessions; and continued growth of taxable ;ales in the county as the economic expansion continues. STRONG SALES TAX GROWTH SUPPORTS COMFORTABLE COVERAGE The Commission has been receiving voter approved sales taxes since September, 1989. Despite the severe regional recession, taxable sales in the county have increased every year except 1991 and sales tax receipts have enjoyed an average annual increase of 5% since 1989. This growth has supported strong aistorical debt service coverage. In 1998 the coverage ratio was 2.2 times. Koody's believes that such comfortable levels of coverage will continue through the life of the bonds which mature in 2009. Even with two hypothetical decreases in taxable sales equal to the one suffered in 1991, and modest increases of 2% in all other years, debt service coverage of the senior lien bonds would not dip below 2.1 times. FAVORABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS AND DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICIES HELP MAINTAIN OVERAGE. the Commission has four series of outstanding senior lien bonds issued in 1991, 1993 1996 and 1997, which are secured by a pledge of the 1/2 cent sales tax imposed on retail and use transactions in the county, less a nominal state administrative fee. These funds are paid directly to the trustee. The issuance of additional senior lien bonds is limited by an additional bonds test which called for revenues to exceed debt service by 1.5 times. The provisions for calculating the variable rate obligations also have been strengthened to provide a more conservative test. In addition to the additional bonds test, there are several other factors which constrain the Commission's ability to dilute coverage through additional debt issuance. By policy, the Commission maintains a minimum debt service coverage on its first lien of two times debt service. In addition, the original ballot measure which authorized the tax limited the amount of debt which may be issued; this cap was extended to $525 million in a special vote in 1992. Also by policy, the Commission has elected to bond only for highways, commuter rail and regional and arterial roads; local streets and roads, and 151107 59- IT 39 T T AV RUUMMY8 TR:RUMHZ IV.2maiulinv fi ! z of r specialized transit are not financed by senior lien bonds. While the full sales taxes are pledged, by only bonding against a portion of the revenue stream the Commission has effectively ensured the maintenance of coverage in excess of the legal covenant. The tax expires on June 30, 2009 and all debt is to be retired prior to then. Not only does this constrain the ability to leverage future taxes, it also creates an unusually rapid payout. The Commission may seek voter approval to extend the sales tax, and, if it wins approval may issue additional bonds secured by the additional tax revenues. The rating reflects our expectation that the Commission current conservative debt policies will be maintained JUNIOR LIEN MEETS SPECIFIC CAPITAL NEEDS AND AFFORDS STRONG BONDHOLDER PROTECTION. The junior lien was created to retire the Commission's commercial paper at fixed rates and for new money for specific local capital projects. The legal provisions for this series call for an additional bonds test based on a conservative calculation of junior lien obligations which includes an assumption that variable rate obligations are issued at their maximum rate. In addition to the protections afforded at the senior level, the junior lien bonds are protected with an additional bonds test that provides that revenues cover total debt service by 1.15 times. Since the junior lien borrowing is a function of local participation -- and local participants', namely cities', ability to leverage their share of the tax -- the level of additional junior lien borrowing is expected to be modest. Moreover, the Commission does not anticipate any additional senior lien obligations. STRONG TAXPAYER SUPPORT. While many California counties have had voter approved sales taxes, most have received only majority approval. Nearly 80% of the county's voters approved the Commission's tax which makes the Commission only one of two counties in the state to receive voter approval in excess of two thirds majority.. Even during the height of the recession, when the program was already underway, voters approved a 75% increase in the Commission's debt limit in 1992. Because of the high proportion of county residents employed out of the county and who must commute relatively long distances to urban centers, transportation is an important issue in the county. The Commission's success in undertaking transportation improvements, including completion of new passenger rail links to Los Angles and Irvine, have helped build this strong support. RIVERSIDE COUNTY'S ECONOMY CONTINUES TO IMPROVE AND DIVERSIFY. While the convergence of the national recession, the decline of the construction industry, and cuts in military spending produced a very prolonged economic decline after years of rapid expansion, the county has now been experiencing several years of solid recovery. Building activity was particularly hard hit and stands to benefit most from the recovery. New home prices have surpassed pre recession levels while existing home price have been increasing steadily since 1996. Throughout the recession, the county continued to add jobs and residents, and employers are attracted by affordable housing away from the Los Angeles area. New housing prices are rising and industrial vacancies continue to decline as the inland empire continues to expand its warehousing and support role to the greater Los Angeles economy. As a result, the unemployment rates are once again approaching pre -recession lows. The availability of affordable space for both residents and businesses along with improved access to employment centers in Los Angeles and Orange counties are 5Z9T-£S5 (ZTZ) :sguaTTO 1101898913 9LE0-Egg (ZTZ) :sgsTTauanor :sso�sHo� aoTAaes szogeanul e,Apoom 'dnois aouauTa oTTgna 'geATauv dnxoag 'zgaux ugauua)] aoTitaas eaogeanul s,Apoopi 'dnoas aouauTa orrgna 'gekreuy 'uazmziux x2onay :SZSLZVud %L•S :86-E66T 'eaTae eTgaxaq uT asseavuz Tenuua a2vaand xET•Z :sanuanas 866T 'aRsaanoo 9DTA.198 qqap x8ad x0•ZAoTTod 921319n0: xs•T:gsaq epuoq TauoT4Tppb ZOOT:eaveL auTu 'gnokad :egoag Aar apaa2dn guaaanc aug aog Tazquessa eT uozuM epuoq aoivae auq uo a2saanoo aozesae qqap eamTq oMq 2uiuza4uzam go AoTTod sqT 2utquamaTdm7 moag uozeszmmoo auq quenead qov pTnous eaaaA quaoa= uT agags aug gnougnoagq paoueTaadxa auo alp axzT suinqueloF ozmouooa •epuoq aug go agTT gzous ATantgaTaa auq u2nomp sagas 2uTAaan qE Moag oq Amouooa auq goadxa am •aTgags eT uoteeTmmoo alp ao3 xooTgno guzga= aus : xmaInc uotsuadxa alp soj suosaai uzam aua £ io £ aBQd OULL8L606:01 SAOOON:BA 109000N :A38 13 6£IT 661L0I5( RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON MINUTES April 14, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER. With the Chairman and Vice Chairman not present, Eric Haley, Executive Director, called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 9:00 a.m. at the UCR Chancellors Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California 92507. The Commissioners unanimously elected Past Chairman, Commissioner Bob Buster, as the Chairman Pro Tempore. At this time, Chairman Pro Tem Buster assumed the Chair. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Gene Bourbonnais Bob Buster Percy L. Byrd John M. Chlebnik Alex Clifford Frank Hall John Hunt Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Al Landers Jan Leja Stan Lisiewicz Kevin W. Pape John J. Pena Gregory S. Pettis . Andrea M. Puga Robin Reeser Lowe Ron Roberts Doug Sherman Chris B. Silva John F. Tavaglione * Frank West Roy Wilson** Donald F. Yokaitis COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Robert Crain Juan M. DeLara Tom Mullen Jim Smedley Jack van Haaster James A. Venable * Has proxy votes for Commissioners Mullen and Venable. Arrived after start of meeting ** RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 2 2. SELF INTRODUCTIONS OF COMMISSIONERS. A round table introductions of Commissioners followed. (A sign in sheet of other attendees is attached to the minutes.) Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer, introduced Michele Cisneros, who was recently hired to fill the Accounting Supervisor vacancy. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. MIS/C (Tavaglione/Kleindienst) approve the minutes of the March 10, 1999, meeting as submitted. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. It was requested that Agenda Item No. 6A3, "FY 1999-2000 Section 5310 Program", be pulled from the Consent Calendar. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR. M/S/C (Kelly/Puga) approve the Consent Calendar as follows: 6A. CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ITEMS 6A1. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PERFORM THE PROJECT STUDY REPORT/PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT THROUGH THE CITIES OF HEMET AND SAN JACINTO. Direct staff to issue a request for proposal to qualified engineering and environmental firms to prepare a Project Study Report/Project Report and environmental impact report for the State Route 74 realignment project in the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. Staff will form a selection panel consisting of the Cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, County of Riverside, and RCTC staff. The selection panel will review the submitted proposals, rank the firms to form a short list, interview the short listed firms and bring back a recommendation to the Commission for the selected firm or firms to perform the above task. RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 3 6A2. PROPOSED SB 836 VOLUNTARY RIDESHARE PROGRAM FOR THE INLAND EMPIRE REGION Authorize staff to: 1) approve the SB 836 1998 project detailed in the attached scope; 2) accept lead agency responsibilities, as requested by SANBAG; and 3) after review by legal counsel execute an agreement with Southern California Associated Governments for implementation of the project. 6A4. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Review, receive and file the report. 6B. CONSENT CALENDAR - BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 661. U.S. Census 2000 Approve support of the Census 2000 resource position in the amount of $5,000 to ensure a complete and accurate Census 2000 count. 662. Release of Engineer's Estimate During Bidding Process Direct staff to continue releasing the Engineer's estimate a range without the detail in order to: 1) Be consistent with the State bidding process since the projects are designed and constructed to the State's standards and funded with State and Federal dollars; 2) Encourage the maximum number of interested bidders to participate in the bid; and, 3) Assure that all bidders are provided the same information so that one bidder does not obtain information that would provide it a strategic advantage over the other participating bidders. 6133. State and Federal Legislative Update Approve the staff recommended bill positions and receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Updates. 6B4. Request for Proposal for the Pedley Station Security System Design Direct staff to prepare a request for proposal (RFP) from.qualified consultants that can prepare the plans, specifications, and cost estimate for the Pedley Metrolink rail station security system and tie the system back to the Riverside Downtown Station. A selection panel will be established to review the proposals, short list the firms that submit proposals, and report back to the Commission with recommendations on the most qualified firm to complete the work. The selection panel will be comprised of RTC and RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 4 Bechtel staff as well as other interested agencies such as Metrolink. 665. FY 1999-00 SB 821 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Program Authorize staff to release a Call for Project for FY 1999-00 SB 821 funding and notify the cities, the County, and local school districts for the estimated FY 1999-2000 SB 821 availability. 666. City of San Jacinto Request to Substitute Surface Transportation Program (STP) Discretionary Project Approve the City of San Jacinto's request to reprogram STP Discretionary funds from the traffic signal at Menlo and Highway 79 to Sanderson Avenue and Cottonwood Avenue. 6C. CONSENT CALENDAR - COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE RECOMMENDATIONS 6C1. Monthly Cost & Schedule Reports Receive and file. 6C2. Quarterly Y2K Status Report Receive and file. 6C3. Indirect Cost Rate 1) Approve the indirect cost rate developed by E&Y and, 2) Authorize submittal of the report to the California State Department of Transportation. 6C4. Fixed Asset Capitalization Policy Adopt, as policy, a fixed asset capitalization threshold of $1,000. 6C5. Auditor Management Letter Receive and file. 6C6. Single Signature Authority Report Receive and file. RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 5 6C7. Group 70 Protective Services and Investigations Contract Approve, subject to legal counsel review, a 14-month contract for security services with Group 70 Protective Services and Investigations, for a base amount not to exceed $528,000 in non -reimbursable costs. 6C8. Increase in Contract for Financial Advisory Services Authorize the Executive Director to execute an amendment to the contract with Charles Bell Securities Corp., in joint venture with Boyea Capital Markets in the amount of $70,000 (total contract value of $145,000) through June 30, 1999 for completion of Phase 1 of the Strategic Plan. 6D. CONSENT CALENDAR - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 6D1. Extension of Office Lease Extend RCTC's office lease for two years and to develop a Request for Qualification to review the office needs and location. 7. COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) CONTRACT Hideo Sugita, Planning and Programing Director, stated that it was hoped that contracts be in place for Commission action today but was not possible. For this reason, the Chairman has consented to scheduled a Special Meeting on April 26, 1999. He then briefed the Commission on the status on the CETAP process. RCTC previously made available $1.5 million of 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds (PPM) to support the CETAP project. Additionally, it is expected that SCAG will provide approximately $1.2 million. Application for $700,000 of state discretionary planning funds is in the process and staff is also seeking up to $4 million from the federal government to support this from the Transportation and Community Systems Preservation program. In response to Commissioner Alex Clifford's question as to the need for a special meeting versus waiting until the next Commission meeting, Eric Haley explained that the schedule is a couple of months behind. It is important to have the agreement processed to take to Washington D.C. to show the shortfall and seek needed funding which is a minimum of $4- $6 million. Commissioner Robin Reeser Lowe added that it also has to do with the funding cycle. Last month in conversations with Congressmen Ron Packard and Ken Calvert and the Department of Transportation, that became quite evident. RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 6 8. TIER II STATION ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager, explained that the Tier II Station report included in the agenda packet is a combination of significant studies as to the optimal siting of additional rail stations along our existing rail corridors. The four stations that RCTC has built and currently owns and operates are referred to as Tier I, they were built with. a combination of state rail bond funds, state grants and Measure "A". Tier II.has been on our plan for the next generation as the system grows. She then introduced Carl Schiermeyer, Commission consultant who prepared the Tier II Station Analysis. Carl Schiermeyer stated that the Inland Empire/Orange County Rail Route is bumping up against significant capacity issues on the trains themselves and the parking lots are getting quite full. It is evident that something major has to be done with regards to parking as a new route to Los Angeles and new stations within Orange County are being studied. The La Sierra station is virtually at capacity. A recommendation in the report is to move ahead to add parking at the site. With regards to riders response to the survey on ease of getting to their stations as 56% said that it was relatively easy which compares to 80% on the San Bernardino/Los Angeles line. The second major study done was a "non rider" study. The key factors pointed out that they wanted a station directly in the direction traveled. A combination of all the information lead us to recommend that we move forward with two station sites: a) Downtown Corona virtually at the junction of the 15/91 Freeways; and, b1 Van Buren which is a major arterial highway going into the interior portion of that portion of Riverside. Commissioner Andrea Puga asked if a study on the express route from Temecula to the Corona station could be done, from the City of Temecula through Murrieta. Commissioner Ron Roberts agreed. It was indicated that a previous study done by SCAG where it was recommended that there should be a shuttle system from southwest Riverside County to catching the different Metrolink trains. Out of 100 people surveyed, only 2-3 people indicated that they would use it. There is a need for a more extensive study. Susan Cornelison explained that it was thought that when approval for a new station is done, a transit migration plan might be initiated. Work towards that could be started but generally the funding of a commuter rail station is somewhat dependant on an analysis of the ability to bring people into that station by public transit. There is mechanism for vanpools between south county and the existing Metrolink stations, unfortunately they are not being used. Commissioner John Tavaglione indicated that the idea of transit from Temecula-Murrieta into the Corona station is a very good one. He would question, or at least include in the study, that the Promenade station might be easier access, just by recognizing the congestion now on the 91 Freeway. Carl Shiermeyer responded that is clearly the singular advantage of the Promenade site, it is a wonderful site from that perspective. It will be a very easy on/off access on Magnolia RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 7 Avenue from 1-15, however, the Commission has no property in the area. There were 15- 20 criteria, however, he did not weigh the criteria, but they did look at whether RCTC owned a property in the area, what the neighboring land uses were, and ease of access. He noted that RCTC would have to engage in a major redevelopment of that site and would have to acquire 25-30 homes to make a site useful enough for our purposes. If there were no other options, the site would be fine. However, if it is weighed against the downtown Corona site, the sum of the benefits of one outweigh the other. In response to Commissioner Kevin Pape's question on what surrounds the La Sierra station, Commissioner Clifford explained that site is for future site of development, probably commercial. The Riverside Community College (RCC) owns the surrounding property. What is envisioned, in the short term, is to negotiate some conditional use of that land. It is in a holding pattern while RCC decides what the are going to do with it. We think that with the way the timeline is RCTC could negotiate use of the property, lay down some asphalt and in order to provide the desperately needed parking and then have those other stations up and running before they are ready to break ground. Commissioner Frank West stated that he noticed in the survey that there were significant amount of riders interviewed expressed that there should be a station in Moreno Valley. He asked if there were people polled, not currently riders, who are residents of Moreno Valley and might want to use the Metrolink, if it was available. 80% of 140,000 workers in Moreno Valley leave the city to their place of employment with a significant number to Orange County. Susan Cornelison explained that there are a great number of riders from the Moreno Valley/Perris area. RCTC still has ownership of the San Jacinto Branch line and its model planning board is an eventual passenger rail along that route. With the conclusion of the San Jacinto Branch Line Refinement Study done in 1995/96, an analysis was done of the then potential riders and ridership that would come with future growth in the area. But RCTC is not in a position, either on the capital side or on the operating funding side to proceed with that. The adoption of TEA 21 identified the San Jacinto Branch Line as an eligible new start project. RCTC can apply for funds as a highway construction mitigation for the first 19 miles and it would provide station locations and direct access to the pool of potential riders. This particular station analysis only dealt only with right-of-way over where trains are currently operated. Unfortunately, the track through Moreno Valley and Perris is a 10-20 mph track; the estimate of refurbishing/building that to passenger rail standards just up to Perris is very costly. She noted that a number of residents take RTA buses into the downtown station to access the trains today, as well as those that drive or carpool. Commissioner John Hunt explained that at a previous RTA meeting, they discussed locating Park-N-Ride sites. He iterated that a plan should be looked at combining rail, transit and highways and consolidate it with a Park-N-Ride situation. Ronald Running, Principal Planner - City of Corona, noted that the City of Corona strongly RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 8 endorses the recommendation of the analysis to locate a station in downtown Corona. Over the last three years, the City has conducted studies and have developed two specific plans for the area that surrounds the station. The station would integrate with their proposal to develop a regional entertainment center and revitalize downtown to the south. It would improve the area for the commuter population that have already paid taxes for the Metrolink station and also would include the historic site owned by RCTC. They look forward to joint development possibilities and shared parking possibilities and look forward to private/public participation and joint development proposals that are already on the board. Commissioner Clifford explained that as one of RCTC representatives to the Southern California Regional Railroad Authority that looking at the Inland Empire/Orange County line, ridership has been steadily increasing. • Back in February, 1998, there was concern whether ridership will ever exceed 1,000 riders. In recognizing that dilemma and responding to the riders and surveys, service was added to the line which started to cause ridership increase at a very high rate. Since day one in our entire system, the Tustin Station has been one of the key stations/destination work stations and when that comes on line, there will be some real parking problems. He thinks that the timing is right, the Tustin Station will probably come on line sometime the next couple of years, The recommendation is a good one and the report is excellent. Commissioner Tavaglione stated that Corona has done an excellent job redeveloping Main Street and is extremely vital. However, on and off ramps and the transition from the I- 15/91 should be addressed. In response to Commissioner Tavaglione's question regarding if an analysis determining the number of vehicles that might be taken off on Main Street during the rush hour traffic had been done, Carl Schiermeyer indicated that a study was done but he does not have that number at this time. Commissioner Will Kleindienst commented that as the rail system is built and expanded, in addition to construction fees, joint operation of these facilities, and security and maintenance costs become a larger long term concern. Long term costs are being built into the process with the high quality stations. Riverside is rather unique amongst the Metrolink partners in paying 100% of those stations, but long term operational burden should be shared. He then asked the representatives from the Cities of Riverside and Corona for their assistance and commitment to equally share not only fees, but operational costs for the stations. Commissioners Clifford and Puga expressed their concurrence. M/S/C (Clifford/Puga) to: 1► approve the Tier II Station Analysis and Recommendations Report; 2) proceed with initial development of rail stations at Van Buren Boulevard in Riverside and near Main Street in Corona, including preliminary engineering, cost analysis, design, and identification of and negotiation for necessary real property; 3) pursue funding partnerships with the cities of Riverside and Corona, especially in the areas of improved vehicular access and waiver of fees and assessments; 4) seek additional property adjacent to the La Sierra Station for expanded parking; 5) secure the cooperation of Metrolink and Burlington Northern RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 9 Santa Fe Railroad; 6) initiate the appropriate funding applications and allocations from State and Federal agencies. 9. FY 2000-03 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program Cathy Bechtel, Project Manager, stated that this item requests Commission approval to release a call for projects to program Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality funds. Federal funds are for projects that would specifically reduce/improve transportation emissions. These funds can be used for projects such as alternative fuel infrastructure, new transit operations, signal interconnects, a variety of different programs. In the South Coast Air Basin, approximately $45 million is available for programming. The selection criteria was reviewed with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), they recommend continuation of the selection criteria with just minor changes. Staff is proposing the addition of two criteria: Safety and Congestion Mitigation. In addition, staff is requesting that $2 million be set aside for an opportunity fund to be used to support clean fuel programs. A separate program will be developed for it, advertise it, and they will be available on a first come, first serve basis. The applications will be reviewed by the TAC and submitted to the Commission for final approval. Funding requested today will only be for the South Coast Air Basin. For funds in the Salton Sea Air Basin, allocation of funds should be coordinated through CVAG. Call for projects will be sent to all of the cities with an announcement in the newspaper. They are due in June and presented to the Commission at its July meeting for consideration. Eric Haley added that staff will submit the a proposal to take $26 million and apply it to the construction and completion of Route 60 to Redlands Boulevard. This is the Commission's last unfunded Measure "A" project. In response to Commissioner Dick Kelly's question if the solicitation letter will also be sent to Coachella Valley cities, Cathy Bechtel responded that they will be sent a letter indicating that they should apply through CVAG. At this time, Commissioner Kleindienst requested that the City Managers and Public Works Directors with a copy to the Commissioners be added to the list. Commissioner West asked if there is a threshold of funding designated for the 60 project. Eric Haley explained that the intention is to go with the $26 or $28 million. It is anticipated that those costs may be increasing. It is staff's intent to propose CMAQ funding for the 60 project to put it over the top. The $ 26 million in addition to some other realigned dollars will fully fund the project. A partial project will not be proposed. MIS/C (Hunt/Lowe) to: 1) Approve the proposed project selection criteria; 2) Establish a Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund with $2 million in CMAQ reserved to support this program; and, 3) Direct staff to proceed with the Call for Projects in the SCAB area. RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 10 10. Revised Budget/Fiscal Year 1998-1999 Dean Martin indicated that as part of the budget process, staff has put together the annual budget and at mid year, review the budget and propose adjustments based on changes. Total revenues are predicted to remain unchanged with a slight drop. There is an increase in Measure "A" revenues as receipts are up 81/2 % over last year. This was offset by reductions in state and federal reimbursements because the projects that those revenues were paying for are actually paying for are moving into the fiscal year 2000 so those funds will be rebudgeted. The total budget expenditures are $100,027,639. Commissioner Bob Buster stated that sales tax revenues are greatly exceeding this year's projection and he then asked what is staff basing the projections of future Measure "A" sales tax revenues. Dean Martin indicated that two months ago the Commission approved the revenue projections prepared by the firm of Ernst & Young. Commissioner Buster stated that if there are additional funds, the Commission should keep in mind the existing road system and formulate the possibility of rehabing some of those. M/S/C (Byrd/Silva) to approve the revisions to the budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999 with total budgeted expenditures of $100,027,639. 11. Fiscal Year 2000 Goals & Objectives Dean Martin reviewed the Commission's previously adopted seven guiding principles and the goals and objectives proposed under each principle, included in the agenda packet. M/S/C (Pettis/Clifford) to approve the revisions to the original seven guiding principles (i.e. policy goals) and adopt the eighth guiding principle relating to public and agency outreach and communication; and approve the Commission objective and department goals and objectives for FY2000 and authorize staff to use these goals and objectives as the basis for resource allocation in the Draft FY2000 Budget. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 6A3. FY 1999-2000 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM Eric Haley noted that the total projects for evaluation were changed from 15 to 16 and the total cost was also changed to reflect the cost of the added project. M/S/C (Kelly/Hunt) to: 1) Adopt the FY 1999-2000 FTA Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and, 3) Certify that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan by adopting Resolution No. 99-03, RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 11 Certifying Project Consistency With Regional Transportation Plan. 13. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley reported and invited the Commission to attend the Route 86 Groundbreaking Ceremony on April 23, 1999. This is the third and final phase of Route 86. B. The City of Hemet will be hosting RCTC's May 12th meeting. Following the meeting, they will provide the Commission lunch and a tour of the Domenigoni Dam. C. Eric Haley reported success in receiving cooperation from the California Department of Forestry. He commended Paul Blackwelder for his excellent work and Stan Lisiewicz' cooperation in working with the Division of Forestry. Without their efforts, this could have been a touchy issue in either the replacement of their facilities at the current site or moving it to March AFB. D. Eric Haley stated that, last week, several of the Commissioners were in El Segundo for a Press Conference which set the stage for the SCAG General Assembly which lead to a unanimous affirmation of move towards a regional airport authority and provide additional leverage and a better forum to argue points related to March, Morton, George, Palmdale and all the alternatives. A resolution was obtained putting SCAG in a unique position supporting intercity rail services to the Coachella Valley. E. On April 12th, the Assembly Transportation Committee went on a bi-partisan fashion on a 12-0 vote and moved the loan bill out with a "do pass", on an urgency basis. Moving this loan bill through this year will yield an application from us for over $30 million for the Route 74, which would complete the four lane road between Lake Elsinore and Perris. F. On April 13th, the Self Help County Association had its first lobbying day and presented various options for going to a statewide solution to reauthorizing our sales tax measures and it is picking up steam. G. Commissioner Buster requested that an item be agendized next month to discuss the effects of the increased gasoline price and the recipient of the increased price. H. Commissioner Kleindienst noted that after being with the Commission for a number of years, and watching it grow to this large body, he was very impressed with how smooth and efficiently the expanded Commission gas been working these past four months. He proposed the Commissioners to join him commending and supporting the work that the Executive Director has done. It was not an easy task to take a small body to a large body and do it smoothly and efficiently. Further, he was impressed to see the members of Riverside County who attended the SCAG RCTC Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 12 Assembly, the Inland Empire was strongly represented. I. Commissioner Roberts informed the Commissioners that on April 21, the California High Speed Rail Association will have its meeting in San Diego. At this meeting, they will designate where the Southern California routes are and where the stations. will be there.. He hoped that members of the High Speed Rail Task Force will be there to support Riverside County. II. ADJOURNMENT There being no other items before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m. The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, in Hemet at the Hemet Neighborhood Center, 305 E. Devonshire Avenue, Stage Room, Hemet. Respectfully submitted, !4 Cars Naty Kopenh< Clerk of the Board RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NAME �C�IZ CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507 � \ (46...7k-CC2L3.04X-- 6 L' 1---Ea CIdr_ 03A1 =w I'/ is - �u -Jo HIJ Jj .tz"' 6?-4 Ktc,vho ��/f/v/it w� s Signing is not required WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999 9:00 A.M. SIGN -IN SHEET AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER (?h 3,4Z/ �a vkrni aF �Jgi C- r 7/ 13eC/clt rx 02.1 C/ T`,' C N CAL / tl ESA C �Jhyc) Jle r (, c(cif+ / NTH. �'A.t/ C,/L- l c s (• et e r7(151i4)6- go/part 909- QTS l l0. -te7 i),5`75= 7( /yam (9c9) 7 Sr- /9 5' 3 / (9t,$) 795- -%S'4U 90-11-7,'74 G, Y- of /iorc vo W ZLsr AhR per► 4‘cornda L< L -7 3 / 73?�:f-r l7 /-) 239 d-',?sJL 76.5-:e3o 3 / 717-7030 777--7,ol �J �f 303 .- y FW",2/7-3,a/ q09 735-- i i90 l (7“:)8C3' t/i76 -\_) Co I7 r a S - ��'����3 -�1�55 (?Egri 3f; 3 L P-3? RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999 SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2) L r� �...-' ti ` t L L A,,,, ? ck-7 5 Signing is not required AGENCY , 4-4 iv r� .2 ( TELEPHONE /FAIL NUMBER - I I 0-7 r-3zr- zs')- -sal -Cc Zi c,i7 zf Pc 5 9yo-z / 5 7- 70 yj s c/14 G- 9oy 7y 3 S z RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999 9:00 A.M. PLEASE SIGN IN IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION NAME �J { Liv) (-At; C, i•t x �s urn t/A (/(1 14 04-eir yam, ,•f.e7744 Gy Ns• ` p (C� 1 La+-1,./sQ +�czi nb'- �edr..r etr--GatD I dta alias 6 Signing is not required AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER .s-‹f Rfr( 4- Gaup C)-(-y SE,m4°-ro4 A -#9N( 5 c, it 909 (5 7/ 9 s / 9 • aftwp 70 Tto-rucitySS. Ainve % 7RoTtecTN0 56. i c-rQ. 901-181 -/75/ / 907-M - 42-77 Q90 r)1, 6-5)00 / -2P2- I/ / -1/YE3 l 913-6. 04e „el'CS-G74-d 6 opt) 783- go-18 /601�723-4/ 7.e? 0894/g1 / /)89-99Zo RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING 1:45 p.m. Monday, April 26, 1999 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER. Chairperson Jack van Haaster called the special meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 1:45 p.m. at the University of California Riverside, Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside 92507. 21. COMMISSIONERS SELF -INTRODUCTIONS. Members Present: Members Absent: Eugene Bourbonnais Bob Buster Percy Byrd Alex Clifford Juan M. DeLara John Hunt Dick Kelly William Kleindienst Al Landers Jan Leja Stan Lisiewicz Tom Mullen Gregory S. Pettis Andrea M. Puga Robin ReeserLowe Ron Roberts Chris Silva Jim Smedley John Tavaglione Jack F. van Haaster Jim Venable Frank West Roy Wilson Donald F. Yokaitis John M. Chlebnik Robert Crain Frank Hall John J. Pena 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Chairman van Haaster asked that the Commission observe a moment of silence for John Chlebnick's niece Kelly Fleming and the other students who lost their lives as a result of the shooting rampage at Columbine High School in Colorado. There were no comments from the public at this time. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. There were no additions or revisions made to the printed agenda. 5. COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming, said that collectively a significant planning project will be undertaken in the 105-year history of Riverside County. This will include the parallel development of three significant plans: 1) A Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and 2) The development of transportation corridors and plans through the CETAP process; and, 3) The update of the County of Riverside General Plan. The reason why this issue is being brought forward for Commission consideration is because there is a need to effectively address the future growth of Riverside County. There are approximately a million more new residents projected to be in Riverside County by the year 2020 and a determination is needed to figure out how to accommodate the growth. He then reviewed the proposed budget summary for this effort which follows: Work Element MSHCP $1,847,003 CETAP $4,984,653 GP $6,901,650 TOTAL $13,733,306 CONTINGENCY $1,000,000 CONTRACT AMOUNT $14,733,306 Last October, RCTC allocated $1.5 million over a period of three years of their 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring Funds to support the CETAP effort, In addition, they are projecting that SCAG will participate in this effort with $1 .278 million of SCAG Regional Planning Funds, a total of approximately $2.8 million revenues that can be securely estimated as available for the CETAP effort. Staff feels that the gap in funding need is transitory because they are actively pursuing other revenue sources. Because of this funding shortfall staff is proposing that a cooperative agreement take place between the County of Riverside and RCTC. The provisions of this cooperative agreement would limit financial exposure of the Commission, establish the Commission as the lead agency for the transportation or CETAP corridor work, provide a mechanism by which the County and Commission can share those costs where the County circulation element and the proposed CETAP corridors would intersect or intertwine. During the first 30 days of the contract, they would be engaged in developing a very detailed schedule of tasks, milestones and costs. The first six month will be very important to the process because this is a stakeholder driven process which means there will be a significant level of effort in terms of outreach seeking participation of the various stakeholders throughout the County. Within the six-month period there will be a narrowing of the number of corridors that within the six months will be proposed for further refinement and study. The current scope of work with the consultant lists a requirement that one new corridor will be brought up to tier one environment status. The tier one environment status gives the Commission and the County the ability to protect the right -a -way for the corridor. Also included in the scope of work are three existing corridors or variations of such that will be brought up to project study report status. The project study report is the first step that must be completed in order for the project to be programmed into the State Transportation Improvement Program. There is a provision in the cooperative agreement that Sverdrup has agreed to allow Bechtel, RCTC Project Development Staff, to be the third party reviewer of any scope and associated costs that would move forward for proposed projects. At the end of six months, the CETAP process will again be reviewed for adequate funds available to complete the effort. If at that time there are not adequate funds there will be several options available: 1) Completely only those elements that funding is available for or 2) The County of Riverside may wish to fund those areas that are not fully funded thus changing the lead agency status. Staff believes that the provisions included in the cooperative agreement are reasonable. Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the agreement and recommend that the County enter into a contract with Sverdrup to begin the integrated planning process. There is also one administrative requirement that the County approve the contract subject to successful completion of a pre -award audit by Sverdrup. Commissioner Don Yokaitis asked that since the CETAP effort is primarily focusing on the Western portion of the County has anything been contemplated that would address the needs of the Coachella Valley. Commissioner Tom Mullen replied that the update of the County General Plan contemplates a countywide plan. With regards to the corridor planning effort, there have been some discussions with Corky Larson, Executive Director Coachella Valley Association of Governments, regarding a North -South Corridor connecting from the Mexican Border easterly along the desert bypass. This is a long range thought that is not included in the CETAP effort and is still in the discussion stages. That bypass will be critically important for transportation throughout the basin to mitigate the impact of the trucks crossing the Mexican border and entering the Northern states. CVAG has traditionally brought forth planning efforts for these types of projects and it is premature to move forward with this. Eric Haley, Executive Director, explained that the 2% planning money from which $1 .5 million was drawn from comes from a larger allocation over the six years that was divided according to the formula that the Commission enacted last year. Funding has been set aside for the Coachella Valley if they choose to mount a similar effort. There has been no diversion of funds that would have otherwise been made available for the Coachella Valley. Commissioner Gregory Pettis expressed his hope that there would be effective outreach done by the County of Riverside in the Coachella Valley for the general plan update. He added that there are some very significant general plan issues that need to be taken into consideration. Commissioner Dick Kelly advocated the need to have a subcommittee that would discuss issues related to the Coachella Valley and act as a pipeline for information on transportation issues because not all of the members of the Commission sit on the CVAG Executive Committee. M/S/C (Wilson/Lowe) that the Commission: 1) Approve the Cooperative Agreement between the Commission and the County of Riverside for the CETAP project; and 2) Recommend that the County of Riverside enter into a contract with Sverdrup, subject to completion of a pre -award audit, to begin the Riverside County Integrated Planning process (including CETAP). 6. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Eric Haley reported that the groundbreaking ceremony in Mecca for the last portion of Highway 86 was held on April 23rd and commented that it was it was a very auspicious kickoff. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. The next meeting of the Riverside.County Transportation Commission will be held on May 12`h in Hemet at the Hemet Neighborhood Center, 305 E. Devonshire Avenue, Stage Room, Hemet. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver' Clerk of the Board RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507 NAME �= l< VA-fri "kin Geri' ecroeE7DNviol? S ' 1,,,,47 "3 -J 4044 Al gt< c G RSZcIr ?'" Oran 5C� Signing is not required MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999 1:45 P.M. SIGN -IN SHEET AGENCY /�� I � //19 k rr Ca.►+yon Zca e 1f✓�i/�N 4.!1-2r S 7.2 C7r- r o%- / Lr is 044 TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER 6.9 zi71/ LP`= eti.- c Z 44-7z9S 7l r -Z art,// 676 ecy l 9_?- e 9ser 47-r-/ e0->j4-' 4-&4:-//- - 411/ — 2-Z V f=-- /`' Ill �1 / r C r Ot 7`12.cc/ di f if or �7 �IQ 0A-i-1L¢ ci/o j _7 Clci 14-ratz s 4/1 5 � -;/7 "16.-( - )z 5 ///3 500 e l (760)3,9 Y-350Z 763- R33 ( 383 -�io5r ?SS =-/D/D 1(760)398- er// % 1--icy-32./.D&I 17 Z Z. -,3 ia2.4. 13f33 6a3g I /77 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999 SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2) NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER a,/L c.21&---- ---€..12/L6` yo --q Z/ z / 6 5 7- 7 o 7/ ) 42v ( i aft6.06 r i 67‘43it,,, ..45-7ie_ . _ k7a,X S 142.) 3'* s $ZC,o / Fl co) 32.'5 .820"1 Nti `I,; .4.,DUoi3E: Co oc-1--di= �t-\Ps Lug °I 5-5--/ &3-C / 5 s---3 -93�;3, Signing is not required or= (57 -/ G 3 9s� / / / / RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507 MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999 1:45 P.M. PLEASE SIGN IN IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER 27 - 72-((- / Signing is not required RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99-04, Requiring Local Agencies Seeking Caltrans Under SB 45 Regional Transportation Planning Agencies are responsible for programming improvement projects funded through the State Transportation Improvement Program/Regional Improvement Program (STIP/RIP). We are also vested with monitoring the amount and timing of all fund allocation requests. However, once RCTC programs a local agency project in the STIP, the local agency is responsible for submitting requests for funding allocations directly to Caltrans. In order to assure that all funds are allocated in a timely manner and projects are moving forward, close coordination between RCTC and the local agencies is essential. Caltrans' Procedures for Administering Local Grant Projects notes that a RTPA's governing board can adopt a resolution requiring the local agency to obtain the RTPA's approval for STIP funding allocations prior to submittal to Caltrans. We are recommending that this be required so that we can meet our responsibility for monitoring the STIP projects. PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission recommend approval of Resolution No. 99-04 requiring local agencies seeking STIP funding allocations to obtain prior Commission concurrence. 0 6 J �i RESOLUTION NO. 99-04 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REQUIRING LOCAL AGENCIES SEEKING STIP FUNDING ALLOCATION TO OBTAIN PRIOR COMMISSION CONCURRENCE WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") is charged with operating and administering the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to set priorities for and to aid local public agencies in constructing local transportation projects; WHEREAS, Senate Bill 45 (1997) ("SB 45") amended the programming and funding mechanisms associated with the STIP; WHEREAS, Caltrans recently adopted final Procedures for Administering Local Grant Projects ("Procedures') associated with SB 45 which will soon be incorporated into Caltrans' Local Assistance Program Guidelines and its Local Assistance Procedures Manual; WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") is the responsible regional transportation planning agency charged with aiding Caltrans' administration of local grant projects in Riverside County for proposed local agency rail/transit and highway projects; WHEREAS, the Commission has responsibility for initially approving proposed local agency transportation projects seeking to be programmed into the STIP and for approving STIP funding for those projects; WHEREAS, under the Procedures, local agencies have the responsibility to submit Requests for Funding Allocations ("RFA's") directly to Caltrans for projects already adopted into the STIP; • WHEREAS, Caltrans may ordinarily fund RFA's from local agencies in Riverside County without the formal concurrence of the Commission; WHEREAS, the Procedures require responsible regional transportation planning agencies such as the Commission to monitor the amount and timing of all RFA's and provide that an individual responsible regional transportation planning agency may pass a resolution requiring its approval before a local agency may submit an RFA to Caltrans; and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to pass such a resolution so as to require local agencies in Riverside County to obtain approval from the Commission 000002 prior to submitting RFA's to Caltrans for local transportation projects already programmed into the STIP; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows: Section 1. All public agencies in Riverside County with local transportation projects adopted into the STIP who intend to submit an RFA to Caltrans must first obtain the written concurrence of the Commission. Section 2. Written evidence of the Commission's prior concurrence with the RFA shall be submitted directly to Caltrans with the RFA. No RFA application submitted to Caltrans by a local agency in Riverside County shall be complete without such written concurrence. Section 3. The Board of Directors of the Commission hereby delegates responsibility for considering and issuing RFA concurrences to the Commission's Executive Director, or to his or her designee. Section 4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of May, 1999. Councilman Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission 0,)0003 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Survey At its March 10, 1999 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to develop and issue a Request for Proposal (Attachment A) for consultant services to perform an evaluation survey of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Programs. The Programs known as Advantage Rideshare Local, Advantage Rideshare Freeway and Club Ride provides multiple incentive and education services to support both employers and commuters in Western Riverside County. The Commission's success in serving commuters and employers within Riverside County continues to be replicated in adjoining San Bernardino County. The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has contracted with the Commission since 1993 to provide a sister Commuter Assistance Program for its residents. SANBAG has expressed a desire to have its Commuter Assistance Programs evaluated and will pay its portion of the costs. The RFP was mailed March 17,1999, to 12 firms who have expertise in conducting evaluation surveys. The firms had 3 + weeks to prepare and submit proposals which were due on April 9, 1999. Two proposals were received; one from Strategic Consulting and Research ($29,934); the other from Applied Management & Planning Group ($29,995). A rating panel comprised of Commissioner Bob Buster, Commissioner William Kleindienst, Paul Blackwelder, Tanya Love, Stephanie Wiggins (all RCTC staff) and Zai Abu Bakar, SANBAG staff, was convened to interview and evaluate the RFP's. Based on Strategic Consulting and Research's (SCR) experience with transportation related surveys, demonstrated understanding of the objectives and time line of the evaluation survey' and quote of a firm fixed price, the panel selected SCR as the most responsive firm to the RFP. The Commission's standard consultant contract format was included in the RFP. No exceptions were noted to its provisions by SCR. Legal Counsel is in the process of preparing the contract for execution based on Committee approval. 000004 Financial Assessment Project Cost RCTC: $17,961; SANBAG: $11,973 TOTAL: $29,934 Source of Funds RCTC: Measure A; SANBAG: Measure M Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed FY98/99 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize staff to: 1) approve award of contract to Strategic Consulting & Research for an amount not to exceed $17,961 from the FY 98/99 Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Budget to perform a study pursuant to the proposal (Attachment B) to evaluate the effectiveness of Advantage Rideshare Local, Advantage Rideshare Freeway and Club Ride Programs; (Note: As part of this study, SANBAG's Option Rideshare In County and Out of County Programs will also be evaluated at SANBAG's expense); and 2) execute the contract, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 900005 ATTACIDIENT A - 7s r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RCTC's Advantage Rideshare Local and Freeway Programs Club Ride Program SMIBAG's Option Rideshare In County and Out of County Programs 1*` March 17, 1999 000006 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Request for Proposal 1 Background 1 History of Previous Program Evaluation Survey 2 Contact Person 2 Schedule 2 Addenda Clarifications 3 Proposal Submission Requirements 3 Proposal Evaluation and Selection 3 Cost and Price Proposal 3 Proposal Content and Organization 4 Budget and Payment Schedule 5 Agreement for Consulting Services (Model Contract) 5 Methodology/Scope of Work 5 -0000'0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is soliciting proposals to study and report on the effectiveness of the incentives provided to employers an.d commuters who participated in the Advantage Rideshare Local and Freeway Commuter Incentive Program, and the Club Ride Program. An additional component of this evaluation will be to evaluate the effectiveness of the San Bernardino Associated Governments' Commuter Assistance Program which is managed by RCTC. BACKGROUND: The Riverside County Transportation is seeking assistance in the evaluation of incentives offered to reduce vehicle trips at peak commuter travel periods through three western Riverside County programs and two San Bernardino County programs. In 1988, Riverside County voters approved Measure A, a '/2 cent sales tax for transportation, by a 79% majority. RCTC is charged with implementing the Measure's Transportation Improvement Plan, part of which included assistance to commuters under the specialized transportation category. Under its Commuter Assistance Program, aimed at educating commuters about the importance of their individual roles in affecting clean air and traffic congestion, are the Advantage Rideshare Local and Freeway Commuter Incentives Programs. These programs provide up to $2.00 per day for three months for each day a qualified participant carpools, vanpools, walks, bicycles, uses public bus or commuter rail, or telecommutes. The purpose of the programs, are to motivate western Riverside County commuters who currently drive alone to and from work to use other modes of transportation. In order to participate, both the commuter and his/her employer must be willing to enroll in a program. The commuter must meet eligibility criteria as set by the individual programs and his/her employer must be willing to actively market, monitor and track the commuter's participation. Incentives offered are not intended to replace an employer's existing investment in their trip reduction program. They are designed to work in partnership with an employer's trip reduction program to further motivate commuters to sample ridesharing. 1 000008 The Club Ride Program is a rewards program for western Riverside County residents who have been ridesharing to work at least one day per week for the past six months. Members receive unlimited discounts on merchandise and services at over 160 merchants throughout western Riverside County. The two Commuter Assistance Programs for San Bernardino County are modeled after RCTC's programs. These two programs known as Option Rideshare in County and Option Rideshare Out of County also provide up to $2.00 per day to encourage the solo commuter to leave their car at home and begin ridesharing. HISTORY OF PREVIOUS PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY: In FY 94/95, an effectiveness study was completed on RCTC's Commuter Assistance Program. The study looked at 1) the length of time an incentive participant continued to rideshare after the initial three month period; 2) the importance the incentive was in motivating the participant to begin ridesharing; 3) the number of days per week the participant continued to rideshare; 4) if no longer ridesharing, what factors caused the participant to stop; 5) the types of improvements, if any, participants and employers suggest; 6) the reasons employers chose and/or chose not to participant in the programs; 7) the impact the programs have had on an employer's trip reduction plan; and 8) a rating of the performance of the consultant program staff managing the Commuter Assistance Program. For reference, a copy of the telephone survey for both the commuter survey and employer survey are included as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively. It is intended that these survey questions will be the starting point for FY98/99's evaluation survey. CONTACT PERSON: Prospective proposers shall direct any questions regarding this request for proposal to Tanya Love, Program Manager, (909) 787-7141 . SCHEDULE March 17, 1999 March 30, 1999 April 9, 1999 April 16, 1999 May 12, 1999 May 19, 1999 June 28, 1999 July 14, 1999 RFP Issued Addenda Clarifications (if any) , Proposals Due to the Commission (by 4 P.M.) Interview of Finalists (Optional) Commission selects consultant Notice to proceed issued and work commences Presentation of evaluation results at RCTC Committee Meeting Presentation of evaluation results at RCTC Commission Meeting 2 -000009 ADDENDA CLARIFICATIONS Any RCTC changes to this RFP will be made by written addendum. No verbal modification will be binding. Questions or comments regarding this RFP must be in writing and must be received no later than 12:00 noon, Tuesday, March 30, 1999. Correspondence is to be addressed to Tanya Love, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, CA 92507. Responses to questions will be communicated in writing to all recipients of this RFP, and will be postmarked no later than Thursday, April 1, 1999. Inquiries received after the March 30, deadline will not be accepted and will be' returned to sender. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Proposers must submit ten (10) copies of the proposal, sealed, and clearly marked "Proposal for Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation", Riverside County Transportation Commission" on or before April 9, 1999, at 4:00 P.M. The envelope must also be marked clearly with the proposer's name, address, telephone number, and contact person's name. The Commission will not accept proposals submitted after the designated time or date. Postmarks will not be accepted. Late proposals will be returned unopened. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION A selection review panel will evaluate the proposals and determine the necessity for oral interviews. The Commission reserves the right to select a consultant based solely on the written proposals and not convene oral interviews. However, please keep in mind that there will be a very short time period between proposal evaluations and the decision for interviews. Please keep Friday, April 16, 1999, open in case you are called to interview. The evaluation criteria that will be used in the selection process are as follows: 1) Qualifications of the firm (20 points) 2) Staffing and Project Organization (20 points) 3) Work Plan (25 points) 4) Cost and Price (15 points) 5) Presentation (20 points) COST AND PRICE PROPOSAL The consultant shall complete and submit as part of the proposal a budget that details costs to successfully complete the project. RCTC and SANBAG's maximum budget for all work to be performed by the consultant, as described in the "Methodology/Scope of Work" section is $30,000. However, consultants are urged to price their offers competitively and not to use the budget as a target price. 000010 3 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION 1 . Transmittal Letter The transmittal letter should include the name, title, address, phone and fax numbers, and original signature of an individual with authority to negotiate on behalf of and to contractually bind the proposer. 2. Table of Contents 3. Ability to Perform Work In this section, the Proposer should establish the ability of the consultant to satisfactorily perform the required work (i.e. demonstrated competence in the services to be provided, staffing capability, work load and record of meeting schedules on similar projects; strength and stability as a business concern and supportive client references representative of similar project work). Letters of recommendation from previous clients are strongly encouraged. Provide a brief profile of the firm, including the types of services offered, the year founded, form of organization, number, size and location of offices. Identify subcontractors, if any, by company name, address, contact person, telephone number and project function. 4. Project Management Identify and establish the qualifications of the proposed project staff in terms of education, experience and professional credentials; organizational chart as it relates to this project; and the adequacy of labor resources as evidenced by the proposed distribution of. labor hours. Furnish brief resumes for key personnel. Resumes must feature experience most directly relevant to the work proposed for key personnel. Include a statement that indicates key personnel will be available for the duration of the project, and that no person designated as "key" to the project shall be removed or replaced without the prior written concurrence of RCTC. 5. Staffing The proposal must describe the qualifications and experience of each professional who will participate in the project. If a firm is submitting, the firm must include a resume for each member of the project team. A Project Manager must be designated, and an organizational chart showing the manager and all project staff must be included. 4 000011 6. Consultant Qualifications and Reference The proposal must describe the nature and outcome of projects previously conducted by the consultant which are related to the work described within this RFP. Descriptions should include a client contact name, address, phone number, a description of the type of work performed, approximate date on which work was completed, and professional staff who performed on the project. 7. Cost Proposal In addition to a technical proposal, the prospective contractor shall prepare a detailed cost proposal for the work to be performed. The cost proposal shall itemize all items that will be charged to the Commission including travel expenses that will be involved in the project and included in the bid amount. Costs shall be segregated to show staff hours, rates and classifications, and administrative overhead. BUDGET AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE The consultant will be paid based on work actually performed. A copy ofall invoices for payment should include record of work completed to date and all associated expenses. AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES (MODEL): Please see Attachment 3 for a copy of RCTC's Model Agreement for Consulting Services. This document explains the terms and conditions required for the person/firm awarded this contract. METHODOLOGY/SCOPE OF WORK: The firm/person selected must have the ability to undertake all the tasks related to research, data collection and analysis, evaluate cost effectiveness, report preparation and presentation. Upon written notice to proceed with the work, RCTC will provide guidance throughout the phases of work. Each phase and task must be approved by RCTC prior to continuation of project: Phase 1 : Initiate project study and collect/review 'background documentation. Timelines: Week 1 Deliverable: A brief written progress report (10 copies) by the end of Week 1 describing a thorough knowledge of all five programs. 5 000012 Phase 2: Survey Preparation Task 2.1: Interview RCTC and SANBAG to determine desired survey findings, potential questions and survey design for both individual and employer surveys. Task 2.2: Develop a format for recording information to be collected, including survey questions. Task 2.3: Develop a statistically valid sampling process from individual participants and ETCs for the five Commuter Assistance Programs. Total number of employers and commuters participating in the programs will be provided to the successful bidder. Deliverables: A written progress report (10 copies) by the end of Week 2, including a sample of individual participant and employer survey forms. Timelines: Week 2 Phase 3: Survey Execution Task 3.1: Undertake telephone interviews with approved list of participants enrolled in the five Commuter Assistance Programs. RCTC/SANBAG will secure advance permission from employers for consultant to contact employers and commuter participants. Consultant will be provided with a list of employers and commuters by name, address and telephone numbers (office numbers for employers and home numbers for commuters). Information can be provided in either digital or hard copy format. The survey should specifically determine the travel modes of participants before enrolling with the programs. For example, what modes they used and for how long. The survey should specifically determine the travel modes of the participants after incentives of the programs ran out. The survey should determine what role the incentives had in moving the participant into the program; if they started a new mode of travel coming into the program; and if they remained in the same mode of travel since their ridesharing pattern was established through participation in the incentive program. Questions used in FY 94/95 will be the starting point for FY 6 mom 98/99's evaluation. Additional questions for the commuters and employers will be discussed during Weeks 1 and 2. Timelines: 3.1 Week 3. Deliverables: A written progress report (10 copies) by the end of week 3. Phase 4: Analyze and interpret survey results and prepare draft and final report: Task 4.1: Prepare draft report which interprets survey findings for review by RCTC/SANBAG. Task 4.2: Prepare final report of the study based on comments provided. Task 4.3: Evaluate cost effectiveness evaluation currently used by RCTC and recommend modifications as may be required. Task 4.4: Prepare executive summary and present results to RCTC. Timelines: 4.1: Weeks 4 4.2 through 4.4: Weeks 5 Deliverable: A final report (10 copies) by end of week 5. 7 000014 ATTACHMENT 1 000015 RCTC Incentives Effectiveness Study COMMUTER SURVEY (WHEN RESPONDENT IS ON THE LINE) My name is and I am calling on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program, the (Freeway/ Local Commuter Incentive Program). The Commission is conducting this study to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. Your opinions are very important and your answers will be kept confidential. The survey will take about 8 minutes. 1 OK to proceed (CONTINUE TO QA) 2 Call back - date: time: ph: 3 Could not reach respondent — call again— ph: 4 Could not reach respondent — do not call again 5 Could not recall program 6 Refused QA. PUNCH IN START-UP PROGRAM, BASED ON DATABASE: 1 3-month Freeway Commuter Incentive Program (for residents working outside Riverside County) . 2 3-month Local Commuter Incentive Program (for residents working within Riverside County) QB. PUNCH IN YEAR OF S1GN-UP, BASED ON YEAR OF PAYMENT IN DATABASE: 1 1991 2 1992 3 1993 4 1994 QC. PUNCH IN MODE IN WHICH PARTICIPANT SIGNED -UP, BASED ON DATABASE: 1 Carpool 2 Vanpool 3 Buspool 4 Metrolink 5 Public Bus 6 Walking 7 Bicycling 000016 Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 �,oci\ 1 Applied Management & Planning Group QD. PUNCH IN INCENTIVE TYPE, BASED ON DATABASE: 1 Unocal Autoscript coupons 2 Galleria at Tyler gift certificates 3 Hemet Valley mall gift certificates (Local Commuter Incentive Program only) 4 Moreno Valley mall gift certificates (Local Commuter Incentive Program for 1992-93 only) 5 Lucky Grocery Store gift certificates 6 VPSI Commuterbucks (vanpools) 7 TrainBuck$ 8 Check made payable to employer or vanpool leasing company 9 Bus passes purchased from Riverside Transit Agency (Local Commuter Incentive Program for 1991-92 only) BEGIN SURVEY: Q1. According to our records, you signed up for the 3-month (Freeway/Local Commuter Incentive Program, based on QA), the rideshare start-up incentive program for Riverside County residents who work (outside/within) Riverside County. Is that correct?: (DO NOT READ) 1 Yes (SKIP TO Q2) 2 No 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q2) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q2) Q1a. What program did you enroll in? 1 3-month Freeway Commuter Incentive Program (for residents working outside Riverside County) 2 3-month Local Commuter Incentive Program (for residents working within Riverside County) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q2. And you signed up in (Year of sign-up, based on QB). Is that correct? (DO NOT READ) 1 Yes (SKIP TO Q3) 2 No ,9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q3) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q3) 000017 Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/95 2 Applied Management & Planning Group Q2a. In what year did you sign up? 1 1991 2 1992 3 1993 4 1994 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q3. And the mode you signed up for was (mode, based on QC). Is that correct? (DO NOT READ) 1 Yes (SKIP TO THE PROMPT AFTER Q3-A) 2 No 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT AFTER Q3-A) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT AFTER Q3-A) Q3-A. What mode did you sign up in? 1 Carpool 2 Vanpool 3 Buspool 4 Metrolink 5 Public Bus 6 Walking 7 Bicycling 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) IF MODE WAS "CARPOOL" on Q3-A, GO TO Q3a. IF MODE WAS "VANPOOL" on Q3-A, GO TO Q3b. IF MODE WAS "BUSPOOL" on Q3 A, GO TO Q3c. OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q4. QB IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE TO Q3-A, FOLLOWING THESE DIRECTIONS: IF MODE WAS "CARPOOL" on QC, GO TO 03a. IF MODE WAS "VANPOOL" on QC, GO TO Q3b. IF MODE WAS "BUSPOOL" on QC, GO TO Q3c. OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q4. 000018 Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 3 Applied Management & Planning Group Q3a. (CARPOOLS ONLY) Did you start a carpool or join an existing carpool? (SKIP TO Q4) 1 Started a new carpool 2 Joined an existing carpool 3 Did not participate (SKIP TO Q4) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q3b. (VANPOOLS ONLY) Did you start a vanpool or join an existing vanpool? (SKIP TO Q4) 1 Started a new vanpool 2 Joined an existing vanpool 3 Did not participate (SKIP TO Q4) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q3c. (BUSPOOLS ONLY) Did you start a buspool or join an existing buspool? (SKIP TO Q4) 1 Started a new buspool 2 Joined an existing buspool 3 Did not participate (SKIP TO Q4) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q4. And the incentive you received was (incentive, based on QD). Is that correct? (DO NOT READ) 1 Yes (SKIP TO THE PROMPT AFTER Q4a) 2 No 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT AFTER Q4a) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT AFTER Q4a) 000019 Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/95 4 Applied Management & Planning Group Q4a. What incentive did you receive? 01 Unocal Autoscript coupons 02 Galleria at Tyler gift certificates 03 Hemet Valley mall gift certificates (Local Commuter Incentive Program only) 04 Moreno Valley mall gift certificates (Local Commuter Incentive Program for 1992-93 only) 05 Lucky Grocery Store gift certificates 06 VPSI Commuterbucks (vanpools) 07 TrainBuck$ 08 Check made payable to employer or vanpool leasing company 09 Bus passes purchased from Riverside Transit Agency (Local Commuter Incentive Program for 1991-92 only) 98 Don't Know/Can't Recall (DO NOT READ) 99 Refused (DO. NOT READ) IF RESPONDENT CANNOT RECALL IN Q1, Q2, Q3, AND Q4, OR IF RESPONDENT CANNOT RECALL IN 01a, 02a, 03-A, AND Q4a, THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE. Q5. While you were participating in RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program, how many times per week, on the average, were you using (if there was a response in Q3-A, use response; otherwise use mode of transportation, verified in QC) for your home -to -work commute? (DO NOT READ) 1 Less than once per week 2 Once per week 3 Twice per week 4 Three times per week 5 Four times per week 6 Five or more times per week 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) 0000 0 Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/5'5 5 Applied Management & Planning Group 06. What mode of transportation were you using to get to work immediately before you enrolled in RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 01 Driving alone/Riding a motorcycle 02 Taking the Public Bus (SKIP TO Q7b) 03 Bicycling (SKIP TO Q7b) 04 Walking (SKIP TO Q7b) 05 ' Carpooling (SKIP TO Q7b) 06 Vanpooling (SKIP TO Q7b) 07 Buspooling (SKIP TO Q7b) 08 Taking the Commuter Rail (Metrolink) (SKIP TO Q7b) 09 Other (specify) (SKIP TO Q7b) 98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 99 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q7a. How effective was receiving (if there was a response to Q4a, use response; otherwise use program incentive, based on QD) in encouraging you to stop driving alone and start ridesharing? Would you say the incentive was... (READ LIST) (SKIP TO Q8) 1 Very Effective 2 Effective 3 Somewhat Effective 4 Not Effective at all 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) 000021 Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 6 Applied Management & Planning Group Q7b. Were you aware that the 3-month Commuter Incentive Program was designed and limited to individuals who were currently driving alone to and from work? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Yes 2 No 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q8. I will read you a list of 7 types of incentives. Please listen to the entire list first,, then tell me which incentive you would most prefer to receive. (READ LIST. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Unocal Autoscript coupons 2 Galferia at Tyler gift certificates 3 Hemet Valley mall gift certificates 4 Lucky Grocery Store gift certificates 5 VPSI Commuterbucks (for vanpools) 6 TrainBuck$ (for Metrolink/Commuter Rail) 7 Check made payable to employer or vanpool leasing company 8 None of the above (DO NOT READ) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q8a. Is there another type of incentive you would prefer to receive? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 No 2 Yes — I prefer to receive cash 3 Other 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q9. Did you rideshare each month for the 3-month program period? 1 Yes 2 No (SKIP TO Q19) 3 Currently in the middle of the 3-month period (SKIP TO Q21) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) 00002? Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/95 7 Applied Management & Planning Group Q10. Did you continue to rideshare immediately after you stopped receiving the incentive from RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program? 1 Yes (SKIP TO Q12) 2 No 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q11. If no, why not? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE.) (SKIP TO Q13) 1 I wasn't receiving start-up program incentives anymore 2 Lost my carpool partner(s)/vanpool disbanded 3 Other options became available (got a car, got free parking, etc.) 4 I had other commitments to attend to before/after work 5 I had errands to run during my work day 6 I don't like to rideshare 7 Other (specify) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q12. How long did you continue to rideshare after you stopped receiving the 3-month incentive? CONVERT TO WEEKS Q13. Are you currently using (if there was a response to Q3-A, use response; otherwise, use mode of transportation, based on QC) to commute to work? 1 Yes (SKIP TO Q15) 2 No 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q 14. What mode of travel are you currently using? (READ LIST, IF NECESSARY) 01 Driving alone/Riding a motorcycle (SKIP TO Q19) 02 Carpooling 03 Vanpooling 04 Buspooling 05 Taking the Commuter Rail (Metrolink) 06 Taking the Public Bus 07 Bicycling 08 Walking 09. Other (specify) 0 0 0 023 98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 99 Refused (DO NOT READ) Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 8 Applied Management & Planning Group PROGRAM COMPLETERS WHO HAVE CONTINUED TO RIDESHARE Q15. On average, how many days per week are you currently ridesharing to work? 1 Less than once per week 2 Once per week 3 Twice per week 4 Three times per week 5 Four times per week 6 Five or more times per week 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (COMPARE ANSWER IN Q15 TO ANSWER IN Q5 — ASK EITHER Q16 OR Q17 OR Q18. THEN SKIP TO Q21) • Q 16. What is the primary reason you reduced the number of days you rideshare to work after you stopped receiving the 3-month incentive? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY) (SKIP TO Q21) 01 Too inconvenient 02 My work schedule/location changed 03 People I rideshare with cut the number of days they rideshare 04 Lost my carpool partner(s)/vanpool disbanded 05 Too expensive 06 I don't like the incentives employer offers/I don't receive an incentive anymore 07 Other options became available (got a car, got free parking, etc.) 08 I now have other commitments to attend to before/after work 09 I have errands to run during my work day 10 Other (specify) 98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 99 Refused (DO NOT READ) 000024 Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/95 9 Applied Management & Planning Group Q 17. What is the primary reason you increased the number of days you rideshare to work after you stopped receiving the 3-month incentive? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY) (SKIP TO Q21) 01 I enjoy ridesharing 02 I became more environmentally aware/responsible 03 More convenient for me to rideshare more 04 I like the incentives my employer offers/My employer offered -more incentives to ridesharing 05 I no longer have a car/parking available to me 06 My work schedule/location changed 07 Too expensive not to rideshare 08 People I rideshare with increased the number of days they rideshare 09 Traffic on the freeway(s) is worse 10 Other (specify) 98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 99 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q18. What is the primary reason you have continued to rideshare after you stopped receiving the 3-month incentive? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY) (SKIP TO Q21) 01 I enjoy ridesharing 02 I became more environmentally aware/responsible 03 More convenient for me to continue to rideshare 04 I like the incentives my employer offers/My employer offered more incentives to ridesharing 05 I no longer have a car/parking available to me 06 My work schedule/location changed 07 Too expensive not to rideshare 08 Traffic on the freeway(s) is worse 09 People I rideshare with kept the same number of days they rideshare 10 Other (specify) 98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 99 Refused (DO NOT READ) GO TO Q21 000025 Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 10 Applied Management & Planning Group STOPPED RIDESHARING (EXCLUDES PARTICIPANTS SINCE NOV., 1994) Q19. Was dissatisfaction with RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program the primary factor that influenced you to stop ridesharing? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Yes. 2 No (SKIP TO Q20) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q 19a. If yes, why? Q20. What other factor influenced you to stop ridesharing? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 01 Too inconvenient 02 I don't like ridesharing 03 My work schedule/work location changed 04 People I rideshare with stopped ridesharing 05 Lost my carpool partner(s)/vanpool disbanded 06 Too expensive 07 I don't receive an incentive anymore/I don't like the incentives my employer is offering 08 Other options became available (got a car, got free parking, etc.) 09 I now have other commitments to attend to before/after work 10 I need to run errands during my work day 11 Nothing 12 Other (specify) 98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 99 Refused (DO NOT READ) 00`002.6 Draft Commuter Survey - 2✓7/95 11 Applied Management & Planning Group 000027 ALL PARTICIPANTS Q21. Without a start-up incentive program like RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program, would you have started ridesharing on your own? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Yes 2 No 3 Maybe 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q22. Please tell me whether you receive(d) any of the following incentives from your employer at the same time you were participating in RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program. (ROTATE STEMS "a" THROUGH "g"; READ STEM "h" LAST; READ LIST) a Additional monetary incentive/subsidy 1 Received from employer 2 Did not receive 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) b Flexible work hours 1 Received from employer 2 Did not receive 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) c Guaranteed Ride Home Program 1 Received from employer 2 Did not receive 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) d Rideshare raffles/drawings 1 Received from employer 2 Did not receive 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) e Compensatory Day Off program 1 Received from employer 2 Did not receive • 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT. READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 12 Applied Management & Planning Group f Designated parking for ridesharing 1 Received from employer 2 Did not receive 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) g Free/subsidized parking 1 Received from employer 2 Did not receive 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) h Other incentive (described by respondent) 1 Received from employer 2 Did not receive 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q23. Without RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program, would the incentives offered by your employer have been enough by themselves to influence you to rideshare? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Yes 2 No 3 I didn't receive any incentives from my employer 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q24. Was/is three months a sufficient period of time for you to experience other commute alternatives to driving alone and to continue ridesharing, even after you stop(ped) receiving the incentives? Would you say the 3-month period was/is... (READ LIST. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 More than enough time 2 About the right amount of time 3 Not enough time 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) 000028 Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/95 13 Applied Management & Planning Group Q25. How long was/is the period between the time you submitted your claim forms and the time you received your incentive for RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Less than two weeks 2 2 weeks 3 3-4 weeks 4 5-6 weeks 5 More than 6 weeks 6 Have not received payment yet 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q26. Please rate your satisfaction with the payment tumaround time period. Would you say that you are... (READ LIST) 1 Very Satisfied 2 Satisfied 3 Dissatisfied 4 Very Dissatisfied 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q27. Would you still have been motivated to participate in RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program if you received your incentive in a lump -sum after 90 days instead of receiving multiple payments? (DO NOT READ. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Yes 2 No 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q28. As you know, RCTC's Commuter Incentive Program only pays you for days on which you rideshare during a 3-month period. In your opinion, what is the minimal dollar value per day of ridesharing within a limited time period that is necessary to encourage someone who is currently driving alone to start ridesharing? 000029 9999 = Don't Know Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 14 Applied Management & Planning Group Q29. During the program, did you encounter any problems that could not be resolved? 1 No (SKIP TO Q30) 2 Yes 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q30) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q30) Q29a. Please explain: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Q30. I will read you .a list of age categories. Please stop me when I read the one that is closest to your age. (READ LIST) 1 20-25 2 26-30 3 31-35 4 36-40 5 41-45 6 46-50 7 over 50 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q31. Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? (READ LIST. ENTER ONE RESPONSE. ONLY.) 1 Caucasian 2 African -American 3 Hispanic/Latino 4 Asian 5 Pacific Islander 6 Other (specify) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) 000030 Draft Commuter Survey 2✓7/95 15 Applied Management & Planning Group Q32. Which of the following categories best describes your job classification? (READ LIST. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Executive 2 Professional 3 Technical 4 ClericaVSecretarial 5 Maintenance/Service 6 Other (specify) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q33. I will read you a list of income categories. Please stop me when I .read the one that best describes your total annual household income before taxes. (READ LIST) 1 Under $10,000 2 $10,000 - $20,000 3 $20,001 - $30,000 4 $30,001 - $40,000 5 $40,001 - $50,000 6 $50,001 - $75,000 7 $75,001 - $100,000 8 More than $100,000 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) That concludes our survey. Thank you very much for your time. TERMINATE CALL. PUNCH IN GENDER: 1 Male 2 Female 000031 Draft Commuter Survey - 2✓7/95 16 Applied Management & Planning Group ATTACHMENT 2 0-000.32 RCTC Incentives Effectiveness Study ETC SURVEY (WHEN RESPONDENT IS ON THE LINE) My name is and I am calling on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program, the (Freeway/ Local Commuter Incentive Program), and the Club Ride Program. The Commission is conducting this study to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. You should have received a letter from the RCTC informing you of this study and requesting your assistance. The questions on this survey focus on the administration of RCTC's Commuter Assistance Program. I need to speak with the person who administers this program. Are you that person? 1 Yes -- OK to proceed (PROCEED TO QA1) 2 Yes — Call back - date: 3 No 4 Don't know/Can't recall (TERMINATE CALL) 5 Refused (TERMINATE CALL) time: IF RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTION IS "3", PLEASE SAY THE FOLLOWING: "Can you please give me the name of that person and the phone number to contact that person?" Name Phone IF RESPONDENT REFUSES TO GIVE A NAME, THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE CALL; OTHERWISE, CALL PERSON INDICATED ABOVE TO SURVEY. Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95 1 Applied Management & P/anning-Grioup "u� 00003-3 Your opinions are very important and your answers will be kept confidential. The survey will take about 8 minutes. QA1. PUNCH IN NATURE OF ORGANIZATION, BASED ON DATABASE: 01 Accounting & Finance 02 Airlines 03 Aerospace Industry 04 Airports 05 Cities 06 Colleges/Universities 07 Construction 08 Consultants 09 Counties 10 Federal.Government 11 Grocery 12 Hospital/Medical 13 Law Firms 14 Manufacturing 15 Public Utilities 16 Restaurants 17 Retail 18 Sales & Service 19 School Districts 20 Special Event Centers 21 State Offices 22 Temporary Services 23 TMA/TMO 24 TV & Motion Picture 25 NP (Not Provided) Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95 2 Applied Management & Planning Group 000034 IF RESPONSE TO QA1 IS "25", PLEASE ASK QA2; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO QB1. QA2. What is the nature of your organization? (ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY. READ LIST, IF NECESSARY) 01 Accounting & Finance 02 Airlines 03 Aerospace Industry 04 Airports 06 Cities 06 Colleges/Universities 07 Construction 08 Consultants 09 Counties 10 Federal Government 11 Grocery 12 Hospital/Medical 13 Law Firms 14 Manufacturing 15 Public Utilities 16 Restaurants 17 Retail 18 Sales & Service 19 School Districts 20 Special Event Centers 21 State Offices 22 Temporary Services 23 TMA/TMO 24 TV & Motion Picture 98 Don't know/Can't recall 99 Refused QB1. PUNCH IN SIZE OF ORGANIZATION, BASED ON DATABASE: 1 Small (0 - 499 employees) 2 Medium (500 - 1,999 employees) 3 Large (2,000 and more employees) 4 (NP) Not Provided IF RESPONSE TO QB1 IS "4", PLEASE ASK QB2; OTHERWISE SKIP TO QC1. Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95 3 Applied Management & Planning -Group 000035 QB2. How many employees are located at your site? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Small (0 - 499 employees) 2 Medium (500 - 1,999 employees) 3 Large (2,000 and more employees) 9 Don't know/Can't recall 0 Refused QC1. PUNCH IN COMPANY ENROLLMENT YEAR, BASED ON FIRST PAYMENT DATE IN DATABASE: 1 1991 2 1992 3 1993 4 1994 5 NP (Not Provided) IF RESPONSE TO QC1 IS "5", PLEASE ASK QC2; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO QD. QC2. What year did your site enroll in the RCTC Commuter Assistance Program? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 1991 2 1992 3 1993 4 1994 9 Don't know/Can't recall 0 Refused QD. PUNCH IN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM(S), BASED ON DATABASE SOURCE/FILE (i.e. If the firm is listed under the Freeway Commuter Incentive Program file, the Local Freeway Commuter Incentive Program file, Club Ride file, Both Club Ride & Freeway file, or Both Club Ride & Local file): 1 3-month Freeway Commuter Incentive Program only 2 3-month Local Commuter Incentive Program only 3 Club Ride only 4 Both Freeway Commuter Incentive Program and Club Ride 5 Both Local Commuter Incentive Program and Club Ride Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95 000036 4 Applied Management & Planning -Group QE. How long have you been the ETC (Employee Transportation Coordinator) with this firm? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY. ROUND UP, IF NECESSARY) 1 Less than six months 2 Six months 3 One year 4 Two years 5 Three years 6 Four years 7 More than four years 8 I am not the ETC for this firm 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) QF. How long have you been administering the (program based on QD) at this firm? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY. ROUND UP, IF NECESSARY.) 1 Less than six months 2 Six months 3 One year 4 Two years 5 Three years 6 Four years 7 More than four years 8 I do not administer the program 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) IF RESPONSE TO QF IS "8", PLEASE SAY THE FOLLOWING: "Can you please give me the name of that person and the phone number to contact that person?" Name Phone IF RESPONDENT REFUSES TO GIVE A NAME, THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE CALL; OTHERWISE, CALL PERSON INDICATED ABOVE TO SURVEY. OTHERWISE, BEGIN' SURVEY. BEGIN SURVEY: Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95 5 Applied Management & Planning Group 000037 Q 1. According to our records, your firm is/was enrolled in the (program based on QD). Is that correct? (DO NOT READ) 1 Yes (FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AFTER Q1) 2 No (GO TO Q1a) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AFTER Q1) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AFTER Q1) IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "1" OR "2", ASK Q2 THROUGH Q16, THEN SKIP TO Q21.. IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "3", SKIP TO Q17. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO Q2 AND CONTINUE. Q1a. What program(s) is/was your firm enrolled in? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 3-month Freeway Commuter Incentive Program only, 2 3-month Local Commuter Incentive Program only 3 Club Ride only 4 Both Freeway Commuter Incentive Program and Club Ride 5 Both Local Commuter Incentive Program and Club Ride 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) IF RESPONSE TO Q1a IS "1" OR "2", ASK Q2 THROUGH Q16, THEN SKIP TO Q21. IF RESPONSE TO Q1a IS "3", SKIP TO Q17. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO Q2 AND CONTINUE. Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95 0000►38 6 Applied Management & Planning Group FIRMS ENROLLED IN 3-MONTH FREEWAY/LOCAL COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROGRAM The following questions relate to RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program implemented at your firm. Q2. Which type of incentive does your firm offer currently as part of RCTC's 3- month Commuter Incentive Program? (DO NOT READ. PROMPT IF NECESSARY. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Unocal Autoscript coupons 2 Galleria at Tyler gift certificates 3 Hemet Valley mall gift certificates (Local Commuter Incentive Program only) 4 Lucky Grocery Store gift certificates 5 VPSI Commuterbucks (vanpools) 6 TrainBuck$ for Metrolink 7 Check made payable to employer or vanpool leasing company 8 The firm doesn't offer program anymore (SKIP TO Q4) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q3. How effective do you think this type of incentive offered through RCTC's 3- month Commuter Incentive Program was in encouraging qualified commuters to rideshare? Would you say... (READ SCALE. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Very Effective 2 Effective 3 Somewhat Effective 4 Not Effective at all 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q4. As you know, RCTC's Commuter Incentive Program only pays employees for days on which they rideshare during a 3-month period. In your experience, what is the minimal dollar value per day of ridesharing within a limited time period that is necessary to motivate your employees to start ridesharing? 999 = Don't Know Q5. In your opinion, what percentage of your employees who participate in the (Freeway/Local Commuter Incentive Program) continue to.rideshare after the 3-month incentive program is over? 999 = Don't Know Draft ETC Survey -- 3/9/95 7 Applied Management &Planning Group 00.0039 Q6. What do you feel is the primary reason employees do not continue to rideshare after they stopped receiving their incentive from the 3-month program? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Ridesharing is too inconvenient for people 2 Ridesharing is too expensive 3 Employees don't like to rideshare 4 Employees aren't receiving the incentive from the RCTC Commuter Assistance Program anymore 5 Employees don't like the incentives offered by our firm 6 Moved to another residence. 7 Changed employment/VVork location changed 8 Other (specify) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) 010. Is three months a sufficient period of time for your employees to experience other commute alternatives to driving alone and to continue ridesharing, even after they stop receiving the incentives? Would you say the 3-month period is... (READ LIST. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 More than enough time (SKIP TO Q12) 2 About the right amount of time (SKIP TO Q12) 3 Not enough time 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q12) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q12) Q11. What length of time would you recommend? CONVERT TO MONTHS 999 = Don't Know Q12. What has been the average payment.turnaround time from the time you send a payment request to RCTC to the time you receive payment? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Less than two weeks 2 Two weeks 3 Three weeks 4 Four weeks 5 Five weeks 6 Six weeks 7 More than six weeks 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q 13. Have you experienced any problems with payment turnaround time? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) Draft ETC Survey -- 3/9/95 8 Applied Management & Planning Group 000040 1 Yes 2 No (SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE 014) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Q 13a. What kind of problems did you encounter with the payment turnaround time? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Time delay in payment turnaround 2 Other (specify) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE Q14) 3 Did not encounter any problems (SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE Q14) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE 014) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) -(SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE Q14) Q 13b. Did the delay in payment turnaround occur between the months of August, 1994 and November, 1994? 1 Yes 2 No 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) IF ANSWER TO 013b IS "1", PLEASE SAY THE FOLLOWING: "For your information, RCTC would like you to know that between the months of August and. November, 1994, the RCTC Commuter Assistance Programs underwent a management audit, resulting in a delay in payment turnaround. The audit is now complete, andthe RCTC Commuter Assistance Program has returned.to its regular payment schedule." Draft ETC Survey -- 3/9/95 9 Applied Management &-Planning-Group 000041' IF RESPONSE TO QF WAS "1", "2", OR "3", SKIP TO Q16; OTHERWISE, CONTINUE. Q14. In your opinion, what is/was the main factor contributing to your firm's continued participation in the 3-month (Freeway/Local Commuter Incentive Program)? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 High percentage of employees living in Riverside 2 Upper management requirements 3 Positive employee response 4 Helps increase employee ridesharing/Helps increase firm's AVR 5 Other (specify) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) 016. Using a grading scale of A, B, C, D, or F, please grade RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program in terms of the following: (READ LIST) a Professional, ABCDF N/A courteous staff b Returning phone calls A BCDF N/A in a timely manner c Ability to clearly A BCDF N/A communicate the parameters of the program d Accuracy in the amount A B C D F N/A of incentive payments received e Overall rating of RCTC's Commuter Incentive Program Staff A BCDF N/A IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "1" OR "2", SKIP TO Q21. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE. Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95 10 Applied Management & Planning Group 000042 FIRMS ENROLLED IN CLUB RIDE The following questions relate to the Club Ride Program implemented at your firm. Q17. How effective is the Club Ride Program in maintaining long-term ridesharing at your firm? Would you say... (READ SCALE. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 1 Very Effective 2 Effective 3 Somewhat Effective 4 Not Effective at all 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE Q19) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE Q19) 018. In what way was the Club Ride Program (RESPONSE FROM Q17)? IF RESPONSE TO QF WAS "1", "2", OR "3", SKIP TO Q20; OTHERWISE, CONTINUE. Q19. In your opinion, what is the main factor contributing to your firm's continued participation in the Club Ride Program? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.) 2 Positive employee response 3 Helps maintain firm's AVR 4 Other (specify) 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Draft ETC Survey - 3/9/95 11 Applied Management & Planning-Gmup 000043 Q20. Using a grading scale of A, B, C, D, and F, please grade the Club Ride Program in terms of the following: (READ LIST) a Professional, A B CD F N/A courteous staff b Returning phone calls A B CDF N/A in a timely manner c Ability to clearly A B C D F NIA communicate the parameters of the program d Overall rating of the Club Ride Program Staff ALL FIRMS A B C D F N/A Q21. I will read you a list of resources available to you from the RCTC. Please tell me to what extent you have found each of these tools useful. Please use the scale: Very Useful, Useful, Somewhat Useful, or Not Useful at All. If you were not aware that these were available, please let me know. (READ LIST. REPEAT OPTIONS WHEN NECESSARY.) a (ASK ONLY IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "1", "2", "4", OR "5") RCTC 3- month Commuter Incentive Program Marketing Implementation Packet 1 Very Useful 2 Useful 3 Somewhat Useful 4 Not Useful at All 5 Was not aware of resource 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (ASK ONLY IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "3", "4", OR "5") Club Ride Program Marketing Implementation Packet 1 Very Useful 2 Useful 3 Somewhat Useful 4 Not Useful at All 5 Was not aware of resource 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) Draft ETC Survey -- 3/9/95 12 Applied Management &planning Group 000044 c Sample newsletter articles 1 Very Useful 2 Useful 3 Somewhat Useful 4 Not Useful at All 5 Was not aware of resource 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) d Prepared sample Rule 1501 Incentive page 1 Very Useful 2 Useful 3 Somewhat Useful 4 Not Useful at All 5 Was not aware of resource 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) e Zip -code listing to identify eligible employees 1 Very Useful 2 Useful 3 Somewhat Useful 4 Not Useful at All 5 Was not aware of resource 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) f (ASK ONLY IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "3", "4", OR "5") Club Ride Program posters 1 Very Useful 2 Useful 3 Somewhat Useful 4 Not Useful at All 5 Was not aware of resource 9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) 0 Refused (DO NOT READ) 023. What percentage of your firm's employees reside in Riverside? 999 = Don't Know IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "1" OR "2", ASK Q24a. IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "3", SKIP TO Q24b. OTHERWISE, ASK BOTH Q24a AND Q24b. Draft ETC Survey .- 3/9/95 13 Applied Management &Planning Group 000'045 Q24a. Do you have any other comments about RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program? Q24b. Do you have any other comments about the Club Ride Program? That concludes our survey. Thank you very much for your time. Draft ETC Survey -- 3/9/95 14 Applied Management & Planning Group 000046 ATTACHMENT 3 -000047 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES [MODEL] This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 199. by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "RCTC," and hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." RECITALS WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is a professional consultant, experienced in providing services to public clients and familiar with the plans of ROTC; and WHEREAS, RCTC desires to engage CONSULTANT to render certain consulting services as set forth herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the promises set forth herein, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION I SERVICES OF THE CONSULTANT; TERM 1. General Scope of Services. CONSULTANT shall provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of RCTC regarding and on other programs and matters affecting ROTC, hereinafter referred to as "Services." The Services are described in Exhibit A 2. The term of this Agreement shall be from to , unless earlier terminated as provided herein. SECTION II RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONSULTANT 1. Control and Payment of Subordinates. RCTC retains CONSULTANT on an independent contractor basis and CONSULTANT is not an employee of RCTC. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT shall at all times be under CONSULTANT's exclusive direction and control. 1 aft gA0IDA2o 162 - 000043 shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. CONSULTANT shall also comply with all relevant provisions of RCTC's Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. SECTION VI SUBCONTRACTING 1. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of ROTC. 2. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first hereinabove written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONSULTANT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By. Jack F. van Haaster, Chair REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By. Eric Haley, Executive Director REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: By: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission By: (Title) By: (Title) awt6g40/ 2oi62Q 0 J 0 4 9 8 CONSULTANT shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers'. compensation insurance. 2. Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by CONSULTANT shall be subject to the approval of ROTC. 3. Substitution of Key Personnel. CONSULTANT has represented to ROTC that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, CONSULTANT may substitute other personnel.of at least equal competence upon written approval of RCTC. In the event that RCTC and CONSULTANT cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, RCTC shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section V of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: 4. Coordination of Services. CONSULTANT agrees to work closely with RCTC staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to RCTC's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 5. Standard of Care; Licenses. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner and shall serve and maintain in force any and all licenses, permits or other approvals necessary for it to carry out the services. 6. Insurance. CONSULTANT shall obtain and shall require its subconsultants to obtain insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC. A. Commercial General Liability Insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 1> Name RCTC, its officials, officers, employees and agents as insureds with respect to performance of Services. Such insured status shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection to the above -listed insureds. nmatimA20162 VUJ0J0 2) Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants. 3) Contain standard separation of insureds provisions. B. Business Automobile Liability Insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. C. Workers' Compensation Insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident at any times during the term of this Agreement during which CONSULTANT may retain employees. D. Certificates/Insurer Rating/Cancellation Notice. 1) CONSULTANT shall, prior to commencement of the Services, furnish to RCTC properly executed certificates of insurance, and certified copies of endorsements, and policies if requested by RCTC, which shall clearly evidence all insurance required in this Section. CONSULTANT shall not allow such insurance to be canceled or allowed to expire except on 30 days' prior to written notice to RCTC. 2) CONSULTANT shall maintain such insurance from the time the Services commence until the Services are completed, except as may be otherwise required by this Section. 3) CONSULTANT shall place insurance with insurers licensed to do business in California. 4) CONSULTANT shall replace certificates, policies and endorsements for any insurance expiring prior to completion of the Services. 7. Schedule of Services. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B," attached hereto. In order to facilitate CONSULTANT's conformance with the Schedule, RCTC shall respond to CONSULTANT's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of RCTC, CONSULTANT shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3 HS�lAQm\2D 162 000051 SECTION III FEES AND PAYMENTS 1. Compensation. CONSULTANT shall receive compensation, including reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed ($ ) without written approval of RCTC's Executive Director. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 2. Payment of Compensation. CONSULTANT shall submit to RCTC a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. RCTC shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3. Reimbursement for Expenses. CONSULTANT shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by ROTC. 4. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, ROTC may request that CONSULTANT perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by RCTC to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from RCTC's Executive Director. SECTION IV ACCOUNTING RECORDS CONSULTANT shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. CONSULTANT shall allow a representative of RCTC during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 4 &elY1&4011)\20162 -00005� SECTION V GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Termination of Agreement. A. RCTC may, by written notice to CONSULTANT, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to CONSULTANT of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon termination, CONSULTANT shall be compensated only for those services which have been adequately rendered to RCTC, and CONSULTANT shall be entitled to no further compensation. CONSULTANT may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. B. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided in paragraph A of this section, RCTC may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. C. If this Agreement is terminated as provided in paragraph A of this section, RCTC may require CONSULTANT to provide all finished or unfinished documents, data, programming source code, reports, etc., prepared by CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. 2. Delivery of Notices. 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: CONSULTANT: [Address] RCTC: Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California -92501 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. 3. Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 5 9601117800)120162 003053 A. Property of ROTC. All materials and data. including data .on magnetic media, prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall become the property of RCTC upon the completion of the term of this Agreement, except that CONSULTANT shall have the right to retain copies of all such documents and data for its records. RCTC shall not be limited in any way in their use of such data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at RCTC's sole risk and provided that CONSULTANT shall be indemnified against any damages resulting from such use, including the release of this material to third parties for a use not intended by this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any materials prepared in connection with this Project, it shall first obtain the written approval of ROTC. B. Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other materials described in subsection A either created by or provided to CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by CONSULTANT. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of ROTC, by used by CONSULTANT for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to CONSULTANT which is otherwise known to CONSULTANT or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. CONSULTANT shall not use RCTC's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of RCTC. 4. Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suits. 5. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify and hold RCTC, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any and all liability from loss, damage, or injury to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT arising out of or in connection with CONSULTANT's performance of this AGREEMENT, including without limitation the payment of attorneys' fees. Further, CONSULTANT shall defend at its own expense, including attorneys' fees, RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, and -6- 98 tigg401b\20162 000054 agents in any legal action based upon such negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct. 6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter. hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 7. ' Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 8. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 9. RCTC's Right to Employ Other Consultants. ROTC reserves right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 10. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of RCTC . 11. Prohibited Interests. A. Solicitation. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, ROTC shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. B. Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of ROTC, during the term of his or her service with ROTC, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 12. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination -7- fi60011WW W62 000055 ATTACHMENT b Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A - Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Study SCE 000056 sc� April 8, 1999 Tanya Love Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92507 Dear Ms. Love: Strategic Consulting & Research appreciates the opportunity to submit our proposal for Measure A — Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Survey. The enclosed technical and cost proposals are submitted by: Redhill Group, Inc. dba Strategic Consulting & Research 18008 Skypark Circle, Suite 145 Irvine, CA 92614 Mark McCourt, President Phone: (949)752-5900 Fax: (949)752-2900 Mr. McCourt will be the contact person during the period of proposal evaluation. The title, address and telephone number are as indicated as above. The enclosed technical and cost proposals shall remain valid for a period of 120 days from the date of submittal. We trust the enclosed submittal is responsive to your request for research services. We look forward to the opportunity to respond to any questions, which you may have regarding our proposal. Sincerely, /T f'`7;74- Mark McCourt President 00t)057 Strategic Consulting & Research / 1050 171D Street NW / Suite 600 / Washington DC 20036 / (202) 496-1288 / Fax (202) 835-9009 West Coast Office / 18008 Skypark Circle / Suite 145 / Irvine / CA 92614 / (714) 752-5900 / Fax (714) 752-2900 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A — Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Study TABLE OF CONTENTS • Ability to Perform Work 2 • Project Management 12 • Staffing 12 • Consultant Qualifications and References 21 • Cost Proposal • Work Plan 21 22 000058 SCR .Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 4,96-1298 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is conducting a study to evaluate the effectiveness of promotional programs designed to reduce vehicle trips in Riverside and San Bernardino counties during peak commuter travel periods. Riverside County, through the Advantage Rideshare Local and Freeway Commuter Incentives Programs, offers incentives of up to $2.00 per day for three months to qualified participants who carpool, vanpool, walk, bicycle, commute by public bus or rail, or telecommute. Riverside County also offers the Club Ride Program, which provides discounts on merchandise and services at over 160 merchants in western Riverside County, to residents who have been ridesharing to work at least one day per week for the past six months. San Bernardino County offers two similar programs, Option Rideshare In -County and Option Rideshare Out -County which also pay up to $2.00 per day to promote ridesharing. In order to effectively evaluate the impact of these programs, RCTC is seeking the services of a consultant that has a thorough understanding of TDM (Transportation Demand Management), ridesharing program evaluation, and promotion testing. The consultant must also have extensive experience designing and fielding transportation research. Strategic Consulting and Research (SCR) has developed a project team that is uniquely qualified to successfully perform this project for RCTC. We offer a combination of technical research skills, transportation research experience, and in-house capabilities that are unmatched by other firms. The SCR team also includes Peter Valk of TMS who offers extensive TDM experience, and Eric Schreffler of ESTC who provides a strong background in program evaluation. Specific skills, resources, and expertise that the SCR team brings to this project include: ♦ Extensive transportation research experience including projects performed for several metropolitan planning organizations, major universities, and transportation providers. ♦ Experience conducting evaluations of rideshare programs for both the Southern California Association of Governments and the San Diego Association of Governments. ♦ A highly competent project team of transportation and research experts with strong local knowledge. ♦ Experience conducting promotion evaluation research in the private sector for clients such as Airtouch Cellular, Fantastic Sams and Avery -Dennison. ♦ A state-of-the-art calling center enabling all surveying to be performed in-house by supervisors and surveyors experienced in transportation research for maximum quality control. This level of experience consistently provides more accurate and meaningful data than firms that farm out the data collection to field and tab houses with no transportation expertise. 