October 3 07 TFWG Agenda

TRANSIT FINANCE WORKING GROUP (TFWG) MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2010, 10:00 A.M. – 12:00 P.M. METROCENTER, 3RD FLOOR, FISHBOWL CONFERENCE ROOM 101 EIGHTH STREET, OAKLAND, CA 94607 Estimated Time Discussion Items 1. Introductions

3 min

2. March 3, 2010 Minutes*

2 min

3. Legislative Update* (Rebecca Long)

10 min

a

Fund Estimate Revision to incorporate FY10 – FY11 State Transit Assistance** (Theresa Romell)

5 min

b

Vehicle Registration Fee Ballot Measures* (Mat Adamo)

5 min

4. Bay Area Climate Initiative Competitive Grants Update* (Ashley Nguyen)

10 min

5. FY10 TCP Apportionments and POP Amendment** (Glen Tepke)

15 min

6. SRTP Update* (Theresa Romell)

10 min

7. RTCI Update* (Glen Tepke)

5 min

Information Items / Other Items of Business: 8. 2011 TIP Development* (Sri Srinivasan)

3 min

9. 2009 TIP Updates** (Sri Srinivasan)

3 min

10. Workshop on PM2.5 Conformity Regulations on June 2, 2010** (Sri Srinivasan)

2 min

11. Revisions to RM2 Policies and Procedures** (Shruti Hari, Christina Verdin)

5 min

12. CARB Harbor Craft Regulation* (Glen Tepke)

5 min

13. Prop 1B Update: Transit (PTMISEA) and Transit Security (CTSGP)* (Amy Burch)

5 min

14. Economic Recovery Update* (Anne Richman)

2 min

15. Recommended Future Agenda Items (All)

2 min

16. ARRA Fraud Awareness** (Kathryn Kerkhoff, USDOT Office of Inspector General)

30 min

Next Transit Finance Working Group Meeting: Wednesday, May 5, 2010 10:00 a.m. –12:00 p.m. Fishbowl Conference Room, MTC MetroCenter Note time and room change for June Meeting: Wednesday, June 2, 2010 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Claremont Conference Room, MTC Metro Center * = Attachment in Packet ** = Handouts Available at Meeting Contact Glen Tepke of MTC at 510-817-5781 or [email protected] if you have questions about this session. Chair: Joanne Parker, City of Santa Rosa Vice-Chair: Gayle Prior, GGBHTD

J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership TFWG\_Transit Finance WG\2010\10 Agendas\04 April TFWG Agenda.doc

MTC Staff Liaison: Glen Tepke, MTC (28-4/1/10)