000059 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-1288 ♦ Local, national and international experience with TDM program planning and evaluation. ♦ Expertise in sampling design to ensure representative and actionable data. ♦ A complete understanding of transportation questionnaire wording to ensure survey results will be consistent, actionable, and unbiased, resulting in improved data validity. ♦ Proven experience successfully completing many large sample size transportation surveys and delivering excellent quality data on schedule. ♦ A proprietary Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system that provides complete flexibility in survey design and execution including seamless complex skipping patterns, "drop -ins" and on-line calculations using previous survey responses. ♦ A rigorous quality control system recognized by major universities, to provide the highest quality data possible. ♦ The ability to convert data into actionable management recommendations In addition to the skills and experience outlined above, SCR makes an extra effort to work closely with each client as an extension of your project management team. We maintain a high level of communication, providing frequent updates on the project's progress, and quickly communicate any research issues so that they can be addressed and resolved before they become potential problems that might affect the final data set. ABILITY TO PERFORM WORK As noted above, the SCR team comprised of SCR, TMS and ESTC, offers expertise and resources tailored to the specific requirements of this project. All three firms have assessed their workload over the period of the project and can commit to the hours outlined in the Work Plan. Both SCR and TMS have been in business for over ten years (ESTC for five years) and all are financially sound. A profile of each firm follows below. The consultant for this project will be: Company Name: Redhill Group, Inc. DBA: Strategic Consulting & Research Founded: 1987 Address: 18008 Skypark Circle, Suite 145 Firm: Key Contact: Phone: Irvine, CA 92614 Corporation Mark McCourt, President 949 / 752-5900 2 003060 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • inane, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. - (202) 4'96-128B SCR will be supported by TMS and ESTC. The relevant information is a follows: Company Name: DBA: Founded: Address: Firm: Key Contact: Phone: Firm Overview TMS 1985 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400 Pasadena, CA 91101 Sole Proprietorship Peter Valk, President 626-796-3384 ESTC 1994 13580 Samantha Avenue San Diego, CA 92129 Sole Proprietorship Eric Schreffler, President 619-538-9430 SCR SCR is a full service research firm that specializes in transportation research. SCR has conducted numerous transportation research studies for a wide variety of clients including: the San Diego Association of Governments, the Southern California Association of Governments, Sacramento Rideshare, the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, the University of California -Irvine Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, USC, Duke University, and the State of Wisconsin. SCR maintains offices in Irvine, California and Washington D.C. SCR offers management, supervisory and surveying staff that are familiar with the intricacies of transportation research and are supported by a state-of-the-art in-house calling center with a proprietary CATI system designed specifically to support the needs of transportation research. TMS For almost 15 years and in over 500 engagements, Transportation Management Services (TMS) has provided public and private sector clients with expert counsel in research, policy development, design, training, implementation, and evaluation of transportation programs and projects. TMS's skills have been applied to a variety of projects involving creating and conduc-ting surveys among commuters, employers, businesses, and public agencies. TMS' capabilities have helped government agencies, employers, business associations, developers/property owners, and research institutions across the country face challenging problems and develop effective solutions. 003061 3 -SCR • Strategic Consulting 21 Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, A.C. • (202) 496-1288 ESTC ESTC, Eric N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant, is an independent consultancy located in San Diego, CA. ESTC specializes in the research and evaluation of TDM programs, including trip and emission reduction strategies. The firm's principal, Eric N. Schreffler, has extensive experience in forecasting and evaluating the impacts of various transportation demand management strategies and programs. Most of these projects involve the conduct or analysis of commuter/traveler surveys. ESTC has evaluated projects designed to reduce auto trips, enhance mobility, and reduce emissions and/or developed evaluation methods for air districts (SCAQMD and the MSRC), metropolitan planning organizations (SANDAG, ARC, MWCOG), county transportation commissions (LACMTA, CCTA), and regional consortia (RTAC). ESTC has conducted TDM program evaluations in Los Angeles. Sacramento, and San Diego. He has planned TDM programs in Atlanta, GA, Torrance, CA, and Albuquerque, NM. He has provided forecasts of TDM program impacts and pricing strategies as part of regional and corridor transportation planning efforts in Santa Barbara, Ft. Collins, CO, and Missoula, MT. Other clients have included the Government of the Netherlands, the Provinces of Gelderland and Utrecht, the Transit Cooperative Research Program, the City of Aspen, CO, the Regional Transportation Authority in Illinois, the Houston -Galveston Area Council, the California, Montana and Florida Departments of Transportation, the California Air Resources Board and several large private employers. SELECTED SAMPLE PROJECTS AND REFERENCES SCR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SLAG) Contact: Rongsheng Luo (213) 236-1994 1996, 1998 and 1999 State of the Commute Surveys SCR was selected to conduct the State of the Commute Survey for each of the last three waves. The research focused on attitudes toward commuting, traffic congestion, alternative travel modes, employer transportation programs, telecommuting and HOV lanes. The annual commuter survey is a key component for the planning and development of transportation policies and TDM programs throughout Southern California. SCR surveyed 2,925 commuters, using random digit dialing, in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, • Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish, at the respondent's preference. SCR provided the results of the survey to SCAG in SPSS format. In the 1998 wave, an additional oversample of commuters working at worksites of 003062 4 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Researnh • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-1288 100-249 employees was also conducted in response to an enhanced methodology developed by ESTC. SCR's extensive transportation research expertise and superior quality control programs resulted in complete, accurate, and logical data that eliminated an extensive data cleaning process that had previously been required after receiving data from other suppliers. The results of these surveys were used in planning and policy decisions including a report to the California Legislature. CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION Contact: Dr. Edward Sullivan Professor (805) 756-1166 SR 91 Corridor Toll Express Study The California Polytechnic State University Foundation conducted a longitudinal study to evaluate the acceptance and impact of the new "91 Express Lanes." This project was built in the median of State Route 91 in Riverside and Orange Counties, California. The express corridor is a new transportation project similar to the express lanes on I-15. It was funded, constructed and is operated by a private, non -government organization. It is also the first "cashless" toll road in the country, requiring pre -purchase of a debit transponder before using the express lanes. Finally, the tolls vary based on congestion levels in the adjacent freeway lanes, and at maximum congestion pricing, it is the most expensive toll road in the nation, on a per mile basis. To fully understand the community's response to this dramatically different toll road, Cal Poly is researching the system's impact on commuter- attitudes, opinions, and behavior. To determine how these are likely to change over time in future projects, and to identify possible barriers at each phase, SCR was selected to conduct the.surveys in four phases. SCR has been contracted to complete all four phases of this project that tracks a panel of commuters over a two-year period. In phase one, 1,100 commuters were interviewed prior to the opening of the toll road. This survey, conducted in both English and Spanish, covered both behavior and attitudes about the new road. The survey indicated quotas for SOV's, two occupant vehicles, and vehicles with a minimum of three occupants. The survey was repeated at six months with 550 respondents, and again one year after the road opened with 1,100 commuters. An additional 550 commuters will be surveyed in phase four in approximately three months. The results of the surveys will be used to help improve the success of similar projects that are going to open in the future in various locations across the country. 000063 5 SCR • Strategic Consulting 8 Research • hvine, CA • (714) 752-5s00 • Washington, D.C. • (202) ass-12ae - DUKE UNIVERSTITY Contact: Eric I. Pas Professor (919) 660-5200 Commuter Responses to TDM Strategies Duke University is studying Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that could be implemented in the Washington, DC area. To support this effort, SCR conducted a two-part CATI survey. The first CATI survey provided a complete household census of drivers and vehicles as well as commuter options. "Memory joggers" were then mailed to each participant to track all travel and activities for a 24-hour period. This data was then collected in full detail in the second wave CATI survey. Respondents were also asked how they would change their travel behavior if each potential TDM strategy were implemented, including specific details of how their previously reported travel and activities would be accomplished if their behavior changed in response to the TDM strategy. This survey included a collection of exact addresses for each location visited during the 24-hour period that was subsequently used for geocoding. Since the respondent universe was extremely diverse in both behavior and attitudes, complex skipping patterns were required in order to reliably collect all needed information. The CATI system was programmed to make calculations based on previous responses and then drop these calculations into subsequent questions. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Contact: Kim Kawada Sr. Transportation Planner (619) 595-5394 The California Rideshare Placement Rate Studies In 1994, San Diego County was selected as one of four sites to test a new rideshare placement rate methodology developed by The Research Center at California State University, Chico. The new methodology was developed in order to standardize the collection and reporting of rideshare placement rates. Of the four original test locations, SCR achieved the highest response rate at 78%, and was selected by SANDAG to conduct subsequent rideshare placement rate studies conducted in 1995, 1996, and 1997. SCR was responsible for ensuring that the survey was executed in a manner that was consistent with the proposal methodology, and for recommending modifications to improve data reliability and ensure statistical integrity of the sample. Based on the results of the initial survey, SCR recommended several modifications that have been adopted by SANDAG. 000064 6 SCR • Strategic Consutang 8 Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-1288 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) Contact: Rongsheng Luo (213) 236-1994 1997 Rideshare Placement Study SCR was selected to conduct a Rideshare Placement Study to determine changes in commuting behavior among commuters who received RideGuides from Southern California Rideshare between January and March of 1997. The survey covered Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. This study provided information on current and historical commute behavior, carpool, vanpool and buspool characteristics, rideshare placements, and demographics. SCR conducted 712 telephone interviews with respondents who were currently commuting to work and who received a RideGuide from Southern California Rideshare. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish, at each respondent's preference. The results of the study were provided to Southern California Rideshare on a data disk in SPSS labeled file format. TMS THE BOEING COMPANY Contact Mr. Mikal Wasch (253)657-9077 Employee Travel Surveys TMS has been involved with the development, administration, and analysis of nearly 500 travel surveys covering over 500,000 employees. The firm has developed survey instruments, conducted pre and post survey tests, `cleaned' and tabulated data, and prepared reports with findings from the surveys. Most engagements have involved the development of administration procedures to elicit the highest response rate possible including techniques such as training supervisors, personal endorsements from executives, gaining union participation, and working with employee groups to gain support. One engagement that is representative of employee survey work is assisting the Boeing Company with an assessment of it commute management program at their Everett complex, home to 35,000 employees that build 747, 767, and 777 aircraft. TMS developed survey methodologies and instruments appropriate for office and production workers, worked with a committee of Boeing staff to refine the survey administration process, directed the survey research consultant retained to process the data, structured the data output, analyzed data, and prepared reports presenting findings. 000065 7 SCR *Strategic Consufting 8 Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-590D • Washington, o C. • (202) 496-1288 METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Contact: Ms. Elham Shirazi Mr. Nick Ramfos Prime Consultant (202) 962-3200 (323)931-7672 Survey of Telecommuters in the Metropolitan Washington DC Region TMS, as part of a consulting team, is assisting in the evaluation of a two-year telework demonstration project in the Metropolitan Washington region. The assignment involves the development of a survey methodology involving pre and post survey of telecommuters, supervisors, coworkers, and clients at eight participating organizations, development of a data analysis template, data entry, generated output, and production of reports utilizing complex exhibits and narrative for individual organizations and across all demonstration project sites. Presentation materials for agency committees were produced from the survey findings. REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Contact: Ms. Randi Allcott (602)534-1802 Survey of Telecommuters in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area The Regional Public Transportation Authority retained TMS to help develop three surveys to understand existing telecommuting patterns and to develop a marketing campaign to increase telecommuting. TMS helped develop employer and employee questionnaires, an interview guide for leading community opinion leaders, and guidelines for focus groups. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Contact: Ms. Jodi Sorrell Marketing Program Administrator (714) 560 - 5574 Evaluation of OCTA's Retail Bus Pass Sales ProPram Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) sells over 100,000 monthly bus passes or coupons annually through the mail, at employment sites and transportation centers, and at approximately 80 Retail Pass Sales Outlets. The OCTA Pass Sales Retail Market Evaluation was undertaken to ensure that riders have convenient access to purchasing fare media at retail locations particularly in areas not served well by existing outlets. TMS provided recommendations on where Retail Pass Sales Outlets should be located, areas not served well by existing Retail Pass Sales Outlets, the characteristics of businesses that should participate in the program, specific businesses that should be recruited into the program, and actions to market the Retail Pass Sales Outlets to potential retail participants. Work included development of the 003066 8 SCR • Sbategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 732-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-1288 evaluation methodology, survey methods. questionnaire development, management of survey contractor, analysis of primary and secondary data, and preparation of reports. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Contact: Mr. Robert Jackson (213) 922-2000 Transit Service Planning Market Research Study The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority provides a vast array of transit including local and express bus, light rail, and subway services. TMS, as part of a consulting team, has helped LAMTA develop a comprehensive database of market research information to help plan, develop, and design services that enable travelers get around without using a car. The project includes an On -Board survey of LAMTA's customers and a telephone survey of 3,500 county residents. TMS' assignments included conducting focus groups, coordinating data collection field teams, and analysis of responses to the county resident survey. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS Contact: Ms. Susan Herman, former General Manager (310) 820-3001 State of Telecommuting in Southern California - 1995 TMS was retained by the Southern California Telecommuting Partnership to conduct primary research on telecommuting among 700 businesses and 700 commuters. This effort provided a better understanding of 1) how organizations consider implementing telecommuting and 2) the attitudes and behavioral characteristics of individual workers in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties as they pertain to telecommuting. This information was used to develop the Partnership's $1.5 million marketing effort including a marketing plan, sales tools, training videos, collateral materials, and sales/service tactics. CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Contact: Ms. Airelle Bourgart (510) 256-4728 Policies for Allocating Vehicle Trip and Emission Reduction Funds The Contra Costa Transportation Authority retained TMS to develop policies and procedures to guide the investment of local vehicle trip and emission reduction funds. Work included researching existing practices in Contra Costa and other Bay Area counties. Interviews with area stakeholders were held in an effort to identify the goals and objectives that would guide the design of the 000067 9 SCR- Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D C. • (202) 495-1288 allocation structure while existing investments, reporting practices and allocation processes were examined to reveal any deficiencies in use of public funds. Recommendations were provided in the areas of investment categories, allocation criteria, evaluation responsibilities, and . expenditure guidelines. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Contact: Judith Hollander (formerly Director of Planning & Programs, Regional Transit Board) Planning Analyst (651)602-1534 Evaluation of Regional Rideshare Services in the Twin Cities TMS led a team of consultants in assessing how well rideshare services were being delivered in the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area and in developing a strategic plan to improve service. Activities included reviewing performance and operations of Minnesota Rideshare and identifying changes that would be necessary to increase the effectiveness of services delivered. The team conducted an extensive review of existing conditions, identified weaknesses, strengths, opportunities and problems challenging rideshare services, developed alternative actions to respond to conditions, and prepared an action plan to put the preferred program into place. This engagement involved considerable work with several stakeholders to develop consensus. WARNER CENTER TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Contact: Mr. Chris Park, Executive Director (818) 710-7767 Evaluation of Transportation Demonstration Projects TMS has advised several cities and Transportation Management Associations in developing and evaluating projects that explored transportation improvements including a mid day transportation service for commuters that did not have a personal vehicle available at work, Guaranteed Ride Home services, and shuttle services to rail stations. Work on these assignments included: developing methods for tracking activities and effectiveness that helped program managers deliver services while providing the data needed to assess effectiveness; conducting field work, including surveys of patrons, to determine market characteristics and conditions under which the service operated; researching findings from similar projects from other areas; calculating transportation and air quality benefits; and offering guidance for future operations. 003068 10 .SCR •Strategic Consulting 8 Research. Irvine, CA* (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 4.96-1288 ESTC LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Contact: Douglas Kim (213)922-2817 Evaluation of TDM Demonstration Projects and Standard Methodology As project manager for COMSIS Corp., and later as a subcontractor, Mr. Schreffler coordinated the evaluation of 12 TDM demonstration projects funded by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and assisted in the review of over 50 total projects. Mr. Schreffler managed the evaluation process, reviewed the evaluation plans and reports, and integrated the findings into the overall study. The project included development and application of a standardized evaluation methodology for determining the cost effectiveness of each project, consistent with both client reporting forms and the CARB/Caltrans CMAQ evaluation methods. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Contact: John Anderson (619) 595-5364 Performance Audit of San Diego -Coronado Bridge Toll Revenue Projects As a prime contractor to SANDAG, ESTC evaluated some 16 projects as part of the toll revenue program of projects. Projects included new transit service and added peak trips on existing routes, transit fare subsidies and marketing, a vanpool program, a new ferry service, alternative fuel vehicle conversion, etc. Existing quarterly performance data and sponsor reports were reviewed, the cost effectiveness of each project calculated and recommendations on the selection and evaluation of future projects (including revised surveys and ongoing data collection). SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (ON BEHALF OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES COALITION) Contact: Cheryl Collier (SCR) (213) 236-1942 or Douglas Kim (LACMTA) (213) 922-2817 SB 836 Evaluation Methodology: Baseline and Methodology to Measure the Effectiveness of Voluntary Ridesharing and Other Rule 2202 Replacement Measures For SCAG and the Southern California Regional Transportation Agencies' Coalition, ESTC led a team to develop a rigorous, yet cost effective, methodology for determining the impact of voluntary trip and emission reduction measures implemented in 1997 as part of the deregulation of Rule 2202 among worksites with 100-249 employees in the South Coast Air Basin. Rigor was 003069 11 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. - (202) 496-1288 maintained by using two corroborating sources of travel impact data and cost effectiveness was assured by using existing. tested data for the before case and replicating these data collection protocols for the after case. The measure of effectiveness developed for trip reduction strategies was the change in a "vehicle trip rate" and direct emission reduction strategies (e.g., scrapping) was directly measured. The development of the method was directed by an oversight committee comprised of SCAQMD, SCAG, the LACMTA, U.S. EPA, ARB, and a representative from academia. The resulting methodology was based a consensus reached with the consulting team and among the oversight committee. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING SCR PROJECT TEAM All key personnel indicated in the organization chart above will be available for the duration of the project, and no person designated as "key" to the project will be removed or replaced without prior written concurrence of RCTC. 12 SCR • Strategic Consulting &Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 49, -1288 SCR Mark McCourt - President, will serve as Project Director. He has managed over fifty transportation research projects, and has a thorough understanding of the issues relevant to transportation research. Mr. McCourt will provide project oversight, survey instrument design, data analysis and reporting, and will also serve as the primary contact person for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Mr. McCourt is recognized for his expertise in transportation survey design work and the ability to craft survey instruments that provide actionable information while avoiding potential biases. He also offers extensive experience in sampling design and research methodology which make it possible for SCR to produce actionable management recommendations to meet client needs. Mr. McCourt is a member of the Transportation Research Board's Committee on Travel Survey Methods. He has managed several transportation projects that evaluate rideshare program productivity, as well as many mode identification. and quantification studies such as the State of the Commute for SCAG. Mr. McCourt also conducts research in the private sector assisting clients with new product development, product positioning, and evaluation of promotions. This private sector experience enhances his ability to develop a project design that will provide the most useful information for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Jennifer Griffin- Project Manager, will manage the day-to-day project execution and will directly oversee surveyor training. She will also assist in survey instrument design, analysis and reporting of results. Ms. Griffin has a background in market research with experience in total quality management, statistical methodology, and survey instrument design. While at SCR, Ms. Griffin has worked on transportation research projects for the San Diego Association of Governments, the Southern California Association of Governments, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, MTDB, Caltrans and the University of Southern California. Juan Basurto-Operations Supervisor, will work closely with the survey and quality assurance teams to guarantee data integrity and project timeliness. Mr. Basurto will provide all customized CATI programming as well as translation of the survey instrument into Spanish. Mr. Basurto has a background in quality assurance and has supervised SCR transportation research projects for SANDAG, SCAG, California Polytechnic State University, UC Davis, and LA-MTA. Of particular relevance to this project, Mr. Basurto has supervised all three waves of the SCAG State of the Commute surveys. 000071. 13 SCR • strategic Consulting& Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D. C. • (202) 4ss-12es TMS Peter J. Valk, President, has advised numerous public and private sector clients across the country on a variety of projects that seek an understanding of behavior and develop techniques to affect change. His expertise in planning, design and management has been applied to projects in the field of urban transportation, the environment, and solving regulatory problems for employers, property owners, and public agencies. Mr. Valk's clients include many public agencies such as the Southern California Association of Governments, the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Caltrans (as part of several consultant teams), the California Integrated Waste Management Board, numerous Fortune 500 corporations, numerous state agencies throughout the country, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal departments. Prior to founding TMS in 1985, Mr. Valk was employed for nearly eight years by Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. (formerly Commuter Computer), the regional ridesharing organization for Southern California. As Director of Planning and Development, Mr. Valk served on Commuter Transportation Service's executive management team and was responsible for annual and long- range planning, new service development and evaluation activities for the $5.0 million organization. Mr. Valk's prior experience was with the California Department of Transportation and the Mayor's Office in the City of Los Angeles where he helped develop a citywide parking management program. Mr. Valk is a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. American Planning Association, Transportation Research Board, and Southern California Rideshare's Advisory Committee. He has taught at UCLA Extension and at Cal Poly Pomona. Mr. Valk holds a Master of Arts in Urban Planning from the University of California at Los Angeles and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Environmental Design from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Mr. Valk has been called upon often to present his experiences in transportation management at conferences and workshops across the country. He was a lead instructor for a Certificate Program at UCLA Extension's Public Policy Program as well as having taught in the California State University system. ESTC Eric N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant (ESTC) is a San Diego -based transportation planning and evaluation consulting practice specializing in the forecasting and evaluation of TDM strategies. Mr. Schreffler has successfully participated in or managed TDM planning and evaluation projects throughout southern California. ESTC has evaluated the impact of financial incentives for using commute alternatives and analyzed the trip, VMT and emission reductions from these strategies. He has developed standardized evaluation methods that allow project sponsors to calculate these impacts in a manner consistent with state standards. He worked with the California Air Resources Board to develop a standardized method for use with the new ACT 14 000072 SCR • strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, LA • (T t4) 752-5900 • Washington. D.C. • (202) 496-120e TDM Toolkit. Mr. Schreffler's reputation in the evaluation area is partially due to his ability to balance rigor and practicality in forecasting and quantification methods, including survey instrument design, protocol, data cleaning and compilation, statistical analysis tools, and reporting. Mr. Schreffler has over 18 years experience in transportation management forecasting and evaluation. He holds a B.A. in Urban Studies from U.C. San Diego and a M.S. in Transportation from M.I.T. His formal training at M.I.T. included route -level transit planning. He currentlti serves as adjunct faculty at S.D.S.U. teaching graduate -level urban transportation planning. He is currently Director of Research for the TDM Institute of ACT and a member of the TDM committees of TRB and ITE. RESUMES MARK A. MCCOURT President, SCR 1986-Present: President , Strategic Consulting & Research,18008 Skypark Circle, Irvine, CA Mark McCourt is the founder of Strategic Consulting & Research, a full service research firm specializing in transportation research at the local and national level. Mr. McCourt has more than fifteen years experience in consumer behavior, transportation research, and statistical analysis. His experience includes the management and execution of complex research projects to obtain non - biased research data. He has a strong background in the development of survey instruments and execution methodologies for successful collection of representative data.. Mr. McCourt is a member of the Transportation Research Board's Committee of Transportation Survey Methods and has designed and directed many large-scale research projects in California and throughout the country. Mr. McCourt has directed research projects for major university transportation centers, as well as for metropolitan planning organizations and transportation providers. His experience in transportation and consumer research ensures that the data collected 'leads to actionable recommendations. 1981-1986: Product Manager, Ecolab, St. Paul, MN Mr. McCourt managed new product development, advertising and promotional efforts for a business unit serving the hospitality industry. Under Mr. McCourt's direction, the business unit grew from an unprofitable $12MM business into a highly profitable $24MM business within three years. While at Ecolab, Mr. McCourt also served as an international marketing consultant, assisting company divisions worldwide in the development of long-term business plans and annual marketing plans. Mr. McCourt also participated in mergers and acquisitions, leading to the 000073 15 SCR • StrategraConsulting 8 Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-7288 successful acquisition of Airwick's commercial business to complement Ecolab's cleaning products business. 1979-1981: Market Research Supervisor, 3M, St. Paul, MN Mr. McCourt worked directly with the operating divisions of 3M to design and conduct market research efforts to support new product design and introduction. Among the products for which Mr. McCourt provided research support were the surgical stapler, red -dot electrodes, and surgical draping systems. EDUCATION: University of Washington, Seattle WA Master of Business Administration: Quantitative Methods and Marketing Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA Bachelor of Arts: Economics JENNIFER GRIFFIN 1997-Present Project Manager , Strategic Consulting & Research, 18008 Skypark Circle, Irvine, CA Ms Griffin has a background in market research, statistical methodology, and data analysis. She has worked on a number of transportation -related research studies including the University of California at Irvine — Intelligent Transportation Systems study, Washington Area Council of Governments - Vision project, Rideshare Placement Rate Studies, ACCESS customer evaluation, and the Southem California Regional Rail Authority's On -Board Survey. 1995- 1996 Contracts and Grants; Department of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA 1992- 1996 Ms. Griffin was responsible for the preparation of contracts and grants for the department of surgery, division of otolaryngology. Responsibilities included the procurement and administration of contracts and grants within her division. Merchandising Sales Representative, Helene Curtis, Inc., Chicago, IL Ms. Griffin was responsible for coordinating merchandising and sales activities for her region. She was also responsible for managing customer relations with their existing client base. 16 003074 :SCR •strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA-• (714) 752-5900 • Washington. D.C. • (202) 496-1288 EDUCATION: San Diego State University, San Diego, CA Bachelor of Science; Business Administration Concentration: Marketing PETER J. VALK President. TMS Transportation Management Services President January 1985-Present Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. Director/Planning and Development Manager/Planning and Evaluation 1981 - 1984 1979 - 1981 California Department of Transportation Analyst/Transit Branch 1977 - 1978 City of Los Angeles, Office of the Mayor Analyst/Parking Management Program 1977 • Areas of Qualification • Transportation Planning • Program Evaluation • Training and Education • Public -Private Ventures • Transportation Demand Management • Land Use/Transportation Planning Education Master of Arts/Urban Planning University of California at Los Angeles, 1978 Bachelor of Arts/Environmental Design State University of New York at Buffalo, 1976 Professional Affiliations • American Planning Association • Association for Commuter Transportation • Institute of Transportation Engineers • Transportation Research Board 00 075 17 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (714)752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-12813 Academic Experience Instructor Cal Poly State University at Pomona Lead Instructor UCLA TDM Certificate Program March 1990 1991 - 1996 Community Involvement Commissioner City of Calabasas Traffic and Transportation Commission From September 1996 Representative Projects in Evaluation and Surveys Evaluation of Rideshare Services — Mr. Valk directed a team that assessed rideshare programs in the Minneapolis -St. Paul area and identified strategies for improving the delivery of ridesharing services. Activities included crafting a strategic planning process, reviewing performance and operations of Minnesota Rideshare, identifying strategies to increase the effectiveness of services delivered, and formulating a plan to deliver the selected programs. Evaluation of OCTA's Retail Bus Pass Sales Program - The OCTA Pass Sales Retail Market Evaluation was undertaken to ensure that riders have convenient access to purchasing fare media at retail locations. TMS recommended where Retail Pass Sales Outlets should be located, identified areas not served well by existing Retail Pass Sales Outlets, developed characteristics of businesses that should participate in the program, identified businesses that should be recruited, and identified actions to market the Retail Pass Sales Outlets to potential retail participants. Work included development of the evaluation methodology, survey methods, questionnaire development, management of survey contractor, analysis of primary and secondary data, and preparation of reports. Evaluation of Transportation Demonstration Projects — Mr. Valk has advised numerous clients in developing and evaluating projects including mid -day transportation services, Guaranteed Ride Home services, and shuttles. Work included: developing methods for tracking activities; conducting field work, including surveys of patrons, to determine market characteristics and conditions under which the service operated; researching findings from similar projects from other areas; calculating transportation and air quality benefits; and offering guidance on project modifications. Policies for Allocating Vehicle Trip and Emission Reduction Funds — Mr. Valk developed policies and procedures to guide the investment of local vehicle trip and emission reduction funds. Work included conducting interviews with stakeholders to identify goals and objectives to guide the design of the allocation structure, researching existing funding allocation practices in Contra Costa and other Bay Area counties, assessing existing investments, reporting practices and allocation processes to reveal any deficiencies in use of public funds. 000076 1s SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • trvine, CA • (7ta) 752-s900 • Washington, D.C. + (202) 4.96-12138 Assessment of the Boeing Company's Rideshare Program — TMS was retained by the Boeing Company to evaluate the commute management program at their Everett complex, home to 35,000 employees that build 747, 767, and 777 aircraft. TMS developed survey methodologies and instruments appropriate for office and production workers, worked with a committee of Boeing staff to refine the survey administration process, directed the survey research consultant retained to process the data, structured the data output, analyzed data, and prepared reports presenting findings. Survey of Telecommuters in the Metropolitan Washington DC Region - TMS, as part of a consulting team, is assisting in the evaluation of a two-year telework demonstration project in the Metropolitan Washington region. The assignment involves the development of a survey methodology involving pre and post survey of telecommuters, supervisors, coworkers, and clients at eight participating organizations, developed data analysis template, data entry, generated output, and produced reports utilizing complex exhibits and narrative for individual organizations and across all demonstration project sites. Presentation materials for agency committees were produced from the survey findings. State of Telecommuting in Southern California - TMS was retained by the Southern California Telecommuting Partnership to conduct primary research on telecommuting among 700 businesses and 700 commuters. This effort provided a better understanding of 1) how organizations consider implementing telecommuting and 2) the attitudes and behavioral characteristics of individual workers in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties as they pertain to telecommuting. This information was used to develop the Partnership's $1.5 million marketing effort including a marketing plan, sales tools, training videos, collateral materials, and sales/service tactics. ERIC N. SCHREFFLER Principal ESTC EDUCATION EXPERIENCE M.S. Transportation — Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1983 B.A. Urban Studies - University of California, San Diego, 1981 Mr. Schreffler's experience and expertise lie in the development, implementation, and evaluation of transportation management programs for the public and private sectors. Over the past 12 years, he has received widespread recognition for his work evaluating transportation demand management (TDM) programs, including most TDM, TCM, and market -based strategies, to assess their impacts on reducing vehicle trips, relieving congestion and improving air quality. He possesses particular expertise in evaluating the cost effectiveness of employer -based trip reduction programs. He has published over 20 articles on these topics and made presentations to national and international audiences. 000077 19 SCR • Strategic Consulting 8, Research Irvine, CA+(714) 752 5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-1288 1994 - Current ESTC -Independent Transportation Consultant - San Diego. CA As an independent consultant. ESTC has provided TDM expertise on a variety of projects, including: assisting employers and states comply with trip reduction requirements, forecasting the potential for TDM strategies in long-range transportation plans, developing standardized methods for evaluating voluntary employer trip reduction programs and publicly -funded trip and emission reduction programs, and co -directing international evaluations of U.S. - Dutch experience with employer TDM programs and employer incentive programs. ESTC clients have included large corporations, cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, air quality districts, state departments of transportation and environment, provincial governments, national research organizations, and federal departments of transportation in the U.S. and abroad. 1990 - 1994 Manager, COMSIS Corporation - Torrance, CA Mr. Schreffler initiated and managed COMSIS Corporation's southern California office, a large transportation planning and forecasting consulting firm. Mr. Schreffler was involved in managing large and diverse transportation planning and management projects for national, state, regional and local agencies and organizations. He managed or assisted with the development of several forecasting models for assessing the potential impact of TDM measures and TCMs, including the FHWA's TDM Evaluation Model. He was involved with both national and local planning and evaluation projects focusing on the role of trip reduction programs in transportation and air quality solutions with the aim of making employer compliance more cost effective with less administrative burden for the regulator and employer. Upon the invitation of the Transportation Research Board, he authored a "white paper" entitled TDM Evaluation: Current Practices and Future Directions for a national conference on TDM Research. 1988 - 1990 Exec. Vice President, Harold Katz & Associates - Santa Monica, CA Mr. Schreffler helped found and was Executive Vice President of Harold Katz & Associates, Inc., a transportation management consulting firm. Mr. Schreffler specialized in the preparation of trip reduction plans for employers and developers; consulting services to cities and planning organizations; Transportation Management Association (TMA) formation and operations consulting; TDM evaluation studies; and the development and implementation of transportation management workshops. 1986 - 1988 Planning Manager, Commuter Transportation Services — Los Angeles, CA As manager of the Planning Department of Commuter Transportation Services, Inc., a regional commuter management organization (better known as Commuter Computer and now Southern California Rideshare), Mr. Schreffler oversaw the planning and research function for the nation's largest ridesharing organization. He was responsible for a variety of projects, related to market research, program evaluation, TDM planning and fee -for -service work. That work involved planning projects for employers, developers, and government agencies. 20 00 ei078 CR. SAaiegic.ConsuRing 8, Research.. ()vine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (.202) 4964285 Total 000079 1983 - 1986 Transportation Planner, USDOT - Cambridge, MA Mr. Schreffler served as a transportation/community planner at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, U.S. DOT's research facility in Cambridge, MA. He managed the evaluation of some 20 federally sponsored demonstration projects. These projects ranged from TMAs and other forms of public/private partnerships to innovative applications of parking management, commuter transit services, paratransit and taxi services. Mr. Schreffler has also performed research on public/private partnerships as a research assistant at M.I.T.; worked for the Boston -based transportation consulting firm of Multisystems, Inc. while a graduate student; and served as an undergraduate intern at the Metropolitan Transit Development Board in San Diego. During 1989, he served as President of the 900-member Southern California Chapter of the Association for Commuter Transportation. He is currently a member and former Vice President of the national Association for Commuter Transportation and serves as the Director of Research for ACT's TDM Institute. He is also the International Liaison for ACT to TDM organizations in Europe. He serves on the TDM Committees of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Transportation Research Board. He is also a member of the Women's Transportation Seminar. He is as an adjunct professor at San Diego State University, teaching graduate -level Urban Transportation Planning. CONSULTANT OUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCE The issues covered in this section of the RFP have been addressed in the proposal section titled "ABILITY TO PERFORM WORK." COST PROPOSAL Hours by Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Total 1 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 McCourt 2 5 8 6 5 3 8 8 45 Griffin 8 6 6 20 Surveyors 556 556 Sup/QA 6 69 8 83 Clerical 6 4 4 6 20 Sub -total 2 13 14 6 631 23 13 8 14 724 0 TMS/ESTC 6 6 2 2 10 4 8 8 46 8 19 16 8 631 33 17 16 22 770 21 SCR • Shategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, o.0 • (202) 496-1288 Cost Hours Rate Extension OH Total McCourt 45 50 $2,250 $3,038 $5,288 Griffin 20 18 $360 $486 $846 Surveyors 556 10 $5,556 $7,500 $13,056 Sup/QA 83 11 $918 $1,239 $2,157 Clerical 20 12 $240 $324 $564 Sub -total 724 $21,910 Travel $75 Sub -total $21,985 Profit (10%) '2,199 Total SCR $24,184 TMS/ESTC 46 125 5750 Travel $150 $5,900 Grand Total 770 $29,934 WORK PLAN The goal of this evaluation effort is to provide RCTC and SANBAG with information on the five commuter assistance programs that help direct Measure A funds to programs that are effective in relieving congestion for county residents. The objective of the RCTC Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Survey is to: • Identify the effect of the five programs on the formation and retention of ridesharing. • Describe the characteristics of participating commuters. • Assess the operating procedures of program features. • Identify program features that attract commuters and obstacles to participation. Phase l: Initiate Project Study and collect/review background documentation The SCR Team will review materials provided by the RCTC Program Manager, the vendor that operates the programs, and other documentation in order to develop a thorough understanding of the five programs. The focus of the review will be on how the programs operate, characteristics of customers (and non -customers), and previous evaluation findings. 22 ,000060 .SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA-_(714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-1288 A brief progress report will be prepared that describes the five programs. The report will identify evaluation issues and topics that should be addressed. Ten copies of the memo will be provided to the RCTC Project Manager. Lead: Transportation Management Services Schedule: Week 0 to Week 1 Product(s): Progress Report: Description of the Five Incentive Programs (10 copies) Phase 2: Survey Preparation Task 2.1: Agency interviews The SCR Team will examine the surveys used in the previous evaluation in preparing for the initial team meeting. The SCR Team will meet with the RCTC and SANBAG Project Managers to: • Clarify the goals and objectives for the evaluation survey. • Review and refine the Scope of Work • Discuss evaluation and survey needs • Discuss the sampling design and survey instruments • Finalize detailed schedule Task 2.2: Develop Survey Instruments Before developing survey instruments, SCR will finalize the sampling design (addressed in task 2.3 below) as this may influence survey instrument development. SCR designs survey instruments using a "reverse -engineering" approach. We start with the project objectives, specifically the decisions that will be made using survey results, and then determine what pie chart, bar chart or table would make the decision and easy one. We then craft the questions that are needed to produce the charts and tables that will be required. Finally, we order the questions so that the interview will flow well, and the order in which the questions are asked will not bias subsequent responses. As noted previously in this proposal, SCR has extensive experience in designing :transportation research survey instruments. We are able to identify situations that might otherwise lead to inconclusive results and craft the survey to overcome these difficulties. We also understand the wide variety of commuting patterns including non-standard workweeks and unusual schedules such as those found with firefighters, hospital workers, and airline personnel. Knowledge of these and many other considerations in survey design enables SCR to avoid the many pitfalls that can otherwise occur in transportation research, leading to a less than optimal data set. Task 2.3: Develop Sampling Methodology After meeting with RCTC and SANDAG management to secure a complete understanding of all project objectives, SCR will develop a sampling methodology that will provide actionable results 000081 23 .SCR •Strategic Consulting B Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-1288 that can be used for effective decision -making by the two organizations. Our preliminary direction is to survey program participants stratified by the time they initially signed up for the programs. The largest sample group will be those who joined recently, as they are the best group to provide a good explanation of the promotions' impact on their decision to switch from their SOV. Other sample groups that will be interviewed, will go back in time to the beginning of the program to provide a realistic estimate of longevity of non-SOV riding resulting from the promotional programs. As part of this process, SCR will consult with TMS and ESTC on the development of the sampling methodology to ensure that it addresses all practical issues related to the program. The sampling design will also include surveying ETCs who participate in the program to secure an understanding of program strengths and weaknesses from their perspective. It will also determine if there are ways that the program could be refined to increase its effectiveness either by making it more attractive to end -users, or by making it more attractive for ETCs and their organizations to actively promote the program. SCR will provide both the recommended sampling methodology and draft survey instruments to RCTC project management for review and approval. SCR will then implement any requested changes and enter the survey instruments into our CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) system for surveying. Lead: Strategic Consulting & Research Schedule: Week 1 to Week 2 Product(s): Technical memorandum consisting of recommended sampling design and draft survey instruments. Final survey instruments will also be provided after incorporating any desired changes by RCTC project management. Phase 3: Survey Execution The first step of survey execution will be to thoroughly test the survey instrument off-line to ensure that it flows well and that all skipping patterns are performing as desired. We then provide surveyors and supervisors with project -specific training so that they understand all project ' objectives and know the potential difficulties they might encounter and how best to handle them. This extra level of training helps ensure that our surveyors and supervisors (who routinely conduct transportation surveys) have the ability to quickly identify any potential incongruities so that they can be resolved before they can become a problem with the final data set. Surveyors will also pretest the survey instruments on other surveyors to become familiar with the survey instrument. SCR will employ executive level interviewers to conduct the surveys with the ETCs. The hours and cost that are provided in the cost section are based o 1,6 5-6 minute surveys with program users and 50; 10-minute ETC executive interviews. will provide overall 24 000082 SCR • Shategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • washogron, D.C. • (202) 4.9s-12ss accuracy of + 1.5-2.4% for program participants and a worst case of + 8.3-13.8% for ETCs. The ETC accuracy will probably be much tighter since there is a "population adjustment" used when the sample is a significant proportion of the total target audience which will probably .be the case here. Both accuracy figures are based on a 95% confidence level, which is the industry standard for consumer research. This means that 19 out of 20 times on average, differences of this magnitude in the data will reflect true differences in the target audience, and 1 out of 20 times a difference of this size will be due to random variation of the data. Lead: Strategic Consulting & Research Schedule: Week 3 to 6 Product(s): Weekly progress reports on data collection process to RCTC Project Manager Phase 4: Survey Analysis and Interpretation 4.1: Prepare Draft Report A set of frequencies showing survey responses will be prepared along with cross -tabulations. The SCR Team will examine the survey data to develop findings and identify implications for re- developing and managing the programs. The principal questions to be addressed in the evaluation are — "Did the programs achieve what they set out to do", "How well were the services delivered", and " How could a better job be done". A key factor in the analysis of commuter data will be the effect of the incentives on the formation and retention of rideshare arrangements, while the emphasis in the Employee Transportation Coordinator survey will be on the value of the incentives on employer ridesharing programs and programs administration. Other topics to be addressed will include: • Travel behavior prior to, during, and after the incentive period. • Reasons for participating and/or leaving a rideshare arrangement. • Residential and work locations. • Effect of workplace setting and policies on travel behavior. • Effect of marketing activities. • Responses from the survey conducted in this study will be compared to those of the previous evaluation to identify any changes in customer responsiveness and characteristics. A draft version of the Final Report will be prepared. The report will have the following sections: • Purpose of the evaluation • Description of the incentive programs • Methodology • Characteristics and attitudes of commuter and employer participants • Effect of incentives on formation and retention of ridesharing arrangements 0010s3 25 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-1288 • Recommendations for program structure and operations The report will include narrative text, exhibits, charts, and tables that present findings and recommendations in a clear and easily understood manner. The SCR Team will meet with the RCTC Project Manager to review the report and to discuss comments. 4.2: Prepare Final Report The SCR Team will make revisions to the draft Final Report and prepare a final version. 4.3: Evaluate Cost Effectiveness Evaluation Methodology This task will involve providing recommendations on methodologies to assess the cost- effectiveness of the commuter assistance programs. The SCR Team will examine the process used by RCTC to develop cost effectiveness figures as well as the process used to evaluate the programs including development of transportation benefits (e.g., vehicle trips and emission reduced). The SCR Team will compare the evaluation methodologies to those used by other agencies such as LACMTA. Caltrans, and the California Air Resources Board. 4.4: Prepare Executive Summary and Make Presentation The SCR Team will produce a draft version of an Executive Summary of the Final Report. A final version will be prepared after receiving comments from the RCTC Project Manager. The SCR Team will prepare a presentation in a Power Point format. Lead: Transportation Management Services (with the assistance of Eric Schreffler in Task 4.3) Schedule: Week 7 Product(s): Final Report (10 copies) Meeting to review the draft report Power Point presentation materials Presentation Q 0 th-3 { 26 SCR • Strategic Consulting a Research• Irvine, CA • (714)752-5900 * Washington. D.C. • (202) 496-1288 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: , Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Route 91 Sound Wall Funding Agreement With Caltrans and Authorization To Seek Construction Bids At the April 1996 Commission meeting, the Route 91 sound walls that are required to mitigate the Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes between Magnolia Avenue and Mary Street were broken into two stages designated Phase I and Phase II. This action was taken to address funding availability and to be consistent with priorities set by the City of Riverside. The Phase I sound walls are currently under construction and are scheduled to be completed by the beginning of May this year. The Phase II sound walls are currently in the design phase and will also include the construction of auxiliary lanes at various locations; the widening of under crossings at Monroe Street, and Jefferson Street; and the replacement of the Jackson Street overcrossing. The general scope of work that is required will be consistent with the findings of the engineering study dated December 1995. This study identifies the sound walls and auxiliary lanes that are required to be constructed to mitigate the HOV lanes previously constructed and improve the operations of the freeway by adding the necessary, auxiliary lanes. The completion of this project will complete the Measure A designated project of adding up to two lanes in each direction between Magnolia Avenue and Mary Street. In addition to the Measure A scope of work, Caltrans has identified additional work that they have requested to be performed under the same construction contract to save overall project cost and to minimize disruption to the flow of traffic on the SR 91 freeway. Caltrans contributions are summarized in the table below and will be discussed in detail in the construction cooperative agreement associated with each project. In an effort to expedite project delivery and maximize the leverage of RCTC Measure • "A" funds with Caltrans funding, the Route 91 Phase II Sound Wall Project has been subdivided into four (4) sub -projects. The following table outlines the breakdown of the overall Route 91 Phase II Sound Wall Project and identifies the scope, source of funding and schedule of delivery for each sub -project. 003085 SR 91 Phase II Sound Wall Project Between Magnolia Avenue & Mary Street Sub -Project Location Remarks 1 Start Const Summer 1999 SW #98 located on the South side of Route 91 between Jackson and Monroe and Drainage Canal Relocate & Repair RCTC = $425,000 Caltrans = $300,000 Total = $725,000 2 Start Const Spring 2000 SW #635 located on North side of Route 91 between La Sierra and Magnolia and a Auxiliary Lane on the South side of Route 91 between Madison & Jane RCTC = $ 1,750,000 Caltrans = $ 750,000 Total = $ 2,500,000 3 Start Const Summer 2000 SW #161 and a Auxiliary Lane West on North Side of Route 91 between Madison and Adams RCTC = $1,000,000 Caltrans = $ 750,000 Total = $1, 750,000 4 Start Const Fall 2000 SW #110 & #121 and Auxiliary Lanes East & West on Route 91 between Adams and Van Buren, Auxiliary Lane West between Van Buren to Tyler, and Jackson Street Overcrossing RCTC = $7,000,000 STIP = $3,500,000 Total = $10,500,000 The design for sub -project #1, SW #98, is nearing completion. To advertise the project for construction RCTC must enter into a Construction Contribution Agreement with Caltrans to delineate the responsibilities between RCTC and the State during the construction phase of the work. For this project, RCTC is responsible for the cost of constructing Sound Wall #98 ($425,000) and the State is responsible for the costs associated with construction activities required to relocate and repair a drainage canal ($300,000) which is located adjacent to Sound Wall #98. The total estimated cost of the project is $725,000. The State will provide oversight at no cost to the Commission and RCTC is responsible for the costs associated with the advertisement, award and administration of construction of the project. Legal Counsel has reviewed the referenced Agreement and is in concurrence. Attached for your review is a copy of the Agreement No.8-1097. 003036 Financial Assessment Project Cost For Sub -Project #1 ---S425,000 (RCTC Share) + $300,000 (State Share) Total cost = $725,000 Note: remaining Sub -Projects will be brought back at a future date for Commission consideration and action. Source of Funds Measure "A" , Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1. Approve Construction Contribution Agreement No. 8-1097 with the State for Construction of Sound Wall #98 on Route 91 between Jackson and Monroe Streets. 2. Authorize staff to Advertise for Construction Bids for SW #98. 'OOHS? GRAY DAMS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 6. 444 W. ATn STREET. MA FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92401.1400 March 26, 1999 Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 045644 08-Riv-91-PM 13.0/17.8 Construct Soundwall No. 98 and Drainage between Van Buren Blvd. 5 Mary Street 08303 - 474301 District Agreement No..8-1097 Dear Mr. Haley: Enclosed for execution by the Riverside Transportation Commission are three (3) original Cooperative Agreements, District Agreement No. 8-1097, for the above -referenced project. Please have the appropriate parties for the Riverside Transportation Commission sign and return all original Agreements. .lso, please attach a certified, _notarized Resolution or Minute Decree approving the Agreement and authorizing the execution of this Agreement by the local agency official(s). After the Agreement is fully executed, we will return an original for your records. If you need more information; please contact Chuck Coe in the Agreements Section at (909) 383-6729. ROBERT E. STOKES, Chief Agreements/Minor Projects Enclosures OJJ088 08-R1v-91-PM 13.0/17.8 Construct Soundwall No. 98 and Drainage between Van Buren Blvd. and Mary St. 08303 - 474301 District Agreement No. 8-1097 CONSTRUCTION C NTRIBUTION AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, entered into on , is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and (1) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as COMMISSION. RECITALS STATE and COMMISSION, pursuant to. Streets and Highways Code Section 114 and STATE Statutes 14529.11, as .updated are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State highways within Riverside County. (2) COMMISSION contemplates the construction of Sound Wall No. 98 and relocation/rehabilitation of drainage facility between Van Buren Boulevard and Mary Street in the City of Riverside, referred to herein as "PROJECT". This portion of sound wall.was previously included in Agreement 8-1021, but subsequently separated by E.A. 474301. (3) STATE desires to contribute a total lump sum of S300,000 toward the construction of the drainage relocation/ rehabilitation portion of PROJECT.. (4) The parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be cdnstructed, financed, and maintained. SECTION I COMMISSION AGREES: (1) To complete Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) and advertise, award, and administer the construction contract for PROJECT, at no cost to STATE. 1 Ot) 0 9 District Agreement No. 8-1097 (2) To submit a billing to STATE 15 days prior to COMMISSION's bid advertising date of construction for PROJECT in the amount of S300,000, which figure represents STATE's total lump sum share of the cost of drainage relocation/ rehabilitation work to be performed by COMMISSION on STATE's behalf pursuant to this Agreement. (3) To apply for necessary .Encroachment Permits for required work within State highway rights of way, in accordance with STATE's standard permit procedures, as more specifically defined in Articles (2) , (3) , and (4) of Section III of this Agreement. (4) To construct PROJECT in accordance with plans and specifications of COMMISSION, to the satisfaction of and subject to the approval of STATE. (5) To consult with STATE on all change orders before implementation, except when necessary for the safety of motorist and/or pedestrians or for the protection of property. (6) COMMISSION shall provide to STATE all plans prepared by COMMISSION or COMMISSION's consultant on either 4 or 8 millimeter magnetic tape using Micro Station Release 5.0 .dgn files in UNIX TAR or CPIO format. One copy of the data on the magnetic tape, including the Engineer's electronic signature and seal, shall be provided to STATE upon completion of the final PS&E for PROJECT. STATE reserves the right to modify the magnetic tape requirements and STATE shall provide COMMISSION.advance notice of any such modifications. (7) Within sixty (60 days following the completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction contract, to furnish STATE a complete set of acceptable electronic "as -built" plans prepared by COMMISSION or COMMISSION's consultant on either 4 or 8 millimeter magnetic tape using Micro Station Release 5.0 .dgn files in UNIX TAR or CPIO format. One copy of the data on the magnetic tape, including the Engineer's electronic signature and seal, shall be provided to STATE upon completion and acceptance of PROJECT. STATE reserves the right to modify the magnetic tape requirements and STATE shall provide COMMISSION advance notice of any such modifications. (8) To provide, at no cost to STATE, survey and mapping services necessary to perpetuate existing land net and alignment monumentation, in accordance with Sections 8771 and 8765 of . The Business and Professions Code; and to permanently 2 O00000 District Agreement No. 8-1097 monument the location of all roadway alignments, realignments, and right of way acquisitions. All the above to be shown on a Record of Survey filed with the County of Riverside Surveyor. (9) To provide_, install, replace in kind any disturbed monuments, and/or project in place monuments to delineate STATE's existing landnet and alignment/right of way prior to and during construction. (10) To provide STATE's Survey and Records Departments a copy of all Records of Survey, filed Corner Records, and field notes required for the preparation of "as -built" plans and perpetuation of existing land net and alignment/right of way monumentation, and all contract records. (11) To fund 100% of the estimated construction costs of PROJECT estimated to be $ 72$,Opp less STATE's total lump sum share of $300,000. (12) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by STATE or other government auditors for a period of three (3) years from date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to construction of PROJECT. SECTION II STATE AGREES: (1) To issue, at no cost to COMMISSION and COMMISSION's contractor, the necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the State highway rights of way, as more specifically defined in Articles (2) , (3) , and (4) , of Section III of this Agreement. (2) To conduct, at no cost to COMMISSION, oversight of PS&E, and provide a qualified STATE representative to conduct PROJECT construction oversight. Said construction oversight representative shall have authority to accept or reject, through resident engineer, work and materials or to order any actions needed for public safety or the preservation of property, and to assure compliance with all provisions of the Encroachment Permit(s) issued to COMMISSION and COMMISSION's contractor. 3 000091 (3) District Agreement No. 8-1097 To deposit with COMMISSION within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing therefor (which billing will be forwarded fifteen (15) days prior to COMMISSION's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT), the amount of $300,0M which figure represents the total lump sum amount of STATE's agreed to share of the cost of drainage relocation/rehabilitation work to be performed by COMMISSION on STATE's behalf pursuant to this Agreement. STATE may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount. ,SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: (1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of the resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission. (2) The Cooperative Agreement Report (CAR) for PROJECT approved on February 3, 1999, by this reference, shall become part of this Agreement. (3) construction by COMMISSION of portions of PROJECT referred to herein which lie within State highway rights of way or affect STATE facilities, shall not be commenced until an Encroachment Permit to COMMISSION authorizing such work has been issued by STATE. (4) COMMISSION shall obtain aforesaid Encroachment Permit through the office of State -District Permit Engineer. Receipt by COMMISSION of the approved Encroachment Permit shall constitute COMMISSION authorization from STATE to .proceed with work to be performed by COMMISSION or COMMISSION representatives within STATE rights of way or which affects STATE facilities, pursuant to work covered by this Agreement. COMMISSION's authorization to proceed with said work shall be contingent upon_ COMMISSION's compliance with all provisions set forth in said Encroachment Permit. (5) COMMISSION's construction contractor shall also be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit from STATE prior to commencing any work within STATE rights of way or which affects STATE facilities. The application by COMMISSION's 4 00 J092 (7) (8) District Agreement No. 8-1097 contractor for said Encroachment Permit shall be made through the office of State District Permit Engineer and shall include proof said contractor has payment and performance surety bonds covering construction of PROJECT. (6) In the construction of said work, said representatives of. COMMISSION and STATE will cooperate and consult with each other, and all work within STATE's right of way shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of STATE's representative., If existing public and/or private utilities conflict with the construction of PROJECT, COMMISSION will make all necessary arrangements with the owners of such utilities for their protection, relocation or removal. COMMISSION will inspect the protection, relocation or removal of such facilities. If there are costs of such protection, relocation, or removal which STATE and COMMISSION must legally pay, total cost will be borne by STATE. If any protection, relocation, or removal of utilities is required, such work shall be performed in accordance with STATE policy and procedure. COMMISSION shall require any utility owner performing relocation work in STATE's right of way to obtain a STATE Encroachment Permit prior to the performance of said relocation work. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT to the satisfaction of the STATE representative, STATE will accept control of and maintain, at its own costs and expense, those portions of PROJECT lying within STATE's right of way. (9) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment and appurtenances installed within STATE's right of way will automatically be vested in STATE. No further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to STATE. (10) Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either. party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. (11) Neither STATE nor any officer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COMMISSION under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to COMMISSION under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, COMMISSION shall _ fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of 000093 5 District Agreement No. 8-1097 California, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COMMISSION under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to COMMISSION under this Agreement. (12) Neither COMMISSION nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless COMMISSION from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. (13) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. NOTE: Article (14) is on signature page. 6 003094 District Agreement No. 8-1097 (14) This Agreement shall terminate upon completion of construction of PROJECT, and upon final payment to COMMISSION by STATE, pursuant to Section II, Article (3 ) of this Agreement, or on February 1, 2004, whichever is earlier in time. STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY Department of Transportation TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JOSE MEDINA Director of Transportation By: ROBERT BUSTER Chairman By: S. LISIEWICZ District Director REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE:, Attorney, Department of Transportation By: ERIC HALEY Executive Director REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: By: CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Steven C. DeBaun CERTIFIED AS TO PROCEDURE: Best, Best & Krieger Commission Counsel District Budget Manager Accounting Administrator 7 003095 STATE RCTC TOTAL District Agreement No. 8-1097 EXHIBIT A Estimate of Construction Cost "$ 300,000 425,000 $ 725,000 *Lump sum contribution of $300,000 Qv J096 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Claudia Chase, Property Agent THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Hemet's Request for a License Agreement Attached are copies of two letters from Richard Ramirez, City Manager of the City of Hemet. The City of Hemet is requesting to utilize a major portion of the railroad right of way in downtown Hemet for the creation of a multi -modal transportation hub. Their goal is to establish a downtown area with an emphasis on a transit oriented development. This area would include revitalized shops, a new post office, carpool facilities and provide a better link to the expanded Civic Center by means of a pedestrian -friendly design to encourage walking activity in downtown Hemet. The land specifically impacted by this request is between State Street and Devonshire Avenue. Presently, the Commission has one tenant on this property, Dan's Feed and Seed. The value of the current lease agreement is $15,380 per annum. The action taken by the Budget and Implementation Committee was to appoint a sub- committee known as the Property Development Committee. This sub -committee will review not only the City of Hemet's request, but all issues relating to the Commission's properties on an ongoing basis. Budget & Implementation Chairman, Jim Venable, will chair the sub -committee. Serving with him are Commissioners Alex Clifford, Juan DeLara, John Hunt, Jim. Smedley and John Tavaglione. The sub- committee will meet on Thursday, May 20, at 2:30 p.m., at RCTC, to review the request from the City of Hemet and report back to the Budget and Implementation Committee in May with a recommendation. 0 s31 iu Financial Assessment Project Cost Undeterminable at this time. Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 000171 450 EAST LATHAM AVENUE • HEMET. CALIFORNIA 92543 • (909)765.2301 From the °Mee of the CITY MANAGER Richard J. Ramirez April 19, 1999 Mr. Enc Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Mr. Haley: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify several points in my letter to you, dated March 31, 1999. As I have indicated to you before, we are obviously excited at the prospect of creating facility improvements that will further the mission of RCTC and RTA, while enhancing the transportation and land use planning goals of the City. Specifically, we will open escrows next week on private property adjacent to the RCTC right of way. The private property is essential to the conceptual plan outlined in my March 31, 1999 letter. With the acquisition of this land, the conceptual plan can become a reality. We understand that we take this action without any assurances that the Board will favorably act on the conceptual plan as outlined in the March 31, 1999 letter. Nevertheless, we would hope our actions would demonstrate our commitment to addressing the transportation improvements that are envisioned in the City's "Hub- of -the - Valley" downtown plan (May 1, 1999, the City will hold its fourth public meeting and second design effort related to the "Hub -of -the -Valley' downtown plan.) At present, the Board, at a minimum, needs assurances that the City will undertake and implement certain predetermined improvements in retum for obtaining a license agreement. As I indicated to you this moming, the City will work in partnership with RCTC and RTA to ensure all improvements are indeed accomplished prior to the license transfer to the City. The specifics of the improvements require further refinement in light of the "Hub -of- the Valley" downtown planning efforts. Nevertheless, they would include transportation improvements that include both pedestrian and vehicle access to a newly -proposed location for the United States Post Office, add car pool facilities, and provide better access to existing and soon to be expanded Civic Center facilities in the Historic Downtown Harvard District. Additionally, our plan calls for the City to work with RTA to site a future bus transfer station where riders and drivers can pause to refresh themselves, transfer to other transportation systems or to take advantage of public services located at the expanded Civic Center. As we discussed, the City would need access to the subject property prior to the license being granted, but I am sure we can work out the details of the construction permit. The important issue is making sure that parking facilities, pedestrian and vehicle improvements and long term transit facilities are coordinated among RCTC, RTA and the City. Gi;J172 Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission We are very much committed to the development of not only a transit facility to meet current and near term future demand, but to plan and develop a multi -modal complex with linkage to all forms of transit including a future METROLINK station. Albeit a long term improvement, now is the time to plan and put into motion a means to design, develop and provide security for this very important future San Jacinto Valley facility. We obviously would seek to develop various methods for funding the complex so that it becomes a reality sooner than later, including the City potentially entering financial partnerships for funding such centers (the same applies to the Bus Transfer Station.) With respect to the $ 15,000 a year in rental funds being derived from the current leases on the right of way, our intent was to be responsible for all relocation costs. To that end, we had hoped that RCTC would allow us to apply any rent collected while we controlled the property to the relocation costs. tf RCTC would prefer to handle the relocation of the tenants, we would cooperate. The important issue is that the $15,000 is secondary to enabling us to work together to make the new transportation improvements a reality. I understand that the next step would be a formal introduction to the sub committee to leam of our desire to work in partnership with RCTC as outlined in the March 31, 1999 letter. In order to facilitate this and because we are proposing a partnership that is relatively new to Riverside County, an ad hoc sub committee of RCTC Board members and staff may be created to work out the details of the proposed license agreement. Regardless, we will work with RCTC to move the project forward. I look forward to hearing from you following the sub committee meeting next week. Respectfully, Richard J. Ramirez City Manager cc: The City Council Susan Hafner, RTA General Manager Jim Venable, Riverside County Third Distnct Supervisor RJR:Ikh Oij3 73 045677 450 EAST LATHAM AVENUE • HEMET, CALIFORNIA 92543 • (909)765-2301 From me Office of the CITY MANAGER Rivard J. Ramirez March 31, 1999 Mr. Eric Haley RCTC 3560 University Ave., Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: Proposal to enter into a License Agreement for Surplus RCTC Property on the BNSF Rail Line Adjacent to the Hemet Downtown Dear Mr. Haley: The City of Hemet is pleased to submit this proposal pursuant to our discussions regarding the City's interest in establishing our "Hub of the Valley" downtown. Nhat is the Hub of the Valley? As you are aware, the City Council is moving forward with the "Hub of the Valley" initiative, which seeks to restore and revitalize our downtown by creating a sense -of -place and focal point for the community. The "Hub of the Valley" has the following major components: 1) Creation of a multi -modal transportation Hub. The Hub integrates the traditional downtown commercial area, a pedestrian friendly environment, and rail transportation. It would utilize the existing street network and augment it with a new roadway alignment for Harvard Street in the heart of the City's downtown. An emphasis would be placed on pedestrian -friendly design to encourage walking activity between the Civic Center, new post office, and revitalized shopping areas. A key component of the Hub is the siting of a future Metrolink Station in the downtown area, as well as the recently completed refurbishing of the historic Santa Fe Hemet Depot. The interiinking of both a future rail station and the refurbished station with links to our past is essential to acknowledging the important part that rail transportation played in establishing our community. 2) Establishment of a public services Hub, through expansion of the Hemet Civic Center and construction of a new post office downtown. 3) Revitalization of downtown shopping areas through seismic retrofitting, and the 6u3.1.74 creation of a food court for outdoor dining. Assistance from RCTC In order to implement the "Hub of the Valley" plan, the City is in need of obtaining additional land in the downtown area. There is an existing 250 foot railroad right-of-way through the downtown area. A 100 foot right-of-way exists for needed rail use along most of the other portions of the line. The existing condition is shown on Exhibit A. We are proposing to utilize the eastem most 100 feet of the right-of-way to accomplish the Hub of the Valley transportation goals. This section would be used for construction of a new roadway and construction of another parking lot. The proposed utilization is shown on Exhibit B, and a more detailed plan showing the proposed expansion of the Civic Center is shown. on Exhibit C. Implementation of this proposed plan would still maintain a 100 foot right-of-way for any current or needed rail use, which would be consistent with the right-of-way on other portions of the line. We are proposing to utilize the surplus right-of-way through a license agreement. The City and RCTC have previously entered into a similar agreement for surplus right-of-way adjacent to the Hemet Depot, in order to construct additional needed parking. We understand that RCTC has tenants occupying buildings within the proposed area. We propose to relocate/purchase these businesses entirely at our expense. To further explain a key element of the Hub of the Valley concept, we have attached a copy of the concept plan as Exhibit D. We would appreciate a response to this proposal at your earliest convenience. We would be pleased to meet with RCTC staff and subcommittees to discuss this proposal in more detail. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your continued courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely, 5 Richard J. Ramirez City Manager RJR:ag cc: City Council Juan C. Perez, Director of Public Works 0 175 J i / / �� W co 44 lo- co /& I / 4* / t / Q / � V /� it °` DEVONSHIRE AVENUE (W au Ir co � + _11r~ J E illct I , nc) N.T.S. EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 'A' LATHAN AVENUE 0631 (3 k a a �IIIIIIIIIIIIIII a IIIIIIIIIIII11111 11111111111111111 06. s1I II►III1IIII11I1 1 Ge la y 111 11I 0 N II 1111111111 `Iillllllililiilllli ? WI IIIIIIii . CA�P�.4. 5iZR7 N (iaca�t;* ,.�\\��„ \ 1.. !. 1 1. ,111.1.1 I I 1 11 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I III \\\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\\ v ► l i i i \\\\\\\\\\�\\\�\\.\\,.. v® izI �.•:•" b %ively.:fii!HiiiH k \ ;;:ilv viiiiiiiiii 1 k �• •••-':.�\��� • % \ S I a • ata, • ••• jfAINTA .577.67" /Yacatele ( ` � LN„„„\\, ,.,„„, „„„2, Xl m rn m Z cf VOLK4Omc ..\ 61111111111110 I .. \�� ‘\, \ 67171/4 r15T,r .S7AFT J I I 1 1 I I--- / I I I I ILLS. EXHIBIT •B• PROPOSED USE L - - / DEVONSHIRE AVENUE so. • _ • PARICMG - LOT I • i I HARVARD REALIGNMENT/ CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION I I I LATHAM AVENUE LICENSE AGREEMENT AREA N:\ENCR ION\DMG$\SiAM.0 5.DwC C:►�1t'u Exhibit `D' Downtown Concept Plan "Hub of the Valley" (Draft Concept August 7, 1998) Target Area Goals: - Create a reason for people to visit the downtown. - Increase property values. - Attract private investment. - Create an environment for people to gather, which is safe and desirable. - increase retail sales. Five -Year Funding Availability (subject to City Council confirmation) Cash $12,000 RDA Re -programmed Funds $400.000 CDBG $412,000 Recurring, Uncommitted Funds $377, 000 CDBG S73.000 RDA $450, 000 Annual Yield $450, 000 x 5 years = $2, 250, 000 412_000 $2,2662,000 5-year projection Plan Concept - "HUB of the VALLEY" Create a multi -modal transportation hub which functions as a community gathering place for. learning, entertainment, and food. - Define the future Metrolink station as a key part of the multi -modal hub. Families can gather to have a meal and send off a family member to worm on Metrolink.:.orhave an evening meal in a parts setting, a short walk from the station.. joined by other community members who are out for a casual evening of food and entertainment. - Create a link to the Eastside Reservoir Utilize the ATBSF RR line from the Hemet/Ryan Airport to the downtown as a link to the Eastside Reservoir, or, utilize a rubber -tired specialty vehicle to shuttle people from the recreation areas to the downtown. Gvv173 - Create a link to the Perris Railroad Museum The ATBSF RR tracks have been used in the past to run ,historic trains from the Perris Railroad Museum to the downtown depot in Hemet. Trains could be brought over on a regular basis for display in the 'Hub' area as an attraction. Special train trips could be held oncea-month between the Perris museum and the depot. - Food Court / Park Create a `food court' where small restaurants along Harvard Street could provide dine -in or take-out food so that families could take a short walk to eat the food in a park like setting in the area. Entertainm nt, sales, shows and special events could be held in the park to attract people to the area. - Destinations Attempt to attract businesses and services which will draw people into the Hub and create a healthy climate for business activity. Consider types of information or display which could create a point -of -interest as an attraction. Implementation Plan Concepts: _L [ Mize existino architectural featimes The downtown buildings have a distinct architectural cha cter and are from a similar time -frame. Rather than attempt to make the downtown something it is not currently, the focus of the program would be to clean- up the existing buildings, and prevent incompatible buildingdesigns from being applied or constructed. Define what features and coors are acceptable. Enforce City codes as necessary to "clean up" the target Om_ Garish building colors, signs painted on buildings, window Sign clutfer, a - frame signs and other code violations detract from what cold otherwise be an attractive area, leading to investment interest and re awed clientele shopping interest. - Review narking opportunities layout design_ landscaping_ nd lighting Can existing parking areas be made more efficient for cliens? Can the parking areas be enhanced visually through landscaping and other design features? Can additional shade be provided with landscape materials? What are the pedestrian circulation paths which facilitate pedestrian flow from parking areas to stores? Review lighting for illumination levels, placement, and opportunities for decorative fixtures. 2 arooi so 4. nevelnp a funding and staffing commitment Review reprogramming of CDBG funds and assignment of other funds to assure a long-term funding commitment to the plan. Develop and adopt clear guidelines for city assistance to target area projects. Assign City Staff to implement project goals. �. Fnhaaca the appearance of the targplarep In addition to the code enforcement items, review upgrading signage, building colors, private and public lighting, adding color and interest with landscaping. �. Inventory area base data Maintain current information on baseline pedestrian counts, ownership, businesses names, fund status, and physical condition of the area. 3 Ou3181 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: • Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Construction Contract No. RO-9932 for Construction of Pedestrian Overcrossing Structures and Security Enhancements at the Existing La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations. At the September 9, 1998 Commission meeting, the Commission authorized Staff to re -program $2,500,000 of CMAQ funds, that had been allocated to the San Jacinto Branch Line, to the Riverside La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations. The re -programed CMAQ funds are to be utilized to construct a Pedestrian Overcrossing Structure and Security Enhancements at each station. This project is an important step in providing for public safety at the Riverside County Metrolink Stations. In the initial operating stage of the the Metrolink system on the BN&SF line, BN&SF agreed to allow the use of at -grade crossings, to access the loading platforms across the tracks from the parking lot at the La Sierra and West Corona Stations. The use of at -grade crossings at these stations was conditional for a limited interim period, approximately 5 years, prior to BN&SF installing a third main line track in the area of the stations. Recently though, BN&SF has voiced some concerns about the at -grade crossings at the La Sierra and West •Corona Stations and has requested that the pedestrian over -crossing structures, at these stations, be constructed to replace the at -grade crossings as soon as possible. The estimated construction cost and contingencies, and the current authorized funding for the project are as follows: Original Estimate of Construction Cost: Riverside La Sierra Const Cost $1,130,000 West Corona Const Cost $1,290,000 Contingency (10%) $ 245,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $2,665,000 003097 Current Authorized Funding: CMAQ funds authorized $2,500,000 11.47% Local Match required $ 290,000 Total funding currently authorized for project $2,790,000 At the October 8, 1998 meeting, the Commission directed staff to advertise to receive bids for the Construction of a Pedestrian Overcrossing Structure and Security Enhancements at the existing La Sierra and West Corona Commuter Rail Stations. The Notice Requesting Bids was advertised on December 21, 1998; but only one bid was received for the project when the bids were opened on February 4, 1999. Because of the limited response of the bids received, the Commission rejected the Mallcraft bid and directed staff to re -advertise the project at the February 10, 1999 Commission meeting. By re -advertising the project, it was anticipated that more bidders would submit a bid on the project. The Notice Requesting Bids was re -advertised on March 8, 1999. Four (4) bids were received and opened on April 21, 1999. The results are shown in the following table: Bid Results for the La Sierra & West Corona Ped Xing Project Firm La Sierria Bid West Corona Bid Total Bid Amount 1 Mallcraft $1,644,000 $1,815,000 $3,459,000 2 Adams/Mallory $1,770,585 $2,058,655 $3,829,240 3 NCCI $2,578,300 $2,577,000 $5,155,300 4 Tilden -Coil $2,699,452 $2,806,465 $5,505,917 X Engineer's $1,130,528 $1,287,973 $2,418,501 The apparent low bid of $3,459,000.00 was received from Mallcraft, Inc. The two lowest apparent bids received, from Mallcraft and Adams/Mallory, were reviewed by staff and Legal Counsel and all concurred that Mallcraft Inc. was the lowest responsive bid received for the project. Staff also reviewed the assumptions made to produce the Engineer's Estimate in an effort to reconcile the differences between the bids received and the Engineer's Estimate. In staff's review of the Engineer's Estimate it was ascertained that the Engineer's Estimate unit costs, for items of work, were based on the unit costs 003095 associated with the construction of the recently completed South Side Platform Project at the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. It should also be noted that the bids received differed by $2,015,917 between the low and high bid received. A summary of the review of all bids received and the responsiveness of the bids are as follows: Checklist Item Mallcraft _ Adams/Mallory 1 Bid Letter YES YES 2 Schedule of Prices - Bid Amount (math check) - Bid Item Comparison - w/Eng's Est - w/other Bidders - Unbalanced Bid Items YES Error on total high good no YES Correct high good no 3 Bid Bond YES YES 4 List of Subcontractors - Prime Performs >75% Work - DBE > 18.5% YES YES (31.6%) (see Note 1 I YES YES (19.8%) 5 Bidder Information Forms YES YES 6 Non -Collusion Affidavit YES YES 7 Evidence of Insurance YES YES Note 1: Primary DBE for Mallcraft is WC Brown. WC Brown was previously a certified DBE and is currently being recertified WC Brown's component of the DBE makeup is 21.7% of the 31.6% total. Based on the review by Staff and Legal Counsel, it is recommended. that the Commission award Contract No. RO-9932, to construct the La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Overcrossing Structures and Security Systems, to Mallcraft Inc., for the amount of S3,459,000 pending recertification of WC Brown as a DBE. The form of the agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 for your review. Staff also recommends that a 10% contingency of $341,000 be authorized to cover RCTC shared flagging costs and potential change orders encountered during construction. 003099 In order to fully fund this project, the Commission will also have to authorize additional CMAQ funds and Local Match funds. Staff is recommending that the CMAQ contribution be increased from $2,500,000 by $864,000 to $3,364,000. The local match will be increased from $290,000 by $146,000 to $436,000. Financial Assessment Project Cost $3,459,000.00 + S341,000.00 = $3,800,000.00 Source of Funds 88.53% CMAQ + 11.47% Local Match (Measure A) .................... ................... Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1. Authorize the re -programing of CMAQ funds and Local Match funds in the following amounts: CMAQ funds $ 3, 364, 000 1 1.47% Local Match $ 436.000 Total funding authorized for project $3,800,000 2. Award Contract No. RO-9932, to construct the La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Overcrossing Structures and Security Systems, to Mal!craft Inc., for the amount of $3,459,000.00. Staff also recommends that a 10% contingency of $341,000.00 be authorized to cover RCTC shared flagging costs and potential change orders encountered during construction. The award is contingent on the recertification of WC Brown as a DBE. 0 J 1 0 0 BID COMPARISON LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA RAIL STATION PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING PROJECT Bid Item Engineers Estimate Mal!craft Adams/Mallory Const. Co., Inc. NCCI Tilden Coil Constructors LA SIERRA Mobilization and Demobilization $41,387 $60,000 $245,747 $258,800 $190,000 Overcrossing Construction $909,141 $1,408,000 $1,338,558 $1,919,500 $2,147,452 Surveillance System Construction $168,000 $170,000 $181,280 $388,000 $350,000 Builder's / All Risk Insurance $12,000 $6,000 $5,000 $12,000 $12,000 La Sierra Total $1,130,528 $1,644,000 $1,770,585 $2,578,300 $2,699,452 WEST CORONA Mobilization and Demobilization $49,537 $60,000 $246,880 $258,000 $190,000 • Overcrossing Construction $1,016,436 $1,513,000 $1,417,590 $1,919,000 $2,254,465 Surveillance System Construction $210,000 $235,000 $389,185 $388,000 $350,000 Builder's / All Risk insurance $12,000 $7,000 $5,000 $12,000 $12,000 West Corona Total $1,287,973 $1,815,000 $2,058,655 $2,577,000 $2,806,465 GRAND TOTAL $2,418,501 $3,459,000 $3,829,240 $5,155,300 $5,505,917 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING PROJECT RCTC Contract No. RO-9932 FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. CML-6054(012) ************** CONTRACT ************** BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND 00J102 CONTRACT FOR THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA-NSPORTATIOh COMMISSIO RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING PROJECT RCTC Contract No. RO-9932 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Contract is made and entered into this day of , 199_, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ( hereinafter called the "Commission") and (hereinafter called the "Contractor"). This Contract is for that Work described in the Contract Documents entitled "Riverside La Sierra and West Corona Commuter Rail Stations Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, RCTC Contract No. RO- 9932." 2. RECITALS. 2.1 The Commission is a County Transportation Commission organized under the provisions of Sections 130000, et Seq. of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California, with power to contract for services necessary to achieving its purpose; 2.2 Contractor, in response to a Invitation for Bids issued by Commission on March 8, 1999, has submitted a bid proposal for construction of the Riverside La Sierra and West Corona Commuter Rail Stations Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, RCTC Contract No. RO-9932. 2.3 Commission has duly opened and considered the Contractor's bid proposal and duly awarded the bid to Contractor in accordance with the Notice Inviting Bids and other Bid Documents, and will give written notice of such to Contractor on 2.4 Contractor has obtained, and delivers concurrently herewith, Performance and Payment Bonds and evidences of insurance coverage as required by the Contract Documents. 3. TERMS. 3.1 incorporation of Documents. This Contract includes and hereby incorporates in full by reference this Contract and the following Contract Documents provided with the above referenced Notice Inviting Bids, including all exhibits, drawings, specifications and documents therein, and attachments thereto, all of which, CTC La Sierra/West Covina vercrossing Project (R0-9932) (3/1/99) VPUB\DR09!) } 0 1 0 `3 CONTRACT-1 including all addendum thereto. are by this reference incorporated herein and made a part of this Contract: a. NOTICE INVITING BIDS b. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS c. CONTRACT BID FORMS d. PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND FORMS e. ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS (optional) f. CONTRACT APPENDIX PART "A" - Permits PART "B" - General Conditions PART "C" - Special Provisions (under separate cover) PART "D" - Contract Drawings (under separate cover) PART "E" - Contract Compliance Provisions/DBE Requirements PART "F" - Federal Minimum Wage Requirements PART "G" - Federal Requirements for Federal Aid Construction Contracts g. ADDENDUM NO.(S) 3.2 Contractor's Basic Obligation. Contractor promises and agrees, at his own cost and expense, to furnish to the Commission all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work for the construction of the Riverside La Sierra and West Corona Commuter Rail Stations Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, RCTC Contract No. RO-9932, including all structures and facilities described in the above referenced Contract Documents (the "Work"). Notwithstanding anything else in the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall complete the Work for a total of ($ ), as specified in the bid proposal and pricing schedules submitted by the Contractor in response to the above referenced Notice Inviting Bids. Such amount shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with the applicable terms of this Contract. All Work shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with the above referenced Contract Documents. 3.3 Period of Performance. Contractor shall perform and complete all Work under this Contract within One Hundred Eighty (180) Working Days of the effective date of the Notice to Proceed, and in accordance with any completion schedule developed pursuant to provisions of the Contract Documents. Contractor agrees that if such Work is not completed within the aforementioned periods, liquidated damages will apply as provided by the applicable provisions of the General Conditions, found in Part "B" of the Contract Appendix. The amount of liquidated damages shall equal Seven ICTC La Sierra/West Covina wercrossing Project (R0-9932) (3/1/99) VPUB\DRD\52496 CONTRACT-2 00'3 04 Hundred and Fifty Dollars (S750) for each day, or fraction thereof, it takes to complete the Work. or specified portion(s) of such work, over and above the number of days specified herein or beyond the Project Milestones established by approved Construction Schedules. 3.4 Commission's Basic Obligation. Commission agrees to engage and does hereby engage Contractor as an independent contractor to furnish all materials and to perform all Work according to the terms and conditions herein contained for the sum set forth above. Except as otherwise provided in the Contract Documents, the Commission shall pay to Contractor, as full consideration for the satisfactory performance by the Contractor of services and obligation required by this Contract, the above referenced compensation in accordance with Compensation Provisions set forth in the Contract Documents. 3.5 Contractor's Labor Certification. Contractor maintains that he is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work. A certification form for this purpose is enclosed with this Contract, and shall be executed simultaneously with this Contract. 3.6 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.7 Successors. The parties do for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns agree to the full performance of all of the provisions contained in this Contract. Contractor may not either voluntarily or by action of law, assign any obligation assumed by Contractor hereunder without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.8 notices. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Contract or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: :TC La Sierra/West Covina vercrossing Project (R0-9932) (3/1/99) ✓PUB\DRD\52496 000105 CONTRACT-3 Contractor: Commission: Ann: Riverside County Transportation Commission 3650 University Avenue. Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Attn: Executive Director With Copy to: Karl Sauer Contract Manager RCTC La Sierra/West Corona Overcrossing Project Any notice so given shall be considered received by the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to the party at the above address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. CONTRACTOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Name Councilman Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission Title RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Tax I.D. Number: By: tCTC La Sierra/West Covina )vercrossing Project (R0-9932) C3/1/99) tVPUB\DRD\52496 Eric Haley Executive Director REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT By: Dean Martin Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP Counsel, RCTC CONTRACT-4 003106 CERTIFICATION LABOR CODE - SECTION 1861 I, the undersigned Contractor, am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 el =4. of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker'-s Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Code. I agree to and will comply with such provisions before commencing the Work governed by this Contract. CONTRACTOR: Name of Contractor: By: CTC la Sierra/West Covina Ivercrossing Project (RO-9932) (3/1/99) VPUS\DRD\52496 00'0107 Signature Name Title . Date CONTRACT-5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update State Update As the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) state legislative advocate D.J. Smith says in his monthly update (attached), the month of March featured the beginning of policy committee meetings working toward the deadline of April 23rd for all fiscal bills to be passed out of policy committees. Also, discussions surrounding a number of transportation financing proposals have been engaged through Senator Burton's Transportation Working Group, of which the RCTC Executive Director is a member. Finally, the Self -Help Counties Coalition is making the Legislature aware of its activities via testimony by SANBAG Executive Director, Norm King, at an informational hearing of the Assembly Transportation Committee and before Senator Burton's Transportation Working Group. SANBAG Executive Director, Norm King, and RCTC/SANBAG Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, David Shepherd, joined Inland Action for a day of briefing the Inland Empire delegation on a number of economic issues that included transportation opportunities and legislative issues for RCTC and SANBAG. Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions: AB 1425 (George Runner, R - Lancaster) Provides Statutory Direction To Caltrans to Insure More TEA21 Funds Flow Directly to Regions. Staff Recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. AB 1571 (Antonio Villaraigosa, D - Los Angeles) Creates the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Standards Attainment Program. Staff Recommends: SEEK AMENDMENTS. The staff analysis is attached. 003103 SB 481 (Joe Baca, D- San Bernardino) Establishes a Study of the Economic Benefits of an Inland Port. Staff Recommends: SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS. The staff analysis is attached. SB 1043 (Kevin Murray, D - Los Angeles) Requires the California High Speed Rail Authority to Submit it's Financial Plan to the Legislature for Approval. Staff Recommends: SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS. The staff analysis is attached. Federal Update As RCTC Washington, D.C. advocate Cliff Madison's monthly report (attached) states, during the month of March, Congressional representatives were largely consumed with organizing appropriations requests. RCTC staff and the agency's advocate have worked with the Riverside County Delegation to craft appropriation requests for submittal to the Appropriations Committee. Staff will bring forward an update as the process reaches closure. Summary In Sacramento, the Legislature is working to pass bills out of policy committee and transportation funding needs are receiving attention. In Washington, D.C., appropriation requests have been submitted for consideration. This item does not directly impact the RCTC Budget. Potential revenue gains may be realized - depending upon the outcome of State and Federal legislative proposals. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission support AB 1425, SB 481 with Amendments, SB 1043, and Seek Amendments AB 1571, and receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update. 00J10�;a Date of Analysis: Bill Number/Author: Subject: Status: Summary: April 23, 1999 AB 1425 (George Runner, R — Lancaster) Provides Statutory Direction to Caltrans to Ensure More TEA 21 funds flow directly to Regions Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 16-1 on April 12. 1999, referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee — No Hearing Date Yet. AB 1425 restores funding to the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) by directing the allocation regions of certain increased funding, resulting from the Transportation Act of the 21 S` Century (TEA21), the federal transportation authorization act. Following the enactment of ISTEA, the previous major federal transportation authorization act, the California Legislature, in 1992, passed SB 1435 (Kopp) to effectuate ISTEA implementation at the State level. Among other things, SB 1435 directed RSTP funds to be distributed directly to regional agencies according to the distribution formula in federal law. In 1998, Congress passed TEA 21 which, among other things, significantly increased funding for the one program subject to regional distribution, the Surface Transportation Program and enacted a new funding category, the Minimum Guarantee program. The California Legislature has not enacted TEA 21 implementation legislation. In the absence of such legislation, Caltrans has interpreted TEA 21 to direct Minimum Guarantee funding to flow into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), rather than the RSTP. This administrative decision has resulted in regional governments not directly benefiting from federal funding which, under the previous act had been available for regional transportation programs. Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County: AB 1425 would ensure that agencies such as the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) receive direct allocations of federal dollars as they have in the past. Having these funds flow into the STIP, as Caltrans interpreted, would negatively impact the total amount received as the funds would then be distributed statewide. AB 1425 is in many ways a technical clean-up bill which would continue the policy already adopted by the Legislature seven years ago. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT 0 Oliu Date of Analysis: April 23, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 1571 (Antonio Villaraigosa , D — Los Angeles) Introduced February 26, 1999 Subject: Creates the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Standards Attainment Program. Status: Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0 on April 12, 1999; referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee — No Hearing Date Yet. Summary: AB 1571 would create the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, to be administered by the State Air Resources Board. Under the program, the state board would be authorized to make grants for the purchase of low -emission, heavy-duty engines for vehicles, equipment, vessels, and locomotives, as specified. The bill would permit the administration of the program to be delegated to air pollution control districts, air quality management districts, and port authorities. The bill would also create the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Trust Fund in the State Treasury to provide funds to carry out the program. The funds would be provided on an annual basis, subject to appropriation via the California State Budget. Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County: Background Last year, Speaker Villaraigosa along with Senator Brulte as a Principal Co-author passed to then Governor Wilson, AB 1368 which would have accomplished the goals of AB 1571. However, Governor Wilson chose to veto AB 1368 and instead appropriated $25 million to the Air Resources Board to implement a similar program. In his veto message Governor Wilson stated: "The Air Resources Board advises me that the most cost-effective means available to reduce pollution from large diesel engines is to replace those engines with lower - polluting alternatives. This bill would further dilute the amount of money available for this purpose by diverting funds to research and infrastructure projects. Furthermore, it would create a number of separate accounts and rigidly control funding for project types by percentage allocation. As this bill is inconsistent with the program put forward by this Administration, I am directing the Air Resources Board, under its general statutory authority and in a manner consistent with the Clean Air Plan, to provide grants for the replacement of heavy-duty diesel engines using funds allocated in the 1998 Budget Act for that purpose." O:\AB 1571-DWS.DOC 000111 This year. Speaker Villaraigosa, along with Senator Brulte again as a Principal Co- author, are pursuing creation of the program through AB 1571. It is important to recognize that a vital component to the success of heavy duty and other alternative fuel technologies is the availability of infrastructure and research efforts to determine and develop the most effective technologies possible. Both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are areas of non -attainment of clean air standards. By creating a grant program to support conversion from diesel to clean fueled applications. AB 1571 would provide funding to support existing and new programs designed to remove the most polluting vehicles, heavy duty diesel vehicles, from our roads. However, staff has concern with one element of AB 1571, which pertains only to the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The bill would permit the Air Resources Board (ARB) to allocate the program's funds to air districts for administration in their areas. In the SCAB, there exists a body, the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee (MSRC), which by statute is responsible for the oversight of discretionary air quality funding for the Region. The MSRC is composed of elected representatives from: South Coast AQMD, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), California Air Resources Board (CARB), Regional ridesharing agency (presently SCAG Rideshare). Since 1991, the MSRC has been funding projects like those that would be required by AB 1571. Staff recommends seeking amendments to AB 1571 that would permit the MSRC to be a direct recipient and distributor of the funds just in the same manner as the SCAQMD. This amendment would not eliminate the role of the SCAQMD. Rather, staff is suggesting that the portion of funding allocated to the SCAB for purposes of reducing vehicle emissions be evenly split between the SCAQMD and the MSRC. Staff is recommending this amendment for the following reasons: 1. The impetus for the ARB's Moyer program (both the Villaraigosa and the Brulte bills introduced in 1998), contained language referencing MSRC participation as a direct recipient rather than a grant recipient from SCAQMD. ?. Since its inception, the MSRC has successfully implemented heavy duty work programs that are more extensive than what is proposed in AB 1571— this experience is unparalleled. Since 1991, a heavy duty funding element has been included in every workprogram, totaling $46 million in MSRC allocations comprising 43% of its total workprogram. O:\AB 1571-DWS.DOC 003112 3. For its heavy duty program. the MSRC achieved on average a cost effectiveness ratio of $6,164 per ton of NOX emissions reduced - well below AB 1571 's required $12,000 per ton. 4. The ARB Moyer program is a one-time grant process and AB 1571 as written has a defined end date. The recent past and present MSRC heavy duty program is a first come, first serve program, which may continue throughout the year. This is more effective for private entities who may not be prepared to participate at the time to the Moyer program grant deadline. 5. The MSRC is largely composed of transportation commissions. These agencies have a direct interest in seeing the heavy duty program work and have extensive experience in the field. 6. As a regulatory agency, the SCAQMD might not be in the position to develop the type of relationship with potential participants. This is not the case for the MSRC. 7. Allocating AB 1571 funds to the workprogram is consistent with the allocations going to the other air districts, in that the MSRC is not a user of funds but passes the funds through to private and public fleets and entities. 8. The MSRC was created in statute and is a unique entity in California. As the creator of these programs, the MSRC is thoroughly prepared to issue RFPs, has the technical ability to evaluate proposals, to execute agreements quickly working out legal issues and to oversee contracts and programs. These processes are already in place as well as administrative funds to manage the program. 9. When AB 2766 was crafted, the stakeholders in the south coast region concurred that its AB 2766 discretionary funds would be best managed through a fair and open process, which ultimately transformed itself into the MSRC. It is in statute that MSRC implement these types of programs. It is not in the Air District's Mission statement. In the Inland Empire, entities such as Ralph's and Stater Brothers, have established a positive working relationship with the MSRC and by leveraging the funding opportunities offered by the MSRC have made a commitment to a clean fuel fleet. Permitting the MSRC to be a direct recipient of the funds proposed in AB 1571 would foster the continuation of this and future efforts which lead to cleaner air in the Inland Empire. At the Plans and Programs Committee, Supervisor Mikels requested that staff also work to seek an amendment to ensure that emission credit is given to the air basin(s) in which the money is spent. The Plans and Programs Committee agreed with Supervisor Mikels, if the Board concurs, staff will pursue these amendments as well. Staff Recommendation: SEEK AMENDMENTS 0:yAB 1571-DWS.DOC 003113 Date of Analysis: April 23, 1999 Bill Number/Author: SB 481 (Joe Baca, D — San Bernardino) Introduced February 18, 1999 Subject: Establishes a Study of the Economic Benefits of an Inland Port Status: Passed Senate Governmental Organization Committee 8 —1 on April 6, 1999. Passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 18-0 on April 12, 1999. To Senate Floor. Summary: SB 481 would require the California Trade and Commerce Agency, inconsultation with the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the Federal Maritime Administration and representatives from the railroad industry, the private sector, colleges and universities and other interested parties to study the efficiency and economic benefits of establishing an Inland Empire Distribution Center, as compared to the distribution system currently in existence in the Inland Empire and to quantify any efficiencies and economic benefits that would result from establishing a new distribution center. The idea is to replace the current distribution from near -port sites with a system that utilized inland site(s). Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County: Senator Baca is aware of the goods movement currently and projected to continue growing throughout the Inland Empire and has introduced SB 481 to ensure that the Inland Empire is well positioned to handle the growth in this arena. Therefore, enabling the Inland Empire to benefit economically from the movement of goods to and through the area. Senator Baca is to be commended to recognizing the goods movement opportunities facing the Inland Empire. However, in many ways, intermodalism is happening already (i.e. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) intermodal facility in San Bernardino has grown over 600% in the last 7+ years). Yet, this does not include grade separation funds, or arterial truck route improvement funds. Staff believes a coordinated effort with the Maritime Administration's Agile Port program, that clearly serves the ports, rail and shippers in-between, but doesn't carry with it any capacity/mitigation considerations for the Inland area, is a better approach to the current proposal in SB 481. Staff recommends amending SB 481 to require a study to project future demands based on a better understanding of current need for increased capacity, intermodal facilities and 0:1SB481-DWS.DOC 00'911,1 transportation/logistic trends. The area of study could be defined many ways. but. should include the rail corridors and 60,10 and 15 through Riverside and San Bernardino counties, so as to pick-up the intermodal rail yards and major airports in the bi-county area: Ontario, March, San Bernardino and SCIA. This study would coordinate and collaborate with the SR-60 Truck Lane Feasibility Study, the Valley Intermodal Corridor (Alameda Corridor East) Study and work proposed by SANBAG and SCAG on I-15, and CETAP in Riverside. At the April 26, 1999 Plans and Programs Committee Meeting, Commissioners Mullen and Puga requested that the amendments sought also include a thorough review of grade crossing and safety needs in San Bernardino and Riverside County. With the Commission's concurrence, staff will pursue the amendments with an emphasis on both grade crossings and safety needs. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS 0:1SB481-DWS.DOC 0.0 11. Date of Analysis: April 23. 1999 Bill Number/Author: Subject: Status: SB 1043 (Kevin Murray. D — Los Angeles) Introduced February 26, 1999 Requires the California High Speed Rail Authority to Submit it's Financial Plan to the Legislature for Approval. Set for Hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee on May 4, 1999. Summary: Senator Murray introduced SB 1043 at the request of the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), pursuant to Board action at its February 3rd 1999 meeting. Existing law created the California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) and required the HSRA to develop a financial plan for submittal, as necessary, to the voters of California for approval in the November 2000 election. The financial plan will describe hove the construction and operation of a statewide high-speed rail system would be financed. Missing from existing law is a requirement for any ballot proposal developed by the HSRA to first be submitted to the Legislature for approval as traditionally is the case for a public agency sponsored ballot measure. SB 1043 would require the HSRA to present its financial plan and any necessary ballot proposal first to the Legislature for approval. Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County: Background While many unanswered questions relating to plan elements, technology, costs, etc. remain, in terms of whether implementing a statewide high-speed rail system is appropriate, the issue this bill address is one of deliberation. Currently, the Legislature is deliberating many transportation funding proposals that may result in ballot measures. Certainly, any funding proposal relative to high-speed rail should be included in the Legislature's deliberations. By requiring the HSRA to submit its plan the Legislature, SB 1043 will ensure such deliberation occurs. Representatives from HSRA have stated HSRA intends to bring any ballot proposal to the Legislature for review and therefore, should not oppose SB 1043. At the April 26, 1999 Plans and Programs Committee Meeting, Commissioner Clifford requested, and the committee approved, that the position on this bill be changed to "Support with Amendments". Feeling that the High Speed Rail Authority needs additional time to fully develop a High Speed Rail plan that includes a reliable financial O:\SB1043-DWS.DOC 00 JI16 plan, staff will seek amendments that would extend the current deadline for development of such a plan and subsequently a ballot proposal from 2000 until 2002. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS 0:1SB 1043-DW S. DOC 000117 CLIFF MADISON GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INC. TO: Dave Shepherd - Paul Blackwelder FROM: Cliff Madison DATE: April 1, 1999 SUBJECT: March 1999 Federal Affairs Report Generally, during the month of March, we prepared the requests for FY 2000 Federal funds from the Riverside County Transportation Commission to the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittees. On March 1, I met with Kent Keyser and Jim Zoia, staff of Congressman Nick Rahall (senior Democrat on the House Ground Transportation Subcommittee) to discuss the funding of "high priority projects" contained in TEA 21. On March 3, Wednesday, I met with Eric Haley and Supervisor Tom Mullen to discuss the schedule for Thursday, March 4. On March 4, Thursday, we met with the following: Tom Walter (Washington representative, Riverside County), and Martha Buddeck Congressman George Brown Rob Alexander, staff to Senator Barbara Boxer Congresswoman Mary Bono, and Linda Valter (staff) Peter Rogoff, minority staff, Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Congressman Ken Calvert Congressman Ron Packard Rich Biter, acting Director, Office of Intermoda1ism, Department of Transportation Chris Kierig, staff of Senator Dianne Feinstein After making appointments for Eric Haley, on Monday, March 15, we met with the following: Tim Ransdell, Director, California Institute Susan Petty, Federal Highway Administration John Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Olivia Morgan, Director, Governor Gray Davis, Washington office Congressman Ken Calvert 045662 254-A Maryland Ave:, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-9395 Facsimile (202) 543-4297 i s i a i 000118 1 -2- On Tuesday, March 16, we met with the following: Starr of Congressman Jerry Lewis Roy Kienitz, Executive Director, Surface Transportation Policy Project Congressman Ron Packard On Thursday, March 18, I participated in a conference call with Supervisor •Mullen and Eric Haley. On Friday, March 19, I met with Congressman Nick Rahall to discuss transportation issues. On Monday, March 22, I met with John Blazey, majority staff, House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, to discuss FY 2000 funding. On March 24, I presented the RCTC funding requests for FY 2000 to Rob Alexander, and Chris Kierig. On Friday, March 26, I met with Congressman Ron Packard, a member of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, to discuss FY 2000 funding. 00)119 9 Smith 8ic Kempton Consulting and Governmental Relations MEMORANDUM To: RCTCISANBAG Board of Directors From: D. J. Smith and Delaney Hunter Date: April 13, 1999 Subject: Legislative Report and Update With the bill introduction deadline passed, we are now looking towards April and the multitude of Committee hearings. All bills with a fiscal impact must be heard by April 23rd, which means the weeks ahead will really determine which measures continue and which do not. We will of course keep you updated as the bills most important to SANBAG and RCM pass or fail. As has been reported by staff, there are now discussions underway which may lead to agreement by both caucuses and both houses of the Legislature to put all transportation funding bills in a single Senate/Assembly conference committee for consideration and development of a multi -faceted "package" of transportation finance measures. We are a part of these discussions and will keep you well advised of their. progress. Transportation Finance Proposals Most of the transportation finance proposals have been or will be heard in Senate and Assembly policy committees in the next two weeks. Here's a breakdown of when the proposals will be heard in committee. • Senator Burton's transportation package is moving forward --- • Senate Bill 315 passed out of the Senate Transportation Committee on a 9 to 2 vote on April 12t. SB 315 heads next to the Senate Appropriations Committee. • Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 will be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee on April 20`s. • The California Transportation Commission and the Department of Transportation are currently conducting a needs study, as required by Senate Resolution 8, and will submit their report on May 10`s (this is a new date, it was originally due on May 1"). 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560 . Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone (916) 446-5508 . FAX (916) 446-1499 OM 0 On a related front, Senator Burton's Working Group continues to meet on transportation infrastructure issues. Their last meeting was on April 7h and featured a presentation by the Self -Help Counties Coalition, lead by SANBAG's own Norm King and RCTC's Eric Haley. The April 7t meeting was a great forum for the Self -Help folks to really bring the issue of sales tax extensions to the entire Working Group. Assembly Bill 521 (McClintock) will be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 191 Senate Constitutional Amendment 9 (Peace and McPherson), the California Business Roundtable proposal, passed out of Senate Governmental Organization Committee on a 10 to 0 vote on April 6th. SCA 9 heads to the Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee next. The second part of the California Business Roundtable's proposal, Assembly Bill 1473 (Hertzberg), passed out of the Assembly Consumer Protection Committee on a 6 to 0 vote on April 6t. AB 1473 heads next to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Assemblyman John Longville also has two bills that deal with transportation finance. Assembly Bill 276, which will allocate for public transit the full sales tax revenues imposed on California and federal gas taxes, is set to be heard in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee but no hearing date as of yet. Assembly Bill 477 will revise the state's method for taxing the distribution of gas from the current rate of 18 cents per gallon to instead become 15 percent of the retail price per gallon of gasoline. AB 477 was to be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 5`s but was put over by Assemblyman Longville so he could work on language refinements with the Board of Equalization. AB 283 (hongvilie) — County Resolution of Necessity Bill Assembly Bill 283 introduced by Assemblyman John Longville, on behalf of SANBAG, will allow CalTrans to use the County's condemnation process and resolution of necessity. AB 283 will speed up the process and help with project delivery. We are exploring the idea of amending the bill to include an urgency clause, which will make the change in law effective immediately upon signature by Governor Davis. AB 283 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee for a hearing scheduled on April 19t. AB 1012 -- Proisct Delivery Streamlinine Bill Assembly Bill 1012, which will streamline transportation project delivery and set up a process to allow short term "loans" (originally an RCTC idea), was heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 12th* AB 1012 passed out of the Committee on a 12 to 0 vote and next heads to Assembly Appropriations. We have worked in the last several weeks to refine the bill and encompass all the project delivery streamlining ideas being discussed. One of the new highlights of the bill is the inclusion of six design -build demonstration projects. O0 12,i 2 Governor Davis' Infrastructure Taskforee The Infrastructure Taskforce held its first meeting on March 30h in Los Angeles. The press reports Governor Davis rejected the idea of tax increases for infrastructure, rather he would like to rely on the state's current resources and the state's bonding authority over the next 20 or so years. Transportation Poll We have continued our work on behalf of SANBAG and RCTC on crafting a poll that includes questions about the major transportation funding proposals currently being considered. Also included in the poll are questions about growth, public transit and infrastructure and the ever -important extension of local sales tax measures. We hope to have the poll in the field by April 15 , with results due back in mid May. 3 0,z�199 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENT'S POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION Legislation/Author Description - -- - . --, -_ _ _ Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 38 (Washington) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 11-5 on 3/22/99. Passed the Senate Appropriation Committee 16-5 on 4/14/99. To Assembly Floor. SUPPORT SAN13AG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 44 (McClintock) Would require Caltrans and local authorities to redesignate all existing HOV lanes as mixed flow. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee. Hearing canceled at the request of author. OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 71 (Cuneen) Would permit inherently low- emmission vehicles (ILEV) to travel in High Occupancy Vehicle lanes regardless of the number of occupants in the ILEV. Passed Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0 on 4/19/99. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 ROTC 4/14/99 AB 74 (Strom -Martin) Would permit a private rail freight operation to compete for State Intercity Rail funding. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. OPPOSE SANI3AG 3/3/99 ROTC 3/10/99 AB 102 (Wildman and Hertzberg) Would fund the 1989 Priority Soundwall Retrofit list off -the- top of the State Highway Account. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 10-7 on 4/12/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. SEEK AMENDMENT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 N1 v "rN1AT.DWS.WPD ► +station/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Boa! Adoption AB 276 (Longville) Would redirect a portion of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the Public Transportation Account Referred to committees on Revenue, Tax and Transportation. No hearing date yet. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 ROTC 4/14/99 AB 283 (Longville) Would allow a resolution of necessity to be approved by a County Board of Supervisors, rather than the California Transportation Commission. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 19-0on4/19/99. Referred to Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. SPONSOR - ADOPTED AS PART OF THE STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SANBAG 1/6/99 ROTC 1 / 13/99 AB 308 (Longville) Would require a review and analysis of the Public Transportation Account expenditures and a review of the account'sneed Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 12-3on4/19/99. Referred t o Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 521( McClintock) Would redirect that portion of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the State Highway Account • Set for hearing on 4/19/99 with the Assembly Transportation Committee. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Canceled by author. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 872 (Alquist) Would allow reimbursement of local funds used to advance STIP programmed projects. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 17-0 on 4/12/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee on 4/13/99. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AE3 1012 (Torlakson) A comprehensive transportation relorm package intended to enhance Caltrans' . operating environment; includes the ROTC/SANBAG; generated "loan" concept. Passed Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0 on 4/12/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT SANE3AG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 1425 (Runner) Provides statutory direction to Caltrans to insure more TEA 21 funds flow directly to regions. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 16-1 on 4/12/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations committee. No Ifearing Date Yet. SUPPORT AB 1571 (Villaraigosa) Creates the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Standards Attainment Program. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0 on 4/12/99. Referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. SEEK AMENDMENTS SB 14 (Rainey) Would require extensive study prior to construction of future 1 1OV lanes. Referred to Senate Tr a n s p o .r t at i on Committee. No hearing date yet. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 ROTC 3/10/99 SB 17 (Figueroa) Would permit employers to receive a tax credit for purchasing transit passes for their employers. Set for Hearing in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee on 4/ 2 1/ 9 9. From Committee author's amendments, referred to committee. No hearing date set. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 ROTC 3/10/99 SB 63 (Solis) Would reduce the minimum occupancy for the El Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. Set for hearing with the Senate Transportation .Committee on 4/26/99. OPPOSI; UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCfC 3/10/99 l ��islation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Boa' Adoption SB 65 (Murray) Would appropriate $20 Million to support welfare to work transportation projects Placed on Senate Appropriations Committee. Suspense file on 4/ 19/99. SEEK AMENDMENT SANBAG 4/7/99 ROTC 4/ 14/99 SB 98 (Alarcon) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Passed the Senate Transportation Committee on 4/15/99. To Senate Floor. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 117 (Murray) Makes the State Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation fund permanent. Passed on 4/21/99 with the Senate Transportation Committee 1 0 - 0 . Referred to Senate Environmental Quality Committe. No hearing date set. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 481 (Baca) Establishes a study of the Economic Benefits of an Inland Port. Passed Senate Governmental Organization Committee 8-1 on 4/12/99. Passed the Senate Appropriation Committee 11-1 on 4/12/99. To Senate Floor. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS SB 1043 (Murray) Requires the California High Speed Rail Authority to submit its Financial Plan to the Legislature for approval. Set for hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee on 5/4/99. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 74 (Virginia Strom -Martin, D-Eureka) Introduced December 7, 1998 Amended April 27, 1999 Subject: State Rail Freight Study Status: Summary: Passed Assembly Transportation Committee 15-4 on April 19, 1999. Referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee — no hearing date yet. As introduced, AB 74 would have rendered a specific rail freight operation (North Coast Railroad Authority) eligible for State Intercity Rail funding. After recent amendments the bill now simply requires Caltrans, in conjunction with the California Transportation Commission, to develop a State Freight Rail Plan. The plan shall be developed through a study which includes the following: 1. Environmental aspect, including land use and community aspects. 2. Financing issues, including a means to obtain state and federal transportation funds. 3. Rail issues, including regional, intrastate and interstate issues. 4. Intemodal connections, including seaports and intermodal terminals. 5. Current system deficiencies. 6. Service objectives, such as improving efficiency, accessibility, and safety, and enhancing branch lines. 7. New technology, including logistics and process improvement. 8. Light density rail line analyses, including traffic density, track characteristics, project selection criteria, and cost -benefit criteria. Staff Comments: Based on the fact that permitting freight operations to apply for funds relied on by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, would unnecessarily cause taxpaying rail passengers to compete with non -passenger service for funding to support their daily commute, both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) adopted an "oppose" position to AB 74 when introduced. However, in light of the recent amendments to AB 74, staff recommends changing the current position from "Oppose" to "Watch." The bill currently offers no positive or negative impact upon either RCTC or SANBAG. Staff Recommendation: WATCH o:\ab7a-dws.doc Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 923 (Wally Hertzberg, D- Los Angeles) Introduced February 25, 1999 Amended April 28, 1999 Subject: Would Increase the Fines for Rail Right of Way Violations. Status: Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee On May 10, 1999. Summary: AB 923 would do the following: 1. Increases the base fine for failing to stop at a rail crossing to $100, and provides that subsequent violations be fined as follows: a) Up to $200 for a second offense. b) Up to $250 for a third or subsequent offense. 2. Removes the restrictions that limit subsequent fines to a one-year period, so a second - time offender can be charged the maximum $200 fine, even if their first offence was more than one year ago. 3. Allocates the first 30% of the fine collected to the transit district if a rail crossing offense occurred at a rail crossing on the district's transit lines. However, if there is no rail transportation provided in that area by a transit district, then the entire amount of the fine and fees collected shall be deposited into the various city, county and state funds Staff Comments: Rail crossing violations have increased dramatically over the past few year$. Since the beginning of Metrolink service, approximately 15,000 citations were issued for grade crossing violations. Further, since its service began in 1992, there have been 74 accidents, resulting in 16 fatalities and 38 injuries. AB 923 is an effort to prevent the proliferation of such incidents and to provide a funding source for further educational/prevention efforts to make the public aware of the dangers associated with violating rail right -of way. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT o:1ab923-dws.doc Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 1475 (Nell Soto, D- Pomona) Introduced February 26, 1999 Subject: Would Designate a Portion of Federal Transportation Safety Funding to School Safety Programs. Status: Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 12 —5 on April 13, 1999. Placed on Assembly Appropriations Suspense File Summary: Designates a portion of federal transportation safety funding apportioned to the state under the federal Hazard Elimination/Safety (HES) program to be used by local governments to improve school area safety by installing new crosswalks, building bicycle paths and lanes, constructing sidewalks where none exist, and implementing traffic calming programs in neighborhoods around schools. Specifically, this bill reformulates the existing 50-50 HES program split between the state and local agencies and splits the HES money one-third each to state, locals, and the Safe Routes to School Program (SRSP). Staff Comments: Since this bill redirects existing resources, it would reduce the money available to state and local agencies for safety improvements to streets and highways. The total of the state's safety projects in the current SHOPP ranges from $50 million to $100 million per year. The SHOPP program receives approximately $30 million in federal HES funds. Under this bill, that amount would be reduced to approximately $20 million. Because there would be a reduction in the amount of money available to fund these programs, the reduction would have to be replaced by other funding, perhaps from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The amount of money directed to local agencies for safety improvements would also be reduced to $20 million. In addition, this bill would call for many small projects from various entities around the state, and could prove to be inefficient. This bill would further divide existing transportation monies and reduce the flexibility set up under SB 45 (Kopp), Chapter 622, Statutes of 1997. This bill would earmark money for the SRSP instead of allowing local transportation agencies to decide which safety projects should be given the highest priority. This bill would also require the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to reprogram existing money since the CTC has programmed the money through 2004. Through SB 45, regional transportation planning agencies are charged with making programming decisions and choosing between the needs of local streets and roads, state highways and public transit in order to meet overall transportation needs. It is important that such decisions remain in the hands of local elected officials and to preserve that authority and autonomy, agencies such as RCTC and SANBAG must have credibility that they are choosing the best and most valuable projects for their area Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 1612 (Dean Florez, D- Shafter) Introduced February 26, 1999 Amended April 6, 1999 Subject: Would Allocate $300 Million of State Highway Account Dollars to Rehabilitate Streets and Roads. Status: Summary: Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 12 —3 on April 13, 1999. Referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee — No Hearing Date Yet. AB 1612 would do the following: 1. Appropriate from the State Highway Account (SHA) in the State Transportation Fund to the Controller $200 million in FY 1999-2000 and $100 million in 2000-2001 for allocation to counties (50 percent) and to cities (50 percent) repair of local streets and highways. 2. Allocate 75 percent of the funds payable to counties on the basis of the proportion of registered vehicles to county population, and the remaining 25 percent on the basis of the proportion of county road mileage to total county road mileage statewide. 3. Allocate the funds payable to cities on the basis of the proportion of the city population to cities' population statewide. 4. Require recipient cities and counties to maintain existing levels of general fund expenditures for streets and highways. 5. Authorize recipient cities and counties, subject to the maintenance of effort requirement, to spend these funds for transportation purposes in addition to street and highway reconstruction and to repair of storm damage to local streets and highways. 6. Specify procedures to prevent the commingling of funds received and deposited. 7. Require recipient cities and counties to comply with all force account and bidding requirements under current law. o:1ab1612-dws.doc 8. Require recipient cities and counties to expend these funds within one fiscal year of their receipt, and requires the return of unexpended funds to the Controller for reallocation to other cities and counties. Senator Rainey ( R — Walnut Creek), has introduced SB 10 which is exactly the same bill as AB 1612. However, after conversations with the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has decided not to pursue SB 10. Staff Comments: The state and regional approach to the planning, programming, and financing of local transportation needs was reformed only last year by SB 45. The funding AB 1612 would provide bypasses the accountability safeguards and competitive scrutiny applied to STIP projects by regional transportation agencies under SB 45. The key question posed by this bill is whether the proposed transfer of funds from the State Highway Account (SHA) would endanger both federal funding and already approved programs prioritized under the STIP, or whether instead SHA funds may be used for the important short-term purposes of this bill without adversely affecting projects for which SHA funds already are committed. Caltrans reports that this bill would significantly deplete interregional funds available to meet statewide needs in the 1998 and 2000 STIPs, and would result in the deprogramming of approximately $88 million in adopted STIP projects in FY 2000-01. Moreover, because the funds transferred under this measure would be diverted largely from federal matching programs yielding federal matching shares in excess of 80 percent, this bill could translate into the loss to the state of millions of dollars in federal funding. In discussions with staff, the CTC staff indicates much the same as Caltrans and states that at a minimum currently programmed STIP projects will be delayed. As the SANBAG board discussed during its review of the 1998 STIP augmentation, if $300 were to be redirected to local street repair, some portion of the I-215 project would incur delays. Because the STIP process is relatively new, most projects budgeted under STIP are still in their early, least costly stages. Many projects yet in their engineering and design phases soon will progress to far more costly construction and implementation phases, thereby drawing much more intensely on funds seemingly bottled up in the current SHA balance. In the case of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Each governing body, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) considered street repair and maintenance when o:1ab1612-dws.doc reviewing options for the 1998 STIP Augmentation. RCTC chose to allocate $15 million (well above what would be received from the $300 million allocation statewide) to a call for projects for local street repairs. Part of the RCTC action included language 'stating that should an effort to acquire additional funding "off -the -top" of the State Highway Account be successful, the $15 million would be reprogrammed to other projects. SANBAG chose to maintain it's current priorities (I-215 and SR 30) and not make any special allocations for street repairs. AB 1612 would negate the actions of RCTC and SANBAG and likely would require a reprogramming of STIP funds, and therefore, produce delays in project delivery. Through SB 45, regional transportation planning agencies are charged with making programming decisions and choosing between the needs of local streets and roads, state highways and public transit in order to meet overall transportation needs. It is important that such decisions remain in the hands of local elected officials and to preserve that authority and autonomy, agencies such as RCTC and SANBAG must have credibility that they are choosing the best and most valuable projects for their area and not biased in favor of those that are owned and operated by cities and counties versus those that are owned and operated by transit operators or Caltrans. Statewide $500 million of the $1.5 billion STIP augmentation has been programmed - $200 million of which is programmed for local street repair projects; the CTC expects that at least 30% of the remaining billion will be programmed for local street maintenance projects. Thus, statewide, cities and counties will have already in excess of $300 million — leading staff to conclude that AB 1612 is a "double-dipping" effort. Without question, the need for street repair is significant and such projects have difficulty competing against capacity increasing projects in the STIP process. For that reason, the RCTC/SANBAG Legislative Program specifically states the two agencies' goal to seek funding for local street repairs from a state source "other than the State Highway Account." AB 1612 conflicts with that goal. Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE o:\ab1612-dws.doc Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999 Bill Number/Author: SB 1277 (Tom Hayden, D- Los Angeles) Introduced February 25, 1999 Amended April 7, 1999 Subject: Would Prohibit Construction of Roads in Lands Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game and the state conservancies. Status: Passed Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee 5-3 May 13,1999. Set for Hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee May 17, 1999. Summary: This bill would prohibit construction of roads in lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game and the state conservancies. This prohibition would not apply to roads necessary for the maintenance and use of the protected lands, to fire roads and to roads for utilities. Staff Comments: Clearly, the intent of the author in pursuing SB 1277 is to protect certain lands from transportation (road) development due to the negative environmental impact such development may bring. Nevertheless, there currently exists an exhaustive environmental review process and requirements for significant mitigation of any negative environmental impact a transportation project may have. Further, the bill relates to lands under the jurisdiction of two state departments and their related state conservancies. Such jurisdiction covers a vast amount of land. This bill could have the affect of stopping several future transportation projects which have already been planned, reviewed and mitigated for. In Riverside County, a recently initiated comprehensive planning process combining, the County General Plan, Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan and transportation corridor planning known as the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) is underway. The CETAP process attempts to coordinate all significant levels of planning. This is a local process which includes all levels of government and will include all the requisite environmental reviews before proceeding with construction. It is possible that any projects arising out of the CETAP process have an impact on San Bernardino County as well. Further, the Four Corners study efforts areas in Chino Hills that could be negatively impacted by the prohibitions in SB 1277. By prohibiting all road construction on any land under the jurisdiction of two large state departments, SB 1277 fails to recognize the local planning and review process currently existing. Further, with the advent of SB 45 (Kopp, Statutes, 1998) transportation planning decisions are largely under the purview of local governing bodies and these decisions are made through an open deliberative process which SB 1277 would prevent from having any relevance. Staff Recommendation: o:\sb1277-dws.aoc OPPOSE o:1sb1277-dws.doc RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: __ SB 821 Program Extension Requests from the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula City of Murrieta The City of Murrieta was allocated $113,622 in FY 1997-98 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program funds for the construction of the Jefferson Avenue Bike Lane project. When SB821 funds are allocated, local agencies are expected to have the project under contract by the end of the fiscal year. If more time is needed, they must come before the Commission with a request for a time extension. Last year, the City of Murrieta requested a 12 month extension for the Jefferson Avenue Bike Lane project since they were having to finalize utility relocation and road widening. Since that time, the City has decided to expand Jefferson from a two lane road to a six lane road with a bikeway. The wider project will provide relief for congestion at Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, as well as additional safety for the bike lanes. The City is requesting a one year extension to June 30, 2000 to award the construction contract for the project. City of Temecula The City of Temecula was allocated $159,500 in FY 1998-99 SB 821 Program funds for the completion of the Santa Gertrudis Bike Trail Under -crossing project. The construction plans and specifications for the project are ready to bid within the next 60 to 90 days, however, the City is experiencing a minor delay due to mitigation measures being requested by the Army Corp of Engineers. The City's Engineer has met with a representative from the Army Corp and they believe a resolution regarding their concerns are imminent. The City is requesting a six-month extension of time to December 31, 1999 for the completion of this project just in case the mitigation concerns take longer than expected. 00 12 7 Financial Assessment Project Cost $273,122 Source of Funds TDA Article 3/Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programed 1998&1999 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation 1998&1999 Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission grant the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula's extensions, as requested, to complete their respective SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities projects. 003128 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Mike Davis, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Route 74 - 1-15 to 7th Street, Amendment No. 10 with County of Riverside and Amendment No. 1 with SC Engineering for final Design The Commission has indicated its desire to advance the State Route 74 Project. At the May 13, 1998 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved an agreement with White Rock Development to provide advance funding for the final design of Route 74, between 1-15 and Wasson Canyon Road, in the City of Lake Elsinore. The Agreement states that White Rock Development (the Developer) will reimburse RCTC for all costs associated with the Final PS&E Design of Route 74 from I-15 to Wasson Canyon Road. The Developer will use the highway design to finalize the plans for the Ramsgate Development proposed on State Route 74. The Agreement further stated that RCTC will later reimburse the Developer for the design costs (less Developer 'only" costs) for the highway portion of the design when RCTC elects to move forward with the design of the entire Measure A improvement project. As a result of the CTC March 29 action to program $3,345,000 of Regional Improvement Program funds for the State Route 91 Phase II sound walls which freed up an equal amount of Measure A dollars, and the strong possibility of obtaining a State Highway Account (SHA) loan to fund the construction of the Measure A State Route 74 Project, Staff is now recommending to extend the design of the State Route 74 Measure A Project that is currently limited between I-15 and Wasson Canyon Road as a result of the condition of the agreement with the Developer. The new limits will be between 1-15 and Th Street in the City of Perris which will cover the complete Measure A project limits. The extension of the project limits at this time will require a release of the Developer from his commitment to fund the design of the smaller project with an interest free loan. In order to have this project "shelf ready" for a SHA loan, the following two actions are needed at this time: 1. Authorize Amendment No. 10 to Agreement RO 9337 with the County of Riverside to appraise the parcels necessary for the construction of the project between 1-15 and 7th Street in the City of Perris. The County of Riverside is currently performing right-of-way acquisition services to support the State funded SHOPP projects at various locations on State Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road and 7th Street in the City of Perris. See attached Map. This action was approved at the August 13, 1997 Commission meeting as Amendment No. 8 to our existing Agreement (RO 9337) with the County. Amendment No.10 will cover the appraisal of 425 parcels and is estimated to . cost an additional $400,000. 2. Authorize Amendment No. 1 to Agreement RO 9954 with SC Engineering, who is currently performing the final design between I-1 5 and Wasson Canyon Road, to add the final design of State Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road and 7th Street. The current agreement with S.C. Engineering to perform final design on State Route 74 between I-15 and Wasson Canyon Road is $798,014. This contract currently has a 13% contingency to be able to respond to any unforseen scope changes for a total contract not to exceed amount of $900,000. Extra work in the amount of $1 1,000 has been authorized for SC Engineering to have its sub consultant LSA Associates conduct "Spring" biological surveys to complete an Environmental Reevaluation required by Ca!trans. The extra work authorization expanded SC Engineering total contract amount to $809,014. The portion of SC Engineering contract that is attributed to the Developer "only" work is estimated to be $30,000. This $30,000 would remain the responsibility of the Developer when RCTC moves forward with final design of all of SR-74between 1-15 and 7th St. RCTC's estimated cost for the 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road portion of the project is, therefore, $779,014 ($809,014-$30,000) not including contingency. Total cost with contingency would be $900,000 minus $30,000 (developer cost only) or $870,000. Staff has reviewed a proposal from SC Engineering to complete the State Route 74 final design for the remainder of SR-74 from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th St. The estimated cost for completing the additional final design' services on SR-74 between Wasson Canyon Road and 7th St. is S1,586,650 (see attached cost proposal). Combining the current project cost of $870,000 (includes contingency cost) and the additional design services of $1,586,650 plus 13% contingency $206,265 would result in a total of $2,662,915 to complete the overall final design of the SR-74 Measure "A" project. In the 1998 STIP Augmentation approved by the CTC, $3,345,000 in Regional Improvement Program funds were programed for the Phase II Sound Walls on State Route 91. This action freed up an equal amount of Measure A funds that were previously earmarked for the State Route 91 Sound Wall Project. This $3,345,000 of Measure "A" funds can now be used to finance the above describe amendments to the present agreements with the County of Riverside and SC Engineering. The recommended action will require the following amounts: Description Amount Design between 1-15 and Wasson Canyon to replace the previous Developer funds $870,000 Design between Wasson Canyon and 7th Street $1,586,650 Total Design Contingency (13%) will be modified to $206,265 Subtotal for Design $2,662,915 For the County of Riverside to complete the appraisal of all additional required properties for the Measure A project not included with the Caltrans SHOFF projects $400,000 Total Required Funds: S3,062,915 Total Available Funds: $3,345,000 Remaining Funds: $282,085 Financial Assessment Project Cost $3,062,91 5 additional funding authorization Source of Funds Programmed Measure "A" funds previously on State Route 91 Phase II Sound Walls Included in Fiscal Year Budget n Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 2000 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required n Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In order to have a Measure A project ready to go to construction, should a State Highway Account loan funds be made available, the following actions should be taken at this time: 1 . Authorize a new Amendment No.10 to agreement RO 9337 with the County of Riverside to cover the costs of Appraising the remaining 425 parcels on SR-74 between Interstate 15 (1-15) and 7th street in the City of Perris. The estimated cost for this effort is $400,0000. A standard contract amendment will be used for this agreement subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review. 2. Authorize Amendment No. 1 to the SC Engineering contract ( RO-9954)for the Final PS&E Design of the State Route 74 Highway Improvement Project, between Wasson .Canyon Road and 7t' St. in Perris for an amount of $1,586,650 and a revised project contingency amount of $206,265 (13%), for a new total not to exceed contract value of $2,662,915 using a standard consultant amendment, subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review. SL'SZ/t6Z'Lt 6L-AI11-8 dh�W NOl1V301 _ 1- 1NOdU1Y N., A 1 I IVA 5111111.1 /S MI 2AY 011I3V► A3llYA llvno a ok40' ulonH3S3a NOANv3 silwll 3oafoid N0£ti9ti V3 1Av OIN ny NYS a 1 iAr OYOI HII-- Stull 1301041 NOZti90 V3 • 3110NIS13 3H1►1 r slaw l 3aa(oad NOLti9ti V3 SI ,715 ;-.7) ';:› LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY U��;'4 O o •41*9 �sq� April 20, 1999 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SERVICES 3133 Mission Inn Avenue Daniel Nlaldu. Jr.. P.E. Riverside. California 92507-4199 Director 1909 i 955-4800 FAX (909) 955-4828 Mike Davis, Project Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 RE: Highway 74 - Amendment Number 10 Dear Mr. Davis: As requested, we offer the following proposal for acquisition services in connection with the Highway 74 Project. These services are limited to the estimated costs associated with the administration of the appraisal process and the cost to obtain an appraisal and litigation guarantees as follows: Administration $ 47,000.00 Appraisal Cost (425 Parcels) $ 200,000.00 Litigation Guarantees (425 parcels x $360) $ 153,000.00- Estimated Total Cost: $ 400,000.00 This estimate does not include expenses for acquisition services for this project which will be addressed in a subsequent proposal and formalized by a separate agreement. The costs for litigation guarantees will be billed upon delivery. The appraisal will likely require progress payments. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact meat 909 955-9275. Very truly yours, -� ',-danet M. Parks Supervising Real Property Agent JMP:js •c: Dan Waldo Dave Slaughter ARCHITECTURE -ENGINEERING DIVISION (909i 955-4810 FAX (909) 955-4890 CUSTODIAL DIVISION (909) 9554839 FAX (9091 955.4828 MAINTENANCE DIVISION (9091 955.4830 FAX 1909) 9554828 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION (909) 9554820 FAX (9091 955.4837 CIVIL-TRANSPORTATION-PROJECT/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Tuesday, April 13, 1999 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attention: Mr. Mike Davis Subject: Cost Proposal Route 74 (Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street) Dear Mr. Davis: 046000 Route 74 from Wasson Canyon Road to 7tr Street Widen to 4-Lanes SC File: RCTC-99-01 Per your request, we have prepared a detail cost proposal to perform Engineering Services for the completion of Plans, Specifications, & Estimate (PS&E) and Right of Way Engineering for the widening of Route 74 to 4-Lanes from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street. We propose to continue utilizing of our existing subconsultants: LDKing Incorporated, LIN Consulting, and Group Delta Consultants and LSA Associates, to perform the necessary engineering services needed to complete the project. We look forward to working with the RCTC in the process of the approval of the necessary documents to reconstruct and widen Route 74 and reduce congestion in the City of Lake Elsinore. Should you have any question, do not hesitate to call me at 760-955-7712 or 909-204-8073. Sincerely, SC ENGINEERING Sal Chavez, PE Principal/Project Manager cc: Project Files - 55 Z,/,//s/ 14318 California Avenue. Suite 104 VIctorville, CA 9 � �� . 3 0 3750 Bedford Canyon Road Corona. CA 91719 rc/t_cost dmen/ 02 Route 74 Wasson Road to 7th Street MANPOW- ANALYSIS TASK I Estimated Estimated Estimated Firm l/ 4'99 MILESTONE 1 -35% ROADWAY PS&E 35% ROADWAY PS&E Supplemental Project Report (Includes Supplemental Traffic Data) Title Sheet/Standard Plan/Key Map & Line Index Typical Cross Sections Layout Plans (Includes Geometric Approval Drawings) Profile Plans and Superelevation Diagrams (Includes Geometric Approval Drawl Contour Grading Plans Drainage Plans Utility Plans Concept Stage Construction, Traffic Handling Plans and Detours Right of Way Requirements and Easements Design Survey Data & Survey Map Utility Research, Location and Coordination Moument Preservation Environmental Reevulation Subtotal DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS Draft Geotechnical Design Report Subtotal 1 4 2 24 24 24 24 24 10 24 N/A N/A N/A 1 137 1 140 8 30 22 12 18 12 12 16 4 800 480 340 210 720 ..--.- 140 32 60 528 288 432 288 288 160 96 800 480 340 210 4,142 720 4,862 SC/LIN SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC LDKING LDKING LDKING LSA Group Delta SC + SUBS MILESTONE 1 - 35%ROADWAY PS&E CHECK SC GO LIN LSA LDKING 140 32 60 528 288 432 288 288 160 96 800 480 340 210 720 4,862 2,312 720 0 210 1,620 MILESTONE 2 - 65% ROADWAY PS&E 65% ROADWAY PS&E Title Sheet/Standard Plan/Key Map & Line Index Typical Cross Sections Layout Plans Profile Plans and Superelevation Diagrams Construction Details Contour Grading Plans Drainage Plans (Includes Drainage Report) Construction Area Signs Pavement Delineation Plans Sign Plans Utility Plans Stage Construction, Traffic Handling Plans and Detours Subtotal RECORD OF SURVEY Record of Survey (1-15 to Wasson Canyon Rd) FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS Final Geotechnical Design Report Subtotal • 4 2 24 24 8 24 24 1 24 24 24 32 215 1 1 8 24 12 12 12 16 36 16 22 22 12 24 500 40 32 48 288 288 96 384 864 16 528 528 288 768 4,128 500 40 4,668 SC SC SC SC SC SC SC LIN LIN LIN SC SC LDKING Group Delta SC + SUBS MILESTONE 2 -65/. ROADWAY kite CHECK SC GD LIN LSA LDKING 32 48 288 288 96 384 864 16 528 528 288 768 t 500 40 4,668 3,056 40 1.072 500 MILESTONE 3 -95% ROADWAY PS&E 95% ROADWAY PS&E Title Sheet/Standard Plan/Key Map & Line index Typical Cross Sections Layout Plans Profile Plans and Superelevation Diagrams Construction Details Contour Grading Plans Drainage Plans Drainage Profiles 4 2 24 24 8 24 24 20 4 16 14 6 24 8 16 24 16 32 336 144 192 192 384 480 SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC MILESTONE 3.95/. ROADWAY PS&E CHECK SC GO LIN LSA LOKING 16 32 336 144 192 192 384 480 rcte_ceSt_emmendment 02 l) TASK •� J Utility Plans Sanitary Sewer Plans, Profiles & Details Water Plans, Profiles & Details Stage Construction, Traffic Handling Plans and Detours Construction Area Signs Pavement Delineation Plans Summary of Quantities Sign Plans Electrical Systems Plans Lighting & Sign Illumination Plans Signal & Lighting Plans Signal Interconnect Draft Special Provisions Roadway Drainage Construction Staging Traffic Handling Electrical Utility Pavement Delineation/Signs Erosion Control/Landscaping Basic Engineers Estimate (BEE's)/Construction Cost Estimate Draft Traffic Management Plan Subtotal Estimated No. of Sheets Route 74 Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street MANPOWER ANALYSIS Estimated Hours/Sheet Estimated Hours Firm 4/I NY 24 24 24 35 1 26 1 26 12 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 303 8 36 36 14 4 16 60 16 20 0 0 12 4 4 8 32 12 4 16 0 60 192 864 864 490 4 416 60 416 240 0 0 12 4 4 8 32 12 4 16 0 60 5,474 SC LDKING LDKING SC SC LIN SC LIN LIN LIN LIN SC SC SC SC LIN SC SC SC SC LIN SC+SUBS 192 490 864 864 4 416 60 416 240 0 0 12 4 4 8 32 12 4 16 60 5,474 2,582 0 1,164 1,728 MILESTONE 4 - 100% PS&E TO DISTRICT OFFICE ENGINEER PS&E Transmittal Report (ATTACHMENT A) Revisions to Roadway Plans and Special Provisions (Includes CADD Transmitta Resident Engineers File (Includes Slope Stake Data) Project File Subtotal 0 303 1 1 305 0 5.0 160 40 0 1,515 160 40 1,715 SC SC SC SC SC CHECK MILESTONE 4 - 100% PS&E T DISTRICT OFFICE ENGINEER GO - SC 0 1515 160 i LIN LSA LDKING 0 40 1,715 1,715 0 0 0 MILESTONE S - CONSTRUCTION BID SUPPORT 40 SC 40 40 0 0 0 MILESTONE 6 - CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT 400 SC 400 400 0 0 0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATION Monthly Progress Reports Permits, Plan Checks and Revisions Meeting Attendance Project Management, Coordination, & Scheduling Subtotal No of Reports 18 0 Hrs/Report 6 0.00 108 00 0,00 144 00 900.00 1,152.0 SC SC SC SC SC+SUBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATION CHECK SC I GD LIN 108 0 144 LSA LDKING 900 1,152 1,152 0 0 TOTAL 18,311 SC+SUBS 18,311 11,257 I 760 2,236 0 210 3.848 rctc_ cos t_ammendment_02 SC ENGINEERING 4/14U99 COST PROPOSAL WORKSHEET COMPANY: DATE EVISION Amendment *01 SC Engineering Final PS8E and R/W Services PROJECT: Route 74 from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street April 13, 1999 MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY: Milestone Summary 1 to 6 DIRECT LABOR PERSONNEL FUNCTION HOURS RATE AMOUNT S Chavez C Sosa/Staff D Jenkins/Staff J Davis/Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Project Manager 1351 S44.38 S59.957 Senior Civil Engineer 2589 $36.25 $93.851 Civil Engineer 2026 $28.50 '$57,741 Civil Engineer 1351 $25.00 S33.775 CADD Operator Technician 3377 $20.00 $67,540 Bridge Engineer 0 $30.00 $0 Landscape Architect 0 $27.50 $0 Administrative/Project Control 563 $13.50 $7.601 12.0% 23.0 % 18.0 % 12.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 100.0% TOTAL HOURS' 11.257 I 11,257 OVERHEAD RATE S320.465.13 ESCALATION @ (RATE GENERAUADMINISTRATIVE @ 100% (of Total Direct Labor+ Escalation) PAYROLL ADDITIVES @ 45% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) $320.465.13 $144.209.31 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $464, 674.44 OTHER DIRECT COST ITEM Blue Line Pnnting 35 % Sub (20 Plans Sets @ 137 Sheets Each) 65 % Sub (30 Plans Sets @ 213 Sheets Each) 95 % Sub (20 Plans Sets @ 275 Sheets Each) Miscellaneous (Subs, Client, Work Sets, etc.) Convert Mapping to Standard Metnc Mapping Update Title Reports QUANTITY 1 UNIT 1 UNIT COST AMOUNT 23.975 Sq. Ft $0.06 $1,439 55.913 Sq. Ft $0.06 $3.355 48,125 Sq. Ft $0.06 $2,888 40,000 Sq. Ft $0.06 $2,400 17 per file $1,085.00 $18,445 125 per report $325 $40,625 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES SUBCONSULTANTS COST S69.150.75 COMPANY LDKING, INCORPORATED LIN CONSULTING GROUP DELTA CONSULTING LSA 1 LABOR 1 MULTIPLIER I EXPENSES 1 AMOUNT $372,240 $156,005 $104,141 S21,460 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES FEES $653,846.05 10% (of Total Direct Labor + Total Multipliers) $78,513.96 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS S78.513.96 I TOTAL COST $1, 586,650.33 SC Orelfiget4.4t tt rctc_cost_ammendment_02 LDKING, INC 4//4/99 COST PROPOSAL WORKSHEET COMPANY: LDKING. INC SCOPE OF WORK Final PS&E and RJW Services DATE April 13. 1999 REVISION Amendment #01 PROJECT: Route 74 from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY: Summary DIRECT LABOR PERSONNEL j FUNCTION HOURS I RATE I AMOUNT Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Certified Party Chief Senior Chainman •Chainman Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Assistant Engineer Senior CADD Technician CADD Technician Administrative Assistance Senior Survey Calculator 224 224 224 144 256 398 300 244 0 0 1834 532.41 $28.01 $27.43 $47.00 $43.50 $33.50 $24.50 $27 00 $17.00 $20.00 $30.95 $7,260 $6.274 $6,144 $6, 768 $11,136 $13,333 $7,350 $6,588 $0 $0 $56,762 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 3.7% 6.7% 10.3% 7.8% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 47.7% 100.0% TOTAL HOURS' 3.848 3,848 OVERHEAD RATE $121,615.70 ESCALATION @ • (RATE) GENERAUADMINISTRATIVE @ PAYROLL ADDITIVES @ 125% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) 40% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) 165% $152,019.63 $48,646.28 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $200,665.91 OTHER DIRECT COST ITEM GPS Rental Mileage Blue -lines Dellvenes Plotting Copies QUANTITY UNIT 20 days 3500 miles 2,000 sheet 30 each 0 sheet 20,000 page UNIT COST ( AMOUNT $600.00 $0.28 $1.00 $25.00 $0.00 $0 10 $12,000.00 $980.00 $2,000.00 $750.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 SUBCONSULTANT'S COST COMPANY TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $17,730.00 I .LABOR • ) MULTIPLIER ] EXPENSES ( AMOUNT TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES FEES $0.00 10% (of Total Direct Labor + Total Multipliers) $32,228.16 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $32,228.16 1 TOTAL COST $372,239.77 f.t U rctc_cost_ammendment 02 LIN Consulting, Inc. COST PROPOSAL WORKSHEET COMPANY: LIN Consulting, Inc SCOPE OF WORK Traffic Engmeenng PROJECT: Route 74 from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street DIRECT LABOR DATE Apn113.1999 u13/99 REVISION Amendment #01 MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY: Summary PERSONNEL j FUNCTION HOURS RATE I AMOUNT Denwun Lin, PE Project Engineer 340 $38.00 $12.920 George Wang, PE Senior Civil Engineer 264 $35.00 $9.240 Staff Associate Engineer 924 $25.00 $23.100 Staff Engineenng/CADD 644 $15.00 $9,660 Staff Clerical/Administration 64 $15.00 $960 15.2 % 11.8% 41.3% 28.8% 2.9% 100.0% TOTAL HOURS 2.236 1 2,236 OVERHEAD RATE S55.880.00 ESCALATION @ (RATE GENERAUADMINISTRATIVE @ 115% (of Total Direct Labor+ Escalation) PAYROLL ADDITIVES @ 35% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) $64.262.00 $19.558.00 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $83,820.00 OTHER DIRECT COST ITEM { QUANTITY UNIT i UNIT COST) AMOUNT Mileage Blue -lines Delivenes Plotting Copies 2500 miles $0.28 $700.00 600 sheet $1.00 $600.00 25 each $35.00 S875.00 0 sheet S0.00 $0.00 1,600 page 60.10 $160.00 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES SUBCONSULTANTS COST $2,335.00 COMPANY 1 LABOR j MULTIPLIER EXPENSES AMOUNT TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES FEES $0.00 10% (of Total Direct Labor + Total Multipliers) $13,970.00 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $13,970.00 TOTAL COST $156,005.00 SC i �V', �.ri l rctc_cost smmendment_02 Group Delta Consulting 4/13/99 COST PROPOSAL WORKSHEET COMPANY: SCOPE OF WORK Group Delta Consulting Geotechnical PROJECT: Route 74 from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street DATE April 13. 1999 REVISION Amendment #01 MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY: Summary DIRECT LABOR K. Bhushan Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff PERSONNEL FUNCTION HOURS RATE ( AMOUNT Pnncipal 80 $53.51 $4.281 Senior Engineer 180 $31.51 S5,672 Project Engineer 220 $25.62 $5,636 Technician 120 $21.53 $2.584 CADD Operator Technician 80 $17.43 $1,394 Clencal 80 $16.15 $1,292 10.5% 23.7% 28.9% 15.8% 10.5% . 10.5% 100.0% TOTAL HOURS' 760 I 760 OVERHEAD RATE S20.859.00 ESCALATION @ (RATE) GENERAUADMINISTRATIVE @ PAYROLL ADDITIVES @ 140% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) 30% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) $29,202.60 $6,257.70 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $35.460.30 OTHER DIRECT COST ITEM Mileage Postage/Dellvenes Miscellaneous (Reproduction) QUANTITY I UNIT I UNIT COST I AMOUNT 4.000 MILES $0.31 $1.240.00 0 EA $0.00 $0.00 2 . LS $400.00 $800.00 SUBCONSULTANT'S COST COMPANY Drilling and Sampling Geophysics Lab Testing TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $2,040.00 LABOR I MULTIPLIER 1 EXPENSES AMOUNT . $28,150.00 $10,000.00 $2,000.00 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES FEES $40,150.00 10% (of Total Direct Labor + Total Multipliers) $5,631.93 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS TOTAL COST $5,631.93 $104,141.23 1 Pr rctc_cost_ammendment 02 LSA Associates 4/13/99 COMPANY: COST PROPOSAL WORKSHEET SCOPE OF WORK DATE REVISION Amendment #01 LSA 8 Associates Environmental Reevaluation April 13 1999 PROJECT: Route 74 from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY: Summary DIRECT LABOR PERSONNEL FUNCTION I HOURS ( RATE I- AMOUNT Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Principal Associate/PM APM/Analyst Graphics WP/Clerical 18 $43.75 $788 80 $37.50 $3.000 64 $20.31 $1,300 28 $20.31 $569 20 $17.19 S344 8.6 38 1 % 30.5% 13.3% 9.5% 0.0% 100.0% TOTAL HOURS 210 1 OVERHEAD RATE S6,000.02 ESCALATION @ (RATE) GENERAL/ADMINISTRATIVE @ PAYROLL ADDITIVES @ 127% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) 83% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) $7,620.02 S4.980.01 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $12.600.03 J OTHER DIRECT COST ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST I AMOUNT M Ileage/Posta ge/Reproduction 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES SUBCONSULTANTS COST $1,000.00 COMPANY LABOR I MULTIPUER T EXPENSES I AMOUNT TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES FEES $0.00 10% (of Total Direct Labor + Total Multipliers) $1,860.00 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $1,860.00 TOTAL COST $21,460.05 I SC 014$44"8" L diata44.3 io Aira _ -frrEtit i; 100E sawbold On Pololi eismonsmah 0 lulorairmiri ;An maw Wel On P61101:1 NIONOIONNION11118 fusuowns o Fir -aril yir DIY! _ I DOOZ 8416 kluffir)S-IS 141/ 61-11 66/00E sill 64,0 orolwainS-IS 41L oiSt-11 Pola' 00/8116 uorl 00/6/0 0O/Eft t4161 66/06/1 P.1 66/6Z/L 66/t/S 66/0Eit 66/61/1 and 00/11/1 uoN 66/6 W I 1n1. PGZI 14:410ruittioa le PLL& 031101 A0V31:1) 31164.1 AimPooti %OM Of 39Sd Ac*Pooti %S6 66 PP/ WiSd Ae*Pecti %S9 OS PUP 6133rOLId &MHO StiA11190 /6 f own ;Km own tot PIM _ _ 00OONS P,9 uolPiwiemo3 - 6 01:99,1161 CS ._ MEV/ U01111 80/06,16 011 POOC 1606MS 001170148w0a- 6 supl."1/61_19151 00/f/ST vow001112/1 Ind PIP 39Sd Alw"Pmeti %NI' 0 **WM. If 00/t/t Nil WIWI MA POO wouisinov AVM AO MORI 69 60/11/1. mil 66/E/l 1 PoAA POS — - - - -- S1DISttliddti AVM JO 1HOPJ - 617 00/11/C 00/0Z/1 PA POZ _ 0011 r11ol1 Oi1G t t PIMA P69 41/11C/El oil Mtn II WA Pet 664/11 mium _ 66/K/8 enl 6/1/OCA P•1101 66/SZ/6 uaN PC11 MEI" 'Mull Luomuna WailS tilL 01 51-1 (81061613/4168n031aL3111016.41,31SPAIM314 Et 3964 kl1W8011 talk. T 8u011,1161 1Z PW049113tOPM03f31.16118uallet3)11Atibta11 SC PO6 396d AomPOoki %69 i ownsols61 ft _ WWI PIMA POP itwout813/APwico3rJ13111ouo4NOW 6/431A39 ri and Aisiosou xer I maolmoso; ; swtH 1188.1 al • —I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Selection of Independent Auditors The Audit Committee held oral interviews with Ernst & Young and McGladrey & Pullen on April 26, 1999. A copy of the meeting minutes of the Audit Committee is attached. The minutes indicate dissenting votes from Commissioners Smedley and Pettis and the reasons for their dissent. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission retain the auditing services provided by Ernst & Young, LLP. 0031.45 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget & Implementation Committee Audit -Sub -Committee April 26, 1999 - MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Audit Sub -Committee was called to order by Dean Martin at 12:00 p.m., at the University Extension Center, 1200 University Avenue, Suite 2, Riverside, CA 92507. Since Chairman Hunt was due to arrive late, it was moved by Commissioner Tavaglione and seconded by Commissioner Smedley to appoint Commissioner Clifford as Chair in Commissioner Hunt's absence. Commissioners Present: Clifford, Pettis, Smedley, Tavaglione 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public at this time. 3. INTERVIEW with McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP - 12:00 p.m. Team members Rod LeMond, Paul Chang, Sylvia Spikes and Sal Gomez made their presentation. A question and answer period followed. NOTE: Chairman Hunt arrived a few minutes into this presentation. 4. INTERVIEW WITH ERNST & YOUNG, LLP - 12:45 p.m. Team members Sally Anderson, Theresia Trevino, Julia Cox and Cynthia Morningstar made their presentation. A question and answer period followed. 5. EVALUATION/REVIEW BY COMMITTEE Following the presentations, Dean Martin commented that an ad -hoc committee, comprised of David Shepherd (RCTC), Andy Okoro (SCRRA), Bob Duffy (OCTA) and Susan Van Note (SANBAG), had reviewed the candidates' RFP's via phone conference. David Shepherd spoke on their behalf and, as a group, their recommendation was that the Commission continue with the services of Ernst & Young. Commissioner Tavaglione commented regarding E&Y's pro -active community involvement and good reputation in Riverside County. Commissioner Hunt was impressed with the service and reporting provided to the Commission, and their involvement with Measure A and the community. 003146 Commissioner Clifford commended their level of service over the years and their uncompromising integrity. Commissioner Smedley expressed he was a "change agent," and would like the Commission to try a new firm. Commissioner Pettis concurred and felt a new firm would be in the Commission's best interests. He also expressed concerns over E&Y's indicated exceptions to the Commission's model contract. Sally Anderson, E&Y Office Managing Partner, responded that these were issues similarly identified in the prior RFP process and successfully negotiated in the existing contract to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. Following a fifteen minute discussion, it was moved by Chairman Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Clifford, and carried that the Committee recommend to the Commission that we retain the services of E&Y. Commissioners Smedley and Pettis dissented. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Audit Sub -Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectively submitte JolShaw Secretary/Budget & Implementation Committee 060147 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12,1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee William Hughes, Measure A Project Manager Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending March 31,1999. Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreements is available from Bechtel staff. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION.. That the Commission receive and file. Attachments 063148 %6'96 %6 96 %9'Z9 %Z£L %S ES %9 4L %4'66 %V66 %WO 9'o8 0 %s'6Z %SSL Wo866 L9L'L69`9S LSL'L69'S$ Z09'£l634 699'96$ Z44'6ZZ' L$ LL t'S9S'£$ 1r08'9l91$ 409'919'9$ W0E03 9Z 1'6£9'6$ LZZ'64S tZZ'64$ 01,£`60 L $ 06Z'L4$ OZO'Z9$ OS O£Z`Z91r$ 0£Z'Z94$ os '90 49$ l a64$ lZeal OWLS'$ 06Z'L4$ 094'ZZ$ %P.L8 %4 L9 %6.96 %9•69 %0 00 t %O S6 %0'001 %0 00 L %0'001 %WOOL %0 00 L %L'48 %L E6 %0 00 L £ to ; a6ed £LL'8L8'9$ EL l'9L9'SS IL£'iPe`L$ L6Z'84L$ 000'00£'Z$ £90'96L'4$ 606'CC6'919 606'££6'S l$ 09£`969'6$ 09£'969'6$ 006`609'9$ 006'90S'9$ 0L9`99£s E LS'40£$ LS t'Z9$ 31VO 01 S1NW11WIN00 3110 Ol 6661 ' 1.£ 431E1N N011V0011V 31VO Ol 1SNIVJV 31V0-01 Salf1110N3dX3 030N3 H1NOW H1f1V 1SNIV'JV S1N30111WW00 SalfilION3dX3 % 803 361111ON3dX3 03111010100 % 1V8f110V211N00 009'9ZL'9$ 40S'9ZL'9$ 89618VIIS OS4'£E9$ 000'00£'Z$ 909'8170'9$ 606'£C611$ 606'EE6'S t$ 09£'969's$ 09£'969'6$ 006`909'9S 006'909'9$ L91'L8£S 000'SZ£$ LS L'Z9$ (9 L06 '900608) 'uoiou3/6i6u3 tiequelaad S103r021d 9lZ-I is 31noa-nuolans (EE66 4178608) 6uldeospueilleeepunoS (SES608) dwell )100H fruj 'pnl8 uam8 ueA (8496 ' 1996'E£66'L496'LZ96'L££6 ' 1O1608) uolloru;suoo pue Asap pempunos 91031'02Jd 1.6 31noa «< 31noa ip101ans LS96' 1S96-6496'E4L6'S£96 (9£S6'L£S6'0£S6'SZS6'EZS6'4EZ6'LZZ6 '6LZ608) S103road 111 31noa eL 31noa wiolans •suopoadsul leluawua 11AUe 6u1o6-uo 6uluuoliad lue;lnsuoo pue wise; Ina -asap loafoid 6u1wuo}1ad oalaldwo0 s1 pelad (LEL6'6Z£6 'SEL6'L££6'90E6 'ZOE6' L0£6' L t L608) MO a/' uoiou3/6uuaaul6u 3 91331'08d 6L 31noa fL 31nOa 1id101enS MO a/ualnu3/6uuaaul6u 3 S103r021d 4L 31noa 09 31nOa ivimens lemma) uollottijsuo0 lol eP1a ,u, Ted (9£L6021) upsaa leulj ;o-1 aP1a u, Ted S103rOad 09 31nOa NOI1V00l1V NOI1d1U9S30 03Z1210H1f1V 1010W NOISSIWW00 1.n02:1 AB 1210d3a 1300n9 9103f0211 PAVMHOIH „V.. 321f1SV31A1 010a %Z'9L %9'98 %0 £8 %0 001 %6'98 %6 98 %8 Z6 %£'99 %E 9S %8'LB %Z SS % L 66 E 10 Z a6ed Lf8'ZZ611,6 6L£'09Z'LS %6'96 9L6'16108$ ZLL`BLZ$ %0'16 199'9176'9$ bL9'£ LZ$ %S.68 bLE'917S'1$ 960'99$ %O.00I L8L1491$ 9E9'8116 %WOOL. 19 1'119'3 9£9'91 L$ %0.00 L 809'LLYS B00`OL$ %0'OOL 809'L117$ 600'0L$ %0.001 680'0Z8S 896469 %0"16 680'0Z8$ 896'176$ %O. 16 689'9,9'1$ OZ9'8LL$ %£'L6 b170'LL 1$ b170'LL L$ %6 98 SbS'89£' l$ 9L17' 1$ %0 00 L 31r9'10£`996 098'916'66 000'69£'8$ 099'9179'1$ OOZ'SLO'£$ 000'OS4$ 000'0Sb$ 899'9910LS 999'9Sb'1$ BZ9'i89' 1$ 000'b0£$ 8ZS'08E' L$ 8L6'8L9189$ Z9£'L68`01$ ZOS'OSE'6$ 099'9179'1$ 00Z`9Lo'£$ OOZ'SLO'£$ 000`091.$ 000'0Sb$ 000`009`LS 000'009' L$ 8Z9'0£L'LS 000'OSE$ 8Z9'08£' L$ 1IV212131f1W WOO 1V101snS (LS66'ES66'91786'£1796 '9E86 '0Z66 '0000 08) WOO '11.11eW/S1S09 dO/bOy 811S/UORBIS (9966'17986171786'EE86'ZE86' I£L6'0ZP6 ON) 6uuaau16u3/salpnl8 1IV21831 1WW00 3018-N-N8Vd lt/1018nS (£186) (S166-1066) 6996 (ZPL6-0bL6 08) WV2ip021d '1N30NI/30121-N'H2iVd '93AS'8 NVId WV2lDONd 1V1019nS (LZL6021 - Laid Sli) APnIS IepadS 933IA2139 V NVId WV2JpOild 131H338 1V101snS • (ooss ON) 11/421391WpW '81SNO3'Q 103P021d 3ONV1432131N11V101snS (9Z66021) 6uldeospuei 01 euunA (8Zb6021) (3'8Sd) (Asap leuld 01 ewnA WV210021d 'A021dW139NVH3831N1 31V0 Ol S1NW110116103 31V0 Ol 6661 ' 1£ liweW NO1VOOTIV 31V0 Ol N011V301111 NOIld1210S30 LSNIVOV 31V0'01 S3L111110N3dX3 03ON3 H1NOW H111V 1SNIVJV S1N3W11WW00 03Z180H1(1V 1331'06d S3NIllION3dX3 % 210d 38 1110N3dX3 03111WW03 % 1V81113VH1NO3 NOISSIWW03 3111011 AEI 1210d321 Japans 9133P021d AVMHD1H ..V.. 32IHSV3W 31021 66/1E/E /o se snleJS %9 89 %9 89 %9' 99 %9 89 %L 9L %Z149 %Z 48 0$ 0$ OS 0$ OS 0$ OS 0$ £9t'09tviS 909'969'L$ Z4Z'4 LS'4$ OSL'£L L' L$ £ZO'9LL'l$ Zr0`COL`t$ Z40'£0 L'4$ DZ8'Lv£'I$ OZ8'L4£' L$ £ !o £ a6ed •sla6pnq leaA leosy Iou pue pei;uoomeraid COI ale semen Dv .swei6wd luewenoidwi a6ueualow! )supbe ueoi (1.) :310N 9£9'90£`11.$ DS 9£910£'21$ S1V1O1 L90'6£ L'Z$ LZO'460'S$ OOS'4Z£' L$ 6 L4'9£6' t$ £Z1111V9S £Z9'Z 1Z'S$ 000'009'1,$ 000'009' L$ OS 0$ L90'6£L'Z$ LZ01760'S$ OO914Z£' l$ 6l4'9£6'L$ £ZVele9$ £Z9`Z LZ`S$ 000'009'IS 000'009' l$ 1I1/40100 03AO2lddV 1N3NIIVWNO0 3ONV1V9 S30NVAOV 6661 'le IVAN 11131#1111AlVVO0 1SNIVOV 31V0-01 JNIONVLSMO NVOI ..V.. 37insy3W 030113 KLIMA 03AOLIddV 30NV1V8 NV01 % ONIONVISI(1O WW1 bOd 281-1110N3dX3 l33fO2Jd A81210d321130an8 S133f02Jd S0V021 '8 613321 S 11/0O1/AVMH'JI1-1 „V.. 321nSV31A1 31021 sluudwl peon pug wags Ieaol'9 3/1 ewnA 03110N d0 A113 sluawanadwl pea g spoils pool Vina3W31 JO A113 sluawanaldwl pea g slaails leoo1 01N13V1 NVS d0 Alla sluawanoldwl pea slaa gs pool S121213d d0 Alla VN01103 d0 A113 1V1018ns ainlon.ls a6euleip waois (0 S sa6ueyaialul wow! g aldew 'tows VN02103 d0 A113 NVOI Merl NOANVO 1V1018nS (ZZ46021) sluawanadwl pa uoAuea peones 3)1V1 NOANVO 30 Alla NOIld1210S30 1031-06d RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Investment Report for Quarter Ending March 31, 1999 Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ending March 31, 1999 is also attached for your review. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 00Ji52 Investment Portfolio Report Period Ending March 31, 1999 Cash with County Treasurer Bank of America Operating Account $6,177,190.80 Imprest Account $8,693.51 Special Events Account $3,004.37 Operating Pooled Bond Project Funds Reserved Funds Held Funds Funds Funds For Debt in Trust Total $31,393,958.66 $10,839,356 74 $42,233,315 40 Total Bank of America Operating $6,188,888.68 $6,188,888.68 Milestone Funds $0.00 $8,310,078.19 $8,310,078 19 First American Treasury $4,761,047.11 $22,235,829.91 $4,208,258 31 $31,205,135.33 U.S. Treasury Notes $2,924,000.00 $2,924,000.00 MBIA Investment Agreement $13,002,612.00 $13,002,612.00 Financial Investors Trust (FIT) $9,111,817.01 $9,111,817 01 Union Bank: Fed Nat'l Mtge Assoc $2,297,843.75 Fed Home Ln Banks $2,480,000.00 Highmark Money Market (US Treasury Ob Fund) $200,257.49 c:3, Fed Natl Mtg Assn Medium Term $2,000,000.00 $6,188,888.68 $45,483,876.91 $4,761,047.11 C.) f... L� $2,297,843 75 $2,480,000.00 $200,257 49 $46,472,520.10 $15,047,615.05 $117,953,947 85 C") Cash with County Treasurer: A copy of the Investment Portfolio Report for the County of Riverside Treasury prepared by c; Wayne Watts, County Treasurer is attached for review. (Note: Local transportation funds represent the funds held in trust). The County's annualized investment return for the quarter was 5.04%. Gr7 te;• Bank of America Day to day operating funds of the Commission are held in an interest bearing demand deposit account with Bank of America. Funds are wire transferred from the County as needed, but no less than monthly. First American Treasury Money market account provided by US Bank used to hold funds in transition between the Commission's various bond funds and to accumulate monies for the payment of semi-annual and annual debt service. Interest earnings averaged approximately 4.2686% for the quarter. Financial Investors Trust U.S. Treasury Money market Fund Triple AAA rated(by Standard & Poors and Moody's) money market fund provided by Financial Guarantee Insurance Corporation. The fund invests in short term U.S. guaranteed obligations. The rate of interest on the fund varies daily; but the effective 7-day yield for week ending March 31, 1999 was 4.50%. Milestone Treasury Obligation Fund Money market account provided by Milestone Capital which invests in treasury obligations. The fund is rated AAA by both Moody's and Standard & Poors, and is reviewed weekly by both rating agencies. Rate of return for week ending March 31, 1999 was 4.84%. MBIA Investment Agreement: The Commission's debt reserve funds for the 1993 Series A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds are held by MBIA, a AAA rated(by both Standard & Poors and Moodys) bond insurance company. The investment agreement earns 6.87% and matures January 1, 2000, and pays an interest rate of 6.87%. Collateralization and downgrade provisions are consistent with AMBAC. Union Bank: Provides custodial services for the Commission by holding in safekeeping the following securities: U.S. Govt. Agency Obligations (Federal National Mortgage Association Note: Purchased December 8, 1997 priced to yield 5.64%. Note matures December 7, 1999. Federal Home Loan Bank Note: Purchased September 16,1997 and priced to yield 6.02%. Note matures September 16, 1999 Federal Natl Mfg Assn Medium Term: Purchased March 9, 1998 and priced to yield 5.88%. Note -matures March 9, 2001. liighmark Money Market US Treasury Obligations Fund: Money market fund held by Union Bank, securities custodian. Fund yielded 4.16% for week ended March 31, 1999. Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ending March 31, 1999 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on November 12, 1998. Signed by Chief Financial Officer /OF 4j 71 'I 0 H 111r , N41�A}y ,119 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund California Government Code & Treasurer's Investment Policy Compliance Analysis and Investment Report March 31, 1999 PAUL McDONNEL TREASURER/TAX COLLECTOR KENNETH C. KIRIN INVESTMENT OFFICER (909) 955 - 3967 Month -End Book Value Month -End Market Value* Paper Gain or (Loss) Percent of Paper Gain or Loss Yield Based upon Book Value Weighted Average Maturity (Days) Market value does not include accrued Interest. OCTOBER 1 227.364.535 1.228.618.106 $1,253.571 0.10% 5.38 n 257 PORTFOLIO STATISTICS NOVEMBER 1.244.582.397 1.244.946,663 $364,266 0.03 % 5.29% 291 DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 1.732.997.164 1.732.780.486 -S216.678 -0.01 % 5.32% 230 1.319.857.935 1.391.481,438 1,383,465.101 1.319.584.163 1.388.239.638 1.381.148.416 -$273,771-$3.241.800-52.316.685 -0.02%r, -0 23% -0.17% 5.06% 5.(X)% 5.06 is 318 305 342 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY POOLED INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO IS RATED AAA/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICE AND AAA/V-1+ BY FITCH INVESTOR SERVICES 00015E RCTC 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CA_ 92501 a U ' L iilllrrrlr'ttit'ltklittttti'trrllttrlirrtirltritrrlirtlirrtiir ui COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Pooled Investment Fund -- Portfolio Characteristics M- -itv 3( , or Less 30 - 90 Days 90 Days - 1 Year 1 - '_ Years 2 - 3 Years Over 3 Years Total: Assets 515.905.392.55 284,694,957.76 60,209,725.43 149,420,850.00 370,9 l 7,490.00 $1.381348.415.74 40 00% 35.00% - 30.00% 25.00% - 20.00% - 1 5.00% 10.00% - 5.01 % - 0.00% 37.4% Maturity 20.6% 10.89b 4� 30 Days or Less 30 - 90 Days 90 Days - 1 Year 1 - 2 Years 26.9% 0.0% 2 - 3 Years Over 3 Years 1j12: Assets U.S. Treasury' 79,575,000.00 Federal Aeencv_ 689,943,911.66 AAA 116.500.000.00 A- I and/or P-1 485.129.504.08 AA A N/R 10,000,000.00 - Total: $1,381,148.415.74 Quality A-1 and/or P-1 35.13% AAA 8.44% N/R 0.72% U.S. Treasury 5.76% Federal Agency 49.95% Sector U.S. Treasury Federal Agency Cash Equiv. 8e MMF's Co- -rcial Paper VIL Term Notes Bankers Acceptances Certificates of Deposit Local Aeencv Bonds Total: Assets 79,575,000.00 689,943,911.66 116,500,000.00 397,652,761.10 87,476,742.98 10.000.000.00 $1.381.148.415.74 ' In. mars Kenn, " C'nilacrrauzed Time Dennf115 Sector Commercial Paper 28.79% Cash Equiv. & MMF's 8.44% Bankers Acceptances 6.33% Certificates of Deposit 0.72% U.S. Treasury 5.76% Federal Agency 49.95% RIVERSIDE PORTFOLIO SIMULATION Interest Rate Stress Analysis • Interest rate stress analysis is used to show the effect on market value, given a dramatic change in interest rates. The table to the right shows the change in market value for both an instantaneous change in rates (takes place in one day) and a change in rates that takes place over six months. Interest rates are assumed to move up or down 300 basis points (bp) in 50 by increments. Next to the change in market value is the gain/loss column for each scenario. The gain or loss is calculated by subtracting acquisition cost from market value. There are other factors, but the major difference in the two jscenarios is interest eamed. If the change takes place over six months there is an additional six months interest income, l plus interest on cash flows assumed to be reinvested at 5.13%. In addition, the portfolio would be six months shorter. Yield Acquisition Change Cost (bpi S1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 $1,383,465 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Interest Rate Changes Take Place: Instantaneous Over Six Months Market Value Gain/Loss Market Value Gain/Loss $1,395,257 $11.792 S1,410.911 $27,446 $1,393,284 $9,819 $1,412,587 $29,122 $1.391,342 $7,877 $1,414,160 $30,695 $1,389,404 $5.939 $1,415,546 $32.081 $1,387,293 $3,828 $1,416,760 S33,295 $1.384.683 $1,218 $1,417,786 $34,321 $1,381,148 -$2,317 $1,418,486 $35,021 $1,376,346 -$7,119 $1,417,180 $33,715 $1,370,801 -$12,664 $1,414,853 $31,388 $1,365,122 -$18,343 $1,412.281 $28.816 $1,359,455 -$24,010 $1,409,745 $26,280 $1,353,822 -$29,643 $1,407,290 $23.825 $1,348,211 -$35,254 $1,404,882 $21,417 ($000) omrtted. This analysis demonstrates that sharp moves of interest rates either up or down by 3% will not have a significant effect on this portfolio. 00 15'� COMPLIANCE Cal. GUyt. CUlle CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE & COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS Investment Category Maximum Maturity Government Code Authonzed r Quauty Limn $&P/Moodv s Maxunum Matuntv Countv Investment Policy Authonzed % Limit Quality S&P/Moody %/Fitch Actual Riverside PornoIto `'. 536011at LOCAL AGY BONDS 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS I5%/ S150mm A/AZ/A 0.00% 5361111ht U. S. TREASURY 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 100% N/A 5.76% 536011d1 CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT - 5 YEARS NO LIMIT Combined w/Local Agency Bds 0.00% 536011e1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 100% N/A 49.95% 5360103 BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270DAYS 40%' 180DAYS 309E Al/PI/El 6.335E 5360Itgi COMM. PAPER ISO DAYS 15%or30%" AI/PI 90/31DAYS 309E Al/PItF1 . 28.7ag- 5360101 CERTIFICATE& TIME DEPOSITS 5 YEARS 30% I YEAR 0%max - A+/AI/A+ 0.00% 5360111, REPOS 1 YEAR NO LOvI T Ia DAYS 20% max N/A ti_07% 51601111 REVERSE REPOS 92 DAYS 20% 60 DAYS 10% max N/A 0.00% 5360111/ MED. TERM NOTES 5 YEARS 30'7, A _ YEARS 10%max AA/Aa2JAA 000% 516011k; MUTUAL FUNDS 90 DAYS` 20% AAA/Au' IMMEDIATE 15`</SI51hnm AAA by ' of 3 Raung Agencies 0.36% 536011 m 1 SECURED DEPOSITS (BANK DEPOSITS' 5 YEARS NO LIMrr I YEAR 2% max 0.72% 536011n1 MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH SECURITY 5 YEARS 20% AA -SECURITY A -ISSUER N/A N/A 0.00% IM'-911.2.3i LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS N/A NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 0% max 0.00% No more man or this category mayoe invested with any one commercial bank lb% it JoIlar weighted average matunty does not exceed 31 days. Commercial over average Clays to maturity is Mutual Funds maturity may be Interpreted as weighted average matunty not exceeding 90 days. - Or must nave an Investment Advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of S500.000.000. 22.30 1110.004E COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND TREASURER'S POLICY The County Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy is more stringent than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually and presented to the County's Investment Oversight Committee and the County Board of Supervisors. As of this month end the County's Pooled Investment Fund was in compliance with this more restrictive policy. Although we have been diligent in the preparation of this report, we have relied upon numerous pricing and analytical sources including Bloomberg Market Database and Capital Management Sciences, Inc. FUND SERVICES ADVISORS. INC. (3101229-9/70 Los Angeles - San Francisco - New York Registered Investment Advisors Ou0I56 County of Riverside f PROTECTION OF FUTURE CASH FLOW The Pooled Invesunent Fund cash tlow requirements are bated upon a 12 month historical cash tlow model. The Treasurer states that based upon protected cash receipts and matunng investments there are sufficient funds to meet future cash Clow disbursement requirements over the next 12 months. MONTH MONTHLY MONTHLY REQUIRED ACTUAL INV. AVAIL. TO RECEIPTS DISBMNTS DIFFERENCE MAT. INVEST BALANCE :MATURITIES INVEST >1 YR. 4/01 46.1 04/99 628.3 382.6 245.7 291.8 515.9 05/99 259.1 728.7 (469.6) 177.8 237.4 06/99 299.9 388.4 (88.5) 88.5 - 52.3 07/99 246.2 322.3 (76.1) 76.1 13.4 08/99 356.7 311.5 45.2 45.2 21.7 9/99 284.6 298.4 (13.8) 31.4 10/99 324.5 361.7 (37.2) 5.8 0.0 11/99 337.5 336.2 1.3 1.3 - I2/99 693.0 388.3 304.7 306.0 - 1/2000 287.9 586.3 (298.4) 7.6 10.0 2/2000 370.2 376.0 (5.8) 1.8 - 3/2000 315.3 335.5 (20.2) 18.4 0.0 10.0 Totals: 4,403.2 4.815.9 (412.7) 366.6 860.7 1,016.4 26.51 % 62.23 % 73.49 % Gross Yield Trends yield history represents gross yields; administrative costs have not been deducted. Actual eamings on your fund snce will be credited by the Auditor -Controller based upon County Treasurer calculations. Portfolio yield always lags current trends in short-term interest rates. Yields fluctuate with changing markets and past performance is not an indication of future results. PORTFOLIO 90 DAY MONTH YIELD T-BILL Apr-98 5.47 5.06 May-98 5.49 5.11 Jun-98 5.50 5.10 Jul-98 5.49 5.07 Aug-98 5.49 5.02 Sep-98 5.51 4.72 Oct-98 5.38 4.01 Nov-98 5.29 4.50 Dec-98 5.32 4.49 Jan-99 5.06 4.43 Feb-99 5.00 4.53 Mar-99 5.06 4.55 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 Gross Yield Trends 4,-98 May-99 Jun-98 M-911_-Aun-99- _S•P96_-oa_°°_ _�'10r-9e _o«-6eJM-89 ryb-pa Mr-YY +PORTFOLIO YIELD 90 DAY T-BILL Ou3159 RIVERSIDE PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS REPORT d 88888883 NPOISA Y 86; �128g88^7 NNWn1 rY 1gN8�NN1gO2200061 izRPM88dtl621012463 M 46666d666.6616.666. N N N NcsiNhl NNN N eV N NN ejNNNNNNNNNN lV NNci Nr4 NN OONc4eiN $$88ggg3$�ign�8�"1�{G`�`d,£`i�'8`�'3,4�{gmm�ao�^•�$1q�o%`�.n1�i,(n'��1I�'.4��rynnn`ren�4i��v°3Rf$i'i$,a'�,35i61 `� O O O G G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N G Y ut Y Y u1 Y Y 44 Y Yl ui Y ui ui ui ul u)YI IA vi uI IO IO IO vi ui uiN ul ul ui ul NulNNu/1A u1 ul Yl lA ui Yl ui vi ui NlO ul lA ui ui 111 of IA Nut vi6.of Y YY 2$$$$888g888s88888888988888$mss88885iss$$$$s888888888 8 Wpp Ip§g(��gi�pigpI§u1RgRgM§P�1I�pp��Ipp��Ipp��ppWIW+�+iyy$��gggyyg��§§y1�R{��!♦��++yyg11^g^((l��IgtltlE�8f�����II m NN ^ e_ =: Mm V Ngc,Li ~ N/`I�'�gsss Om sl'IOOmY 1g GgsJ NOI'IIOlNNY nNEpl70Y o¢ �! $$ Y$I`3'.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ s HIERREERRRgomgmlgiggoggyggoogg§R$uiRgggPRPIgggimgRggg§kgss !gm�9gp§g§§8iggli� aiir gmmialgpie avililgliggniPagEgRg l a� MIMMVOIMLIWIA 888&888888888888SS8 Q88$4.48881�$$$8Q858�5$$$$$$ ggREIr o3di5�SlR2 Rg9.11gR4 magggp§§8§§§§§§gg $$$88$888888M8888888$88$88$88$$$$$ g§§§golgg§§g8MMMIMMRMAgggliggg 88888sss8 8888g$$$8 ul f g OI h t N g g g G G VI u1 O G of G r O O ui wi O O O O O 6 W O O O O O 01 O O Y1 O N O O O O W O Yl O O If1 ul O O O I(f ul IA d G tG G G G 00000 OH RE000M`O^ IWIM-N1M§IIRIE§ I1l1f IMMMUMVNI'1MIYllltV ul I'1OI1M ♦ vid o W oOO4 r NNIAuf wuim ui Ul ul vi uimuiu910tOui IA IN uiN ulmininu1NINu1ulu1ulu1u11Nmu Wolnu1ulullNN V)N Nul uiulvio Q Q 2 2 a U 3333333 W W g W W ILL g U U�� W W g g W� W U W W U U W W W g W U�� W W g g W W W� 015115551g U ��� 3 W g g��� W W W W g W 115 W g OMMOWOMMOMMOIMMONWOMOM 888 $$$$$$$$$$$$$8$$$$$$$$$Ei$$$ 8$$$$$ 8888E1$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ 2§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§$$$$§§$$§§$$$$§$$$§§$$§$$$$$§$$$$§$$$§$§$§$$§1 M Y)u) OOh Ol'f OOOOO�n of OON ONOONNOOOOO NNOOOOOOIOONONOOOOuIOuIOONof OOON Nu1u1 OIOOOO E Y ul /7 fV Obi MI '13I S3Wink Agri WA F3i'iaSallili iiii 'alliiiiIiii alli i O nnnnnnnmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnMnnnnnnnnnmnFinnnnnnnFinnnnggnnnnnFinginnnMngn 8 a 8 888 $$$ G8' flf rig 000. O 6�K7I LL � S 2— gmcca 41§§§ IRO m W VT 88 g RR IO Yl ul f! IV 2 ail 88 8 Egg § 1.. 31U J RIVERSIDE PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS REPORT Match 31. 1999 CUSP Para) Issuer F ,rs Acceptance A 14 4.500.000.00 CHASE MANHATTAN BK USA 1 STO8OO4 1 STGOBO.5 8M14O8005 AHZ013OO5 NGOBOO6 NGOGBOO6 BKPOBOO7 BKPOBOO9 BKPOBOOB 10.400,000.00 CHASE MANHATTAN BK USA 6.000.000.00 RRST CHICAGO CORP 5.500,000.00 FIRST CHICAGO CORP 10,000900.00 BANKAMERICA CORP 9.000,000.00 CHASE MANHATTAN BK USA 10,500.000.00 FIRST CHICAGO CORP 7.000.000.00 FIRST CHICAGO CORP 3.501.152.58 BANKERS TR CO 17.256,859.82 BANKERS TR CO 5.000.000.00 BANKERS TR CO Suo-Total 88.658.012.40 Commercial Paper 54946KR5 20.000.000.00 7954W 1 R5 19121ER6 46064KR7 7838T3R7 07815KR8 073898RC 29454URE 34539US3 36959153 61979KS4 59018/(55 1667N1S6 61745857 • 46261MSL Sub -Total 30.000.000.00 10900.030.00 30.000.000.00 30.000.000.00 30,000.000.00 30.000.000.00 20.000.000.00 30.000.000.00 30.000.000.00 25,000.000.00 30.000.000.00 30.000,000.00 30.000.000.00 25.000.000.00 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC SMM-1 BARNEY INC COCA COLA CO INTERSTATE PWR CO SSC COMMUNICATIONS BELLSOUTH TELECOM. BEAR STEARNS COS INC EQUITABLE RES INC FORD MOTOR CRED MTN GENERAL ELEC CAP CORP MOTIVA INTERPRISES MERRILL LYNCH 3 CO INC CHEVRON USA MORGAN STANLEY GROUP INC IPALCO ENTERPRISES COUDpe !1ladtrin Acquisition Cunard CUMIltt IlarNN fc.W. r_r_igg Value w/o Auer Int Gain/Loss Yld Mat' ER. Dar.' Ave. Life' 0.000 04i02199 4,489255.00 99.317 4,469.255.00 0.000 049699 10.323,640.89 99266 10.323.640.89 0.000 04/06/99 5.92924590 98.821 5.929.245.00 0.000 04/1999 5.43527722 98.823 5.43527722 0.000 05/10/99 9.920,000.00 99200 9.921).000.00 0.003 0525/99 8.932,170.00 99246 8.932.170.00 0.000 0603/99 10.378.200.00 98.840 10.378200.00 0.000 06/14/99 6.917279.44 98.818 6.917.279.44 0.000 07/19/99 3.434,132.74 98.086 3.434,132.74 0.000 08/0999 18.855292.69 97.673 18.855292.69 0.000 0823/99 4.882250.00 97.645 4.88.250.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 41)0.000.000.00 Average Weighted Days for Commercial Paper U.S. Treasury 9128274R 9128274W 9128274X 9128275C 20.000.000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 20.000.000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 20.000.000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 20.000.000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS Sur 80.000.000.00 Gra ale 1.387.908.012.40 04/0599 04/0599 04006199 04/07/99 04/07/99 O4/O6I99 04/12/99 O4/14/99 C6/03/99 05/03099 05/04/99 05/05/99 O5/06/99 05/07/99 0520/99 87,476,742.98 19.933.194.44 29.7649:0.00 9.937,72.5.00 29.857.666.67 29.911,816.67 29.907.425.00 29.866.075.00 19.927550.00 29.757,000.00 29,774.133.33 24.797.083.33 29.827283.33 29.832.350.00 29,842.375.00 24.717,063.33 22.30 397.852,761.10 99.666 99213 99.377 99.526 99.706 99.691 99.554 99.638 99.190 99247 99.188 99.424 99.441 99.475 98.868 87.476,742.98 19,933,194.44 29.764.000.03 9.937.725.00 29.857.666.67 29.811.816.67 29.907,425.03 29,866.075.00 19.927.550.00 29.757.000.00 29.774.133.33 24.797.083.33 29.827283.33 29.832.350.00 29.842.375.00 24.717.083.33 397.652.761.10 4.929 0.00 0.01 4.750 0.01 0.02 4.830 0.01 0.02 4.820 0.05 0.05 4.840 0.11 0.11 4.800 0.15 0.15 4.880 0.17 0.18 4.830 020 021 4.957 0.30 0.30 4.964 0.35 0.36. 4.973 0�9 0 40 4.865 0.17 0.17 4.830 0.01 0.01 4.840 0.01 0.01 4.800 0.01 0.02 4.900 0.02 0.02 4.820 0.02 0.02 4.840 0.02 0.02 4.890 0.03 0.03 4.850 0.04 0.04 4.900 0.09 0.09 4.880 0.09 0.09 4.910 0.09 0.09 4.850 0.09 0.10 4.810 0.09 0.10 4.880 0.10 0.10 4.910 4.12 14 4.863 0.06 0.06 4.500 09/30100 19,994.53125 99250 19.850,000.00 (144.53125) 5.025 1.43 1.50 4.825 11/30/00 19.980,1562_5 99.344 19.888.800.00 (91.35625) 5.036 1.56 1.67 4.625 12/31/00 19,94218750 99.312 19.862.400.00 (79.787.50) 5.036 1.64 1.76 5.000 0226/01 19,996200.00 99.969 19,993.800.00 (2.400.00) 4.962 1.81 1.92 79.1393975.00 79.575,000.00 (318.075.00) 5.1220 1.81 1.71 1,383.465,100.74 1,381,148.415.74 (2.318.685.00) 5.129 0.59 0.93 ' The market value and yield of short-term money market securities are based on purchase price. ' Effective Duration is a sopnfstirateo calculation that measures shoe sensitivity, while taxing into consideration die possibility of securities being celled before inanity. ' Average Life is the number of years until pnrlapal is returned at maturity, weighted by menus value. 0u 3161 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO/VIMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: UCLA Fall 1999 Arrowhead Symposium Sponsorship Staff is seeking Commission approval to co-sponsor the annual UCLA Symposium, "The Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection," scheduled for October 24- 26, 1999 at the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center. The Symposium brings together policymakers and advisors, practitioners, and researchers to discuss major policy and planning issues in a cross -disciplinary and multi -jurisdictional environment. The requested Symposium sponsorship amount is $5,000. The attached UCLA funding letter of request and Symposium series history and profile are submitted for the Commission's consideration. Given the Commission's previous funding commitments to the annual Symposium, therequested amount was included in the approved FY 1998/99 budget. Based on sponsorship approval, RCTC will be allocated three registrations which may be used by Commissioners and/or Commission staff. Through staff participation on the Symposium Steering Committee, RCTC has been directly involved in selecting topics and setting the Symposium agenda. The overall theme for the upcoming Symposium is interregional travel. Major growth in passenger and goods travel. is placing increasing strain on the capacity of airports, railways, highways, local streets and seaports. As drafted to date, the agenda will examine the implications of interregional facilities on local and regional land use development patterns as well as growth -related challenges to air quality management. Financial Assessment Project Cost $5,000.00 Source of Funds Administration Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed 98/99 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation 98/99 u0162. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve sponsorship of the 1999 UCLA Symposium, "The Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection," in the amount of $5,000.00. Attachment(s) 00J163 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS A`GELES RFRIALLF1 • DA1 IS • I1711\1 • LOS \GELFS _ ERSIDF. • . Sj\ DIEGO • SA\ FRA\CISCO t. April 16. 1999 Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation 3560 University' Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside. CA 92501 o 'Q9I �`7/4770N n 047:840 t-CLA SAWA HARR1Hi• ',AVI A Rl ! UCLA EXTENSION LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9002.4 UCLA Extension Public Policy Program 10995 Le Conte Avenue, Room 613 Los Angeles, CA 90024-2883 Tel: (310) 825-7885 Fax: (310) 206-5066 Subject: Request for Riverside County Transportation Commission's Co -Sponsorship of Fall 1999 Arrowhead Symposium Dear Eric: As you know, the Steering Committee unanimously supported continuing the annual policy and research series of The Transportation, Land Use, and Air Quality Connection in 1999. This year, the 2 % day symposium is scheduled for October 24-26, and it will again be convened at the UCLA Conference Center at Lake Arrowhead. For the UCLA Extension Public Policy Program to proceed with the substantial planning and implementation work entailed with developing and convening the symposium, we need to request commitment of funding from our co-sponsors at this time to support the effort. Specifically, we are formally requesting $5,000 in co-sponsorship from the Riverside County Transportation Commission; this is the same level of funding your agency provided last year. We would greatly appreciate a commitment of funding from you by May 14. Actual provision of the funds may occur later this fiscal year, or if it is more convenient to your budgeting process, after the next fiscal year begins. The Steering Committee has met twice to begin planning the content of this year's program, and we have now initiated the more detailed planning and preparations that will take place over the next several months. The committee has selected interregional travel as the overall theme for this year's program: Major growth in this travel, by both passengers and goods, is placing increasing strain on the capacity of airports, seaports, railways, highways, and local streets. It also has led to proposals for high-speed rail in California. The need to build and expand interregional facilities of all types also has major implications for the surrounding environments of these facilities, as well as regional environments. In keeping with the overall symposium series theme (The Transportation/Land Use/Air Quality Connection) we will examine the implications of interregional facilities for local and regional land use development patterns (and vice -versa). The challenges to air quality management associated with growth in interregional travel and its facilities also will be closely examined. As with prior symposia, the program will convene policymakers and advisors, practitioners, and researchers together. It will be tailored toward sharing research, analysis, policy strategies, and implementation strategies for addressing the complex issues associated with interregional travel. Enclosed is a more detailed profile of the goals, objectives, and accomplishments of the symposium series that may be of interest to your board and broader organization. Topics addressed at our prior symposia Oth 164 are listed in the profile. This series has inspired, and has been a fermenting ground for several follow-on activities, including legislation, policy initiatives, implementation measures, special projects, and new research. Thank you again for the very important contributions that you and your organization have provided to this symposium series in past years. Your continued support is extremely important to sustaining this effort, and for ensuring broad and diverse involvement. We look forward to your organization's involvement with this year's program, and to hearing from you by May 14 about your co-sponsorship. If you have anv questions, please do not hesitate to call Joanne Freilich at 310/825-7885. Sincerely, LeRoy Graymer Founding Director Public Policy Program Enclosure cc: Marilyn Williams Susan Cornelison 060165 Joanne L. Freilich Program Director Public Policy Program PROFILE Annual Policy and Research Symposium Series on Transportation/Land Use/Air Quality Convened by UCLA Extension Public Policy Program Purpose and Goals 1991 was a landmark year in the areas of transportation and air quality policy. With the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments, transportation planners, state, regional and local governments, the private sectors and environmentalists faced a major set of new policy demands and strategies. The State of California also was setting new policies that forced people to work out new "connections" among transportation, air quality, and land use policies. The Public Policy Program at UCLA Extension was created in 1979 to help bring research analysis to bear on major new and emerging policy issues confronting the public sector. In 1991, recognizing the complex demands that these new transportation and air quality policies would place on policymakers in California, the program launched a symposium series designed to convene cross -disciplinary and cross jurisdictional groups and help them address those new policy and planning demands. Beginning in Spring 1991, with the participation of the transportation planning faculty in the Planning Departments at UCLA and UC Berkeley, the UCLA Extension Public Policy Program created an ongoing symposium series on The Transportation, Land Use, and Air Quality Connection. The Program enlisted financial support and help in planning this series, by bringing together many key public agencies, private sector groups, and environmental organizations together as cosponsors or "cooperating" organizations. The unique features of this endeavor were that academic researchers and key stakeholder agencies and groups opened a dialogue that has accomplished several aims: People in the policy and practitioner realms are able to engage researchers in an interactive mode. They can probe, ask for less technical explanations, and genuinely leam what is relevant. Additionally, they have an opportunity to introduce researchers to the constraints and opportunities that exist in the policy world. 2. Members of the research community, interacting with policy influentials, are afforded direct channels for sharing the results of their research and for leaming more about how to enhance the relevance of their work at the same time. 3. At the symposium, policy influentials can engage one another' outside the context of day- to-day advocacy. People who often fight one another on specific policy issues in more official settings have a chance in a neutral arena devoted to discovering new information and ideas, to find potential common ground for tackling new and complex issue areas. 1 thiJ b6 Who Participates? Each annual 2-1/2 day symposium is limited to 125 participants to maximize in-depth dialogue, exchange of information, and the opportunity to work through strategies and options for policy deliberation. Symposia are held in the setting of UCLA's Conference Center at Lake Arrowhead, located about two hours from the campus, affording a retreat atmosphere for participants away from the day-to-day fray of policymaking and advocacy. The symposia are invitational, with participants nominated each year by the co-sponsors and cooperating organizations comprising the Steering Committee that helps to plan the programs each year. Participants nominated and attending the symposia include those who have major responsibility for analyzing, influencing and/or implementing public policy in the transportation, air quality and land use areas, and encompass: • High level public officials and advisors from different levels of govemment • Representatives from the private business sector, such as builders and developers, utilities, private service providers, and other industry groups. • Key spokespersons for environmental organizations • Leading research experts who are conducting research in specific areas addressed by the symposia, and who are drawn from academic institutions throughout the U.S. and abroad, as well as researchers from private institutes and govemmental agencies Participants are drawn from throughout the state, with some participants coming from other parts of the US. A few of the key policy leaders and academics who have participated include: Michael Huerta, Former Deputy Assoc,ate Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation; Dean Dunphy, Former Secretary of the California Business, Transportation & Housing Agency; Quentin Kopp, Califomia State Senator; James van Loben Sels, Former Director, Califomia Dept. of Transportation; Lynne Edgerton, Boardmember, Califomia Air Resources Board; Frank Francois, Executive Director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Sharon Banks, General Manager, Alameda -Contra Costa Transit; Amory Lovins, President. Rocky Mountain Research Institute; Alan Altshuler, Professor, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government; Paul Peterson, Professor, Harvard University Dept. of Govemment; Gary Hack, Professor, MIT Dept. of Urban Studies 8 Planning; Jose Gomez Ibanez, Professor, Harvard Kennedy School of Government; Peter Newman, Professor, Murdock University Institute for Science & Technology (Australia); Deborah Gordon, Union of Concemed Scientists, and John Hunter, Director of Govemmental Relations, The Irvine Company. Added to this group are numerous elected and appointed officials from local and regional agencies, and key representatives of private sector organizations. 2 000167 Accomplishments of the Symposium Series These symposia have served as the "fermenting ground" and springboard for a number of other activities. Legislative bills, policy initiatives and implementation measures have evolved from contacts and analysis shared at these retreats. For example, research presented at the 1992 program on "cashing out" employer paid parking led to development and passage of Assembly Bill 2109. Since then. the Clinton Administration has proposed the same policy as federal legislation. Another example involves several county transportation agencies in Southem Califomia jointly undertaking a voter study to test attitudes about people's willingness to accept pricing incentives and disincentives related to automobile travel. The survey was inspired by European research presented at one of the symposia. Another example is a pilot program on remote sensing of high polluting vehicles that was implemented by Hughes Electronics following presentation of related research at the symposia. The symposium sene.s has offered a unique forum for bringing different interests together in a neutral, facilitative atmosphere where information, strategies and perspectives can be discussed both formally and informally. The series has been successful in engaging people who might not otherwise have opportunity to interact, and through informal networking has led to agreements and new working relationships being established. For example, at the 1995 symposium, a key environmental organization was able to broker a working relationship with trucking firms that eventually led to a new alternative fuels program. This kind of cooperative problem solving results from information -sharing and a new trust among otherwise adversaries. UCLA Extension's Role UCLA Extension's Public Policy Program collaboratively plans, manages and implements the symposium series. The professional staff develops the cosponsorship funds to finance the series, collaborates with the sponsors and representatives of the research community to develop the program content. rec pit speakers, and work up the format for the meetings. In its neutral role, it is in a unique position of facilitating the melding of academic researchers with members of the policy community. Extension has maintained a close working relationship with the UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research in the implementation and offering of this series. Former faculty member Dr. Martin Wachs has served as a co -coordinator in planning the content of each of the symposium programs, and in heib:ng identify and recruit appropriate academics to the program — from UCLA and several other institutions. Two other UCLA faculty members — Professors Donald Shoup and Brian Taylor, have also been active participants in helping to develop the series. Additionally, the University of California Transportation Center (UCTC); located at UC Berkeley, helps to link this effort to other UC campuses with strong transportation research groups. Professor Wachs has now succeeded Professor Melvin Webber as the Director of UCTC. Professor Webber has been part of the Steering Committee for this symposium since its inception. Symposia History The overreaching thFrrte of the symposium series examines policy issues related to the interconnections bet,:,. •een transportation, land use, and air quality. Each year a different aspect of 3 000168 these connections nL_ oeen examined at the annual symposia. The following are the topics that have been examine:.-,Js far during the series: ♦1991 - Overview trategies for Making Connections Between Transportation, Land Use and Air Q,.a.;ty ♦1992 - The Role of Pricing and Market -Based Strategies ♦1993 - The Role of Land Use Strategies for Improving Transportation and Air Quality ♦1994 - Taking Strategies from Concept to Adoption to Implementation ♦1995 - Putting Advanced Technologies to Work: Promises, Prospects, and Policy Issues ♦1996 - ISTEA Rebut".orization: Will It Refine, Redefine, or Forge New Policy Linkages? ♦1997 - Transportat;c n and the Economy ♦1998 - Financing the Future A report has been pr ared after each symposium that summarizes the proceedings. The reports have been printed an:: tnen disseminated to not only the attendees, co-sponsors, and cooperating organizations, but to a broader set of agencies and organizations here in Califomia, other states, and Washington, D.0 4 Ou016 i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to FY 1998-99 Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside Transit Agency and Section 5307 Program Of Projects Amendment - Riverside/San Bernardino UZA At their February 25, 1999 meeting, the Riverside Transit Agency Board approved an amendment to the FY 1999 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and capital budget to include an additional nine (9) full-size coaches and nineteen (19) paratransit replacement units at an estimated total cost of $4,175,000. These vehicles have exceeded their useful life and meet FTA minimum replacement criteria of 12 years or 500,000 miles for full size buses, and 4 years or 100,000 miles for paratransit units. Sufficient Federal funding and local match (80%/20%) are available to permit RTA to include the replacement of these units in its SRTP and Federal Program of Projects. The additional Federal assistance required, approximately $3,340,000, would come from unallocated FY 1999 Section 5307 funds. Local match would be provided from RTA's Local Transportation Funds (LTF) reserves ($418,000) and unallocated State Transit Assistance (STA) funds ($417,000). The Federal Transit Administration requires that a public hearing be held to allow comments on the Program of Projects. A notice of the public hearing must be published in the newspaper ten days prior to the Commission meeting inviting the public to comment on the program. At the Plans and Programs Committee meeting, several Commissioners asked if the proposed vehicles were alternative fueled vehicles and what were the Commission's and RTA's policies on clean fueled vehicles. RTA's policy is to purchase clean fueled full-size coaches whenever possible, but they believe that, at this time, alternative fueled paratransit vehicles are difficult to obtain, it would increase their required ' inventory of spare vehicles, and the infrastructure for refueling is not sufficiently established in Western Riverside County. The Commission took action on January 13, 1993 to "encourage operators purchasing vehicles with less than 40 seats to look at clean fueled vehicles," but OuJ182 tabled a resolution establishing a policy mandating the purchase of alternative fueled vehicles purchased with federal, state or local funds granted by the Commission. The other large transit operator in the County, Sunline Transit Agency, has a policy that "the replacement and/or addition of all vehicles, revenue of non -revenue, be made with vehicles fueled with an alternative fuel that provides the lowest possible emissions." SanBAG has an established policy requiring CMAQ recipients to purchase alternative fueled paratransit vehicles. However, they have found the policy difficult to enforce because the dial -a -ride vehicles are not readily available. Omnitrans, the largest operator in San Bernardino County, has adopted a policy similar to Sunline's. Financial Assessment Project Cost S4,175,000 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Federal Transit Administration Formula Fonds, State Transit Assistance Funds and Local Transportation Funds N Year Included in Program Budget N Year Pro rammed Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 1998-99 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable i PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Hold a public hearing and approve the amended PrograM of Projects as proposed, 2) Amend Riverside Transit Agency's FY 1999 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes, and 3) Adopt a policy mandating that the purchase of all replacement and/or new vehicles be made with alternative fueled vehicles. 00JI8 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 1998/99 URBANIZED AREA: BIAS APPORTIONMENT: ' APPORTIONMENT: c,....RYOVER FUNDS -BUS: CARRYOVER FUNDS -RAIL: TRANSFER FUNDS -BUS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -BUS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -RAIL: RECIPIENTS: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CITY OF CORONA CITY OF RIVERSIDE PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: RIVERSIDE - SAN BERNARDINO $4.465,893 53.785,814 $4.387,678 $9,478,261 $0 $8,853,572 $13,264, 075 SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS $6,050,000 $35,000 $249,000 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT (1) CITY OF CORONA -PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE $598,000 (2) CITY OF RIVERSIDE - 6 REPLACEMENT VANS $300,000 (3) RTA - 6 REPLACEMENT DAR VANS $360,000 (4) RTA - 6 TRANSIT COACHES (4R,2E) $2,100,000 (5) 0TA - DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FOR $407,000 ANSIT COACHES (6) RTA - MAINTENANCE SPARE COMPONENTS $717,000 (7) RTA-OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT $50,000 (8) RTA - BUS STOP AMENITIES $50,000 (9) RTA- OFFICE EQUIPMENT $70,000 (10) RTA- 19 REPLACEMENT DAR VANS $1,025,000 (11) RTA - 9 REPLACEMENT TRANSIT COACHES $3,150,000 TOTAL PROGRAMMED BALANCE AVAILABLE -BUS BALANCE AVAILABLE -RAIL Ap• ,ed by RCTC: $35,000 C $249,000 C $288,000 C $1,680,000 C $326,000 C $280, 000 $40,000 $40, 000 $56,000 $820, 000 $2, 520, 000 $8,827,000 $6,334,000 $2,519,572 $13,264,075 SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG CRB:6/23/98 G.) 1S� RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507 February 25, 1999 TO: THRU: Susan J. Hafner, General Manager 1 FROM: Stephen C. 011e , eputy General Manager SUBJECT: Authorization to Amend FY1999-2005 Short Range Transit Flan, Capital Budget and Grant Applications For Federal Assistance BOARD OF DIRECTORS Summary: The FY 1999 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and capital budget includes line items for two (2) expansion and four (4) full size replacement buses, and six (6) paratransit replacement units. A review of RTA's capital replacement schedule (see attached) for rolling stock indicates that an additional nine (9) full-size buses and nineteen (19) paratransit units are also eligible for replacement during FY 1999 under Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines. These vehicles have exceeded their useful life and meet FTA minimum replacement criteria of 12 years or 500,000 miles for full size buses, and 4 years or 100,000 miles for paratransit units. Continued operation of vehicles beyond their useful life can result in significantly ' creased operating and maintenance costs. Cost to replace these vehicles is estimated at $4,175,000. Sufficient Federal funding and local match (80/20) are available to permit RTA to add replacement of these units to the FY 1999 capital program. The additional Federal assistance required, approximately $3,340,000, would come from unallocated FY 1999 Section 5307 funds. Local match wouldbe provided from $418,000 from RTA's Local Transportation Fund (LTF) reserves and $417,000 in unallocated State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. Staff proposes amending the FY 1999 SRTP, Capital Budget and grant applications for FTA assistance to include nine (9) additional full-size buses' ($3,150,000) and nineteen additional (19) paratransit ($1,025,000) replacement units for a total capital budget increase of $4,175,000. Project funding will be provided a combination of federal grant funds (80%) and local match (20%). Recommendation: Authorize Staff to amend the FY 1999 SRTP, Capital Budget and grant applications for FTA assistance to include nine (9) additional full-size buses ($3,150,000) and nineteen additional (19) paratransit ($1,025,000). Du al 85 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Draft FY1999/2000 Budget Attached is the Draft Budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2000. The Budget document is extensive and is organized as follows: Executive Summary - Summarized review of the entire budget document. Staff suggests focusing on the Executive Summary and refer to other sections for additional detail as needed or desired. Commission Policy, Goals, Objectives, and Financial Policies. Budget Process - Summary discussion of the steps involved in completing the annual budget. Personnel - Review of personnel changes and structure. Revenues - Comprehensive review of revenues by function and program. Debt Financing - Reviews the Commission's outstanding debt issues, analyzes debt capacity, and calculates the Commission's legal debt margin. Department/Program Budgets - Discussion of department responsibilities, mission statement, and goals and objectives. Also, included is explanation of department expenditures assumptions, major initiatives, and tables detailing total expenditure. (Note: workload performance indicators are still being formulated and will be provided at the June meeting.) Fund Budgets - Examines the budgeted revenue and expenditures from a fund perspective. 06 186 The 1999/00 Proposed Budget is as follows: Revenues $ 99,196,451 Personnel salary and fringe benefits $ 2,206,299 Professional $ 1,991,056 Support $ 1,649,270. Projects and Operations $ 65,569,038 Capital Outlay $ 56,000 Operating Transfers $ 30,600,225 Contingency $ 1,430,000 Total Expenditures $103, 501,888 Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $ 86,586,845 $ 82,281,408 BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission hold a public hearing and continue it to the June meeting for final adoption. 003187 1 0u018S "jivw.ponuloN Ciowre+,tstos EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FY 1999/2000 I I 000185 %b1 xel sales d %1 xel sales Jai110 %8 quawasingwiaa %L anuanad aay10 011103u! Waw1sanuI S31M003.1.VO uorvuu :s3nN3n3a %1Z speoa s;aal) %b lepapv leuol6aa %L1. Heti aa;nwwo %£ 6 sAemti61N %£ ilsumwdsue�l leloadS %Z ague;sissy aa;nwwo3 %Z ssy;sl101ow %0£ igaa �a4�0 %9 6ulwwea6oad v 6uluueld S31t1003.1.V0 1:10rVIN :S321f111aN3dX3 Budget Overview Total revenues are budgeted at $99,196,451. Total projected remaining fund balance at June 30, 1999 available for expenditures, (exclusive of debt service reserves of $23,827,487, loans receivables for $14,774,221, and prepaid lease for $1,026,372) is $41,569,809. Total funding sources amount to $140,766,260. All revenue categories, with the exception of Other Revenues (down 3.1%) are budgeted at higher amounts than the prior year. The increase In Measure A sales tax revenue is indicative of the strength exhibited in the Riverside County economy. Reimbursements are up, principally from federal sources, to fund rail capital (Measure A revenue is not available for rail operations and capital projects). SOURCES OF RELENUE: Operating Revenues: Sales Tax Revenues Reimbursements Other Revenue Investment Income Total Operating Revenues Riveraid0.]:vo op..iirr~sparrizua Co ss 1311;0E?>1 61.114,739 62,986,334 68,817,656 73,948,179 80,742.263 6,794.084 7,754,264 5,470,049 9,539,357 6,969,920 8,174,895 1.204.975 5,429.505 5,570,150 5,590,508 3,217,511 3,124,263 (93,248) 7,260,013 6,030,161 5,004,028 3,060,565 3,678,164 617,599 9.2% 11.9% -3.1% 21.0% 81,558,521 80,056,694 88,951,549 90,621,653 99.196,451 8,574,798 9.5% 120,000,000 100,000,000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 1996 '&01_ 9 2 1997 Commission Revenue Trend 1996-2000 1998 1999 2000 O Investment O Other ■ Reimbursements el Sales Tax Explanatory Note: The general expenditure explanations relate to the Budget Summary ay Line Item. Total expenditures are budgeted at $103,601,888, an increase of 3.5% over the prior year revised budget amount of ;100,027,639. Administrative costs are budgeted at $2,736,955, programs expenditures total $70,184,709, and $30,580,224 nas been reserved for the payment of debt service. Project costs have increased 3% from $63,436,710 to $65,569,038. The increase is a result of increased highway expenditures in, particularly for Route 74, rail station construction projects, and Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) studies. The increase in expenditures is partially offset by a decline in the regional arteral expenditures. The decline is a function of a depleted reserve (i.e., bond funds have been exhausted). Program Expenditure Comparative 1996-2000 I 1996 1997 1998 r 1999 (est) 2000(proj) Highway 15,298,196 20,208,833 11,410,318 7,723,926 10,204.403 Commuter Rail 10,387,335 6,455,881 11,144,126 8,322,825 10.965,852 Regional Arterial 24,724,467 23,115,405 21,035,529 10;,068,505 4,230,599 Streets & Roads RR 21,310,988 22,240,185 24,382,462 26,579,715 28,172,108 Commuter Assistance 1,132,286 1,101,415 1,312,435 1,604,970 1,711,730 Special Transportation 3,794,912 4,001,072 5,125,364 3,087,146 3,308,167 Motorist Assistance 1,405,172 1,741,382 1 519,114 1,543,880 1,973,951 Other 3,558,641 3,447,602 3,929,372 10,744,455 12,354,810 Debt 25,327,762 25,208,531 74,344,388 30,352,217 30,580,224 Total 106,939,759 107,520,306 154,203,108 100027,639 103.501.844 Commission Personnel: The Commission's salary and fringe benefits totals $2,206,299. The increase of 15.5% over the 1999 budget estimate of $1,917,861 is for the following reasons: Cost of living adjustment Staff additions Merit increases Executive compensation adjustment Estimated health premium increase Vacation/Sick leave cash buyout Other benefit adjustments $ 25,748 117,690 11,396 8,000 11,442 41,335 72,827 Total $288,438 Qu3193 Staff Summary by Department for FY 1998 to FY 2000-Full Time Equivalent (FTE) DEPARTMENT FY1998 . FTE FY1999 FTE FY2000 FTE Executive Management 1.58 1.84 2.07 Administration 1.91 2.23 3.90 Finance 3.28 2.70 3.84 Capital Development & Delivery 1.53 2.24 2.03 Plans & Programs 3.53 6.27 4.68 Regional Issues 0.00 0.00 1.30 Special Transportation .56 2.15 .65 Rail Program 1.80 3.66 2.95 Commuter Assistance 1.30 .76 1.20 Motorist Assistance 1.63 .95 1.18 Total 17.12 22.80 23.80 Department Initiatives Executive Management Speaking in public forums on Commission accomplishments in preparation for possible expansion/extension of Measure A. - Regular one on one meetings with the Commissioners Improve staff training and development Pursue other collaborative endeavors with regional partners, such as SANBAG, including exploring the possibility of shared legislative consultants. Continue to build on improved relationships with regional and local partners. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total Actual AOUtal 1998199 19994M! Through Ofpugh ResSseo Pupated 6130fli . 5130/911 Batfget Midget, hangs $ 160,083 423,205 190,936 233,287 42,351 22.2% 95,316 101,834 174,720 401,356 1 226,636 129.7% 81,652 81,652 100.0% $ 255,399 $ 525,039 $ 365,656 $ 716,295 $ 350,639 95.9°k 1 Includes legislative contract with SANBAG for $103,000 which, in prior years, was included in administration. Also, set asides for the Executive Director's single signature has been budgeted at $100,000. 0 191 Administration An extensive educational program, in the form of workshops and informational materials, is planned for the Board of Commissioners A formalized training and development program will be initiated for all staff. A comprehensive review of position classifications and personnel policies will be completed by staff, with the assistance of an outside consultant. Position responsibilities and salary ranges may be adjusted accordingly. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total Actual Actual 1998i99 -1999i00 ThroughThrough Revised Proposed Budget 6/30197 $ 165,089 122,047 $ 252,226 $ 6/30198 162,553 206,187 276,349 164,266 170,000 $ 233,325 Budget 369,643 189,200 $ 231,150 Doter Percent Change Change 205,377 125.0% 19,200 11.3% (58,175) (24.9)% $ 539,362 $ 645,089 $ 567,591 $ 789,993 $ 166,402 29.3% Finance and Accounting (2) It is anticipated that accounting services will continue to be provided to the Western Riverside Council of Governments. Continued emphasis on a comprehensive approach to budgeting (i.e., full departmlent/program staff accountability) will continue to be emphasized along with improved management reporting. Development of Phase II of the Commission's Strategic Plan. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total -sawn S13Q198 Budget BOget Change Change $ 254,490 275,351 211,888 329,360 188,979 134.6% 456,554 485,510 678,100 736,100 155,400 26.8% 158,870 148,349 158,827 165,307 115,563 232.3% $ 869,914 $ 909,210 $1,048,815 $1,230,667 $ 459,942 59.7% Planning and Programming CETAP study will be managed by the Director of Planning and Programming, along with the County of Riverside. Staff will participate with SCAG in the annual update to the Regional TransportationPlan (RTP). North/south corridor study will be performed along with SANBAG and the City of Fontana. Congestion Management Plan will be updated by December 1999. 2 Property Management, as well as transit staffing function, has, now been included. 003195 Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total Actual Actual 1998/99-1999/00 Through Through Revised Proposed Dollar 6130197 6130/S8 Budget Budget ; $ 256,229 232,251 472,329 432,644 130,421 147,943. 266,500 121,500 121,266 124,876 179,591 279,675 1,574,678 1,883,153 2,808,411 4,644,275 Change (39,685) (145,000) 100,084 1,835,864 Percent Change (8.4)% (54.4)% 55.7% 65.4% $ 2,082,594 $ 2,388,223 $ 3.726,831 $ 5,478,094 $1,751,263 47.0% Rail Program Staff will play an active role in the development of a statewide, high-speed passenger rail system, of the backbone corridor through the Inland Empire. The Commission's current efforts include seeking capital and operating funds and participation Southern California counties on the Interim Joint Powers Board considering intercity rail admin Extension of the Pedley station platform. including routing with seven other istration. Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total Actual > :.:Actual 1998199 Through (trough Revised; 6/30/9T $ 49,839 200,182 23,589 2,687,200 sna/9s 123,681 130,016 53,449 2,516,101 261,382 141,500 111,853 2,862,900 247,787 150,000 421,314 3,911,000 ;en_ ............... (13,595) 8,500 309,461 1,048,100 ercent> (5.2)% 6.0% 276,7% 36.6% $ 2,960,810 $ 2,823,247 $ 3,377,634 $ 4,730,101 $1,352,466 40.0% Regional Issues Route 91 toll lane study. Participation in LAX expansion discussion. Analyze Routes 71/91 improvement study for possible implementation. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total Actual Actual ......................................................... ......................................................... ......................................................... Though Through 6/31i19? 6/3{}l98 $ 127,941 33,000 81,506 25,000 127,941 33,000 81,506 25,000 -0- 100.0 100.0% 100.0% $ 267,447 $ 267,447 100.0% 0 196 Capital Projects Development and Delivery Construction of improvements along Route 111 at San Pablo and Portola in the City of Palm Desert. Monroe to Rubidoux in the City of Indio, and Date Palm right of way acquisition and construction in the City of Palm Desert. - Design and construction of soundwalls and auxiliary lanes along Route 91. - Construction of passenger crossover bridges at the La Sierra and West Corona rail stations. Track improvements along the San Jacinto subdivision to facilitate freight movement and for future commuter rail line. Installation of a security system at the Pedley rail station. Rehabilitation of the historic Santa Fe Depot in Downtown Riverside. Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operation Total Actual Actual Through Through' 6/30/97 $ 312,591 778,330 147,938 67,179,329 1 999100 Proposed Oollar Percent 6/30/98 Budget Budget Change Change 149,685 222,712 201,510 (21,201) 20.313/0 220,133 279,000 242,500 (36,500) (13.1)% 242,948 295,227 120,495 (174,732) (59.2)% 63,624,281 51,306,237 50,646,762 (659,475) (1.3)% $ 68,418,188 $64,237,047 $52,103,176 $51,211,267 $ (891,908) (1.7)% Special Transportation (Para -transit) Program 'Costs` Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Actual 1998/99 . 1999/00 Through Revised Proposed Dollar Percent Budget 5/Sf}19$ Budget. 43,265 73,170 3,500 34,082 19,813 31,085 2,703,313 3,567,642 3,052,561 Change Change 55,949 (17,221) (23.5)% 2,500 (1,000) (28.6)% 34,268 3,183 10.2% 3,271,399 218,838 7.2% Total $ 2,809,407 $ 3,630,720 $ 3,160,316 $ 3,364,116 $ 203,800 7.2% Commuter Assistance The Commission will continue operating its core rideshare programs, namely, Advantage Rideshare, Club Ride, the Commuter Exchange, and buspool subsidies. Inland Empire Commuter Services will continue to be managed by the Commission to support voluntary employer programs aimed at encouraging employees to rideshare. Carryover SB836 funding will be used to fund supplemental programs, which includes a State Route 60 Corridor Campaign to encourage use of the new High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and the I-10 Commute Reduction Project, a construction impact mitigation project targeted to small employers in a designated corridor within San Bernardino County and Customized Employee Rideshare Services supporting voluntary rideshare for employers with less than 250 employees. Southern California Rideshare is a regional rideshare core services program providing common services to five southern California counties. OuO197 Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total $ 73,983 15,820 35,014 978,936 97,851 21,656 44,811 1,141,427 1998199 Revised Budget 149,781 17,500 58,769 1,378,920 1999/00 Proposed Budget 103,830 21,500 188,856 1,397,544 Percent Change (45,951) (30.7)% 4,000 20.0% 130,087 221.4% 18,624 1.4% $ 1,103,753 $ 1,305,775 $ 1,604,970 $ 1,711,730 $ 106,760 6.7% Motorist Assistance Two tow trucks will be added on the I-15 between State Routes 60 and 91. Service hours will be expanded by one hour in the afternoon on all routes. Dispatching services will be reviewed for possible privatization. Program Casts Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total $l3©19? $ 87,899 55,047 87,141 1,521,307 hange Change 112,378 80,130 104,437 24,217 30.2% 77,016 57,850 93,500 35,650 61.6% 104,441 72,956 103,046 30,090 41.2% 1,429,805 1,332,944 1,673,058 340,114 25.5% $1,751,394 $1,723,640 $ 1,543,880 $ 1,973,950 $ 430,071 27.9% FUND BALANCES(3 )-BY PROGRAM AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA June 30, 2000 Nepal. 22,368,660 6,016,208 1,218,065 22,368,660 6,016,208 1,218,065 3,129,175 3,129,175 Send 15,915,062 7,912,425 23,827,487 B0................................. !e 13,816,304 1,004,020 13,816,304 1,004,020 SIfina< Mat gist 3,901,537 .............. ............... .............. 1,748,716 2,289,056 2,962,179 2,289,056 5,650,253 2,962,179 59,120,254 10,879,206 5,418,231 2,962,179 82,281,407 3 As of June 30, 1999 $1.1 million in Local Transportation Fund(LTF) rail reserves are on deposit with the County of Riverside for the Commission's commuter rail program. Additionally, State Transit Assistance reserves are estimated to be approximately $1.1 million as of June 30, 1999. Summarized Line Item Budget FY 1999/2000 Rivarthre Coon ty.T armtioit Commission BUDGET TI B-HY SUMMARIZEDUN, TIM :I499 40, Dear�t.8 001 199TJ98> ................ ,Litte bent SOURCES OF REVENUE: :Changes- Operating Revenues: Sales Tax Revenues 57,888,149 63,496,222 65,625,000 68,500,000 73,487,000 4,987,000 7.6% Sales Tax 7DA Planning & Administrative 1.298,000 1,197,000 1,294,500 1,294,500 1555,263 260,763- 20.1% Sales Tax 7DA Transit Allocation 3,800,185 4,124,434 4,350,000 4,153,679 5,700,000 1,546,321 35.5% STA Transit Allocation 1,812,380 1,982,721 2,360,478 2,360,478 2,395,666 35,188 1.5% SAFE Fees 1,033,019 1,060,791 1,040,000 1,065,000 1,081,200 16,200 1.6 % Reimbursements: 5,470,049 9,539,357 10,086,920 6,969,920 8,174,895 1,204,975 11.9% Other Revenue 2,724,751 2,546,996 2,993,972 3,217,511 3,124,263 (93,248) -3.1 % Investment Income 6,030,161 5,004,028 2,937,875 3,060,565 3,678,164 617,599 21.0% Total Operating Revenues pebt Proceeds Total Sources of Funds 80,056,694 88,951,549 61,429,211 90,688,745 90,621,653 350,000 99,1%,451 8,574,798 9.5% (350.000) -100.0 % 80,056,694 EXPENDITURES: Personnel Salary & Fringe 1,552,075 150,380,760 90,688,745 1,647,688 1,861,106 90,971,653 99,1%,451 8,224,798 9.1 % 1,917,861 2,206,299 288,438 15.5% PROFESSIONAL & SUPPORT EXPENDITURES Professional Services 65100 General Legal 1,018,544 394,635 325,000 325,000 355,000 30,000 9.2 % 65200 Bond Counsel 49,697 20,529 25,000 10,000 10,000 65300 Financial Services 74,864 54,834 97,500 210,000 210,000 65400 Audit Services 285,404 388,939 290,000 405,600 419,000 13,400 4.6% 1 Professional Svcs. -Other 425,208 531,388 649,920 838,070 7,056 158,986 24.5% Professional Cosa 1,853,717 1,390,325 1,387,420 1,788,670 1,991,056 202,386 14.6% 70000 Support Cosa TOTAL PROFESSIONAL & SUPPORT EXPENDITURES 734,557 777,435 897,895 936,960 1,649,270 712,310 79.3 % 2,588,274 2,167,760 2,285,315 2,725,630 3,640,326 914,696 40.0% Projects and Operations 81000 Projects -General 1,011,991 1,859,105 1,833,900 1,693,900 1,753,900 60,000 3.3 % 81000 Station Operations 557,317 756,036 597,294 550,094 626,000 75,906 100.0% 81000 SAFE Operations 798,163 1,064,975 1,106,127 1,129,787 700,900 (428,887) 100.0 % 81000 Towing Services 545,312 521,458 679,628 657,800 972,158 314,358 100.0% 86000 Commuter Assistance 978,937 1,141,427 1,391,920 '1,378,920 1,372,544 (6,376) -0.5% 81100 Highway Engineering 1,045,208 1,260,031 2,120,719 1,877,738 3,1110,000 1,232,262 65.6% 81100 Rail Engineering 606,240 487,948 111,250 266,539 797,150 530,611 199.1 % 81300 Highway Construction 11,549,471 7,044,877 7,367,225 5,048,000 5,712,014 664,014 13.2% 81300 Rail Construction 21,467 4,468,611 8,046,300 3,506,300 4,516,250 1,009,950 28.8% 81400 Highway Right of Way 5,563,831 1,176,862 4,483,000 758,188 1,382,389 624,201 82.3% 81400 Rail Right of Way 618,439 402,279 85,656 22,352 622,352 600,000 2684.3 % 81500 Highway & Rail Special 511,729 353,542 235,000 250,000 1,805,000 1,555,000 661.7% Studies 86100 SCRRA Capital Contribution 1,234,386 1,316,099 1,150,000 1,150,000 300,000 (850,000) -73.9% 86100 Regional Transportation 27,630,703 30,466,257 31,079,157 32,495,176 34,753,507 2,258,331 7.3 % 86200 L7FDisbursements 305,095 309,000 327,295 397,295 518,609 121,314 37.1% 86300 STA Disbursements 1,269,583 1,535,401 2,746,194 2,186,116 2,395,666 209,550 7.6% 86400 Regional Arterial 23,113,312 21,035,529 7,895,150 10,068,505 4,230,599 (5,837,906) -73.9% Total Projects Costs 77,361,184 75,201,437 71,255,815 63,436,710 65,54,038 2,132,328 3.0% 90^ v) Capital Outlay 53,677 306,660 166,200 93,221 5160000 (72,979) 43.9% 0'6C195 BUD E COAf f4RATIirK BY SIlif$ARIZED401CIT 1999490: pmtgAenkto:> -> 1906'17 299701! 1998199= Actual l ,Mtuid .. laubget > Lim ' item 2) Permit Expenditures before distributions and operating transfers 81,555,210 79,323,545 75,568,436 68,173,422 71.471,663 3,298,241 4.4% 97000 Operating Transfer 25,242,712 75,343,579 30,378,913 30,352,217 30,600,225 248.008 0.8% Total Expenditures 106,797,922 154,667,124 105,947,349 98,525,639 102,071,888 .3.546.249 3.3% Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures Contingency (26,741,228) (4,286,364) (15,258,604) (7,553,986) (2,875,437) 4,678,549 (30.7)% (1,502,000) (1,502,000) (1,430,000) 72,000 (4.8) % Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures After Contingency (26,741,228) (4,286,364) (16,760,604) (9,055,986) (4,305,437) 4,750,549 (28.3) % Fund Balance, July 1 Ending Fund Balance 126,670,423 99,929,195 81,381,561 95,642,831 86,586,845 (9,055,986) (9.5)% 99,929,195 95,642,831 64,620,957 86,586,845 82,281,408 (4,305,437) (5.0)% 1999/2000 Draft Budget Summarized By Fund Type Riverside :COMO,"Tranap .nefii o Comunie#on Budgeted &pendiauex Summarized By Fund Type Fr 1999/00Dre.Budget btrnif 40¢04t, FXc1 Totak R,eveiiue Prrgects ...: PERSONNEL SALARY AND BENEFITS 1,565,592 640,708 0 Professional & Support Expenditures 65100 General Legal Services 154,500 200,500 0 65200 Special Legal Services 10,000 0 0 65300 Financial Services 198,000 12,000 0 65400 Audit Services 358,300 60,700 0 65500 Professional Services -Other 852,563 144.493 0 Total Professional and Support Expenditures 1,573,363 417.693 0 70000 Support Costs 1,260,306 388,964 0 Total Professional and Support Expenditures 2,833,669 806,657 0 Project and Operations Expenditures 81000 Projects-General(Measure A Program Management) 626,000 4,799,502 0 81100 Highway & Rail Engineering(Rail Engineering) 762,150 550,000 2,595,000 81300 Highway & Rail Construction(Rail Construction) 400,000 6,828,176 3,000,088 81400 Highway & Rail ROW(Highway) 600,000 1,359,741 45,000 81500 Special Studies 1,805,000 0 0 86000 Special Transportation/transit (Includes SCRRA) 3,610,000 3.271,399 0 86300 STA Disbursements 0 2,395,666 0 86400 Regional Arterial 0 4,230.599 0 TOTAL PROJECT AND OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES 7,803,150 23,435,083 5,640,088 Other Expenditures 86100 Special Transportation(Streets & Roads) 28,172,108 0 86200 LTF Disbursements 518,609 0 0 90000 Capital Outlay 52,640 3,360 0 OTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES 571,249 28,175,468 0 L j Other Financing(Sources)Uses !', 59000 Operating DebtTransfets In 20,000 30,580,224 0 � TOTAL OTHER FINANCING (SOURCES) USES 'I Contingencies 225,000 1,010,000 195,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 13,018,659 82,700,450 7,782,779 REVENUES OVER(UNDERJEXPENDITURES (189,936) 1,425,469 (5,540,970) Beginning Fund Balance 3,152.115 37.706,207 45,728,523 Ending Fund Balance 2.962,179 39,131,676 40,187,553, Project Description 81000 Project General Program management and contract admmistration(Bechtel $1,550,000 Corp.) Park N Ride Leases 53,900 Program support costs 150.000 TOTAL PROJECT GENERAL 51,753,900 81100 Highway Engineenng Rte 74 1-15 to Wasson 2,148,000 Road - Rte.79 : Lamb Canyon 12,000 Environmental Route 79: Realignment PSR & Project report 425,000 Route 91 Material testing services 40,000 Route 91 Surveying support services 15,000 Route 91 Phil Soundwalls and aux. lanes design 350,000 Rte. 111 : San Luis Rey design 53,000 Route 111 El Paseo/Cabrillo design 37,000 Surveying support 30,000 services SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY 3,110,000 81100 Rail Engineenng San Jacinto branchline engineering 62,150 support Pedley station security system design 35,000 Santa Fe Depot 100,000 rehabilitation Tier II station design (Van Buren & Corona Main) 600,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL 797,150 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL 3,907,150 ENGINEERING 81300 Highway Construction Route 74 SHOPP 2,860,088 Project Route 79 Right turn 100,000 lanes Route 111 Monterey Ave project 942,000 Route 111 Portola in the City of Palm Desert 329,926 Route 111 San Pablo in the City of Palm Desert 379,000 Route 111 Monroe to Rubidoux 1,061,000 Landscape Management - several 40,000 projects SUBTOTAL 5,712,014 HIGHWAYS Rail Construction San Jacinto branchline track 500,000 improvements Pedley station security system 741,250 installation La Sierra and West Corona Rail Stations Over 2,875,000 Crossings Santa Fe Depot 400,000 rehabilitation SUBTOTAL RAIL 4,516,250 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL CONSTRUCTION 10,228,264 81400 Highway Right of Way Route 74 SHOPP advance right of way acquisitions 1,064,737 Route 79 right of way support 71,660 services Route 91 Temporary construction easements PHII 45,000 Route 111 County of Riverside support services 50,992 Monroe to Rubidoux in the City of 150,000 Indio SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF 1,382,389 WAY Rail Right of Way Other Rail station right of way purchases SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY 22,352' 600,000 622,352 0 J it TOTAL HIGHWAY b RAIL RIGHT 1,982,389 OF WAY 81500 Highway & Rail Special Studies CETAP 1,630,000► Study North/South Corridor 75,000 Study Countywide Origin & Destination study 100,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY b RAIL SPECIAL STUDIES 1,705,000 00320 C'► :a Nu ppdead pw'sepemou sueq'eNANS Leep'selau.ewwa •e/ eevesu N visreaee eae uauelei paY weL aped (Z) t•eueeweL AWdead pue 'eaurydup9uypMlpy'PeeaieeueN eNe•aea'3 apyxs /Cl tevnay pu µ••awe lie• pue .eyune *,•lids••+• le) Plol 9e019110'LEl 808'899'lt L8Z'B L9'98 C9Z'eSe'l OSZ'LSL't l9L't99 WO'009 , tS9'9L0'L OLZ'069'L 999'Sef'i ■ OOZ'L90•L . E9Z'SSi't ■ 0 000'[9►'tt LZS'eCZ't BBS'SLSZ 9Z6'EBL'l •000'SSf , _,-_-■--- -,-,■_ eawlsleeY rilaOwW PWI ■ ■---, DOS ea l BOS'BBl 000 O80 ! • �-__, 000 0--Millilll-, 000 0-•-•■ ■ ,■ Paled e3N+sS Lewwad 5t0'Ot0'[ O80"90C'Z 9L6 EOL SZ8'COL WV �M ��I •� .ata gfiSSy obo NO't99'S OSZCEYC Yte'e2Z'Z _-N- L9L't99 -, PS9'99Z --,-,-,■ 1 8LE'BBZ'1 is,J.Dwl us eaugsPs9'wrwauo --,-_-,---,-,-,.- SWYa00ad a31IWW0 I� 1 111 1 I I y _ 0119'090'S au toe l 1 OL9'EL l'E ,--,---.--_, •I ■ aswq/updwta0 wal Pha'S PLo1 'sec 'IZO'Z mitt 1 881'LL8'l �--1---1-�-1-1_I, 881'LL91 Beusal l9t'BSO'C L08'LBL't eGE 98L l " e[£'BOZ'I s909pesp ie+sum osd 9 �-1---1---1-1 aNOS we suuLuoddvuodawI PPdS ZLS'EZS'9 ZLS'COO'l 000'0Z9'9 000'OLl -.-- 000'00C .---, . 000'00l•S ,■- W Old law- I I 1 �,_-,--_,---I ,_- ---.--_ ,,-.-,■- SWYa00ad 7YWa 0031 � � -,--,---,---,-,-, 1 ■_ ',i.e.... 9lL 019 E . 1.0L'ESO'9 ,_-,---■_-� Ill -.-,■- w oad 'L*rtaeld w101 -,-_,---.-- I 111 I SL.pa, ....L.1 9f089BL •■--,-__,- OlZ'089'l �.-, SZ9'B LB .■ euduawe�oad We a•Fueld lt9'89C'S St L't88Y 999 Met ,-� -_- . -- 999 S8E Z ._.—.■ aauelsKsy l!susal awls I 1I■�ill . Eullatw0 1Ea176uNunld eC►'LLZ 9E✓2LZ -' 1 B£t'LlZ 1�- unislRW' a ��- -1 ---1- - �_-li- ,-.o -.111 ■ S331/013S DNIINwrevOYd? DtateiYld -, ,--_.---■-.-■■ S33IAa3ST MINIMUM 7YlldrO NO 1- -_-.---,-,-,■- LZL'SC►'ZOL ILL'L09 LZ 1 999'LZB't[ . ,--.---, ,-■■ MIaO 4 1UUld)ea0 'Parma P101 --■- -,---,-.-.■ . C9S' l lL eZ SSVee BO L'ZL I BC ,--,—_—.---i—,—,. 901 L[l'YZ speoa y spuiS deool 9L0E589 0 BZO'ES8 B ,- tCZ'►tt'l ,-_-,---,-._■■ t8L'905'L le!+aW leuoleea 9CS'OLL'S9 9l t'llesa .OZb'Lot'GE .- 8L0'Sts , OSZ'lSL't owoas .---,-.000009 ,■ ltl BCC'l[ IRa aaP OR 'H ,_-,-_-.---,-._.■ Apti --- WwdoPseO gae(oad PMdeO -1 1� '- �IIi�l sLvraSoad 7rlara a3N10 9 r 3ansr3 stt'eort COS ZCS'L WeLEL'Z 000'StZ .---.---. SCZ'GZl 111000'SLf ,■ 0000001 (Z15301Aa3S 1N3W30YNY (Ualenud Main Vld OVWO d1S, 9C90S St-9S V15 ,-, VOl seloN yaloseapi S3aanos ONONnd SE N -IVO ONnd , B311N3A all a3N10l1Y�01 1Ya303i 31Y15 , eeed AWO ,- n1 eePS ewo1eaadM•ewl•ode0 110101 SV3A aOlad ONI1y93d0 - 00/6661. leaA le3s14 (S)weLboidnuawNedap Ag saalnos butpunA 'Itt..Y:efrColody BUDGET PROCESS FY 1999/2000 �! 0204 BUDGET PROCESS SUMMARY The budget is the primary performance tool used to measure and control accountability of public agencies for taxpayer dollars. The budget communicates to all stakeholders (i.e., citizens) hoW the investment they made will be put to use by providing detailed information on the specks of resource allocation and expenditures. Progress is regularly monitored and revisions and updates are made at mid year to reflect changing dynamics and realities. This results in a budget document that is truly useful and meaningful as a benchmark against which to evaluate govemment accomplishments and/or challenges, and to assess compliance with fiscal accountability. SHORT TERM STRATEGIC DIRECTION PHASE The first phase of the budget process is to determine the direction of the Commission in the short term and to integrate this with long-term goals and objectives. Annually a seminar is held. for the policy makers to evaluate and determine where the Commission plans to be and what it desires tb accomplish over the next twenty years. Annual reviews allow for timely responsiveness to any significant political, legislative, or economic developments that may occur locally, statewide, or nationally. Staff then adjusts its course based on the long-term strategic direction of the policy makers. Staff convenes in early January to both assess actual results, compared to the current year budget, and to map changes in strategy for the ensuing fiscal year by reviewing and, if necessary, redefining departmental mission statements and setting goals. Those goals, upon review by the Board, become the Commission's short-term strategic direction. RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND ALLOCATION PHASE Simultaneous with the short-term strategic direction phase, staff focuses on what funding sources are available, and what monies are estimated as carryover from the current year. In actuality, resource identification occurs throughout the year, but is 'finalized' in the upcoming fiscal year budget. Amounts to be borrowed are determined as part of the long term strategic planning process, but are adjusted in the annual budget to reflect more current information. NEEDS ASSESSMENT PHASE Staff and consultants evaluate what projects and studies need to be accomplished. Project priority and sequencing set in the long-term strategic plan are the top candidates for budget submission. However, priorities may have changed due to economic necessities or political realities, resulting in projects being rescheduled by acceleration or postponement. New projects may be added or existing priorities deleted based on. Commission direction. DEVELOPMENT/REVIEW PHASE Using all the data and information gathered from the previously mentioned stages, department heads submit their desired budgets to the Commission's Chief Financial Officer. The information, along with staff and overhead allocations, is compiled into a preliminary or draft budget. After review by the Executive Director and inclusion of the desired changes, the draft budget is presented to the Board of Commissioners for input into the mission and goal statements and review of initial resource allocation. ADOPTION/IMPLEMENTATION PHASE The Proposed Budget is submitted to the Commission at its May meeting. A hearing is scheduled to allow for public comment on the proposed budget. The Commission may choose, after public hearing, to adopt the budget or to request additional information and/or changes to the budget. The budget must be adopted no later than June 15th of each year. If the need arises during the year, staff may transfer part or all of any budgeted balance within financial responsibility units by function. Control of the budget is maintained by monthly status reports to department heads. Corrective action must be documented and submitted to the financial officer for any significant budget variations. Commission approval is sought for any expenditure that will exceed those amounts allocated to each financial responsibility unit (e.g., Measure A) by broad classification (i.e., administration, programs, capital outlay, and other financing uses). BUDGET, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Involvement in the budget permeates all staffing levels at the Commission from clencai support staff to policy makers. Each program/project manager develops a detailed line Rem capital budget. Those budgets by program are submitted to the department head for review and approval. The department heads will submit their budgets to the financial officer by March 1st. The Commission's Chief Financial Officer compiles the department budgets, and completes the operating budget (administrative) with input from the Clerk of the Board. Both the capital and operating budgets are combined into the draft budget for the entire Commission. The Executive Director reviews the entire budget for overall consistency with both the short and long term strategic direction of the Commission, the appropriateness of funding sources for the identified projects and studies, and that the operating budget expenditures are reasonable and complementary to the capital budget. lJ � 1 (1 V r..06 COMMISSION POLICY GOALS & OBJECTIVES FY 1999/2000 0.00207 COMMISSION POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following material outlines those adopted policy goals and objectives as well as financial policies that have served as the framework for the work plan presented in the 1999/00 Proposed Budget. Mobility The Riverside County Transportation Commission, in cooperation with local jurisdictions, will strive to create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the county and regionally. Continue to fund studies that examine various route alternatives for congested corridors. Pursue innovative financing strategies that provide funding for transportation improvements. Work with transit providers to develop services through review and funding of transit plans. Implement a performance -based short-trange transit plan process that assures operator efficiency and effectiveness. Coordinate transit connections among commuter rail, buses, and paratransit services within the County to ensure convenient service for passengers. Develop an RTIP that promotes completion of Measure A and other high priority projects. Goods Movement RCTC will work with the Federal and State govemments to facilitate the movement of goods and services within and through the county recognizing the vital role mobility plays in the economic health of the county, the state, and the nation. Work with SCAG and other stakeholders towards the implementation of a coordinated regional approach to facilitate goods movement. Promote the use of rail corridors (including the San Jacinto Branch Line within funding constraints) as an alternative to trucks for the movement of freight within the County and the region. Pursue the continued development of highway corridors to facilitate goods movement including international trade and tourism. Support the efficient use of March AFB to address regional air freight and passenger demands. Congestion Relief and Safety Improvements Selection of projects and programming of funds by RCTC will be done with a view toward promoting traffic flow, improved safety, and reducing congested traffic corridors. Develop a countywide funding program for the continuation and expansion of the Measure A half - cent sales tax for transportation purposes. Advocate for a good data collection system, as a critical element to the selection of projects for funding. Work, as the Congestion Management Agency, with local jurisdictions to develop mitigation measures and strategies to address congested corridors. 0.)0208 Continue provision of innovative commuter rideshare programs with the goal of reducing single occupant vehicle trips. Continue to work with state and federal agencies to program and construct projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program and the completion of all projects in the Measure A Strategic Plan. Air Quality RCTC's transportation planning will be designed to achieve clean air standards while fostering economic growth and improving quality of life. Work with the metropolitan planning organization, sub -regional agencies, and local jurisdictions to develop and implement a regional transportation plan that meets conformity guidelines. Work with the SCAQMD to better coordinate our project implementation with its regional air quality goals. Support outreach and educational programs that promote voluntary ridesharing. Facilitate private/public adoption of strategies and use of clean fuels technology. Continue to encourage the purchase of clean fuel busses by transit operators, and support the conversion of clean fuels for other transit vehicles. Promote the reduction of mobile source emissions through proactive participation in various air quality forums. Economic Development Transportation decisions will consider the economic benefits derived from any improvement and where feasible and practical will pursue transportation altematives that enhance or complement economic development. Support local agencies in the design and construction of interchanges that are in proAmity to regional economic centers and developments. Support local projects, consistent with countywide transportation goals, which enhance business development, local employment and area tourism. Include in project selection a general assessment of potential impacts on the local and regional economy. Participate in regional economic forums. Support the development of transportation technology research, education and training efforts of public institutions within Riverside County. Intermodalism and Accessibility RCTC desires to serve as many of the County residents as possible and economically feasible by developing differing modes of transportation and considering the needs of a wide range of citizens. Continue efforts to expand rail passenger service within Riverside County. 003209 Participate in the study of high-speed rail options and support efforts to devise strategies for eventual implementation of a statewide high- speed rail system, including the integration of o sting rail passenger services. Work with transit providers and local social service agencies to assist them with funding to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and welfare -to -work requirements, as well as specialized transit and other broad spectrum of transit and socio-economic needs. Implement the SCRRA long-range strategic plan for expansion of the commuter rail system in Riverside County. Technological Innovation Advocate the development and use of advanced technologies for "smart" modal and intermodal applications that are affordable and practical. Promote increase of state and federal funding for advanced technology and support coordinated deployment of such technologies and advanced technology strategies. Public and Agency Communications RCTC will provide timely, informative and accurate information to encourage informed public and agency participation in RCTC's decision -making processes. Promote a closer working relationship with news and civic entities to increase interest in and understanding of transportation and related issues. Enhance the provision of public information through various forms of communications (i.e., Internet, cable tv, print media, slide shows, etc). FINANCIAL POLICIES 0UO2I(1 Operating budget policies The Commission's budget will include at least a two percent contingency. The Commission will budget no more than one percent of Measure A sales tax revenue for administrative salaries and benefits. Admininstration costs will be budgeted at whatever is reasonable and necessary, but not to exceed four percent of Measure A sales tax revenues (inclusive of the one percent salary limitation). Amounts will be budgeted by fiscal year for multi year projects based on best estimates, with the understanding that to the extent actuals vary from those estimates, and the project is ongoing, adjustments will be made in the mid year budget process. The fiscal capital budget should be consistent with the strategic plan with deviations appropriately noted, explained, and justified. Revenue policies Sales tax revenue projections will be revised bi-annually to ensure use of current and relevant data. Annual amounts may be adjusted by staff to reflect the most current economic trends. Federal and state matching funds will be used where possible to supplernent the use of local funding sources. Debt management policies The Commission will strive to maintain a 2xdebt ratio coverage on all senior debt. Debt issuances will be for major capital projects including engineering, construction, and right of way. Operating requirements must be from current ongoing revenues. Costs of issuance including underwriters discount will not exceed 2%. While it is the intent of the Commission to establish a cash debt reserve for long term bond issuances, obtaining surety bonds is not precluded. • Auditing, accounting, and financial reporting policies The Commission will issue a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. An audit is to be conducted annually on Commission accounting books and records. As long as the Commission has outstanding bonds, the audit must be conducted by an independent, national accounting firm. ❑ Capital planning and programming policies The Commission will biennially complete and issue a capital planning document. Established priorities will be reviewed annually via a series of workshops and/or policy maker retreat. ❑ Reserve policies The Commission will maintain a cash reserve at least equal to five percent of annual revenues 003 ii (exclusive of reimbursements/matching funds). Cash managementAnvestment policies Where possible, the Commission will encourage receipt of funds by wire transfer to its accounts. Balances in the bank operating account will be maintained at whatever amount is necessary to meet monthly expenditures. Idle funds will be invested per the Commission's established investment policy emphasizing .in order of priority -safety, liquidity, and yield. Cash disbursements to local jurisdictions and vendors/consultants will be done in an eveditious and timely manner. Human resources management The Commission staffing levels will be consistent with the intent of its enabling legislation which envisioned a small, but effective staff. Consultants will be used to augment staff efforts as much as possible to support programs or work loads which do not appear to be of a permanent nature. State of the art technology will be maintained to improve the efficiency of a small staff and to encourage working "smarter'. 000212 PROGRAM REVENUES FY 1999/2000 000213 REVENUES Total revenues are budgeted at $99,196,451, consisting of 74.2% in Measure A sales tax amounting to $73,487,000, 11.4% in federal and state reimbursements totaling $11,280,561, and 14.4% in other revenues amounting to $14,208,890. Shown in the table below are the specific revenue funding sources and their relative percentage of total revenues. TOTAL REVENUE SOURCES Where the Money Comes From Federal State Local Other Total Percent Measure A $73,487,000 $73,487,000 74.2 Transportation Development Act 7,255,263 7,255,263 7.3 State Transit Assistance 2,395,666 2,395,666 2.4 State Highway Account (STIP) 1,690,210 1,690,210 1.7 Surface Transportation Program (STP) 800,000 700,000 0.7 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality 664,781 664,781 0.7 Federal Transit Administration 4,751,250 4,751,250 4.8 Rail/Highway Leases 235,000 235,000 0.2 Coachella Valley Association of Govts. 1,444,234 1,444,234 1.5 Service Authority For Freeway Emergencies 1,081,200 1,081,200 1.1 Caltrans-FSP State Budget Allocation 810,000 810,000 0.8 SB836 State Grant 268,654 268,654 0.3 Investment Income 3,678,164 3,678,164 3.7 Other 635,029 515,029 0.5 Total $5,416,031 $5,964,530 $82,186,497 $5,629,393 $99,196,451 100.0 Measure A Sales Tax Revenues Revenue Projections - The most recent update of those projections was completed in February 1996 performed by the auditing firm of Ernst & Young, LLP which was retained by the Commission to develop and run a model that predicts changes in taxable sales. The econometrics model uses personal income and the unemployment rate for the Riverside -San Bemardino Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Ernst & Young, LLP obtained projections on these two variables from Regional Financial Associates (RFA) a consulting firm specializing in the development of comprehensive regional economic models for all MSA's in the United States. RFA's forecasts utilizes a number of factors including demographic, employment, and financial data. The following additional assumptions were also used in the development of the Commission's revenue forecast: 0 0214 • The state does not change mix of items subject to the sales tax from what has been, included historically. • The relative sales and property tax rates of Riverside and surrounding counties do not change from historical levels. • Inflation for the period of the forecast is assumed to be 3.8%. Forecast results show Measure A revenue to be $1,053 million in nominal dollars from 2000 thru 2009. These revenue estimates will be reviewed again in the 2001 fiscal year. Measure A Sales Tax Revenues 2000-2009 150000- 100000- 50000- 0- 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ge� -��aphic allocation- Riverside County is comprised of three geographic areas- Westem Riverside County, the Coachella \.4 and the Palo Verde Valley. The percentage of revenues allocated to each of these areas based on return to source is approximately 72.5% for Westem County, 26.3% for the Coachella Valley, and 1.2% for the Palo Verde Valley. These percentages will experience some variations from year to year based on changes in levels of taxable sales. 0518,771,986 Geographic Allocation ® $859,846 ® $51,855,167 Westem County ■ Palo Verde Valley ❑Coachella Valley C ��;1J Prngram G minictratinn 1A actam r:nan a a Pa n Varda Tn a Administration $2,000,000 $2,000,00 Highway $20,107,263 $2,815,798 $22,923,06 Rail $8,413,080 $8,413,08 Regional Arterial $7,508,794 $7,508,79 Commuter $1,296,379 $1,296,37 8nce $1,296,379 $1,877,199 $3,173,57 LfAins/f4491 $20,742,067 $6,570,195 $859,846 $28,172,10 irteeNbl $2,000,000 $51,855,168 $18,771,986 $859,846 $73,487,00 Program allocation --The Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) of Measure A defines the manner in which the sales tax revenues are to be spent. R..:,,,, _ Western County ,. ,r Highway 8 Rail 55% Streets 8 Roads 40% S ecia/ Trans ortation 5% Commuter Assistance —o Seniors 8 Persons with Disabilities Coachella Valley Regional Arterial 40% Streets 8 Roads 35-40% Highway 15% Transit 5-10% Palo Verde Valley Streets 8 Roads 100% Other Sales Tax Revenues Revenues received from Transportation Development Act (TDA) totaling $7,255,263 are allocated for regional and local transportation planning, program administration, and transit services, in Western Riverside. TDA revenues consists principally of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) which derives from one quarter of one cent (1/4) of the state sales tax The Commission administers these funds on behalf of the County of Riverside. The County is projected to receive $35,500,000 in LTF revenues. The majority of LTF revenues, $28,244,737, are reserved for and disbursed to the other transit providers within Riverside County. Program Revenues Measure A sales tax, reimbursements, and TDA funding are allocated to the various Commission programs as follows: Highway Funding. Total funding for the highway program, including Measure A sales tax revenues and interest from loans to Cities to advance their local streets and roads programs. 000216 ................................................................................................................................................................. . Highway Program Revenues 1998/99 (est) Draft Budget FY1999/00 Variance Percent Measure A 21,484,256 22,923,061 1,438,805 7.0% Local/Others 853,458 515,029 (338,429) (40.0)% Rail Program Funding Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 9 transit capital funding will be used in the expenditures of rail station over crossings at La Sierra and West Corona stations as well as a security system at Pedley station. FTA funding will also be used in the construction of new rail stations. The old Santa Fe Depot in downtown Riverside will be renovated and the platform at Pedley station extended with Surface Transportation Program funding. Track improvements for the San Jacinto branchline will be funded with Surface Transportation Program (STP) grant. Rail operations, which includes SCRRA and capital contributions, station maintenance, support costs and rail right of way purchases will be funded with an allocation of TDA (i.e., Local Transportation Fund) sales tax revenues. Fare revenues are anticipated from special events that are planned during the year. Rail Program Revenues 1998/99 (est) Draft Budget FY1999/00 Variance Percent Measure A 7,514,674 8,413,080 898,406 +12 TDA 4,350,000 5,700,000 1,350,000 +31 STP 500,000 800,000 300,000 +60 FTA 3,775,000 4,751,250 976,250 +26 Private 0 120,000 120,000 +100 Commuter Assistance CMAQ grants will be used to fund Southern Califomia Rideshare and Inland Commuter Services. The amount of variance is due to carry over from prior year and continuation of existing programs. SB836 grant funds are to implement projects serving commuters and employers in the Inland Empire. SB836 mandates that demonstration rideshare projects be in place to determine if emission reduction could be achieved through voluntary efforts. Commuter Asstistance Revenues 1998/99 (est) Draft Budget FY 1999/00 Variance Percent Measure A 1,157,943 1,296,379 138,436 12% SB 836 268,654 268,654 01 CMAQ 408,250 664,781 256,531 1 63% STP 74,500 0 (74,500) (100) 1 Special Transportation The Measure A Program allocates one-half of the 5% of Special Transportation funding to programs that are designed to improve the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. The funds are also intended to subsidize transportation costs of the economically disadvantaged. No other revenue sources are anticipated. Special Transportation . Revenues 1998/99 (est) Draft Budget FY 1999/00 Variance Percent 1 Measure A 1,157,943 I 1,296,379 138,436 12% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies The Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies is funded from revenues received by way of a one dollar fee included with the Department of Motor Vehicles registration fees. Since the growth in these fees historically has not been substantial, the budget amount has remained relatively constant. SAFE Revenues 1998/99 (est) Draft Budget FY1999/00 Variance Percent DMV Fees 1,065,000 1,081,200 16,200 1.5% Freeway Service Patrol Caltrans will allocate out of the State Highway account funds to cover the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP). The state provides nearly 80% of the funding for the FSP program. The allocation of funding throughout the state is based on population, freeway miles, and level of congestion. The state's contribution is matched with an operating transfer of 5, or 25% of total FSP revenues, from the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). - .. FSP Revenues 1998/99 (est) Draft Budget FY 1999/00 Variance Percent DMV Fees 159,075 250,000 90,925 57% Other 636,300 810,000 173,700 27% State Transit Assistance The State Transit Assistance (STA) allocation is based on an estimate received from the State Controller's Office. For the 2000 fiscal year the state's estimated allocation to Riverside County is $2,395,666. This estimate is prior to finalization of the state's budget, which may result in revisions. Any changes to the revenues will be incorporated during the mid -year budget reviews for fiscal 2001. 000218 STA Revenues 1998/99 (est) ' Draft Budget FY 1999/00 Variance Percent State Transit Assistance 2,360,478 2,395,666 35,188 1.1 Local Streets and Roads The Local Streets and Roads program is distributed based on a formula of annual population estimates to the cities to use for local street repairs, maintenance and construction. Local Streets/Roads Revenues 1998/99 (est) Draft Budget FY 1999/00 Variance Percent Measure A 25,163,696 28,172,108 3,008,412 12% Regional Arterial The regional arterial program will be used to reduce debt service on the 1993 sales tax revenue bonds and to continue construction and improvements of the regional arterial system in the Coachella Valley. Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) will also be paid bey developers for new development to be added to Measure A funds for the regional arterial system. Regional Arterial Revenues 1998/99 (est.) Draft Budget FY 1999/00 Variance Percent Measure A 6,706,953 7,508,794 801,841 12% Cities/Other Agencies 1,444,234 1,444,234 0 t Planning and Programming Administrative allocation for support salaries and overhead will be funded through Local Transportation Funds. Transportation planning studies are funded with an LTF off the top allocation equal to three percent (3%) of estimated revenues as well as State Transportation Imiprovement Program (SB45), Planning & Programming Monitoring (PP&M) funds. These PP&M funds will also support staff costs. State Transportation Improvement Program allocation for planning will be allocated for staff and consultant costs associated with CETAP. Plan. & Programs Revenues TDA SB 45 1998/99 (est.) 994,500 125,000 Draft Budget FY 1999/00 967,825 1,690,210 Variance 26,675 1,565,210 Percent (0.3)% 1252 00 r 1 9 Other Revenues A total of $235,000 in revenues is expected from property management for licenses and leases from the San Jacinto and San Bemardino subdivision rail program of which 20% of the total or $48,400 is from leased revenues for facilities located on highway properties. These amounts are based on existing contract provisions and historical results. In the Coachella Valley, revenues totaling $1,444,234, will be used to cover Coachella Valley Association of Governments' share of debt service for the sales tax revenue bonds 1993 Series A. Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) are the source for these funds. A total of $515,029 in revenues is budgeted as interest only, eamed from loan reimbursement agreements with the Cities of Canyon Lake, Corona, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. Those funds are used to pay debt service on the 1997 Series B Junior Bonds. Investment Income Interest earnings on the County pool are estimated at 5%, unchanged from the prior year estimate. The earnings on funds held by the trustee for debt service in money market funds is also assumed to be at 5%, except for the 1993 Debt Reserve Fund which contractually pays 6.87%. The Commission's operating funds are held in various mutual funds and U.S. guaranteed agency notes. Interest rates for the mutual funds are assumed to be 4.5%, while the treasury notes yield appro dmately 6%. Total earnings are projected to be $3,678,164 for Fiscal 1999/2000. TmosPo.w,io,. (p.wxriss(ox PERSONNEL FY 1999/2000 Qv3ti21 Personnel salary and fringe benefits - The Commission provides a comprehensive package of benefits to all permanent, salaried employees. The package includes: ► Health, dental, vision and fife insurance ► Short and long term disability ► Workers compensation ► Tuition assistance ► Sick and vacation leave ► Retirement benefits in the form of participation in the Califomia Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) ► Deferred compensation Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Other Fringes 10% Hea 6° Retirement 21% alary 63% The Commission's salary and fringe benefits totals $2,206,299. The increase of 15.5% over the 1999 budget estimate of $1,917,861 is for the following reasons: Cost of living adjustment Staff additions Merit increases Executive compensation adjustment Estimated health premium increase Vacation/Sick leave cash buyout Other benefit adjustments $25,748 117,690 11,396 8,000 11,442 41,335 72,827 Total $288,438 • the cost of living adjustment is based on Commission action in June 1998, granting a 9°/0 compensation package increase ver three years. For the 1999/00 fiscal year, increases of 1.5% are scheduled for July 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000. • Staff additions assume a new position of Public Information Officer to handle media relations and public information initiatives. The form of this position is still under discussion and may not be a staff hire. Also, under staff additions, a small amount has been reserved for casual employees, a newly created position category for non permanent help used by the Commission on a limited, part time basis. • Merit increases and other benefit adjustments are annual step increases and incentive awards as well as the across the board adjustments to other benefits related to those increases. Additionally, set asides for reimbursement of education expenses amounts to $15,000. A number of positions based on hire date were only carried for a portion of the year. $30,100 adjusts the budget for full year costs. • The Executive Director's compensation package was increased by $8,000 as a contribution to the 457 Deferred Compensation Plan. • The California Public Employees Retirement Board is still in negotiation with medical care providers for the FY1999/00 health premiums. Staff has assumed an increase of 7.5% based on empirical evidence that health rates are again rising at a seven to nine percent rate annually. Actual health plan premiums may rise as high as twelve to thirteen (12%-13%) percent. • Sick leave, in excess of the base requirement of 240 hours, will no longer be eligible for 100% cash pay out beginning February 1, 2000. For that reason a number of employees have indicated their intent to buy out their accumulated sick leave in excess of 240 hours by the indicated deadline. 1994 1995 Growth in Personnel Salary & Benefits 1996 1997 1998 ............................ 1999 2000 $2,500,000 S2,000,000 $1,500,000 S 1,000,000 $500,000 $0 000223 In the past year, the Commission has increased its staff to accommodate the growth in the Board size and the Commissic expanding responsibilities granted by SB45. Particularly evident was the need for additional support staff in order that managem, and professional staff could better respond to continually growing service demands from a number of constituencies. The budget anticipates the addition of only one permanent staff position, but staffing levels will continue to be assessed during the 2000 fiscal year. Management continues to be firmly committed to the intent of the Commission's enabling legislation which called for a small staff. Staff will continue to be provided the tools needed, including state of the art technology to ensure working smarter (i.e., more productively). However, it must be recognized that small is not viewed in an absolute context, but is relative to the required tasks to be performed and the demands to be met. Commission Personnel: Budget Summary for FY 1999-00 Expenditure Personnel Salary & Fringe Exec. Mgmt Admin Fin/ _ Accting'' Capital Devi& Delivery Plasm/ Prog Comm. - -- Rail Special Motorist Assist Regional Issues Grand Total Exec Dir 1.00 1.00 Dep Exec Director .07 .93 1.00 Chief Fin Officer .99 .01 1.00 Director Planning & Prog .93 .07 1.0r- Director Reg. Issues .30 .70 1.00 Director Adm. Svcs. 1.00 1.00 Public Info Officer 1.00 1 00 Program Mgrs 11 .40 1.05 .70 1.00 .25 .60 4.00 Property Agent .90 .10 1.00 Staff Analyst II .05 .80 .75 .20 1.80 Support Staff 1.00 1.60 1.50 1.10 1.90 .50 1.10 .20 .50 .60 10.00 Total Equivalent Personnel 2.07 3.90 3.84 2.03 4.68 1.20 2.95 .65 1.18 1.30 23.80 003224 Budget Summary for FY 99-00 Expenditures by Position _rsonnet Salary 8 Fringe Executive Mgmt. Admin Fin/ Accting Capital Dev'8 Delivery Plan/ Prog Comm. Asst. Rail Transp Spec. Trans!). Motorist Assist Regional Issues Grand Total Exec Dir 161,845 161,845 Dep Exec Director 10,452 134,269 144,721 Chief Fin Officer 130,475 1,838 132,313 Director Plann/Prop 130,613 9,330 139, 943 Director Regional Issues 40,497 94,492 134,989 Director Ad m. Svcs. 129,817 129,817 Public Info Officer 102,690 102,690 Program Mgrs li (4) 43,933 120,095 76,685 123,490 27,388 65,898 457,489 Property Agent 65,362 7,262 72,624 Staff Analyst II 3,484 68,826 52,253 13,934 138,497 support f 60,990 96,639 86,108 67,241 113,110 27,145 64,781 14,627 27,280 33,449 591,373 1. _.. Equivalent Personnel 233,287 369,287 329,362 201,510 432,644 103,830 247,786 55,949 104,346 127,941 2,206,298 Program Expenditure Comparative 1996-2000 1996 1997 1998 1999 (est) 2000(prol) Highway 15,298,196 20,208,833 11,410,318 7,723,926 10,204,403 Commuter Rail 10,387,335 6,455,881 11,144,126 8,322,825 10,965,852 Regional Arterial 24,724,467 23,115,405 21,035,529 10,068,505 4,230,599 Streets & Roads RR 21,310,988 22,240,185 24,382,462 26,579,715 28,172,108 Commuter Assistance 1,132,286 1,101,415 1,312,435 1,604,970 1,711,730 Special Transportation 3,794,912 4,001,072 5,125,364 3,087,146 3,308,167 Motorist Assistance 1,405,172 1,741,382 1,519,114 1,543,880 1,973,951 Other 3,558,641 3,447,602 3,929,372 10,744,455 12,354,810 Debt 25,327,762 25,208,531 74,344,388 30,352,217 30,580,224 Tote 106,939,759 107,520,306 154,203,108 100,027,639 103,501,844 003225 16avrsideCossuey raw:porta:don Compu /Isrion DEBT FY 1999/2000 OU0226 COMMISSION DEBT At June 30, 1999, the Commission will have $211,684,178 outstanding in sales tax revenue bonds, consisting of $10,630,000 in subordinate bonds and $201,054,178 in senior bonds (including $ 60,115,000 in refunding bonds). During the year, $18,480,000 in principal will be retired, along with $11,982,736 in interest payments. The Commission's cost of funds is estimated to be 5.4%. Other costs associated with debt management include trustee processing fees budgeted at S20,000. Debt Capacity Analysis The Commission is legally prohibited from issuing additional debt if its debt coverage ratio is less than 1.5 to 1 on all senior debt. The Commission has adopted a higher standard of 2 to 1 as policy. As the chart shows, the Commission has successfully met its policy standard. Any coverage less than 2 to 1 would necessitate using other program funding to cover all debt service expenditures. Senior Debt ❑Junior Debt MI Available Revenues 1997 1998 1999(e) 2000(p) Sales Tax Revenues 5, 7888,149 63, 496, 222 68, 500, 000 73, 487, 000 Senior Debt Service 23, 683, 742 28, 385, 696 28, 997, 964 28, 989, 524 Coverage Ratio - Senior Debt 2.44 2.24 2.36 2.53 Subordinate Debt 1,524,789 1,229,481 1,468,440 1,473,212 Coverage Ratio -all Debt 2.3 2.14 2.25 2.41 (e) Estimated (p) Projected v it ,,, :.. '7 Both the highway/commuter rail and regional arterial programs have minimal capacity to handle additional debt using only Measure A sales tax as the source of repayment. The individual program coverage ratios for Western County highway/commuter rail, Coachella Valley highway, and Coachella Valley regional arterial are 1.35, 1.29 and 1.31 respectively. r1 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ,o i1.��ldi� �� l�i�����d������` tor 1111110 ����i�\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Available Revenues O Debt Service Debt Service Schedule Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Fiscal Year Principal Interest Total 2000 18,480, 000 11, 982, 736 30,462,736 2001 19,450,000 11,014,056 30,464,056 2002 20,490,000 9,976,424 30,466,424 2003 21,445,000 9,023,264 30,466,264 2004 22,465,000 10,057,251 32,522,251 2005-2009 129,700,000 22.638.582 152,338,582 Total $ 232,030,000 $ 74,692,313 $ 306,722,313 1997 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds). Series A: The Commission issued $47,910,000 principal amount of serial bonds to refund $41,000,000 of the outstanding commercial paper notes along with $6,910,000 in new debt proceeds to fund various major highway projects. 1997 Sales Tax Revenue Junior Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series B: The Commission issued $13,245,000 principal amount of subordinated (junior) serial bonds to refund $3,000,000 of the outstanding commercial paper notes along with $10,245,000 in new debt proceeds to fund various streets and roads projects for local cities. 1996 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, (Limited Tax Bonds). Series A: In January 1996, the Commission issued $61,765,000 principal amount of serial bonds to refund a portion of the 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A. The bonds refunded were the serial maturities due in 2002 and 2003 for $6,945,000 and $7,405,000, respectively, and the term bonds due in 2009 for $44,975,000, for a total refunded amount of $59,325,000. The refunding resulted in total present value savings of $1,862,750. For 1999/00, the gross cash savings in debt service costs amounts to $187,652. 1993 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A: In February 1993, the Commission issued $136,610,000 principal amount of serial bonds to finance the purchase of the Santa Fe use rights and other rail properties, and improvements to Routes 86 and 111 as well as major regional arterials in the Coachella Valley. 1991 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds). Series A: In January 1991, the Commission issued ^2 $112,996,959 principal amount of long term debt in the form of serial, term, and capital appreciation bonds to finance improvements to Route 91 and Route 86, purchase of rail properties for station sites, -> and engineering and/or construction for various other routes in the County, including 1-215, Routes 74 and 79. See description of 1996 Series A Refunding Bonds. Commercial Paper Notes: The Commission has authorized a $100,000,000 commercial paper program as a means of providing short term financing for a number of highway projects as well as to provide advance funding for local streets and roads. To date, up to $51,500,000 has been approved for issuance. It is not anticipated in the 99/00 budget year that there will be any issuance of commercial paper. Therefore, the budget has made no provision for debt service. Program Debt Streets & Roads 5 Regional Arterial 19% ighway/Rail 76% 0'3 2 2 Debt by Geographic Area $7,85 10,298 ❑ Western County Coachella Valley Outstanding Debt and Legal Debt Margin June 30, 1999 Authorized Debt $525,000,000 1991 Series A 12,554,178 1993 Series A 89,760,000 1996 Series A Refunding Bonds 60,115,000 1997 Series A 38,625,000 1997 Junior Series B 10,630,000 Other 171,275 Total Outstanding Debt Legal Debt Margin QU32 30 211,855,453 $313,144, 547 DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM BUDGETS FY 1999/2000 %Z AoueBuguop sweaBoad le)ide9 uoN %b wawaBeuew %OL sweaBoad iewleo £99` 1•1V I,1$ saanipuedx3 weAcudnuawyedea Ie�ol C1 Cr) (' 1 C7 O Riverside t -ottxly Tre1uPPriatims Gott BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT 1999.2900draf t Budget 1998/99' 1996/97 1997198 I g98/99 Revised < Actual Attila Budget <.Budget REVENUES: Sales Tax Revenues —Measure A Sales Tax Revenue —Non Meas A ST.4 Transit Allocation SAFE User Fees Reunbursements Other Revenue Investment Income 56.362.649 6,623.685 1.812,380 1.033.019 5.470, 049 2.724,753 6,030,160 63,496.222 5.321,434 1,982,721 1,063,101 9.754.287 3,144.471 4.189.313 65,625,000 5,644,500 2.360.478 1.040.000 10.086,920 2,993,972 2,937,875 68,500.000 5.448,179 15199/00 Dr1;Efi 11.11ar. Percent Budget Citrates changes 73.487.000 7.255.266 4,987.000 7.3% 1.807.084 33.2% 2.360,478 2.395.666 35.188 1.5°. 1.065, 000 1.081.200 16.200 1.5°° 6.969,920 8.174.895 1.204.975 17.3°° 3,217.511 3.124.263 (93.248) -2.9% 3,060.565 3.678,164 617.599 20.2°° TOTAL REl EAVES: 80.056.695 88,951,549 90,688,745 90,621,653 99,196.451 8.574, 798 9.5% EXPENDITURES: -114NAGEMENT SERT7 CES: Executive Management Admini strati on Finance TOTAL MANAGEMENT ERT ICES 716,295 716.295 100. r. 914.621 1,193,464 956,485 1,035,963 789,993 (245.971) 23.7% 869,914 909,211 924,846 1,048,813 1.230,667 181,854 17.3°° 1,784.535 2,102,675 1,881,331 2.084, 776 2.736, 955 652.179 31.3% CAPITAL PROGRAM SERVICES Capital Projects Development 68,418,188 64,237.047 59,166,476 51,793,176 51,211.267 (581,908) -1.1% and Delivery TOTAL CAPITAL PROGRAM 68.418,188 64,237,047 59,166,476 51,793.176 51,211.267 (581,908) -1.1 ER VICES u° ON CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Planning and Programming 2,082,594 2.394,767 3,903,881 3.726,831 5,478,094 1.751,263 47.0% P al Issues 1. .dal Services: Paratransit 2.791.221 3,632.406 3.137,945 3.133,668 3,364,117 Rail 3,605,339 3.928,922 4,162,234 4.270,921 4,730,101 459,179 10.8% Commuter Services: Commuter Assistance 1,121.939 1,304,089 1,622,382 1.620,170 1,709,731 Motorist Assistance 1,751.394 1.723,640 1,694,186 1.543,880 1.973,950 430,070 27.9% TOTAL NON CAPITAL 11,352,487 12,983,824 14,520,628 14.295,470 17.523.440 3.227,970 22.6% ROGRAMS 267.447 Contingency 1,502.000 1,502,000 1,430,000 (72.000) -4.8% . Total Expenditures 81,555,210 79,323,546 77,070,435 69,675,422 72,901,663 3,226.241 4.6% Excess(Deficiency )of Revenues (1,498,515) 9,628,003 13,618.310 20,946,231 26,294,788 5,348,557 25.5% Over Expenditures Other Financing Sources(Uses): Operating Transfers ebt Proceeds 'et Financing Sources(Uses) Excess(Deficiency )of Revenues Over Expenditures for Year Fund Balance (25,242,712) (75,343,579) (30,378,913) (30,352,217) (30,600,224) 61,429,211 350,000 (248,007) 0.8% (350,000) 100.0% (25,242,712) (13,914,368) (30,378.913) (30,002,217) (30,600,224) (598,007) 2.0% (26.741,227) (4,286,365) (16,760,603) (9,055,986) (4,305.436) 4,750,550 -52.5% 126,670,423 99,929,196 81,381,561 95.642,831 86,586,844 (9,055,987) 100.0% Ending Fund Balance 99,929,196 95,642,831 64,620,958 86.586.845 82.281,408 4.305,436 -5.0% Ou3 33 MANAGEMENT SERVICES FY 1999/2000 34 EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT Mission "To manage the activities of the agency with a relatively small staff complemented with consultants so as to effectuate sound transportation policies and legislation compatible with air quality standards and accomplish the delivery of expeditious and cost effective transportation programs and projects consistent with Commission direction.' 0 3235 J J �;, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT Executive Management Expenditures Personnel 33% Professional Services 56% Support 11% Executive Management Expenditures Executive Management has been assigned a budget of $716,295 for oversight of all Commission functions. Professional and support costs include legal fees for $70,000, legislative analysis and advocacy for $203,356 (of which $100,356 is for contracted services with SANBAG for shared Director of Intergovernmental & Legislative Affairs), and for single signature authority $125,000. (Note: other program areas have been budgeted for the remaining $375,000 for the total $500,000 authorized by the Commission). 0U323f Expenditure Detail Rlve�da Coutuy Tfanspottalion Cormftsion �C#fTNlr MAN�iGFArfENT 48992400:pratt Burlgef 799&99 l899/f1D r99Cwi97'1F997438 1598?J 17atrsed F7offar Percent ,QcEaal . �4ctrt+l<f 9041 : 86.000 Budtio : Changes Changes Personnel Salary 8 Fringe Executive Director 160,083 423,205 180,876 190,936 161,845 (29,091) -15.2 Deputy Executive Director 10,452 10,452 100.0 Support Staff(1) 50,990 60,990 100.0 Total Personnel Salary 8 Fringe Benefits 160,083 423,205 180,876 190,936 233,287 42,351 22.2% Professional 8 Support Costs Professional Costs 65101 General Legal Services 95,316 101,834 85,000 79,000 70,000 (9,000) -11.4 65500 Other Professional Services 331,356 1 331,356 100.0 Total Professional Costs 95,316 101,834 85,000 79,000 401,356 322,356 408.0 70000 Support Costs Total Professional 8 Support Costs Total Administration 81,652 81,652 100.0 95,316 101,834 85,000 79,000 483,008 404,008 511.4 255,399 525,039 265,876 269,936 716,295 446,359 165.4 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line item. Staffing Summary Position FY96/97 Actual FY 97/98 Actual FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Draft Executive Director .98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Deputy Executive Director 0.07 Support Staff .48 .58 .84 1.00 FTE 1.46 1.58 1.84 2.07 Department Overview Department Description The Executive Director is responsible for the day to day operation of the Commission and provides strong leadership in developing and implementing new strategies, project concepts and policy guidance recommendations affecting the long-term interests of transportation improvements within Riverside County. Further, executive management is committed to fostering a positive and supportive work The Commission contracts with the San Bernardino Associated Govemments for intergovemmental and legislative affairs. The responsible SANBAG employee serves as Director at both the Commission and SANBAG. 0t 3"r Further, executive management is committed to fostering a positive and supportive work environment for staff that builds expertise levels, encourages teamwork, and recognizes individual staff achievements. Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs It is the function of the intergovernmental and legislative affairs section to ensure that the Commission continually stays abreast of developments at both the federal and state level that may impact its programs. There is an interdependency that of necessity exists among the many local jurisdictions and agencies within the county and the state that requires close communication and coordination. An integral part of this section's work effort includes the development and implementation of a state and federal legislative program that addresses such issues as project administration, funding resources and project priorities to secure statutory authority in the interests of the Commission. Recognizing that the Inland Empire (consisting of Riverside and San Bemardino counties) has a multitude of commonly shared transportation concems, the Commission works cooperatively with the San Bemardino Associated Govemments (SANBAG) through a shared staff position to manage its common intergovernmental and legislative affairs. This shared position has resulted in significant savings in staff costs for the Commission. DEPARTMENT BUDGET REVIEW Assumptions • Executive compensation,; package as granted will remain the same`through the end of the fiscal year, although the contract is subject to negotiation in March 2000' • Legislative analysis and liaison functions will continue to be on a;shared basis with San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). Director of intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs will remain a SANBAG employee promoting both agencies' programs at the state and federal levels. tf conflicts arise, the Executive Director will represent the Commission's interests. • The Commission and SANBAG will share legislative consultants effectively collaborate on mutual interests. to generate cost savings and more Major Initiatives The Executive Director will expend considerable effort educating the public on the accomplishments of the Commission and growing transportation needs of the County. Through meetings with community leaders, elected officials and various citizen interest groups the goal will be to communicate the Commission achievements and its plans and aspirations for the future: Bdension and/or expansion of Measure A will be a focal point of these meetings. Development and completion of the Strategic Plan with involvement from the private sector and elected officials will be a high priority, and will be managed by the Chief Financial Officer. Regional cooperation and collaboration are to be given significantly heightened effort demonstrating it to be core to the philosophy and mission of this Commission. Working closely with the Executive Director in this endeavor will be the newly created position of Director of Regional Issues and Communication. All of staff will be strongly encouraged to seek mutual solutions to common goals consistent with Commission policy and strategic direction. Education of Commissioners will be done through a series of workshops, face to face meetings, and printed material. Media relations will be more formally cultivated and press releases will become a regular Commission feature. 0u i 2 3 8 Project development and delivery will continue unabated on key Measure A priorities. Work efforts are planned for Routes 74, 79, 91, and 111 along with improvements to commuter rail stations and the San Jacinto Branchline. The Deputy Executive Director continues to ensure that the Commission continues to deliver on the promise made to voters with the passage of Measure A. While overseeing and actively participating in all of these major endeavors, the Executive Director will maintain and improve on the administrative efficiency and fiscally sound practices characteristic of this agency. Staff training and development will be given a sharper focus to enable a small and dedicated staff to enhance their skills, productivity, and their value. A classification and compensation study, initiated in 1999, will be completed in fiscal year 2000. The purpose of the study is to ensure that the Commission is . competitive and will maintain capable staff as well as attract quality applicants. The Director of Administrative Services has been charged with oversight for this study. The Commission's budget commits considerable resources to a new corridor planning effort. The Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) is jointly funded by the Commission, the County of Riverside, and the Southem Califomia Association of Govemments (SCAG) (an application is pending for federal funding). The purpose of CETAP is to shorten the time frame for creation of new corridors by ten to fifteen years. The Executive Director serves on a steering committee along with the County Chief Executive Officer and the County Director of Transportation and Land Management. The Commission is responsible for the transportation element of the plan, an effort led by the Director of Planning and Programming. Department Goals Maximize funding for transportation' improvements in Riverside County through legislative advocacy and locally controlled funding options such as sales taxes (e.g., expansion/extension of Measure A). Objectives: Update the completion timeline for Measure A commitments through Phase II of the Strategic Plan by March 31, 2000. • Work for the passage of Legislation (e.g., AB1012-Torlakson) authorizing a State Loan Program from the State Highway Account to be used to fund Measure A priorities with an emphasis on acceleration of Route 74 construction from Lake Elsinore to Perris. • Support the successful launch of the CETAP new corridor adoption process. • Support ongoing efforts to create a transportation fee in the First Supervisorial District. Support regional transportation solutions in cooperation with surrounding counties that are of benefit to Riverside County. Objectives: Make RCTC an effective and recognized participant in the regional debate over the Los International Airport (LAX) expansion. • In cooperation with SANBAG, initiate and complete the "'Sierra Corridor and "Redlands/Moreno Valley Corridor" studies. Maintain effective working relationships with Commissioners to strengthen and expand RCTC's leadership in transportation policy decision -making at all levels of government. 0U 23 9 Objective: Facilitate Commissioner participation at the regional, state and federal levels to raise the interests of RCTC and seek favorable action. • Through public speeches and presentations, raise the profile of the necessity of an early re -authorization of Measure A. • Continue the Executive Director one-on-one meetings, at minimum, on a quarterly basis, with all Commissioners. While maintaining a relatively small staff, promote its effectiveness by improving and developing staff skills, using state of the art working tools, and fostering an environment that encourages and rewards - individual and team effort. Objectives: Initiate a benchmarking review of RCTC's staffing and administrative costs relative to similar Califomia transportation agencies. • Continue to maintain a well -documented employee appraisal process that provides clear, understandable, and measurable performance criteria for all employees. • Provide incentive awards to employees who demonstrate individual and team effort with consideration for individual achievement consistent with Commission goals and objectives. Develop the framework for a Commission culture that enhances productivity, encourages regular and open communication among staff, and which promotes the mutual achievement of individual and organizational goals and objectives. Objectives: Assure full staff involvement and program expenditure accountability for department/program budgets beginning with the fiscal 2000 budget with full implementation of the process by the 2000-2001 Budget. • Quarterly review organizational results as measured against planned objectives to determine progress in meeting those objectives and to determine action steps needed, if any, where little or no progress has been made. • Facilitate open communications and coordination between management, professional and support staff through regular meetings. Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs Foster the Commission's full involvement in a broad range of local, regional, state and federal governmental settings. Objectives: Participation in the Self -Help Counties Coalition, the Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition, the Califomia Transit Association, the Califomia Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Monday Morning Group, and the Valley Group. • Work with Califomia Transportation Commission and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies to protect and enhance project funding for Riverside County through influencing policy decisions. Implement the RCTC/SANBAG State and Federal Legislative Program to maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues, by supporting legislation to protect and increase current funding levels, insure an equitable distribution of available resources, streamline administrative procedures to reduce costs and time of project development and accelerate the allocation and use of existing resources. Objectives: Coordinate legislative activities of federal and state legislative consultants. Obtain monthly reports on activities performed. • Work with board members to establish policy positions, draft legislation, and take positions on pending legislation. • Review and analyze legislation, recommend positions for the Commission to adopt on specific legislative proposals. • Effectively represent the Commission to the state and federal legislatures, state transportation commission and other agencies in funding, programming and policy matters. • Maintain contact and good working relationship with state and federal lawmakers and their staffs. Regularly meet and communicate with them to keep them abreast of County transportation issues, policy positions, and project priorities. • Convene meetings with state, federal and legislative staff members, including hosting federal staff, for an annual full day briefing and tour of projects. Ov���1 ADMINISTRATION Mission: "To ensure that the day to day operations of the Commission run in a smooth and effective manner, meeting all applicable federal and state requirements, provide training and professional development opportunities to members of the Commission and its staff, and facilitate interactive communications with the public and transportation stakeholders." OjJ242 • ..,......,..� .. ADMINISTRATION Administration Expenditures Capital Outlay 7% Professional Services 24% Support Costs 22% Administration Expenditures Personnel 47% Administration's total budget is $789,993 for office administration, Clerk of the Board activities, and communications and training. Professional costs of $189,200 covers various services including, but not limited to Commissioners' per diem, legal fees, web site design and maintenance, graphic design for training materials, classification study, and temporary help services. Support services covers administrative overhead. (See Administrative Support schedule for administrative costs allocated across all departments). OJ3243 Expenditure Detail Personnel Salary B Fringe Director -Administrative Services Director-Planning/Programming Director -Regional Issues/Communication Public Information Officer Program Manager ll Support Staff(1) 1996 g7 1997/38 19g8/19 1Lcttat Victual Budget::: 118,777 137,599 141,034 164,266 129,817-34,449 -21.0% 10,654 12,081 35,658 12,873 80,677 40,497 40,497 100.0% 102,690 102,690 100.0% 96,639 96,639 100.0% Total Personnel Salary 8 Fringe Benefits 165,089 162,553 221,711 164,266 369,643 199,921 125.0% Professional ti Support Costs Professional Costs 65100 General Legal Services 95,316 101,834 85,000 79,000 5,000-74,000 -93.7% 65500 Other Professional 96,241 178,009 101,339 220,720 114,200-106,250 -48.3% Services 65503 Commissioners Per Diem 25,806 28,178 37,800 45,000 70,000 25,000 55.6% Total Professional Costs 217,363 308,021 224,139 344,720 189,200-155,250 -45.1 % 70000 Other Support Costs 210,626 145,769 157,960 145,625 175,150 29,525 20.3% Total Professional 6 Support Costs 427,989 453,790 382,099 490,345 364,350-125,995 -25.7% Capital Outlay 90000 Capital Outlay -Equipment 41,600 130,580 137,700 87,700 56,000-31,700 -36.1 % Total Administration 634,678 746,923 741,510 742,311 789,993 47.682 6.4% 1 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line' Rem. Staffing Summary Position FY96/97 Actual FY 97/98 Actual FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Draft Director -Administrative Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Director -Regional Issues/Communication _11 .33 .30 Director-Planning/Programming .05 .04 Program Manager II .03 Public Information Officer 1.00 Support Staff .92 .76 .90 1.60 FTE 2.00 1.91 2.23 3.90 j1ifv2`t4 Department Overview Department Description Communications and Training The Commission is committed to communicating with and educating a broad arena of interested parties on the roles and responsibilities of the agency. Emphasis is placed on informing Riverside County residents and businesses about transportation projects and services impacting them, and maintaining open communication with other allied entities. Various forms of media and communication tools are used in these outreach efforts with the overall objectives being to provide accurate, informative and easily accessible information, facilitate public participation in the Commission processes, and increase inter -agency coordination and cooperation. Focusing on the organization itself, effort is placed on the importance of maintaining effective working relationships with Commissioners and providing continuing education opportunities in support of their policy role as decision makers. A formalized staff training program is considered critical to the maintenance and growth of an effective organization. Clerk of the Board and Office Management Grouped under the Department office management section are various responsibilities including Clerk of the Board functions, office maintenance and operations, agenda preparation, record management and archiving, human resources administration and contract processing. The Clerk of the Board ensures that the Commission's legal reporting requirements such as conflict of interest, per diem, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program, and membership and voting rights are being met. Event planning and coordination is performed under office management in support of other department activities. DEPARTMENT BUDGET REVIEW Assumptions • All professional and management staff will attend approximately 1. 5 seminars for development. training and professional The annual newspaper report to the public will continue to be issued. Additional costs are assumed to increase ten percent. Support costs are for a total of 25 staff members. Fixed asset: purchases include color printer; color scanner, laser fiche scanner(ta speed; archiving: and printing of agendas), and; a slide/CD ROM projector, and screen(group and agency presentations). Major Initiatives Changes which resulted from SB 1851 included: a drastically increased (from 7 to 29) number of Board members; mandated Clerk of the Board notification by Commission members whenever an alternate to the regular member is authorized to vote at meetings; and provide Commissioners the ability to call for a weighted vote. In order for an item to be passed by weighted vote, a number of requirements as noted in the legislation must be met. This expanded board has significantly increased the time devoted by the Clerk of the Board to the administrative needs of the Commissioners. 0 J.145 This year, the Commission has authorized a Compensation and Classification Study of RCTC staff positions. The study will be done in two phases: 1) a Classification Study to be completed in June -July 1999; and, 2) a Compensation Survey for the various classifications to be completed in September -October 1999. Options will be explored, analyzed and presented including leasing and/or building a facility to meet the office space needs of the Commission with a target date for move in by October 2001. Office fumiture and equipment which has accrued over the past ten years and is unused and currently in storage will be declared as surplus and disposed of by the Director of Administrative Services. To supplement individual Commissioner meetings with the Executive Director, continuing education opportunities at the small group level will also be provided which focus on timely issues. A new Commissioner educational tool, a monthly one page "hot topics" sheet. will be initiated to briefly highlight current and upcoming topics of importance to policy makers. Reflecting the inclusive representation of the Board, an expansion of the Commission's public information efforts will focus on increasing the Commission's outreach to the citizens and businesses within Riverside County as well as a broad array of public and private entities involved in the world of transportation. The Commission's outreach will include a proactive effort to work closely with various media formats such as print, radio and television to increase their understanding of and interest in transportation issues. To develop and implement this expanded effort, the new position of Public Information Officer has been added. The additional staff support will allow the Commission to expand its provision of information to the public through: 1) participation at service clubs and public meetings; 2) production and provision of resource materials and fact sheets; 3) enhancement of the Commission's. web site; and 4) development of newspaper press releases, radio public service announcements and cable television spots. The efforts of the Public Information Officer will also assist the Commission in educating the public about the necessity of seeking an extended or expanded sales tax measure. In response to a concern expressed by the Commission, general training and development will be jointly managed by the Director of Administrative Services and the Director of Regional Issues and Communications While each department will continue to be responsible for technical training related to department functions, there will now be a focused and coordinated approach to providing general skills training for administrative staff and leadership skills training for professional and management staff. A specific action plan for training is in process of development. Administrative Overhead Administrative overhead (exclusive of capital outlay) increases by 6.7%due to the support costs associated with an expanded board. After including capital outlay, overhead has actually decreased by 2%. Overhead costs are allocated to the various departments based on the level of direct staff (exclusive of indirect staff defined as all clerical support) hours assigned to the department. The assigned amounts for administrative support costs are in the individual department budgets. Overhead is assigned to Commission's three major funding sources - Measure A, TDA, and Motorist Assistance based on management's budgetary estimates currently set at 76%, 18%, and 6%, respectively. Obi::4G Rivnintoocountytrartsportation Commission : ADMINISiRAT WP124:31iT rs99t2000Draxendger 1998/D9 199lr00 1986197 .1997198 1998199 ReWsed Dollar Pe►cent Actual' Actual .. Budget Budget Bettye- Changes Changes • OVERHEAD 73000 Office Lease 202,401 212,415 220,000 220,000 220,000 73100 Office Expenses 178,932 196,679 175,650 233,350 270,742 37,392 16.0% 73200 Communications 51,206 56,417 61,230 57,000 51,000 (6,000) -10.5% 73300 Equipment Maintenance 29,175 33,973 32,500 32,500 58,992 26,492 81.5% 73400 Insurance 72,941 68,940 83,835 71,100 85,000 13,900 19.5% 73500 Data Processing 21,707 16,507 18,900 16,750 33,000 16,250 97.0% 73600 Staff Related Expenses 83,472 78,626 130,080 156,260 184,165 27,905 17.9% 73700 Information/Publicity 94,723 113,878 175,700 150,000 148,000 (2,000) -1.3% TOTAL OVERHEAD 734,557 777,435 897,895 936,960 1,050,899 113,939 12.2% FIXED ASSESTS 90101 Computer Equipment 34,962 52,965 85,000 70,000 28,000 (42,000) -60.0% 90301 Office Furniture & Improvements 2,025 563 30,000 5,000 28,000 23,000 460.0% 90201 Office Equipment 2,278 99,870 5,000 5,000 (5,000)-100.0% 90601 Communications Equipment 2,700 2,700 (2,700)-100.0% 90501 Other improvements 2,335 1,170 15,000 5,000 (5,000)-100.0% TOTAL FIXED ASSETS 41,600 154,568 137,700 87,700 56,000 (31,700) -36.1 % TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT 776,157 932,003 1,035,595 1,024,660 1,106,899 82,239 8.0% Department Goals Communications and Training Support the continuing education of Commissioners to increase their understanding of transportation related issues at the local, state and federal levels to maximize the effectiveness of RCTC in effecting policy and funding actions beneficial to the interest of Riverside County. Objectives: Provide .periodic educational workshops/seminars for Commissioners. • Prepare and distribute periodic updates to the Commissioner Resource Notebook to maintain and improve it as a reference tool. • Initiate a monthly one -page Commissioner's Issues and Activities "Hot Sheet." Develop and maintain an information program which educates the public and other stakeholders on the roles and responsibilities of the Commission as it relates to accomplishments achieved through Measure A or other funding sources controlled or administered by the Commission. 00,E ti. 1 Objectives: Annually produce an insert in all major County newspapers that informs the public on the Commission programs including Measure A progress. • Coordinate press releases to the local media announcing significant achievements and providing information on Commission actions and activities. • Expand. maintain, and regularly update information on Commission activities on the Commission's web site. Evaluate the use of cable television as a mechanism to disseminate information and, if cost effective, implement a demonstration to assess its effectiveness. • Schedule periodic media information briefings. • Require the use of Measure A project/program signage by funding recipients to increase public awareness of Measure A accomplishments. Foster and maintain effective communications with other agencies to heighten their understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and increase interagency coordination and cooperation. Objective: Assign designated staff members to attend other agency meetings and require staff to provide written/verbal communication on topics of discussion during regular staff meetings. Ensure a consistent and coordinated training program to develop management and leadership skills and to improve administrative support staff expertise. Objectives: Develop and implement a training program to support and enhance individual staff performance within the various classification levels. • Encourage participation in seminars and classes related to Commission activities which complement job responsibilities. Clerk of the Board and Office Management Ensure that Commission personnel policies and procedures are consistent with State and Federal regulations. Objectives: Perform recruitments in an open, competitive process to attract candidates with the highest level of ability for the position. • Work with the Executive Director and management staff to ensure appropriate recruitment_of vacant and new staff positions. • Schedule annual presentations to staff regarding Commission policies on harassment and drug/alcohol-free workplace. Provide efficient and effective administrative support services. Objectives: Identify ways to improve management and organization of information and documents through use of the existing computer network and software. • Continue to maintain and update Commission records and contracts to comply with the Commission's records' retention policy. Ou3248 Schedule Commission and Committee meetings and maintain and process agendas, related documentation, and other records in a timely and orderly manner. Objectives: Coordinate preparation of Commission and Committee agenda packets with staff to ensure that they_are complete. • Develop a system to quickly retrieve Commission actions. • Continue to monitor changing statutory regulations to ensure that all meetings comply with applicable State regulations and Commission administrative code, Ensure that Commission policy direction is documented and forwarded to the Executive Director and staff for action. Objective: After each Commission meeting, provide summary of recommendations to Executive Director and staff in order to determine the appropriate process for execution of each recommendation. 0"'45 FINANCE Mission "Seek financing alternatives that complement the Commission' strategic direction. Safeguard the . Commission's assets including its various properties and maintain strong and prudent fiscal controls in investing, accounting, budgeting and financial reporting including ongoing disclosure to all interest parties'. FINANCE Finance Expenditures Professional Services 60°l0 Finance Expenditures Personnel 27% Support Costs 13% Finance and Accounting's total budget is $1,230,667. Department staffing costs will total $329,360, an increase due to the addition of staff hours devoted to the transit function. Professional costs of $736,000 include various services related to general legal fees, bond counsel fees for debt maintenance issues, financial advisory services, audit services, rating agency fees, and other consulting services. Expenditure Detail Personnel Salary & Fnnge Executive Director Chief Financial Officer Director-Plan/Program Program Manager I Program Manager!! Staff Analyst 11 Accounting Supervisor Property Agent Allocated Support Staff Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Professional & Support Costs Professional Costs: 9,246 8,239 124,495 144,848 144,282 157,930 130,475 (27,455) (17.4)% 1,332 42,136 2,223 0 43,933 43,933 100.0% 3,484 3,484 100.0% 58,417 90,109 0 0 0 100-0% 77,281 61,624 49,343 53,958 65,362 11,404 21.1 % 0 86,108(1) 86,108 100.0% 254,490 275,351 283,734 211,888 329,360 117,472 55 65100 Legal Services 25,494 35,738 32,500 25,000 27,500 2,500 10.0% 65200 Special Legal Services 49,697 20,529 25,000 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% 65300 Financial Services 74,864 54,834 97,500 210,000 210,000 0 0.0% 65400 Audit Services 285,404 366,015 220,000 350,600 362,500 11,900 3.4% 65500 Other Professional Services 21,095 8,394 75,000 82,500 126,000 43,500 52.7% Total Professional Costs 456,554 485,510 450,000 678,100 736,000 57,900 8.59 0 158,870 148,349 191,113 158,827 165,307 6,480 4.1% 0 70000 Support Costs Total Professional & Support Costs Total Finance 615,424 633,859 641,113 836,927 901,307 64,380 7.7% 869.914 909,210 924,847 1,048,815 1,230,667 181,852 17.3% Staffing Summary Position FY96/97 Actual FY 97/98 Actual FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Draft Chief Financial Officer 1.00 ' 1.00 1.00 .99 Program Manager II .14 .02 .40 Staff Analyst II .05 Property Agent .98 .82 .50 .90 Allocated Support Staff 1.14 1.44 1.20 1.50 FTE 3.26 3.28 2.70 3.84 Department Overview 1 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line item. 0 't} 3 2. 5 c. Department Description Finance activities include investing the Commission's cash resources, planning and directing financial transactions, and subsequent maintenance of legal and regulatory requirements. Fiscal accountability involves receiving all funds due the Commission and payment of all Commission obligations, general ledger accounting, regular reporting of the Commission fiscal results, budget preparation and monitoring. Commission resources are allocated to assure financial stability and fiscal accountability. Adequate cash flow must be maintained while at the same time prudently investing idle funds. Borrowing needs are carefully • planned using both short and long term debt. Once debt is issued there are ongoing responsibilities including interaction with financial advisors, bankers, bond insurance companies, and rating agencies, and regular and consistent information disclosure to investors. Fiscal accountability requires coordination of budget planning and close budget monitoring, and accurate and timely accounting for all funding sources including compliance with all applicable laws and regulations governing those funds. Accounting encompasses cash receipt and disbursement functions, maintenance of the general ledger including project cost accounting, retention of and coordination with independent auditors, payroll processing and quarterly and annual financial reporting. Safeguarding and protecting the Commission's assets is appropriately a function of fiscal accountability. For that reason, the Finance Department oversees property management activities and administers the purchasing and procurement of Commission major property assets. DEPARTMENT BUDGET REVIEW Assumptions Audit fees remain consistent with the prior year. • The value of the financial 11 of the Strategic Plan_ advisor contract will be renewed at the same level principallyto complete Phase • A consultant will be retained to perform a benchmark study: of the costs of administration. Transit staffing and property management functions have been moved into the Investment advisory contract remains The Commission will continue to Governments. Commission will continue unchanged. Finance Department, provide accounting services tci the: Western .Riverside Council of to hold its various; properties=forfuture value and: strategic Opportunities. • Property Agent will manage the (commuter rail stations, but costs to operate and maintain the stations (exclusive of staffing) will continue to be accounted for in the Rail Program• Major Initiatives The Strategic Plan, Phase II will be the major endeavor for the Department in close cooperation with the Deputy Executive Director (See Capital Development 8 Delivery). The Plan will serve as the basis for an extension and/or expansion of the Measure A sales tax, providing a blueprint for the County's transportation needs. Working closely with elected officials, community leaders, and the financial advisors staff anticipates completion of the Plan by the spring of 2000. Investment activities will receive greater attention to assure the Commission is maximizing its revenue potential - from invested funds. Staff will continue to pursue prudent investment strategies and instruments that will provide strong principal protection while improving on the Commission's investment retum. The Commission has approved the use of an investment advisor to assist staff with investment strategy and decisions. A benchmarking study will be initiated to determine how the Commission compares with other agencies in relative staffing levels and administrative costs. That study will identify relevant factors to be regularly used by the Commission in making performance comparisons among similar agencies. Budgeting has been an evolving process at the Commission. The past year improvements have been made to ensure greater participation and accountability at the department/program level. A comprehensive approach to budgeting was implemented, and this will be built upon and improved in the FY2000. Changes to the department reports will be explored, and appropriate suggestions implemented to improve on their readability and usefulness to department/program managers. Department Goals Protect the Commission's cash resources by regular monitoring of investment practices to ensure consistency with established investment policy. Objective: Achieve a rate of return at least equal to the County of Riverside Treasury pool rate. Manage the Commission's outstanding debt ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations and continued investor awareness and receptivity to the Commission's program. Objective: Annual update and review of program with rating agencies to occur no later than November 1999. Ensure the Commission complies with Measure A laws and regulations as they relate to the annual financial and compliance audits as well as a close cooperation and coordination with independent auditors. Objective: Minimize the number of substantive RCTC management letter comments directly and solely applicable to accounting and requiring corrective action (exclusive of those applicable to other jurisdictions). Maintain fiscal and budgetary control through monitoring of periodic results and consistency with the Commission's strategic direction Objectives: Coordinate the completion of a study of performance benchmarks to measure Commission's consistency with industry standards and to assure appropriate administrative and fiscal performance. • Obtain GFOA Distinguished Budget Award for the 99/00 budget and strive for at least one Outstanding category. • Provide quarterly notification to department heads on budget performance, and work with department managers to explain and resolve unfavorable budget variances. W.)•� J t • Facilitate a comprehensive budgeting approach that effectively involves management staff, requiring full accountability for all department expenditures. • Actively work with applicable management staff and financial advisors to complete a countywide Strategic Plan by March 31, 2000. Assure fiscal accountability for Commission funds with general ledger accounting and financial reporting consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Objectives: Provide monthly activity reports to all program managers ensuring timely response to any noted errors and corrections. • Obtain unqualified opinion on general-purpose financial statements and the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the GFOA. • Work with training coordinator to ensure that department employees receive at least 20 hours of training and instruction in accounting or areas applicable to job duties. • Complete accounting desk procedures manual by April 30, 2000. • Participate on Y2K Committee to achieve as smooth a conversion as possible on January 1, 2000. Assist local governments with Measure A funding by providing timely allocation of funds for eligible projects and financing opportunities to the extent funding does not impact other programs and is financially feasible and prudent. Property Management To continue to review current and projected uses of all Commission owned real properties on a parcel by parcel basis to generate leads for potential sale or joint development projects. Objective: Analyze market conditions to determine disposition of Commission properties. Determine if "hold" strategy is still appropriate. Increase existing sources of property management revenues through updated valuation of licenses and leases. Objective: Review leases for potential inflation and valuation adjustments. • Work with Burlington Northern Santa Fe accounting personnel to become knowledgeable on Santa Fe billing and remittance process for San Bernardino Subdivision out leases. Promptly respond to and resolve property maintenance issues. Objective: Ensure that station sites are neat, orderly and well maintained at all times. • Assist rail program manager with special events at rail stations, including pre -event planning and coordination. Maintain the working relationship with affected railroads for ongoing rail property issues requiring their participation. Objective: Maintain the responsibility of resolving ongoing operational issues of mutual concern with railroad officials. • Develop strategy to resolve encroachment issues along San Jacinto Branch Line. MEASURE A & OTHER CAPITAL PROGRAMS FY 1999/2000 i'l7Z"'7r- �J'v 25 CAPITAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY Mission "To keep the Commission's compact with the voters of Riverside County by accelerating the planning, programming, and implementation of projects and programs in the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan to the extent that funds are available. To ensure that capital projects are environmentally acceptable, technically sound and effectively designed in a manner that is economical and cost effective." 00 258 CAPITAL PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY Capital Projects Development & Delivery Expenditures • Local Streets & Road 58% Other 1% Capital Project Development & Delivery Expenditures Rail 11% Highway 21% Regional Arterial 9% The budgeted expenditures total $51,211,267 to cover all of the Commission's major projects. Rail expenditures amount to $5,313,400 primarily for improvements to the Commission's commuter rail stations. Highway expenditures of $10,279,403 are for engineering, construction, and right of way on Routes 74,79,91, and 111. Disbursements to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for the regional arterial program are budgeted at $4,230,599. Payments to cities and the County for local streets and roads repair, maintenance, and construction amount to $28,172,108. Other costs of $564,505 include salary and fringe benefits, legal fees, professional services, and support. 0U 259 Expenditure Detail Riverside *WO 7 entikortafton';'+f a r on CAPITAL 1'i?41A= DEVELf#PMarrANDDRt IirK1tY 19.9940600r4ftIttig ei Personnel Salary & Fringe: Deputy Executive Director 137,858 132,581 160,606 168,437 134,270 (34,167) -20.3% Program Manager II 46,393 52,769 7,905 (7,905)-100.0% Staff Analyst 11 26.522 21,098 29,550 (29,550)-100.0% Staff Analyst 1 4,416 Support 97,402 17,104 12,879 16,820 67,241 50,421 299.8% Total Personnel Salary S. Fringe Benefits 312,591 149,685 247,352 222,712 201,511 (21,201) -9.5% Professional & Support Costs Professional Costs: 65100 General Legal Services 751,072 183,671 127,500 161,500 175,000 13,500 8.4% 65400 Audit Services 17,924 50,000 50,000 50,000 65500 Other Professional Services 27,258 18,538 127,500 67,500 17,500 (50,000) -74.1 % Total Professional Costs 778,330 220,133 305,000 279,000 242,500 (36,500) -13.1 % 70000 Support Costs 147,938 242,948 357,228 295,227 120,495 (174,732) -59.2% Total Professional and Support Costs 926,268 46'3,081 662,228 574,227 362,995 (211,232) -36.8% Projects and Operations 81000 Projects -General 1,011,991 1,859,407 1,833,900 1,693,900 1,728,900 35,000 2.1% 81100 Highway& Rail Engineering 1,651,449 1,747,979 2,231,969 2,179,277 3,907,150 1,727,873 79.3% 81300 Highway & Rail Construction 11,570,939 11,513,488 15,413,525 8,254,300 10,228,264 1,973,964 23.9% 81400 Highway & Rail ROW 6,182,269 1,579,194 4,568,656 1,380,540 2,004,741 624,201 45.2% 81500 Highway & Rail Special Studies 174,793 190,123 75,000 75,000 100.0% 86000 SCRRA Capita/ Contribution 1,234,386 1,316,099 1,150,000 1,150,000 300,000 (850,000) -73.9% 86100 Regional Transportation 22,240,190 24,382,462 25,163,696 26,579,715 28,172,108 1,592,393 6.0% 86400 Regional Arterial 23,113,312 21,035,529 7,895,150 10,068,505 4,230,599 (5,837,906) -58.0% Total Projects and Operations 67,179,329 63,624,281 58,256,896 51,306,237 50,646,762 (659,475) -1.3% Total Capita/ Project Development & 68,418,188 64,237,047 59,166,476 52,103,176 51,211,268 M91,908) -1.7% Delivery 1 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line Rem. Staffing Summary Position FY96/97 Actual FY 97/98 Actual FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Draft Deputy Executive Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 .93 , Program Manager II .04 Staff Analyst II ,24 Staff Analyst I Support Staff .45 .53 1.00 1.10 FTE 1.49 1.53 2.24 2.03 Department Overview Department Description The Capital Project Development and Delivery Department is responsible for major highway and rail capital projects from initial Environmental study through preliminary engineering, final design, right of way acquisition and construction. Nearly 55% of the Commission's budget originates in this department managed by the Deputy Executive Director. The primary goal of the department is to accelerate delivery of the Measure A and STIP funded highway and rail capital improvement projects throughout the County of Riverside. Highway improvements include additional mixed flow and car pool lanes, more efficient interchanges through bridge widening and traffic control measures such as ramp metering, and new interchanges for economic development. The Commission will continue its efforts to protect and purchase right of way for the identified highway improvements funds permit. Commuter Rail capital improvements include: the purchase of equipment; construction of pedestrian and other improvements at existing rail stations; and construction of track improvements. In addition to the projects constructed directly by the RCTC, this department provides the necessary coordination between the RCTC and Caltrans for the development of scope, cost, and project delivery schedules for STIP funded highway improvements. Caltrans is assigned responsibility for delivery and construction, and demonstration projects identified in the federal legislation, the Transportation Enhancement Act of the 21st Century (TEA21). Department Budget Review Assumptions Commission continues its emphasis on completion of the Measure: A program The 1996 Strategic Plan serves as the basis for defining project selection and; prioritization Bond proceeds are only used for major highway projects Rail projects are completed with federal and state funding • Project costs are based on engineer's estimates and scope agreements with Caltrans Projects are competitively bid to minimize costs • All projects built to existing required and applicablestandards Major Initiatives MEASURE A STRATEGIC PLAN: In cooperation with the Chief Financial Officer, the Commission will revise state and federal STIP, and Measure A revenue projection through the year 2008 for each area of the county based on formulas approved by the Commission. Those projections will allow the Commission to identify specific projects, priorities, and funding sources for each year of the Strategic Plan period. G: n v��.iJ State and federal revenues available through the STIP have caught up with previous projections in 1998 after four years of no programming for new projects. The SB 45 STIP process which placed more authority with the Commission, and the formula adopted by the Commission, has resulted in an increased number and type of projects proposed to the CTC for funding. The federal TEA 21 legislation provided funding for a significant number of new highway and transit demonstration projects throughout the County. The 1998 STIP augmentation provided Riverside County additional funding for programming new projects. Legislation is being proposed, and is expected to pass, which would allow the Commission to borrow funds from the State Highway Account to advance construction of projects identified in the Measure A Strategic Plan. No significant Measure A revenues for new construction of highway or rail projects will be available for the next 2 - 3 years. The role of this Department is at crossroads. The construction projects identified in the FY 1999/00 Budget and funded by Measure A or rail funds requires the continued support of the Bechtel Program Management team which include: the program manager; project engineers, construction engineers; inspectors and support staff through this next fiscal year. Unless new projects for design and/ or construction directly by the Commission are identified and funded next year, there will be a reduction of the Bechtel staff throughout the year. Measure A Highway projects will continue to be made ready and constructed. However, since the funding source for the major projects over the next several years is changing from Measure A revenue to state and federal gas tax revenues, the Commission will continue to be responsible for programming funds and scheduling project development and construction. Responsibility for actual project development, design, right of way, and construction will be shifted from the Commission and its consultants to Caltrans unless proposals to use CMAQ and/or State Highway Account Loan funds are approved. Under SB 45, the Commission became the agency responsible to the California Transportation Commission for STIP fund programming and project delivery and, to federal legislators for demonstration project delivery on time and within budget. Caltrans is increasing staff to deliver the STIP projects. The Commission has agreed to provide some continuing assistance through Bechtel consultants to Caltrans staff in completing the Draft Environmental Impact Study for the 60/91 n-215 Interchange and 1-215 improvements to the 60/1-215 East Junction Highway and rail project development and implementation The major rail construction projects in the 1999/00 budget are: • Pedestrian over crossings at the La Sierra and West Corona Stations. • Video Surveillance System at La Sierra, West Corona, and the Pedley Rail Stations. The major highway project construction project will be: • Completion of the new HOV lanes between Valley Way and University Ave. This is the first of a series of major projects on 1-215 in the City of Riverside. Other highway projects include: • Completion of Phase I of the SR 91 sound walls between Magnolia and Mary Street, • Construction of Phase II of the SR 91 sound walls and auxiliary lanes project between Magnolia and Mary Street. • Operational improvements along Highway 111 in the Coachella Valley The preliminary engineering and environmental documents for the 1-215 projects and the Route 79 realignment project will be completed, and a north - south corridor study between SR 60 and I-10 in the Jurupa/Mira Loma Area will be completed. Design of the SR 74 project from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Rd will be completed. r)^� (See the Projects Summary for a brief synopsis on each project included in the Commission's capital program for 1999/00) . STIP FUNDED PROJECTS The list of projects below identifies the improvements from the 1996 STIP, new projects programmed in the 1998 STIP; the 1998 STIP augmentation;, and demonstration projects which are not included in the Commission's budget: Route 60 • Valley Way to University Ave ✓ Complete seismic retrofit on all bridges and widening of the freeway overpasses to provide for mbced flow and High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV) lanes from Valley Way to the 60/91A-215'Interchange and HOV lanes from the 60/91 /1-215 Interchange to University Ave • Begin construction of the new mixed flow and HOV lanes in the freeway median. Route 86 • Avenue 58 to Avenue 82 ✓ Complete Right of Way Acquisition and begin: construction of Phase HI of the Expressway from Avenue 66 to Avenue 82. Interstate 215 • 60/91 A-215 Interchange to 604-215 East Junction ✓ Complete and circulate the draft EIS for comments by federal, state, and local:.agencies, and, program funding for design, right of way, and construction for a project :to provide: two direct connectors at the 60/91A-215 Interchange; HOV lanes and a truck climbing lane from University Ave to the 60/I 215 East Junction; a truck bypass at the 60/1-215 East Junction; new interchanges at Spruce Street on Rte 91 and new interchanges at Martin Luther King and Box Springs Blvd on1=215. • Ramon Road Interchange' _ Programmed' funds for widening; the Various interchange_ ............... . • Signal Synchronization Project Programmed funds to synchronize Traffic Signals: at various locations in the: Coachella. Valley • Transit ✓ Metrolink 'Bus Purchase: programmed funds to purchase a bus to provide a connection from the Coachella Valley to the City of Riverside Downtown Commuter Rail Station. 0263 r_ DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FUNDED UNDER TEA 21: HIGHWAY PROJECTS: 1-15 Construct new interchange at Galena Street and 1-15 for. JobDevelopment. 1-215 Construct' Oleander Street Interchange :and 1-15 1-10 Rte 71 Rte 91 Rte 60 Rte 79 Circulation Improvements Construct Overcrossing at Overlook; Drive: and 1-15 Interchange at unspecified location on 1-10 Construct new improvements on ramps, at Rte 91 Widen Green River Road Interchange at Rte 91 Construct Nason Street Interchange at Rte 60 Realignment 'Envin nmenta'I and Engineering work. Transit projects: PERRIS Bus Maintenance Facility SUNLINE fuel Cell Bus Local Streets & Roads The Commission disburses funds for the Measure A local streets and roads. The budgeted amount is set by formula established in the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Local jurisdictions will receive $28,172,108 for local streets and roads maintenance, repair, and construction. Each jurisdiction's respective allocation is based on population and sales tax generated. A number of jurisdictions in the Westem County have entered into loan agreements with the Commission for advance acceleration of Measure A streets and roads revenues. The annual principal and interest payments for these loans are deducted by the Commission from each city's respective disbursements based on the terms of the loan agreements. The participating jurisdictions are the cities of Canyon Lake, Corona, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. There are two cities in the Coachella Valley which do not participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee Program (TUMF) —Coachella and La Quinta. The Measure A allocations of these cities are remitted to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) in lieu of the TUMF. Total Measure A funding under the local streets and roads programs to be received by CVAG is $610,736. The Coachella Valley has a discretionary five percent of their sales tax revenues that may be allocated for either, streets and roads or transit as determined by CVAG. For the 1999/00 fiscal year, CVAG has allocated that five percent to transit which has been reflected in the current budget. The local street and road money for the Palo Verde Valley Area is divided proportionately between the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside based on population and sales tax generated. 003264 WESTERN COUNTY AREA Banning 443.308 Beaumont 195,325 Calimesa 118.287 Canyon Lakes 166.796 Corona 2.333,969 Hemet 1.100.636 Lake Elsinore 552,966 Moreno Valle} 2,308.097 Mumeta 702.679 ;Norco 514.055 Perris 613.865 Ri verside 5,063.920 San Jacinto 383.905 Temecula 1,172.321 Riverside County 5,071,937 COACHELLA VALLEY AREA Cathedral City 861,271 Coachella Desert Hot Sprmgs 194,261 Indian Wells 140.268 Indio 695.363 La Quinta Palm Springs 1,179.141 Palm Desert 1,546,528 Rancho Mirage 502,875 Riverside County 839,762 Coachella Valley Association of Governments 610,736 PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA Blythe 697,112 Riverside County 162.734 Department Goals: Continue prudent rights of way protection and preservation activities for Measure A projects to control long range project costs and project feasibility. Objectives: • Purchase right of way to protect right-of-way required along Routes 74,79 and 60 for future projects if funding is available. • Develop agreements with private property owners/ developers, where practical, to coordinate the design of Measure A funded highway improvements with improvements required for development approval. Build upon and strengthen the partnership with Caltrans toward timely delivery of identified Measure A and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects. Objectives: • Develop agreements with Caltrans, and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) as may be required, to finalize project scoping and cost issues for the STIP, Istea II Federal Demonstration Projects, and Measure A funded highway projects on Routes 1-215, 91, and 60 in Riverside County. • Provide monthly contract status and cost schedule reports to the Commission and to Caltrans. In coordination with SANBAG and Caltrans District 08 provide the FHWA Regional Administrator and his key staff members, with a briefing on the overall Measure A and M Highway Programs, the status of various projects, and identify and discuss issues which need resolution in order to keep current projects on schedule To the extent permitted by law, pursue reasonable involvement of local firms and minority and women business enterprises in contract work. Objective: • Maintain goal for a minimum 18.5% DBE participation in all federally funded contracts. Continue to review quarterly report on DBE participation levels. Provide effective communication of project progress to the Commission board members, Caltrans, and FHWA. Develop a strategy with Caltrans District 08 which would allow the RCTC to advance specific projects identified in the Strategic Plan to take advantage of any unexpected state or federal funding which may become available through increased state/ federal budget authorizations or potential loan programs to advance construction. Objective: • If state legislation is passed allowing loans from the State Highway Account, the Commission will work with Caltrans, the County of Riverside and the cities of Riverside County to complete preliminary and environmental studies for Measure A projects on Rtes 74, 60 and 79 as identified by the RCTC in order to take advantage of the loans and advance construction. Complete the construction of the highway projects identified in the FY 1999-00 Budget. Objective: • Construct Phase I Sound Walls along Rte 91 from Magnolia Ave to Mary Street; Construct Park -N-Ride Lot along Rte 60 in Moreno Valley; and complete Landscaping projects at the Yuma Interchange and Rte 91 Sound Wall Projects In coordination with the Rail Program manager, construct capital improvements at existing rail stations as identified in the FY 1999-20-00 Budget. Objectives: • Complete trackage and Southside Station improvements at Downtown Riverside Station, and administer core station and layover facility projects to support the Inland Empire/Orange County Line. • Construct Pedestrian Overcrossings at the La Sierra and West Corona Rail Stations. • Install video surveillance equipment at the Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, West Corona, and Pedley Rail Stations with the control station at the Downtown Riverside Station. • Begin making improvements to restore the Santa Fe Depot in the City of Riverside. • Continue efforts to involve appropriate parties, including the adjacent communities and local jurisdictions in planning and development of additional rail stations. 00326 7 tea,- a , �X Ca I ital Pro'ects Develo ment and Delive : Pro'ects Summary Western County Projects: Route 74 - Design Engineering and Right of way acquisitions on Route 74 RCTC will purchase the required Right of Way for supporting Caltrans SHOPP projects between Interstate 15 and 7t Street in the City of Perris. RCTC entered into an agreement with a developer to perform design services for the Measure A improvements ofRT 74 between I-15and Wasson Road. Cost: $4,100,000 - Right of Way $2,148,000 - Engineering Operating budget Impact: None - Caltrans will have construction and maintenance responsibility Strategic Plan Impact: The Strategic Plan included a project from I-15 to 7t Street and a portion of the project is being escalated to take advantage of advancement of State (SHOPP) funds that will be made available. Route 79 - Realignment Gilman Springs Road to East Valley Reservoir and Right Turn Lanes � Gilman Spring Rd. Complete the engineering and construction of the right turn lane along Route 79. Perform realignment environmental and engineering services from Gilman Rd to East Valley reservior. Cost: $ 425,000 (Environmental and engineering services) $ 12,000 (Environmental Services) $100,000 (Right turn lane engineering and construction) Operating Budget Impact: There are no long term operational budget impacts. Caltrans will assume maintenance responsibility. Strategic Plan Impact: io0266 The 98/99 budget included funding for the right turn lanes; however, work will now be performed in 99/00 Fiscal Year. The realignment of RT 79 will be performed as a Demonstration Project and funded through TEA 21 program dollars. Route 91 - Soundwall and Auxiliary lanes construction These improvements provide required mitigation for the Route 91 HOV projects between Magnolia Ave. to Mary St. The purpose is to suppress the intensity of noise generated by freeway traffic. The Project will require the acquisition of temporary construction easements to provide access to construct these walls. Design is complete and the award for construction will be made just prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Cost: Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $ 45,000 (Appraisals and Acquisition of Easements) $ 350,000 (Engineering) $ 55,000 (Material testing and Surveying support) The Commission will be responsible for plant establishment for landscaping for the first three years. The Commission will contract for these services and Costs have already been included in the cost of construction. The Caltrans will then assume maintenance responsibility. The 99/00 budget includes Phase II of the soundwall engineering. Construction is scheduled in FY 2001. The Strategic Plan allows for staged implementation of soundwalls and auxiliary lanes along RT 91. These soundwalls are required mitigation for HOV lanes constructed on RT 91. North! South Corridor Study The Commission authorized study to access the feasability of providing future regional arterial improvements to provide letter North/South connectivity between I-10 and State Route 60 corridor between I-15 and I-215. Cost: $100, 000 Operating Budget Impact: Funding will be split between SANBAG and RCTC on a 50/50 basis. RCTC share will be paid from Planning funds. Strategic Plan Impact: Not included in the Strategic plan. May provide corridor projects for future Measure A or other funding source in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. 003.,6!) Coachella Valley Projects: Route 111 T The Commission and CVAG cooperatively programmed an initial $10 million using Measure A highway program funds to complete signal improvements and local intersection widening improvements along State Route 111. Cost: - Palm Desert $379,000 San Pablo Avenue Construction $329,926 Portola Avenue Construction $942,000 Monterey Avenue Construction $ 90,000 Final design San Luis Rey and El Paseo/Cabrillo - Indio $1,061,000 Monroe St. to Rubidoux St. Construction $ 200,992 Monroe St. to Rubidoux Right of Way and Support Operating Budget Impact: None - Caltrans will be responsible for maintenance Strategic Plan Impact: The projects that are completed or will be completed as part of this initial amount are identified as Tier I in the Strategic Plan. Rail Projects Other Station Improvements Construction improvements for pedestrian crossings at the West Corona and La Sierra rail stations. Contractor mobilization will commence in late FY 1999. Cost: $2,875,000 (Construction) Operating Budget Impact: None Construction cost will be reimbursed by CMAQ funds . Strategic Plan Impact: 027E Existing Tier I stations shown in the Strategic Plan require pedestrian improvements and additional trackage for freight and passenger rail. Santa Fe Depot- Downtown Riverside The Commission purchased the old Santa Fe Depot in Downtown Riverside from the City of Riverside for $85,000 using available property management revenues. The plan was to use a portion of the building for Metrolink crew quarters and the remainder to develop for either rail educational purposes and/or joint development to generate rail operating revenues. Federal funding(with a small Commission match) has been designated as the source to cover the costs of rehabilitation. Cost: $500,000 (Design and Construction) Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: Not known at this time. Final usage will have to be determined before operational costs can be calculated. If jointly developed, any costs must be more than offset by revenues generated. Not included in the Strategic Plan. These improvements are being entirely funded by Surface Transportation Program grant along with matching funds from available property management revenues. San Jacinto Branchhne Track Improvement The Track improvement study proposes $9.2 mullion for improvements of which $500,000 of federal and state funds is for track and drainage improvements. Cost: $500,000 (Construction) Operating Budget Impact: None Construction cost will be reimbursed by CMAQ funds. Strategic Plan Impact: This is consistent with Commission's long term policy goals. While not specifically in the Strategic Plan, the planned improvements will be necessary for future commuter rail service on the San Jacinto Branch Line, currently an unfunded project in the Strategic Plan. Pedley Station Improvements To design and install a security surveillance system at the Pedley station. Cost $776,250 (Design and Construction) Operating Budget Impact: None - All costs will be reimbursed by CMAQ funds Strategic Plan Impact: Not included in the Strategic Plan. These improvements are being entirely funded by Federal Transit Administration Section 9 funding currently allocated for rail usage. `'�favndc(�jmwy Trianspo.tatfoe Commission f NON CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS FY 1999/2000 2 3 REGIONAL ISSUES Mission "To strive to improve the lives of Riverside County residents through the promotion of clean air policies, strategies and standards, and the facilitation of interagency and interjurisidictional relationships in support of a coordinated regional approach to transportation solutions." 74 REGIONAL ISSUES Regional Issues Expenditures Projects 8 Operations 9% Professional 8 Support Costs 43% Personnel 48% DO 02 75 Expenditure Detail a tiverside:roway rronsp rtOon #remmi siwr :REGIONAL -MVP 1:999,;2090. PtaJiB td$e+t teals �t�a# 13udgaT 299it9 7999/E10 Budget; Porcali Personnel Salary & Fringe: Director -Regional Issues/Communication Support Staff Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits Professional & Support Costs Professional Costs: 65100 General Legal Services 65500 Other Professional Services Total Professional Costs 70000 Support Costs Total Professional & Support Costs Projects and Operations 81000 Projects -General Total Projects and Operations Total Regional Issues 94,492 94,492 100.0% 33.449 33,449 100.0% 127,941 127,941 100.0% 2,500 2.500 100.08/q 30,500 30,500 100.0% 33,000 33,000 100.0% 81,506 81,506 100.0% 114,506 114,506 100.0% 25,000 25,000 100.0°/, 25,000 25.000 100.0% 267,447 267,447 100.0% Staffing Summary Position 96/97 Actual 97/98 Actual 98/99 Revised 99/00 Draft Director -Regional Issues/Communications .70 Support Staff .60 FTE 1.30 C 76 Department Overview Department Description Working with other transportation entities, resources are specifically dedicated to addressing joint county and regional issues impacting the effectiveness and development of the transportation system. Policy guidance and project concepts, which promote interregional coordination and cooperation, are the key focus for this newly created function at the Commission. Though the functional designation is new, the areas covered —air quality, clean fuels technology, development of strong intergovemmental relationships are long standing Commission priorities. Assumptions • Nearly three quarters of the budgeted hours for the Director of Communication and Regional Issues will be devoted to this heightened Commission effort. • The Commission will continue to use he services of a consultant to assist :in the development of clean fuel strategies: and alternatives. That contract will be renewed at its existing level. Major initiatives Expansion of the Commission's inter -agency and regional issue effort is underway through increased participation by the Director of Regional Issues and Communications in a broad array of committee and individual commitments. By dedicating staff resources at the management level, the Commission is able to play a stronger leadership role within the County and region to ensure the interests and policy goals of the Commission are effected. Among a number of priorities, particular emphasis will be given to the Four Comers work effort to identify the most cost-effective options to reduce projected 2020 congestion volumes. Los Angeles International Airport expansion issues will be examined to include assessment of a constrained option which considers distribution of passengers and cargo to existing underutilized airports in the region. State Route 91 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Study to assess the feasibility of extending the existing .toll facility will be completed. Finally, recommendations forthcoming from the Route 71/911mprovement Study will be analyzed for possible implementation. A consultant will be used to continue analyzing altemative fuels on speck corridors, to facilitate development of clean fuels projects, and to assist with outreach efforts to the public private sector promoting clean fuel strategies. Department Goals: Facilitate development of regional transportation solutions, which benefit Riverside County. Objective: • Continue to play a leadership role in the Four Corners work effort to identify, evaluate and select viable improvement strategies to address projected congestion problems in the four county study area. :,t U 2 1 1 • As a team member, complete the SR91 Hot Lane Study to assess the feasibility of extending the existing SR91 toll facility (including intermediate access), analyze operational options to generate revenue, and identify public attitudes toward high occupancy toll lanes • Participate in the regional discussions on meeting air passenger and freight growth demands for the future, encouraging the use of other regional airport facilities (such as March AFB) over Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). • Based on adopted Route 71/91 improvement study recommendations, initiate planning and design processes to implement final alternative(s). Facilitate public and private investments in clean air technology in support of the broader air quality programs of the Southem California Association of Governments, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Riverside County local entities. Objective: • Actively participate on the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee at both the policy and staff levels to provide leadership in the development of its work program disbursing $12 million annually to reduce mobile source emission • Influence implementation of the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor plan to facilitate the location of clean fuel infrastructure and deployment of clean fuel equipment along designated corridors in Riverside County and the greater region through financial support and staff participation. • Establish an "opportunity fund" for future clean fuels projects within Riverside County to provide seed funds for development of public/private partnerships. PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING M%SSiOn 'To exert leadership in providing a sound planning basis for transportation policies and programs and to achieve maximum leveraged return of federal and state resources on local investment. " 0032 is TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING STA Disbursement 44% Planning & Programming Expenditures LTF Disbursements 9% • S • ecial Studies 32% Professional & Support 7% Personnel 8% Planning and Programming Expenditures Planning and Programming expenditures have increased 47% from the Revised Budget due to CETAP planning studies. Other professional services of $97,500 include a consultant contract for $80,000 to assist the Commission with management of the Congestion Management Program (CMP), and $17,500 for a planning consultant. Expenditure Detail Riverside Gaem# D ansporta#on Commission M ANNINO AND FROGR AIMING 1999-2000 Draft Budget 3'�9?l?i1 Aim 1998199 1944190 198899 Devised ?haft Delius Perceiit Budget : Budget Budget. Changes Changes ................... ................... .................. Personnel Salary & Fringe: Director-Planning/Programming 72,583 85,740 133,060 144,765 Director-Govemmental/Legislative 12,902 Director of Regional Issues 211,022 Program Managers ll 92,866 89,331 175,018 49,383 Staff Analyst 60,275 48,444 47,949 67,159 Staff Analyst 1 30,505 Support Staff(1) Total Personnel Salary 8 Fringe Benefits 256,229 232,251 356,027 472,329 432,644 (39,685) -8.4% Professional 8 Support Costs 65100 65500 Professional Costs: 130,613 120,095 68,826 113,110 (14.152) (140,310) 1,667 -9.8% -53.9% 2.5% General Legal Services 8,039 5,142 20.000 10,000 24,000 14,000 140.0% Other Professional 122,382 142,801 97,500 256,500 97,500 (159,000) -62.0% Services Total Professional Costs 130,421 147,943 117,500 266,500 121,500 (145,000) -54.4% 70000 Support Costs 121,266 124,876 121,865 179,591 279,675 100,084 55.7% Total Professional and Support Costs 251,687 272,819 239,365 446,091 401,175 (44,916) -10.1 % Projects and Operations 81500 Special Studies 38,752 235,000 225,000 1,730,000 1,505,000 668.9% '6200 LTF Disbursements 305,095 309,000 327,295 397,295 518,609 121,314 30.5% 3300 STA Disbursements 1,269,583 1,535,401 2,746,194 2,186,116 2,395,666 209,550 9.6% Total Projects and Operations Total Transportation Planning and Programming ,574,678 1,883,153 3,308,489 2,808,411 4,644,275 1,835,864 65.4% 2,082,594 2,38E1,223 3,903,881 3,726,831 5,478,094 1,751,263 47.0% 1 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line item. Staffing Summary Position FY96/97 Actual FY 97/98 Actual FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Draft Director of Planning/Programming .40 .75 .95 .93 Director - Govemmental/Legislative .29 Director Regional Issues .94 Program Managers II .79 .75 1.06 1.05 Staff Analyst II .97 .60 .56 .80 Staff Analyst I .73 Support Staff 1.23 1.14 2.76 1.90 FTE 4.12 3.53 6.27 4.68 Staffing levels have increased due to the addition of a Program Manager to handle expanded responsibilities of SB45. This position is funded with SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds ($110,210 in 1999/00). Department Overview Department Description The Commission is responsible for short-range transportation planning and programming. Planning includes the development of the county wide short range transit plan including coordination and input to long range transportation planning efforts at the Coachella Valley Association of Govemments (CVAG) and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). Coordination on long range planning efforts with CVAG and WRCOG is integral to the Southern California Association of Govemments (SCAG) "bottoms up" regional planning process. The Commission serves as the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Riverside County and is responsible for developing and maintaining the Congestion Management Program (CMP). Programming includes program development, review and approval of funding programs/projects to be incorporated into the countywide Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). The funding programs the Commission has responsibility for include: Measure A programs/projects, Local Transportation Funds (LTF), State Transit Assistance (STA), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Inter -regional Improvement Program (IIP), Intercity Rail, Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA), and Federal Transit Assistance (FTA Sections 5309, 5307, 5310, 5311). Department Budget Review Assumptions • The Commission will lead the CETAP effort with the Riverside County Integrated Plan. ....... ................... . ............................................. ...... ........... the County contracting • CETAP costs are based on the bids obtaining during the RFP;process. for all elements of • A significant part of the CETAP staff effort is funded with SB45 2% Manning funds Consultant contract for CMP services will be maintained at the same level. STA 'disbursements are rased on the state's projected budgetary allocation,but will be adjusted after the Commission has made actual allocations. Major Initiatives In the fall of 1997, SB 45 was signed by the Govemor creating' substantial changes to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) development process. SB 45 placed increased funding authority and responsibility on the Commission. SB 45 provides for distribution of federal and state highway funds, noted above, into the following categories: Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Interregional Improvement Program (IIP), and Intercity Rail. This budget includes funding from the 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds the Commission made available to provide additional staff support to cant' out the new responsibilities the Commission has in supporting STIP projects. The Commission is now responsible to ensure projects funded with STIP funding are implemented consistent with Califomia Transportation Commission (CTC) policies. Transportation Planning The Commission's role in regional decision making and planning throughout the year will involve working with local, regional, state and federal agencies to ensure local agency(s) project(s) are included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update scheduled for adoption by the SCAG Regional Council in December 1999. Information will be shared with other agencies on regional discussions in updating the n , � _ ,0 4, Regional Transportation Plan and its consistency with the 1997 AQMP. Staff will keep local agencies apprised of the status of the RTP conformity finding. In the 1999/00 fiscal year, the Commission will conduct unmet needs hearings, assist in coordinating the development, review and approval of the annual countywide Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate transit funding resources. Transit funding includes local transportation and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds under the state Transportation Development Act (TDA), and various Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sources. Transportation Programming Annually, Commission staff administers bicycle and pedestrian funds made available through TDA funding sources and selects eligible projects which meet established criteria. Local Transportation planning funds are provided to WRCOG ($350,000) and CVAG ($168,609) by the Commission after the annual planning work program is negotiated and submitted. PLANNING PROGRAM PROJECT SUMMARY Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process The Commission along with the County of Riverside will pursue the development of the Riverside County Integrated Planning (RCIP) process. This involves the integrated development of a Multi - Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) in westem county, the update of the Riverside County General Plan and the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) which will identify future transportation corridors/systems, primarily in westem county and the update of the County General Plan. The westem county emphasis is due to the significant population increase projected over the next 20 years in the area. North/South Corridor Study This project is a cooperative effort between the Commission, SASNBAG and the City of Fontana and will study north/south corridors between 1-15 on the west and 1-215 on the east assessing connections between Route 60 and 1-10. The study is included in the Capital Project Development and Delivery section of the budget. The project is funded with $50,000 of Commission funds, $25,000 from SANBAG and $25,000 from the City of Fontana. Update of the Congestion Management Program The Commission serves as the Congestion Management Agency for Riverside County. According to statute, the program is required to be updated in "odd numbered" years. The Commission must adopt an update to the current program .by December 1999. This years update will include the completion of the call box traffic counter pilot project demonstration and reassessment of traffic conditions and impact on existing CMP facilities (level of service review). Year 2000 Post -Census Regional Travel Survey SCAG and the regional agencies are supporting the development of a Year 2000 Post -Census Regional Travel Survey. The Commission's share of this project is $150,000 over two years. This survey is being done in conjunction with the year 2000 census and it is the critical element in supporting the development of an improved travel demand model, which can provide better forecasting capability. The cost of the regional effort is estimated at $2,800,000. The amount budgeted for this year is $100,000 with $50,000 in FY 2000-01. Department Goals: Planning Build upon . relationships with sub regional planning entities and other affected agencies to coordinate long range planning to ensure that long range projects are consistent with the RCTC short range program of projects. [iuJza3 Objectives: • Work with CVAG, WRCOG, and Caltrans to coordinate projects to be included in the STIP, Regional Transportation Plan,_(RTP), and the RTIP. • Provide policy input and coordination through our Commissioners in advocating RCTC projects. • Direct CETAP in the integrated planning process and initiate inter -County corridor studies and active participation in the Four Comers policy planning process. Continue to seek a stronger role, including funding, for county transportation agencies in the broader regional transportation and air quality programs of the Southem Califomia Association of Governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District through the Regional Transportation Agencies' Coalition (RTAC). Review transit planning, resource allocation, and service implementation policy requirements, including appropriate coordination of commuter rail, inter -county and inter -city bus, local bus and paratransit, and social service transportation services. Objectives: • Review the short range transit plans of all operators ensuring consistency with Commission adopted productivity improvement program. • Monitor transit operators Quarterly Capital Grants Reports Work with Southern California Association of Governments, Westem Riverside Council of Govemments (WRCOG), Coachella Valley Associated Govemments (CVAG), and local agencies to implement an enhanced traffic monitoring program to replace the land use coordination element of the Congestion Management Program. Objectives: • Maintain federal certification for the Congestion Management System. • Develop the Enhanced Transportation Monitoring Element using existing traffic information data to the extent possible and in a cost efficient manner • To implement a pilot program approved by the Commission which includes the purchase of smart call boxes and place them at critical locations on the CMP System to obtain efficient count data. • To provide data collected on the CMP System to SCAG for reporting on the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). Work with Caitrans and local govemments including transit operators and seek opportunities to develop and implement Intelligent Transportation System applications which improve the accessibility of highway and transit information to the public as well as seek opportunities to achieve operational efficiencies. Objectives: Ou 28 • Seek federal and state funding sources to support implementation of ITS strategies and projects consistent with the Inland Empire ITS Strategic Plan. • Work with CVAG, WRCOG, Caitrans and local governments to develop a county wide traffic signal coordination program/plan. RCTC staff will serve as project lead for this effort. In light of CVAG's Coachella Valley wide traffic signal coordination study, ensure coordination with CVAG to effectively further their plan and integrate it into the county wide effort. Work with Caftans, public operators and social service agencies to ensure a competitive process statewide for the allocation of Federal transportation dollars for social service programs. Objective: • Facilitate a competitive call for projects to allocate FTA Section 16 program funds. Programming Work with Caltrans, public operators and social service agencies to ensure a competitive process statewide for the allocation of Federal transportation dollars for social service programs. Objective: • Facilitate a competitive call for projects to allocate FTA Section 5310 program funds. Improve the maintenance of project database to more accurately reflect priorities and to better measure air quality attainment efforts. Objectives: • Work with SCAG and other commissions to refine and maintain the regional database. • Work with Caltrans to assure database compatibility among the regional and state databases. Provide maximum funding and flexibility for programming of projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program. Objectives: • Through SB45 (Kopp) continue to strategically program projects and obligate funds in an eveditious manner for the maximum use of all available funding. • Prepare candidate projects for 2000 STIP cycle and work on any associated STIP amendments to obtain maximum funding levels for projects in Riverside County. 00 8 INTERMODAL PROGRAMS 0 u 0 8 SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION Mission "To maintain and enhance, as resources allow, transportation options for seniors and persons with disabilities through innovation and community interaction." 2,87 SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION Special Transportation Expenditures Western County Paratransit 37% 1,250,000 Professional r3< Support 1% 36,768 Special Transportation Expenditures Personnel 2% S55,949 %zsz Coachella Valley 60% $2,021,399 Western County special transportation expenditures are allocated based on a competitive process among qualified social service providers within Riverside County. The last call for programs was made in FY 1997/98 and was for a two-year period. The Coachella Valley allocation is disbursed monthly to the Sunline Transit Agency, the major transit provider in eastern Riverside County. The increase of 7.2% shown in the Expenditure Detail section that follows is an increased allocation to Sunline Transit Agency due to higher sales tax revenues. 00 3 288 Expenditure Detail e tour,* Transportaion Coaunfssiext SPECIALFRANSPORr.IkRAIRifllfSlFf 199;-200 Draft ..............................: . Personnel Salary & Fringe: Director-Planning/Programming 5,327 Program Manager ll 44,610 43,265 55,596 44,553 27,388 (17,165) (38.5)% Staff Analyst Il 22,075 31,908 28,617 13,934 (14,683) (51.3)% Support Staff 14,627 14,627 100.0% Total Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits 72,012 43,265 87,584 73,170 65,949 (17,221) (23.5)% Professional & Support Costs Professional Costs: 65100 General Legal Services 3,500 3,500 2,600 (1,000) -28.6% Total Professional Costs 3,500 3,500 2,600 (1,000) -28.6% 70000 Support Costs 34,082 19,813 28,395 31,085 34,268 3,183 10.2% Total Professional & Support Costs 34,082 19,813 31,985 34,585 36,768 86100 Regional Transportation 2,703,313 3,567,642 3,052,561 3,052,561 3,271,399 218,838 7.2% Total Projects and 2,703,313 3,567,642 3,052,561 3,052,561 3,271,399 218,838 7.2% Operations Total Special Transportation _ 2,809,407 3,630,720 3,172,130 3,087,146 3,308,167 221,021 7.2% 1 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line item. Staffing Summary Position 96/97 97/98 Actual 98/99 Revised 99/00 Draft Director- Planning/Programming .04 .37 .11 .25 Program Manager II 1.12 Staff Analyst II .80 .20 Staff Analyst I .30 .28 Support Staff .59 .19 .96 .20 FTE 2.05 .56 2.15 .65 Department Overview Department Description Often characterized as the "soft" programs of Measure A, these programs provide a valuable service to the community. Substantial support is furnished to social service and public transit agencies, which serve special and unique needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. t.)L 8 Department Budget Review Key assumptions • Western County disbursements are based on the program established in fiscal year 1997/98. The Coachella Valley; Association of Governments allocates its discretionary five percent to the Sunline Transit Agency for transit. The Sunline Transit Agency oversees the social services program for the Coachella Valley. Major Initiatives The Commission has long demonstrated a strong commitment to assisting in the mobility of those with specialized transit needs. Through its Specialized Transit Program, the Commission has provided millions of dollars to public and non-profit transit operators to assist in the provision of special transit services to improve the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. Along with support of traditional dial -a -ride services, the Commission supports innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs. For over six years the Commission has provided operating grants to a number of non-profit agencies in the western county to assist in the provision of very specialized transit service. The riders, many frail elderly, have come to depend on these services which provide a higher level of assistance than can be provided by the public providers and/or operate in areas not served by public transit. In 1998, a call for projects covering fiscal years 1999 and 2000 was released for Specialized Transit Programs. Funding in the amount of $2.3 million was provided to 13 local agencies throughout western Riverside County to support ongoing programs; including subsidies to maintain low fares for seniors and disabled, travel training on the bus for students with disabilities, and bus tickets disbursed by social service agencies to individuals requiring transportation for medical appointments, job interviews and even going to the grocery stores. The agencies approved for funding to conduct these programs include City of Corona, Riverside County Office of Education, Partnership to Preserve Independent Living, and the Volunteer Center of Riverside County. For individuals who have volunteer drivers but cannot use the services provided by the specialized transit providers, there is a program called TRIP, or Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project. In addition, five agencies were approved for funds for operating assistance, including Care -A -Van Transit, Family Services Association, Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center, Inland AIDS Project, and Transportation Specialists. The results of the consolidated feasibility study will be incorporated in planning for Western Riverside County specialized transit service levels for FY 2001. In order to assure the availability of funds to support matching of Section 5310 federal capital grants, $100,000 will be budgeted to meet the 20% local matching requirements Department Goals: Provide timely information to the public regarding Commission implemented projects and support public relations activities of Measure A funded programs by grant recipients. Objective: • Produce and distribute public information materials as needed including press releases, fliers, brochures, marketing materials, and newspaper ads. Provide Measure A Specialized Transit Funds and technical assistance to support services which will maintain and/or enhance mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and the truly needy. Ouv2J0 Objectives: • Implement results of specialized transit study. • Monitor performance of Specialized Grant recipients through analysis of their quarterly performance reports. • Support social service capital acquisition, which will improve mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities. Seek grant applications specifically for that purpose. • Provide technical assistance and program support to agencies offering specialized transit programs to ensure the maximum benefit of funding for improved mobility far seniors, persons with disabilities, and the economically disadvantaged. Continue to provide staff resources to assist and support the coordination of transit services, within the County and throughout the State. Objective: • Regularly participate in meetings which focus on the coordination of transit services, such as: the Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition, the California Association for Coordinated Transportation, the Service Providers Association of Riverside County and the Sunline Access Committee. 0u 9: RAIL PROGRAM: DEVELOPMENT, OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT Mission "To develop and support rail transportation options for increased mobility within Riverside County and the region." RAIL PROGRAM: DEVELOPMENT, OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT SCR Contribu ion 70% Rail Program Expenditures Rail Program Expenditures Personnel 5% Projects -General 13% ...... .............>: >>>. Professional & Support 12% Rail Program Expenditures include Metrolink support and the Commission's owned and operated rail stations. The SCRRA contribution (i.e, Metrolink support) consists of an operating contribution of $3,050,000 and maintenance of way for $240,000. Projects -General, include the contract for security guards and special event trains. Support costs include allocated overhead and repair, landscaping, cleaning, utilities and other rail station maintenance costs. 00 32 93 /998/99 1999/2000 1998/99 PevISed ran ti6lhrr r ant Budget Budget Budget Changes Changes` Personnel Salary 8 Fringe: Director-Planning/Programming Program Manager 11 Property Agent Staff Analyst ll Support Staff(1) Total Personnel Salary 8 Fringe Benefits Professional 8 Support Costs Professional Costs: 65100 General Legal Services 65500 Other Professional Services Total Professional Costs 70000 Support Costs Total Professional 8 Support Costs Projects and Operations 81000 Projects -General 86100 Regional Transportation 9,988 765 39,851 110,486 113,416 150,189 123,490 (26,699) -17.8% 12,431 49,343 53,958 7,262 (46,696) -86.5% 31,908 57,234 52,253 (4,981) 100.0% 64,781 49,839 123,681 194,667 261,382 247,786 (13,596) -5.2% 117,725 50,633 40,000 31,500 30,000 (1,500) -4.8% 82,457 79,383 140,000 110.000 120,000 10,000 9.1 % 200,182 130,016 180,000 141,500 150,000 8,500 6.0% 23,589 53,449 31,380 111,853 421,314 309,461 276.7% 223,771 183,465 211,380 253,353 571,314 317,961 125.5% 601,000 2,687,200 2,516,101 2,862,900 2,862,900 3,310,000 447,100 15.6% Total Projects and Operations 2,687,200 2,516,101 2,862,900 2,862,900 3,911,000 1,048,100 36.6% Capital Outlay 90000 Capital Outlay -Equipment Total Commuter Rail 2,960,810 2,823,247 3,268,947 3,377,634 4,730,100 1,352,466 40.0% 1 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line item. Staffing Summary Position FY96/97 Actual FY 97/98 Actual . FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Draft Director -Planning & Programming .07 Program Manager II .97 1.00 1.0 1.0 Staff Analyst II .56 .75 Property Agent .18 .50 .10 Support Staff .60 .62 1.6 1.1 FTE 1.64 1.80 3.66 2.95 DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW Department Description The Riverside County Transportation Commission has directed efforts in the areas of regional commuter rail, intercity passenger rail, high speed rail, and capital improvements to support enhanced passenger and freight rail service. The entire program includes elements of planning, programming, commuter rail development and support, station and corridor management, mitigation of community and environmental impacts, legislative and regulatory advocacy, and construction of capital projects. Many elements are managed or supported by other RCTC departments, by Bechtel project management, and by legal counsel and consultants. Departmental efforts contributing to the rail program are found throughout the budget document. Coordination and consultation also occurs with a variety of public and private entities, including the California Transportation Commission, Caftans, Califomia Public Utilities Commission, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Amtrak, environmental agencies, the University 'of California, transit providers, SLAG, WRCOG, CVAG, local govemments, private freight railroads, businesses and property owners. Commuter Rail The Commission participates in the ongoing funding and govemance of the Southem California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), a joint powers authority consisting of the transportation commissions of Riverside, San Bemardino, Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura counties. The Commission holds two voting positions on SCRRA's eleven member Board. RCTC staff serves on the five -county Technical Advisory Committee which negotiates service and funding levels, based upon the counties' established priorities, and provides technical assistance, coordination between various SCRRA and RCTC departments, and linkages to local communities. DEPARTMENT BUDGET REVIEW Key Assumptions • Metrolink Preliminary 1999/00 Budget is adopted by the Commission and SCRRA. Metrolink manages the Pedley platform extension. Ridership on the, Riverside to Los Angeles tine remains constant, while the 1E0C grow at a five percent rate. continues to • The Commission manages the station security guard Contract. ':Estimated costs are based on the actual contract terms: Major Initiatives Significant capital improvements have been made on the private freight corridors over which the Commission's rail services operate. Public investments have included the improvements necessary for limited service between Riverside and Los Angeles via Fullerton, which was originally envisioned in the rail plan for Southern Califomia but has been delayed by the availability of sufficient passenger coaches and by budget constraints within Orange County. Two reverse trips between Los Angeles and Riverside were moved to this corridor in FY 1997/98 in order to free capacity on the Riverside Line; however, demand for regular peak -direction service from Westem Riverside County through Fullerton remains. 0 32 9 5 MetrohnK Riaership 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 IEOC Riverside/LA Intercity Passenger Rail: In recent years the rail program has also focused attention on the creation of intercity passenger rail service between the Coachella Valley, Riverside and the Los Angeles basin (with future extension to the Mexican border at Calexico) through advocacy efforts with state, federal, and local government entities and negotiation with the freight railroads. The Commission's current efforts include seeking capital and operating funds and participation with seven other Southern California counties on the Interim Joint Powers Board considering intercity rail administration. High Speed Passenger Rail: The Commission continues to play a proactive role in the development of a statewide, high-speed passenger rail system, including routing of the backbone corridor through the Inland Empire. Rail -related Properties and San Jacinto Corridor Unlike the other SCRRA county agencies, RCTC owns and operates the four commuter rail stations serving Riverside County: Riverside -Downtown, The Pedley Station, Riverside -La Sierra, and West Corona. Station operation and maintenance costs are included in this rail program budget with services coordinated by RCTC's property management department. New and ongoing construction projects at these stations, funded by Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and Surface Transportation Funds, are described in the capital budget. Uti Station Operating & Maintenance Costs $769,177 General Maintenance 9% Security 60% Grounds Maintenance 0 The Commission holds title to and manages the 38-mile San Jacinto Branch Line and several adjacent properties, preserved for future passenger rail service. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad holds the freight rights in the corridor, providing service to local shippers, and performs maintenance on the line. Grants have been secured for limited capital improvements, but full funding to upgrade the line for passenger service is not yet available. Facilitating efficient freight service on the line has also become a priority. The fiscal 1999/00 Budget in the Capital Development and Delivery Section includes $500,000 for track improvements along this line Department Goals Commuter Rail Goals: Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving Riverside County. Objectives: • Increase peak -period patronage on existing lines by 10 % in FY 99/00 through increased frequencies, added sealing capacity, and improved host railroad adherence to schedules. • Increase off-peak and reverse -peak patronage by 10 % in FY 99/00 by aggressively marketing unused capacity for business, recreational and school trips. Qi.J29l • Reduce public subsidy per passenger mile traveled on lines currently serving Riverside County through economies of scale, efficient use of train sets and crew hours, and increased passenger fares. • Ensure SCRRA marketing of Saturday Service. Maximize opportunities for public use of rail -related investment. Objectives: • Support transit operator efforts to expand availability and use of connecting transit in order to improve access and reduce demand on parking capacity. • Contract for and promote.self-supporting or chartered special train service (i.e. Beach Trains, special event service, etc.). • Expand opportunities for inter -line travel through coordination of schedules with Amtrak intercity and long distance trains and other Metrolink lines. Encourage joint ticketing options. • Work toward securing Amtrak train service at Downtown Riverside. Identify and plan for capital improvements necessary to increase the scope, appeal and reliability of commuter rail operations. Objectives: • Together with SCRRA, complete a 10-year capital improvement plan as an element of SCRRA's long range Strategic Plan. • Undertake study to help identify and prioritize future new or expanded station sites within Riverside County (Tier II stations). Continue to work toward implementation of the SB1402 commuter rail system plan which envisioned additional service corridors both within Riverside County and between Riverside and Los Angeles via Fullerton. Intercity Rail Goal Maintain efforts with local agencies, other Southern California counties, the State, and the federal government to expand intercity passenger rail service into Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. Objectives: • Support Coachella Valley communities, other local agencies, and Amtrak in securing infrastructure improvements and operating funds necessary to initiate intercity rail. • Continue to work with regional framework established to expand intercity rail service into Riverside County. High Speed Rail Goal Continue to support and influence state efforts in the creation of a high speed passenger rail system along an Inland Empire alignment, through sponsorship of the Inland Empire High Speed Rail Task Force. 003298 Rail Corridor Goals Continue efforts to reduce community impacts of rail infrastructure and operation. Objectives: • Support further research and investigation into clean -fuel, altemative rail technology for both passenger and freight service in the region. • Work toward reduction of grade crossing conflicts by 1) securing the cooperation of Ca!trans, SCAG and local entities in conducting an analysis of desired grade separations and 2) advocating that additional grade separation funding be available for projects in Riverside County. Seek capital improvements, operating practices and institutional arrangements which improve the viability of corridors, serve shippers and alleviate freight rail conflicts. Plan for the incremental improvement of the San. Jacinto Branch Line and maintain and operate RCTC-owned rail infrastructure in a safe and cost-effective manner (see Property Management goals). Objective: • Complete an updated ridership forecast and feasibility analysis for the San Jacinto Branch Line, in conjunction with the preliminary engineering and design project, in order to establish a preferred time frame for construction of the passenger service related improvements. COMMUTER PROGRAMS 0ti33i T COMMUTER ASSISTANCE Mission `To encourage and promote transportation alternatives for commuters, through innovation, education and community interaction." J30 1 COMMUTER ASSISTANCE Commuter Assistance Expenditures $1,709,730 Professional b Support 12% Commuter Assistance Expenditures Personnel 6% Projects 8 Operations 82% Commuter assistance project and operating expenditures are for consultant services totaling $1,051,144 to manage the program, marketing incentives amounting to $133,500, and merchant vouchers valued at $187,900. Support costs include allocated overhead, mail and printing services, computer and equipment maintenance, communications, and other office expenses (i.e., the Spruce Street annex). In prior years, all of these costs with the exception of overhead were classified as project expenditures. Total program costs (exclusive of personnel, professional services, and overhead) amount to $1,531,094, an actual increase of 9.7%. 0 32 Expenditure Detail Personnel Salary 8 Fringe: Director -Regional issues/Communication Program Manager II Staff Analyst!! . Support Staff 9,338 73,983 97,851 91,919 111,826 76.885 31,908 28,617 27,145 (9,338) (35,141) (28,617) 27,145 (100.0)% (31.4)% (100.0)% 100.0%' Total Personnel Salary 6 Fringe 73,983 Benefits Professional 8 Support Costs Professional Costs: 97,851 123,827 149,781 103,830 (45,951) (30.7)% 65100 General Legal Services 15,820 16,686 12,500 12,500 15,000 2,500 20.0% 65400 Audit Fees 5,000 20,000 5,000 6,500 1,500 30.0% Total Professional Costs 70000 Support Costs 15,820 16,686 32,500 17,500 21,500 2,500 20.0% 35,014 44,811 40,120 58,769 188,856 130,087 221.4% Total Professional 8 Support Costs 50,834 61,497 72,620 76,269 210,356 133,727 175.3% 86100 Regional Transportation 978,936 1,141,427 1,391,920 1,378,920 1,397,544 18,624 1.4% Total Projects and 978,936 1,141,427 1,391,920 1,378,920 1,397,544 18,624 1.4% Operations Total Special Transportation 1,103,753 1,305,775 1,588,367 1,804,970 1,711,730 106,760 6.7% 1 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line item. Staffing Summary Position 96/97 Actual 97/98 Actual 98/99 Revised 99/00 Draft Director of Regional Issues/Communications .06 Program Manager II 1.12 .85 .20 .70 Staff Analyst II .00 .16 Staff Analyst I .26 Support Staff .59 .45 .34 .50 FTE 1.97 1.30 ,76 1.20 Department Overview Department Description Often characterized as the "soft" programs of Measure A, these programs provide a valuable service to the community. Use of alternate forms of transportation is encouraged and promoted through various technical assistance, incentive and educational programs offered to commuters and employers to reduce single occupant vehicle trips .and improve air quality. 3 3 �s Department Budget Review Assumptions The Commission will continue to use the existing consulting firm to manage the program for the first half of the year, but will issue an_RFP prior to the beginning (Attie: fiscal year. 1f a new firm .is selected, its management of the ,program would be phased in over six :months, i'- The Commission's core rideshare incentive programs and other services will continue with no significant changes. Major Initiatives A cornerstone of the Commuter Assistance Program is the continued partnership between commuters, employers, and government. This multifaceted approach recognizes the value of partnership. A partnership between government, business, and individuals through voluntary efforts make a collective difference in increasing the efficiency of our transportation system — local roads, freeways, commuter rail and public bus — as a result of trip reduction and decreased vehicle miles traveled. Performance is just one measurement of success. At the 1998 Association for Commuter Transportation International Awards ceremony, the Commuter Assistance Program took top honors for two of its coordinated services, the Commuter Exchange's Education on the Road service and the CommuteQuik marketing campaign. Education on the Road is a rolling transportation field trip, designed with imaginative, interactive exhibits and activities for all ages. It guides students and teachers through a structured learning experience. A key objective of this program is getting students to start thinking early about how to reduce traffic congestion and clean the air before they start driving. CommuteQuik was one of three pre -packaged promotions provided to employers to assist them in promoting ridesharing at their work sites while delivering the rideshare message in a fun upbeat way. While the Commission's Program was implemented as a specific requirement under Measure A to address congestion mitigation, two factors have continued over the last two years to impact its voluntary, business friendly approach in marketing to commuters through employers. First the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 2202 was amended to allow employers to select options other than rideshare programs to reduce air pollution. Second, the implementation of SB 836 in January 1997 exempted all employers having 100 to 249 employees at a work site from meeting Rule 2202 requirements. Two years into the rule change, statistics show that approximately 65% of employers impacted by Rule 2202 have elected to continue with a rideshare program at their work site. Although not at the level of participation prior to the rule change, employers are beginning to recognize the other values inherit in ridesharing: saving time, money, and stress while easing congestion and cleaning the air. The continuous changes to Rule 2202 directly and legislatively, (SB 836) creates a difficult and confusing environment for employers. Given that the highest percentage of rideshare arrangements are formed at work sites, voluntary employer participation is critical to addressing congestion and air quality goals as employers are the conduit to directly influencing their employees' personal transportation choices. The Program's annual Pertormance/Vli'orkload Indicators serve as a good indicator of employer participation rates over time. Through a partnership with SANBAG, $398,110 in SB 836 grant funds were received to implement three projects serving Inland Empire commuters and employers. SB 836 mandated the implementation of demonstration rideshare projects to determine if equivalent emission reductions could be achieved through voluntary efforts with employers having less than 250 employees in comparison to reductions generated under Rule 2202 regulation. Final results of these three projects should be available in mid-1999. Based on the projected success of the 1997 SB 836 project, the Commission and SANBAG again partnered for grant funds and were awarded $268,654 through SB 836 state funds for an additional demonstration project. To assist staff with the administration and ongoing operation of the Program and its multiple projects, a consulting firm has been retained annually by the Commission. The total consultant contract value is budgeted at $785,293. Although not a part of the Commission's budget, the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) contracts with the Commission for administration and implementation of its Commuter Assistance Program and employs the same .z 1.+.1 J`� consulting firm. The 1999/00 Commuter Assistance Program consists of the following core and supplemental projects. Project budgets have been developed based on experience, current trends, scope of work, goals, estimated staff hours, marketing tasks, and estimated participation rates. Core Projects • Advantage Rideshare — Freeway: To reduce single occupant vehicle trips, this short term incentive project offers up to $2/day for each day new ridesharers use an alternate mode of transportation in a three month period. Commuters must live in western Riverside County and travel to work in adjoining counties. • Advantage Rideshare — Local: To reduce single occupant vehicle trips, this short term incentive project offers up to $2/day for each day new ridesharers use an alternate mode of transportation in a three month period. Commuters must live in western Riverside County and travel to work within the county. This project also includes employer transportation forums. These forums provide continuing education and employer networking opportunities as part of the IECS overall scope of work. This project budget supports expenses not allowed under the federal Surface Transportation Program which funds all other activities of IECS. • Club Ride: To recognize the contribution of long term ridesharers, this project offers over 160 unlimited merchant discounts to commuters who live in western Riverside County and have been ridesharing at least six months. In addition, Club Ride members receive a quarterly newsletter and special discount offerings. • Commuter Exchange: To provide information and materials regarding the importance and ease of using alternate modes of transportation, the 40' mobile resource center attends various events including employer transportation fairs, community activities and schools. The Commuter Exchange recently introduced a new service called Education on the Road for third and fourth grade classes in western Riverside County. The mobile unit brings a field trip experience to elementary schools through creative and interactive lessons about the importance of Continuing their ridesharing activities when they become drivers. Customize take-home newsletters help students share what they have learned with their parents. In FY 1998/99, the Commuter Exchange expanded its Education on the Road outreach in Riverside through a Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Committee (MSRC) grant. In addition, the grant will fund the development and implementation of an Education on the Road program for elementary school sits in San Bernardino County. • Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS): To support voluntary efforts by local employers in maintaining and implementing rideshare activities at work sites. This project provides services and tools to Riverside County employers including: technical assistance; continuing education through transportation forums and Rideshare Connection, a broadcast fax; theme marketing campaign materials including state rideshare week; ride matching and AVR survey services; and other specialized efforts as determined by changing conditions. Staff actively participates with other regional and state rideshare entities to provide leadership and coordination of services to Riverside County employers. • Buspool Subsidies: To facilitate the use of buspools originating in Riverside County, this project offers a $25 per seat per month subsidy ($1,175/bus/month) to employer and/or commuter operated buspools. Budget supports three existing buspools and reserves funding for one new buspool. • Southern California Rideshare: To support the provision of core regional rideshare services as defined through the Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition annual process. Funding is provided based on a population formula to maintain a regional rideshare database, produce Ride Guides, staff the 1-800-COMMUTE telephone customer information line, and conduct various studies and regional marketing activities. • Keys to the Future — Inland Empire Voluntary Ridesharing Incentive Project: To develop voluntary rideshare participation by Riverside and San Bernardino County employers with less than 250 employees. This project provides extended outreach to employers who have not implemented a match list survey for the past 18 months or employers who have terminated their rideshare efforts. It offers assistance in executing a ride matching survey, marketing short-term financial incentives and enrolling long term ridesharers in a rewards program known as Team Ride. • Special Project Development/Contingencies: To provide flexibility in addressing changing conditions or needs in providing transportation demand management services to employers and commuters within a fiscal year this project allocates funds for work efforts not anticipated such as special promotions, transportation fairs, studies, reduced funds, etc. Ouv3ub Fundin_g Sources Core Projects Project Type Measure "A" CMAQ SB 836 MSRC 99/00 Budget Advantage Rideshare — Freeway Commuter Incentive $171,215 $171,215 Advantage Rideshare — Local Commuter Incentive $181,354 $181.354 Club Ride Commuter Incentive $183,103 $183,103 Commuter Exchange Public Education $99,094 $99,094 Commuter Exchange — MSRC Public Education $32,870 I $32,870 Inland Empire Commuter Services Employer Services $268,648 . $268.648 Buspool Subsidies Commuter Incentive $56,400 $56,400 Southern California Rideshare Employer Services $267, 901 $267, 901 Keys to the Future Commuter Incentive $268,654 $268,654 Special Project Development/Contingencies Employer Services $25,500 $25,500 TOTAL $716,666 $536,549 $268,654 $32,870 $1,554,739 The Commuter Assistance Program is designed as a three pronged approach offering: 1) Incentives to first time and long-term ridesharers through Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride; 2) Rideshare services and tools to employers through Inland Empire Commuter Services; and 3) Education for the general public, employer work sites and elementary schools through the Commuter Exchange. Commuter Assistance Program Budget Public Education 8% Commuter Incentives 56% 0U3300 Employer Se 36% MOTORIST ASSISTANCE Mission "To improve safety and convenience to motorists who experience mechanical difficulty on the roadway" 0u' 307 MOTORIST ASSISTANCE Motorist Assistance Expenditures Professional & Suppo. 20% Person 15% Project & Operations 65% Motorist Assistance Expenditures Budgeted expenditures for project operations include $972,158 in towing charges for the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), and $675,900 for the Service Authority For Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) to cover access charges, knockdowns, vandalism, maintenance, and CHP operations. In addition to the staffing costs for the program manager and the Chief Financial Officer for general supervision, the Director of Planning and Programming has been budgeted $9,330 for oversight of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) activities. Professional services costs of $90,000 is a consultant contract that monitors the Commission's call boxes and provides monthly operating and statistical reports. Gu3308 Expenditure Detail Personnel Salary B Fringe: Chief Financial Officer 1,838 Director -Plans and Programs 19,977 24,068 11,222 8,616 9,330 814 9.6% Program Manager11 62,670 88,321 120,087 71,615 65,899 (5,716) -8.0% Staff Analyst 1 15,252 Support Staff(1) 27,280 Total Personnel Salary 8 Fringe Benefits Professional and Support Costs Professional Costs: 87,899 112,378 131,309 80,130 104,347 24,217 30.2% 65100 General Legal Services 5,078 931 4,000 2,000 3,500 1,500 75.0% 65500 Other Professional Services 49,969 76,086 70,781 55,850 90,000 34,150 61.1% Total Professional Costs 65,047 77,016 74,781 57,850 93,500 35,650 61.6% 70000 Support Costs 76,064 80,453 72,244 67,435 103,046 35,611 52.8% Total Professional and Support Costs 130,111 157,469 147,025 125,285 196,546 71,261 56.9% Projects and Operations 31000 Projects General 25,000 81000 Towing 545,312 523,458 679,628 657,800 972,158 314,358 47.8% 81000 Access Charges 121,457 119,719 133,380 137,700 133,950 (3,750) -2.7% 81000 Preventive Maintenance 77,560 78,156 83,520 83,520 83,520 81000 Corrective Maintenance 108,443 114,024 117,624 117,624 119,990 2,366 2.0% 81000 Knockdowns 69,713 101,142 108,000 90,100 108,000 17,900 19.9% 81000 Vandalisms 11,990 12,564 36,000 17,000 14,400 (2,600) -15.3% 81000 CHP Operating Costs 249,896 203,295 229,200 229,200 . 216,040 (13,160) -5.7% 81500 Special Studies 336,936 125,355 Total Projects and Operations 1,521,307 1,277,713 1,387,352 1,332,944 1,673,058 340,114 25.6% Capital Outlay 90000 Capital Outlay -Equipment 12,077 176,080 28,600 5,521 (5,521)-100.0% Total Motorist Assistance 1,751,394 1,723,640 1,694,186 1,543,880 1,973,951 430,071 1 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line item. Staffing Summary Staff Position 96/97 Actual 97/98 Actual 98/99 Revised 99/00 Draft Chief Financial Officer .01 Director -Planning & Programming .46 .21 .05 .07 Program Manager II .71 .86 .50 .60 Support Staff .57 .56 .40 .50 FTE 1.74 1.63 .95 1.18 0u33ti Department Overview Department Description The Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) is the call box system that allows motorists to call for assistance in the event of a mechanical breakdown on the freeway. Additionally, the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) assists stranded motorists on the freeway by towing, changing tires, providing a gallon of fuel, etc., at no charge to the motorists. DEPARTMENT BUDGET REVIEW Assumptions There will be no new callboxinstaliations. • Existing level of vandalism and knockdownswill remain consistentvrith the past year. • Maintenance costs are adjusted by the Consumer Price index (CPO. • CHP operating costs are based on CHP estimate andzontractterms Consultant costs are an estimate by staff and will be adjusted once actual bids from an RFP process are received. Service is expanded on County highways. Major initiatives Call box dispatching services have been handled by the California Highway Patrol since inception of the program. Neighboring counties are exploring the possibility of contracting with a private firm to provide this service. The benefits appear to be faster and more responsive services for commuters at lower costs. The Commission will explore this altemative and analyze whether it is more effective and cost efficient to privatize call box dispatching. Service expansion for the Freeway Service Patrol will come in two forms. First, there are plans for two new vehicles on Interstate 15 between State Routes 91 and 60. The service hours will be increased by one hour daily in the afternoon on all routes. This is possible as it is anticipated that the State will significantly increase its support for the FSP program. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 003310 0% IN Professional & Support 0 Towing ❑ CHP Support ■ Call Box Maintenance ® Call Box Operations Department Goals Maintain the integrity of the call box system and service levels. Objective: • Along with other Southem California SAFE's, analyze CHP Dispatch Center call answering performance to determine if privatization of service is warranted. Continue the Freeway Service Patrol as long as state funding support is available, examine the possibilities of providing service on 1-15 if increased funding is available, and assist Caltrans to provide a similar construction tow service in areas of the highways where temporary construction is under way. Objectives: • Consult with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to determine if service on 1-15 is justified if additional funding is made available. • Review construction projects with Caltrans and coordinate the use of temporary tow service to mitigate congestion. • Work cooperatively with Caltrans, the Califomia Highway Patrol, and other FSP program managers to achieve long term/permanent funding for the program and review the funding allocation formula to attain a more equitable distribution of program funds. Explore cost effective ways to provide access to persons with disabilities. Objective: • Continue to review the feasibility of TTY installation for the hearing impaired with Caltrans, the CHP, and other SAFE's as well as improve site accessibility for persons with disabilities. FUND BUDGETS Budgetary Basis The Commission accounts for its ten budgeted funds primarily using governmental accounting. Governmental accounting differs from full accrual accounting in that there are a number of expenditures that are recorded'when cash is disbursed. This is known as the modified accrual basis of accounting, and is the basis for the Commission's fiscal 1999/00 budget and its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when received and available to meet current year obligations. Only those revenues which are guaranteed as to receipt, based on expenditure of funds (i.e., govemment matching funds), or certain to be received within ninety days of the end of the fiscal year (e.g., interest eamings due from the County of Riverside; safe fees due from the State of California), are recorded as revenues. Budget Authorization and Amendment Process The Commission authorizes expenditures according to administration, programs, capital outlay, and other financing uses. As long as management does not exceed budgeted amounts in these broad classifications, it may transfer amounts among individual line items according to function and between financial responsibility units defined as the General Fund, Measure A Funds, Motorist Assistance Funds, and the State Transit Assistant Fund. Any other budget changes require the authorization of the Commission, including use of the budgeted contingency. The Commission may take action at any monthly meeting to amend the budget. Those amendments are incorporated into the mid year budget revision process or reflected in the CAFR by adjusting budget vs. actual statements. Fund Structure There are a total of ten funds which account for the Commission's budgeted resources categorized into the three primary fund types --the General Fund, the Special Revenue Funds, and the Capital Projects Funds. There is only one reported General Fund, although General Fund resources and expenditures can be segregated between Measure A and other activities. Special Revenue Funds consist of six funds and the Capital Projects funds are separated into three different funds. Non -Budgeted Funds In addition to the ten budgeted funds, the Commission uses two fiduciary fund types -agency funds and expendable trust funds, one proprietary fund type, and one debt service fund. Budgets are not adopted by the Commission for the Debt Service Fund, the Fiduciary Funds, or the Proprietary Fund. The Commission's payment of interest and principal on outstanding debt, along with related servicing fees, flows through the Debt Service Fund. The Debt Service Fund is not budgeted as the resources for payment of debt are budgeted in the Special Revenue Funds. The monies in the expendable trust fund are monitored and controlled by means of an annual allocation process and by legal and statutory requirements. The resources for the Internal Senvice Fund are budgeted in the General and Special Revenue funds. GENERAL FUND Overview The General Fund of the Commission is used to account for all activities not legally required or designated by Board action to be accounted for separately. For many public agencies the General Fund is the largest fund. The Commission's largest revenue source is a locally levied sales tax which legally must be separately accounted for. For the Commission this results in the Special Revenue, and when bonds are issued against those sales taxes, the Capital Projects Funds, accounting for the significant portion of the Commission's programs and projects. 0 33 5 • The Commission's commuter rail operations, short range transit planning, fund programming, property management, clean fuel and air quality, and a portion of administration are accounted for in the General Fund. Capital programs not funded with Measure A sales tax revenues or not requiring significant up front expenditures (i.e., expenditures to be reimbursed), are also accounted for in the General Fund. The revenue sources for the General Fund are Measure A sales tax for administration (accounted for separately but combined with the RCTC General Fund for reporting purposes); Transportation Development Act (TDA) sales tax for administration and planning; TDA Article 4 funds for transit operations and capital; user fees from licenses and leases; state highway account (SB45) funding for project planning; various other state and federal reimbursements not accounted for in the other funds; and investment income. Revenues Other 2% General Fund Revenues Measure A FTA 16% 5% :.:.. s f, SB45 TDA 58% STP 6% FY 96/97 Actual FY 97/98 Actual FY 98/99 Budget _ FY 98/99 Rvsd. FY 99/00 Budget % chg Act • % chg Rev. REVENUE SOURCES Measure A sales tax 1,525,500 1,607,607 1,771,875 1,500,000 2,000,000 24.4% 33.3% Transportation Development Act (TDA) sales tax Article 3 Administration 440,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 375,000 25.0% 25.0% Article 3 Planning 858,000 897,000 994,500 994,500 1,1E10,263 31.6% 18.7% Article 4 Transit 3,800,185 4,124,424 4,350,000 4,153,679 5,700,000 38.2% 37.2% State Funding State Highway Account(SB45) 125,000 325,000 1,690,210 100% 1194.5% State Dept. of Transportation reimbursement 850,000 976,539 OuJJ14 Federal Funding Federal Transit Administration qurface Transportation Program(STP) 300.000 350.000 600,000 800,000 100°° 100°:° I 100°° 128.5°° gestion Mitigation & Air Quality(CMAQ) 593.736 Other reimbursements SCRRA excess operating contribution 939.717 193,974 Miscellaneous 180,000 User Fees Licenses and Leases 281,336 245,990 235.000 235,000 235,000 Special Events 67,323 53,949 120,000 100°° 100°° Other 175.341 76,527 Interest 211,883 234,059 39.000 155.000 128,250 (45.2%) (17.3°0) TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 8,893,021 7,913,540 8,975,365 8,989.718 12,828,723 62.7°° ' 42.7°° Measure A sales tax revenues are for administration. The increase over the prior year reflects support staff increases, costs associated with the strategic plan effort, Commission requested actions to improve and increase staff training and external communications. The administrative allocation is adjusted at midyear based on needed expenditures, but in no event will exceed four percent of total Measure "A" revenues (including administrative salaries and benefits). TDA sales tax revenues fund administration, planning staff and studies, and transit operations and capital for rail services. The increases are for the following reasons: • The allocation for administration reflects the increased levels of administrative support necessary for an expanded board, increased training, and expanded media and public agency outreach and communication. • • Planning money is set by law at three percent of estimated Local Transportation Fund LTF) sales tax revenues. A combination of the estimated growth in sales tax revenues and higher than expected carryover funds (also as a result of strong revenue growth), has yielded a much higher allocation for planning than the prior year. • Transit funding is also tied to sales tax revenue growth. The allocation of funding to transit operators, however, is based on need. Higher Metrolink and Commission operated station costs has increased the allocation for the FY2000 budget. The monies expected from the State Highway Account (SB45) are derived from the Commission's two percent share of Regional Choice funding. This will be used to pay for staff SB45 activities and the CETAP effort. The federal funding, STP and FTA, will be used for rail right of way purchases and various rail capital projects. Expenditures _ _. • GENERAL FUND FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 °% to % to Actual Actual Budget Revised Draft Actual Revised - - - _ _. EXPENDITURES - Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits 996,195 1,148.402 1.232.560 1,376,242 1,545,109 34.5% 12.3 % Professional & Support 65100 General Legal Services 241,419 189,861 173,000 138.000 154.500 -18.6% 12.0% 65200 Special Legal Services 74,732 20,529 25,000 10,000 10,000 -51.3 % 65300 Financial Services 63,878 54,468 97,500 206,400 198,000 263.5% -4.1% 65400 Audit Services 280,328 360,601 211,150 343,500 358,300 -0.6% 4.3% 65500 Professional Services -Other 347,657 425,724 451,639 699,527 852563 100.3% 21.9% 73000 Office Lease / Utilities 277,654 279,399 306,907 306,907 311,700 11.6% 1.6% 73100 Office Expenses 158,321 206,200 170.208 224,446 295,978 43.5% 31.9% 73200 Communications 45,801 53,233 57,556 53,580 47,940 -9.9% -10.5% 73300 Maintenance 178,856 187,958 230,346 230,346 205,152 9.1 % -10.9% 73400 Insurance 68,722 64,1104 78,805 66,834 79,900 23.3% 19.5% 73500 Data Processing 20,308 15,680 17,766 15,745 31,020 97.8% 97.0% 73600 Staff Related Expenses 78,462 73,171 122,275 146,884 210,595 187.8% 43.4% 73700 Information / Publicity 80,182 112,854 165,158 141,000 78,020 -30.9% -44.7% SUBTOTAL 1,916,320 2,044,482 2,107,310 2,583,169 2,833,668 38,6% 9.7% Project and Operations 81000 Station Operations 442,192 486,877 437,537 437,537 626,01)0 28.6% 43.1 % 81100 Rail Engineering 50,000 176,539 762,150 100% 331.7% 81300 Rail Construction 950 400,000 42005.3 % 100.0% 81400 Rail ROW 86,048 600,000 597.3% 100.0% 81500 Special Studies 55,670 202,923 235,000 225,000 1,805,000 789.5% 702.2% 86000 SCRRA Capital Contribution 1,234,386 1,316,099 1,150,000 1,150,000 300,000 -77.2% -73.9% 86000 SCRRA • . eratin: Contribution 2,687,200 2,933,460 3,088,650 3,088,650 3,310,000 12.8 % 7.2 % SUBTOTAL 4,419,448 5,026,357 4,961,187 5,077,726 7,803,150 55.2% 53.7% Other 86200 LTF Disbursements 305,095 _ 309,000 327,295 397,295 518,609 67.8% 30.5% 90000 Ca. nal Outla 37,240 122,745 129,438 82,438 52,640 -57.1 % -36.1 % SUBTOTAL 342,335 431,745 456,733 479,733 571,249 32.3% 19.1% Other Financing(Sources)Uses 97000 •.eratin• Transfers Out 910,000 20,000 100.0% 100.0% SUBTOTAL 910,000 20,000 100.0% 100.0% Contingencies 180,000 180,000 225,000 100.0% 25.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 8,584,298 8.650,986 8,937,790 9,696,870 12,998,176 50.3% 34.0% Personnel salary and fringe benefits have increased from the Revised Budget by 12.3%. This increase reflects staff additions, merit increases and related fringe benefit costs, set asides for tuition assistance, increases in health care premiums, and non recurring costs for buy out of sick leave benefits (See Personnel Section). Professional and Support Costs have increased $2,504.99 due to set asides for the Executive Director's single signature authority and significantly increased emphasis on training for staff and Commissioners, as well as heightened communication and public outreach programs. OuJ316 Project and Operations Costs are up by $2,725,424 due to CETAP studies and design and construction of the historic Santa Fe Depot. The SCRRA contribution has increased principally due to higher administrative costs at Metrolink. Commission owned and operated commuter rail stations have increase due to security guard costs and budgeting for special trains (offset by fare revenues). Other costs (including other financing uses) are increased intergovernmental disbursements to CVAG and WRCOG to fund their respective planning activities. The increase is possibly due to higher TDA sales tax revenues (See the Revenue Section). SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Overview The Commission's Special Revenue Funds are legally restricted as to use. Measure A sales tax, a number of state budgetary allocations, and vehicle users fees are all accounted for in six Special Revenue Funds. Significant state and federal reimbursements and project matching funds are used to supplement the Measure A sales tax. The Special Revenue Fund resources are expended on highway, rail, and regional arterial design and construction, local streets and roads maintenance; repair, and construction; education and incentive programs to encourage ridesharing; special social service transportation programs, fixed route transit operation and capital needs; and motorist towing and freeway call box assistance. Revenues State/Federal 10% Ot 3 Special Revenue Funds Interest 2% • Measure A Sales Tax 85% FY 96/97 Actual FY 97/98 Actual FY 98/99 Budget FY 98/99 Rvsd. FY 99/00 Budget % chg Act. % chg Rev. 0v�317 REVENUE SOURCES 1 Measure A sales tax Highways 18.061,767 19,865,014 20,475.178 21.484.256 22,923,060 15.4% 6.7°0 Commuter Rail 6.629.924 7,302,019 7.514,674 7.885.020 8,413,080 15.2% 6. Regional Arterial 5,910,038 6,435.212 6,706.953 7,037.492 7,508,794 16.70° 6.7% Local Streets & Roads 22.240,196 24,427,219 25,163,696 26,403,839 28,172,108 15.3% 6.7°° Special Transportation / Transit 3.520.730 3,859.151 3,992,624 4,189,393 4,469,957 15.8% 6.7°0 Total Measure A 56,362,649 61,888,615 63,853,125 67,000,000 71,487,000 15.5% 6.7% . State Funding • SB836 260,065 268,654 1..3% State Dept. of Transportation FSP Budget Allocation 501,691 599,747 636,300 533,300 810,000 35.1% 51.9% State Rail Bonds 1 1,022,744 4,749,367 3,346,300 3,294,300 State Transit Grant 1 1,812,380 1,982,721 2,360,478 2,360,478 2,395,666 20.8% 1.5°° Federal Funding Federal Transit Administration 3.775.000 775,000 4,151,250 435.6°° Surface Transportation Program (STP) 574.500 74,500 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) 312,886 908,250 908,250 664,781 112.5% 26.8°° Other Reimbursements 32,870 222,870 Local 1 1,429,792 1,839,342 1,444,234 1,444,234 1,444,234 21.5% -0- Miscellaneous 424.030 362,728 User Fees Vehicle Registration Fees 1 1,033,019 1,060,791 1,040,000 1,065,000 1,081,200 1.9% 1.5% Other 72,864 2,310 350,000 Interest 2 2,271,830 2,065,765 1,295,775 1.277,465 1,823,134 11.7% 42.7% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 64,930,999 75,124,337 79,266,832 75,305,397 84,125,919 12.0% 11.7% Measure A Special Revenue --Of the Special Revenue Funds, three are funded primarily with Measure A sales tax revenue --the Western County Operating Fund, the Palo Verde Valley Operating Fund, and the Coachella Valley Operating Fund. These three funds account for all Measure A expenditures that are not paid from debt proceeds. n' Measure A Sales Tax Palo Verde Valley Coachella Valle 26.26% estern County 72.54% Western County Measure A Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Western Riverside County's 72.5% share of the Measure A sales tax. Since the sales tax leverages state and federal dollars, the largest share of the Commission's reimbursements flow through this fund. Percentage of Total Revenues West Cty. Operating 59°% Other Funds 41 °% 0uC3i9 FY 98/99 Rvad. FY 99/00 Budget T- DOS Variance % chg Rev. REVENUE SOURCES Measure A sales tax Highways 18.845,197 20,107,262 1.262.065 6.7°0 Commuter Rail 7,885,020 8.413,080 528.060 ( 6.7% Local Streets & Roads 19.440,157 20,742,067 1.310.910 6.7% Conln7uter Assistance 1,215,010 1,2%,379 81,369 6.7% 1 Special Transportation / Transit 1,215,010 1,2%2379 81,369 6.70 ° Total Measure A 48,600,394 51,855,167 3,284,773 6.7°,0 State Funding SB836 268,654 268,654 100.0% State Rail Bonds 3,294,300 (3,294300) (100.0)°,0 Federal Funding Federal Transit Administration 775,000 4,151,250 3,376,250 435.6°,0 Surface Transportation Program (STP) 74,500 (74,500) (243,469) (100.0).° (26.8)% Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) 908,250 664,781 Other Reimbursements 572,870 (572,870) 588.873 (100.0)%. (87.2)% Interest 675,511 1,264,384 TOTAL WESTERN COUNTY OPERATING 54,900,825 _ 58,204,238 2,303,413 4.2% As the above table demonstrates, total revenues for the Western County Operating Fund are up 4.2%, principally due to Measure A sales tax projections (See Revenue Section). Most of the state bonds available to fund rail projects have been expended. For the most part, the Commission has replaced the state funding for rail with Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 funding. The increase in interest income reflects the investment earnings on highway reserves. Those reserves are set aside for sound wall construction projects along Route 91 and improvements to Route 74. Coachella Valley Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Coachella Valley's 26.3% share of the Measure A sales tax. Percentage of Total Revenues Coachella Vly Operating 2.0 .......................... (nnerfunds 79% F' 98/99 Rvsd. IT 99/00 Budget D°112r Variance % chg Rey. REVENUE SOURCES Measure A sales tax Highways 2,639,060 2,815,798 176.738 6.7°0 Regional Arterial 7,037,492 7,508,794 476,302 6.7% Local streets & roads 6_157, 806 6 570,195 412_389 6.7°-0 Special transportation/transit 1,759,373 1,877,199 117,826 6.7% Total Measure A 17.593,731 18,771,986 1,178.255 6.7°0 Other Reimbursements 1,444.234 1,444,234 Interest 284,714 298,500 13,786 4.8% TOTAL COACHELLA VALLEY OPERATING 19,322.679 20,514,720 1,192.041 6.2°o Other reimbursements represent the Coachella Valley's TUMF program share of the debt service on the 1993 Series A bonds used to fund regional arterial improvements. Palo Verde Valley Operating Fund This special revenue fund accounts for Palo Verde Valley's 1.2% share of the Measure A sales tax. Total Fund Revenues Other Funds 99% Palo Verde Vly Operating 1% FY 98/99 Rvsd. FY 99/00 Budget Dollar Variance 'V. chg Rev. REVENUE SOURCES Measure A sales tax Local Streets & Roads f 805 876 859 846 53,970 6.7°ro Interest _ 1,851 1.851 100.0% TOTAL COACHELLA VALLEY OPERATING 805,876 861,697 55.821 6.9% NON MEASURE A SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Freeway Service Patrol Fund The Freeway Service Patrol Fund accounts for the state and local resources provided to cover the costs of servicing stranded motorists by means of towing, changing tires, and providing fuel. FY 98/99 Rvsd. FY 99/00 Budget Dollar Variance % chg Rev. REVENUE SOURCES , State Allocation 533,300 810,000 276.700 51.9°io Operating Transfer from SAFE 153,075 202.500 49,425 32.3% Interest 2,000 6,750 4,750 237.5% TOTAL FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL 688,375 1,019,250 330,875 _ 48.1% SAFE 0u 3 ,2 FSP Revenues 80% Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) The SAFE fund accounts for the $1 per vehicle user fee levied on all registered vehicles within the County. It funds emergency aid call boxes located strategically on the highways throughout the County. FY 98/99 Rvsd. _ FY 99/00 Budget Dollar Variance % chg Rev. REVENUE SOURCES User Fees 1,065,000 1,081,200 16,200 1.5° o Interest 100,000 118,500 18.500 18.5% TOTAL SAFE 1.165,000 1,199,700 34.700 3.0% State Transit Assistance Fund State transit assistance funds rail and bus transit operations and capital requirements. FY 98/99 Rvsd. FY 99/00 Budget Dollar Variance % chg Rev. REVENUE SOURCES State Budgetary Allocation 2,360,478 2,395,666 35.188 1.5% Interest 215,240 135,000 (80,240) (37.3)% TOTAL STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE 2,575,718 2,485,666 (90,052) (3.5)% The allocation is strictly based on estimates of gas tax revenues and is provided by the Controller of the State of California. It is subject to annual state budget appropriation. EXPENDITURES Project & Operati 28% Special Revenue Funds Other 2% Debt 36% eets & Roads 34 % 0 0323 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FY %/97 Actual FY 97/98 FY 98/99 Actual Budget FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Draft % to Actual % to Revised EXPENDITURES Personnel Salary & Fringe Benefits 555,878 481,127 628.546 541.619 631.089 31.2% 16.5% Professional & Support 65100 General Legal Services 750,684 190,504 152,000 187,000 200500 5.2% 7.2% 65300 Financial Services 132 366 3,600 12,000 3178.7% 233.3% 65400 Audit Services 5,076 28,338 78,850 62,100 60,700 114.2% 2.3% 65500 Professional Services -Other 77,450 105,665 198,281 138,543 144,493 36.7% 4.3% 73000 Office Lease / Utilities 12,144 12,745 13,200 13,200 13,200 3.6% -0- 73100 Office Expenses 15,678 21.098 11.549 31,451 140.235 564.7% 345.9% 73200 Communications 20,452 18,207 3,674 3,420 23590 29.6% 589.8% 73300 Maintenance 33,164 36,738 1,950 1,950 105,440 187.0% 5307.2% 73400 Insurance 4,217 4,136 5,030 4,266 5,100 23.3 % 19.5 % 73500 Data Processing 1,397 825 1,134 1,005 1,980 140.0% 97.0% 73600 Staff Related Expenses 5,012 5,455 7,805 9,376 23,940 338.9% 155.3 % 73700 Information / Publicity 9,691 6,485 10,542 9,000 75,480 1063.9% 738.7% SUBTOTAL 935,097 430,562 484,015 464,911 806,658 87.4% 73.5% Project and Operations 81001 Program Management 969,995 1,825,204 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,550,000 15,1 % 3.1 % 81002 Park N Ride Lease Payments 33,900 33,900 53,900 53,900 53,900 59,0% -0- 81003 Projects -General 250 130,000 40,000 150,000 275.0% 810XX SAFE Operations 639,059 628,900 734,124 694,144 700,900 11.4% 1.0% 81020 Towing 542,087 519,941 679,628 657,800 972,158 87.0% 47.8% 8103X Commuter Assistance 966,812 1,139,484 1,391,920 1,378,920 1,372,544 20.5% 0.5% 811XX Engineering 768,116 1,284,960 190,250 194,568 550,000 57.2% 182.7% 813XX Construction 1,347,557 9,676,470 10,851,300 3,801,300 6,828,176 29.4% 79.6% 814XX Right of Way 728,405 1,078,927 4,568,656 22,352 1,281,401 18.8% 5632.8% 81500 Special Studies 454,449 150,619 861XX Special Transportation/transit 2,703,314 3,555,384 3,052,561 3,052,561 3,271,399 8.0% 7.2% 863XX State Transit Assistance(STA) disbursements 1,269,583 1,535,401 2,746,194 2,186,116 2,395,666 56.0% 9.6% 864XX Regional Arterial 406,396 20,667,758 7,225,624 9.283,577 4,230,599 79.5% 54.4% SUBTOTAL 10,829,924 42,096,946 33,224,157 22,965,238 23,356,743 44.5% 1.7% Other 86104 Local Streets & Roads 22,240,190 24,382,462 25,163,696 26,579,715 28,172,108 15.5% 6,0% 90000 Capital Outlay SUBTOTAL 16,438 183,915 36,762 10,783 3,360 98.2% 68.8% 22,256,628 24,566,377 25,200,458 26,590,498 28,175,468 14.7% 6.0% Other Financing (Sources) Uses 97000 Operating Transfers (net) 35,140 (919,457) (529.640) (509,611) (1,947,691) 111.8% 282.2% 971X0C Operating Transfers Out -Debt 25,242,710 30,364,728 28,910,476 28,883,780 30,580,224 0.7% 5.9% SUBTOTAL 25,277,850 29,445,271 28,380,836 28,374,169 28,632,533 2.8% 0.9% Contingencies 1,207,000 1,207,000 1385,000 26.7 % TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 59,855,377 97,020,285 89,125,012 80,143,435 82,487,491 15.0% 2.9% Measure A Special Revenue --The Measure A Special Revenue Funds are expended on capital construction and improvements to highways, commuter rail, regional arterials, and local streets and roads. Funding is also reserved for commuter assistance and specialized transit programs. All revenues from the Measure A sales tax have been pledged as security for the Com tnission's senior debt and commercial paper notes. (Note: Currently there are no outstanding commercial paper notes). Although debt service is recorded in the Debt Service Fund, most of the resources for the cash payments are provided by the Measure A Special Revenue Funds (See section on Capital Projects Funds). 00�314 Western County Operating Fund FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Budget Dollar _ Variance % chg Rev. WESTERN COUNTY EXPENDITURES Personnel, Professional, & Support 727.310 948,143 220.833 30.4% Measure A Program Management 1,450,000 1,400,000 (50,000) (3.4)% Highway Engineering 425,000 425.000 100.0°/° Highway Construction Highway Right of Way 1,136,397 1,136,397 100.0% Rail Engineering 90,000 35,000 (55,000) (61.11% Rail Construction 3,501,300 4,116.250 614,950 17.6% Rail Right Of Way 22,352 22,352 Commuter Assistance 1,378,920 1,372,544 (6,376) (0.5)0,0 Special Transportation 1,250,000 1,250,000 Local Streets & Roads 19,616,033 20,742,067 1,126.034 5.7% Other 1,258,900 928,900 (330,000) (26.2)% Debt 20,913,421 21,191,867 278,446 1.3% TOTAL WESTERN COUNTY 50,208,236 53,568,520 3,360.284 6.7% Coachella Valley Operating Fund FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Budget Dollar Variance % chg Rev. COACHELLA VALLEY EXPENDITURES Measure A Program Management 150,000 150,000 Highway. Engineering 104,568 90,000 (14,568) (13.9)% Highway Construction 300,000 2,711,926 2,411,926 804,0% Highway Right of Way 122,652 122.652 100.0% Regional Arterial 9,283,577 4,230,599 (5,052,978) (54.4)% Special Transportation/Transit 1,802,561 2,021,399 218,838 12.1% Local Streets & Roads 6,157,806 6,570,195 412,389 6.7% Other 250,000 250.000 100.0% Debt 7,460,748 7,440,666 (20,082) (0.3%) TOTAL COACHELLA VALLEY 25,259,260 23,587,437 (1,671.823) (6.7)% Non Measure A Special Revenue Funds --The non Measure A Special Revenue funds account for motorist assistance expenditures including freeway call boxes and towing service, as well as transit disbursements from the State Transit Assistance Program. These activities are budgeted in the Freeway Service Patrol Fund, the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, and the State Transit Assistance Fund. Gtly �` �a.J Freeway Service Patrol Fund accounts for the Commission's towing service, which is jointly funded by Caltrans and the Commission. FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Draft Dollar Variance % chg Rev. FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL Personnel, Professional, & Support 83,672 258,399 174,727 208.8% Towing 657,800 972,158 314,358 47.8% Other 22.205 11,075 (11,130) (50.1)% 62.6% TOTAL FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL 763.677 1,241,632 477,955 The state has significantly increased its allocation for this service. The state has requested that two trucks be added to Route 60 as a congestion mitigation measure during the construction of additional lanes. Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Fund accounts for the installation and maintenance of a freeway call box system within Riverside County. FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Draft Dollar Variance % chg Rev. SAFE Personnel, Professional, & Support 195,547 314,878 119,331 61.0% Access Charges 137,700 133,950 (3,750) (2.7)% Preventive Maintenance 83,520 83,520 Corrective Maintenance 117,624 119,990 2,366 2.0% Knockdowns 90,100 108,000 17,900 19.9% CHP Operating Costs 229,000 216,040 (12,960) (5.7)% Vandalism 17,000 14,400 (2,600) (15.3)% Operating Transfer 153.075 202,500 49.425 32.3% Other 30,578 27,285 1,220,563 (3,293) 166,419 (10.8)% 15.8% TOTAL SAFE 1,054,144 State Transit Assistance Fund is used to account for the state budgetary allocation of gas tax revenues designated for transit purposes. The increase assumes expenditure of all current year funding, and a portion of prior year reserves. FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Draft Dollar Variance % chg Rev, STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE Claimant Allocations 1186,116 2,395,666 209,550 9.6% TOTAL STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE The budget assumes that the entire state grant is allocated to claimants. The actual allocation will not occur until early summer. At mid year, the budget is adjusted to reflect the actual allocations. '326 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Overview The Capital Projects Funds account for all debt proceeds from senior bonds, including debt reserve funds, and commercial paper notes. Major expenditures are for highways (including interchanges). The last debt issued by the Commission was in August 1997. Over the next two years, these funds will diminish in activity since no further debt issuance is anticipated. Revenues Other Capital Projects Funds ent Income 77% Other revenues consist of interest payments from Temecula, Canyon Lake, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Corona for outstanding loans. 003327 IFY 96/97 1 Actual FY 97/98 Actual FY 98/99 Budget FY 98/99 Revised _ FY 99/00 Budget % chg % chg Act I Re%. REVENUES State Funding .-a Caltrans 664,830 1,400.380 300. 000 495.000 (100.0)% (100.01°0 State rail bonds 660,656 (100.0)°0 Other reimbursements Local 1 1,660,000 992,417 (100.0)0. 0 Miscellaneous 156,016 (100.0 )° ° Other Financing Sources -Debt Proceeds Senior bond proceeds 48,116,115 (100.0)° ° Junior bond proceeds 13,313.097 (100.0)% Other 361,398 814,714 553,438 553,438 515,029 (36.8)% (8.6)% (6.9)% 6.1°0 Interest 3,546,447 1,889,489 1, 603. 100 1. 628, 100 1,726,780 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 6,232,675 67,342,883 2,456,538 2,676,538 2,241,809 (96.7)% (16.21°0 Expenditures Highway Engineer 36% ef'j Capital Project Funds Debt 20% "i <:.............. Highway Right of Way 2% Highway Construction 42% CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS FY %/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 % to % to Actual Actual Budget Revised Draft Actual Revised EXPENDITURES L Professional and Support Costs 26,440 15,446 Project and Operations 81001 Program Management 7,845 81003 Projects -General 811XX Engineering 883,333 464,044 2,041,719 1,778,170 2,595,000 459.2% 45.9% 813XX Construction 10,223,382 1,836,068 4,562,225 4,748,000 3,000,088 63.4% 36.8% 814XX Right of Way 5,453,864 414,220 758,188 150,000 63.8% 80"% 81500 Special Studies 1,610 25,000 864XX Regional Arterial 22,706,916 367,771 669,526 784,928 SUBTOTAL 39,276,950 3,082,103 7,273,470 8,034,286 5,745,088 86.4% 28.5% Other SUBTOTAL Other Financing(Sources)Uses 97000 Operating Transfers (net) 18,125 3,966,620 (529,640) (509,611) (474,745) 88.0% 6.8% 971XX Operating Transfers Out -Debt 44,729,211 1,468,437 1,468,437 1,472,946 96.7% 0.3% SUBTOTAL 18,125 48,695,831 938,797 958,826 998,201 98.0% 4.1 % Contingencies 115,000 115,000 195,000 69.6 % TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 39,321,515 51,793,380 8,327,267 9,108,112 6,938,289 86.6% 23.8% Coachella Valley Construction Fund FY 98/99 Revised FY99/00 Draft Dollar Variance % chg Rev. COACHELLA VALLEY CONSTRUCTION Highway Construction 815,734 (815,734) (100.0)% Highway Right of Way 374,688 (374,688) (100.0)% Regional Arterial 784,928 (784,928) (34,866) (100.0)% (6.8)% Operating Transfer Out 509,611 474,745 TOTAL COACHELLA VALLEY CONSTRUCTION 2,484,961 474,745 (2,010,216) (80.9)% Since all bond proceeds for the Coachella Valley have been spent, the only activity shown in this fund are interest earnings on the Debt Reserve Fund. Those earnings are transferred to the Coachella Valley Measure A Operating Fund for regional arterial and highway expenditures. Western County Construction Fund F FY 98/99 FY 99/00 Dollar % chs WESTERN COUNTY CONSTRUCTION Revised Draft Variance Rev. Highway Engineering 2,595,000 2,595,000 100.0% Highway Construction 2 2,811,486 3,000,088 188,602 6.7% Highway Right of Way 150,000 150,000 100.0% Operating Transfer Out -Debt 1 1.468,437 1,472,946 4,509 0.3% Other 115,000 195,000 80,000 69.6% TOTAL WESTERN CTY. CONSTRUCTION 4,394,923 7,413,034 3,018,111 68.7% 0uv _r) With the use of the remaining debt proceeds from the 1997 bond issue, most of the highway projects for FY 1999/00 will be funded from the Western County Construction Fund. The intent is to exhaust those funds as quickly as possible. Western County Commercial Paper Fund FY 98/99 Revved FY 99/00 Draft Dollar Variance % chg Rev. WESTERN COUNTY COMMERCIAL PAPER Highway Engineering 1,773,170 (1,773,170) (1,120.780) (100.01°0 (100.0)% Highway Construction 1,120,780 Highway Right of Way 383,500 (383.500) (100.0)% Operating Transfer Out -Debt Other 30.000 (30,000) (100.0)°,a TOTAL WESTERN CTY. COMM. PAPER 3,307,450 (3307.450) _ (100.0)% The funds remaining in the Western County Commercial Paper Fund are anticipated to be essentially expended by the end of FY98/99. This fund will remain dormant until such time as the Commission determines to issue commercial paper notes. Gu;l330 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Metrolink Budgets for Fiscal Year 1999/00 Staff is seeking Commission adoption of the 1999/00 Metrolink operating and capital budgets and approval of RCTC's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. The preliminary budgets are reproduced here and will be presented to RCTC's Plans and Programs Committee on April 26. By virtue of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, the five member agencies which comprise the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) must formally commit to fund their proportionate shares of commuter rail operating and capital costs. Service and funding levels are limited by the policy and budget constraints of the member agencies and are negotiated each year over a period of approximately six months. The budget summary Table 2.1 on Page 11 of the document shows anticipated capital and operating revenues and expenditures of nearly $179 million. As this item was being prepared, Metrolink staff was in the process of reducing the most recent draft operating budget of $80.7 million by another $590,000. The document before you represents the final draft budget which was scheduled to be transmitted by the SCRRA Board to the member agencies on April 23, 1999. For fiscal year 1999/00, RCTC's funding obligation to SCRRA includes $2.93 million subsidy for operations and maintenance -of -way and $314,600 for capital maintenance. RCTC's local share of new capital costs were paid to SCRRA in the current fiscal year for ongoing capital projects (described as projects #3 and #5 on pages 102 -103). Staff will be available to address operating assumptions or other budget -related issues the Commission may wish to discuss. Financial Assessment 1999/00 Contribution from RCTC $3,243,000 Source of Funds C:}%;::}(:� 3sti::::::i:(:{%.}:1;C::;ni'J(}:;i v:{•i:{:c'f.•'':>:7 Included in Fiscal Year Budget Transportation Development Act (LTF & STA) Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 99/00 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation 99/00 Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the preliminary 1999/00 Metrolink combined budgets and authorize RCTC's annual allocation to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in FY1999/00 for an amount not to exceed $3.3 million, provided that: 1) Maintenance -of -way will not be deferred in any county to the extent that Metrolink's high standards of safety and quality performance will be effected; and, 2) No county which seeks to defer the proposed maintenance -of -way shall instead extend operating territory or increase levels of service. (This action does not relinquish nor convey to any other agency any of the operating rights or capacity entitlements which have been purchased by RCTC.) 00 33�': SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY PRELIMINARY BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1999/00 April 16, 1999 1(k7kliot 1IIMETROLINK Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission QVv333 I1[N)11 METROL1NK April 16, 1999 The Board of Directors Southern California Regional Rail Authority Subject: Fiscal Year 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Southern California Regional Rail Authority 700 South Flower Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-4101 I am pleased to transmit the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999/00 Preliminary Budget for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). During the next fiscal year, SCRRA will continue to operate cost-efficient services on 130 week -day trains and 20 Saturday trains. While there are no new services planned for FY 1999/00, the extensive service changes implemented on October 26, 1998 are annualized in the budget resulting in a 10% increase in train -miles over the forecast for FY 1998/99. Financial Assumptions The FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget marks the first SCRRA annual budget with no service increases. The October 26, 1998 service increase has maximized the use of existing rolling stock and until we have more equipment, no significant peak period service can be added. As a result, ridership is projected to grow at a much more conservative rate than prior years and farebox revenues are projected to grow at only 5.5%. The operating budget totals $80.1 million which represents a $2.4 million (3%) increase over the FY 1998/99 forecast amount, but a $194,000 (0.2%) decrease over the FY 1998/99 Budget. The projected increase in operating expenses is based on the following: o The October 26, 1998 service levels are annualized for FY 1999/00 leading to a 10% increase in train -miles over the forecast for FY 1998/99. o All major service contracts have built-in cost -of -living increases ranging from 2% to 6%. ❑ SCRRA in coordination with the American Public Transit Association and the Federal Railroad Administration is developing an industry -wide self-regulating System Safety Plan (part of a nationwide commuter rail program), Standard Operating Procedures, and an audit monitoring function which will be in place by October 1999. Proposed added positions and expenses related to this new activity amount to over $240,000. ❑ Administrative changes to improve internal controls and organizational management will increase the operations budget by approximately $750,000. As a result of a review by the member agency Chief Financial Officers and the SCRRA Board, investments are planned to improve financial management and internal controls. Budgeted costs include: an internal audit function; Chief Administrative Officer position; staff training; and consultant support in contracts and budget management, financial system programming, training, and upgrades. O(P33 At your April 9, 1999 meeting, I proposed changes in the organizational structure of SCRRA. These changes have not yet been approved and are not reflected in the Preliminary Budget. As proposed however, they will not have an impact on the total proposed positions or salary and benefit costs. They will impact departmental budgets, but will not impact proposed member agency subsidies. The budget illustrates the continuing growth and efficiency of Metrolink operations. Operating expenses per train -mile are calculated net of extra -ordinary maintenance and are projected to be $44.99, a 5.8% decrease compared with the FY 1998/99 Budget and a 6.2% decrease compared with the Forecast for FY 1998/99. Operating expense per passenger -mile has fluctuated between $0.32 and $0.34 since FY 1995/96 and is projected to be $0.32 in FY 1999/00. Operating subsidy per rider has decreased as the system has matured and is forecast at $5.48 for FY 1999/00. As Metrolink trips are long, a better indication of the efficiency of the system is operating subsidy per passenger -mile. This index has leveled off at $0.16 which is very competitive with other transit properties in the region. While operating expenses have increased as service levels have increased, farebox and other operating revenues have not increased as much as in prior years. This has resulted in a higher local subsidy than in prior years. Revenue recovery for FY 1999/00 is expected to be 51.0%, comparable to the FY 1998/99 Budget value of 50.3%, but less than the forecast for FY 1998/99 of 51.8%. Overall member agency contributions for operations will supplement eamed revenue and are projected at $39.5 million for the FY 1999/00 Budget. This amount is $1.2 million (3%) less than the FY 1998/99 Budget, but $1.8 million (5%) higher than the FY 1998/99 forecast. Consistent with agreements on how operating expenses are to be allocated amongst member agencies, a number of formulae are used. These calculations are included in the Appendix section of this budget document. The capital budget totals $98.2 million, representing $22.3 million in capital maintenance and $75.9 million in new capital. The Capital Budgets are also constrained by the availability of local, state and federal funds. The Capital Maintenance Budget reflects ongoing projects and new projects funded with the local funds available from the member agencies. The New Capital Budget reflects only those projects with approved funding. The document also provides a list of almost $40 million in New Capital projects for which SCRRA and its member agencies are seeking federal, state, and local funding. When funding is secured for these projects, they will be amended into the budget. I999/00 Goals The FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget is focused on building the organization to support SCRRA's long term operations and administrative functions. Specifically, I have set the following goals for SCRRA for the next fiscal year: ❑ Establish an organizational structure that will support existing operations and anticipated growth. o Establish a long-term strategic plan. ❑ Continue to improve the quality of our service. ❑ Continue to pursue more federal and state funding. 0.33335 ❑ Continue to improve our financial management, contracts and procurement, and human resources processes, practices and controls. ❑ Improve our passenger services and passenger communications. ❑ Target marketing efforts to increase ridership particularly for the off-peak, recreational and reverse commute markets. This proposed budget document represents another step in our continued effort to improve our financial management practices. Prompted by recommendations made by the Chief Financial Officers of the Member Agencies (Peer Group), SCRRA has reexamined its financial and procurement processes to institute more appropriate internal controls and more effectively communicate to SCRRA managers, member agencies and the Board our financial position and projections. We have made substantial efforts in this revised document to more clearly identify operating assumptions and financial projections as well as tie organizational responsibility to operating expenses. To facilitate monitoring of the adopted budget, we are proposing financial control policies for Board approval with this proposed budget. The proposed Financial Controls Policy is provided in the Appendix to this document and will reinforce management accountability for financial performance and operational results. While the FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget is an improvement over prior years, it is our intention to continue to make improvements in ensuing years until all issues raised by the Peer Group have been addressed. Other initiatives planned for FY 1999/00 include: ❑ Improve accounting practices and reporting. ❑ Develop regular financial reports for management and the Board. ❑ Increase the functionality and usefulness of the financial management system through training and technical changes. ❑ Develop and implement procurement policies and procedures. ❑ Increase competition by improving vendor outreach and the quality of the scopes of work in the solicitation packages. ❑ Implement an internal audit function that reports to the Audit Committee. ❑ Streamline and improve Human Resource's internal processes and communications. Challenges for the Future Fiscal Year 1999/00 will mark a new stage in Metrolink services. As SCRRA transitions from its growth and development cycle to more stabilized services, it will be faced with the challenges of improving organizational performance and effectiveness and increasing our outreach to additional markets. Our service efficiency and reliability will continue to be a major focus for the organization and we are working towards building the internal organization to manage and support this service. Through your Board leadership and member agency support, we can continue to provide quality rail services to Southern California residents. Sincerely, David Solow Executive Director 00C330 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS/FIGURES/TABLES 1.0 BUDGET OVERVIEW Page No. v 1 1.1 Introduction to SCRRA 1 1.1.1 Formation of SCRRA 1 1.1.2 Funding 2 1.1.3 Mission Statement 4 1.1.4 Organizational Summary 4 1.2 Budget Summary 6 1.2.1 Budget Accounting Methodology 6 1.2.2 Significant Changes in Budgeting Approach 6 1.2.3 Budget Development and Monitoring Process 6 1.2.4 Budget Components 7 1.3 Budget Assumptions 7 1.3.1 Operating Budget 7 1.3.2 Capital Budget g 1.3.3 Revenues g 1.3.4 Expenses g 2.0 FINANCIAL SUMMARY 9 2.1 Introduction 9 2.2 Summary Total FY 1999/00 Budget Sources and Uses by Member Agency 10 2.3 Summary of FY 1999/00 Revenues 12 2.4 Summary of FY 1999/00 Expenditures for Operating, Maintenance -of -Way and Capital by Expense Type 16 2.5 Summary of FY 1999/00 Expenditures for Operating, Maintenance -of -Way and Capital by Category 18 06' 33i i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 2.6 Summary of FY 1999/00 Expenditures for Operating, Maintenance -of -Way and Capital by Department 2.7 Summary of FY 1999/00 Budgeted Positions 2.8 Performance Data 2.9 Summary of FY 1999/00 Statistics by Line Page No. 20 22 26 30 3.0 OPERATING BUDGET 33 3.1 Summary of Revenues and Expenses by Operating Line 34 3.2 Summary of Revenue and Expenses by Member Agency 36 3.3 Operations 38 3.3.1 Assumptions 38 Service 38 Revenues 39 Expenses 39 3.3.2 Detail of Operations Budget 40 3.4 Maintenance -of -Way Budget 51 3.4.1 Assumptions 51 3.4.2 Conditions and Trends in the MOW Budget 51 3.4.3 MOW Revenues and Expenses 52 3.4.4 MOW Projections by Line 58 Los Angeles - San Bernardino Line 58 Los Angeles - Ventura Line 58 Los Angeles - Lancaster Line 58 Fullerton - San Diego County Line 59 . Olive Subdivision 59 Riverside Layover Facility 59 River Corridor 59 Sierra Madre - Claremont (Pasadena Subdivision) 60 Rialto to Bench (Baldwin Park Branch) 60 Extra -ordinary Maintenance 61 ii O',i335 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4.0 DEPARTMENT BUDGETS 4.1 Organizational Summary Page No. 63 64 4.2 Executive 66 4.3 Finance 4.4 Contracts and Administration 4.5 Operations 68 70 72 4.6 Engineering & Construction 74 4.7 Mechanical 76 4.8 Marketing & Passenger Services 78 4.9 Media & External Communications 80 5.0 CAPITAL BUDGET 83 5.1 Capital Maintenance 84 5.1.1 Ongoing Capital Maintenance Projects 84 5.1.2 New Projects For Capital Maintenance In FY 1999/00 91 5.2 New Capital 100 6.0 APPENDIX 109 6.1 Recommended Budget Policy 109 6.2 Formulae for Allocation to Counties 112 6.3 Formulae for Allocation to Lines 114 6.4 Allocation of Revenues 116 6.5 Allocation of Expenses 116 00'339 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 6.6 Allocation of Agency Costs to Budgets 6.7 Proposed New Positions Page No. 118 120 6.8 Potential New projects for New Capital in FY 1999/00 126 6.9 Glossary of Terms 132 6.10 Acronyms 134 6.11 Statistical Information 136 iv 000340 LIST OF EXHIBITS/FIGURES/TABLES Exhibit No. 1.1 Metrolink System Map 1.2 SCRRA Organizational Chart, Apri11999 Page No. 3 5 Figure No. 2.1 Annual Operating Data - FY 92/93 to FY 99/00 27 2.2 Operating Statistics - FY 92/93 to FY 99/00 29 Table No. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 OuJ341. FY 1999/00 Draft Preliminary Budget Sources and Uses by Member Agency 11 Comparison of Revenues 13 Comparison of Expenditures by Expense Type 17 Comparison of SCRRA Expenditures by Category and Member Agency 19 Comparison of Expenditures by Department 21 Comparison of Positions by Department 23 FY 1999/00 Projected Statistics by Line 31 FY 1999/00 Operating Budget- Distribution of Components by Line 35 Operating Subsidy Allocation by County 37 Service Assumption for FY 1999/00 38 FY 1999/00 Operating Budget by Component 41 Projection of Ridership and Fare Revenues for FY 1999/00 (No Service Increase) 43 Dispatching Revenue 45 Maintenance -of -Way Revenue 53 FY 1999/00 Proposed Maintenance -of -Way Expenditures: Member Agency Shares 55 Maintenance -of -Way Budget: Maintenance Category Detail 57 Comparison of Positions by Department for FY 1999/00 65 Expenses of the Executive Department 67 Expenses of the Finance Department 69 Expenses of the Contracts &Administration Department 71 Expenses of the Operations Department 73 Expenses of the Engineering & Construction Department 75 Expenses of the Mechanical Department 77 Expenses of the Marketing & Passenger Services Department 79 v LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page No. 4.9 Expenses of the Media & External Communications Department 81 5.1 Capital Maintenance Expenditures 85 5.2 New Capital Expenditures 101 6.1 Formulae Used to Allocate Expenses by County 113 6.2 Formulae Used to Allocate Expenses by Line 115 6.3 Distribution of Agency Labor Costs 119 6.4 Potential New Capital Expenditures Contingent Upon Funding 127 vi Gu'.344: Southern California Regional Rail Authority Section 1 Budget Overview IIINIIIMETROLINK Ou 343 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1999/00 PRELIMINARY BUDGET 1.0 BUDGET OVERVIEW The following section provides an overview of the FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget. It includes an introduction to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a brief description of the budget methodology, and budget assumptions. 1.1 Introduction to SCRRA This section provides an introduction to SCRRA explaining the formation and funding of the agency, providing the Mission Statement and the organizational summary. 1.1.1 Formation of SCRRA In June 1990, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1402, Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code introduced by Senator Robert Presley. This bill required the county transportation commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino to jointly develop a plan for regional transit services within the multi -county region. In June 1991, following an eight -month cooperative planning effort, these four transportation commissions combined with Ventura County Transportation Commission, the Los Angeles -San Diego Rail Corridor Agency, and the Southern California Association of Governments to produce a report entitled "Southern California Commuter Rail, 1991 Regional System Plan." The report outlined plans for a system to connect Southern California with six commuter rail lines comprised of more than 400 miles of track and 60 stations by 1995. This ambitious plan would represent the nation's sixth largest commuter rail system. In August 1991, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a regional Joint Powers Agency (JPA), was formed. Voting members with their respective number of votes are: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), four votes; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), two votes; Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), two votes; San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), two votes; and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), one vote. Ex-officio members of the SCRRA include the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the San Diego Association of Governments and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 0 - tf SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget The purpose of the newly formed SCRRA was to plan, design, construct, and administer the operation of regional passenger rail lines serving the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCRRA named the regional commuter rail system "Metrolink." The first three lines - San Bernardino, Santa Clarita (now Antelope Valley), and Ventura - started operation in October 1992. The Riverside Line was added in June of 1993, and the Orange County Line, which extends 19 miles into northern San Diego County, was added April 1994. The sixth line, Inland Empire - Orange County, was added October 1995. Over its six years of operations, SCRRA has been building the Metrolink commuter rail system in order to ensure quality, efficient services into the next century. In October 1995, service was started on the first suburb -to -suburb commuter rail line in the country between the Inland Empire and Orange County and in January 1999 Metrolink carried its thirty -millionth passenger, holding its place as one of the fastest growing commuter rail system in the nation. As of May 1999, Metrolink provided service over 6 routes to 46 stations over 416 route miles with 130 daily trains, with average weekday ridership over 27,000 one-way trips. Rolling stock acquired to date includes 331ocomotives and 119 commuter rail cars. The service map in Exhibit 1.1 shows the current Metrolink system. 1.1.2 Funding Operating revenues include farebox, dispatching arid maintenance -of -way revenues received from other railroads using rights -of -way owned by member agencies, interest, and local revenues from the member agencies. In the past, SCRRA has received its capital funding from its member agencies. The primary sources for transportation funds in the member agency counties have been local sales taxes (with the exception of Ventura County), State Rail Bond funds (Propositions 108 and 116), State Transit Capital Improvement funds and Federal Transit Administration Capital funds. With the passage of Senate Bill 45, future state funding for capital projects for SCRRA has changed. The agency must now compete for state funding for projects of interregional benefit from the State Interregional Transportation Improvement Program. SCRRA requests funding for projects of regional benefit from the individual member agency's Regional Transportation Improvement Programs. In addition to this state funding, SCRRA will continue to seek appropriations of discretionary federal funding for projects included in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21' Century (TEA-21). Several member agencies also apply portions of their federal TEA-21 Section 5307 formula funds and Section 5309 Rail Modernization funds to Metrolink projects. 04/ 15/99, L 14 PM 2 L�ii�v 1J 11VJS Ol ION dVW AwnoJ ona NVS AINnOJ 3aISIBMI aun •3-p-dw] !u! aun ap!saan!a MNI103 39NWO aun •op a6ueip atm oupewa8 ues AINn03 ONI011VNN38 NVS AINO03 S3139NV SO1 Nd3J0 JIJIM r uogels uaup s)IbW sc1 aun /QM ado!aluy 1' I IISIHXH dVIAI IN3ISAS NNI10111314�� p f\' � 16.11 sa;!s uo!leiS aanlnJ O aun *op wpm AINnOO VIIMN3A SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 1.1.3 Mission Statement Metrolink is a premier regional rail system, including commuter and other passenger services, linking communities to employment and activity centers. Metrolink provides reliable transportation and mobility for the region, leading toward more livable communities. Metrolink is committed to and characterized by: • Technically superior and safe operations • Customer focus and accessibility • Dependable, high -quality service • Cost-effective and high -value service • Strategically located network of lines and stations • Integration with other transit modes • Environmental sensitivity • Community involvement and partnerships with both the public and private sectors 1.1.4 Organizational Summary Exhibit 1.2 provides the organizational structure of the SCRRA as of March 1999. The eight departments of SCRRA are: • Executive • Finance • Contracts & Administration • Operations • Engineering & Construction • Mechanical • Marketing & Passenger Services • Media & External Relations At present the Finance & Administration area is separated into two departments: Finance; and Contracts & Administration. In addition, the Media & External Relations department is currently reporting directly to the Executive department. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM OU, :4 i 4 EXHIBIT 1.2 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Legal Counsel Principal Deputy County Counsel Technical Advisory Committee Director Operations Functions: Operations Operations Planning Safety and Security Organization Chart March 1999 SCRRA Board of Directors Executive Director Functions: Government Affairs/Strategic Planning Human Resources Interim Reports: Revenue Collection External Affairs Media Relations Contracts and Procurement Administrative Services Management Information Systems Risk Management Deputy Executive Director Operations and Engineering Director Engineering and Construction Functions: Maintenance of Way Signals and Communications Public Projects Construction Station Services Director Equipment Functions: Equipment Equipment Maintenance 5 Internal Audit Function Board Secretary Director Finance and Administration v:�. Functions: Accounting Budgets and Program Control Treasury Interim -Reports to Executive Director: Contracts and Procurement Administrative Services Management Information Systems Director Marketing, Passenger Services and External Communications Functions: Marketing Passenger Services and Facilities Ambassadors Interim Report to Executive Director: Revenue Collection Extemal Affairs Media Relations 0u 345 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 1.2 Budget Summary This section provides a discussion of the budget accounting methodology, significant changes in the budgeting approach for FY 1999/00, and the budget development and monitoring process. 1.2.1 Accounting Methodology The Operating Budget is developed each year based on a projection of incurred revenue and expenses for that fiscal year. The Capital Budget is developed based on available revenues for New Capital and Capital Maintenance projects during the coming fiscal year. Historically, the agency has spent several million dollars each year on recollectable projects. These projects are not included in the SCRRA budget. They are primarily construction on behalf of others and operation of special trains, such as Speedway, Rose Bowl, Beach, and Fair trains, outside of regular SCRRA operations. These recollectable projects are included in a unique fund where all costs are recovered from third parties. 1.2.2 Significant Changes in Budgeting Approach In prior years all labor and non -project specific costs were allocated directly to the various budgets - Operating, Maintenance -of -Way, New Capital, and Capital Maintenance. In developing the FY 1999/00 Budget, agency labor and other costs which are not directly related to operating, maintenance -of -way or capital projects are now identified as overhead costs to be applied to all projects. In prior years, these costs were included in the Operating Budget, in FY 1999/00 they are spread to all budgets, thus increasing the agency costs for the Maintenance -of -Way, New Capital, and Capital Maintenance budgets and reducing the Operating Budget's burden for these costs. In addition, in FY 1999/00, the agency has begun to display the budget information by departments. 1.2.3 Budget Development and Monitoring Process The Joint Exercise of Power Agreement establishing the SCRRA requires that body to approve a preliminary fiscal year budget and to submit it to the Member Agencies by May 1 of each year for their approval. A final budget is to be approved by June 30. The SCRRA Board may amend the budget provided the source of any increase in funding is identified for the amendment. As part of evaluating the impact of any requested budget amendment, the Budget Office reviews the request based on the impact on member agency funding commitments and make recommendations to the Executive Director and/or Board, as required, relative to this impact. Budgetary control refers to SCRRA's procedures for monitoring actual expenses against planned expenditures as adopted in the annual budget. Department managers are responsible for monitoring their individual department financial performance through evaluation of monthly budget to actual reports provided by the Budget Department. Transfers of budgetary authorization between the department object codes is permitted with the concurrence of the Budget Department providing there is no impact on member 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 000343 6 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget agency subsidy. Budget adjustments that materially impact the funding commitment of any member agency will not be made without member agency and Board approval. Further detail is provided in Appendix 6.1. 1.2.4 Budget Components The Operating Budget has two components: • The Operations portion of the Operating Budget includes expenses required to operate the Metrolink system including train operations, maintenance of equipment, fuel, security, utilities, transfer payments to other transit operators, revenue collection, payments to freight railroads for dispatching, station maintenance, passenger services, general and administrative expenses, professional services, and insurance. • The Maintenance -of -Way portion of the Operating Budget includes ordinary maintenance of the rights -of -way owned by SCRRA member agencies. It involves routine inspection of track, signals, structures and repairs as needed. The Capital Budget also has two components: • Capital Maintenance projects are those projects that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus extend the useful life of these capital assets. Capital Maintenance projects included in the budget will depend upon the availability of local funds. The project recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal and manageable risk of failure. • New Capital projects are those capital projects that expand the system such as sidings, double track, upgrade of the signal system, and new rolling stock. New Capital projects included in the budget will depend upon the availability of local, state and federal funding. The budget includes ongoing projects. A listing of projects for which additional federal, state and local funds are being sought is provided in Table 6.4 in Appendix 6.8, but not included in the budget at this time. If and when the funds are secured, the projects will be amended into the budget. 1.3 Budget Assumptions This section provides the major assumptions for development of the expenses and revenues for the Operating and Capital Budgets. 1.3.1 Operating Budget Service levels assume continuation of the October 1998 service and assumes a proposed May 1999 addition of 4 Burbank Airport trains and extension of one Simi Valley train to Moorpark resulting in 130 weekday trains operating on six lines. More detail is provided in Table 3.3. No new lines are proposed for FY 1999/2000. SCRRA's philosophy for maintenance -of -equipment (MOE) and maintenance -of -way (MOW) is to perform ordinary maintenance sufficient to prevent any loss of service quality and to budget for capital maintenance at sufficient intervals to prevent the needed repairs/replacements 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 7 0 03�U SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget from overwhelming the Operating Budget. 1.3.2 Capital Budget SCRRA staff is responsible for the safety and performance of the railroad system and all that travels upon it. New Capital projects are those capital projects that expand the system such as sidings, double track, upgrade of the signal system, and new rolling stock. New Capital projects included in the budget will depend upon the availability of local, state and federal funding. Capital Maintenance projects are those projects that these capital assets such as replacement of worn ties and rail, replacement of outdated signal system components, rehabilitation of tunnels and bridges, and the programmed replacement/rehabilitation of the following rolling stock components: Car Door Operators; Wheel Trucks; Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC); Traction Motors; and Head End Power Engine. Capital Maintenance recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal and manageable risk of failure. The proposed Capital Maintenance Expenditures have been selected to meet projected funding available and are chosen from a larger field that SCRRA staff believes can be deferred until future years, but will have to be addressed eventually. 1.3.3 Revenues Operating revenues consist of farebox revenues, which are assumed to grow with projected ridership, and railroad revenues, which are estimated per agreements. Freight railroad revenues are assumed to grow with the Association of American Railroads (AAR) railroad index for the western United States for materials prices, wage rates and supplements combined (excluding fuel). Per agreement, Amtrak revenues increase with the consumer price index. Capital revenues consist of federal, state and local funds. The capital budget is constrained by the availability of these funds and projects are included contingent upon receipt of these funds. 1.3.4 Expenses The major driving factors in projecting operating expenses are service levels and cost -of - living increases ranging from 2% to 6% built into our multi -year contracts. Staff costs are assumed to grow primarily due to 16 new positions as well as a pool of 3% for merit increases. Of the 16 new positions, 9.5 are conversions of functions currently provided by consultants in the Operating, Capital Maintenance, and New Capital Budgets to permanent SCRRA positions at a lesser cost. In FY 1999/00, in addition to the 16 new positions, it is proposed that the ambassadors will be made permanent employees, with 7 full-time ambassadors and 25 part-time ambassadors added to the authorized positions. However, as most ambassadors already receive benefits, there will be no significant increase in expenses. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 06351 8 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Section 2 Financial Summary II II METROLINK 00352 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 2.0 FINANCIAL SUMMARY The following section provides a summary of the financial trends of the SCRRA Budget and compares FY 1997/98 actuals with the FY 1998/99 Budget and Forecast and the proposed budget for FY 1999/00. 2.1 Introduction The Preliminary FY 1999/00 combined Metrolink Budget is approximately $178 million. The Operating Budget is $80.1 million and includes operations at $62.5 million and maintenance -of - way at $17.6 million. The Capital Maintenance Budget is $22.3 million and includes $7.4 million in ongoing projects and $14.8 million in new projects for FY 1999/00. The New Capital Budget is $75.9 million and includes $75.7 million in ongoing projects. There is also an additional $39.5 million in New Capital projects for which SCRRA is seeking local, state or federal funds; these projects are not yet included in the FY 1999/00 Budget. As funds are awarded, they will be amended into the budget. In October 1997, the SCRRA adopted a Draft Strategic Plan for the future growth of Metrolink. The Operating Budget was prepared in conformance with the goals of the plan to increase operating efficiencies and provide as much service as can be provided with available funding. Similarly, the Capital Budget was prepared in conformance with the plan and includes those items in the plan for which Federal, State and/or local funding was available for FY 1999/00. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 9 C�t.)�3i3 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 2.2 Summary Total FY 1999/00 Budget Sources and Uses by Member Agency Table 2.1 provides a summary of the FY 1999/00 Budget revenues and expenditures for FY 1999/00 by Member Agency. Revenues are separated into Local Funds for Operating, Maintenance -of -Way, New Capital, and Capital Maintenance; Other Operating Revenues which include Farebox Revenue, Miscellaneous Operating Revenues and Maintenance -of -Way Revenues; and Other Capital Revenues which include Interest on Lease Proceeds, Other Agency Local, State, Federal, Amtrak Intercity and freight railroad funds. The expenditures are shown for the four categories of the Budget: Operating Expenditures excluding Maintenance -of -Way; Maintenance -of -Way; New Capital; and Capital Maintenance. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 10 liOujJ`t TABLE 2.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1999/00 DRAFT PRELIMINARY BUDGET SOURCES AND USES BY MEMBER AGENCY ($000s) CSp.............................` LOCAL FUNDS FOR OPERATING Operations Maintenance -of --Way OTHER OPERATING REVENUES Farebox Revenue Miscellaneous Operating Revenues MOW Revenues FALFI• NOnli SOURGE FOROPERAT( IG $39,508.1 28,872.3 10,635.8 $40,611.6 31,607.2 2,029.2 6,975.1 49.3% 36.0% 13.3% 50.7% 39.4% 2.5% 8.7% $22,987.7 18,742.5 8,245.1 $23,297.1 18,045.6 909.8 4,341.6 $6,446.0 4,221.1 2,224.9 $7,672.9 5,376.0 770.1 1,526.9 $2,928.9 2,746.8 182.1 $2,022.0 1,996.1 25.9 $4,344.9 3,002.9 1,342.0 $5,883.1 5,047.3 51.2 784.6 $2,800.6 2,159.0 641.6 $1,736.6 1,142.3 272.3 322.0 T Ht31[3 Operating Expenditures (Excludes MOW) Maintenance -of -Way ......'fir i 62,508.7 17,810.9 78.0% 22.0% 35,698.0 10,586.8 10,367.1 3,751.8 4,768.8 182.1 8,101.3 2,126.6 3,573.6 963.6 LOCAL FUNDS FOR CAPITAL New Capital Capital Maintenance OTHER CAPITAL REVENUES Interest on Lease Proceeds Other Local Funds State Funds Federal funds Amtrak Funds UPRR Funds ;iFN#�1'SC�tJf�CE $27,301.9 9,943.1 17,358.8 $70,913.7 1,562.0 41.0 31,521.7 36,750.0 949.0 90.0 27.8% 10.1 % 17.7% 72.2% 1.6% 0.0% 32.1 % 37.4% 1.0% 0.1 % $4,161.5 $2,235.2 526.7 893.1 3,634.8 1,342.1 $670.0 $548.7 $6,187.9 41.00 5,659.50 670.00 548.69 4,646.87 1,500.00 $1,071.0 756.4 314.6 $18,703.1 7,672.7 11,030.4 $5,659.5 $1,131.1 94.3 1,036.8 $960.0 $56,887.6 1,582.00 710.00 19,288.60 250.00 35,000.00 949.00 90.0 bR��pETAI f! New Capital Capital Maintenance 75,919.8 22,295.8 77.3% 22.7% 13,332.2 11,030.4 1,196.7 3,634.8 1,305.1 314.6 7,080.9 C) C: C� W U? C11 SUM00.4s, 4/15/99, 7:45 AM 1,342.1 Wag 804.3 1,286.8 *x 52,200.6 4,887.0 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 2.3 Summary of FY 1999/00 Revenues Table 2.2 shows the projected revenues for the FY 1999/00 SCRRA Budget and compares these with actual revenues for FY 1997/98 and Budget and Forecast for FY 1998/99. Revenues for Operations include farebox, dispatching/other, interest, maintenance -of -way and local revenues. • Farebox revenues have increased each year. The increase in FY 1998/99 reflects a 4% fare increase in October 1998. However, the forecast for farebox revenues for FY 1998/99 is less than the budget primarily due to the fact that ridership and revenues on the Riverside and Orange County Lines have not met the budget projections. Using ridership to date in FY 1998/99 as a guideline, and the fact that there will be no service increases, ridership for FY 1999/00 is projected to show an increase of only 3.3% over the forecast for FY 1998/99. Farebox revenues for FY 1999/00 are projected to increase only 3.5% over the FY 1998/99 Budget and 5.5% over the forecast for FY 1998/99. The projection of fare revenues includes the annual 25% adjustment in the December monthly pass price. The one -zone discount for the Lancaster Station funded by the MTA is also assumed to continue for FY 1999/00. • Dispatching/Other Revenues include fees for dispatching freight and Amtrak trains and in FY 1998/99 also included $100,000 in interest on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects. The freight railroads and Amtrak who operate over territory owned by SCRRA Member Agencies pay dispatching revenues. The revenues are based upon prior agreements. Agreements with Union Pacific Railroad are based on route miles and car counts and are not indexed. Payments by Burlington Northern Santa Fe are based on agreements made at the time of the Santa Fe right-of-way purchase and are projected to increase by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) railroad index for the western United States for materials prices, wage rates and supplements combined (excluding fuel). This index is projected to be 2.7%. Payments made by Amtrak are also based on train counts and are assumed to increase by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) projected to be 1.5%. • Interest on lease proceeds is used to funds capital maintenance on rolling stock. Interest on other funds is not generally included in the budgeted revenues, but in FY 1998/99, over $1.5 million in interest was earned on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects. In FY 1998/99, $100,000 in interest was budgeted in Dispatching/Other Revenues and the current forecast for interest to be earned in FY 1998/99 is $1.1 million. No interest is budgeted in the operating revenues for FY 1999/00 at the request of the member agencies. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 0 3356 12 TABLE 2.2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1999/00 BUDGET COMPARISON OF REVENUES ($990 S798 98 9 .9 1! s91 i .oso. : �atnge from . e frtm� OPERATING REVENUES Farebox $27,072.8 $30, 540.0 $29,951.1 $31,607.2 3.5% 5.5% Dispatching/Other (1) 2,097.5 1,925.0 1,939.1 2,029.2 5.4% 4.6% Interest 1,403.7 100.0 1,100.0 Maintenance -of -Way 7,467.9 6,996.9 7,030.8 6,975.1 -0.8% Local Funds for Operating 35,665.7 40, 751.6 37,697.1 39,508.1 -3.1 % 4.8% G.Ravesl ? 1..... ;.........r:; CAPITAL REVENUES (3) State Federal Interest on Lease Proceeds Union Pacific Railroad/BNSF Amtrak BEHk1 iwS• $10,869.4 $44,207.6 $9,124.6 $31,521.7 996.8 0.0 36,750.0 1,513.4 1,312.0 1,312.0 1,562.0 1,200.0 0.0 90.0 400.0 172.0 949.0 28,860.1 13,788.6 27,342.9 1,140.9 20,528.4 • -28.7% 245.5% 3586.8% 19.1% 19.1% -92.5% 137.3% -5.3% ev'e > itee e$4� dr (1) In FY 97/98, Dispatching/Other included $2,051,916 in dispatching and $45,560 in other revenues. In the FY 98/99 Budget and Forecast, $100,000 in interest was assumed in Other Revenues (2) In FY 98/99, MTA added $1.77 million in contingency to the Maintenance -of -Way Budget. This is not included in the Forecast for FY 98/99 or the FY 99/00 Budget. (3) Capital projects in FY 99/00 Proposed Budget are contingent upon receipt of federal, state and local funds. AIIRevs.xlw, 4/15/99, 7:48 AM SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget • Member Agency contributions for ordinary maintenance are partially offset by revenues received from the freight railroads and Amtrak. These revenues are negotiated to offset maintenance due to freight and intercity traffic. The agreements were based on the historical expenditures on maintenance -of -way by the freight railroads prior to purchase of these rights - of -way. However, due to the requirement of maintaining a higher standard of quality commuter rail service, all costs are not offset by these revenues. Maintenance -of -Way Revenues, which include revenues for operating and non -operating lines are projected to increase by the AAR railroad index for payments by the freight railroads, and by the CPI for Amtrak. As shown in Table 2.2, these revenues do not change significantly from year to year. • Local funds from the five member agencies for Operating vary from year to year. Local funds in FY 1997/98 were $34.7 million, increased to $40.8 million in the FY 1998/99 Budget, $37.7 million in the FY 1998/99 Forecast, and are projected to be $39.5 million in the proposed FY 1999/00 Budget. This is a 3% decrease over the FY 1998/99 Budget and a 5% increase over the Forecast for FY 1998/99. ' Revenues for New Capital and Capital Maintenance include state and federal grants, interest on lease proceeds, and railroad and local funds. Projects are included in the Budget dependent upon the availability of these funds. In FY 1997/98 and FY 1998/99, revenues for Capital were 32% to 55% of total revenues. The forecast for FY 1998/99 shows a decrease to 24% as many of the larger projects have been carried over to FY 1999/00. Assuming the ability to expend the proposed local, state and federal funds, the Capital Budget is 55% of the FY 1999/00 Budget. The interest on lease proceeds is projected to increase by $250,000 due to revenues from a second transaction completed in FY 1998/99. Amtrak revenues increase to $949,000 due to Amtrak's contribution to the Upgrade of Ticket Vending Machines project. Dependent upon the availability of state and federal funds, local revenues as a percent of total revenues varies from 52% in FY 1997/98 to 44% in FY 1998/99 to 50% in the forecast for FY 1998/99 to 38% proposed for FY 1999/00. ' The FY 1998/99 Maintenance -of -Way Budget included S1.77 million in contingency funds from MTA which are not included in the FY 1998/99 Forecast or in the FY 1999/00 Budget. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM C":.i5 14 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 15 00035:1 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 2.4 Summary of FY 1999/00 Expenditures for Operating, Maintenance -of -Way and Capital by Expense Type Table 2.3 provides a summary of projected expenditures for FY 1999/00 by summary expense type. As shown in the table, expenditures have been segregated into eight expense types. These are listed and described below: • Labor - All SCRRA employee salaries, wages and fringe benefits • Purchased Transportation - Payments to Amtrak and Bombardier for train operations and maintenance -of -equipment. • Services - Expenses for Operating Facilities Maintenance; Other Operating Train Services; Security (Sheriff and Guards); Public Safety Program; TVM Maintenance; Revenue Collection; Passenger Relations; Marketing; Media & External Communications; Professional Services (defined on page 50); and Non -Labor Services (defined on page 49). • Utilities/Leases - Expenses for telephone and other utilities and leases and rentals for office equipment; automobiles; facilities; rolling stock; maintenance -of -way equipment; and other leases and rentals. • Maintenance -of -Way - Expenses for maintenance of track, signal & communications; structures, extra -ordinary maintenance; maintenance -of -way equipment maintenance; and other maintenance -of -way expenses. • Insurance & Liability - Insurance premiums, claims and claims administration. • Capital - Expenses for Capital Maintenance and New Capital projects. • Other Expenses - Materials and supplies; taxes; miscellaneous expenses including dues and subscriptions; travel, meetings, and conferences; training and seminars; advertising and promotion; legal and meeting notices; postage and messenger; etc. The majority of SCRRA expenditures are included in the Capital expense type (54%) followed by Purchased Transportation (16%). Reflecting the fact that SCRRA contracts out the majority of the elements of the budget, Labor makes up only 5% of the total budget and 10% of the Operating Budget. Within the Operating Budget, Purchased Transportation makes up 36%; Services makes up 18% and Maintenance -of -Way is 19% of the total. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 16 Ci )33 u TABLE 2.3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET TOTAL AGENCY EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000,$) L abor 8,218.1 10.3% Purchased Transportation 28,947.4 36.1 % Services 14, 052.0 17.5% Utilities/Leases 2.192.6 2.7% Maintenance -of -Way 14,934.7 18.6% I nsurance & Liability 4,502.1 5.6% C apital 0.0 0.0% Other Expenses 7,272.9 9.1% EIS Labor 1,271.8 1.3% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 133.2 0.1% Utilities/Leases 85.4 0.1% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 96, 620.0 98.4% Other Expenses 105.2 0.1% ?ENV Labor 9,489.9 5.3% Purchased Transportation 28, 947.4 16.2% Services 14,185.2 8.0% Utilities/Leases 2,278.0 1.3% Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability 14, 934.7 4,502.1 8.4% 2.5% Capital 96,620.0 54.2% Other Expenses 7,378.0 4.1% 4/15/99 17 Dept Budgets by Exp Type.xlsSummary •ukj301. SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 2.5 Summary of FY 1999/00 Expenditures for Operating, Maintenance -of -Way and Capital by Category Table 2.4 provides a summary of projected expenditures for FY 1999/00 by category and member agency and compares these expenditures with actual expenditures for FY 1997/98 and Budget and Forecast for FY 1998/99. The table provides this information for the four project categories as follows: Operations; Maintenance -of -Way; New Capital; Capital Maintenance. Expenditures for Operations have increased each year, Maintenance -of -Way expenditures have fluctuated, and the New Capital category is dependent upon the availability of local, state and federal funds and varies considerably from year to year. Capital Maintenance is also dependent upon the availability of local and state funds and varies from year to year. Due to delay in receipt of funding, a considerable portion of the FY 1998/99 Capital Budget includes ongoing projects. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 18 06336 TABLE 2.4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1999/00 BUDGET COMPARISON OF SCRRA EXPENDITURES BY BUDGET CATEGORY AS ALLOCATED BY MEMBER AGENCY (S000,$) OPERATIO LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC 30,086.0 8,296.2 4,077.4 6,784.9 3,671.0 34,905.6 9,973.8 4,407.4 7,747.8 3,503.3 P 35,636.5 10,366.6 4,768.6 8,100.9 3,636.2 PaA416943 57.0% 20.0% 16.6% 5.8% 7.6% 2.7% 13.0% 4.5% 5.8% 2.0% Systemwide 0.0% 0.0%. ITOTALOPERATIONS43.UDGETi .MANTENANCEi,OPMAYIMOr/t LACMTA 9 ,.. 11,485.2 9 12,606.1 10,586.8 60.1% 5.9% OCTA 5,234.5 3,569.5 3,751.8 21.3% 2.1% RCTC 233.9 395.3 182.1 1.0% 0.1% SANBAG VCTC 1,729.6, 1,054.5 2,180.1 1,024.6 2,126.6 963.6 12.1% 5.5% 1.2% 0.5% Systemwide 0.0% 0.0% . r.r.OTALNOWSLIDGET.gMga:Wg 1.1.t.'lAllt"417.Ri# LACMTA 4,534.1 12,010.9 11,030.4 49.5% 6.2% OCTA 2,664.7 2,702.9 3,634.8 16.3% 2.0% RCTC 102.4 334.0 314.6 1.4°A, 0.2% SANBAG 621.7 783.4 1,342.1 6.0% 0.8% VCTC 100.3 331.3 1,286.8 5.8% 0.7% Systemwide 9,621.1 7,312.0 4,687.0 21.0% 2.6% NEW:CAPIT LACMTA 00tr98f#C,,,:: OW BO: 4,865.1 16,647.6 13,332.2 17.6% 7.594, OCTA 470.0 1,284.2 1,196.7 1.6% 0.7% RCTC 688.7 2,297.7 1,305.1 1.7% 0.7% SANBAG 775.3 2,923.5 7,080.9 9.3% 4.0% VCTC 82.2 131.8 804.3 1.1% 0.5% Systemwide 9,526.5 30,217.2 52,200.6 68.8% 29.3% '''' LACMTA 50,970.4 76,172.1 70,585.9 39.6% OCTA 16,665.4 17,531.1 18,949.9 10.6% RCTC 5,102.4 7,434.7 6,570.4 3.7% SANBAG 9,911.5 13,635.2 18,650.6 10.5% VCTC 4,908.0 10,191.1 Systemwide 19,147.6 32,329.2 A. 6,690.8 56,887.6 3.8% 31.9% (1) Includes $1.77 million in contingency funds from MTA. (2) MP funds for capital projects are shown as systemwide, RTIP funds shown in each county's budget Budget -Member Agency.x1w, 4/15/99 1 9 00'3365 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 2.6 Summary of FY 1999/00 Expenditures for Operating, Maintenance -of -Way and Capital by Department Table 2.5 provides a summary of projected expenditures for FY 1999/00 by Department and compares these expenditures with actual expenditures for FY 1997/98 and Budget and Forecast for FY 1998/99. 0�15/9?,�:14 PM 20 :Uk-.Jb4 TABLE 2.5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT ($000,$) Oper,~�ttttg.$�1d�s# (ir�cfFxtirtg nge Apo A *recast EXECUTIVE $2,054.1 $3,630.9 $7,950.1 287.0% 119.0% FINANCE $1,991.7 $2,001.1 $2,266.4 13.8°% 13.3°% CONTRACTS AND ADMINISTRATION $1,266.8 $1,115.3 $2,377.0 87.6% OPERATIONS $30,791.4 $30,838.3 $27,847.2 -9.6% -9.7% ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION $18,771.3 $18,196.1 $17,041.0 -9.2°% -6.3% MECHANICAL $18,757.4 $17,578.5 $17,771.0 -5.3°% 1.1°% MARKETING & PASSENGER SERVICES $5,986.1 $3,588.8 $3,990.3 -33.3% 11.2°% MEDIA & EXTERNAL RELATIONS $694.8 $769.0 $876.7 26.2% 14.0% 1r040 1zRE+o00 a amti 18u>fg 'to ge# ...... I=.S :mast'' EXECUTIVE $0.0 $0.0 $3,225.0 FINANCE $0.0 $0.0 $203.8 CONTRACTS AND ADMINISTRATION $0.0 $0.0 $355.5 OPERATIONS $400.0 $200.0 $200.0 -50.0% 0.0°% ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION $43,760.5 $19,684.7 $47,229.4 7.9% 139.9% MECHANICAL $31,945.2 $4,512.5 $47,001.9 47.1 % 941.6°% MARKETING & PASSENGER SERVICES $870.8 $0.0 $0.0 -100.0% MEDIA & EXTERNAL RELATIONS $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 TOTAL EXPE► S 3T��~ 2- S�RF�.19r�dget:?�:. '?�asFi uToefz:< Ott EXECUTIVE $2,054.1 $3,630.9 $11,175.1 444.0% 207.8% FINANCE $1,991.7 $2,001.1 $2,470.2 24.0% 23.4% CONTRACTS AND ADMINISTRATION $1,266.8 $1,115.3 $2,732.4 115.7% 145.0% OPERATIONS $31,191.4 $31,038.3 $28,047.2 -10.1 % -9.6% ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION $62,531.9 $37,880.8 $64,270.4 2.8% 69.7% MECHANICAL $50,702.6 $22,091.0 $64,772.9 27.8% 193.2% MARKETING & PASSENGER SERVICES $6,856.9 $3,588.8 $3,990.3 -41.8% 11.2°% MEDIA & EXTERNAL RELATIONS $694.8 $769.0 $876.7 26.2% 14.0°% '�tiTAL i 21 4M5AG Budget Dept Charts.xls-Total SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 2.7 Summary of FY 1999/00 Budgeted Positions Table 2.6 provides a summary of the FY 1999/00 budgeted positions by department and compares with budgeted positions for FY 1997/98 and FY 1998/99 and changes made during FY 1998/99 by the Interim Executive Director. There was no change in the total positions in FY 1997/98 and FY 1998/99, however, there were several shifts between departments. In FY 1999/00 16 new positions are proposed. These new positions include the following: Requested by the SCRRA Board - Chief Administrative Officer Required System Safety Plan - Safety Officer Clerk (Safety) Clerk (Engineering) Mechanical Compliance Officer Y2 Clerk (Mechanical) Mechanical - Vehicle Administrator %s Clerk (Mechanical) Engineering & Construction - Design Engineer Public Projects Coordinator Right -of -Way Coordinator Signal Designer Utility CADD Operator Resident Engineer Lead Construction Inspector Marketing & Passenger Services - Market Research Manager Customer Relations Assistant In addition, 7 full-time and 25 part-time positions are added to Marketing & Passenger Services to make the ambassadors permanent employees. Of the 16 new positions, eight will be charged to the Operating Budget, and the net impact on the FY 1999/00 Operating Budget is an increase of only $286,000 because of offsetting savings in consultant expenses. The Chief Administrative Officer position was requested by the SCRRA Board. SCRRA staff has been working with the American Public Transit Association (APTA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to develop an industry -wide self-regulating System Safety Plan, Standard Operating Procedures, and an audit monitoring function which must be in place prior to a planned APTA and FRA safety audit in October 1999. A total of 4.5 positions 0 4/15/99, 1:14PM U v 366 22 66/6Z/£ 'mlxldao-susod ..10109J1 I angnoax3 a43 of Rpaanp podai suogelaa lewalx3 moan pue :saouuas Ja6uassed g 6ul ovelty :uogeilslulwpy g sloeiwoa - suollela2l lewalx3 g wpm of panow suolgsod saolnias Ja6uassed g 6ullalpeyy auo - 6upeaul6u3 of saolnias /a6uassed g 6ullaveyy woo panow uolllsod auo - 6upaaul6u3 0l suoge.tado waq panow uomsod auo - anllnoax3 0l ulwpy wok panow suolllsod aH -1nod - ulwpy of pappe uolllsod mau auo - 6uuaaul6u3 woil palalap sem uolllsod Ja6euew uollels a41- suolleJado of pappe uolllsod mau auo - •aoueulj wou palalap uolllsod aup - pappe moue lnq 'palalap 6ullaNpew ul uolllsod auo - suollelau lewelx3 g elpayy of panow suolllsod sam/uas Ja6uassed g &maven om1- (yoeallno JaAoOw] Oyd) sawmas ia6uassed g &maven of panow (lssy ulwp:6 uolllsod 6uuaaul6u3 auo - saawas laBuassed g 6u4031.1eyy of auo pue aoueul j of auo 'anllnoax3 of auo :panow GIB suolllsod aa/yl asa41 "saoPuas JaBuassed g 6ulla* 1M of papodai (s31j £) uolloas anuanai a41 :66/9661 Ad 6upnp sa6ueyo Joloaila anpnaax3 wpalul :la6pn8 66/9661 Ad 843 ul la6pn8 66/9661 Ad 841 ul :196pn 3 96/L661 Aj 841 ul TEL 0'L yN VN SZ L 7 aunt-ped :saol/uas ia6uassed '8 6ugaveyy awa llnd :seovues la6uassed g 6ugavey4 siopessegwy 1 0'b E'L L 0'9 E'ZE E' LZ 0'LL 0'0Z L'0 L >Ei %0'0 %9 Z L %0'SL %9'6Z %0'0 L %O'0 %0'0 %TOL yowlsnlPi b 8L L 5E ZZ LL OZ LL b 9L b LZ OZ LL OZ OL 6L b 5Z LZ 5L OZ 5 L £Z b LZ LZ ZL OZ b suomeN lewapq wan saolnias Ja6uassed 6uga41e11 leolumpayy uogonnsuo0 +g 6upeaul6u3 suogwado uoganswupy speiwoa aoueuld angnoax3 1N3W121Vd3a A9 SNOIlISOd d0 NOS121VdW03 13Jana 00/6661 A3 A1RlOHinv 11V21 1VN019321 VIMMAI-IVo N213MSIOS 9'Z 318tJ1 M N SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget have been added to ensure implementation of and compliance with the Plan. Administration of vehicle maintenance is currently provided by the maintenance -of -way contractor. A recent study of the costs of in-house vs. contracting out (approved by the Board 3/12/99) showed it was more cost-effective to bring this function in-house. One full-time position and one part-time position are proposed for this function. All of the seven positions proposed for Engineering & Construction are already provided by existing consultant/contractor contracts. The Design Engineer, Signal Designer, Utility CADD Operator provide on -going operating or capital functions. They will continue to charge to these budget areas. The Resident Engineer and Lead Construction Inspector positions will continue to charge capital projects. While bringing the positions in-house will reduce SCRRA expenditures on design and construction management services currently provided under contract, it should be noted that the Resident Engineer, Lead Construction Inspector, Design Engineer, Signal Designer positions will be hired and their ongoing employment will be contingent upon ongoing grant funding. The Public Projects Coordinator and the Right -of -Way Coordinator positions will continue to charge their time to recollectable projects and maintenance -of -way. Assuming the current level of recollectable projects continues, there will not be a significant change to the charges to maintenance -of -way. The Market Research Manager will bring in-house evaluation of passenger information currently provided under contract and will utilize substantial data SCRRA already collects, but which is not fully analyzed. This position is offset by a decrease in the advertising/marketing contract. The Customer Relations Assistant is a new position to assist in responses to questions and complaints received through phone calls, letters, and the web site. As the system continues to grow, this area is also growing and additional help is needed to provide timely responses. Detailed justifications for the proposed positions is provided in Appendix 6.7. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 24 � f L'v36 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 25 O u'2 3O5 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 2.8 Performance Data Figures 2.1 and 2.2 provide a summary of the FY 1999/00 performance data as projected in the Budget and compares with historical data since 1992. The budget illustrates the continuing growth and efficiency of Metrolink operations. As shown in Figure 2.1, both operating expenses and train miles have increased, but operating expenses have increased at a significantly lower rate. Fare revenues have increased with ridership, but as maintenance -of -way and dispatching revenues have become relatively flat, total revenues are also increasing at a lesser rate. As a result, operating subsidy has fluctuated, between $30.7 million and $40.1 million between FY 1993/94 and FY 1999/00. The significant decrease noted in Figure 2.1 in FY 1996/97 is primarily due to the fact that SCRRA received a refund from the state on payment of sales tax on rolling stock. These funds along with fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects earned interest during the year that was applied to the operating revenues. Several factors contribute to the projected increase in subsidy for FY 1999/00 as compared with the forecast for FY 1998/99: • Train -miles have increased 10% • Operating Expenses have increased 3.1 % • Ridership is projected to increase 3.7% • Farebox Revenues are projected to increase 5.5% • Maintenance -of -Way Revenues are projected to decrease by 0.8% • Dispatching Revenues/Other Revenues are projected to decrease by 33% due to the projection of over $1 million in interest for FY 1998/99 while no interest is included in the FY 1999/00 forecast. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 26 $90 $80 — $70 — $60 — $50 $48.1 $40 — $30 -- $20 $18.2 $10 FIGURE 2.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92/93 TO FY 99/00 OPERATING EXPENSE ($Millions) $64.4 $57.4 $73.7 $68.4 $77.7 $80.1 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 9900 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $- $50 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 OPFRATINGSURSIDY (111/1i!Hong) $40 — $38.4 $31.9 $30 — $20 $10 $13.8 $34.3 $30.7 $35.7 $37 7 $39.5 92/93 93194 94/95 95/96 98/97 97/98 98/99 99A00 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 u 4I 978.5 708.0 211.8 1769.8 1611.1 1,405.9 1,295.8 ,155.8 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 FAIRER ($Millinnc) 9V93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/96 96/99 99/00 30,000 25,000 — 20,000 — 15,000 — 10,000 — 5,000 27 01/FRACIF r m Y RII1FRSHIP 27,850 23,058 21,207 17,261 2,856 5,399 25,700 26,851 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/98 96/97 97/96 98/99 99/00 Actuals through FY 97/99, Forecast for FY 98/99, Preliminary Budget for FY 99/00 CHARTS00.xIs,GeneralSum to00 4114/u99 3:47 p SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Figure 2.2 provides the operating statistics. Revenue recovery is calculated as the ratio of total operating revenues over total expenses less rolling stock lease and maintenance -of -way extra- ordinary maintenance 2. Since FY 1995/96 the revenue recovery index has been over 50% and is projected at 51.0% for FY 1999/00. The high of 56.3% in FY 1996/97 reflects the added interest received that year. This index has not increased over the last three years as total revenues are not increasing as fast as expenses. However, in past years, actual revenue recovery ratios have been higher than the budget projection due to contingencies included in the annual budgets as well as interest received on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects. For example, in FY 1998/99, the revenue recovery is forecast to be 51.8% compared with the budgeted value of 50.3%. Farebox recovery which is calculated as the ratio of fare revenues over total expenses less rolling stock lease, maintenance -of -way extra -ordinary maintenance, and maintenance -of -way revenues. This index has steadily increased to 43.5% projected for FY 1999/00. Operating expense per train -mile is calculated net of extra -ordinary maintenance and has decreased each year and is projected to be $44.99 in FY 1999/00. Operating expense per passenger -mile has fluctuated between $0.33 and $0,34 since FY 1995/96 and is projected to be $0.32 in FY 1999/00. Operating subsidy per rider decreased as the system matured. In FY 1996/97 the added interest resulted in the low of $5.22. The projection for FY 1999/00 is $5.48 in operating subsidy per rider. As Metrolink trips are long, a better indication of the efficiency of the system is operating subsidy per passenger -mile. This index has leveled out at $0.16 which is very competitive with other transit properties in the region. 2 Extra -ordinary maintenance covers damages due to vandalism, crossing gate accidents, derailments, fires, storm damage and other expenses as required. In years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, about $500,000 has been a reasonable estimate, and this is the level proposed for FY 1999/00. In other years, such as has been experienced in FY 1997/98 with the El NM() storms, the total can easily exceed $3,500,000. In FY 1998/99, the budget for Extra -ordinary Maintenance was set at $1,671,362. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 28 00 3 37a. FIGURE 2.2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY OPERATING STATISTICS - FY 92/93 TO FY 99/00 REVENUE RECOVERY ° FAREBOX RECOVERY 70% 70 k 60% - 56.3% 60% - 51.8% 50% -- 50.5% 54.8% ♦ 50% - 40% - 40% - 32.4% 30% - 30% - 20% -21.8% 20% - 10% - 10% - 0% , 0% 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 $90 OPERATING EXPENSE /TRAIN MILE $85.86 $80 -- $70 - 67.96 $60 - 8.18 55.27 $50 - $52.41 50.01 $48.40 $44.99 $40 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 $20 $15 $10 $5 a 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 OPERATING SUBSIDY/RIDER Actuals to FY 97/98, Forecast for FY 98/99, Preliminary Budget for FY 99/00 29 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 $1.0 $0.5 OPERATING EXPENSE/PASSENGER•MILE $- - $D.69 0.44 $0.37 $0.33 $0•34 $0.33 $0.33 $0.32 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 OPERATING SUBSIDY/PASSENGER-MILE $1.0 $0.5 $0.52 0.29 $0.25 $0.18 $0.15 $0.16 $0.16 • *50.16 $ 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 0 2, 373 CIiARTS00.xls-001818t000 4/14/99 3:47 PM SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 2.9 Summary of FY 1999/00 Statistics by Line Table 2.7 provides the estimated operating statistics by line for FY 1999/00 and the calculation of various performance ratios. Revenues and expenses are allocated to lines using formulae described in detail in Sections 6.1 through 6.4. Average trip length for FY 1999/00 is 34.4 miles. This is lower than the 35.6 miles assumed in prior years. Dependent on ridership and revenues received for each line, operating statistics vary considerably by line. The Orange County and San Bernardino Lines have the highest revenue recovery and most favorable cost-effectiveness and service efficiency indices as these line have the highest ridership per train and train -mile. The Inland Empire -Orange County and Antelope Valley lines have the lowest revenue recovery and least favorable cost-effectiveness indices as these lines have lower ridership per train. The Ventura County and Antelope Valley lines have the lowest service efficiencies with highest operating costs and subsidy per train -mile. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 0 3374 30 W r n c J TABLE 2.7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET FY 1999/00 PROJECTED STATISTICS BY LINE OPERATING STATISTICS: Passenger Boardings Average Daily Ridership Passenger Miles Train Miles Avg Trip Length (miles) FINANCIAL ($=000): Operating Cost (w/ MOW) Operating Cost (w/o MOW Extra -Ordinary Maintenance) Operating Cost (w/o MOW) Subsidy (w/ MOW) Revenues(1) Farebox Revenue COST EFFECTIVENESS: Op Cost / Passenger (w/o MOW Extra -Ordinary Maintenance Op Cost / Passenger Mile (w/o MOW Extra -Ordinary Maint) Subsidy / Passenger Subsidy / Passenger Mile Avg Fare / Passenger SERVICE EFFICIENCY: Op Cost / Train Mile Op Cost / Train Mile (w/o MOW Extra -Ordinary Maint) Op Cost / Train Mile (w/o MOW) Subsidy / Train Mile Farebox Recovery Revenue Recovery 2,123, 800 8,200 72,846,340 414,131 34.3 $20,029.6 $19,906.4 $14,886.0 $7,697.1 $12,332.5 $10,251.9 $9.37 $0.27 $3.62 $0.11 $4.70 $48.37 $48.07 $35.95 $18.59 57.0% 62.0% 971,250 3,750 29,234,625 219,114 30.1 $12,114.4 $12,020.7 $9,185.2 $6,931.9 $5,182.5 $3,564.5 $12.38 $0.41 $7.14 $0.24 $3.67 $55.29 $54.86 $41.92 $31.64 32.7% 43.1 % 1,087,800 4,200 38, 399, 340 325,278 35.3 $17,091.8 $16,959.9 $12,221.7 $10,158.7 $6,933.0 $4,605.3 $15.59 $0.44 $9.34 $0.26 $4.00 $52.55 $52.14 $37.57 $31.23 30.7% 40.9% 90,650 350 743,330 88,202 8.2 1,036,000 4,000 40,093,200 230,614 38.7 $10,049.1 $10,027.7 $9, 584.9 $5,105.8 $4,943.3 $4,703.4 $9.68 $0.25 $4.93 $0.13 $4.54 $43.58 $43.48 $41.56 $22.14 47.7% 49.3% 1,398,600 5,400 53,286,660 317,974 38.1 $14,313.4 $14,209.8 $10,781.1 $5,718.4 $8,595.1 $6,153.8 $10.16 $0.27 $4.09 $0.11 $4.40 $45.01 $44.69 $33.91 $17.98 48.7% 60.5% Iri(a t. .....snpi ..:..:................... ............................... .............................. 505,050 1,950 13,636,350 174,462 27.0 $6, 521.4 $6,495.2 $5,849.8 $3, 896.2 $2,625.2 $2,328.3 $12.86 $0.48 $7.71 $0.29 $4.61 $37.38 $37.23 $33.53 $22.33 37.2% 40.4% 7,213,150 27,850 248,239,845 1,769,776 34.4 $80,119.7 $79,619.7 $62,508.7 $39,508.1 $40,611.6 $31,607.2 $11.04 $0.32 $5.48 $0.16 $4.31 $45.27 $44.99 $35.32 $22.32 43 5% 51.0% Notes: (1) Revenues include farebox, dispatching fees, and MOW revenues from freight and Amtrak due to individual member agencies. Casts include all expenses for Metrolink and MOW on operating and non -operating lines. Budget9900 As -Line 4/15/99 12 58 PM SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 063376 04/15/99, 1:14 PM THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 32 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Section 3 Operating Budget 11 � IMETROLINK SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 3.0 OPERATING BUDGET This section presents the Operating Budget including a description of the two components of the Operating Budget: Operations and Maintenance -of -Way. These two components have multiple sub -components of both expenses and revenues, which are provided to permit allocation to line and to Member Agencies. The Operating Budget consists of two major components each with multiple sub -components: • The Operations portion of the Operating Budget includes expenses required to operate the Metrolink system including train operations, maintenance of equipment, fuel, security, utilities, transfer payments to other transit operators, revenue collection, payments to freight railroads for dispatching, station maintenance, passenger services, general and administrative expenses, professional services, and insurance. • The Maintenance -of -Way portion of the Operating Budget includes ordinary maintenance of the rights -of -way owned by SCRRA member agencies. It involves routine inspection of track, signals, structures and repairs as needed: 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 33 0u SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 3.1 Summary of Revenues and Expenses by Operating Line Table 3.1 shows revenues and expenses by operating line for the Operating Budget. Operating revenues include farebox revenues, dispatching and other revenues as well as maintenance -of -way revenues, which are those revenues received by the SCRRA on behalf of the Member Agencies from the freight railroads and Amtrak Intercity. These revenues are negotiated to offset maintenance due to freight and intercity traffic. All costs are not offset by these revenues, due to 1) the requirement of maintaining a higher standard of quality commuter rail service than that required for freight rail service and 2) Amtrak Intercity, by federal law, only pays incremental costs for its access to rights -of -way owned by member agencies. Farebox revenues are assigned to lines based on train -miles operated. Payments from freight railroads are allocated directly to lines. Operations expenses include expenses required to operate the Metrolink system including train operations, maintenance of equipment, fuel, security, utilities, transfer payments to other transit operators, revenue collection, payments to freight railroads for dispatching, station maintenance, passenger services, general and administrative expenses, professional services, and insurance. Operations expenses are distributed to the lines based on several formulae. Items such as Train Operations and fuel are distributed based on train -miles.. Payments to freight railroads are charged directly to lines. Base costs are those costs that do not vary with the number of trains operated. Prior to FY 1998/99 a variety of formulae had been used to distribute these costs. They ranged from even split of costs for items such as security at layover facilities, to a "Point -in -Time" formula developed for each fiscal year to allocate costs based on the route miles, stations, and train -miles projected for that fiscal year. In FY 1998/99 a new "Base" formula was developed to represent the resulting average distribution of these base costs over the prior three years. These allocation formulae are described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. Maintenance -of -way expenses are developed by SCRRA to ensure the level of ordinary maintenance is sufficient to prevent any loss of service quality. Levels of maintenance required on individual lines depend upon several factors including the condition of the infrastructure; levels of train traffic; levels of freight traffic; the number of road crossings; the number of curves; and exposure to storm damage. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 34 r t v:S(y TABLE 3.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 OPERATING BUDGET LINE DISTRIBUTION BY COST COMPONENT ................ 01359n EXPENSES 80,119.7 REVENUES • 40,611.6 :>r3i4 E 4iii�i_ TOTAL: REVENUE 20,029.6 12,3325 12,114.4 5,182.5 17,091.8 6,933.0 10,049.1 4,943.3 14,313A 8,595.1 6,521 A 2,625.2 Member Agency Revenues Farebox Revenue Miscellaneous Revenues MOW Revenues ........................................... ...............................4. ............ 39, 508.1 31, 607.2 2,029.2 6,975.1 7,697.1 10,251.9 158.8 1,921.9 6,931.9 3,564.5 485.6 1,132.4 10,158.7 4,605.3 386.5 1,941.3 5,105.8 4,703.4 78.5 161.4 5,718.4 6,153.8 858.1 1,583.1 3,896.2 2,328.3 61.7 235.2 OPERATIONS & SERVICES Train Operations - Amtrak Equipment Maintenance - Bombardier Contingency (Train Ops) Fuel Non -Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs Operating Facilities Maintenance Other Operating Train Services Security - Sheriff Security - Guards Public Safety Program Holiday Trains Train Operations Marketing TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection Passenger Relations Marketing Media & External Communications Utilities/Leases Transfers to Other Operators Station Maintenance Rail Agreements - Dispatching Rail Agreements - MOW 48,168.0 16,250.0 12,430.7 200.0 2,801.8 600.0 1,042.8 314.7 1,997.5 560.0 484.2 79.3 33.4 45.9 1,939.4 1,327.0 985.0 542.7 1,643.0 3,031.8 482.0 347.1 1,109.2 MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY 17,610.9 MOW - Line Segments 17,110.9 MOW - Extra -Ordinary Maintenance 500.0 GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE 9,938.7 Staff 7,277.4 Salaries & Fringe Benefits 6,061.4 Non -Labor Costs 1,216.0 Services 2,661.3 Professional Services 2,048.8 MIS 612.4 CONTINGENCY(Non-Tnln Ops) 500.0 INSURANCE 3,902.1 Liability/Property/Auto 2,302.1 Claims 1,200.0 Claims Administration 400.0 11,429.0 3,879.6 2,979.7 47.8 668.4 143.8 250.0 75.4 478.8 134.2 113.2 22.8 9.6 13.2 464.9 318.1 236.1 130.1 393.8 973.5 115.5 3.2 6,958.0 2,100.4 1,943.8 28.0 346.9 93.8 163.1 49.2 312.4 87.6 73.8 14.9 6.3 8.6 303.3 207.5 154.0 84.9 256.9 439.0 75.4 18.4 204.8 9,385.8 3,462.8 2,433.7 41.2 606.7 117.5 204.2 61.6 391.1 109.6 92.4 18.6 7.8 10.8 379.7 259.8 192.8 106.2 321.7 491.6 94.4 7,551.3 2,123.5 1,763.7 27.0 359.8 85.1 148.0 44.7 283.4 79.5 67.0 13.5 5.7 7.8 275.2 188.3 139.8 77.0 233.1 481.9 68.4 188.0 904.4 8,398.4 3,034.6 2,075.5 35.8 534.3 100.2 174.1 52.5 333.5 93.5 90.8 4.445.5 1,649.1 1.234.2 20.1 285.6 59.6 103.5 31.2 198.3 55.6 46.9 9.4 4.0 5.5 323.8 192.6 221.6 131.8 164.5 97.8 90.6 53.9 274.3 163.1 645.8 80.5 47.9 72.6 64.9 5,143.6 2,929.1 4,870.1 464.2 3,532.3 671.6 5,020.4 2,835.5 4,738.2 442.8 3,428.6 645.4 123.2 93.6 131.8 21.4 103.7 26.2 2A01.7 1,538.9 1,974.0 1,409.0 1,647.8 967.2 1,763.8 1,122.7 1,453.0 1,031.4 1,203.4 703.0 1,472.3 932.6 1,214.9 858.9 1,000.4 582.3 291.5 190.1 238.1 172.5 203.0 120.7 637.9 416.1 521,0 377.6 444.3 264.2 491.1 320.4 401.1 290.7 342.1 203.4 146.8 95.8 119.9 86.9 102.3 60.8 119.9 78.2 97.9 70.9 83.5 49.6 935A 610.2 764.0 553.7 651.5 387,4 551.8 360.0 450.7 326.6 384.4 228.6 287.6 187.6 234.9 170.3 200.4 119.1 95.9 62.5 78.3 56.8 66.8 39.7 auclget9900.4s-Detsll Aloc 35 4/1599 0003 0 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 3.2 Summary of Revenue and Expenses by Member Aaeney Table 3.2 provides the FY 1999/00 Metrolink Operating Budget by member agency shares. It should be noted that the FY 1998/99 Budget included $1.77 million in MTA contingency in the Maintenance -of -Way Budget which is not included in FY 1999/00. In addition, OCTA's operating subsidy for FY 1999/00 is projected to be $6.4 million or 10% more than the FY 1998/99 Budget primarily due to increased service in Orange County as well as increase in maintenance -of -way expenses, decreased revenues, as well as OCTA's share of increases in agency costs and professional services. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 0 id 33 36 w TABLE 3.2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY ($=000) EXPENSES Train Mile Allocation Base Allocation Direct Charge Maintenance -of -Way 16,442.5 41,064.5 5,001.7 17,610.9 9,560.0 23,175.5 2,901.1 10,586.8 2,982.6 6,803.5 580.5 3,751.8 1,210.0 3,111.9 446.7 182.1 2,002.0 5,349.5 749.4 2,126.6 687.8 2,624.2 324.2 963.6 ......�'''+,.ry,,.,:.:..:{1!".•.irF��FirW �«svL�:;niV;1l� REVENUES Gross Farebox Other Operating Maintenance -of -Way 31,607.2 2,029.2 6,975.1 17,983.7 910.3 4,341.6 5,376.0 769.5 1,526.9 1,996.1 25.7 5,047.3 50.8 784.6 1,204.2 273.0 322.0 FY 1998/99 BUDGET (1) INCREASE/(DECREASE) PERCENTAGE CHANGE 40,751.4 (1,243.4) (3.114) 24,862.7 (1,875.1) (7.5%) 5,876.5 569.5 9.7% 2,848.5 80.5 2.8% 4,416.1 (71.2) (1.6%) 2,747.6 53.0 1.9% TRAIN MILE EXPENSES Train Operations (Non -Dispatching) Fuel DIRECT CHARGE EXPENSES Rail Agreements Transfers to Other Operators Ambassador Labor (Included under Staff Salaries) BASE Dispatching Equipment Maintenance Non -Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs Operating Facilities Maintenance Other Operating Train Services Security - Sheriffs & Guards Public Safety Program Holiday Train TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection Stations & Information Services ALLOCATION EXPENSES Passenger Relations Marketing Media & External Communications Utilities/Leases Station Maintenance Staff Costs (Excluding Ambassador Labor) Professional Services MIS Insurance (1) LACMTA FY 98/99 subsidy includes $2,071.4K to cover contingencies in the Operating & Maintenance -of -Way Budgets. Budget9900. xls-Allocate 4/15/99 10:55 AM SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 3.3 Operations This section provides an overview of the Operations portion of the Operating Budget. The assumptions used in projecting expenses and revenues are presented along with an analysis of trends and forecasts for Operations and a detailed discussion of all elements of this budget. 3.3.1 Assumptions This section provides the service assumptions and assumptions used to project revenues and expenses for the Operations portion of the Operating Budget. • Service - Metrolink currently operates 130 daily trains on six lines. This operating scenario fully utilizes the existing equipment, and no significant increases in weekday service will be possible until new rolling stock is acquired. SCRRA has received federal, state and local funding for acquisition of 2 locomotives and up to 21 new rail cars. However, this new rolling stock will not be available for added service before FY 2001/02. Consequently, service levels assume continuation of the May 1999 service with 130 weekday trains and 20 Saturday trains as shown in Table 3.3. TABLE 3.3 SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS FOR FY 1999/00 Line Weekday Trains Saturday Trains San Bernardino 26 San Bern -LA 3 San Bern -LA 9 Riverside -LA Ventura County 4 Chatsworth -LA 10 Moorpark -LA 4 Oxnard -LA Antelope Valley 2 Santa Clarita-LA 8 Via Princessa-LA 10 Lancaster -LA 8 Lancaster -LA Riverside 12 Riverside -LA (UPRR) Riverside -LA via Fullerton 3 Riverside -LA (Fullerton) Orange County 9 Irvine -LA 2 San Juan Cap -LA 8 Oceanside -LA Inland Empire to Orange County 6 San Bem-Irvine 3 San Bern -San Juan Cap 1 Riverside -San Juan Cap Burbank Tums 20 Burbank Airport -LA 2 Burbank -LA 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 38 r� � �u 3 '3 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget • Revenues - Farebox revenues are projected from estimates of ridership. Since no new service is projected and most peak trains are close to capacity, ridership increase is very conservative. Revenue per rider is based on average trip length and mix of fare type. The revenue per rider experienced on each line is used to estimate farebox revenues from ridership projections. Dispatching revenues are estimated from prior agreements. Dispatching revenues from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad are inflated by the railroad index while, per agreement, Amtrak Intercity revenues are inflatedly the CPI. Revenues from Union Pacific Railroad are based on car counts and are assumed to be relatively flat. • Expenses - In projecting expenses, cost of living or labor agreement -related increases built into existing contracts are assumed. In addition, the October1998 service increase is annualized for FY 1999/00 resulting in increases to costs dependent on train -miles such as train operations and fuel. Additional expenses are also included for new positions which include 4.5 positions related to compliance with the new System Safety Plan and recommendations following the review by member agency CFOs. These recommendations included additional training of employees, intemal audit function, consultant assistance and improvements to the Oracle Financial Information System to provide useful management reports. The SCRRA Board also requested a new CAO position which is included in the proposed budget. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 39 003384 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 3.3.2 Detail of Operations Budget Table 3.4 provides a summary of the operating budget for FY 1999/00 with comparisons to FY 1997/98 and Budget and Forecast for FY 1998/99. The FY 1999/00 Budget is $2.4 million greater than the FY 1998/99 Forecast. Major factors contributing to this increase are: • Increase in train -miles of 10% due to annualization of the service as of May 1999 which includes the October 26, 1998 service increase • Annual increases in labor rates and non -labor costs included in the Amtrak contract combined with increase in train -miles result in an increase of $993,200. • Increased costs related to recommendations of the peer audit add $645,000. • Requirements of the System Safety Plan add $241,289. • The new CAO position adds $103,451. The following section describes each element of this table. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 000335 40 TABLE 3.4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 OPERATING BUDGET ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION BY COST COMPONENTS (2'• Thousands) FY 97198 Actual FY 99/99 'Budget - FY 98/99 Forecast Proposed FY 99/00 Budget FY 99/00 Change Compared to FY 97198 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 Actual Budget Forecast Revenue Train Miles (Thousands) 1,405.9 1,648.4 1,611.1 1,769.8 25.9% 7.5% 9.8% Average Daily Riders 25,700.0 28,451.0 26,851.0 27,850.0 8.4% -2.1% 3.7% Operating Cost/Train Mile (1) 550.01 547.77 547.98 544.99 -10.0% 5.81R -6.2% Farebox Recovery (1) (2) 43.69% 42.63% 42.84% 43.51% -0.4% 2.1% 2.0% Revenue Recovery (1) (3) 54.79% 50.31% 51.79% 51.01% -6.9% 1.4% -'.5% EXPENSES 73,707.5 80,313.5 77,718.1 80,119.7 8.7% -0.2% 3.1% REVENUES 38,041.8 39,561.9 40,021.0 40,611.6 6.8% 2.7% 1.5% NET LOCAL SUBSIDY 35,665.7 400751,8 37,697.1 39,eoe.1 i - t0.8% 4 1 % 4.8% TOTAL 'REVENUES " 73,707.5 ea,313:5 77,718.1 80,112.7I 9.7%4 • -0.2% 3.1% Member Agency Revenues 35,665.7 40,751.6 37,697.1 39,508.1 10.8% -3.1 % 4.8% Farebox Revenue 27,072.8 30,540.0 29,951.1 31,607.2 16.7% 3 5% 5.5% Miscellaneous Revenues 3,501.1 2,025.0 3,039.1 2,029.2 -42.0% 0.2% -33,2% MOW Revenues (1) 7,467.9 8,996.9 7,030.8 -6.6% -0.3% -0 8% TOTAL EXPENSES Including NloW 73,707.5 Basile 77 7181 _6,975.1 80,119.7I 83% -0.2% 3,1 % OPERATIONS 3 SERVICES 42,556.7 47,660.5 46,341.7 48,166.0 13.2% 1.1% 3.9% Train Operations - Amtrak 25,609.6 14,903.1 15,367.7 16,250.0 -36.5% 9.0% 5.7% Equipment Maintenance - Bombardier - 12,856.0 12,483.0 12,430.7 0.0% -3.3% -0.4% Contingency (Train Ops) 581.2 421.4 421.4 200.0 .es.e% -52.5% 52.5% Fuel 2,296.6 3,047.7 2,810.0 2,801.8 22.0% -8.1% -0.3% Non -Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs 234.6 700.0 525.0 600.0 155.8% -14.3% 14.3% Operating Facilities Maintenance 1,172.5 1,118.7 825.8 1,042.8 -11.1% -6.8% 28.3% Other Operating Train Services 214.9 558.5 403.0 314.7 46.4% -43.7% -21.9% Security - Sheriff 1,740.2 1,920.7 1,900.0 1,997.5 14.8% 4.0% 5.1% Security - Guards 549.8 663.0 588.0 560.0 1.9% -15.5% -4.8% Public Safety Program 637.3 515.7 515.7 484.2 -24.0% -6.1% -6.1% Holiday Trains 80.5 95.0 80.0 79.3 -1.5% -16.6% -0.9% TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection 1,306,5 1,629.6 1,575.0 1,939.4 48.4% 19.0% 23.1% Passenger Relations 825,1 1,141.3 1,038.2 1,327.0 60.8% 16.3% 27.6% Marketing 841.5 959.5 737.E 985.0 17.1% 2.7% 33.5% Media h External Communications 333.0 424.5 440.0 542.7 62.9% 27.8% 23.3% Utilities/Leases 1,449.3 1,500.0 1,750.0 1,643.0 13.4% 9.5% -6.1% Transfers to Other Operators 2,852.9 3,116.1 2,949.4 3,031.E 6.3% -2.7% 2.8% Station Maintenance 574.4 677.0 519.0 482.0 -16.1% -28.8% -7.1% Rail Agreements - Dispatching 305.7 307.4 307.4 347.1 13.5% 12.9% 12.9% Rail Agreements- MoW 951.1 1,105.4 1,105.4 1,109.2 16.6% 0.3% 0.3% MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY 19,737.6 18,670.3 17,432.5 17,610.9 -10.6% 5.7% 1.0% MaW - Line Segments 16,337.2 . 16,998.9 16,991.4 17,110.9 4.7% 0.7% 0.7% MoW - Extra -Ordinary Maintenance (1) (2) (3) 3,400.5 1,671.4 441.1 500.0 -85.3% -70.1 % 13.3% GENERAL 3 ADMINISTRATIVE 7,696.3 9,413.7 9,493.9 9,938.7 29.1 % 5.6% 4.7% Staff 6,733.1 7,212.5 7,525.1 7,277.4 8.1% 0.9% -3.3% Salaries 8: Fringe Benefits 5,491.9 6,117.3 6,879.8 6,061.4 10.4% -0.9% -11.9% Non -Labor Costs 1,241.1 1,095.3 1,095.3 1,216.0 -2.0% 11.0% 11.0% Services 963.2 Z201.1 1,968.8 2,661.3 176.3% 20.9% 35.2% Professional Services 592.6 1,430.8 1,258.8 2,048.8 245.7% 43.2% 62.8% MIS 370.6 770.3 710.0 612.4 66.3% -20.5% -13.7% CONTINGENCY (Non -Train Ops) 153.8 525.0 525.0 500.0 225.1% -4.8% -4.8% INSURANCE 3,563.1 4,044.0 3,925.0 3,902.1 9.5% -3.5% -0.6% Liability/Property/Auto 3,019.8 2,494.0 2,375.0 2,302.1 .23.8% -7.7% -3.1% Claims 275.2 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 336.0% 0.0% 0.0% Claims Administration 288.0 350.0 350.0 400.0 49.2% 14.3% 14.3% (1) Budgeted Maintenance -of -Way Extraordinary Maintenance excluded from calculation. (2) Farebox Recovery= Farebox Revenue/Total Expenses - MOW Extra -Ordinary Maintenance - MOW Revenues. (3) Revenue Recovery = Total Revenues/Total Expenses - MOW Extra -Ordinary Maintenance 41 Gv'33 6 Budg et9900rds-Summary 4/15/99 10:54 AM SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Revenues. Metrolink fares increased by 4% in October 1998. Table 3.5 shows the projection of ridership and farebox revenue for FY 1999/00. Since service is not increasing, conservative ridership increases are assumed at an average weekday ridership of 27,850 and average Saturday ridership of 2,950. The annual average takes into account reduced ridership in December and in the summer months. Revenue per rider was estimated based on prior years and the experience through February 1999 after the fare increase. Revenue per rider depends on average trip length as well as mix of ticket types and varies from a low of $3.67 on the Ventura County Line to $4.70 on the San Bernardino Line. The resulting Farebox Revenue is 3.5% over the FY 1998/99 Budget and 5.5 % over the FY 1998/99 Forecast. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM C O'338 I 42 W TABLE 3.5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1999/00 BUDGET PROJECTION OF RIDERSHIP AND FARE REVENUES FOR FY 1999/00 (NO SERVICE INCREASE OVER CURRENT LEVELS) San Bemardino Sat Santa Clarita Sat Riverside (inci R-F-LA) (1) Orange Co. IEOC 'Ventura County Antelope Valley San Bemardino Burbank Airport (2) Burbank Total Weekday 1 All Ridership 98/99 Nov-98 Budget 'I 1,700 1,150 4,406 5,556 1,708 3,539 4,208 8,415 223 396 28,451 31,301 1,729 1,075 3,896 5,418 1,861 3,615 4,011 8,219 343 NA 27,363 30,167 DAILY. RIDERSHIP Jan-99 Feb-99 Final est 1,917 1,140 4,026 5,453 1,852 3,754 4,143 8,033 335 NA 27,596 30,653 1,917 1,140 3,959 5,526 1,892 3,664 4,248 8,461 357 28100 98/99 ' 99/00 Forecast Budget 1,768 1,800 1,196 1,150 Total Riders 99/00 Budget 90,000 57,500 3,897 4,000 1,036,000 5,136 5,400 1,398,600 1,715 1,950 3,679 3,750 4,002 4,200 8,082 8,200 340 350 26851 27,850 505,050 971,250 1,087,800 2,123,800 90,650 NA 7,213,150 7,360,650 99/00 vs 98/99 Budget 5.9% 0.0% -9.2% 14.2% 6.0% -0.2% -2.6% -43.5% NA -2,1% -1s6% 99/00 vs 98/99 Forecast 1.8% -3.8% 2.6% 5.1% 13.7% 98/99 Budget $3.00 $2.50 $4.48 $4.53 $4.84 1.9% $3.66 4.9% $3.66 1.5% $4.33 2.9% NA 3:7% 3.3% $2.58 Revenue/Rider Average Jul -Aug $3.30 $2.79 $4.28 $4.27 $4.65 $3.42 $3.81 $4.39 Average Sep -Nov $2.81 $3.00 $4.72 $4.40 $4.57 $3.81 $3.80 $4.67 99/00 Budget $3.00 $3.00 $4.54 $4.40 $4.61 $3.67 $4.00 $4.70 $0.90 98/99 Budget ., $265,200 $149, 500 $5,033,405 $6,421,280 $2,018,432 $3,300,023 $3,923,105 $9,282,839 $146,563 $30,125,647 $30,540,347 Total Revenue 98/99 Forecast. $265,200 $149, 500 $4,467,857 $5,715,107 $2,169,358 $3,414,202 $4,046,581 $9,650,031 $73,282 $29,536,418 $29,951,118 (1) Per agreement, Metrolink can add no more trains on the Riverside Line prior to additional capital improvements. In an effort to add more service between Riverside and LA, three trains are travelling via Fullerton on the San Bernardino Subdivision. (2) Burbank Airport and Burbank trains combined. Assumes only 1/3 of trips pay the equivalent of one zone. All the rest are transfers from other lines. 99/00 Budget $270,000 $172,500 $4,703,440 $6,153,840 $2,328,281 53,564,488 $4,351,200 $9,981,860 • $81,585 99/00 vs 98/99 Budget 1.8% 15.4% -8.6% -4.2% 15.4% 8.0% 10.9% 7.5% -44.3% $31,164,693 3.4% $31,607,193 3.5% RidersRevs3.x1w, 3/29/99 TAC Item SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Miscellaneous revenues include fees for dispatching freight and Amtrak trains. Table 3.6 shows the Dispatching Revenues from FY 1997/98 through FY 1999/00. Per agreement, the dispatching revenues have increased 2% over the FY 1998/99 Budget and 1.4% over the Forecast for FY 1998/99. While not included in the budget amount, each year, the actual Miscellaneous Revenues also include interest on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects. Maintenance -of -way revenues are described in Section 3.4. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 44 %L L'Z %06' 4 4 000'Z8Z 000' 9LZ 000'ZSZ LLS'66Z (O1ON) 33u4s1O Aun00 ylJoN %0L' L %ZS'£ ZLVO4 L6Z'04 914'04 LSO'£ 4 (ASNE1) esn paleys uolslnlpgnS euapesed %OE 4 %W.' 4 ZZO'SZ 90917Z S6S'VZ 00Z' 4£ (3SN8) es() paaeys uolsyupgns an110 o6ala ues %CZ'OE 6b8'tiS 4 6SL'OS 4 669' 8 L 4 8SZ'S LZ (O1dSPAldfl) Jamol uolss!Al %00'0 %ZZ'8- VOZ'8L voz'8L LOZ'98 SZS'00 L (O1dSRibdn) fanloed twor Nue8;se3 %00'0 L60'LSZ L60'LSZ SLS'8SZ 6L6'9SZ (O1dS/Riadfl) asO paieyS sn6nes'g1se00 %6b' 4 % 49'4- 009'99 4' L$ OZ9'6£ 4' 4$ SLS'SLL' 4$ 98E'9£ 4' 4$ �llo�a}ul Nei;wy anuanaa 6ulyNeds1O kwoylny nes leuol6ab elwomeO waynnos 9'£ 318y1 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget The following sections provide detail of the expenses shown in Table 3.4. Train Operations. In FY 97/98 Amtrak provided both train operations services and maintenance of equipment. The total amount for these two categories was $25.6 million. In FY 1998/99 Amtrak is providing train operations and dispatching only and is budgeted at $14.9 million and the projection for FY 1999/00 is $16.3 million which represents a 9% increase over FY 1998/99 Budget and 6% over the Forecast. This increase is due to the additional train -miles operated as well as increases in labor rates and inflation of non - labor expenses.' The contingency for Train Operations is set at $100,000. Equipment Maintenance. The budget for FY 1998/99 is $12.9 million, the Forecast is $12.5 million, and the projection for FY 1999/00 is $12.4 million. The budget for Bombardier in FY 1998/99 included start-up costs which are not included in FY 1999/00. Costs for FY 1999/00 are increased due to labor increases per the contract and a 2% inflation on non -labor expenses.' The contingency for Equipment Maintenance in FY 1999/00 is set at $100,000. Fuel. Fuel usage is based on current consumption levels. Fuel prices have dropped over the last two years and are assumed at an average cost per gallon of $.65 compared with the average cost of $.70 per gallon assumed in the FY 1998/99 Budget. While this item increases with the increased train -miles, the FY 1998/99 Budget was estimated from fuel delivered rather than fuel pumped. This resulted in a higher estimate than the FY 1999/00 methodology. The projection for FY 1999/00 shows a 0.3% decrease over the Forecast for FY 1998/99. Non -Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs. This item is a contingency line item for repairs due to unforeseen damage to rolling stock. In FY 1997/98, the actual expenditure on this item was $234,600. The budget amount for FY 1998/99 was set at $700,000 the Forecast is $525,000 and the projection for FY 1999/00 is $600,000 - a decrease of 14% over Budget and an increase of 14% over the FY 1998/99 Forecast. Operating Facilities Maintenance. In FY 1997/98 the actual expenditure was $1,172,500 for cleaning, maintenance, and hazardous materials compliance at the Central Maintenance Facility; facility maintenance and repairs. The budget for FY 1998/99 is $1,118,700 and the Forecast is $825,800 as the LNG project has not proceeded. While the LNG project is not included in the FY 1999/00 Operating Budget, there are some small increases for labor and landscaping/irrigation and a new project is added in the amount of $132,000 to update as-builts of the equipment and maintenance facility in accordance with the requirements of the Safety System Plan. The projection for FY 1999/00 is $1,042,800 - 7% less than Budget and 26% over the Forecast for FY 1998/99. 3 It should be noted that while inflation on non -labor expenses is incorporated into the budget, payment for such expenses is based on actual expenses. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 46 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Other Operating Train Services. In FY 1997/98 the actual expenditure was $214,900. The budget for FY 1998/99 is $558,500 and a decrease of 44% to $314,700 is proposed for FY 1999/00 for weather data forecast and earthquake reporting services, publications, uniforms, emergency bus services, and training. This is a 22% decrease over the Forecast for FY 1998/99 as $200,000 in Amtrak training costs for crew wages which was previously included in this line item is now included in the Train Operations line item. Security - Sheriff. Based on the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD) contract, the budget assumes staffing of 13.5 direct -charge service units as in FY 1998/99. This line item shows an increase of 4% over the FY 1998/99 Budget and 5% increase over the Forecast due to rate increases in the contract. This contract includes an additional 9.5 direct -charge service units for which MTA pays outside the SCRRA Operating Budget to provide additional security in Los Angeles County. Security - Guards. The staffing of guards at the Central Maintenance Facility and the six layovers locations continues at FY 1998/99 levels. The amount proposed for FY 1998/99 is a 16% decrease over FY 1998/99 Budget and 5% decrease over the Forecast based upon the average of bids received for the new security contract. Public Safety Program. The program includes new APTA and FRA requirements, twelve police and fire officer education trains, continuation of the "Don't Pick a Fight With a Heavyweight" campaign (including a community outreach event in each county), public information and school education campaigns, and safety and incident response training for staff and contractors. Holiday Trains. In FY 1999/00 there will be no holiday toy trains in Orange County per the request of OCTA. The amount projected for seven holiday toy trains in FY 1999/00 is 17% less than the FY 1998/99 Budget amount and a 1 % decrease from the current Forecast for FY 1998/99. Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) Maintenance/Revenue Collection. This item includes TVM and validator maintenance, revenue servicing, ticket stock, replacement of destination and ticket type strips in the TVMs, fare/zone change programming, and merchant fees for credit and debit card usage. In FY 1999/00 this item also includes the Amtrak ticket clerk at LAUS. In prior years this charge was deducted from maintenance - of -way revenues paid to SCRRA by Amtrak. Due to this addition, and an increase in the number of ticket machines and validators as well as increase in the estimate for Saturday maintenance on the San Bernardino and Lancaster Lines, this line item increases 19% from the FY 1998/99 Budget and 23% from the Forecast. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 47 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Passenger Relations. A 16% increase is projected over the FY 1998/99 Budget and 28% over the Forecast for passenger and telephone information services. The forecasted increase is attributed to increased volume of phone calls and printing costs for seat notices, maps, informational brochures and timetables. The budget also includes additional funding to improve customer communications. Elements of this program include a station call box test and standardized station kiosks. Marketing. There is an increase of 3% compared with the FY 1998/99 Budget and 34% over Forecast. This line item includes advertising, market research, event marketing, and corporate relations. In an attempt to increase ticket sales, marketing is proposing a telemarketing program along with offering commissions to retail outlets and other sales incentive programs. A new co-op program to initiate relationships with recreational partners will market new destinations. It adds $55,000 to the budget, but is offset by an equal amount in projected revenues. An additional $55,000 in marketing expenses is also included in the Holiday Train line item. Media/External Relations. There is an increase of 28% compared with the FY 1998/99 Budget and 23% over the Forecast. This line item includes media and public relations, community relations, and web site maintenance and programming and the increase reflects increased levels of spending in all these areas. The major increase is due to expenditures related to production of a new Ride Guide and other publications and increase in web site maintenance. Utilities/Leases. Utility and lease costs are estimated at current monthly average costs and 10% above the FY 1998/99 Budget primarily due to the fact that cellular phone charges for Train Operations -Amtrak are included here instead of in the Train Operations -Amtrak line item as in prior years. The projection for FY 1999/00 is 6% under the Forecast for FY 1998/99. Transfers to Other Operators. Prior to FY 1998/99, this item was included as a reduction of revenues. It is now included with operating expenses. Revenue transfers to other transit operators increase 3% over the forecast for FY 1998/99 due to the projected increase in ridership and new agreements with additional operators. SCRRA expects to pay approximately 10% of fare revenues collected to connecting operators. Maintenance of Station Fixtures. This item is reduced by 29% over the FY 1998/99 Budget which included $300,000 in MTA funds to allow for increased activity at Los Angeles County stations. The FY 1999/00 amount is 3% over the Forecast for FY 1998/99. This item includes maintenance of station equipment, signs, display cases, and public address/changeable message signs (PA/CMS). It also includes SCRRA's share of maintenance at Los Angeles Union Station. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 0 U. 3 48 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Rail Agreements - Dispatching. This line item represents payments to freight railroads for dispatching related to service operated over property owned by these railroads. The amount budgeted represents a 13% increase from FY 1998/99 due to increased train - miles operated and the annual increase, per agreement, in the cost per train -mile. Rail Agreements - Maintenance -of -Way. This line item represents payments to freight railroads for maintenance of way related to service operated over property owned by these railroads. The total amount budgeted represents a 0.3% increase from the FY 1998/99. While expenditures are increased by the annual increase, per agreement, in the cost per train -mile, the FY 1998/99 Budget included train -miles which were not operated and are not included in FY 1999/00. Maintenance of Way -Line Segments. This line item is discussed in Section 3.4. Maintenance of Way - Extra -ordinary Maintenance. This line item is discussed in Section 3.4. Salaries and Fringe Benefits. Salaries and fringe benefits are forecast based on the salary rate for the position, with 43% for fringe benefits (SCRRA's actual experience with SCRRA employees). Sixteen new permanent positions are recommended, but only 8 will be charged to operations. In FY 1999/00 it is proposed that Ambassadors become permanent full-time or part-time employees. In prior years Ambassadors were carried as a separate line item. They are now added to the agency Salaries and Fringe Benefits line item. Existing Ambassador staffing at LAUS and other stations will be maintained. The budget for Ambassadors increases 8% over the FY 1998/99 Budget and 22% over the Forecast due to assumed full staffing levels. In addition, in prior years all labor was allocated directly to the various budgets - Operating, Maintenance -of -Way, New Capital, and Capital Maintenance. In developing the FY 1999/00 Budget, agency labor not directly related to projects is now identified as overhead costs to be applied to all project - related costs. In prior years, these costs were included in the Operating Budget. In FY 1999/00 they are spread to all budgets, thus reducing the allocation to the Operating Budget. A 3% pool is included for merit increases. The Salaries and Fringe Benefits line item in the Operating Budget decreases 1% compared with FY 1998/99 and 12% compared with the Forecast. Non -Labor Costs. Non -Labor Costs are based on current actual costs and increase by 11 % compared with the FY 1998/99 Budget and Forecast. They include office space, public notices, equipment and facility rentals, and staff related costs for travel, training, office supplies, etc. In FY 1999/00, employee development and training will be managed by Human Resources and accounted for in the Executive cost center. In prior years, these costs were distributed to all departments. The expenditures will include the development and implementation of various programs to further assess and to develop SCRRA staff. The costs may include, but not be limited to an assessment of the current 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 49 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget culture, the development of competencies linked to the overall strategic plan for the agency and the development of training initiatives required to improve or support these competencies. Other costs include the technical training necessary to carry out the mission of the agency. Professional Services. Professional Services includes contracted services for legal and legislative advocate representatives; development of the Strategic Plan; Internal Audit; System Safety Plan and related operating plans; performance audit of operators; feeder_ bus coordination; equipment engineering assistance; financial audit; budget development/monitoring; FIS training; programming/software; documentation of accounting procedures; media relations/writing assistance; signage design; develop/implement/maintain DBE program, records retention program, and vendor list; and assistance with transition. Overall, Professional Services are projected to increase 43% over the FY 1998/99 Budget and 63% over the Forecast due to significant increases in legal services and the addition of new services related to the System Safety Plan, Internal Audit, and upgrade and training for the FIS. MIS. This line item includes hardware and software leases, support and maintenance costs for the MCI building, the Central Control Facility (CCF), and the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF), and Oracle programming to allow for useful management reports. The FY 1998/99 Budget also includes hardware and software to allow us to begin to scan files and maps for storage. The total MIS Budget increases from $770,300 in FY1998/99 to $1,031,500 in FY 1999/00. However, in FY 1999/00 MIS is treated as an overhead cost and is allocated to all budgets. As a result, there is a 21 % decrease in the Operating Budget compared with the FY 1998/99 Budget and 14% decrease as compared with the Forecast. Contingency. In FY 1997/98, $153,800 in contingency on Non -train Operations expenses was used to cover unanticipated demands. In FY 1998/99 this line item was set at $525,000 or 1% and in FY 1999/00 it is set at $500,000 or 1%. Insurance. Overall, this item is projected to decrease 4% compared with the FY 1998/99 Budget, and to decrease 1% compared with the Forecast for FY 1998/99. Premiums have decreased slightly over the last three years and are projected to decrease by 8% over the FY 1998/99 Budget, and to decrease 3% over the Forecast for FY 1998/99. Claims costs are budgeted at the payout estimates and are projected at the same level as the FY 1998/99 Budget despite an increase in the number of claims. Claims administration is assumed to increase 14% compared with the FY 1998/99 Budget and Forecast due to the increased number of claims. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 50 3j SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 3.4 Maintenance-of-Wav Budget This section provides an overview of the Maintenance -of -Way portion of the Operating Budget. The Maintenance -of -Way portion of the Operating Budget includes ordinary maintenance of the right-of-way owned by SCRRA member agencies. As required by federal and state regulations, it involves routine inspection of track, signals, structures and repairs as needed. 3.4.1 Assumptions This section provides the assumptions used to project revenues and expenses for the Maintenance -of -Way (MOW) portion of the Operating Budget. Over long periods, the expenses under capital and ordinary maintenance budgets are somewhat interchangeable. Because the most economical methods of replacement of railroad elements (rail, ties, crossings, etc.) are through large specialized operations, railroad owners usually arrange for periodic replacement of elements using capital budgets. Under one extreme maintenance philosophy, a railroad owner may elect to continually replace worn elements using ordinary maintenance forces. In this scenario, the property is kept in excellent condition and there is no need for a capital maintenance program. However, total expenses are very high. The other extreme is to limit ordinary maintenance to little more than legally required inspections and to repair what breaks, counting on future capital maintenance to refresh the condition of the property. This scenario results in reduction of speed and quality of operations as the maintenance level declines; however, ordinary maintenance expenditures are minimized. The recommended MOW philosophy of SCRRA is to perform ordinary maintenance sufficient to prevent any loss of service quality and to budget for capital maintenance at sufficient intervals to prevent the needed repairs/replacements from overwhelming the ordinary MOW budget. This philosophy is practiced by all of the successful freight railroads on their main routes when they can afford to do so. 3.4.2 Conditions and Trends in the MOW Budget During FY 1997/98 all of the SB 1402 rehabilitations and improvements were completed and during FY 1998/99 an extensive rehabilitation program on the Ventura County Line was largely completed. Earlier MOW programs have been developed as needed to maintain the tracks in their original condition. The factors listed below increase the MOW budget as compared to the budgets of the prior owners: + Higher standards for maintenance • Signal problem response time • Right-of-way and crossing response to community • No tolerance for speed reductions • No interference with train movements + More frequent trains/less work time/overtime for many tasks + Unforeseen expenses related to signals and storm damage + Some capital work was not completed 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 51 06C336 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget • Tunnel rehabilitation • Some old rail • Some old interlockings (Allen, First St., Ninth St.) + Right-of-way security issues • Graffiti • Trash dumping • Vandalism to track and signals Actions that may eventually reduce the MOW expenses include: - Completion of capital maintenance projects - Improvements to right-of-way security • Fencing • Law enforcement (SCRRA and community) • Signage Acquisition of maintenance site(s) to avoid rents and reduce travel time 3.4.3 MOW Revenues and Expenses Table 3.7 provides maintenance -of -way revenues received from the freight railroads and Amtrak from FY 1997/98 through FY 1999/00. These revenues include revenues for operating and non -operating lines. Maintenance -of -Way revenues were $7.5 million in FY 1997/98, but have leveled out at $7.0 million in FY 1998/99 Budget, the FY 1998/99 Forecast and the projection for FY 1999/00. Maintenance -of -way revenues are estimated from prior agreements and revenues from the freight railroads are inflated by the railroad index (2.71%) while Amtrak revenues, per agreement, are inflated by the CPI (1.49%). In prior years, $100,000 for an Amtrak ticket clerk at LAUS was deducted from LAUS Rail Yard Operations and Maintenance revenues. In FY 1999/00 this offset is eliminated, and the expense for the ticket clerk now appears in the Operating Budget. Revenues on the East Bank Joint Facility are related to SCRRA's expenditures in this segment and vary from year to year depending upon both maintenance and capital work. Revenue reduction from Mission Tower reflects reduced expenditures following upgrade of the plant. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 52 )09fr" ., v 66/8/17`MOW`six•snammOwdsiQ %00.0 %LCZ %LL•Z %£ L' L- 9£9'£0£ 9£9'£0£ 966'90£ C77 C' 7 r• j ._) v '00/6661. Ad of Loud sanuanai mow papellgns smog le Velo;a)19i1 (L) 9£9'£0£ (OndO) 6wssoaO apei0 elels %LL•L- S0Z'69V' L Z L6'6trtr' L Z09'909' L OVO'nt►' L (dSNB) asn paleys uoisApgns euapesed %L9•SZ- %STK- %LL'Z %LI:l- LZ9'900' L LL6'L96 0£t+'OZO' L 17Ob'1796 (dSN9) asn paieys uopmpgns an110 06aia ues %Z9'LE- SL9'L9 999'L L L 906'OP L LZL'ZLZ (O1dSRi2idn) JeMol uopSHN %£91- t•9Z' LZS SL9'96L £LS'S9S Ot+t/696 (OldSRiddfl) APPed luior Nueg lses %t'L•0 99Z't79V'Z ZLS'69E'Z £9 L'9£b'Z LbL'90L'Z (OldSR12idf1) asn paieys sn6nes lsee0 %LO'Z %I.EZ 0 0 000'Z L 0 (Z) (01dS/2:1):Idfl) asn paieys youeig lamas alelS %t,L'E L Lb9'OL L t9 L'L9 L 9Z0'0S L t+L9' L6 (01dS/8ddfl) asn paieys pueis *Jed uimpies %69'9LS %6b' L %ZO.O- 69L'SL OLL'£L 99L'SL L96'9£ (OldSRINdn) asn paJeyS youeig esnzy %OEM £90' LZL 999' L L Li7L'9Z 0 (L) (leilwy) anueualuieyy'8 suonwadp RIBA fled sntn %Z9' L- ZOZ'£i7L$ L6Z'Z£L$ 0£tr'99L$ 90b'9£L$ AlPialut NeJ)Luy anuanad AeM-p-a9ueualuiew Alioylny filed leuol6ad eiuuomeO uaaylnog L'£ 318y1 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Table 3.8 provides the projection of Maintenance -of -Way Revenues, Subsidy and Expenditure by line and by county for FY 1999/00. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 54 :} ` 3 9 TABLE 3.8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1999/00 PROPOSED MAINTENANCE -OF -WAY EXPENDITURES MEMBER AGENCY SHARES REVENUE FORECAST SPLIT LA - SanBemardino (1) LA - Ventura (Burbank Jct to Moorpark) (2 LA - Lancaster Fullerton - San Diego County Line Olive Subdivision Riverside Layover Facility River Corridor Extra -Ordinary Maintenance (Derailments, Storm Damage, Gate Knoc (6,�16,4d4 $1,019,111 $987,136 $1, 788, 322 $1,420,972 $105,938 $0 $961,925 $0 kdowns, Vandalis if,691,064 $276,671 $665,146 $1, 788, 322 $0 $0 $0 $961,925 $0 m) SO $0 $0 $1,420,972 $105,938 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 }742,440 $742,440 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $321, 990 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NON -OPERATING LINES $691,737 $849,564 $0 $0 $42,173 $0 Sierra Madre -Claremont (Pasadena Sub) Baldwin Park Branch (San Bemardino Co.) $649,564 $42,173 $649,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,173 $0 $0 NET SUBSIDY SPLIT £1�te ............... OPERATING LINES &78k1#i>: true o $10,370,619 3:41; fiau $6,026,946 5�i9S0::s $2,224,914 $182,106 :>sz:A' IP 48t3 $1,295,033 532'1;99D> $841,620 LA - San Bemardino (1) $2,524,351 LA - Ventura (Burbank Jct to Moorpark) (2 $1,490,467 LA - Lancaster $2,573,022 Fullerton - San Diego County Line $1,608,155 Olive Subdivision $221,006 Riverside Layover Facility $45,185 River Corridor $1,408,433 Extra -Ordinary Maintenance $500,000 (Derailments, Storm Damage, Gate Knockdowns, Vandalis m) $1,496, 688 $983,112 $2,573,022 $0 $0 $27,405 $669,006 $277,714 $0 $0 $0 $1,608,155 $221, 006 $0 $278,870 $116,884 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,393 $156,336 $15,378 $1, 027, 663 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,388 $202,814 $57,167 $0 $507, 355 $o $0 $0 $0 $101,407 $32, 858 NON -OPERATING LINES Sierra Madre -Claremont (Pasadena Sub) Baldwin Park Branch (San Bemardino Co.) $265,169 $218,163 $47,006 $218,163 $218,163 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURE FORECAST Operating Lines $47,006 $0 $47,006 SO $0 $0 � �. , .......i..r?9SF.fl9;::>:<:>::� '2•X4.�f+i:: ;::>::>':::;$A82 �kGB:::::»::::.'��3� �. �39a:><»:::>::: r ....�.. ..... .. F..y.LL..... ems+ .. :...3647.F6xG. $16,654,023 LA - San Bemardino (1) $3,543,462 LA - Ventura (Burbank Jct to Moorpark) (2 $2,477,603 LA - Lancaster $4,361,344 Fullerton - San Diego County Line $3,029,127 Olive Subdivision $326,944 Riverside Layover Facility (3) $45,185 River Corridor (4) $2,370,358 Extra -Ordinary Maintenance (5) $500,000 (Derailments, Storm Damage, Gate Knockdowns, Vandalis $9,719,010 $1, 773, 359 $1,648,258 $4,361,344 $0 $0 $27,405 $1,630,931 $277,714 m) $3,751,824 $0 $0 $0 $3,029,127 $326,944 $0 $278,870 $116,884 $182,106 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,393 $156,336 $15,378 $2,037,473 $1,770,103 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,388 $202,814 $57,167 $963,610 $0 $829,345 $0' $0 $0 $0 $101,407 $32,858 NON -OPERATING LINES $956,906 $867,727 $0 $0 $89,179 $0 Sierra Madre -Claremont (Pasadena Sub) Baldwin Park Branch (San Bemardino Co.) $867,727 $89,179 1$11 6i10929: $867,727 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89,179 $0 $0 (1) SPLIT OF MOW NET SUBSIDY IS BY TRACK MILES (5929% LACMTA AND 40.71%SANBAG). SPLIT MOW REVENUE FORECAST IS BY COUNTY SPECIFIC REVENUES. (2) SPLIT OF MOW NET SUBSIDY AND MOW REVENUE FORECAST IS BY TRACK MILES (85.96% LACMTA AND 34.04% VCTC). (3) SPLIT IS BY ROUTE MILES (60.65% LACMTA, 23.00% RCTC, AND 16.35% SANBAG). (4) SPLIT IS 1998 ALL SHARE (47.5% LACMTA, •19.8% OCTA, 11.1% RCTC, 14.4% SANBAG, AND 7.2% VCTC) OF COST IN EXCESS OF REVENUES. (5) SPLIT IS 1998 ALL SHARE FOR DERAILMENTS ($100,000) AND PERCENT OF ROUTE MILES OWNED (57.5535% LACMTA, 24.2709% OCTA, 1.0694% RCTC, 10.6918% SANBAG, AND 6.4144% VCTC) FOR STORM DAMAGE, GATE KNOCKDOWNS, AND VANDALISM. 55 4/14/99,3:20 PM,99 w5.44, N•.. U U SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Table 3.9 provides a summary of the projection of Maintenance -of -Way Expense Detail for FY 1999/00 by Line Segment/Territory and compares these projections to FY 1998/99 Budget and Forecast. It should be noted that in the adopted FY 1998/99 Budget, MTA included contingencies amounting to $1,771,362 for storm damage, deductibles, and potential match to federal funds on the San Bernardino Line. The maintenance category detail provided in Table 3.9 includes the following line items • Track - payments to the maintenance -of -way contractor for projection of labor on inspections/repair of track. • Signal & Communications - payments to the maintenance -of -way contractor for projection of labor on inspections/repair of signal and communication systems. • Structures- payments to the maintenance -of -way contractor for projection of labor on inspections/repair of bridges, tunnels and other structures. • Procurement - expenditures for procurement of items needed in repair of track, signals, communications, or structures which are allocated to segments and counties on the basis of track -miles. • Other - expenditures for vegetation control, vehicle /equipment expense, rail flaw detection, and engineering which are allocated to segments and counties on the basis of track -miles. • Agency Costs - SCRRA labor, overhead and non -labor costs allocated to the Maintenance -of -Way Budget which are allocated to segments and counties on the basis of track -miles. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 56 TABLE 3.9 .!-1 w.L r. 7'3E6v63n:ague3 3 a z :, N^» a N N A N» j»j.11E'Atialio6;Y6i.+^-.^1.on»81.71§p1 N N N N N h 6 M N# A» N N N a N N ��y04E E M N N M grymz3 a a i A A» M N y��wpON5F—:.VVo3.n3`a"�.r'y7`ymi:`; A» S � N N N N e~. » 7-N N» N N Y� : N aaary�:yV1 y� N N- M M ...., t S3 N N w N ' . 3 «« XxXxXxxxXxXxXxx::2:'itXXxxxxx w:'l'q'."SP.wmISP.X- :e:iAri'gvlti ' YonY9!:i:K `:°pn^o.-a9Ao 7" ai4T2i 2, �',... A> y. % XXxxXXxexx enN0,1;947?V'F)R,yYn,T.fmr•,T*"c.%�TV?"'VT.y4^-4U4,4.eoai.oYgT.1� .^.*osv�r9!1841 xxoxXxxxxxoxxxxxxXxexXKxxexXxxxXXXx< X !I 3t"TseamV ,YBibLULL4.p.-mR om.fi��o+v�S-'223 y� xXXXXXXxx4XN:"xXXXxxXexXxXxX�xx yi"4" aRn.'$Yiym«�R'.$��y¢ym fie^. "6 ��wui gAr"Pleft!ggt-744Clig" o..i�vi „rv'i ein.-.. ''.g'z�s• xxxxyxxxXX i oin " �o �on`"o8 sonon'uwn XXxxXxXxXX $2x$„ Witlon is»r.oiyn„'m, 01X nm-a.' nv �^ Fi 2L7axxxXxxx :;: ii ii:::!9!Q 88Sm o`o.i �0i.... .:� aa_:2VVS1EriciruSq»2pS.7SRAR251.3+•S a3“pr NA 44 55�� wNih pYp� N' NNNN N 55�� QQ gg 1pp� St"8♦ M N MNAN S5�� gg RR pnI qo Y �Ow O.ipOp.�1a nY,_ M Ie MN'N N W»ong�“'_os'm.7.SS25n ��F�y ^ yOO�e�«lNNNNNMMN O %5NNNNM w YY S5�� qq QQ AFP.P.RWEn§Frincg R• 22E NNMMN 5� W NONNO NN os2 N i�M '»oli.Yi.2G»a�3:3S§$ 112�i5�y♦ MMM 55•� N!» NNaNNMN N 5�y5�y 5{�4. MNa NN " r MaA R Q c 3PFM mS+ u��»� 1+18 C NNM O :43Fo V p .^N. a xnn a ^ARknoovagl-§Alr“'-nNvm.^ ,;�MNGA»N�tNNANS»»AA�B�tN»RA» + 1. �s a� A�.�+.N9iR V � �y .W„ OgN m m y p �O Nry'nV oo O=e.h� 3g41»»22i3 g �o P n Y�e� �n�, P.''1_+i.�! 44 .�pp Ap8882 714ogsa.i' NN:.»ANJ� p p n .nta.i'4Ii-»»fIB" NNN�I y� p• V .TNP O MO38:geIY-oO ry n,O .'I.�.y'. ::!tlp Sn� n 12,N„w *8O 9:uffil'm o;oHM$ NMNN 3s423ngq'm=e4i"U—aol^oA$E3§8�4.moli oikim8&qssi�^8R�oi:ai M » N Eur44-g".-" N»N»w�_ MN»N IRs � "saaaaaart wN» :ar2REUEtREx M».NM»M , NN ?.8ogn'r8 Nr.eg'21 &,*. ,�a§sa gi ax»YNa»tt1M 4 en e N F^ f -O - NN 3w naEENNMM.. N Vi$l3nmmn roroOO Koa ON .Ne aMN -3og2M oNOOS5NO NMMMMM 3aN""Nir , i.0,... '- ~NN$NNMMMMN�N X^ MtV . N M N- .a.33§Mat a, ONNNNg am ~A M tNa w, eoo$a«« 2m""aa"o N �^o *ao«��^r.a.. ^3 AA m _€ u zmg. F g3 0 a E E 8 t m i sEV s fi $ a ie5ile_3e"xie. r di n a g a 9 € .2" z m E 8 g i iYsye 0e e i s r n m a �7 e 3 ii E BE u F 31 aE E �'n � i as � 1e r Ji n a O Q= 3 2. Ug a E u sE �er.u€ � 6 � �� �e. 1 r Ji n d�< 2 6 5Ee a E t B _ oe a u,3 a 6� `a=4� ._ 58ee._le6 e� N n a O a E —o �, '6 ye i B` R u y 8 :..e t' � as ��„� e r n m a O i� rc 5 $_ B Oe I I g Y d e Tif a e;,E2Z e_ e5 r n n a O g i > 0 a S e S Id B :€ r riy B tc 0 u-I 7 o F ��"i W a zm z .oqff 6 B ii o S _ B o y a s..7$ E t.GYa $ s �s e_le pr n m a�< p 8 E � $y I B O 1 g' e`E-:.::,W a �� $ e e 5 r� m d O<;}� m' :i< ''' y� z .>:�� ::i>: :� V F S 8a_ I — r' y f +tb O It �a e_3_6 hill m a g SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 3.4.4 MOW Projections by Line The FY 1999/00 MOW Budget is $17.6 million. This is 6% lower than the FY 1998/99 Budget which included the MTA contingency and 1 % higher than the Forecast for FY 1998/99. The average MOW cost (excluding extra -ordinary maintenance and agency costs) is projected for FY 1999/00 to be $44,772 per track -mile compared with $45,945 per track -mile budgeted in FY 1998/99 - a 3% decrease. Some inflationary cost increases have been absorbed by economies associated with the purchase of vehicles (instead of renting them) and the improved maintenance condition of the property. The features that make some lines higher or lower in cost than the SCRRA averages, or are changes from last year are summarized in the following list. The figures (+) and (-) show factors that drive the maintenance budget higher or lower. Los Angeles - San Bernardino Line. (12% decrease from the FY 1998/99 Budget which included $600,000 in additional MTA subsidy contingent on an equal capital match to be provided by SANBAG and 3% greater than the Forecast.) The budget represents the basic maintenance force plus a surfacing cycle. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Very high density of train traffic + High density of road crossings + Some unresolved drainage issues - Capital rehabilitation is complete - Light freight traffic Los Angeles - Ventura Line. (5% increase from the FY 1998/99 Budget and 3% decrease from the Forecast.) The signal system on this line was renewed between 1991 and 1995, and the crossing, rail, and tie deficiencies of earlier years have been largely corrected by recent capital maintenance work. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + High density of train traffic (including weekends) + Tunnel 26 subgrade is very poor + Deteriorated track/ties at selected locations + High density of road crossings + Moderately heavy freight traffic (affects curve rail) + Tunnels and embankments + Poor ballast condition, embankment retains moisture - Signal system is new Light to moderate curves and grades Los Angeles - Lancaster Line. (4 % decrease from the FY 1998/99 Budget and 7% decrease from the Forecast.) Much of this line has been recently improved. The major remaining capital improvement issue is the deteriorated subgrade in the Newhall Tunnel (Tunnel 25), old rail from Sylmar to Saugus, and old ties from Sylmar to Tunnel 25. It is a mountain freight railroad which means that 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 58 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget great care is required to inspect and control track geometry, curve rail wear, embankment stability (landslides and washouts), and safety detectors. The capital budgets for 97/98 and 98/99 included replacement of much of the old rail and ties, and the old signal system. This has reduced the signal costs on this line. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + High curve and grade territory + Tunnel 25 subgrade is very poor + Frequent trains (below Via Princessa) + Some heavy freight traffic (affects curve rail) + Exposed to flood damage (requires extra inspections) + Poor ballast condition, embankment retains moisture - Most of line has good rail, ties, and crossings Fullerton - San Diego County Line. (8 % increase from the FY 1998/99 Budget and 6% increase over the Forecast.) This line is in good to excellent condition. The budget has historically been the lowest per mile, due to the new track and signal system. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Frequent trains + Exposed to flood and ocean damage - Verylittle significant curvature - New track and signal system Olive Subdivision. (9 % increase from the FY 1998/99 Budget and 1 % decrease over the Forecast.) This line has received a cycle replacement of ties and surfacing, along with renewed road crossings and a modernized signal system. Most of the rail is old and requires spot repairs to control defects. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Narrow embankment + Old rail - No significant curvature or grade Riverside Layover Facility. (2 % increase from the FY 1998/99 Budget and 4% increase over the Forecast.) This segment has good track. The costs forecast for it include only the nominal inspections and repairs to defects which are discovered, along with system programs including vegetation control and rail testing. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Small segment requires specific maintenance assignments - Good Condition River Corridor. (6% increase from the FY 1998/99 Budget and 6% increase over the Forecast.) This segment includes all of the tracks on both sides of the Los Angeles River from Redondo Junction on the south to Taylor on the north. It carries heavy freight and passenger traffic. Past capital programs have 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 59 013011.j4 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget upgraded most of the track and signals. Even with these improvements, the track and bridges need continual maintenance. The FY 1998/99 Budget reflected a reduction associated with fewer maintenance personnel assigned to the terminal. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Heavy freight tonnage + Frequent trains + Many turnouts + Some locations of severe curvature Few'road crossings Sierra Madre - Claremont (Pasadena Subdivision) (34 % increase from the FY 1998/99 Budget and 15% increase over the Forecast.) This line has jointed rail and wooden crossties in an adequate condition to carry the small amount of freight traffic now on the line. This condition is gradually deteriorating. The 1940s-style open wire signal system is approaching the end of its useful life. Application is being made to FRA to retire the Automatic Block Signal system, which will permit retirement of the pole line and conversion of the old style crossing warning devices to solid state controls, as noted in the Capital Maintenance Budget. Some road crossings are being improved within the maintenance budget with the cooperation of community street departments. Some of the crossing warning systems are also being upgraded to reduce trouble calls while in freight operation, and they will be compatible with passenger service. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Jointed Rail + Poor tie and ballast conditions + Some poor road crossings + Many road crossings + Obsolete open -wire signal system - Low traffic levels Light curvature and grade Rialto to Bench Baldwin Park Branch) (167% increase from the FY 1998/99 Budget and 28% increase over the Forecast.) This line is a very lightly used freight line with small rail, old wooden ties, and old crossing warning signals. The forecast is an estimate of the time to inspect and make nominal repairs only. Factors that affect MOW costs are: + Poor track and crossing conditions + Small segment requires specific maintenance assignments + Old signals - Very few trains 04/15/99, 1:14 PM C0405 60 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Extra -ordinary Maintenance (FY 1999/00 Budget does not include the MTA contingency amount included in FY 1998/99) This category covers damages due to vandalism, crossing gate knockdowns, accidents, derailments, fires, storm damage and other expenses as required. In years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, about $500,000 has been a reasonable estimate. In other years, such as has been experienced in FY 1998/99 with the El Nino storms, the total can easily exceed $3,500,000. These types of extreme conditions may be covered by insurance or FEMA reimbursement. However, insurance covers only bridges, tunnels and facilities and has a $100,000 deductible per storm and FEMA reimbursement has never been timely. The budget for Extra -ordinary Maintenance in FY 1998/99 was set at $1,671,362 and included additional contingency provided by MTA. The budget for Extra- ordinary Maintenance in FY 1999/00 is set at $500,000. It should be noted, neither Extra -ordinary Maintenance nor Agency Costs are included in the calculation of MOW expense per track mile. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 61 0 0j 4 r 6 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 62 GUt.'40 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Section 4 Department Budgets 11(�111METROLINK �V O ti C 8 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4.0 DEPARTMENT BUDGETS This section provides a summary of each of the eight departments in terms of department goals, budgeted positions and budgeted expenses. The eight departments include: • Executive • Finance • Contract & Administration • Operations • Engineering & Construction • Mechanical • Marketing & Passenger Services • Media & External Relations. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 63 0004..9 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4.1 Organizational Summary Table 4.1 provides a summary of the approved positions by department along with the new positions proposed for FY 1999/00. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 64 01 TABLE 4.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1999/00 BUDGET COMPARISON OF POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT FOR FY 1999/00 #?E A itriz 0 a Executive 7 3 1 11 10.7 Finance 20 0 0 20 20.0 Contracts & Administration 8 3 0 11 11.0 Operations 19 1 2 22 21.3 Engineering & Construction Mechanical 24 4 3 0 8 3 35 7 32.3 6.0 Marketing & Passenger Services Media & External Relations 15 4 1 0 2 0 18 4 17.3 4.0 Ambassadors Marketing & Passenger Services: Full -Time Marketing & Passen_r er Services: Part -Time In the FY 1997/98 Budget: In the FY 1998/99 Budget, In the FY 1998/99 Budget: Interim Executive Director changes during FY 1998/99: 7 25 7 25 The revenue section (3 FTEs) reported to Marketing & Passenger Services. These three positions are moved: one to Executive, one to Finance and one to Marketing & Passenger Services - One Engineering position (Admin Asst) moved to Marketing & Passenger Services (PAO Employer Outreach) - Two Marketing & Passenger services positions moved to Media & Extemal Relations - One position in marketing deleted, but another added - One position deleted from Finance. - One new position added to Operations - The station manager position was deleted from Engineering - One new position added to Admin - Four HR positions moved from Admin to Executive - One position moved from Operations to Engineering - One position moved from Marketing & Passenger Services to Engineering - One Marketing & Passenger Services position moved to Media & External Relations - Contracts & Administration; Marketing & Passenger Services; and Media & Extemal Relations report directly to the Executive Director. �-� (1) FTE equivalent is 32.3 (2) FTE equivalent is (3) FTE equivalent is 13.8 IAA Posns-Dept.xlw, 3/29/99 7.0 13.8 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4.2 Executive The Executive unit of SCRRA is responsible for the following functions: • Executive - Provide leadership and direction to SCRRA management while executing strategies and policies developed by the Board of Directors. • Governmental Relations - Identify governmental funding sources and develop capital improvement strategic plans. • Human Resources - Handle recruitment, benefits administration and employee development. • Revenue Coordination - Oversee fare policy implementation and maintains the ticket office machines located at SCRRA headquarters and ticket vending machines located at all Metrolink stations. • Internal Audit - This function will report directly to the Audit Committee, and provide management with an independent, fair, and reliable assessment of management practices, policies and procedures. During FY 1998/99 the Executive unit underwent a significant change as a new Executive Director was appointed, the new Internal Audit Function was established, and the Human Resources and Revenue Coordination functions were added as interim reports. FY 1999/00 goals for the Executive unit include: • Finalize the organizational structure of SCRRA. • Develop the long-term strategic plan. • Implement an internal audit function that reports to the Audit Committee. • Streamline and improve Human Resource's internal processes and communications. • Procure and test new model ticket vending machines. Table 4.2 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. Services include the following: Miscellaneous Agency Non -Labor: $ 227.1 TVM Maintenance: 1,040.0 Professional Services: Legal: 582.5 Lobbyists: 247.6 TVM Consultant Oversight: 50.0 Strategic Plan Development: 35.0 Internal Audit: 250.0 Transition Consultants: 50.0 Non -Train Operations Contingency: 500.0 Other Expenses includes allocated Agency Non -Labor expenses. H415119 1 :4 4,,PM 66 .iui�, TABLE 4.2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000,$) Labor 897.2 11.3% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 2,951.7 37.1 % Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 3,902.1 49.1 % Capital Other Expenses x• . iiiEeis>> 0.0 199.2 Labor 110.8 3.4% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 30.5 0.9% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% Capital 3,069.8 95.2% Other Expenses 13.9 0.4% Labor 1,008.0 9.0% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 2,982.2 26.7% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 3,902.1 34.9% Capital 3,069.8 27.5% Other Expenses 213.1 r: 1.9% 67 OUL 4IJ 4/15/99 Dept Budgets by Exp Type.xls•Exec SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4.3 Finance The Finance unit of SCRRA is responsible for three primary functions: • Budget — Develop, monitor and manage the annual budget and related financial plans. • Accounting — Prepare accurate and timely records and reports of financial results. • Treasury — Develop financing and investment strategies to support SCRRA's capital and operating programs. The Finance unit has undergone significant change during FY 1998/99 as it works to streamline processes, improve financial controls, and increase accessibility to financial reporting to support management and Board needs. Finance has developed the following goals for FY 1999/00: • Develop and provide accurate financial reports for managers and staff on a regular monthly and quarterly basis. • Increase understanding of financial information and access to it. • Reduce frequency of reported errors in the financial system and the time lag to correct identified errors. • Continue to provide responsive services and support to customers of financial information. Table 4.3 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. Services include the following: Miscellaneous Agency Non -Labor: $ 83.4 Revenue Collection: 703.0 Professional Services: Financial Audit: 60.0 Payroll Services: 12.0 Budget Development/Monitoring: 30.0 FIS Agencywide Training, Systems: 30.0 Budget Development Software: 65.0 Accounting Procedures Manual: 30.0 Grant Administration Assistance: 25.0 Other Expenses includes allocated Agency Non -Labor expenses. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 68 ",-i 2 4 4 TABLE 4.3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET FINANCE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000,$) Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Capital Other Expenses arts 1,194.5 0.0 1,027.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.7 Labor 185.6 91.1% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 11.2 5.5% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% apital 0.0 0.0% Other Expenses 7.0 3.4% Labor 1,380.2 55.9% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 1,038.4 42.0% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 0.0 0.0% Other Expenses 51.7 2.1% 69 4/15/99 Dept Budgets by Exp Typeids-Fin SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4.4 Contracts & Administration The Contracts and Administration unit of SCRRA is responsible for the following functions: • Procurement — Provide procurement services and centralized contract administration. • Management Information Systems — Provide and maintain hardware and software for SCRRA's local area network. Support the Transportation Management System, the Materials Management System, and the Financial Information System. • Administrative Services — Handle records management, reprographic requirements, stationary stores and supplies, office equipment and furniture. The Contracts and Administration unit changed significantly during FY 1998/99 while reporting to the Executive Director on an interim basis. It has worked to streamline processes, improve vendor outreach, create decision -making models regarding outsourcing and lease or purchase decisions, upgrade existing personal computer hardware and software, and implement policies and procedures in the three areas. Improvements in these areas are expected to continue into the next fiscal year. Contracts and Administration has developed the following goals for FY 1999/00: • Develop and implement procurement policies and procedures. • Increase competition by improving vendor outreach and the quality of the scopes of work in the solicitation packages. • Upgrade automated capabilities including copying connectivity. • Initiate a digital imaging system and records retention program for enhanced records management. • Improve the level of service provided by all areas of Administration to both our internal and external customers. Table 4.4 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. Services include the following: Miscellaneous Agency Non -Labor: MIS Services: Professional Services: DBE Program: Records Retention Program: Vendor List: Space Planner: Contact Tickler File Programmer: $ 202.1 477.6 60.8 32.4 28.4 20.3 8.1 Utilities and leases includes lease payments for office space and computer leases. Other Expenses includes allocated Agency Non -Labor expenses and MIS. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM OLiC416 70 TABLE 4.4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET CONTRACTS & ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000,$) Labor 648.7 27.3% Purchased Transportation Services 0.0 718.1 0.0% 30.2% Utilities/Leases 549.6 23.1 % Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Capital Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 460.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.4% Labor 100.8 28.4% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 91.4 25.7% Utilities/Leases 85.4 24.0% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 0.0 0.0% Other Expenses 77.8 21.9% Labor 749.5 27.4% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 809.5 29.6% Utilities/Leases 635.0 23.2% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 0.0 0.0% Other Expenses 538.5 19.7% 71 G ' di 1 i 4/15/99 Dept Budgets by Exp Type.xls-Cunt & AOmin SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4.5 Operations The Operations unit of SCRRA is responsible for the following functions: • Operations — Oversee and manage train operations through contract with Amtrak to ensure quality and reliability in total commuter service. • Safety — Manage all aspects of health, safety, and environmental concerns required by Industry, State, and Federal regulations. Conduct safety and education programs for passengers and the general public. During the FY 1998/99.the number of daily trains has grown to 130 carrying over 27,000 passengers. Operations has developed the following goals and objectives for FY 1999/00: • Operations — Improve on -time performance on all lines to above 95% while maintaining Amtrak costs, quality and reliability of service. • Safety — Reduce passenger injuries by 15% and fatality rate by 25%. Table 4.5 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. Services include the following: Miscellaneous Agency Non -Labor: $ 5.0 Caltech Earthquake Info Program: 25.0 Develop Linear Timetabel/Emerg Resp. 5.0 Weather Data Forecast Services: 20.0 Security Guards: 560.0 Sheriffs: 2,005.8 Safety Program Services: 292.5 LAUS Ticket Clerk: 127.8 LAUS Platform Cleaning: 42.0 Rail Agreements 1,456.2 Professional Services: Mthly Train Crew Audits; 120.0 Drug Screening: 5.0 Feeder Bus Planner: 25.0 System Safety Plan Consultant: 10.0 ADA Recertification Consultant: 2.0 Operations Modeling Software: 40.0 Utilities and leases includes all utilities related to operation of trains including phone, electricity, gas, water, trash etc. at the Central Control Facility, stations, layovers, grade crossings, and antenna sites as well as expenses for cellular phones and pagers. Other Expenses include allocated Agency Non -Labor expenses and Transfers to Other Operators. 04/ /9, :14 PM 72 UUL 4.16 TABLE 4.5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000,$) Labor Purchased Transportation Services 1,577.1 16,416.7 4,741.3 5.7% 59.0% 17.0% Utilities/Leases 1,643.0 5.9% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital Other Expenses 0.0 3,469.1 0.0% 12.5% E:o a .............. .............. r>Es Labor Purchased Transportation Services Utilities/Leases Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Capital Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ........................................ 'iota€Ec►t`<<<::::<:: Labor Purchased Transportation Services 1,577.1 16,416.7 4,741.3 5.6% 58.5% 16.9% Utilities/Leases 1,643.0 5.9% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 200.0 0.7% Other Expenses 3,469.1 12.4% �0 • * 73 4/ 15/99 Dept Budgets by Exp Type.xis-Ops SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4.6 Engineering & Construction The Engineering and Construction unit is responsible for the following functions: • Public Projects/Design — Manage the design of SCRRA improvement projects and controls the entry/use of right of way by others (i.e. road crossing, public utility construction, etc.) • Track and Structures — Administer MOW contracts to ensure the basic infrastructure is in place for operation of SCRRA, Amtrak, and freight trains. • Signal & Communication — Install, test and maintain signals which control train movements and provide warnings at road crossings. • Station Maintenance — includes design, signage, use for special events, and compliance with Federal requirements. • Capital Construction — Manage construction contracts to ensure completion of capital projects. For FY 1999/00, goals of the Engineering and Construction unit include: • Implement a MOW/Signal system safety plan. • Reduce MOW/Signal worker lost time due to injury. • Devise a system to better plan, coordinate and track contract actions. • Reduce cumulative engineering delay minutes by 10%. • Perform 100% of capital maintenance Table 4.6 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. Services include the following: Catellus: $ 268.0 Station Maintenance: 172.0 Signage Design: 40.0 Insurance on Laptops: 7.5 Other Expenses include allocated Agency Non -Labor expenses. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM C' v _' 4 74 TABLE 4.6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000,$) Labor 1,534.7 9.0% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 487.5 2.9% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 14, 934.7 87.6% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 0.0 0.0% Other Expenses 84.2 0.5% f.; Labor 874.5 1.9% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 0.0 0.0% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 46, 348.4 98.1WD Other Expenses 6.5 0.0% Tvta Labor 2,409.2 3.7% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 487.5 0.8% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 14, 934.7 23.2% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 46, 348.4 72.1 % Other Expenses 90.7 0.1 % 75 4/15/99 Dept Budgets by Exp Type.xls-Eng 8 Const SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4.7 Mechanical The Mechanical unit of SCR.RA is responsible for the following two functions: • Equipment — Acquire (including purchase and lease), maintain and ensure availability of rolling stock (passenger cars and locomotives). Oversee the contract with Bombardier to ensure proper maintenance of rolling stock. • Facilities Maintenance — Maintain the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF), the Central Control Facility (CCF), and outlying layover locations. During FY 1998/99 the Mechanical Unit managed and directed the transition to a new maintenance contractor (Bombardier) and managed the conversion of the storage yard at CMF to a functional maintenance area for rolling stock. Mechanical has developed the following goals for FY 1999/00: • Safety - Implement System Safety Plans and implement and audit new Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS). • • Equipment — Continue to ensure proper maintenance of rolling stock, reduce operating delays due to equipment, and complete the purchase of new passenger cars. • Facilities Maintenance — Develop and implement a capital maintenance program for CMF and layover points and ensure compliance with Federal Regulations. Table 4.7 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. Services include the following: Facilities Maintenance: $ 1,042.8 Professional Services: Accident Investigation: 30.0 Modification,Verification,Testing: 60.0 Failure Analysis: 40.0 FRA Style Audit: 20.0 SMP Development (for SSP): 50.0 Mechanical Management System: 48.0 Other Expenses include allocated Agency Non -Labor expenses and fuel. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 0 422 76 TABLE 4.7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000,$) Labor 527.9 3.0% Purchased Transportation Services 12, 530.7 1,290.8 70.5% 7.3% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability Capital Other Expenses 0.000T- 600.0 0.0 2,821.6 3.4% 0.0% 15.9% Labor 0.0 0.0% Purchased Transportation Services 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Capital 0.0 0.0 47,001.9 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Other Expenses 0.0 0.0% Labor 527.9 0.8% Purchased Transportation 12,530.7 19.3% Services 1,290.8 2.0% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 600.0 0.9% Capital Other Expenses 47, 001.9 2,821.6 72.6% 4.4% i0Ons 77 Gu24' j Dept Budgets by Exp Type.xls-Mech SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4.8 Marketing & Passenger Services The Marketing and Passenger Services unit of SCRRA is responsible for the following functions: • Marketing — Provide advertising, market research and analysis, business development, channel marketing, special event marketing, sales and merchandising. • Passenger Services — Communicate with passengers promoting a customer -centered philosophy. • Ambassadors - Located at train stations through Metrolink system, Ambassadors provide passenger support through direct customer contact to ensure a total quality experience. To accomplish these tasks the Marketing and Passenger Services unit adopted the following mission statement: • To ensure a total quality service experience and build long-term relationships with our customers by maintaining a consistent, high quality identity; promoting public awareness; striving to anticipate problems and produce solutions; and identifying and meeting customers changing expectations and lifestyles. As Metrolink enters its seventh year of operation and matures from a startup operation, marketing will increase its focus on classic marketing objectives: • acquiring, satisfying, and retaining customers; • increasing customer equity and building relationships. Specific objectives related to acquiring, satisfying and retaining customers are: • Increase ridership by 10% on peak -direction trains • Increase ridership by 20% on non -peak and reverse peak trains. • Increase trial ridership of high potential regular riders by 25%. Specific objectives related to increasing customer equity and building relationships are: • Enroll 33% of the commuters in a rider loyalty program. • Increase sales outlets through all channels 20% and increase all channel sales by 25%. • Increase customer satisfaction with Metrolink's communication by 50%. Table 4.8 provides the budgeted expenses Services include the following: Miscell. Agency Non -Labor (Temps): Holiday Train: Passenger Relations: Telephone Information: Miscellaneous: Marketing: for this department. $ 27.0 45.9 1,100.0 85.0 985.0 Other Expenses include allocated Agency Non -Labor expenses. 04/16/99, 8:46 AM 78 O , 4)4 TABLE 4.8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET MARKETING & PASSENGER SERVICES DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE ($000,$) Labor 1,557.3 39.0% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 2,242.9 56.2% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% Capital Other Expenses Total eyes 0.0 190.1 0.0% 4.8% Labor 0.0 0.0% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 0.0 0.0% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Capital Other Expenses Tit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Labor 1,557.3 39.0% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 2,242.9 56.2% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 0.0 0.0% Other Expenses 190.1 4.8% o 79 4/15/99 Dept Budgets by Er Typeids-Mkbng SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4.9 Media & External Communications The functions of the Media and External Communications unit are to: • Support the Executive Director and Board of Directors. • Develop corporate communications. • Enhance media relations. • Strengthen the alliance with public and community relations. • Provide external print and electronic publications. The Media and External Communications unit is an outgrowth of the Marketing function and was established during FY 1998/99 with the following objectives: • Enhance awareness of SCRRA and its services. • Build strategic alliances with targeted stakeholders. • Communicate a clear, consistent message and maintain a positive image to targeted stakeholders and the general public. • Position the SCRRA as a high -quality rail service. Table 4.9 provides the budgeted expenses for this department. Services include the following: Media & External Communications: Media & Public Relations: $ 428.7 Community Relations: 64.0 Website programming/Maint. 50.0 Professional Services: Media Relations/Writer 50.0 Other Expenses include allocated Agency Non -Labor expenses. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 2- 80 TABLE 4.9 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET MEDIA & EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES BY EXPENSE TYPE (S000,$) Labor 280.7 32.0% Purchased Transportation Services 0.0 592.7 0.0% 67.6% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 0.0 0.0% Other Expenses •#:Dia z; '."i O. 3.3 0.4% Labor 0.0 0.0% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 0.0 0.0% Utilities/Leases 0.0 o.0% Maintenance -of -Way Insurance & Liability Capital Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% TO a = cp rtS. . Labor 280.7 32.0% Purchased Transportation 0.0 0.0% Services 592.7 67.6% Utilities/Leases 0.0 0.0% Maintenance -of -Way 0.0 0.0% Insurance & Liability 0.0 0.0% Capital 0.0 0.0% Other Expenses 3.3 0.4% 81 O 4/15/99 Dept Budgets by Ezp Type.rls-Media SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 6 UCi4'-8 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 82 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Section 5 Capital Budget 11 �11 METROLINK SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 5.0 CAPITAL BUDGET This section presents the Capital Budget. The Capital Budget consists of two major components. These are Capital Maintenance and New Capital. These budgets amount to $22.3 million and $75.9 million, respectively, for a total of $98.2 million and are described in the following sections. It should also be noted that there is an additional $39.5 million in New Capital projects for which federal, state and local funds are being sought (see Appendix 6.8). The projects are not included in the budget. If and when funds are secured, projects will be amended into the budget. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 83 OuJ4Ju SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 5.1 Capital Maintenance Capital Maintenance projects are those projects that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus extend the useful life of these capital assets. Capital Maintenance recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal and manageable risk of failure. The proposed Capital Maintenance Expenditures have been selected to meet projected funding available and are chosen from a larger field that SCRRA staff believes can be deferred until future years, but will have to be addressed eventually. Capital maintenance .projects amounting to $22.3 million are summarized in Table 5.1. However, seventeen of the projects are ongoing projects that will not be completed in FY 1998/99 for various reasons explained in Section 5.1.1. They amount to $7.4 million. The new projects amount to $14.8 million and are discussed below. 5.1.1 Ongoing Capital Maintenance Projects The following seventeen projects are ongoing projects that were also budgeted in FY 1998/99. 1. TIE REPLACEMENT: SYLMAR TO SANTA CLARITA $140,460 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1997/98 and is funded by MTA. This project was included in the Newhall Siding construction contract along with the Rail Replacement and Sidings Upgrade because the location and the scope of the work were similar. Materials released by the rail work will be used in the sidings. Rather than coordinate work between several contractors in this area, staff combined them into one bid package. The delays in the design of the siding project (see New Capital Budget) have delayed the related work. Construction is scheduled for completion in August 1999. The project will complete the replacement of approximately 14,000 ties over the 11.3 miles between the rehabilitation done as part of the original valley line upgrade in 1992 and the FEMA improvements done in the canyon towards Lancaster. This is about 1,240 replacement ties per mile, or a 38% replacement, which is typical for a conventional railroad capital tie program. Installation of these ties will prevent future maintenance problems associated with track geometry or stability problems. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 84 TABLE 5.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY CAPITAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES Nit Project Line ;' FY 98/99 Budget FY 99/00 Budget Local Fundt State Funds .r UPRR Lease : ( Revenues(5) Federal :. Funds T ',MTA OCTA RCTC SBAG VCTC SHA ',: TCl/Other SCRRA Ongoing Projects 1 Tie replacement Antelope V 1.129,500 140,460 140,460 2 Replace all pre-1960 rail (Sylmar, Canyon) Antelope V 1,163.626 219,770 219,770 3 Upgrade sidings Saugus, Lang, Ravenna Antelope V 1,620,000 201,450 201,450 4 Crossovers at Allen Antelope V 2,000,000 1,350.000 1,350,000 5 Undercutting Antelope V 114.500 39,000 39,000 6 Storm Damage Mitigation Antelope V 750,000 84,000 84,000 7 Ties/Rail Sylmar to Tunnel 25 Antelope V 906,915 101.500 101,500 8 Tie/Ballast Replacement In Tunnel 25 Antelope V 190,000 21,265 21,265 9 Tunnel Radio (18.19,25,26,27,28) Antelope VNen 418,000 418,000 376,333 41,687 10 Oso Creek Bridge Engineering, Orange Co 61.800 51,000 51.000 11 Storm Damage Mitigation Orange Co 420,000 405,000 405.000 12 Signal Upgrade/Repair/Replacement (1) Pasa Sub (LA) 281.853 80,000 80,000 13 Grade Xng Upgrade to FRA/PUC Stds Pasa Sub (LA) 250,000 200,000 200,000 14 25m Electrocode CP Hondo -Cambridge San Bem 210,000 210,000 126.000 84,000 15 System SignaUCommunications System 1.127,000 441.912 210,657 104,313 41,029 68,817 17,096 16 Tunnel Safety Improvements (2) Ventura Co 4,000,000 3,285,000 3,035,000 250,000 17 Rolling Stock Cap Maintenance (3) System 2,138,600 200.000 80,000 50,000 24,000 38,000 10,000 L TOTAL ONGOING PROJECTS 16,751,794 7,4 5,357. .3,230,435.:; 510,313 65,029 55,917 65,752 3,035,000 250,000 SCRRA FY 1999/00 New Projects 1 Rail System 2.166,484 759,083 1,009.343 33,327 143,164 221,567 2 Concrete Ties (4) River/AntelopeNentura 750.000 602.286 21,759 12,220 15,827 7,908 90,000 3 Wood Ties Ventura/Pasadena 2,300,000 2,100,000 200,000 4 Tumouts River/AnlelopeNentura/OC 1,160,000 569.145 447,036 48,880 63,307 31,632 5 Road Crossings System 700,000 280,000 200,000 220,000 6 Rail Grinding System 265,000 146,883 74,945 2,777 23,597 18,797 7 Undercutting Antelope V 300,000 300,000 8 Drainage AntelopeNentura/OC 520,000 300,000 120.000 100.000 9 Bridges System 1,540,000 780,000 460,000 140,000 160,000 10 Surfacing System 120,000 56,753 31,978 1,111 9,439 20,719 11 Electrocode Upgrade San Bernardino 720,000 432.000 288,000 12 Grade Crossing Monitor System System 552,000 391,260 115.934 3,333 4,316 37,157 13 Switch Machine 3 Rod Repl/Repair River/San Bemardino/0C 387,000 140,003 152,045 17,997 65,309 11,646 14 Rept Fiber Optic System Alarm San Bemardino 30,000 18,000 12,000 15 Rea/Repair Gate Mechanisms Pasadena/OC 200,000 100,000 100,000 16 Remove Existing Pole Une Ventura/Pasadena/OC 171,000 98,000 60,000 13,000 17 Underground Cable Replacement Ventura Co 62,000 31,000 31,000 18 Upgrade Standby Power Requirements Ventura Co 65,000 32,500 32,500 �19 Systemwide Signal/Communications River 476,949 282,821 73,190 41,103 53,236 26,599 20 Maintenance Facility Upgrade System 250,000 118.833 49,453 27,773 35,970 17,973 21 Rolling Stock Cap Maintenance System 2,112,000 261,432 108,796 61,100 79,134 39,540 1,562.000 I TOTAL NEW.PROJeOTS t4,847,433( ;7,504,000 3,024,4791 2-45-•1^]9 r153,2981 966,, 6 0( 90,0001 -t,563,000 ' _01 1 i'. {TOTAL CAPITAL MAINTENANCE::: _ 22,295,790 11,036,435 '. 3,634,791 314,649 --,.1,342,115 1,036,799 3,035,o0o 0 _. 90,000 _ 1,562,000 250,000 C..,(1) Not in FY 1998/99 Budget, but subsequent ongoing project from FY 1996/97 (2) In FY 1998/99;1 million in state funds for this project moved to Oxnard Siding. VCTC and SCRRA are seeking up 1o;18,000,000 in federal funds. (3) Canyover of $200,000 in the Head End Power Overhaul Program reduces the total required in Project 021 for Roiling Stock Cap Maintenance. ►�'(4) Per agreement, assumes 90% contribution of UPRR to $100,000 in concrete ties on the East hank in the River Corridor. (.v(5) Lease Revenues assume $1.312 million on first transaction and 5250,000 on second transaction. { ) CAP9900.x1s, 3/29/99, 9:48 AM Caorilaint SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 2. REPLACE PRE-1960 RAIL (SYLMAR-CANYON) $219,770 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1997/98 and is funded by MTA. This project was included in the Newhall Siding construction contract along with the Tie Replacement and Sidings Upgrade because the location and the scope of the work were similar. Materials released by the rail work will be used in the sidings where trains are slower and less frequent. Rather than coordinate work between several contractors in this area, staff combined them into one bid package. The delays in the design of the siding project (see New Capital Budget) have delayed the related work. Construction is scheduled for completion in August 1999. The project will complete replacement of the old, high -tonnage rail that was installed by the Southern Pacific (SP) on tangents and light curves. Most of this rail was used when the SP installed it during the period that they considered it a secondary line. Rail with a service history approaching one billion tons carried begins to develop fatigue failures at an increasing rate. Replacement of this rail now will reduce the chances of service interruptions due to rail fractures and is consistent with conventional railroad capital maintenance programs. 3. UPGRADE SIDINGS SAUGUS, LANG AND RAVENNA $201,450 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1997/98 and is funded by MTA. This project was included in the Newhall Siding construction contract along with the Rail and Tie Replacement projects because the location and the scope of the work were similar. Materials released by the rail work will be used in the sidings where trains are slower and less frequent. Rather than coordinate work between several contractors in this area, staff combined them into one bid package. The delays in the design of the siding project (see New Capital Budget) have delayed the related work. Long lead materials have been ordered and delivered. Construction is scheduled for completion in August 1999. These three sidings are constructed of old, small jointed rail. The track speed is restricted to 10 MPH in order to avoid severe problems with heavy or fast trains. The east end of Saugus has a No. 10 turnout which also restricts the speed of trains. Saugus siding is used several times daily to meet SCRRA and freight trains. Lang and Ravena are used primarily to meet freight trains: both of them have road crossings which are blocked when meets take place. Proposed mid -day and Saturday passenger service will result in more meets between trains on all of these sidings. CTC will be installed in these sidings under the 1996-97 pole line elimination project, enabling trains to enter and leave the sidings without stopping. This project is to move the welded rail released from the main line tangents and install it in the Saugus Siding, to install replacement ties, and to install a No. 20 turnout on the east end of Saugus. This will greatly increase the flexibility of train operations, reducing scheduled time needed to meet at Saugus, maintenance expenses and possible liabilities associated with continued use of the old track. . 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 4 3 ;ti 86 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4. CROSSOVER REPLACEMENT: CP ALLEN $1,350,000 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded by MTA. It will replace the power crossovers at CP Allen with new turnouts and with new controls and signals. This interlocking was built by the Southern Pacific in 1968 and the track components are worn out and the signal controls are obsolete. The work will consist of constructing a new set of crossovers just north of the existing location and placing them into service before retirement of the old ones. This construction method will minimize impacts to train service. The new crossovers will be capable of higher speed operation, which will reduce time impacts to passenger trains that have to use them. Construction is scheduled for completion in November 1999. Project # 8 in New Projects for New Capital would upgrade the crossover from 45 mph to 60 mph. If this second project receives state funding, the schedule may need to be delayed to accommodate the new funding. 5. UNDERCUTTING $39,000 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded by MTA. It is to clean the ballast section in 13 miles of very old track. In the natural course of weathering and traffic impacts, the crushed rock ballast degrades into fine material. Inflows of storm water also foul the ballast with silt and sand. Ballast with too much fines cannot drain away rainfall and the subgrade becomes weak due to saturation. The process of undercutting is to remove the ballast with a large machine which passes a chain beneath. the track. The removed ballast is shaken and screened, the remaining good ballast is redeposited in the track and the fines are discarded. This work will be done by a contractor because SCRRA does not own this equipment. Construction is scheduled for completion in August 1999. 6. STORM DAMAGE MITIGATION $84,000 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded by MTA. It will construct improved channels, culverts, and other structures at locations where erosion damage to the track and bridges are likely in the location of the Newhall Siding. Construction is underway and is scheduled for completion in August 1999. 7. TIES AND RAIL: SYLMAR TO TUNNEL 25 $101,500 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded by MTA. It is a continuation of the Capital Maintenance ongoing projects in this area. It will replace the wood ties on a series of curves between the siding at Sylmar and the south end of Tunnel 25. This area has steep grades and sharp curves and the ties are barely able to hold the 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 87 OC)V434i SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget track gauge. This item also includes installing new rail on curves which exhibit wear and surface defects in this area. Construction is scheduled for completion in August 1999. 8. TIE AND BALLAST REPLACEMENT IN TUNNEL 25 (NEWHALL) $21,265 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded by MTA. It is to replace failed wood ties at locations in the tunnel where they have become decayed and damaged due to the wet, unstable subgrade. This is a follow-on to the first step, in the FY 1997/98 budget, to install pumps and begin lowering the water level in the track area. This project is limited to only the amount needed to continue operations for the next two to four years, or until a larger funding source is available to rehabilitate the subgrade and track in the tunnel. Construction is scheduled for completion in August 1999. 9. TUNNEL RADIO ANTENNAE AND REPEATERS $418,000 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE: $168,000 VENTURA LINE: $250,000 This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded by MTA and VCTC. The project was delayed due to the development of the complex bid package. It is to install antennae and repeaters for four tunnels, to enhance communications between trains and the dispatchers. This will improve routine operations and may be critical in the event a train becomes stranded in one of the tunnels. Construction is scheduled for completion in June 2000. 10. OSO CREEK BRIDGE $51,000 ORANGE COUNTY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1997/98 and is funded by OCTA. The amount included in the budget represents SCRRA's share of the projectfor the trackwork. The project will be performed through November 1999 by Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA). The timber bridge is a constriction to the design flow for Oso Creek. It also has become degraded because the erosion of the channel has weakened the piling. OCEMA will fund the replacement of the bridge in order to increase the capacity of the channel. SCRRA supports this action because the new steel and concrete bridge will be protected from erosion damage and free of the decay problems associated with timber construction. 11. STORM DAMAGE MITIGATION $405,000 ORANGE COUNTY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded by OCTA. It will construct improved channels and culverts at locations where erosion damage to the track and bridges are likely. Specifically, this item will reinforce the side ditch between Sand Canyon and Jeffrey in Irvine, and make several other localized improvements to drainage channels so that they remain functional. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM C''j 435 88 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 12. SIGNAL UPGRADE AND REPAIR/REPLACEMENT $80,000 PASADENA SUBDIVISION (LA COUNTY) This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It continues a program to upgrade and make necessary repairs and replacements as needed to bring all crossing warning locations to FRA and CPUC requirements. The present devices were installed up to 35 years ago and are very difficult to maintain and do not adjust to variations in train speeds. This work will assure that the best possible warning is given to motorists at these crossings. This work is compatible with any planned upgrade to this line for passenger service. When all crossings are upgraded to contemporary standards, it may be possible to retire the open pole line. Construction is scheduled for completion in November 1999. 13. GRADE CROSSING UPGRADE TO FRA/PUC STANDARDS $200,000 PASADENA SUBDIVISION IN LA COUNTY This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded by MTA. The controllers for crossings on the Pasadena line are obsolete and do not function according to FRA standards. This project is to begin a systematic replacement of these devices to meet current standards. It will reduce the maintenance burden on this segment and will assure less interference with public use of the streets due to malfunctioning crossings. This work is compatible with any upgrade of the line. The project is scheduled for completion in June 2000. 14. ELECTROCODE UPGRADE $210,000 EL MONTE - CLAREMONT/SAN BERNARDINO LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded 60% by MTA and 40% by SANBAG. It will replace the direct current track circuits with coded track, eliminating batteries and rectifiers needed to support the old system. This will also permit the use of higher frequency and voltages for train detection, which will aid the signal operation on this line. The project is scheduled for completion in June 2000. 15. SYSTEM SIGNAL/COMMUNICATIONS $441,912 SYSTEM This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It incorporates a variety of projects that replace/upgrade the systemwide signal and communications system. The elements of the project that are carried over are described below. Additional CCF Relocation Costs $ 276,912 This project is a complement to the FY 97-98 new capital relocation of the Central Control Facility (CCF) and is to fund the capital maintenance elements of the relocation: the replacement of worn and obsolete units that would be needed whether there was a relocation or not. These replacements are much more economical to make in a system that is off-line, rather than work them into the dispatcher controls which are being actively used. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 89 OuJ43b SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget VHF Standbv Power $35,000 This project is t6 install a second set of backup batteries in the VHF radio sites. These are the radios used for train to dispatcher communications. While they now have about 24 hours of backup time, at the mountain top sites, power has been known to be out for longer periods and this will permit train operations to continue through worse conditions. Fiber Optic System Battery Replacement $30,000 This project is the periodic replacement of the batteries in the repeater/amplifier stations on the fiber optic line. They are five to six years old and are at the end of their service life. Grade Crossing Monitor/Analyzer Network $100,000 This is a continuation of the FY 1997/98 project to install monitors at grade crossings and connect them with a central monitor at the CCF. These devices have proven very useful in troubleshooting the electronic controls for grade crossings. This amount covers ten more crossings. In practice, the signal engineers move the analyzers to sites that have given trouble, so more than ten crossings are likely to be helped by this project. 16. TUNNEL 26 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS $3,285,000 VENTURA COUNTY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is included in the budget pending award of federal funding. A total of $4 million in state funding was included in the FY 1998/99 Budget. This amount w as subsequently reduced to $3.025 million. VCTC has received $250,000 in federal funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. VCTC and SCRRA are also seeking $16,000,000 in federal funds for this project. The state funds would be used as local match. However, if federal funds appear unlikely it may be necessary to use the state funds now to upgrade the track in the tunnel. Tunnel 26 is located on the Ventura Line. The tunnel is 7,369 feet long, and located under Santa Susana Pass, between Chatsworth and Simi Valley. It was constructed in 1906 by the Southern Pacific and lined with concrete in 1921. Groundwater has softened the sandstone foundation rock, resulting in soft, rough track that can only be operated at 25 MPH. The tunnel is seismically unsafe and is subject to flooding. The proposed work has the following three elements: tunnel seismic stability will be improved by securing the tunnel lining to the surrounding rock; the track support system will be stabilized and repaired; and safety lighting and an emergency walkway in the tunnel will provide for access and passenger evacuation in the event of an emergency. The project is essential for the safe operation of Metrolink and Amtrak passenger trains as well as of freight trains operating in the corridor. It will also increase speeds in this area and provide competitive, quality service. 17. CAPITAL MAINTENANCE ON ROLLING STOCK $200,000 This item is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. Head End Power Engine Overhaul is one of five programs under Capital Maintenance on Rolling Stock. The program was initiated in FY 1998/99 as these units have been changed out under warranty. An overhaul of the HEP engines is recommended by the manufacturers at between 10,000 04/15/99, :14 PM 90 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget and 12,000 hours of operation or about 2.5 to 3.5 years at our current service levels or eleven locomotives overhauled each year. The program was not completed in FY 1998/99, consequently these funds are carried over and the amount charged to this program in FY 1999/00 under project #21 was reduced. 5:1.2 New Projects For Capital Maintenance In FY 1999/00 The following twenty-one new projects are proposed for Capital Maintenance in FY 1999/00. The capital maintenance effort is intended to remove failed, worn, and obsolete components of rolling stock, track, bridges, signals, and communications systems. This program replaces the failed, worn, or obsolete components with new components in order to maintain the SCRRA infrastructure at a level which supports train operations and protects investments in line purchases and upgrades. In most categories of work the replacement components are an improvement over the original material; i.e. a concrete bridge is used to replace a wood bridge or a new solid state signal component is more reliable than the relay type it replaces. Therefore this budget represents a gradual upgrading of the property. This year is the first of a five year cycle that has been developed by staff, working with funding guidelines furnished by the member agencies and other sources. As such, some maintenance needs are moved ahead or back various years to consolidate like work and achieve contracting economies, in confidence that they will occur in the designated years. Other work, which has to follow the regular wear of the facilities, is spread evenly through the years. Some of the work we define as capital maintenance in the joint facility portion of the River Corridor (where most of the freight traffic runs) will be carried out under the ordinary maintenance budget and is then reimbursed by the Union Pacific. Replacement in kind of rail and wood ties in this area will not appear on the capital maintenance budget because that would trigger accounting for them as betterments under the joint facility agreement and would defer Union Pacific payments over the life of the new materials. Actual betterments, such as installing concrete ties in place of wood, will be handled in the capital maintenance budget. 1. RAIL $2,166,484 Rail is replaced for two reasons: it is worn away by wheel flanges in curves, or it reaches the fatigue life limit where small internal flaws grow into fractures. On the SCRRA system curve wear is only a factor on the sharp curves at Union Station and along the river, on the curves between Sylmar and Palmdale and Chatsworth to Simi Valley, and a few other isolated locations such as Orange and Bassett. Fatigue life is only a factor where we still have old rail that the freight railroads installed many years ago. The 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 91 GU 438 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget decision to replace rail is driven by observing the wear patterns and by monitoring the rate of rail defect detection. San Bernardino Line $250,000 This work is funded 60% by MTA and 40% by SANBAG. This year, we intend to replace worn rail on the curves on the main track at Marengo Siding, just east of the Los Angeles River. River Corridor $300,000 This work is funded by all member agencies using the revised All -Share formula. The wom rail in the curves at Main Street, on both the east and west banks, will be replaced, as a part of upgrading these curves with concrete ties. Antelope Valley Line $466,484 This work is funded entirely by MTA. About 1 mile of curve worn rail will be replaced in the canyon between Saugus and Vincent. Olive Subdivision $950,000 This work is funded entirely by OCTA. This year's rail program is to replace the old rail on the Olive Subdivision. This rail was laid as jointed rail on Santa Fe main lines in the 1950s, then taken up when the joints were worn and welded into secondhand ribbon rail for use on the Olive line where the condition of the rail and level of traffic were not as critical as on their primary main lines. We want to increase the speed of passenger trains, however we believe it is prudent to replace this rail with new rail prior to that change. Ventura County Line $200,000 This work on the Ventura County Line is entirely in Ventura County and funded by VCTC. 2. CONCRETE TIES $750,000 SCRRA, and most other railroads throughout the world, replace wood ties with concrete ties in curves in order to avoid future maintenance liabilities due to gauge widening and crushing of the ties. Concrete ties have completely solved the problem of gauge widening. They are more stable than wood ties. The capital maintenance plan is to replace wood ties with concrete in curves and other locations where unique maintenance situations indicate that concrete ties will save future maintenance costs. (At other locations with wood ties, a periodic replacement of failed ties about every eight years is much more economical and still yields a stable track structure.) River Corridor $200,000 This work is funded by all member agencies using the revised All -Share formula. This will replace the timber ties on the curves at Main Street, both east and west banks of the Los Angeles River, in connection with the replacement of the rail. Installing concrete ties 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 92 �,L,1439 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget avoids the expense of replacement tie plates for the wood ties, which need to be changed in addition to the rail. Revenues of $90,000 from UPRR are assumed as per agreement, they pay 90% of the $100,000 in improvements in this location on the east bank. Antelope Vallev Line $400,000 This work is funded entirely by MTA. This is to install concrete ties on another segment of sharp curves where wood ties are difficult to maintain. Ventura County Line $150,000 This work on the Ventura County Line is in Los Angeles and is funded entirely by MTA. This is to install concrete ties on both tracks at the sharp curves (six degrees plus) at Burbank Junction, where the Ventura and Valley lines merge. 3. WOOD TIES $2,300,000 Wood ties last about 35 years in this region. There are 3250 ties per mile of track. This results in the need to replace about 100 ties per mile per year to keep a stable track structure. The engineering standards and the Federal Railroad Administration Track Safety Standards are predicated upon there being a limited number of failed ties in the track, the redundant design of the track will enable the remaining sound ties to hold the track in alignment, gauge, and surface. It is more economical to replace about 25% of the ties on about 8-year cycles with specialized crews than to replace a few ties at more frequent intervals. Letting the track deteriorate until more than 25% of the ties have failed results in rough and unstable track, a decrease in the life of the remaining ties, and the need to reduce train speeds. The capital maintenance program is based upon keeping within this range of tie replacement. The replacement with concrete ties on sharp curves as explained in the previous section will gradually improve the quality of the track. Ventura County Line $800,000 Based on the location of the ties, this work is funded at $600,000 by MTA and $200,000 by VCTC. When the Caltrans-sponsored track upgrades were originally planned, a FY 1994/95 detailed scope of work was developed, which counted how many wooden ties had failed and needed to be replaced. In the time that it took to obtain the funding and execute the contract, additional ties decayed to the point of failure. In order to accomplish the original scope of work under the recent contract, the overall milepost limits were rehabilitated, however many ties needing replacement were skipped. This work is to make a final pass through the Burbank to Moorpark segment replacing those ties. The next tie replacement cycle for this territory should be in 2003. Pasadena Subdivision $1,500,000 This work is funded entirely by MTA. This line is maintained for two reasons: the daily operation of freight trains per our purchase agreement with the Santa Fe, and as a potential passenger route. The tie condition is becoming quite weak through normal decay and wear: In order to maintain safe freight train operations and to avoid further 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 93 0 C 440 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget deterioration of the complete track structure, this program will replace failed ties. It is viewed as an investment in future upgrades for potential passenger operations, these new ties will support future upgrades. This replacement cycle will be followed by another cycle to complete the rehabilitation in about 2002. 4. TURNOUTS $1,160,000 Under the capital maintenance program entire turnouts and other special trackwork are replaced with upgraded components, including subgrade. Under ordinary maintenance the special trackwork is repaired, welded, ground, and surfaced to extend its surface life. The capital maintenance program is to do the periodic renewals of the special trackwork. River Corridor $440,000 This work is funded by all member agencies using the revised All -Share formula. It will replace two 1950s era track crossings in the Mission Tower east bank area and one crossover that is heavily worn. Antelope Valley Line $120,000 This work is funded entirely by MTA. This is to replace the turnout at the east end of Lang Siding, which has poor track alignment and worn components. It has not been upgraded since acquisition of the line from the Southern Pacific. Ventura County Line $240,000 This work is funded entirely by MTA. This is to replace two turnouts near Northridge which are nearing the end of their service life. Olive Subdivision $360,000 This work is funded entirely by OCTA. This is to replace three 1960s 115-1b turnouts with welded 136-1b turnouts in connection with the rail program. 5. ROAD CROSSINGS $700,000 Under the capital maintenance program, an allowance is set aside for each line for each year for the maintenance staff to plan rehabilitation of crossings. This gives them a resource in planning to respond to civic requests to repair or upgrade crossings, and to work off the worst of the existing crossings each year. The nature of this work will vary between lines, and between years on each line. This year's program is representative of plans for crossing capital maintenance throughout the five year period. San Bernardino Line $400,000 This work is funded $180,000 by MTA and $220,000 by SANBAG. This does not represent the usual 60/40 split, but represents estimates of need withing each county on this line. This work will open up and recompact most of the crossings constructed in the first phase of construction, in 1992. The crossing panels, rail, and ties are still in good condition, however settlement has occurred and correction is needed. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 94 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Pasadena Subdivision $100,000 This work is funded entirely by MTA. This is to reconstruct one crossing, probably Azuza Ave. Olive Subdivision $200,000 This work is funded entirely by OCTA. It will reconstruct Collins Ave. 6. RAIL GRINDING $265,000 This program is to grind the rail to restore the original profile and remove surface defects. A regular program of rail grinding will more than double the life of the rail, particularly in curved track. The amount of grinding expense is assigned to each line on approximately the mileage of that line. This work is funded by each county based upon the mileage assumed in each county and funding is split as follows: MTA at $146,900; OCTA at $74,900; RCTC at $2,800; SANBAG at $23,600; and VCTC at $16,800. 7. UNDERCUTTING $300,000 Undercutting is a standard railroad maintenance practice that uses a machine to dig out the track ballast from between and under the ties, pass it over screens to separate the ballast from fine particles, then replace the ballast in the track. It is used to open up ballast for good drainage in areas where it has become contaminated by sand, silt, or other influx of soil or clay. At the same time the track is undercut, any failed crossties are replaced and the track is surfaced and lined for smooth operation. If fouled ballast is not undercut, the track will retain moisture and soften the subgrade, resulting in settlement and the need to frequently resurface the track. The extra moisture also shortens the life of wood ties. Antelope Valley Line $300,000 This work is funded entirely by MTA. For this year, undercutting will be performed between the Via Princessa and Santa Clarita stations. 8. DRAINAGE $520,000 This category of capital maintenance is work that protects or improves the railroad embankment. It will vary each year depending upon the most critical need that year. Orange County Line $120,000 This project is funded entirely by OCTA. It is to perform the periodic replacement of rock rip -rap that protects the embankment from ocean waves at San Clemente. Ventura County'Line $200,000 This project is funded 50% by MTA and 50% by VCTC. It is to widen embankments and improve drainage east and west of the Chatsworth tunnels. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 95 G U L 4 4 2 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Antelope Valley Line $200,000 This project is funded entirely by MTA. It is to widen the side ditch at Vincent, where local drainage runs parallel to the track in a cut. The Southern Pacific had experienced washouts here in the past, this is an effort to protect the SCRRA track against future storm flows at a known trouble spot. 9. BRIDGES $1,540,000 The capital bridge maintenance program consists primarily of replacing obsolete and decayed timber bridges with concrete and steel bridges. These bridges eliminate maintenance due to decayed wood, eliminate fire danger, and enlarge the channel opening because the concrete spans are longer than the wood spans. This program also includes painting of major steel bridges in future years and replacement of small timber structures with culvert pipe when feasible. Antelope Valley Line $400,000 This project is funded entirely by MTA. It is to replace bridge 56.22, near Acton, with a concrete and steel bridge. Ventura County Line $340,000 This project is funded $180,00 by MTA and $160,000 by VCTC. It will perform walkway and structural upgrades on several bridges on this line. San Bernardino Line $340,000 This project is funded 60% by MTA and 40% by SANBAG. It is to replace bridge 38.3, near Claremont. Orange County Line $460,000 This project is funded entirely by OCTA. It is to replace bridge 185.2, just east of the Irvine Spectrum station. 10. SURFACING $120,000 This item of the budget is to procure crushed rock ballast used in surfacing or smoothing the track to adjust for the natural settlement that occurs under the weight of trains and the compaction of the soils. It is assigned to each line in about the amount of historical rock purchases. The machine time and labor for the surfacing is funded under the ordinary maintenance budget. This work is funded by each county based upon the mileage assumed in each county and funding is split as follows: MTA at $56,800; OCTA at $32,000; RCTC at $1,100; SANBAG at $9,400; and VCTC at $20,700. 11. ELECTROCODE UPGRADE $720,000 This project on the San Bernardino Line is funded 60% by MTA and 40% by SANBAG. It is the first phase of a five-year project to replace the direct track circuits which control the signals between El Monte and Claremont with coded track, eliminating rectifiers and 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 4 4 96 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget batteries needed to support the old system. This will also permit the use of pulse modulated circuits that will enhance train detection. Replacement of relay logic with solid state control equipment will greatly reduce maintenance test requirements now impacted by decreasing work windows as rail traffic flow increases. The project will also reduce costs associated with replacement equipment and create a more efficient and consistent system. 12. GRADE CROSSING MONITOR SYSTEM $552,000 This program is to continue with the gradual installation of these devices on a priority basis on important grade crossing controls. This system uses sensors to determine the "health" of the crossing system and will communicate to the Central Control Facility any exceptions. Many of these exceptions are situations which can be repaired before the crossing actually fails, thereby avoiding delays to train or highway traffic and overtime expense. In all cases the monitors provide diagnostic information to signal personnel which reduces troubleshooting time and aids prompt maintenance. The costs are allocated to the lines based upon the number of crossings to be equipped each year. 13. SWITCH MACHINE & ROD REPLACEMENT/REPAIR $387,000 This program is the systematic removal and replacement of the dual control (by either the train dispatcher or a person in the field) power switch machines and their associated connecting rods. These devices will last about ten years in heavy service but need to be rehabilitated at the end of that time in order to assure reliable operation. The machines are sent to the manufacturer for reconditioning, at each location it is done as a swap of a rebuilt unit for the old unit. The costs are assigned to the lines based upon the number of older units needing rehabilitation. 14. REPLACE FIBER OPTIC SYSTEM ALARM $30,000 This project on the San Bernardino Line is funded 60% by MTA and 40% by SANBAG. It will replace the monitoring devices which have been in continuous service since 1992 and are becoming unreliable. 15. REPLACE/REPAIR GATE MECHANISMS $200,000 This program is similar to the switch machine program. Gate crossing mechanisms which have been in service for over a decade need to be replaced by new or reconditioned units and the old ones sent in to the manufacturer for reconditioning. For FY 99-00 this work is concentrated on the Pasadena and Olive Subdivisions which have the oldest equipment. 16. REMOVE OBSOLETE POLE LINE $171,000 There are several locations where the installation of new signal circuits has made the pole line obsolete but it could not be removed by the original signal construction contract. These situations included where the pole line had other tenants' leased lines or the lines were used for local control of road crossings. Also, the economics of removing pole lines 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 97 0 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget changed; because there is no longer a market for used creosoted poles the original plan to use subcontractors to remove and dispose of the poles did not prove viable. This program is to remove the remaining pole lines before they become a liability due to falling in wind storms or other situations. The cost is assigned to the lines with remaining pole line. In particular, we have applied to abandon the signal system on the Pasadena line in order to save on future maintenance and this item funds that removal. (If the signal system is not abandoned it must be maintained in kind or upgraded, both a higher expense than this removal.) 17. UNDERGROUND CABLE REPLACEMENT $62,000 This item is to replace underground cable at various locations along the Ventura County line, which has a history of failures. The project is funded 50% by MTA and 50% by VCTC. Underground signal cables must pass stringent periodic tests as specified by the Federal Railroad Administration. When breakdowns of insulation or open circuits are found, repairs must be accomplished immediately or the signal system made inoperative (obviously an unacceptable approach for a passenger railroad). 18. UPGRADE STANDBY POWER REQUIREMENTS $65,000 The Federal Railroad Administration has increased the time that battery power must be able to support signal operation in the event of loss of commercial power. This item is to systematically increase the battery backup units at signals to comply with this rule. For FY 1999/00 this is concentrated on the Ventura County line. The project is funded 50% by MTA and 50% by VCTC. 19. SYSTEMWIDE SIGNAL/COMMUNICATION $595,000 This program is to replace the radios, modems, protocol converters, and other devices in the communications chain between the train dispatcher work stations and the field control houses. Most of this equipment has been in continuous service for over six years. The devices are experiencing failures due to this continuous use and in this rapidly -changing field, many of them are no longer supported by the manufacturers. Costs are assigned on the all -share basis because they are focused on the Central Control Facility. 20. MAINTENANCE FACILITY UPGRADE $250,000 This project will upgrade the electrical capacity at the San Bernardino layover tracks and upgrade the car wash system at the central maintenance facility by installing a system to recycle gray water for landscaping purposes and the addition of a blower system to dry the equipment and reduce spotting. 21. CAPITAL MAINTENANCE ON ROLLING STOCK $2,112,000 This item is composed of six programs which are funded by interest on proceeds from the U.S. Leveraged Lease Transaction on SCRRA rolling stock and local funds split to the member agencies on the basis of the Allshare formula. The proposed elements are ongoing programs as described below: 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 98 1��'�445 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Car Door Operators Proper operation of doors on the 119 rail cars is critical to providing a safe, efficient commuter rail service. The doors are in constant use and suffer a fair amount of abuse. These two factors drive the need for scheduled maintenance and overhaul of the door operating mechanism. The schedule calls for a four-year cycle for teardown and rebuild of these units. Truck Overhaul The truck assembly serves as the suspension system for cars, along with supporting wheels and braking systems. The trucks should operate approximately 400,000 to 500,000 miles if no extra -ordinary wear occurs. At this point, bushings, bearing and wear plates will be in need of renewal. While this mileage represents an eight -year service cycle, in order to space the overhauls and to ensure equipment availability, we must begin the overhaul program before the maintenance cycle time. This practice also distributes the costs over a number of years. Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC) Overhaul The HVAC system is the most important customer comfort appliance on the cars and operates under heavy demand in our service for much of the year. This system requires periodic overhaul about every four years to ensure steady, reliable performance. Traction Motors Each locomotive has four traction motors. These.are located underneath the unit and provide driving effort to the wheels. The motors should run about 400,000 miles without needing major work. This mileage represents eight service years in Metrolink operation, thus requiring four locomotive changeouts a year to ensure reliable locomotive performance over the long term (33 locomotives to be changed out over eight years represents 4 per year). As described for the Truck Overhaul program above, this program is started in advance of the maintenance cycle time. Head End Power Engine Overhaul This program was initiated in FY 1998/99 as these units had been changed out under warranty in prior years. An overhaul of the HEP engines is recommended by the manufacturers at between 10,000 and 12,000 hours of operation or about 2.5 to 3.5 years at our current service levels or eleven locomotives overhauled each year. This program is reduced by $200,000 in this fiscal year to allow for carryover of this amount from FY 1998/99. Replacement of Carpets and Windows/Installation of ATS This program consists of the installation of carpet in the rail cars to replace wom carpet. In addition, Lexan windows will be replaced with glass as the Lexan has proved difficult to maintain. The program also includes installation of Automatic Train Stop (ATS) in those locomotives not already equipped. This will allow all locomotives to run in ATS territory south of Santa Ana on the Orange County Line. The carpet, glass and ATS equipment were purchased in FY 1998/99, the program consists of installation costs only. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 99 ��'v`'idj�i SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 5.2 New Capital New Capital projects are those capital projects that expand the system such as sidings, double track, upgrade of the signal system, and new rolling stock. For the FY 1999/00 Budget, the proposed projects for new capital are shown in Table 5.2 and the expenditures amount to $75.9 million. Table 6.4 in Appendix 6.8 provides a listing of new projects for which federal, state and local *funds are being sought. These projects are not included in the budget. If and when funds are secured, projects will be amended into the budget. These proposed projects amount to $39.5 million and are discussed below. The following projects are ongoing projects that were budgeted in FY 1998/99 or received new funding in FY 1998/99. 1. SANTA CLARITA CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENTS $200,000 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE This is an ongoing FY 1997/98 project funded by MTA local funds and FY 1997/98 TCI funds. A re-evaluation of the right-of-way and trespassing conditions has delayed the implementation of the project. Construction will occur throughout the remainder of 1999. The project will complete Phase II of a the Comprehensive Plan for Santa Clarita Corridor Enhancements between Santa Clarita and Glendale. The first phase was completed in FY 1995/96. In order to reduce corridor delays due to trespassing incidents, fencing and bi-lingual "No Trespassing" signs were installed in critical areas along nine different segments in the southern end of the corridor for a total of $768,058. Phase II addresses the next most critical areas, with additional fencing, barriers, and signage in four of the segments previously addressed as well as in three new segments. These Santa Clarita Corridor Enhancements will address potential trespassing locations, particularly those adjacent to bus stops along this busy railroad right-of-way. It also provides for separation from the railroad of the bikeway proposed for the Corridor. The project will also reduce maintenance costs by halting refuse dumping. 2. INLAND EMPIRE MAINTENANCE FACILITY $5,420,300 SYSTEM This project is an ongoing FY 1997/98 project funded with MTA local funds, SANBAG local funds, and FY 1997/98 TCI funds from MTA and SANBAG. Due to negotiations with BNSF for the best location, the project has taken longer than anticipated. The estimated completion date is March 2001. SCRRA currently operates its trains out of the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) about 2 miles north of Los Angeles Union Station. The vehicle fleet consists of 31 locomotives and 119 cars. Over half of the Metrolink fleet lays over in Riverside and San Bernardino each night. Light maintenance on this equipment is performed in the midday period at the CMF. As the Metrolink system grows and more midday trips are added, the window for maintenance will be reduced. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 100 TABLL ..4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1999/00 BUDGET NEW CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 0 1 Santa Clarita Corridor Enhancements FY 96/99 Budget Antelope V 400,000 FY 99/00 Budget_I Local Funds State Funds 260,000 100,000 OCTA RCTC. ••SBAG• VCTC Other SRA TcvOther; 100,000 Amtrak Federal s, Funds 2 Inland Empire Maintenance Facility System 5,300,000 5,420,300 1,930,650 386,130 3,103, 520 3 Rolling Stock Acquisition System 8,365,000 7,939,863 3,421,242 548,690 3,969,932 4 Relocate Central Control Facility System 2,400,000 2,436,600 1,250,000 1,186,600 5 18 New Ticket Vending Machines System 870,783 870,783 29,969 326,717 207,709 212,127 94,260 6 Upgrade Ticket Vending Machines System 1,250,000 2,199,000 1,250,000 949,000 7 Newhall Siding Antelope V 3,400,000 415,220, 207,610 207,610 8 San Bernardino Line Capacity Improvements Design San Bem 880,000 737,000 442,200 294,800 9 PA/CMS 8 Signage Installation at LA County Stations System 399,000 291,000 291,000 10 Hasson Siding Extension Ventura Co 5,200,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 11 SB-45 Rolling Stock Acquisition (1) System 17,395,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 12 Lincoln Avenue Double Track Design/Engrg Orange Co 770,000 670,000 670,000 13 Locomotive Emission Reduction Program (2) System 1,472,766 1,500,000 1,500,000 14 Irvine Siding Phase I (3) Orange Co 3,540,000 3,540,000 3,540,000 15 Chatsworth Siding Extension (3) Ventura Co 4,430,000 4,275,000 4,275,000 16 Glendale Slide (3) Ventura Co 678,000 610,000 610,000 17 Montalvo Wye Upgrade/Track Rehabilitation (3) Ventura Co 500,000 100,000 100,000 18 Redlands Extension (4) San Bern 3,164,000 5,015,000 41,000 900,000 2,574,000 1,500,000 19 PP/CMS Installation at Orange County Stations Orange Co 200,000 200,000 TOTAL E' 80,414,649 75,919,766' . 7,812.971 528,717 7156,399 893,087 94,260 41,000 13,05,000 14,561,961 949,000 36,800,000 (1) This project dependent upon approval of $35 million federal grant of STP funds. The FY 1998/99 Budget assumed only $17.395 million would be required in FY 1998/99. (2) Project contingent upon funding availability and ongoing negotiations with GM. (3) Project received state funding after the FY 1998/99 Budget was adopted. (4) Additional federal funds added to carryover state funds for FY 1999/00. CAP9900.x1s, 3/29/99, 9:48 AM NewCapilal SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget A maintenance facility in the Inland Empire would allow for maintenance of equipment from the daily maintenance and inspection through the 88-day progressive maintenance cycle. Work would include such tasks as wheel replacement and road damage/failure repairs. The project would be the first phase in the development of the new facility which would allow for a more efficient operation as well as providing the much needed additional capacity. 3. ACQUISITION OF ROLLING STOCK $7,939,863 SYSTEM This project is an ongoing FY 1997/98 project funded with MTA and RCTC local funds, and FY 1997/98 TCI funds from RCTC and MTA. The project has been delayed to allow use of these funds as match to federal dollars in project #10. SCRRA vehicle fleet consists of 31 locomotives and 119 cars. To meet ridership demand, and allow the Metrolink system to expand and add new trips, more equipment will be needed. The FY 1997/98 project for $12.3 million assumed one locomotive and six cars. However, we have had the opportunity to purchase two locomotives. These units were purchased by a private company for a promotion that did not occur and have not been operated. The unit price was $1.9 million, significantly less than the cost of a new locomotive. At this time, we have only two locomotives available for new service, so the more locomotives we can acquire, the more new service we can provide. These remaining funds will be used with the $35 million in project #10 to purchase 2 additional locomotives and up to 22 cars. If project #7 in New Projects for New Capital is funded, an additional 8 cars could be included in the order. 4. RELOCATE CENTRAL CONTROL FACILITY $2,403,660 SYSTEM This project is an ongoing project from FY 1997/98. It is funded by MTA local funds from FY 1995/96 and $1,250,000 reassigned from Terminal Tower State funds. The SCRRA originally hoped to relocate the Central Control Facility to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Gateway Building. When this proved impossible, several other sites have been investigated. The SCRRA identified an alternative location for the facility but has postponed creating the center because recent developments hold potentially greater value. This development is the recent decision by both Union Pacific and BNSF Railroads to relocate their Los Angeles Basin train dispatching functions from the Midwest to the Los Angeles area. This creates the opportunity to create a joint facility that could benefit all parties. We are currently working with both these railroads to develop the details of a common dispatching center that would coordinate and control virtually all train movements within Southern California. The synergy of this type of facility would benefit, freight, passenger and port traffic in the southern part of the state. Unfortunately, reaching consensus on all the details of a joint center requires much more time than simply creating the originally planned center which would have only served SCRRA. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 102 0.0 449 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget The CCF is an essential component of the public mass transit guideway system, and serves as the command center for dispatching not only Metrolink trains on SCRRA member agency -owned rights -of -way, but also all freight and Amtrak trains passing over these rights -of -way. In addition, the CCF dispatches the Coaster commuter trains between Oceanside and San Diego in San Diego County and all Amtrak trains in this territory. The CCF is in operation 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The existing CCF building is leased by the SCRRA and was constructed using the "tilt -up" technique. Consequently, the structure does not meet Los Angeles City police and fire codes for seismic design requirements for critical facilities. In addition, the nonstructural components (ceiling, partitions, lights, etc.) do not meet seismic design standards. Further, the building is also in the 100-year flood plain of the Los Angeles River. If the CCF were destroyed in a future disaster, either earthquake or flood, SCRRA would not be able to dispatch trains. Consequently, not only would an existing transportation system be disrupted, but we would also lose the opportunity to provide emergency transportation as we did after the Northridge Earthquake. 5. PURCHASE OF 18 NEW TVMS $870,783 SYSTEM This project is an ongoing project from FY 1997/98. The Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) are funded by the five member agencies based on which county will use them. Five of the TVMs are proposed as spares and funded by all counties per the all -share formula: MTA 40%; OCTA 25%; RCTC 12%; SANBAG 18%; and VCTC 5%. This balance is proposed for the final payment on 8 existing style TVMs plus an order of new 10-key pad machines. These have not yet been ordered pending development of the specification for the new machines. 6. UPGRADE TICKET VENDING MACHINES $2,199,000 SYSTEMWIDE The project will provide for new and/or upgraded passenger rail ticket vending machines (TVMs) at Metrolink and Amtrak stations. Funding includes $1.25 million in TCI funds for the software and $939,000 from Amtrak. The project benefits the entire Metrolink system as well as Amtrak Intercity service, and has the potential to benefit other transit providers in the region. These new machines will be able to vend either Metrolink or Amtrak tickets and will also have the potential to sell bus tickets. This means that fewer total capital costs for ticketing machines are needed and servicing costs are lowered and shared. The new machines will be able to vend different types of tickets. For example, they will not only vend tickets for a regular one-way, round-trip, 10-trip, or monthly pass for adult, student, handicapped, or off-peak fare, they will also allow someone to buy a ticket for a future date and several different types of tickets at once. They will vend tickets for trips using any combination of Metrolink, Amtrak and other transit services and be able to allocate the money collected to the different operators. For example, a person will be able to buy tickets at a single location, in one transaction, allowing the user to travel from Riverside using Metrolink, then transfer to Amtrak to Santa Barbara, then return home —and do this so that both Metrolink and Amtrak get their 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 103 O U ',:‘, 4 5 0 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget share of the ticket price. This makes the entire passenger rail network in Southern California much more useable to many more travelers. Finally, the Southern California Intercity Rail Group SB 457 study on ways to save operating costs in the San Diegan Corridor determined that one of the most productive cost saving measures is to introduce TVMs for Intercity Rail passengers. Savings come about by modifying, over time, and as worked out with the union, the number of hours a station agent needs to be present. In addition, almost half of the stations on the San Diegan route are unstaffed and the machines would allow Amtrak tickets to be purchased at these stations even when the stations are closed. 7. NEWHALL SIDING $415,220 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE This is an ongoing FY 1997/98 project funded by MTA local and FY 1997/98 TCI funds from MTA. This project design has encountered geotechnical and hydrologic problems which have forced redesigns and caused higher costs. Construction has begun, and the project is proposed for completion in August 1999. The project will build a siding just south of the proposed Newhall station. It is intended to add a passing track in the slowest, most congested portion of this single-track line. Once this station is built and all trains need -an additional three minutes to stop, the siding will be essential to allow for the flow of trains through this area. SCRRA currently operates 18 daily trains between Burbank and Via Princessa. In addition, there are approximately 10 daily freight trains in the corridor. The project also includes installation of an emergency access road to the north portal of Tunnel 25. The Los Angeles County Fire Department has cited lack of vehicle access to the tunnel as a life safety concern. The grading and drainage for the siding and the road will be done concurrently. This project will also create an improved drainage facility, protecting the line from future severe storm episodes. 8. SAN BERNARDINO CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS DESIGN $737,000 SAN BERNARDINO LINE This is an ongoing FY 1997/98 design project funded 60% by MTA and 40% by SANBAG. These projects are proposed for federal funding (see projects #1, 2 and 3 in New projects for New Capital), and completion of design, scheduled for August 1999, will allow the projects to proceed if and when federal funding is awarded. Siding in the I-10 Corridor The ten -mile single-track line between Marengo and El Monte through the "slot" of the San Bernardino Freeway is a major constraint in scheduling counter -flow trains and causes cascading delays if one train is late. At Fremont St. a small portion of the right of way is wide enough to install a short passing siding that would permit increased train frequency, reduce signal block lengths, and provide a place to meet off -schedule trains. This will be a difficult design due to the narrow right of way, curvature, and constraints on placement of signals. Platform on the South Side of Covina 04/15/99_, 1:14 PM 104 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget The station at Covina only has a platform on the north track. This is within a four -mile segment of double track. Train schedules are set up so that all peak -direction trains and as many counter - flow and mid -day trains as possible use this track, however this does result in some trains not being able to stop at Covina. When a Covina train is late resulting in two trains needing access to the station, delays cascade to many other trains. This project will result in a platform for the south track, greatly increasing operating flexibility on this line. Siding on the East Bank of the LA River (Marengo Siding) The siding at Marengo (just east of Mission Tower) is restricted to 25 MPH operation and is connected to the main track on the west end with an old double slip ("puzzle") switch at Pasadena Jct. This project is to revise the track design at the siding and the junction to permit higher speed in the siding, to install a higher -speed (45 MPH) turnout on the east end, and to retire the old double slip switch, thus reducing delays and expenses caused by the old components. Double Track Pomona to Montclair This segment of the line has three stations, a junction, and four control points within 3.8 miles of single-track line. Operating studies identify this as the most restrictive portion of the route. This project is to extend the two tracks at Montclair westward through Claremont and Pomona, to improve the speeds at Cambridge, to retire CP Vista, and to add platforms at all three stations so that trains in both directions can serve all stations. The design will include provisions for future service extensions westward on the former Santa Fe line to Arcadia and/or the Blue Line terminal at Sierra Madre Villa, including space for ART trackage at each station. This project includes two new bridges over flood control channels and revisions to seven highway crossings. 9. PA/CMS AND SIGNAGE AT LA COUNTY STATIONS S291,000 This is an ongoing FY 1997/98 project. This project proposed installation of Public Address/Changeable Message Signs (PA/CMS) and signage at six Los Angeles County stations and is funded by MTA and scheduled for completion June 2000. The remaining funds will be used towards PA/CMS and/or signage at the following stations: • Lancaster - a station on the Antelope Valley Line • Via Princessa - a station on the Antelope Valley Line • Sun Valley - a proposed new station on the Antelope Valley Line • Newhall - a new station under design on the Antelope Valley Line 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 105 <<iG ii5 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 10. HASSON SIDING EXTENSION $4,500,000 VENTURA LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded with State Highway Account Intercity Rail funds. The project extends the existing siding at Hasson which was constructed in 1993 by SCRRA. It was originally planned as a place where passenger trains could meet and pass, so it was designed to minimize construction costs by using an old subgrade and making it no longer than the longest passenger train. Recent experience has demonstrated the need for a longer siding in order to keep both freight and passenger traffic moving through the corridor. Freight trains are generally longer than this siding so they must take sidings at Stratheam or Chatsworth, which limits dispatcher flexibility in keeping all traffic moving. The project is in final design, some material has been procured, and it is scheduled for completion June 2000. 11. SB-45 ROLLING STOCK ACQUISITION $35,000,000 SYSTEM This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is funded with Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. In FY 1998/99 only $17.395 million of the total of $35 million was included in the fiscal year budget. The project will proceed only when the federal grant for this project is approved. The grant application was filed at the Federal Transit Administration in September 1998, and approval is pending 13 (c) agreements and other FTA approvals. This amount represents the federal share for new rolling stock for the Metrolink system. Project #3 under New Capital Projects will provide the local match to the project. These two projects will allow purchase of two locomotives and up to 22 cars. The SCRRA vehicle fleet consists of 31 locomotives and 119 cars. FY 1997/98 funding is available this year for an additional two locomotives and four cars. However, even more equipment will be needed if the SCRRA system is to expand, add new trips and meet ridership demand. If project #7 in Potential New Projects for New Capital is funded, an additional 8 cars could be included in the order. 12. LINCOLN AVENUE DOUBLE TRACK DESIGN $670,000 ORANGE COUNTY This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It is the first phase of a multi -year project which is funded with prior year. State Intercity Rail funds and from Orange County's SB-45 Regional Choice Program. The 1.8-mile segment between Santa Ana and Orange on the Orange County Line has only one main track and causes significant scheduling problems for both the Orange County and Inland Empire -Orange County Lines. This fiscal year, the budget includes the design and engineering of the second main track in this location, environmental work and right-of-way appraisals. Construction would proceed in the following year. 13. LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM $1,500,000 SYSTEM The project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. The program for FY 1999/00 is yet to be defined. The project will proceed only if state and/or federal funds are received and contingent 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 0Li 4 5 3 106 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget upon ongoing negotiations with General Motors -Electromotive Division. As various milestones of the Demonstration Project are reached, payments from a $476,000 grant of FY 1996/97 AB 2766 funds will occur. 14. IRVINE SIDING PHASE I $3,540,000 ORANGE COUNTY This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It received $3.54 million in state intercity rail funding after the FY 1998/99 Budget was adopted. This 7,000-foot passing siding south of the Irvine station will increase flexibility of rail service in this very active area which is served by Metrolink service on both the Orange County and Inland Empire to Orange County Lines as well as by Amtrak and freight trains. The project is in final design, some material has been procured, and it is scheduled for completion in May 2000. 15. CHATSWORTH SIDING EXTENSION $4,275,000 'VENTURA COUNTY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It received $4.43 million in state intercity rail funding after the FY 1998/99 Budget was adopted. The project is located on SCRRA's single track line from Los Angeles to Moorpark and would extend the existing CTC siding at Chatsworth northward from Devonshire Street, Milepost 445.2, to a point south of tunnel #28 at Milepost 444.1, and construct a full second track platform at the Chatsworth station. The project is in preliminary design, some material has been procured, and it is scheduled for completion in June 2000. 16. GLENDALE SLIDE $610,000 VENTURA COUNTY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It received $610,000 in state funding in Ventura County's Regional Choice program after the FY 1998/99 Budget was adopted. The project consists of improving and lengthening a Union Pacific owned freight storage track (known as the "Glendale Slide") and installing power tumouts on each end in order to provide a 7,300-foot passing siding. It is located on Las Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority -owned land between mileposts 4.9 and 6.3 in the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles, in Los Angeles County. The upgraded siding will provide the ability to separate freight trains from passenger trains and will improve schedule reliability and permit increased capacity. The project is scheduled for completion in June 2000. 17. MONTALVO WYE UPGRADE/TRACK REHAB $100,000 VENTURA COUNTY LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. It received $500,000 in state funding in Ventura County's Regional Choice program after the FY 1998/99 Budget was adopted. At Montalvo, which is about halfway between the passenger stations for Oxnard and Ventura, there are two hand -operated turnouts which diverge from the main track to form a wye track connection with the VCTC-owned Santa Paula line. This is also the site of SCRRA's overnight storage yard for trains which operate between Oxnard and Los Angeles. This project will upgrade 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 107 4J 4 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget the track and road crossings in the wye. 18. REDLANDS EXTENSION $5,015,000 EXTENSION OF SAN BERNARDINO LINE This project is an ongoing project from FY 1998/99. In FY 1999/00, it is funded with $3,064,000 in state TCI $1,500,000 in federal New Starts funding, $410,000 in Section 130 funding, and $41,000 in local funds as match to Section 130 funds. The project will complete the construction of the first mile of the Redlands Commuter Rail Extension to allow operation of Metrolink service from the San Bernardino station to the proposed Omnitrans Multimodal Transportation Center at E Street in the City of San Bernardino. 19. PA/CMS INSTALLATION AT ORANGE $200,000 COUNTY STATIONS ORANGE COUNTY LINE This project proposes installation of Public Address/Changeable Message Signs (PA/CMS) at two Orange County stations and is funded by OCTA. The two stations are the existing Irvine Station and the Tustin Station which is scheduled for completion in the summer of 2000. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 108 U j 5 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Section 6 Appendix 1IMETROLINK Gtj'456 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 6.0 APPENDIX 6.1 Recommended Budget Policy Budget Authorization The Executive Director shall submit to the SCRRA Board of Directors by May 151 of each year a Preliminary Budget for the following fiscal year. The submitted Budget shall include separate components for administrative, operations, and capital costs. Decisions dealing with operating and capital allocations, as well as approval of each member agency's share of the Authority's annual Budget shall be approved by each member agency. The Board shall adopt a final Budget no later than June 30 of each year. If a Budget is not approved by June 30t, the Board will approve a continuing Operating Budget on a monthly basis equal to one -twelfth of preceding year's Budget. The Capital Budget approves individual projects which may proceed within the approved funding level. The Budget shall contain a financial plan that includes: • Organizational chart. • Goals and objectives for the new fiscal year. • The assumptions underlying revenue and expense projections. • Planned service for the following fiscal year. • Revenue sources by line item • Expenses by summary line item • Department budgets • Authorized positions. The Operating Budget shall detail operating revenue such as fare revenue, maintenance -of -way (MOW) revenue, member agency contributions, etc, and related operating expenses. The Capital Budget includes all projects proposed for the coming fiscal year. The Board approves individual Capital Maintenance and New Capital projects, including total project cost and scope. Approved project funds shall be encumbered for the duration of the project unless amended by the Board. In approving the proposed budget and any Board initiated amendments, the Board shall authorize SCRRA to expend funds under the direction of the Executive Director consistent with: • Total amount appropriated for Train Operations and Maintenance -of -Way. • Total amount appropriated for Capital by each Capital Maintenance and New Capital project. • Individual member agency funding commitments. • Total number of authorized positions. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 109 0uy 457 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Budgetary Control General Budgetary control refers to SCRRA's procedures for monitoring actual expenses against planned expenditures as adopted in the annual Budget. By adopting an annual Budget, the Board of Directors delegates to the Executive Director the authority to manage the annual Budget within the above parameters. Transfers A Budget Transfer represents changes in projected expenses between line items within or across departments in the Budget. The Budget Office shall review the impact of any requested Budget Transfer and make recommendations to the Executive Director and/or Board, as required. Amendments Certain Budget Transfers require Board approval and result in Budget Amendments. Budget Amendments will be submitted to the Board as required and include: • Any Budget Transfer that impacts member agency funding commitments. • Any Budget Transfer that impacts the total Operating Budget or individual Capital projects. • Any Budget Transfer that impacts the total authorized level of personnel. The Board, by approving any Budget Amendment, amends the Budget for the fiscal year. Examples of actions requiring Budget Amendments include: • Decrease in projected revenues and/or funds available from member agencies. • Changes to authorized staffing levels. • Budget transfers affecting member agencies funding commitments. • Identification of and authorization to use additional revenue sources. • Increases to individual capital projects or addition of new capital projects. Budgetary Reporting The Amended Budget is the baseline for all comparisons to actuals during a fiscal year in addition to the following year's Budget request, internal performance reporting, and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Quarterly Budget reports will be submitted to the Board of Directors. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 110 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 111 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 6.2 Formulae for Allocation to Counties Table 6.1 provides a summary of all the formulae that have been used to allocate expenses and revenues to the member agencies (counties). The table shows the eight different formula that have been used. These eight formulae are described below: Allshare The original All -Share formula was developed to calculate county shares of systemwide projects such as the maintenance facility and used data developed in the Southern California Commuter Rail: 1991 Regional System Plan as required by SB-1402. The formula was calculated as 1/3 unduplicated route miles of the proposed system at buildout; 1/3 proposed stations (unduplicated) and 1/3 projected boardings and alightings after a year of service. This formula was also used to justify.the number of positions each county had on the SCRRA Board. In 1993, the formula was adjusted to add the Riverside (UPRR) Line, and in 1998, the formula has been adjusted again to allow for the extensions to Lancaster and Oxnard. This revised formula is now used for systemwide projects such as those in the River Corridor. Point -in -Time While the All -Share formula was used in the Maintenance -of -Way Budget and in sharing costs of capital projects, the Point -in -Time formula was developed to provide each county's share of operating expenses in each fiscal year. Rather than representing the system at build out, the data used was the projection for the particular fiscal year. The formula was modified from the All Share to include train -miles as this data more accurately represents service provided. Through FY 1996/97, the formula was calculated as 1/6 unduplicated route miles; 1/6 proposed stations (unduplicated); 1/6 projected boardings and alightings and 1/2 projected source train -miles. Source trains were defined as peak trains starting out of layover facilities. Boardings and alightings were removed from the formula in FY 1997/98 as stations provided similar weighting and the formula was calculated as 1 /4 unduplicated route miles; 1 /4 stations (unduplicated) and 1/2 projected source train -miles. Base Service In the FY 1998/99 Budget a new formula was developed for the Operating Budget which took all services that do not change with the number of trains operated ("base" services) and analyzed how they had been allocated as a group over the prior years. These items had been allocated by a combination of the Point -in -Time formula, even split, and direct allocation to lines. The resulting formula represents an average of the allocation of these "base" services over the prior two years. Train -Miles Those costs that change with the number of trains operated such as Amtrak crews and fuel are allocated on the basis of train -miles. This formula changes each year with the service assumptions adopted for that year. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 0 ;-14 0 112 66/9/17 `Alunop `speSaIdHS 'Ads uane pue lld Act Ads Alsnolnaad sem mum a6eaane ue sl li 66/96 lid ul sisoo a6aeyo;oanp ao palelaa ellu -ideal lou alarm Lag sesuedxe He swoop 01 pasn Senn elnuuoi slyl (L) %9'S %9'6 %S'0 %8'9Z %S'89 peunnp sem Teal %b'9 %L'OL % L' L %£'t7Z %9'19 pump sem ainod %Z-t7 %Z'Z L %VI % L'85 00/66 Ad sanni uleil %9.b %6' L L %L.L %L'L L %L'89 66/96 Ad sellW U1eJl %.17-9 %0t L %9'L %9'9 L %17'9S (L) (uo 66/96 Ad) elnuuod eavueS ese8 %L'L %£' Z L %8'8 %L'6L %Z' ZS 86/L66 L aural-ul-lulod %Z'L %L'lL %8'6 L %9'Lb (paeuxp/aalseouel) elea 9661. aaeysll`d %Z'b %6'S L %YE L %Z'9Z Vont, (dn 101 paslnad) aaeyslIV %0'9 %0'8 L Von L %0'9Z aaeyslld IeU16iaO JIJ W00 A8 S3SN3dX3 31d0O11V Ol a3sn avinW21Od A111:1OH1f1d ll`d211VN010321 `dINZIOdITdO 141:13H1f1OS 1;9 318d1 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Route -Miles Owned The Maintenance -of -Way Budget allocates the net subsidies for Extra -ordinary Maintenance for storm damage, gate knockdowns and vandalism using the formula representing route -miles owned by county. Track -Miles Owned The Maintenance -of -Way Budget allocates the net subsidies for maintenance -of -way on lines owned by more than one county by the formula representing track -miles owned by county. Direct Allocation Other costs that change•with the number of trains operated on particular line segments such as payments for rail agreements for dispatching and maintenance -of -way are not allocated by formula but directly allocated to those line segments. 6.3 Formulae for Allocation to Lines Table 6.2 provides those formulae in Table 6.1 that are used to allocate operating expenses and revenues by line. This allocation is used to provide operating expenses, revenues, subsidies and statistics by line. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 114 0u i; �, 66/8/V 'au!l `six'S3bdHS -� 'i!ids uana pue lid Aq 1!Ids Aisno!naid sent lam }o abeiane ue s! }l .sue, 66/86 Ad u! spoo affieyo pagp Jo palelai apw-u!e4 jou matt 1et1} sasuadxa ile aleoolle o; pasn seen einwiol s!yl (.) r� :5 %17'L %6'6 %6'£Z %9'0 %6'LZ %9'96 %6'6Z %Z'£ %L' 6Z %Z' %0'6Z %9'6 %E'9Z %L' 1 %Z'06 %I.'61. %6' 61. %L' 6Z %tin. %6'EZ 43/08' 6 %6' 6 %£' 8 6 %ti > I. %V. 6 Z %Z' £ I %0' VZ %6' 6 %L' 9 %Z" V 1%9.61. %9.91 %0'ti'Z %Z %£17'£l %98'96 %.178'E6 %06'96 %04'9%V6'4Z %80'9 %6V•91. %Z9'6Z %ti0'96 %£9'9 %9V£6 %66'0Z paunnp sem >pail paumo savvy einoll 00/66 Ad salmi u!eal 66/86 Ad sel!V1l Weal (l,) einwaod aouuaS aseg e}eC1 8661. aaeysllY (dn got pas!na�) a�eysllb' 3N11 A8 S3SN3dX3 31V0011H Ol a3Sf13V1f1INHOd 11210H1f1V 11V?:11HN019321 VINHOdI1V0 N213H1110S Z.9 319V1 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 6.4 Allocation of Revenues Farebox revenues are allocated to operating lines and member agencies (counties) on the basis of train -miles for each line or county. Dispatching/Other revenues are allocated directly to those line segments which are subject to agreements with freight railroads and Amtrak.. These revenues are allocated to the counties which own the particular segments, and to the lines that are made up of these segments. At the end of each fiscal year, the interest on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects is assigned to counties based upon a calculation of funds on account throughout the year which were provided by each Member Agency. Each county's interest is then allocated to the lines based on train -miles by county and line. Maintenance -of -Way revenues are received by SCRRA on behalf of the member agencies. These revenues are allocated to the counties which own the particular segments, and subsequently to the lines that are made up of these segments. 6.5 Allocation of Expenses Fuel and that portion of Amtrak services related to operation of trains is allocated to operating lines and counties on the basis of train -miles for each line or county. That part of Amtrak services related to dispatching is allocated to operating lines and counties on the basis of the "base service" formula. All other expenses in the Operating Budget are allocated on the "base service" formula with the exception of Transfers to Other Operators, Rail Agreements for Dispatching and Maintenance -of -Way, Maintenance -of -Way expenses, and Ambassadors which are allocated directly to the lines. Maintenance -of -Way expenses on lines shared by more than one county are split to the counties on the basis of track -miles in each county. The expenditures related to the Riverside Layover Facility are allocated to the counties through which the Riverside Line runs on the basis of route miles. The River Corridor is shared by all lines, thus the expenditures in excess of revenues on this segment are split to lines and counties on the basis of the "Allshare" formula. Extra -ordinary Maintenance expenses for derailments ($100,000) are split on the basis of route miles owned and for storm damage, gate knockdowns and vandalism ($400,000) using the formula representing route -miles owned by county. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 116 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 117 G u IJ SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 6.6 Allocation of Agency Costs to Budgets In prior years all labor and non -project specific costs were allocated directly to the various budgets - Operating, Maintenance -of -Way, New Capital, and Capital Maintenance. In developing the FY 1999/00 Budget, agency labor and other costs which are not directly related to projects are now identified as overhead costs to be applied to all project -related costs. In prior years, these costs were included in the Operating Budget, in FY 1999/00 they are spread to all budgets, thus increasing the agency costs for the Maintenance -of -Way, New Capital, and Capital Maintenance budgets. Departments which are now considered part of the overhead allocation are Executive (with the exception of the Fare Collection Manager who is charged to the Operating Budget), Finance, and Contracts & Administration. Table 6.3 shows the allocation of labor, fringe and direct costs to the various budgets and compares this allocation with the FY 1998/99 Budget. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 118 �P�gfAs101O9�7 00/66 AA •siopessegwy apnlow of palsnfpe si 66/86 AA umogs lunowe aql •wali aull alwedas a ui 000`049$ le pala6pnq }nq 'le0pn8 66/86 Ad as ul Joge-1 ui papnloul lou alarm siopessegwy '000'88tl le 00/6664 Ad ul logel w papnloul saopessegwy'uolleog!sselo aa/(oldwa mau paledplue of aria (Z) Mood liJaVll pasodoid ul aledlollJed of To pawnsse ale la6pri8 00/6664 AA aql to lied se panwdde Allelllul suoWsod (4) %Z•9V %9'£ti %9.994 %Z•44 %Z•L 00/66 0166/96 Jl3 a6ueg0 % 99L`L6 4$ £99`Z9Z$ 4VC LVZ$ L9L'90Z$ (£ti6`8£Z$) VLL'SL9$ (3SV321030)3SV3a0Nl Z9 ['Lai 94ti'Z09$ 69V9474$ 81+4'9178` 4$ 9££'OOE`9$ OL£'£££'6$ (Z) 66/96 Ai S1133N39 30NIUd 'WW111V 1V101 £V4' 464$ 58.0'09Z$ 404'644$ 80L'L 49$ 4EL1739'4$ L94`£40'£$ (pled aural 410M 10 %EV) sigauaa a6uu3 lepl 969` 4 3 L40`t'4$ 49Z'9$ L9ti'8£$ Z99'944$ £0 4'L8 4$ (4) %g;o saslea wavy Jo; aouemollV 004'Z£b$ LLL'069$ 99Z'OLZ$ 6ZL'S6£' 4$ 000`0Z 1.14 itttj VL9`908`9$ Fogel lelol SiSO0 NOEIV1 AON3Jd AO NOIlf181111Sia 13Jaf18 00/6661. Ad AlR1OHinv 71`9111VN01032I VINUOAI1VO NI:13H111OS £'9 318111 rn SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 6.7 Proposed New Positions SCRRA BOARD REQUEST The Chief Administrative Officer position was requested by the SCRRA Board to assist the Executive Director in the performance of his duties. SYSTEM SAFETY PLAN SCRRA staff has been working with the American Public Transit Association (APTA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to develop an industry -wide self-regulating System Safety Plan, Standard Operating Procedures, and an audit monitoring function which must be in place prior to a planned APTA and FRA safety audit by October 1999. The System Safety Plan will require SCRRA to perform additional inspections and auditing of the railroad functions provided by our contractors for operations, engineering and mechanical functions. Additional training will also be required associated with Accident/Incident Reporting and Emergency Preparedness Rules and along with the inspections and audits will require additional staff time and resources that are not now available. Lastly, SCRRA will need to comply with the Standard and Recommended Practices for Passenger Rail Equipment. These have been adopted by the SCRRA at the request of the Federal Railroad Administration. This will require additional auditing by the Mechanical Department above the requirement for the System Safety Plan. A total of 4.5 positions have been added to ensure implementation of and compliance with the Plans. They include a Safety Officer and a Mechanical Compliance Officer along with 2 %2 Clerks to ensure proper documentation and compliance in the following departments: Safety, Engineering; and %2 Clerk in the Mechanical department. These positions will all be funded in Operations. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE Administration of vehicle maintenance is currently provided by the maintenance -of -way contractor. A recent study of the costs of in-house vs. contracting out (approved by the Board 3/12/99) showed it was more cost-effective to bring this function in-house. The analysis showed that the average monthly cost if the current arrangement were continued would be $11,604 compared with $8,875 if the function were brought in-house. One full-time Vehicle Administrator position and one part-time Clerk position (split with the System Safety Clerk) are proposed for this function with an annual savings of about $33,000. Additional savings could be realized by aggressive negotiations with maintenance vendors, bidding the fuel supplier contract, reduction of employee downtime incurred as a result of the current practices, and use of an automated vehicle maintenance system package to reduce staff time requirements. These positions will both be funded in Operations. ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION All of the seven positions proposed for Engineering & Construction are already provided by existing consultant/contractor contracts. The Design Engineer, Signal Designer, Utility CADD Operator provide on -going operating or capital functions. They will continue to charge to these budget areas. The Resident Engineer and Lead Construction Inspector positions will continue to 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 120 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget charge capital projects. While bringing the positions in-house will reduce SCRRA expenditures on design and construction management services currently provided under contract, it should be noted that the Resident Engineer, Lead Construction Inspector , Design Engineer, Signal Design positions will be hired and their ongoing employment will be contingent upon ongoing grant funding. The Public Projects Coordinator and the Right -of -Way Coordinator positions will continue to charge their time to recollectable projects and maintenance -of -way. Assuming the current level of recollectable projects continues,.there will not be a significant change to the charges to maintenance -of -way. The Resident Engineer (RE) is the field manager of the construction projects and the point source for cost data on projects. The Agency has had one or more RE's on staff through consultant contracts since 1991. With the number of construction and capital maintenance contracts forecast to be stable for the next several years, this position should be created. With a permanent SCRRA RE, more continuity in creating and managing contracts will result. If the SCRRA finds itself without any construction contracts to operate, the position could be logically terminated for economic reasons. In FY 1999/.00 the Resident Engineer, Lead Construction Inspector , Design Engineer, Signal Design positions will be funded by some or all of the following ongoing grant - funded projects: • Inland Empire Maintenance Facility • Relocate Central Maintenance Facility • Hasson Siding Extension • Irvine Siding: Phase I • Chatsworth Siding Extension • Glendale Slide • Redlands Extension In addition, the following projects may receive funding and proceed in FY 1999/00: • Siding in the I-10 Corridor • Siding on the East Bank of the LA River • Single Crossover between Van Nuys and Raymer • Upgrade Crossover at CP Allen to 60 mph • Newhall Siding Extension • Tunnel 26 Safety Improvements.' The position would work out of the Mission Tower field office and would use a pickup type vehicle. There is no building space requirement. The vehicle use is presently an SCRRA obligation to the consultant position, so there is not a net change. SCRRA's annual cost for this function under the current consultant arrangement is $215,253. The equivalent annual amount assumed for the proposed SCRRA position in the FY 1999/00 Budget is $125,694. The Lead Construction Inspector position would convert one of several construction inspectors we have carried since 1991 on consulting contracts to an SCRRA position. The lead construction inspector would perform inspections and would mentor and manage the consultant inspectors. This position is one step below the Resident Engineer and sets up another step on a career ladder within the construction group. As with the RE, the position could be abolished for 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 121 0l1 4b:) SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget economic reasons in the event there are no construction contracts and would be so bulletined. In FY 1999/00 the position will be funded by grant -funded projects as noted above. The position could also work to support public project inspection in the event there were no construction projects. This position would work out of the Mission Tower field office and would use a pickup type vehicle. There is no building space requirement. The vehicle use is presently an SCRRA obligation to the consultant position, so there is not a net change. SCRRA's annual cost for this function under the current consultant arrangement is $175,848. The equivalent annual amount assumed for the proposed SCRRA position in the FY 1999/00 Budget is $125,694. The Design Engineer (Civil) is required as there is a continuing need to create civil and trackwork designs for new capital projects and for new standards and to review the designs of others. This position is to manage these design efforts as well as to perform new design work, particularly for our Engineering Standards. This position is now being worked by a consultant engineer under a staff support task order. The SCRRA, like any moderate -sized railroad facility, has a continuing need to perform engineering and design work related to track geometry, engineering standards, special trackwork, and public projects. We also need to manage the design work performed under specific design contracts, both to control costs and schedule and to review the work product and assure it meets SCRRA needs and standards. In FY 1999/00 the position will be funded by grant -funded projects as noted above as well as in the Maintenance - of -Way Budget. This position is being worked by a consultant staff person in existing SCRRA office space. The new position would use the same space. The position (whether SCRRA or consultant) has occasional use of a pool motor vehicle. SCRRA's annual cost for this function under the current consultant arrangement is $197,514. The equivalent annual amount assumed for the proposed SCRRA position in the FY 1999/00 Budget is $155,418. The Right -of -Way Coordinator would provide field management of the right-of-way which is a continuing need (demand by member communities) of the Agency. This position would manage the contract(s) for right -of- way cleanup, fence repair, and signing, and would coordinate these efforts with the communities. An important aspect of this management is the documentation of conditions in order to invoice third parties and to assure contractor performance. Another service this position would perform is monitoring of the use of the right -of- way by third parties, both to assure compliance with lease agreements and to check for encroachments, dumping, and environmental impacts. This function has been handled by a consultant staff person working on maintenance -of -way and recollectable projects as needed. The position will continue to be funded in the Maintenance -of -Way Budget and by recollectable projects. This position would use an SCRRA office space now vacant in the engineering area. It should have an assigned pickup type vehicle, which would be a new budget requirement, however it could function using a pool car, or a pool car could be transferred to this position. SCRRA's annual cost for this function under the current consultant arrangement is $143,455. The equivalent annual amount assumed for the proposed SCRRA position in the FY 1999/00 Budget is $110,882. The Public Projects Coordinator position is needed to coordinate the railroad operation and maintenance functions with the many agency requests to alternate uses of the right-of-way 04/15/99, 1:14 PM i; ;j. 122 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget including bike paths, multi -use trails, landscaping, friends of the river, and adjacent development (which often includes grading and drainage impacts to the embankment), and to perform reviews of environmental and planning documents which describe changes to adjoining property. This function has been handled by a consultant staff person working on recollectable projects as needed. The position will continue to be funded in the Maintenance -of -Way Budget and by recollectable projects. The SCRRA is not presently sufficiently active in reviewing, participating in, and holding agency plans to standards compatible with railroad operations, due to the lack of staff resources in the Public Projects group. If this pattern continues, the utility of the right-of- way could be compromised in areas of trespasser security, embankment stability, maintenance access, and the ability to add additional tracks. This position would continue to use engineering office space. Transportation would be by access to a pool car. SCRRA's annual cost for this function under the current consultant arrangement is $168,480. The equivalent annual amount assumed for the proposed SCRRA position in the FY 1999/00 Budget is $125,694. The Utility CADD Operator position supports the Signal CADD Operator. It supports the signal drawing effort and in addition it creates civil drawings and Engineering Standard revisions, creates and revises track charts, and archives as -built drawings in electronic media. This position is now being worked by a person working through a temporary labor company, as a subcontractor to the Maintenance -of -Way contract. The position will be funded in the Maintenance -of -Way, New Capital and Capital Maintenance Budgets. This position would continue to use the CADD room. There is no vehicle assignment. SCRRA's annual cost for this function under the current consultant arrangement is $105,479. The equivalent annual amount assumed for the proposed SCRRA position in the FY 1999/00 Budget is $81,267. The Signal Designer position is a sub -professional designer of signal circuits, standards, and devices. The SCRRA has a pressing need for the Designer position to check and update circuit plans and standards in order to assure compliance with the FRA. In FY 1999/00 the position will be funded by grant -funded projects as noted above. This position is supported by the SIGNAL CADD Operator. This position would continue to use the CADD room plus an existing space in the engineering area. Transportation would continue to be with a pool car. SCRRA's annual cost for this function under the current consultant arrangement is $168,480. The equivalent annual amount assumed for the proposed SCRRA position in the FY 1999/00 Budget is $140,607. MARKETING & PASSENGER SERVICES The Market Research Manager will (1) originate and/or acquire market data and research; (2) analyze the impact; and (3) report the results in a format that is useful to marketing, operations, executive management, member agencies and the Board. SCRRA currently uses contractors to develop, define, organize, and manage research programs and analyze the results. As a result, projects stand alone and do not build on prior data and utilize existing information. This gives rise to efforts being duplicated, trends not analyzed and one-dimensional reports that do not address all the organization's needs. By bringing this function in-house, SCRRA will reduce its dependence on outside contractors and have the competence to effectively utilize existing 04/15/99, 1:141W 123 U 4( SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget internal and available external data, to more effectively and precisely collect additional information, and to work with all departments in providing market research to support the decision making processes, to understand the factors in the market place that may effect the outcome of decisions, and evaluate the impact of decisions. This position is offset by a $102,000 decrease in the use of outside contractors for the management and analysis and reporting of market research data. The position will provide more expedient analysis for making intelligent operating, policy, and marketing decisions, responding to changes in the market place and customer base, and making adjustments when things do not go as planned. The position will be funded in Operations. The Customer Relations Assistant will provide timely and accurate replies to customer inquiries and complaints. This position will respond to passenger and public inquiries and administer the School Group Program. This position will assist in increasing dialogue and communications with our passengers both individually and collectively. Responsive customer communications is a major concern of our passengers. Communications from these phone calls and letters have more than doubled in the past year. Web site Emails, which began in November of last month, are averaging 130 per month and now comprise over a third of our direct customer communications. Staff has relied on Ambassador support and temporary agency clerical employee to assist in these activities at an annual cost of about $20,000. The lack of consistency and increase in correspondence threatens the quality and timeliness of responses. The position is required to meet system's continued growth and the passengers' increasing demand for communication and information. The position will be funded in Operations. 04/15/999, 1:14 PM OUCH fL 124 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 04/15/99, 1:14 PM THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 125 'i.104 r3 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 6.8 Potential New Projects For New Capital In FY 1999/00 The ten projects shown in Table 6.4 are new projects for which federal, state and local funds are being sought for FY 1999/00. All are dependent upon the award of state, federal or local funds and are not included in the FY 1999/00 Budget. If and when funds are awarded, the projects will be amended into the budget. 1. SIDING IN THE I-10 CORRIDOR $3,400,000 SAN BERNARDINO LINE This project is included pending receipt of federal funds. Local match has been approved by SANBAG and requested of MTA in the Call for Projects. This project is to install a new CTC controlled passing track (siding) on the single track San Bernardino line between Marengo (near Los Angeles) and El Monte at Milepost 6.2 in the city of Alhambra, near the Fremont Ave. freeway interchange. It has, in the past, been identified as the "Fremont" siding. This portion of the rail line is located in the center median of Interstate Highway 10, which is a very narrow right of way with room for only one track. At Milepost 6.2 the highway lanes are separated, yielding a wider right of way that can be used for a siding about 1000 feet long. The work will consist of constructing a railway embankment, two new turnouts, about 1000 feet of track, and two control points (signals, power switch machines, and associated controls). Most of the work is within railroad right of way but easements may be required for installation of some track and signals (as was done with the original construction of this line). Special construction access must be coordinated with Caltrans. The work will consist of installing two new power operated turnouts with related signals, controls, and power switch machine, constructing about 1200 feet of track, shifting the alignment of the existing main track, and modifying the nearby parts of the signal system on the San Bernardino line. The project will construct new track for the relocated main track and will use the existing main track as the new siding. 2. PLATFORM ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COVINA $1,500,000 SAN BERNARDINO LINE This project is included pending receipt of federal funds. Local match has been approved by SANBAG and requested of MTA in the Call for Projects. This project is to construct passenger platforms to permit passenger access to the existing second tracks at the Covina station. The project is located on the SCRRA's San Bernardino line in the cities of Covina, in Los Angeles County. This line is basically a single track railroad with passing sidings located every 5-10 miles. There are passing sidings at Covina and Montclair, however there are only passenger platforms on one track at these stations. The project consists of grading an embankment, placing a concrete platform, installing passenger shelters, lighting, and landscaping, and modifying utilities. Ticket vending machines and ten trip ticket validators will be installed on the new platforms and an inter -track fence installed to prevent pedestrian access across the tracks. Passengers will use the existing street crossing 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 0 C 7 4 126 TABLE , . SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY 1999/00 BUDGET POTENTIAL NEW CAPITAL EXPENDITURES CONTINGENT UPON FUNDING rNo 1 Project;) Siding In the I-10 Corridor (1, 2) San Bern FY 95/99 Budget FY 99/00 S bddget . 3,400,000 Local Funds State Funds: MTA 408,000 OCTA.'I ROTC SBAG 272,000 VCTC Other> SHA TCVOther ' BNSFi Amtrak 2 Platform on South Side of Covina (1, 2) San Bem 1,500,000 300,000 3 Siding on East Bank of LA River (1, 2) San Bem 4,300,000 516,000 344,000 Federal Funds 2,720,000 1,200,000 3,440,000 4 Three Miles Triple Track at Bandini (3) Orange Co 12,000,000 7,080,000 1,920,000 3,000,000 5 Single Crossover Between Van Nuys and Raymer (3) Venture Co 1,000,000 750,000 250,000 6 Upgrade TVMs to 10-Key Pad Operation (3) System 1,600,000 1,600,000 7 Additional Metrolink Roiling Stock Phase 1(3) System 13,000,000 1,500,000 11,500,000 8 Upgrade Crossover at CP Allen to 60 mph (3) Ventura Co 1,000,000 750,000 250,000 9 Newhall Siding Extension (2) Antelope V 1,400,000 1,400,000 10 PlaHorn Extension at Pedley (4) LA-Rlv 300,000 300,000 TOTAL NEW PROJECTSi 39,500;000 2,624,000 16. 300,000;' 616,000j. 1,500;p00 21;680,000. 1,920,000 3,500,000 7;380,000 (1) These projects will proceed only upon award of federal funds in Appropriations Process. (2) Project dependent upon funding from MTA in Call for Projects (3) These projects will proceed only upon award of State funds In 1998 STIP Amendment. (4) Project dependent upon funding from RCTC. C:. CI CAP9900.xis, 4/6/99, 10:34 AM NewC apital (2) SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget which has warning devices. All of the work is to be done on railroad right of way, no property is to be acquired. The work consists of constructing one concrete platform (16 feet wide x 520 feet long) complete with embankment, tactile warning strip, passenger shelters, signage, boarding ramp for passengers with disabilities, security lighting, landscaping, and ticket vending and validating machines at each station. This length of platform matches the 6-car trains operated on the line and matches the other stations. Additional work will include modification of surface stormwater drainage facilities, modification of the Covina Ave. road crossing track geometry, construction of an inter -track fence, shifting the existing south track to permit the installation of the inter -track fence, and modifications to the street crossing of Covina Blvd. because of the added pedestrian traffic and the track shift. 3. SIDING ON THE EAST BANK OF THE LA RIVER $4,300,000 SAN BERNARDINO LINE This project is included pending receipt of federal funds. Local match has been approved by SANBAG and requested of MTA in the Call for Projects. This project is to upgrade a passing siding to main line standards and to reconfigure the turnouts connecting it to the routes leading to Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal. The project is located on SCRRA's San Bernardino line, which is a single-track railroad line with passing sidings located at five to ten mile intervals. In order to provide reliable bi-directional service, this improved siding is required. The siding (Exhibit A) (identified previously as "Marengo Siding" after a local street) is located immediately north of the HOV lanes of Interstate 10, San Bernardino Freeway, and extends from the east bank of the Los Angeles River, at Pasadena Junction, Milepost 1.0, to the interlocking "CP Marengo" at Milepost 2.5, beneath the Marengo Street overpass, in the Boyle Heights district of the City of Los Angeles. The existing track structure and geometry limits trains on the siding to 25 MPH and the special trackwork at the Pasadena Jct. end is deteriorated and unreliable. This project is to improve the track and signal quality and alignment to permit 45 MPH operation on both the main track and the siding, and to improve the reliability of operations by replacing the obsolete trackwork at Pasadena Jct. In the course of upgrading the alignment of the siding, the track centers will be widened in the vicinity of the Kingston Ave. pedestrian bridge which currently connects Los Angeles County Medical Center to the bus stops on the HOV lanes. This adjustment is at minimal additional cost while upgrading the track and will support the installation of a passenger platform here in the future, which has been discussed as a candidate station to support the Medical Center. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 128 0 u 4 /6 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 4. THREE MILES TRIPLE TRACK AT BANDINI $12,000,000 ORANGE COUNTY LINE This project is included pending approval of state funding in the 1998 STIP Amendment process. Additional contributions of $1.92 million (16%) from BNSF and $3 million (25%) from Amtrak are assumed. The project is located in the City of Commerce and would build a third main track, creating three miles of triple track between Fullerton and Los Angeles Union Station at Bandini starting at the currently proposed end of BNSF four track main line. This is our number one priority project and provides an improvement which is essential if Metrolink and Amtrak are to increase the number of trains running in this corridor or even maintain reliability at the existing level. The project is located on the LOSSAN Corridor between San Diego and Los Angeles. It is located on the Orange County Line and the Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton Line which is proposed to open FY 2002/03. This section of the corridor is very active: each day there are 21 Amtrak Intercity trains, 22 commuter rail trips and over 41 freight trips. This segment of the corridor is owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. 5. SINGLE CROSSOVER BETWEEN VAN NUYS & RAYMER$1,000,000 VENTURA COUNTY LINE This project is included pending approval of state funding in the 1998 STIP Amendment process. The total cost is $1 million and a $250,000 (25%) contribution from Amtrak is assumed. The project would provide a single crossover between the Van Nuys Station and CP Raymer, 2 miles west of the Van Nuys Station on the Ventura County Line. This segment is double track, but there is currently only a full length passenger platform on one track and there is nowhere for trains to cross from one track to the other and allow trains to pass near the station. The project will increase flexibility and reliability for commuter, Amtrak Intercity and freight trains using this corridor since Metrolink dispatchers will be able to move UPRR freight traffic in and out of UPRR's GEMCO Yard and still maintain a high level of passenger rail traffic. Through this section of the corridor, there are 10 Amtrak Intercity trains, 18 commuter rail trips and over 12 freight trips daily. • 6. UPGRADE TVMS TO 10-KEY PAD OPERATION $1,600,000 SYSTEMWIDE This project is included pending approval of $1.6 million in additional state funding in the 1998 STIP Amendment process. The project will provide for new and/or upgraded passenger rail ticket vending machines (TVMs) at Metrolink and Amtrak stations. Existing funding includes $1.25 million in TCI funds for the software and $939,000 from Amtrak and is included in the New Capital Budget in item #6. The project benefits the entire Metrolink system as well as Amtrak Intercity service, and has the potential to benefit other transit providers in the region. These new machines will be able to vend either Metrolink or Amtrak tickets and will also have the potential to sell bus tickets. This means that fewer total capital costs for ticketing machines are needed and servicing costs are lowered and shared. The new machines will be able to vend different types of tickets. For example, they will not only vend tickets for a regular one-way, round-trip, 10-trip, or monthly pass for adult, student, 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 129 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget handicapped, or off-peak fare, they will also allow someone to buy a ticket for a future date and several different types of tickets at once. They will vend tickets for trips using any combination of Metrolink, Amtrak and other transit services and be able to allocate the money collected to the different operators. For example, a person will be able to buy tickets at a single location, in one transaction, allowing the user to travel from Riverside using Metrolink, then transfer to Amtrak to Santa Barbara, then return home —and do this so that both Metrolink and Amtrak get their share of the ticket price. This makes the entire passenger rail network in Southern California much more useable to many.more travelers. Finally, the Southern California Intercity Rail Group SB 457 study on ways to save operating costs in the San Diegan Corridor determined that one of the most productive cost saving measures is to introduce TVMs for Intercity Rail passengers. Savings come about by modifying, over time, and as worked out with the union, the number of hours a station agent needs to be present. In addition, almost half of the stations on the San Diegan route are =staffed and the machines would allow Amtrak tickets to be purchased at these stations even when the stations are closed. 7. ADDITIONAL METROLINK ROLLING STOCK PHASE I $13,000,000 SYSTEMWIDE This project is included pending approval of state funding in the 1998 STIP Amendment process. The SCRRA vehicle fleet consists of 33 locomotives and 119 cars. Average daily ridership has reached over 27,000 in November 1998. Metrolink's ridership has continued to grow at an impressive rate. However, future growth will be constrained by the lack of new equipment. In the 1998 STIP, SCRRA was awarded $35 million in federal funds for new rolling stock with a commitment for future state funding. When combined with a prior state grant, we have sufficient funding for two locomotives and 21-22 cars. Our projections of ridership demand show a need for additional cars. Our request for $21.2 million in state funding has been split into two phases. It is assumed that the funds we are requesting in the 1998 STIP Amendment would provide an additional 7 cars and that 5 to 6 additional cars will be requested in Phase II. The local match to this project is provided by SCRRA member agencies. 8. UPGRADE CROSSOVER AT CP ALLEN TO 60 MPH $1,000,000 VENTURA COUNTY LINE This project is included pending approval of state funding in the 1998 STIP Amendment process. In the FY 98/99 Capital Maintenance Budget, LACMTA funded the replacement of this crossover at $2 million. The project is included as project #4 in the ongoing projects for Capital Maintenance. Project #4 will replace the power crossovers at CP Allen in kind with new turnouts and with new controls and signals. This interlocking was built by the Southern Pacific in 1968 and the track components are worn out and the signal controls are obsolete. The work will consist of constructing a new set of crossovers near the existing location and placing them into service before retirement of the old ones. This construction method will minimize impacts to train service. The current crossovers allow for speeds of 30 mph, the replacement crossovers would allow higher speeds of 45 mph and the upgrade project would allow speeds of 60 mph. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 130 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget This will substantially reduce time impacts to commuter and Amtrak Intercity trains that have to use the crossovers in this high speed (79 mph) territory. Through this section of the corridor, there are 10 Amtrak Intercity trains, 36 commuter rail trips and over 16 freight trips daily. The project total cost is $1 million and a 25% contribution from Amtrak is assumed. LACMTA will contribute the previously mentioned $2 million to the crossover replacement project. 9. NEWHALL SIDING EXTENSION $1,400,000 ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE. This project is included contingent upon funding in the MTA Call for Projects. It is to extend the CTC siding at Newhall northward from San Fernando Rd. , Milepost 29.5, to a point north of the passenger station at Newhall at Milepost 30.3. This project is located on SCRRA's single track line from Los Angeles to Lancaster. It is used by 20 passenger trains and six to ten Union Pacific freight trains daily. The Newhall siding is presently under construction. The Newhall station is in final design as a single-track facility. This project bears the cost of installing the second platform for the station. The work will consist of construction of an embankment, a new control point (signals, power switch machine, and controls), a relocated turnout, about 4000 feet of track, second crossings of Market St. (PUC #VY 29.93) and San Fernando Road (PUC # VY 29.61), relocating a signal safety detector device, and construction of a second platform and related facilities at the Newhall station. This is traditional railroad track construction. All of the work is on railroad right of way, no additional property is to be acquired. 10. PLATFORM EXTENSION AT PEDLEY $300,000 RIVERSIDE LINE This project is included pending funding from RCTC. It will proceed only when these funds become available. The Pedley Station is located at 6001 Pedley Road north of Limonite Avenue. There is a short, two -car platform between the two tracks that is used only if trains cannot access the main platform. The project proposes extension of this platform to accommodate six -car trains. There is an existing passenger crosswalk, and the project would include a second pedestrian crosswalk. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 131 GU�4i3 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 6.9 Glossary of Budget Terms APPROVEaBUDGET: The official budget as approved by the five member agencies and then by the SCRRA Board. AMENDED BUDGET: The approved budget as amended by the SCRRA Board through the course of a fiscal year. APPROPRIATION: Legal authorization to make expenditures and to incur obligations for specific purposes. An appropriation is usually limited in amount and to the time it may be expended. BUDGET: A plan of financial operations comprised of estimated expenditures for a given period (one fiscal year) and the proposed means of financing the expenditures (revenues). CAPITAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE: Those expenditures that replace wom out assets with like or improved assets and thus extend the useful life of these capital assets. CONTRACTED SERVICES: Services rendered in support of SCRRA operations and other activities by external parties. These are generally based upon formal contracts or purchase orders. DEPARTMENT: An organizational subgroup of SCRRA. ENCUMBRANCE: The commitment of appropriated funds to purchase goods or services. EXPENDITURE: Decreases in net financial resources. EXPENSES: Decreases in net total assets. Expenses include the total costs of operations and capital during a period. EXTRA -ORDINARY MAINTENANCE: Includes damages due to vandalism, crossing gate knockdowns, accidents, derailments, fires, storm damage and other expenses as required. In years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, about $500,000 has been a reasonable estimate and this is the _projection for FY 1999/00. In other years, such as has been experienced in FY 1997/98 with the El Nino storms, the total can easily exceed $3,500,000. These types of extreme conditions may be covered by insurance or FEMA reimbursement. However, insurance covers only bridges, tunnels and facilities and has a $100,000 deductible per storm and FEMA reimbursement has never been timely. The budget for Extra -ordinary Maintenance in FY 1998/99 was set at $1,671,362. FAREBOX REVENUE: Fares received from passengers for travel on Metrolink trains. FAREBOX RECOVERY: Ratio of farebox revenue to total expenses net of maintenance -of - way revenues, rolling stock lease and extra -ordinary maintenance. FISCAL YEAR: A 12-month period to which the annual budget applies and at the end of which SCRRA determines its financial position, the results of its operations and capital program, and adopts a budget for the coming fiscal year. The SCRRA's fiscal year is from July 1 through June 30. FULL TIME EOUIVALENT (FTE): The conversion of full-time and part-time employee hours to an equivalent of a full-time position. For example, one person working half-time would count as 0.5 FTE and a person hired for 6 months would also count as 0.5 FTE. GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES (GAAP): Uniform minimum standards of, and guidelines for financial accounting and reporting. They govern the form and content of the basic financial statements on an entity. GAAP encompasses the conventions, 04/15/99, 1:14 PM U 4 6 0 132 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget rules, and procedures necessary to define accepted accounting practice at a particular time. They include not only broad guidelines of general application, but also detailed practices and procedures. GAAP provides a standard by which to measure financial presentations. OBJECTIVE: A simply stated, readily measurable statement of aim or expected accomplishment within the fiscal year. OBJECT CODE: The classification of expenditures in terms of what is bought and paid for grouped into major object codes by subject. OPERATING BUDGET: A budget which focuses on everyday operating activities and . programs. For SCRRA, the Operating Budget includes train operations and maintenance -of - way PROPOSED BUDGET: A budget in its preliminary preparation stage prior to adoption by the SCRRA Board. REVENUE: Monies that SCRRA receives as income such as farebox revenue, payments from other railroads, local funds for operating or capital, grants, and interest. REVENUE RECOVERY: The ratio of operating revenues to operating expenses net of rolling stock lease payments and extra -ordinary maintenance. RIDERSHIP: The number of one-way trips carried on Metrolink trains. SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFIT EXPENSES: Compensation paid to or on behalf of SCRRA employees for salaries, wages, overtime, and benefits. 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 133 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 6.10 Acronyms ADA: Amtrak: AQMD: BNSF: CAFR: Caltrans: CEQA: CMAQ: CTC: DOL: DOT: EIR: EIS: EPA: FCR: FHWA: FRA: FTA: IEOC: ISTEA: ITS: JPA: LACMTA: MOW: LNG: MOU: MTA: OCTA: PA/CMS : PERS : PRESS: RCTC: ROW: RTIP: RTPA: SANBAG: SLAG: SCAQMD: SCRRA: SHA: SPRR: Americans with Disabilities Act National Railroad Passenger Corporation (intercity rail service) Air Quality Management District Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Comprehensive Annual Financial Report California Department of Transportation California Environmental Quality Act Congestion Mitigation Air Quality California Transportation Commission Federal Department of Labor Federal Department of Transportation Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Study Federal Environmental Protection Agency Flexible Congestion Relief Federal Highway Administration Federal Railroad Administration Federal Transit Administration Inland Empire to Orange County Line Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Intelligent Transportation System Joint Powers Authority Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Maintenance -of -Way Liquified Natural Gas Memorandum of Understanding Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Public Address/Changeable Message Sign Public Employees Retirement System Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards Riverside County Transportation Commission Right -of -Way Regional Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Planning Agency San Bernardino Associated Governments Southern California Associated Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Regional Rail Authority State Highway Account Southern Pacific Railroad 04/U139;,111'g �J i14 134 11 V SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget STA: State Transit Assistance STIP: State Transportation Improvement Plan STP: Surface Transportation Program TAC: Technical Advisory Committee TCI: Transit Capital Improvement (funds/program) TDA: Transportation Development Act TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century TIP: Transportation Improvement program TSM: Transportation Systems Management TVM: Ticket Vending Machine UPRR: Union Pacific Railroad VCTC: Ventura County Transportation Commission �r 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 135 ,4 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget 6.11 Statistical Information Date of Formation August 1991 Form of Government Joint Powers Authority Purpose To plan, design, construct and administer the operation of regional passenger rail lines. Member Agencies Counties Served Population (1997) Route Miles in System 04/15/99, 1:14 PM }:j'i i�Llk,c Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County San Bernardino County San Diego County Ventura County Los Angeles County 9,603,291 Orange County 2,722,291 Riverside County 1,441,237 San Bemardino County 1,621,874 San Diego County 2,794,785 Ventura County 730,824 Total Population: 18,914,302 Los Angeles County 199 Orange County 87 Riverside County 38 San Bernardino County 39 San Diego County 19 Ventura County 34 Total Miles: 416 136 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Route Miles Los Angeles County 222 Potentially in System Orange County 115 (SB1402 Rev. 1993) Riverside County 100 San Bernardino County 68 Ventura County 4 Total Miles: 539 Train Equipment Stations Locomotives 33 Cab Cars 37 Coaches 82 Los Angeles County 22 Orange County 8 Riverside County 4 San Bernardino 7 San Diego County 1 Ventura County 4 Total Stations: 46 Ticket Vending Machines TVMs Installed 96 Validators Installed 117 Ticket Office Machines 3 Installed Highway -Rail Grade Crossings Total Network Grade Crossings 399 Public Crossings 339 Private Crossings 61 SCRRA Maintained Crossings 238 Average Daily Riders Ventura County Line 3,750 (March 1999) Antelope Valley Line 3,931 San Bernardino Line 8,146 Riverside Line 4,036 Orange County Line 5,417 Inland Empire to Orange County 1,819 Burbank Turns 334 Riverside/Fullerton/LA 58 SYSTEM 27,491 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 137 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Preliminary Budget Number of Auto Trips Removed per Day Percent of Freeway Traffic Removed on Parallel Freeways Each Peak Hour Average Commute Trip Length Percent of Riders Formerly Driving Alone Percent of Riders with Downtown Los Angeles Destination 19,173 trips 8.5 percent 34.4 miles 70 percent 70 percent Percent of Ethnic Riders by Line Corridor (Latino, Asian, African -American) San Bernardino Line 53 percent Riverside Line 53 percent Antelope Valley Line 32 percent Ventura County Line 29 percent Orange County Line 29 percent Systemwide 39 percent Source: 1997 State of California Department of Finance Report E5, SCRRA's Feb 1999 Fact Sheet, March 1999 Ridership, and 1997 SCRRA annual ridership survey 04/15/99, 1:14 PM 138 �; ,786 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency's Financial Policies At its meeting on January 28, 1999, the Riverside Transit Agency Board adopted the attached Financial Policies for the Agency. The policies are to provide guidelines to the Board and RTA management on how the financial resources of the Agency will be used to achieve the Agency's mission to provide public transportation services; to meet the obligations of the Agency, and to protect the public interest. Normally, the Commission would not involve itself with the establishment of operating policies of a transit operator; however, these specific policies would set precedent by creating a "reserve" for the general and capital improvement funds. Originally, the reserves were proposed to be 33 1 /3 % for the general fund and $5,000,000 for the capital improvement fund. A joint meeting of RTA's Finance Committee and representatives from RCTC was held to discuss the policies. Of major concern to Commission staff was whether the Transportation Development Act regulations allowed operators to maintain a reserve since operators are supposed to be reimbursed for actual expenditures, and whether it was fiscally responsible to set aside funds in reserve while perhaps reducing or not being able to provide service due to lack of funding. It was agreed at the meeting that RTA would be allowed to maintain a restricted reserve for the general fund of 20% of the operating budget to be maintained by RCTC. The initial reserve would be set at $4,000,000: (It should be noted that at fiscal year ended June 30, 1998, the Commission has $3,861,732 held in reserve for RTA, leaving a balance of $138,268 to bring the reserve to the required $4,000,000.) The reserve for the capital improvement fund was set at $800,000 to be used for unforeseen capital expenditures and lack of immediate funding resources. This will allow RTA to match any federal or state grants which may come up without prior notice. Currently, there are sufficient funds available in the Western Riverside County Apportionment area to allow the Commission to establish the reserves for RTA. However, should other operators also choose to set up reserve funds at the same levels, the Commission may be forced to build those reserves over a two to three year period, depending on which operators and how many decide to establish reserves. i t, `f .S i Financial Assessment Project Cost Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the Riverside Transit Agency Financial Policies. 0 4 8 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street Riverside. CA 92507 January 28. 1999 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS THRU: Susan J. Hafner, General Manager FROM: Yolanda T. Daugherty, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Adopt Revised Financial Policies Summary When the Board of Directors adopted the Financial Policies on September 24, 1998, staff was directed to submit the policies to the Riverside County Transportation Commission for review. As a result, a joint meeting of the Board Finance Committee and representatives of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) was held on December 7, 1998, to discuss the viability of the policies. At that meeting, the Board Finance Committee and RCTC representatives unanimously agreed that the Agency maintains a restricted reserve that will be held by RCTC. Consequently, the Financial Policies were revised as follows: General Fund • That the Agency would maintain a restricted reserve of 20% of the operating budget at RCTC. The initial reserve would be set at S4,000,000. These funds are to remain unappropriated for any operating or capital use except to meet emergency needs that cannot be funded from any other source. Draw -downs from the restricted reserve have to be approved by the RTA Board of Directors. Should there be a need to draw from this reserve, the Agency would then have to restore the draw -downed amount in the following year. Capital Improvement Fund • For unforeseen capital expenditures and lack of immediate funding resources, the Agency would be requesting additional capital funding, up to $800,000.00, from the RCTC without drawing from the reserve account. • �J Bond Retirement Fund • Annually, the Agency will include in its capital budget an amount that is equivalent to the debt service due in the next fiscal year. Insurance Fund • The Agency will properly designate and segregate insurance fund reserve in the general ledger so they are not viewed as operating funds. Fiscal Impact: The establishment of reserves sets aside Agency funds that could otherwise be used for routine operating and capital needs. Additionally, maintenance of such a reserve reduces the amount of funds that can be used for Agency services. As of fiscal year ending June 30, 1998, the Agency has $3,861,732 in reserve at RCTC, leaving a balance of $138,268 to bring the reserve requirement to $4,000,000. Thus, the fiscal impact of $138,268 in FY 1999 is very minimal. Recommendation: Adopt the revised financial policies as presented. G`v��1 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FINANCIAL POLICIES 1.0 PURPOSE/SCOPE The financial policies described herein are designed to provide a comprehensive framework for the management of the revenues and financial resources of the Riverside Transit Agency (Agency). They provide guidelines for decision - making by the Board of Directors and management on how the financial resources of the Agency will be used to achieve the Agency's mission to provide public transportation services; to meet the obligations of the Agency; and to protect the public interest. 1.2 The Financial Policies established herein cover the following areas: a. General Fund b. Capital Improvement Fund c. Bond Retirement Fund d. Insurance Fund e. Investment of Agency Funds f. Reserve Funds ?.0 GENERAL FUND POLICIES 2.1 Purpose: General Fund will be used to pay the day-to-day operating obligations of the Agency. 2.2 The Board of Directors will approve an Annual Operating Budget by May 31 of each year for the ensuing fiscal year. a. The Agency would always maintain a reserve of 20% of the operating budget. An initial reserve of S4,000,000 will be maintained at the Riverside County Transportation Commission in RTA's name. These funds are to remain unappropriated for any operating or capital use except to meet emergency needs of the Agency that cannot be funded from any other source. The purpose of this reserve is to ensure that sufficient funds are always available in the event of unanticipated revenue shortfalls or unavoidable expenditure needs. Page 1 of 6 0,1 Draw -downs from the restricted reserve have to be approved by the RTA Board of Directors. Should there be a need to draw from this reserve, the Agency would then have to restore the draw -downed amount in the following year. b. The fixed -route fare subsidy per passenger will not exceed five (5) times the average fare. Policy objectives to measure andJor control operating expenses and revenues will be: a. The Operating Ratio (operating revenues divided by operating expenses) should not go below the required annual minimum fare revenue ratio approved by the county transportation commission. In recent years, the required fare box recovery ratio ranged from 17 to 20 percent. b. Growth in the cost of delivering a unit of service (Cost per Service Hour) will be kept at or below the rate of inflation. c. The overhead costs will not exceed 15% of total operating cost. ?.4 Management will provide Board of Directors a monthly report on actual versus budget performance for revenues and expenses. 3.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND POLICIES 3.1 Purpose: The Capital Improvement Fund will be used to account for the construction and acquisition of major capital facilities and equipment. It will include funds to match Federal and State grants as well.as funds to be used for capital construction and acquisition without the benefit of any grant funding. 3.2 The Agency will strive to take advantage of all available Local, State and Federal grants and other financing programs for capital improvements including but not limited to State of California public transportation grants and Federal Highway Administration programs as well as the programs of the Federal Transit Administration. y 1, 0 t .• (i For unforseen capital expenditures and lack of immediate funding resources, the Agency would be requesting additional capital funding, up to 5800,000 from the Riverside County Transportation Commission without drawing from the reserve account. Page 2 of 6 Items that have a useful life greater than one (1) year and an acquisition cost in excess of S 1.000.00 are considered capital expenditures to be paid for out of Capital Improvement Fund. 3.4 The Agency will maintain its assets at a level adequate to protect the Agency's capital investment and minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. 3.5 The Agency will use the following criteria to evaluate the relative merit of each capital project: a. Projects specifically included in an approved replacement schedule will receive priority. b. Projects that reduce the cost of operations will receive a priority'. Projects that increase the cost of operations will be identified tradeoffs to support those additional costs. c. Projects identified by a priority board or a department as important will receive a priority. d. Projects that significantly improve safety and reduce risk exposure will receive priority. 4.0 BOND RETIREMENT FUND 4.1 Purpose: The Bond Retirement Fund will be used to provide the funds necessary for the payment of principal and interest on debt obligations. 4.2 Payment of debt service is secured by a pledge of federal, state, and local funds allocated to the Agency annually, except those specifically Iimited to another use or prohibited from that use by federal, state, or local law, or any revenue bond trust agreement that the Agency might enter. 4.3 Debt financing may be used only under the following conditions: a. For economic vitality b. For major capital projects c. When expected future revenues (federal, state, and local funds) are projected to be sufficient to cover annual principal and interest payments d. That the amount of total outstanding debt or debt service payments for the Agency will not exceed the debt limit set by the Board of Directors, and e. When a thorough study has been made of the best debt financing vehicles or structure available Page 3 of 6 110 4.4 Annually, the Agency will include in its capital budget an amount that is equivalent to the debt service due in the next fiscal year. 5.0 INSURANCE FUND 5.1 Purpose: The Insurance Fund will be used to provide resources to protect against catastrophic or extraordinary losses. It is not used to pay ordinary and routine losses of the Agency incurred on an ongoing basis and handled by the Administrative Services Manager of the Agency. 5.? The Agency is self insured for both general liability and worker's compensation claims. The Agency's self -insured retention for general liability is $25,000 per claim and $250,000 per accident/per employee for worker's compensation. 5.3 The Agency will maintain an insurance fund reserve that is equivalent to the amount recommended in the annual actuarial study. The Agency will properly designate and segregate insurance fund reserve in the general ledger so they are not viewed as operating funds. 5.4 In the event that the Insurance Fund is used to pay a catastrophic loss, the Board of Directors will determine a schedule for replenishment of the Fund up to the minimum amount provided for in item 5.3 above. 5.5 Every three (3) years an evaluation, including appropriate actuarial studies, of the Insurance Fund will be conducted. The evaluation will determine: a. If the Fund as constructed herein is sufficient to provide adequate protection to the interests. of the Agency. b. If conditions in the open insurance market have changed to make the purchase of total insurance coverage a viable,.cost-effective alternative to the continued existence of the Fund. 5.6 The Agency will also maintain a reserve for unemployment claims to provide for payments to former Agency employees. Page 4 of 6 ��4 6.0 INVESTMENT OF AGENCY FUNDS (See Separate Investment Policy for detail information) 6.1 Ob'ective: Agency funds will be invested to the maximum extent feasible. The primary objective of the investment program is to safeguard the principal of the funds. The secondary objective will be to meet the liquidity needs of the Agency. The third objective will be to achieve a maximum return while assuming a minimal risk on Agency investments. 6.2 Funds so invested shall follow the investment policy approved by the Board of Directors in accordance with the California Government Code Section 53600 to 53635. 6.3 The Agency will deposit all cash receipts on the same day the funds are received. 6.4 A detailed record of all transactions concerning the investment of Agency funds will be maintained. These records will be subject to periodic review. 6.5 Appropriate checks and balances will be maintained in the decision -making process concerning investment transactions to insure adequate protection of the public interest and minimize the potential for fraud. 6.6 The Director of Finance will render a quarterly report to the Board of Directors within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. This report shall include the type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, amount invested, interest rate, and current market value of the investment as of the date of the report. The report will also state compliance of the portfolio to the Agency's investment policy and will include a statement denoting the ability of the Agency to meet its obligations for the next 90 days. 7.0 PERIODIC REVIEW AND AMENDMENT 7.1 The financial policies delineated herein will be subject to review and revision by the Board of Directors every five (5) years. This does not preclude the Board of Directors from revising specific policies included herein or from adding additional policies should the Board of Directors determine that the best interests of the public and/or the Agency would be served by making such a revision. 7.2 Amendments or revisions to these financial policies can be initiated or proposed by any member of the Board of Directors or by the General Manager of the Agency. Page 5 of 6 �'v�4J5 7.3 Proposed amendments or revisions to these financial policies will be subject to review and study by the Finance Committee of the Board of Directors. The Finance Committee will make recommendations on any proposed amendment or revision to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors must approve' any amendment or revision by majority vote, before said amendment or revision will become official policy of the Agency. Page 6 of 6 O45"c54 March 29, 1999 Mr. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside. CA 92501 Dear Mr. Rivera. Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone (909)684-0850 Fax (909) 684-1007 On January 28. 1999, the RTA Board of Directors approved and adopted revised Financial Policies (enclosed) drafted by the Agency's Budget and Finance Subcommittee with assistance and input from representatives of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). Subsequent to this action, the RTA Board is requesting the RCTC's formal approval and implementation of the Financial Policy guidelines. At their February 25, 1999 meeting the RTA Board approved a staff recommendation (enclosed) to amend the FY 1999 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and Capital budget to include an additional nine (9) full-size coaches and nineteen (19) paratransit replacement units at an estimated total cost $4,175,000. Sufficient Federal funding and local match (80/20) are available to permit RTA to include the replacement of these units in our capital program. The Federal assistance required, approximately $3.340,000, would come from unallocated FY 1999 Section 5307 funds. Local match would be provided from RTA's Local Transportation Fund reserves ($418.000) and unallocated State Transit Assistance funds ($417,000). The Riverside Transit Agency is requesting R CT:.,'F formal concumnce and assistance in including these additional vehicles in the program of projects and transportation improvement plan. In further action taken on March 25, 1999 (see enclosed), the Board authorized staff to amend the FY 1999 SRTP to reflect service changes resulting from RTA's Comprehensive Operational Analysis, southern corridor welfare to work project, and mountain communities transportation project. The Board approved the following actions; 1. Authorize staff to amend the FY 1999 SRTP to reflect service changes totaling 7,801 revenue vehicle hours and 165,250 revenue vehicle miles. 2. Authorize staff to amend the FY 1999 SRTP and Operating Budget to add $8,000 in LTF reserves as local match for the Section 5313(b) Mountain Communities planning study. Total cost of the planning study not to exceed $40,000. 3. Authorize staff to amend the FY 1999 SRTP and Capital Budget to add $12,000 in LTF reserves as Iocai match toward the Mountain Communities, Section 5311(fi bttercity F3u.. Ping*cum demonstration project for the purchase of one additional paratransit vehicle. Total vehicle cost not to exceed $60,000. Paae 2 RCTC - Jerry Rivera March 29, 1999 The Riverside Transit Agency is requesting RCTC's formal concurrence and assistance in including these elements in the program of projects and transportation improvement plan as well. _ If you have any questions regarding the above or related matters, please do not hesitate to contact me or Steve 011er, Deputy General Manager, at any time. Thank you in advance for your assistance for in these matters. Sincerely, Susan J. Hafner General Manager SJH:cam cc: Stephen C. 011er, Deputy General Manager, Operations Larry Rubio. Deputy General Manager, Support Services 0 L; 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to FY 1998-99 Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside Transit Agency The Riverside Transit Agency has requested Commission approval to amend their FY 1998-99 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to implement the service recommendations included in the Comprehensive Operational Analysis. Their approved SRTP included a line item for "service demonstration" with an estimated cost of $778,271 and 10,606 revenue vehicle hours to cover the anticipated service changes. The amendment increases vehicle service hours on various routes by 4,021 hours, increase vehicle service miles by 42,333 miles, and estimated costs by $361,466 through the balance of FY 1999. In addition, a new fixed route (Route 37) is being added to serve the EDA/RTA souther corridor welfare to work project. Funding for the project will be provided by a Calworks grant. RTA was also awarded two discretionary grants for FY 1998-99 which will require local matching funds. A $40,000 Section 5313(b) State Planning and Research grant will be used to conduct a service needs and design analysis for the mountain communities in and around the Idyllwild area. This grant will require a local match of $8,000. The second, a Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Section 531 1(f), Intercity Bus Program grant, will provide operating ($99,470) and capital ($60,000) funds for a mountain communities demonstration project subsequent to the planning study. The FTA grant requires a 50% match for operating ($49,735) and 20% for capital ($12,000). Since the project will not begin until the second quarter of FY 2000, the operating budget, service characteristics and projected operational data will be included in the FY 2000 SRTP. The Plans and Programs Committee also expressed the same concerns regarding the purchase of alternative fueled vehicles mentioned on the other Riverside Transit Agency agenda item, and whatever policy the Commission adopts would also apply to this procurement. 'vv4 Financial Assessment Project Cost $100, 000 Source of Funds Federal Transit Administration ($80,000) and Local Transportation Funds ($20,000) Included in Fiscal Year Budget No Year Included in Program Budget No Year Programmed Approved Allocation No Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Yes Financial Impact Not Applicable Yes PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 1999 Riverside Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan to reflect service changes totaling 7,801 revenue vehicle hours and 165,250 revenue miles; 2) Authorize the transfer of $8,000 from RTA's current LTF reserves as local match for the Section 5313(b) Mountain Communities planning study; and 3) Authorize the transfer of $12,000 from RTA's current LTF reserves as local match toward the Mountain Communities Section 531 1(f) Intercity Bus Program demonstration project for the purchase of one additional paratransit vehicle. r 0k?. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY" 1825 Third Street Riverside. CA 92507 March 25, 1999 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS THRU: Susan J. Hafner, General Manager. FROM: Stephen C. Oil Deputy General manager SUBJECT: Authorization to Amend FY1999-2005 Short Ran_ge Transit Plan Summary: The approved FY 1999 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and operating budget included a line item for "service demonstration" to accommodate the anticipated impacts of service recommendations contained in the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA). The FY 1999 SRTP demonstration line item included a budget of 10,606 revenue vehicle hours at an estimated total cost of $778,271. Staff has concluded preparation for the implementation COA recommendations including estimates of revenue miles and hours required to amend FY 1999 SRTP service projections. As a result of COA recommendations staff projects that FY99 directly operated fixed route vehicle service hours (VSH) will increase by 8.96 % (4,021 VSH) while vehicle service miles (VSM) will increase 6.11 % (42.333 VSM). Contracted fixed route hours will increase by 10.7% (1,666 VSH) and miles by 35.1 % (70,104 VSM). The impact of COA recommendations on total contracted dial -a -ride hours and miles will negligible. Total cost for implementation the proposed COA service recommendations is estimated at $361,466 through the balance of FY99. In addition to the COA proposed changes contracted hours and miles will be further increased as the result of new fixed route service (Route 37) associated with the EDA/RTA southern corridor welfare to work project. Route 37 will contribute approximately 2,114 VSH and 52,811 VSM of new service. Funding for the southern corridor project will be provided by a Calworks grant. Project start-up is scheduled to coincide with April 18, 1999 implementation date of COA service changes. Implementation of the welfare to work project will also require an amendment of the SRTP. Staff was recently successful in acquiring two additional discretionary grants for FY1998-1999. The first, a $40,000 Section 5313(b) State Planning and Research grant will be used to conduct a service needs and design analysis for the mountain communities in and around the Idylwild area. (A request for authorization to award a consulting contract to conduct the needs analysis is included in this agenda as a U t. 501 separate item.) The second, a Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Section 5311(0. Intercity Bus Program grant will provide operating ($99.470) and capital ($60.000) support for a mountain communities demonstration project subsequent to the planning study. The State Planning and Research grant requires a 20% local match ($8.000) while the FTA Intercity Bus Program requires 50% for operating ($49,735) and 20 % for capital ($12,000). Project start-up is anticipated during the second quarter (Oct.. - Dec .) of FY 2000. Prior to the implementation of mountain communities service it will be necessary to acquire one additional expansion vehicle. Lead time for small vehicle procurement is currently 3-6 months. In order to avoid a potential delay of service implementation due to vehicle requirements staff recommends amendment of the current FY98-99 SRTP and Capital Budget to include one additional vehicle. Staff proposes that local match for the planning study ($8,000) and vehicle procurement ($12,000) be provided from RTA's current LTF reserves. The mountain communities operating budget, including local match requirements, service characteristics and projected operational data will be include in the FY 2000 SRTP and Budget. Staff is requesting authorization to amendment the FY98-99 SRTP and Budget to reflect the above referenced changes. Recommendation: 1. Authorize staff to amend the FY 1999 SRTP to reflect service changes totaling 7,801 revenue vehicle hours and 165,250 revenue vehicle miles. 2. Authorize staff to amend the FY 1999 SRTP and Operating Budget to add $8,000 in LTF reserves as local match for the Section 5313(b) Mountain Communities planning study. Total cost of the planning study not to exceed $40,000. 3. Authorize staff to amend the FY 1999 SRTP and Capital Budget to add $12,000 in LTF reserves as local match toward the Mountain Communities, Section 5311(0 Intercity Bus Program demonstration project for the purchase of one additional paratransit vehicle. Total vehicle cost not to exceed $60,000. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Strategic Plan Progress Report The Commission's financial advisors will make an oral presentation on the progress to date in compiling the Strategic Plan. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Conformity Suspension The 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) were approved by the federal agencies on June 8, 1998 and July 31, 1998 respectively. On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in the case of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) v. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). One of the provisions that was struck down was use of the submitted PM10 emissions budget for the conformity determinations made by the Southern California Association of Governments for the 1998 RTP and RTIP. Therefore, as of April 22, 1999 the conformity findings have been suspended. SCAG is currently involved in discussions with EPA and the Air Resource Board (ARB) in an effort to resolve this issue. It appears that in order to receive reaffirmation of the region's conformity status, a technical emissions analysis must be performed along with a 30-day public comment period. SCAG will issue the release of the emissions analysis for public comment on May 7, 1999. SCAG anticipates the federal agencies will be in the position to reaffirm the conformity finding on the RTP and RTIP the end of June 1999 pending no problems arising from the public comment period. In the interim, the impact of this conformity suspension to both Western County and the Coachella Valley is that U.S. DOT cannot make any approvals or grants for projects unless they are non-exempt projects (i.e. rehabilitation, signal installations, signal synchronization projects, and any other non -capacity enhancement project). Staff is developing a list of projects that are impacted under the conformity suspension and will distribute the list at the Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. 0u C5u4 April 23, 1999 Mr. Jose Medina, Director CALTRANS, 1120 N Street Sa...Tomcat°, California 95814 Dear Mr. Medina: IN REPLY REFER TO HPR-CA File . 1044.1 Document **S24925 SUBJECT: SUSPENSION OF CONFORMITY DETERMINATIONS AND PROJECTS RESULTING FROM THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT DECISION On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on the US. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1997 Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments in response to a case brought by the Environmental Defense Fund. The United States had wail April 16, 1999, to decide whether to request reconsideration of the court's decision. The EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOI) decided not to appeal the D.C. Circuit Court decision. One of the provisions that was struck down by the court was in 40 CFR §93.118(e)(1). This provision allowed the U.S. DOT to make conformity determinations based on submitted emissions budgets 45 days after the SW was submitted to EPA. This letter is to inform you that the air quality conformity determinations of SCAG's 1998 RTP and the 1998/99-2004/05 RTIP for Orange County, and portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino (including Searle: Valley), and Riverside (Coachella Valley) counties: and the latest U.S. DOT conformity determinations for the counties of Kern, Merced, Fresno, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin, are suspended effective April 22, 1999. Under this suspension the U.S. DOT will no longer be able to make � approvals or grants for projects (including regionally significant' non -Federal projects in lapsed areas), unless they are: (1) exempt from conformity under 40 CFR §93.126, (2) exempt from regional emissions under 40 CFR §93.127, (3) are traffic signal synchronization projects under 40 CFR §93.128, (4) are transportation control measures in an approved SIP (for those areas that are in non -attainment for multiple pollutants (see attached Iist)), or (5) are those phases of non-exempt projects which have received authorization to proceed (i.e., PS&E approval, FNM-76, preliminary engineering, R/W approvals, Grant agreements, or equivalent) prior to April 22, 1999. For those projects that do not fit these conditions, a final action can not be made by FHWA on NEPA documents (i.e., Categorical Exclusion, Finding Of No Significant Impacts, or Record Of r- 'uv�•�J Decision. (the circulation of draft and final environmental documents can continue)), nor can any TIP'STIP amendrnents be processed that contain any non-exempt projects. The existing conformity determination is suspended until such urn: that EPA makes an adequacy finding on the submitted SIP or, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) anti t.S. DOT reaffirm the area's prior conformity determination if it is demonstrated that the appropriate emissions tests are satisfied (i.e., the "build/no build" test or the "less than 1990 Levels" test). We anticipate that EPA will complete the adequacy determinations by May 31, 1999, or earlier. The FHWA will be issuing supplemental guidance in the near future that will address the use of submined budgets for conformity, as well as other provisions affected by the court decisior.. On March 31, 1999, the FHWA issued the "Interim Gairlarev for the implementation of the Circuit Court Decision Affecting Transportation Conformity." This guidance document can he found on the FHWA webpage at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/gdad_int.htm. Specifically, the guidance stated that grarndfathered projects may not be advanced (i.e_, project approval) in non -attainment and maintenance areas which do not have a currently conforming plan or program. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and the Santa Barbara County. Association of Governments (SBCAG) were immediately impacted by the court decision because their conformity determinations had lapsed prior to the courts decision. Per these two areas. effective March 2, 1999, the only projects that could proceed to implementation are described in paragraph 2 of this letter. A copy of Transportation Conformity Rule list of exempt projects (Tables 2 and 3) and a list of the impacted areas are provided for your convenience. We will continue to work with our partners to see that this suspension is lifted as expeditiously as possible. If you have any questions or comttnents please contact the FHWA California Division office at 916-498-5001. Sincerely, /s/Jefrey S. Lindley Jeffrey A. Lindley Division Administrator Attachments Excerpted from EPA "s August 15 1997 Trensporiation C'onprinay Rule Amendments NO CFR Parrs Sl and 9 3) § 93.126 Exempt projects. ?notwithstanding he other requirements of this subpart, highway and transit projects of :he types listee to Table 3 of this section are exempt from the requirement to determine conformiry Such project/ may proceed toward implementation evert in the absence of a conforming transponauon plan and TIP. A particular action of the type listed in Table 2 of this section is not exempt if the MPO in consultation with other agencies (see Sec. 93. i 05(cx 1)(iii)), the EPA, and the FHWA (in the case of a highway project) or the FTA (in the case of a transit project) concur that it has potentially adverse emissions impacts for any reason. States and MPOs must ensure that exempt projects do not interfere with TCM implementation_ Table 2 follows: Table 2.—Exempt Projects Safety Railroad/highway crossing. Hazard elimination program. Safcr non-Federal4id system rand;. Shoulder improvements. Increasing sigh: distance. Safety improvement progam. Traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects. Railroadihighway crossing warning devices. Guardrails, median barriers, crash cushions. Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation. Pavement marking demonstration. Emergency relief (23 U.S.C. 125). Fencing. Skid treatments. Safety roadside rest areas Adding medians. Truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area. Lighting improvements. Widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional travel lanes). Emergency buck pullovers. Mass Transit Operating assistance to transit agencies. Purchase of support vehicles. Rehabilitation of transit vehicles 111 Purchase of office, shop, and operating equipment for existing facilities. Purchase of operating equipment for vehicles (e.g., radios, fireboxes, lifts, etc.). Construction or renovation of power, signal. and communications systems. Construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks. 0 �� 7 'v ; t3 Attachthen: Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures te.g.,rail or bus buildings, storage and mauttenacce facilities, stations, terminals, and ancillary structures). Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track and trackbed in existing rights -of -way. Purchase of new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or for minor expansions of the fleet ', Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance facilities categorically excluded in 23 CFR part 771 Air Quality Continuation of nde-sharing and van -pooling; promotion activities at current levels. Bicycle and pedesuian facilities Other Specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as: Planning and technical studies. Grants for training and research programs Planning activities conducted pursuant to titles 23 and 49 U.S.C_ Federal -aid systems revisions. Engineering; to assess social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed action or alternatives to that action. Noise anenuauon. Emergency or hardship advance land acquisitions (23 CFR 7 12.204(d)). Acquisition of scenic easements. Plantings, landscaping, etc. Sign removal. Directional and informational sig;as. Transportation enhancement activities (except rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities). Repair of damage caused by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts, except projects involving substantial tiinctional, locational or capacity changes. Note: \111n PNl 1 o nonattainment or maintenance areas, such projects are exempt only if they are in compliance with control measures in the applicable implementation plan. § 93.127 Projects exempt from regional emissions analyses. Notwithstanding the other requirements of this subpart, highway and transit projects of the types listed in. Table 3 of this section are exempt from regional emissions analysis requirements. The local effects of these projects with respect to CO or PM1 p concentrations must be considered to determine if a hot -spot analysis is required prior to making a project -level conformity determination. These projects may then proceed to the project development process even in the absence of a conforming transportation plan and TIP. A particular action of the type listed in Table 3 of this section is not exempt from regional emissions analysis if the MPO in consultation with other agencies (see Sec. 93.10S(c)(1)(iii)), the EPA, and the FHWA (in the case of a highway project) or the FTA (in the case of a transit project) concur that it has potential regional impacts for any reason. Table 3 follows: Attachrnea: Table 3.—Projects Exempt From Regional Emissions Analyses intersection char.neltzation projects Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections laterchange reconfiguration projects Changes in vertical end horizontal alignment. Truck six and weight inspection stations. Bus terminals and transfer points. § 93.128 Traffic signal synchronization projecu. Traffic signal synchronization projects may be approved, funded, and implemented without satisfying the reauireinents of this suhF.ar:. However, all subsequent regional emissions analyses required by Secs. 93.118 and 93.119 for transportation plans, TIPS, or projects not from a conforming plan and TIP trust include such regionally significant traffic signal synchronization projects. f1u� 9 Attachment AREAS WHOSE CONFORMITY D£TERAILNATION WAS BASED ON SUBMITTED SIP: Ma Areas Searles Valley San Bernardino County (portion) South Cuast Air Basin Orange County Los Angeles County (portion). San. Bernardino County (portion) Riverside County (portioa) Coachella Valley San Joaquin Valley Kerr County Merced County Fresno County San Joaquin County AREAS WITH SUBMITTED BUDGETS WITH CONFORMITY DETERMINATIONS BASED ON PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIP OR BUILD/NO-BUILD TEST OR 1990 BASELINE AND WHO ARE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THEIR RTPITIP: PM,o Non -attainment Areas Kings County Madera County Stanislaus County Tulare County AREAS CU.RR£NTL YINA CONFORMITY LAPSE: Monterey (AMBAG) 02013t r`on-attaiameat Areas Santa Barbara (SBCAG) RTIP CONFORMITY SUSPENSION - PROJECTS IMPACTED STATE HIGHWAYS LOCATION PROJECT LIMITS DESCRIPTION Riverside Rt 215, 60/215 E Jct to 60/91/215 Jct County Murrieta Murrieta Rt 215, Newport Rd IC Rt 215, Los Alamos IC Rt 215, Clinton/Keith IC LOCAL HIGHWAYS Truck Bypass, reconfigure Day St, reconstruct Box Springs IC, widen mainline from 6 In frwy to 8 Ins for HOV, truck climbing lane, removal of El Cerrito Dr IC, reconfigure various IC's NB 215 to WB 91 Fly- over, SB 215 to EB 215 Fly -over, add'I mainline improvements Modify IC Modify IC, Widen OC from 2 to 6 Expanding Diamond IC, OC 3 to 6 I Agenda Item 13 - Attachment PROJECT COS IMPACT $330,375,000 Environmental Doc. (DEIR) scheduled for approval on 6/99 $7,570,000 Ready to Obligate 6/99 $500,000 Environmental doc. approval engineering only scheduled for 8/99, R/W 12/99 n/a PSR & NEPA Clearance 5/99 Western County Murrieta Jefferson, Lemon to Lilly Construct 400 ft,2 lane gap closure $252,000 Ready to obligate 5/99 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Public Information Officer The Commission, at their September 9, 1998 meeting, approved the addition of a Public Information Officer classification to the staffing plan. At that time, the position was approved as a half time position. As indicated to the Commission last year, RCTC has never had a comprehensive public information program and has never developed a media strategy to communicate the Commission's achievements and the transportation challenges facing Riverside County. In the review of this position and further evaluating the Commission's needs for a formalized public information program for upcoming transportation issues, the Public Information Officer must: 1) develop and maintain open lines of communication with the Commissioners, staff, the news media, public agencies and the community; 2) anticipate public relations and public information needs, and identify opportunities to meet them; 3) develop and maintain effective media contacts; and, 4) interpret technical and complex reports and issues to the media for public consumption, and generate public awareness and enthusiasm. Attached is the job description for the Public Information Officer. In view of the above proposed responsibilities and the duties/responsibilities on the job description for this position, it is recommend that this position be changed from a part-time position to a full-time position. The Public Information Officer salary remains the same level as the Program Manager position, $4,612 - $5,857 per month. Note that this the same salary level approved by the Commission last year, but at a half time position salary level. At their April 12t meeting, the Executive Committee discussed the position at length. They discussed the following options: 1) A shared position with the County of Riverside; 2) Hire a public relations firm with a dedicated staff for RCTC; or, 3) The candidate hired for this position be an at -will employee for two years. At the end of two years, review RCTC's needs for the position. 1) Shared Position with the County of Riverside The County of Riverside Administrative Office has, over the past few months, reviewedthe feasibility of creating a position to do public relations, press releases, etc. Based on information received by staff, in reviewing the position's job responsibilities, the County found that there was not sufficient assignments, based on the County's needs, to warrant a full-time position. Therefore, the position is currently on hold. If the Commission determines to move towards a shared position with the County, the Commission should authorize the Executive Director to work with the County Administrative Officer and to authorize the County Human Resources to recruit for the position. This proposal is similar to the arrangement that RCTC has with SanBAG as it relates to the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs position. 2) Contract with a Public Relations Firm Rather than hiring an RCTC employee, the Committee proposed contracting with a public relations firm. However, in order for such an arrangement to work, the firm hired must dedicate a staff to RCTC. The Commission will need to authorize staff to go out for a Request for Proposal (RFP). At this time, staff was not able to determine the cost for hiring a public relations firm. 3) At -Will Employment The Committee felt that it might be beneficial to the agency, if the Commission determines to recruit for this position, that the candidate hired be offered an at -will employment contract. The Committee acknowledged that there is a clear need in the next two. years, with the drive towards the extension of the sales tax measure and with CETAP activities; for a public information officer. However, after two years, it was felt that there should be a review of RCTC's need of the position. The Committee also discussed the possibility of hiring a firm to recruit for this position. The Commission, last year for the Executive Director recruitment, discussed using a recruiting firm. However, they decided against it because of the cost. A recruitment firm could run from $15,000 (joint recruitment with RCTC) to a minimum of $25,000 plus expenses. The Executive Committee will meet just prior to the Commission meeting. Their recommendation will be presented to the Commission at the meeting. nk 0G512 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Definition Under direction, develops, administers and implements all components of RCTC's Public Information Program, including media relations, community relations, public education, and marketing; develops and implements public participation opportunities for county residents; performs other related duties as required. Duties and Responsibilities Develops, maintains and monitors an effective public information program; assists in the development of strategies for addressing critical issues; develops public education opportunities and programs on RCTC and countywide issues; researches and writes news releases, media advisories, public service announcements, fact sheets, media kits, articles for trade journals and other publications; develops and disseminates regular RCTC publications including annual reports and periodic bulletins targeted to specific audiences; serves as a liaison with other broad based community organizations and public agencies to coordinate public information gathering and distribution; participates on various committees and task forces as assigned; coordinates RCTC consultants in relation to public information tasks; develops and implements RCTC media events, news conference, etc.; prepares RCTC audio/visual presentations; coordinates RCTC advertising program; develops strategic marketing plan for RCTC programs and activities; develops electronic bulleting board program and related electronic dissemination opportunities; performs other related duties as required. Minimum Qualifications Knowledge of: Principles, techniques, and methods used to develop, plan and coordinate an effective comprehensive public information program; graphics production including the use of desktop publishing and various printing technologies; writing, editing, photography and video production; practices and procedures used in both print and electronic journalism; marketing principles and strategies; media event development and coordination; and strategic planning techniques. The candidate must be knowledgeable in the use of computers and various computer softwares. Ability to: Communicate effectively both orally and in writing; establish goals and priorities; research and analyze information on a wide range of topics; effectively articulate and interpret RCTC positions on a variety of topics and programs to media and other audiences; maintain effective relationships arid communication with RCTC staff, elected officials, city officials and staff, other agencies, members of the general public; advise RCTC management of strategies to advance the organization's mission; develop marketing partnerships with public and private sector agencies. Education and Experience Experience, education or training which would demonstrate application of the knowledge and skills listed above, such as: A bachelor's degree in communication, public relations, journalism, or related field; AND Five years of increasingly responsible experience in a governmental or transportation environment practicing professional public relations and marketing techniques. V - a i. a) 1 .1 AGENDA ITEM 15A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Gas Price Increases Attached are some recent press articles regarding the increase in gasoline. These articles will be referenced in today's presentation: Item 15A Gas Price Increase and Its Benefits. Financial Impact: This item does not directly impact the RCTC Budget. Reviewed By: Eric Haley, Executive Director Responsible Staff; David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legisaltive Affairs By CLIFF EDWARDS 5/ The Associated Press CHICAGO — World oil producers who have tradition- ally offered only lip service about cutting output are put- ting their . words into action. The result will be higher crude oil prices around the globe and probably more gas- oline price hikes for Ameri- cans. An eagerly awaited report from the Organization of Pe- troleum Exporting Countries this week or next is expected to show that OPEC members are abiding by their recent pledge to _ trim production. Analysts said Tuesday that could help push crude above $20 a barrel, nearly twice was it was last December. As a result, higher gasoline prices will be with us for the forseeable future. "We probably won't see any huge increases like the spike we had for the six -week period 'from mid -March through April," AAA spokes- man Jerry Cheske said Tues- day. "The way things are now, prices might rise anoth- er nickel a gallon or may even have peaked, but they're not going to go down again soon." Gasoline now averages about $1.23 per gallon around High gas Prices here for awhile PRICE JUMP Oil prices have nearly doubled in the past five months, raising them to 1997 levels. A look at the price of a barrel of crude oil: $24 per barrel 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 1997 1998 1999 Source: New York Mercantile Exchange AP the country, up from just 99 cents in February. OPEC and other key pro- ducers, including Mexico and Norway, agreed in March to cut their combined daily pro- duction by 2.7 percent, or 2.1 million barrels, in April. Besides OPEC cutbacks, other factors have contributed to the oil price increases. For one, Americans took to the roads for an early start to the peak driving season. And, several refineries expe- rienced production problems in California, one of the larg- est consumer states. Gasoline prices jump after OPEC deal - Mar. 31, 1999 http://www.japan.cnnfn.com/quickenonfn/home_auto/9903/3 l/gasolim ,More Quotes.... AAA gtt#ckoccont 011 fn contents search stock quotes Delp OPEC bosses agree to oil - March 23, 1999 .m x Oil Price I Information Service - r- :Portfolio manager Gasoline prices on the rise Average price up almost 11 percent on average the past two weeks March 31, 1999: 5:37 p.m. ET NEW YORK (CNNfn) - American consumers planning to hit the road this holiday weekend will find prices at the pump a little harder to swallow, according to a new survey. The American Automobile Association said Wednesday that gasoline prices have risen, on average, almost 11 percent the past two weeks -- the largest jump since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait nearly nine years ago. The average price of self-service regular unleaded gasoline jumped an average of 11.8 cents to $1.088 in the two weeks leading up to March 30, AAA said.. Self-service premium gasoline is up 11.1 cents on average to $1.23 5. Drivers along the West Coast have experienced the largest average increase of 13.9 cents to $1.24 a gallon, while Southeast drivers continue to pay the least at approximately $1.00 per gallon, AAA said. The inflated prices are direct result of the deal signed by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other producers last week to cut world output by 3 percent, or 2.1 million barrels daily. OPEC members struck the agreement in the hopes of ending one of their worst price slumps on record returning oil prices to $18 a barrel. So far, their strategy seems to be working. Crude -oil prices inched above the $17 a barrel level on the New York Mercantile Exchange late Wednesday before slipping back to $16.68. 1 of 2 5/10/99 9:20 AN Gasoline prices jump after OPEC deal - Mar. 31, 1999 http://www.japan.cnnfn.com/quickenonfn/home_auto/9903/31/gasolin Wednesday before slipping back to $16.68. International Petroleum Exchange oil futures also barreled forwarded yesterday, hitting a high of $15.28 before closing up 41 cents to $15.22 per barrel. But AAA spokesman Bill Jackman said the price hike is also partially grounded in largely unfounded fears of tighter gasoline supplies. Those fears were heightened by last week's massive explosion in the gasoline -making unit at one of Chevron Corp.'s major California refineries. "If OPEC manages to keep the pact together, then prices could [go higher], but most experts are saying there's just too much inventory out there that they've got to get rid of," Jackman said. "Its hard to sell and export gasoline when you have several billion gallons of reserves."100, home 1 home & auto I quicken.com on fn contents 1 search 1 stock quotes I help Copyright © 1999 CNN America, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Refinery troubles jolt gasoline prices http://www.pressdemo.com/business/news/24594.htn ASS i41At.) *40 4., txt+jai Coca a+ ..;; ........................iv Otea stit tit .......................... ilarliit< Refinery troubles jolt gasoline prices Mar. 27, 1999 By GEORGE LAUER Press Democrat Staff Writer Gas prices took another leap Friday as the ripple effects of a third Bay Area oil refinery going out of commission reached consumers. Overnight, prices for regular unleaded went up as much as 14 cents a gallon in Sonoma County and now range from $1.359 to $1.649 per gallon. High-octane gas is going for as much as $1.799 a gallon. And more increases are on the way, experts said. Chevron's Richmond plant, the third -largest crude oil refinery in California, continues to smolder today in the wake of an explosion and fire Thursday. It is the fourth California refinery to cease or reduce production in recent weeks and the third in the Bay Area. Not only will California drivers be paying more for gas, they may have a harder time finding it at any price. Exxon stations, because of a broken part ai the company's refinery in Benicia, are getting only half their normal allotment through the end of the month and many are closing early to make their supply last. "This is a critical situation we're heading into," said Mike Gutzman, owner of four Exxon stations in Sonoma County. "We've already cut our hours and may have to cut them some more before the end of the month. Now, with Chevron going down, this is going to be a statewide problem." Industry experts predict prices will continue to rise, but less sharply, for the next several [Site Map VW Home .............. �moSn: Where buying a ear is a pleasure, Search Ahar 0 Used Vehicles! 1 of 4 5/ 10/99 9:56 AM Refinery troubles jolt gasoline prices http://www.pressdemo.com/business/news/24594.hti weeks and that supplies could get tighter. But then prices may start to decline. "You'll definitely see prices go higher than last year," said Bob Barbieri, a partner in Redwood Oil in Santa Rosa, one of the largest wholesale gas distributors in Northern California. "In the near future, until those refineries come back online, we'll see prices go up some more, but then, in 60 or 90 days, you'll see them come down again." At the beginning of the business day Friday at Costco in Santa Rosa, regular gas was selling at $1.219 a gallon. By noon the price had shot up to $1.359 and drivers still lined up eight deep to fill up. "We were losing money selling at that price this morning, but there was nothing we could do about it," said Mike Walker, assistant warehouse manager at Costco. "All our prices are set by computer in Issaquah (Washington, Costco headquarters), and we have nothing to do with it. We have no buttons to push, nothing." Walker estimates Costco sold more than 40,000 gallons of gas Friday. The quadruple whammy of a fire at the Tosco refinery in February, the Exxon problems in Benicia, technical problems at an Arco refinery in Southern California and now the Chevron shutdown, might not have been felt quite so acutely before 1996 when California adopted a new formula for gas that essentially made the state an island in the oil pipeline. "Now, when we have a shock to the supply like this, we are less able to soften the blow," said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute in Berkeley. "We are essentially cut off from the rest of the world, and that leads to much greater price fluctuations." The sharp rise in gas prices this month comes on the heels of a historic low last month. Refinery troubles jolt gasoline prices http://www.pressdemo.com/business/news/24594.htn "Gas prices in February were the lowest in history in inflation -adjusted terms," said Borenstein. "In a real sense, gas as a commodity has been going down for several months." "If you compare it to other commodities, like a loaf of bread versus a gallon of gas," said Barbieri, "you'll see the gallon of gas is a very good deal." The decline in gas prices last year and early this year was due in part to a glut of crude oil on the world market, but now with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' decision this week to decrease production, that downward pressure may reverse. Especially if Americans continue to buy gas -guzzling vehicles. Some experts say gas prices are rising partly in response to increased demand. And part of that increased demand can be attributed to the popularity of gas -guzzling sport utility vehicles, trucks and mini -vans. "There's no question that those vehicles increase the demand for gas," said Paul Moreno, spokesman for AAA of Northern California, "and that when demand increases, it creates upward pressure on prices." Sport utility vehicles, mini -vans and light trucks now account for about half the new car sales in America and are a large contributor to the drop in average mileage -per -gallon ratings. About half the SUVs, mini -vans and light trucks sold get less than 20 miles per gallon. The national average dropped from 26.2 miles per gallon in the early 1990s to 24.2 mpg in 1996 according to the National Traffic Safety Administration. The current average is estimated about 2 miles per gallon lower. 3 of 4 5/10/99 9:56 AM THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE • M1M1ednesda}. April 21. 1999 • A•9 High gas prices spur calls for electric cars, eased air rule By Sam Deleon G.(/�/ 16/� The Press -Enterprise j SACRAMENTO With soaring gasoline prices driving motorists to distraction, two state leaders proposed radical- ly different solutions Tuesday. A Riverside County .lawmaker proposed a solution that air board officials quickly blasted as ineffec- tive and possibly harmful, and Gov. Davis unveiled a long-term plan that supporters acknowledged could take years to achieve signifi- cant benefits. Assemblyman Jim Battin. R-La Quinta, introduced a resolution demanding that the California Air Resources Board suspend for the next 120 days its regulation that requires the sale of costly but cleaner -burning gasoline. "By reformulating gas and limit- ing the amount that's available for sale here, we pay higher prices than the rest of the country," Battin said. Earlier Tuesday, Davis joined top executives from the nation's largest oil and automobile compa- nies to announce a partnership aimed at making zero -emission vehicles powered by fuel cells more practical and affordable. But fuel -cell vehicles, which could eventually replace internal combustion engines, wouldn't cap- ture a significant share of the market for years, said Mike Bow- lin, chairman and CEO of ARCO oil company. Zero -emission electric vehicles now in use cost an average of only $20 per month to run, said Claudia Chandler of the California Energy Commission. By contrast, Battin said he recently spent $80 on gasoline in a single day when he drove his Ford Expedition through the three counties in his district. Permitting the sale in California of grades of gasoline used in neigh- boring states would reduce prices for consumers, Battin said, noting that gasoline prices in Imperial County are an average of 36 cents per gallon higher than across the border in Yuma, Ariz. Fuels used in other states can be produced for 5 to 15 cents less per gallon than California's current gasoline, he said. More important- ly, it would drive down prices by boosting the supply of gasoline available to motorists. But Battin's plan was immedi- ately dismissed by state officials, who said it would harm air quality without significantly reducing gas prices. "This would have an effect equivalent to adding 3.5 million additional motor vehicles to Cali- fornia's roads," said air board spokesman Allan Hirsch. California already faces a tough challenge to meet upcoming feder- al clean -air standards. Allowing the sale of gasoline that produces about 15 percent more pollution would make the task even harder and could subject the state to federal penalties, Hirsch said. But Battin accused the state agencies of having a' vested inter- est in requiring reformulated gaso- line. Selling other fuels is needed tb reduce prices at the pump, he said, even if it temporarily. harms the air. "I will be willing to accept that for 120 days we might have dirtier air because of this,." Bastin said. "I think the economic benefits to California citizens outweigh that" A-8 • Monday, April to, 1999 • THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE MARCIA MUERN JOEL BLAIN Editor and PuRisher Editorial Page Editor HOWARD H HAYS JR. Chairman Emeritus Paying for gas with clean air he spike in California gas- oline prices has been so severe that many motor- ists are probably willing to con- sider drastic measures to some- how get the costs of getting to and from work down to more reason- able levels, but one that should not be considered comes from Assemblyman Jim Baffin, R-La Quints Be wants the state Air Re- sources Board to drop for 120 days enforcement of its regula- tion requiring that only clean - burning fuels be sold at the pumps in the state. Such gasoline costs 5 to 15 cents more to pro- duce. So California gasoline is al- most always more expensive than other states' fuel. The suspension would not come at a worse time. The weather is heating up, producing conditions that are best for the mixing and cooking of pollutants into photochemical smog, which has been Southern California's major air pollution nemesis for 40 years. What is more, after summer after summer of air quality improvements, last sum- mer showed a hint of slippage that could have been caused by more pollution getting into the air (though it was probably caused by hotter than normal weather). This is no time to step back from the "reformulated" fuel program; indeed no time is. Use of the advanced gasoline is esti- mated to produce air quality benefits equal to removing more than three million vehicles from the road. If California is to achieve clean air — that is, mini- mally acceptable air by health standards — it must move con- sistently forward with enforce- ment of standing regulations and with passage of new ones: It can't take a break every now and then, whether well -deserved or not. What is more, the spike in gas prices remains unexplained and quite possibly unjustified by market events. If so, that's even more compelling a reason not to make environmental sacrifices. Mr. Battin has introduced a legislative resolution to advance this proposal. It should be ig- nored by the Assembly, thereby roughly matching the spirit in which it was introduced. Senator Barbara Boxer: Op -Ed http://www.senate.gov/—boxer/gas_oped.htr Nome Latest News <Initiatives Biography .......................................... Services Offices Chil€ reefs Page Recent Meetings California Links Federal Links Boxer Op -Ed Big Oil needs a check of the antitrust dipstick San Jose Mercury News April 19, 1999 California drivers are furious over the high price of gas. And they should be. Over the past six weeks, the price of gas in the Bay Area has soared more than 50 percent. Drivers in some parts of the country pay only half of what it costs Californians to fill their gas tanks. Consumers are demanding to know why prices have soared so high, so fast, and more importantly, they want to know what can be done about it. The oil industry hems and haws, shrugs its collective shoulders and blames this extraordinary price hike on an unfortunate confluence of events and the law of supply and demand. It argues that the price of crude oil increased modestly at the same time tragic refinery accidents limited production of California's specially -formulated pollution -fighting gasoline. All this occurred just as Californians traditionally increase gas consumption in the Spring and Summer travel season. What the industry fails to tell consumers is that its only vigorous competitors -- ' 'unbranded" independent gas stations not affiliated with a major oil company -- have virtually been run out of business over the past month. Without independent competition keeping a lid on prices, a series of events that may have justified modest price increases has been magnified and exaggerated into the most dramatic gas price shock in 25 years. Independent gas stations have always played a critical role in keeping gas prices in check. Because they are not affiliated with a major oil company, these small businesses are free to buy from any low price source. When major oil company refineries are operating normally, these independents buy the excess gasoline produced by the majors, often at a discount, and pass the savings on to consumers. Although their numbers are small, the presence of independents as a lower -priced alternative prevents the big oil companies from raising prices too far. However, as a result of the recent refinery accidents, the independents have been unable to play their traditional role as the low price leader. Although these accidents only slightly reduced refining capacity, the major oil companies reserved virtually all the gas they produced for their own stations, eliminating the excess supply usually sold to independents. What was a minor supply glitch for the majors became a life -threatening crisis for independents. To get the gasoline they needed to stay in business, independent station owners were forced to chase a supply of gasoline that dwindled so low that wholesale prices for generic "unbranded" gas actually exceeded those charged by the majors. A00.31`dN3S.83X08170631SbW83M Ol 311S83M SIHl ONICI8VO38 931213no iiv 103M10 3SV31d .uouipuoo Iuaurwaad saoud sa airjun aNrw put airs ano u! su!rwaa uonnadwoo aoud ai1�►.i Jrlm Xansap pinoo mou am!sal oZ woos Jou ism pur aorldwprw aunosa r!uaonta all ui uonnadwoo alowoad sdais.ploq lsnw au al.L •uonor purwap awoo sal awn all wq `.1E0/ lsrd alb aaAO saoud srpaiansanu! �t SE au ay ll>m waned wow uaaq anal surwaonua -sanssi 3sannur snouas sage.' pur asuas ssai Liana s03[rw awls alp u!lp[m uo«gurn aoud •cams nyo ui slanup amp autlosa 10J 010w p!rd Xigrogdxau! and surlw03i EJ `sararC .10d •oSt aeaX r aano uaaq uonansanu! 1sruwur proaq alp Naldwoo of au ay aoj !Jam ay aoridaa Iou saop mg `dais Jug wruodwr uu aq mom uonor sal L •asraaow aoud wauno alp of pawgywoo rlwroig!a!s os sal Jan s►suo Aiddns 3o pup! all aord war aanau swapuadapu! lap amsua pinom wawaawbaa r tons suonms sa wapuadapui saoud la)prw i!ej airs aoj slonpold ataquo aarls ilrws r anaasaa irnolddr laalaw 3o uon!puoo r sr sawrdwoo asay a.nnbaa of au alb paNsu anal I sa►urdwoo-r aw olui agaaw Irnoaddr �Z3 &was Xnua uno aae `09.1V pur 000u yidg pug `Now pur uoxxg `swe!S eta;snpui ano3 ssaooad ma>naa amaaaw sl! gEnoall suonms wapuadapu! and autlosa jo Xiddns Xprais r aajurarn5 s[ Xiam!paww> aNul uro au alp uonor au() .o8 Suiii!m s! red mot uaas aq suirwaa 1! mg `riulojgra 01 ssawlej aoud sa aao�saa o; lonw op ugo Ld al.L -saollorad gwoud .nrjun uo umop Nom pur uonnadwoo a;owoad Xian!ssaag5r lsnw `uo>ssiwwoa aprii ieaapaA alp pal `sa30103113 Mg] Ism Inn s,uonuu ano `waou alp Fu!wooaq wag amosa uolia-g-Zg wanaad oZ saoud lgrl ,saofrw alp Xrd aorolo ou pal saanyp rruaoj ea pug paaraddesm uonnadwoo aoud in3Suturaysi sapriS wwwaad and uolla aad Z$ ury aaow 01 aatigN pur _mpg saoud way pasha saofrw al} `saoud s,i►p auaiirlo algrun swapuadapu! all gpm saawnsuoo 103 asaom uana sgm 1! `swapuadapu! ao3 smau pug sem srl.L •ampua uro Jawnoosip ou uongrws r Xprala -- saoyadwoo awru-S q nay ury aal$N saoud jr ao ssoi gig aatma saawnsuoo of gas of paoao3 alam swapuadapui ungpad° suSoaxoq-ino3-aleuas-Mnytti :dug Senator Barbara Boxer: Press Release http://www.senate.gov/--boxer/gas_5_6.htt Herne Latest News Initiatives Biography Services Offices Childrenbs Pose Recent ffileetings CaliforniaLinks Federal Links Press Release Boxer Announces Breakthrough in Fight for Lower Gas Prices May 6, 1999 Washington, DC — U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced important developments in her fight for lower gas prices. Boxer recently received a letter from Federal Trade Commission Chairman Robert Pitofsky, which indicates that the FTC is acting on concerns raised by Boxer and by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer about anti -competitive practices and the effect of oil company mergers on gas prices. Last year, the FTC opened a broad anti-trust investigation of the California oil industry at Boxer's request. In response to this spring's historic price increase, Boxer proposed to the FTC that it block pending oil industry mergers unless specific measures are taken to guarantee a steady supply of oil and gasoline to independent refiners and service station owners. In his letter to Boxer, Pitofsky confirmed the authority of the FTC to block mergers because of supply concerns and implied that Boxer's proposal would be carefully considered, citing precedent for this action. Boxer has longed believed that the survival of independent "unbranded" gas stations is critical to price competition. Boxer said, "I want to thank Chairman Pitofsky for responding in such detail and for acknowledging in writing the crucial nature of rising gas prices in California. I am pleased that the FTC is working with Attorney General Lockyer and other attorneys general to review the pending Exxon Mobil merger and scrutinize its impact on gas prices in California. It is clear to me that Chairman Pitofsky recognizes the importance of a steady supply of gasoline to independent dealers." Boxer continued, "I will keep working on this issue with the FTC, Attorney General Lockyer, and other state and local elected officials. By working together, we can preserve price competition and bring fairness at the gas pumps to California drivers." PLEASE DIRECT ALL QUERIES REGARDING THIS WEBSITE TO WEBMASTEROBOXER.SENATE.GOV 1oft 5/10/99 10:00 AM AGENDA ITEM 15A THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE • Friday, May 7, 1999 Boxer gets word on gas -price probe The Associated Press SACRAMENTO U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer said Thursday she has been reassured by the Federal Trade Commission that it is aggressively investigating possible gasoline price gouging in California. The California Democrat said she received a "very strong letter" from FTC Chairman Robert Pi- tofsky confirming that "there is a very serious, ongoing investigation both of gas prices in California and also two merger applications that are before the FTC." Those proposed mergers involve Exxon and Mobil and BP -Amoco and Arco. High gas prices are fueling an- ger in California where drivers are paying around $2 a gallon for premium in some spots. Prices across the country jumped with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries an- nouncing production cuts to boost sagging oil prices, but California has been hardest hit, according to analysts. Fires at two refineries in North- ern California cut into supplies, and the state's decision to remove an additive from gasoline helped boost the cost, the analysts say. But service station dealers and other oil company critics discount industry explanations, saying world crude oil price increases would not account for the retail spike and that reported supplies are higher than previous years. The FTC, at Boxer's request, began looking into the effect of proposed oil company mergers on gasoline costs and possible viola- tion of antitrust laws last year during a price spike. Skyrocketing prices this year prompted California Attorney Gen- eral Bill Lockyer to investigate. His office, which declined Thursday to comment on any developments, is working with the FTC. Major oil companies are cooper- ating fully with the investigations, said Anita Mangels, a spokeswom- an for the Western States Petro- leum Association. "This is nothing new. They've been looking at this for quite some time. We're confident that this inquiry will show that the allega- tions are unfounded and that com- petition is alive and well in Califor- nia," Mangels said. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 12, 1999 . TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director . SUBJECT: Annual Inland Empire Economic Survey• Representatives from the Inland Empire Research Consortium will make an oral presentation on the results of the annual survey. The Commission along with SANBAG are the major sponsors of this survey. The survey covers a broad range of issues, including transportation. A written copy is included in the agenda for the Commission's review. A sponsors' meeting and press conference were held on Tuesday, May 4, 1999. Representing the Commission was Commission Chair, Jack van Haaster, and Executive Director, Eric Haley. Elected officials in attendance and participating in the meetings were City of Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge, City of San Bernardino Mayor Judith Valles, and SANBAG Board President and County of San Bernardino Supervisor, Kathy Davis. Also contributing were SANBAG Executive Director, Norm King, Cal State San Bernardino President, Al Karnig, and a representative of Ray Orbach, Chancellor at University of California, Riverside. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Agenda Item 15B 1998/1999 Inland Empire Annual Survey Inland Empire Research Consortium Prepared by; Shel Bockman, Max Neiman, and Barbara Sirotnik THE 1998/1999 INLAND EMPIRE ANNUAL SURVEY We would like to thank the following organizations who generously contributed to this survey: SPONSORS: Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments PATRONS: Inland Empire Economic Partnership BENEFACTORS: UCR Center for Virtual Research UCR Center for Family Studies UCR Ernesto Galarza Institute California State University, San Bernardino IKON Office Solutions The San Bernardino County Sun SUPPORTERS: Arrowhead Credit Union The Gas Company EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Inland Empire Research Consortium (comprised of researchers from CSUSB's Institute of Applied Research and UCR's Center for Social and Behavioral Science Research) is pleased to present the results of its 1998/1999 Inland Empire Annual Survey of residents in the Inland Empire counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. Sponsored by a consortium of Inland Empire organizations, the Annual Survey is intended to provide community decision makers within the public and private sectors with objective, accurate, and up-to-date information relevant to policy considerations. This year's survey includes several tracking questions incorporated from last year's annual survey of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, and comparisons and longitudinal analysis are included in the report where appropriate. A number of sponsors also submitted questions for their proprietary use. This year's survey also includes several new questions concerning current issues of the day which have policy and research implications. A total of 2,098 residents were surveyed from the two -county area for a 95 percent level of confidence and an accuracy of approximately plus/minus 2 percent for overall two -county findings. Sample size of the two counties varied slightly due to the over -sampling of San Bernardino County for the purpose of enabling a regional analysis within four county zones. , For the proprietary questions, approximately 500 residents were sampled in each County, thus ensuring an accuracy of approximately plus/minus five percent and a 95 percent level of confidence within each County and an accuracy of plus or minus 3 percent and a 95 percent level of confidence in the overall findings for the two county area. Telephone interviews were conducted by the Institute of Applied Research at California State University, San Bernardino using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) equipment and software. The surveys were conducted in January and February, 1999. • • FINDINGS RATINGS OF THE COUNTY A significant majority of Inland Empire residents rate their county as a good place to live. Perceptions of low crime, good climate, good general living environment, accessibility, INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM i Final Report, 1998 -1999 Annual Survey • • and affordability/low cost of living are predominately responsible for shaping respondents' positive ("Very Good") ratings of their county. Perceptions of high crime is the single most critical factor for shaping negative ratings of their county. When asked about the ONE most negative thing about living in the county, residents in both counties mention crime and crime -related issues (thus reinforcing the fact that the perception of high crime is the most critical factor in shaping negative ratings). Climate/temperature and a "good central location" are among the BEST things about living in the County Crime continues to be perceived (for the third year) as the most important city or community problem. Schools and traffic are also perceived as problems (more often in Riverside than in San Bernardino). FEAR OF CRIME AND CRIME -RELATED ISSUES Respondents continue to report being fearful of crime, but their level of fear has very slightly declined since the last survey. It is interesting to note that the proportion of respondents reporting being victims of such crimes has declined since the last survey. Respondents strongly oppose decriminalizing personal drug use. ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS Most Inland Empire residents feel the economy in their county is strong, and say that their family finances have either improved or stayed the same as last year. Further, more people report having enough money to save and buy extras than was the case in the previous survey. Optimism is high, with over half of respondents expecting to be better off by next year, and a third indicating that they will be about the same. But some county differences exist. COMMUTING ISSUES • Most respondents spend less than 1 hour commuting to and from work each day. The vast majority of residents commute to work within their own county. Few respondents would take a pay cut in order to work closer to home. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM ii Final Report, 1998 -1999 Annual Survey • EVALUATIONS OF SELECTED PRIVATE/PUBLIC SERVICES Inland area respondents are least satisfied with upkeep of streets and roads, followed by availability and quality of entertainment. Police/Sheriff services receive the highest marks from respondents, but parks/recreation and public schools are only slightly less well -regarded. CONFIDENCE IN PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT LOCAL POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT • Inland Empire respondents are confident that their elected officials will adopt policies that will benefit the general community. Newspapers are the most important source of information for respondents about local matters. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM iii Final Report, 1998 -1999 Annual Survey FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION The Inland Empire Research Consortium (IERC) is pleased to present its 1998/1999 Inland Empire Annual Survey of residents in the Inland Empire counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. The IERC represents a partnership between researchers from the Institute of Applied Research and Policy Analysis at CSUSB and the Center for Social and Behavioral Sciences Research at UCR. The purpose of the IERC is to conduct the Inland Empire Annual Survey each year and to focus on policy -related research that bears on issues important to the Inland Empire region. Apart from the objectives listed below, the IERC is committed to promoting regionalism and cooperation. Additionally, it is hoped that the work involved in the Annual Survey and other IERC projects will project the Inland Empire onto the radar screen of other "significant actors" in the State.. In this sense, the Annual Survey and future IERC work seeks to become a valuable area resource for initiating community discourse and helping to inform public policy, officials, and citizens. The purpose of the Inland Empire Annual Survey therefore is to provide decision makers with objective, accurate and current information for: • • • evaluating key public and private sector services and activities (e.g., retail services, health care, education, transportation) describing the public's current views as well as changes over time in public perceptions of such issues as: quality of life, the state of the local economy, perceptions of the region as a place to live and work, the greatest problems and issues (e.g., crime, pollution, immigration) facing the Inland Empire, commuting, traffic congestion, and promotion of economic development providing a regional focus for the on -going discussion of key locaUregional issues, and disseminating a coherent picture of Inland Empire views, beliefs, and demographic characteristics to key decision makers within and outside the region, thus enabling comparisons to other regions. In addition, the Inland Empire Annual Survey includes (on a space available basis), some proprietary items designed to meet specific information needs of businesses and public agencies within the Inland Empire. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 1 Final Report, 1998 - 1999 Annual Survey THE QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire items were selected on the following basis: Several questions were incorporated from last year's annual survey of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, a survey which was originally designed to track changes over time in the residents' perceptions about their quality of life and economic well-being, their views about the pressing issues of the day, and their ratings of public services and agencies. In addition, a number of standard demographic questions were included for tracking purposes and for cross tabulation of findings. Tracking questions, of course, provide public agencies and business with trend data often needed in policy making and outcomes assessments. These questions are also valuable in comparing the two -county area with other counties in the state and nation. A number of sponsors also submitted questions for their proprietary use. Finally, the researchers, in consultation with sponsors, also added questions concerning current issues which have policy and research implications. A draft copy of the questionnaire was submitted to the sponsors for their approval and modified where warranted. A Spanish version of the questionnaire was also produced. The survey instrument was then pre- tested, and some minor changes to the wording and order of some items were made. The questionnaire is attached as Appendix I. SAMPLING METHODS Telephone survey respondents were randomly selected from a comprehensive sample frame consisting of all telephone working blocks which contain residential telephone numbers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. This is a standard random sampling approach for studies of this nature. In order to ensure accuracy of findings, 2,098 residents were surveyed from the two -county area for a 95 percent level of confidence and an accuracy of approximately plus/minus 2 percent for overall two -county findings. Sample size of the two counties varied slightly due to the over -sampling of San Bernardino County which, at the request of one of our major sponsors (SANBAG), was broken down into four regional zones. To ensure an acceptable accuracy of findings within each of these regions, a sample size of at least 175 respondents was required. As a result, 1,134 residents of San Bernardino County were surveyed, for an accuracy of the findings in San Bernardino County of approximately plus or minus 2.9 percent and 95 percent level of confidence. In Riverside County, 964 residents were surveyed, yielding an accuracy of approximately plus or minus 3.2 percent and 95 percent level of confidence. For the proprietary questions, approximately 500 residents were sampled in each County, thus ensuring an accuracy of approximately plus/minus five percent and a 95 percent level of INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 2 Final Report, 1998 - 1999 Annual Survey confidence within each County and an accuracy of plus or minus 3 percent and a 95 percent level of confidence in the overall findings for the two -county area. Telephone interviews were conducted by the Institute of Applied Research at California State University, San Bernardino using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) equipment and software. The surveys were conducted in January and February, 1999. INTRODUCTION TO FINDINGS This section presents the major findings from this year's Annual Survey. Findings are generally presented for the two -county area (Inland Empire) as a whole. In those few instances where there exist significant differences between the two counties, such dissimilarities will be noted and discussed in detail. In addition, this report includes some comparative analyses of data over time when warranted. In particular, major differences between this year's and last year's data are noted and discussed. This report also presents and discusses the beginnings of some apparent trends (three years of data points) based on 1996, 1997, and 1998/1999 data. It should be noted, however, that the interpretations of potential trends are limited since the 1996 surveys were independently conducted by the Institute of Applied Research (IAR) and the Center for Social and Behavioral Science research (CSBSR) in each of their respective counties. These surveys, although similar, were not exactly comparable since there were small differences in the wording of the questions and slightly different emphases and issues addressed. In addition, the reader should bear in mind that three data points are rarely sufficient to identify with certainty a trend. Consequently, trend analysis will become increasingly a valuable aspect of our report as additional data points become available in future years' surveys. For a full data display of findings, see Appendix II. FINDINGS In last year's survey, it was noted that there were remarkably few differences between the opinions of respondents in the two counties. That trend continues. In general, therefore, the findings are applicable to the two -county area at large. Whatever differences exist are noted below. RATINGS OF THE COUNTY OVERVIEW: A significant majority of Inland Empire residents rate their county as a good place to live. A majority of the respondents in each county consider their county to be a "very good" to INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 3 Final Report, 1998 - 1999 Annual Survey "fairly good" place to live. Riverside respondents, however, tend to be more positive in their ratings than their San Bernardino counterparts (81.1% of Riverside respondents vs 67.4% of San Bernardino respondents rated their county as "very good" or "fairly good"). Further, San Bernardino County residents are somewhat more critical of their county (4.1% Riverside vs 9.6% San Bernardino respondents rated their county as "fairly bad" or "very bad"). How do these ratings compare with last year's? As displayed in the table below, the respondents are now slightly more positive about their county than they were last year. Table 1: Ratings of the Counties as a Place to Live 1998/1999 Annual Survey 1997 Annual Survey Riverside (N = 964) San Bernardino (N = 1,134) Inland Empire (N = 2,098) Riverside San Bernardino Inland Empire Very Good 26.2% 20.0% 22.9% 22.7% 14.0% 18.0% Fairly Good 54.9% 47.4% 50.8% 53.2% 49.2% 51.0% Neither Good nor Bad 13.8% 21.3% 17.9% 16.4% 20.9% 18.8% Fairly Bad 2.5% 7.1% 5.0% 5.7% 11.1% 8.6% Very Bad 1.6% 2.5% 2.1% 2.0% 5.0% 3.6% a) a 60 50 20 10 0 RATING OF COUNTIES AS A PLACE TO LIVE Very Good Fairly Good Riverside Neutral Fairly Bad Very Bad ® San Bernardino INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 4 Final Report, 1998 - 1999 Annual Survey OVERVIEW: Perceptions of low crime, good climate, good general living environment, accessibility, and affordability/low cost of living are predominately responsible for shaping respondents' positive ("Very Good") ratings of their county. Contrary to negative press reports (for example recent Field Poll data) about the Inland Empire, nearly a quarter of Inland Empire residents feel that their county is a "very good" place to live. What are the main reasons for that rating? The most often -cited single answer to this open- ended question is "low crime" (mentioned by 78 people -- 39 in each county), followed by climate (mentioned by 73 people — 54 in Riverside and only 19 in San Bernardino). On the other hand, as important as these factors are in shaping the ratings of people who apparently enjoy living in their county, the most important composite factor is a good "general living environment," a factor made up of comments such as "nice living area" (55 people), "quiet/peaceful" (34 people), a "rural environment," (32 people), "not crowded/lots of space" (27 people), and "clean" (14 people). Further, accessibility ("close to everything") is an important factor (57 people), as is affordability and job availability (49 people). OVERVIEW: The perception of high crime is the single most critical factor for shaping negative ratings of the county. This significance of crime is clearly reflected for respondents who rated their county lower than "Very Good" (including "Fairly Good," "Neither Good nor Bad," "Fairly Bad," or "Very Bad"). Many of the respondents rating their county lower than "very good" cite the same factors for their ratings as those listed above: low crime, good climate, good general living environment, accessibility, and affordability/low cost of living. One factor supercedes these, however, as the most critical factor for shaping these county ratings: perceptions of high crime, which was mentioned by 16% of those who rated the county as "fairly good," 30% of those who rated the county "neither good nor bad," and well over 55% of those who rated the county as either "fairly bad" or "very bad". This emphasis on crime as the single most important factor in county rating is disturbing, particularly in light of recent newspaper articles indicating that crime has, in fact, decreased in recent years. Further, it is fascinating to note that perceptions of "low crime" and "high crime" show up "side -by -side" in the list of factors given to explain why the area is appealing to some and unattractive to others. Further analysis and policy implications of this issue will be presented in the upcoming special report which analyzes the data as they relate to four zones within San Bernardino County. For example, last year's report indicated that the fear and perceptions of crime were not associated with location as one would expect (e.g. rural vs. urban) within San INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 5 Final Report, 1998 - 1999 Annual Survey Bernardino County. OVERVIEW: When asked to indicate the ONE most negative thing about living in the county, residents in both counties mention crime and crime -related issues (thus reinforcing the fact that the perception of high crime is the most critical factor in shaping negative ratings). The concern about high crime is clearly high in the minds of respondents in both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. When the respondents were asked to indicate the most negative thing about their county, crime and crime -related issues were mentioned most often, whether expressed as "crime" generally (10.5% of Riverside respondents, 18.8% of San Bernardino respondents -- overall 15% of Inland Empire respondents), in terms of references to "gangs" (6% of all respondents), or "drugs" (1.4% of all respondents). After crime, smog and climate are mentioned the most by respondents as a negative for the region (10.4% mentioned smog, 5.7% mentioned climate). This continues to underscore the disadvantage the region has regarding the related issues of smog and climate. Have trends changed regarding perceptions of negative aspects of life in the county? Not significantly. In past surveys (1996 and 1997) crime and pollution were mentioned as the top 2 negatives. In all three years climate was mentioned often as a negative, although this year it was mentioned by fewer people than in past years (perhaps a reflection of a winter without a great deal of rain). OVERVIEW: Climate/temperature and a "good central location" are among the BEST things about living in the County. Earlier in this report, we note that good climate, good general living environment, and accessibility are important factors explaining positive evaluations of the county. This was reinforced when respondents were asked the direct question: "What is the ONE best thing about living in the County?" Specifically, 13.3% of respondents in the two counties indicate that climate/temperature is the one best thing about living in the County (15.9% of Riverside respondents and 11.1% of San Bernardino respondents). Accessibility ("good central location," "close to mountains, beach, desert, river," "access to shopping," etc.) is also considered to be a positive factor. To summarize the last two sections of this report, respondents were asked to nominate the one "best thing" about living in the county and the one "most negative" thing about living in the county. It should be noted that there was more consensus among respondents concerning crime INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 6 Final Report, 1998 - 1999 Annual Survey as the most negative factor than there was concerning climate and accessibility as positive factors. What are the implications of this finding? Simply put, efforts to capitalize on the positives of the area can cite a multitude of factors, whereas policy -makers, in their efforts to improve the quality of life in the Inland Empire, should focus on relatively few negative factors, of which crime is the most salient. OVERVIEW; Crime continues to be perceived (for the third year) as the most important city or community problem. Schools and traffic are also perceived as problems (more often in Riverside than in San Bernardino). After responding to the questions about the best and worst "things" about living in the county, respondents were asked to identify the ONE city or community problem which they consider to be the most important. In the past two years of this survey's history, respondents mentioned crime and crime -related issues as the most important problem facing the city or community. It is not surprising (given the results reported thus far) that this year continues that trend. For example, 220 Riverside County respondents (nearly 23% of respondents) indicate that crime in general, drugs, and safety/security issues are the most important issue facing their community or city. The figure for San Bernardino County residents listing these issues as the most important is 340 respondents (nearly 30% of respondents). Gangs are also considered to be a major problem (listed by 7.6% of Riverside respondents and 8.9% of San Bernardino respondents). As in past years, schools and traffic are listed this year by respondents as the next most important community problem. Schools are mentioned as a problem by 9.8% of Riverside respondents and 6.5% of San Bernardino respondents. Congestion and traffic issues are also important issues which are mentioned more often in Riverside than in San Bernardino County (5.7% vs 2.1% of respondents). The findings here and above suggest that while there is some considerable satisfaction among residents about the Inland Empire, the area does suffer from notable "negatives." Crime, congestion, and smog are serious issues and often expressed freely by respondents. Moreover, the patterns remain very similar to those of the previous year. FEAR OF CRIME AND CRIME -RELATED ISSUES OVERVIEW: Respondents continue to report being fearful of crime, but their level of fear has very slightly declined since the last survey. It is interesting to note, however, that the proportion of respondents reporting being victims of such crimes has declined since the last INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 7 Final Report, 1998 - 1999 Annual Survey survey. In light of the importance of crime as a frequently mentioned issue over the last few years, it is worth exploring the responses to the question regarding our respondents' fear of being the victim of a serious crime (such as a violent or costly crime). Among Inland Empire respondents, 39.2 percent were either "somewhat fearful" or "very fearful" of becoming a victim of a serious crime. This is a statistically insignificant decline from the previous Annual Survey (42.1%). Moreover, when respondents were asked whether or not they have been the victim of a serious or costly crime, we found that the proportion of victims is also somewhat lower than last year (23.2% this year, in contrast to 27.4% last year -- a slight, but significant, difference). No county differences in the responses were observed. OVERVIEW: Respondents strongly oppose decriminalizing personal drug use. This year's Annual Survey also explored the Inland Empire's views on a topic with some potential controversy. Specifically, respondents were asked the following question: "Currently a large percentage of people in prison are there for drug related offenses. Would you favor decriminalizing the personal use of drugs while continuing the policy of prosecuting drug dealers?" As the results in the table below indicate, there is very strong opposition to changing laws. This is quite significant, since it means that one approach to easing the stream of inmates into the burgeoning prison population and reducing stress on many aspects of the criminal justice system is perhaps not feasible. This is an important finding, since it is often discussed as one approach to managing the growth of prison populations. Table 2: V