TRANSIT FINANCE WORKING GROUP (TFWG) MEETING MINUTES – MARCH 3, 2010 Page 1 of 2

1 Introductions Joanne Parker (Santa Rosa City Bus) requested introductions from the attendees. 2. Approval of February Minutes Joanne Parker asked for approval of the February 3, 2010 minutes. 3. Legislative Update Rebecca Long (MTC) reported that California’s transit funding may be reconstructed by a proposal to eliminate the state’s sales tax on gasoline AB/SB X8 6. The proposal also includes giving counties options to pass a regional motor fuel mitigation fee that would be an eligible source of transit funding if approved by a majority of the voters. Part of the proposal includes providing STA funding, approximately $400 million for FY10 and FY11 statewide. The current version of the bill increases the excise tax on gas and directs a portion of it to debt service. Prop 42 is getting $1.5 billion the total sales tax on gas $2.5 billion – the debt service comes off the top. Currently there is talk of changing the share of percentages to 44% Local Streets, 44% STIP, and 12% to SHOPP. Todd Morgan (BART) reported that Contra Costa County is doing a poll on a Vehicle Registration Fee – San Francisco and Alameda County may be doing the same. Joanne Parker replied that Sonoma County is going to the STA board to see if they are willing to go to the ballot in June for a VRF fee for 73% to go to transit operators. 4. Economic Recovery Update Anne Richman (MTC) reported that as of February 22 all of Tier 1 system preservation grants and six of the nine flex-funded system preservation grants have been approved. In addition, Ms. Richman reported that ARRA Tier 2 grants have been awarded and congratulated everyone as well as suggested that the recipients execute the grants directly after the meeting. Tom Harais (ECCTA) thanked staff for instructing operators to include their Tier 2 below the line in their ARRA grants together with their Tier 1 above the line funds, because it had made the process a lot easier when it came to amending the grants to include Tier 2 . 5. FY10 TCP Apportionments and POP Amendment Glen Tepke (MTC) reported that FTA issued a FY10 partial-year apportionment for its formula programs on February 16 and passed a 30-day extension of SAFETEA. Operators have the option of submitting a partial year grant to FTA and submitting the rest as below the line, or waiting to submit their grants until the firnal full-year apportionments are available from FTA. The Jobs Bill as it is currently written would extend SAFETEA at FY 2009 levels, there would be no increases in apportionments. As a result there may be a shortfall in the TCP program. Staff will bring the revised proposed POP amendment back to the working group in April for review. If a recipient’s program is unaffected by the POP amendment they can submit their grant for full or amend the partial year grant as soon as the apportionments are received. Another result of the TCP program potential shortfall is its effect on the emission control device program. If there is a shortfall staff will not be able to program any additional funds for the Bus Emission Devices; however, if the procurements are a priority for a recipient there is the option of transferring the money from another Score 16 project to the emission devices. Mr. Tepke provided a list of earmarks that were allocated in the partial year apportionment notice. He urged those recipients listed to make sure that it is in FMS and staff will process it as part of the POP amendment. Mr. Tepke also asked operators to enter their FY 2011 into FMS within the next few days. Staff will be sending instructions on how to do so. Ms. Srinivasan added that if recipients are entering changes into the FY 2011 program into FMS to contact staff first before doing so.

J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership TFWG\_Transit Finance WG\2010\10 Minutes\03_Mar 3 TFWG mins.doc

(63-3/31/10)

TRANSIT FINANCE WORKING GROUP (TFWG) MEETING MINUTES – MARCH 3, 2010 Page 2 of 2

6. 2011 TIP Development Sri Srinivasan (MTC) reviewed the due dates for the 2011 TIP development and notified the working group that March 19 is the last day to submit non exempt projects in the TIP. If recipients are increasing projects by a significant amount let Sri know. Any projects that have an air quality concern please let staff know. 7. 2009 TIP Updates Sri Srinivasan (MTC) provided a status of TIP amendments. 8. CARB Hybrid Bus Voucher Incentive Program Glen Tepke provided a report from HVIP, a small funding program that provides vouchers to encourage truck and bus operators to buy hybrids. 9. Prop 1B Update: Transit (PTMISEA) and Transit Security (CTSGP Amy Burch (MTC) provided an update on funding and upcoming Prop 1B deadlines. Ms. Burch reported that the State Treasures’ office is planning two bond sales – one on March 11 and the second later in the month. AC Transit asked the working groups to help with a issue regarding Cal EMA. Cal EMA will not allow recipients to spend against funds for FY 2009-10 for a big project. Ms. Burch is currently working on a letter regarding the issue of not being able to commit funds to a project and will look into who is the current contact for transit program. 10. CTC Update 11. Recommended Future Agenda Items Glen Tepke stated a representative from the DOT Office of Inspector General will do a presentation at the April meeting on how to prevent types of fraud regarding ARRA funds. FTA will send an announcement on an ARRA workshop in San Francisco at the end of March. The working group expressed interest in hearing an update on the Bay Area Climate Initiative Competitive Grant Guidelines in April. Next Transit Finance Working Group Meeting: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership TFWG\_Transit Finance WG\2010\10 Minutes\03_Mar 3 TFWG mins.doc

(63-3/31/10)

TFWG Item 3

TO: Transit Finance Working Group

DATE: April 7, 2010

FR: Rebecca Long RE: Gasoline/Diesel Sales Tax/Excise Tax Swap Background On March 22, 2010, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed two major pieces of legislation that fundamentally restructure California’s system of transportation finance — AB 6 and AB 9 of the Eighth Extraordinary Session. The bills are a modified version of the Governor’s January budget proposal, which called for the elimination of the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuels. The bills provide the General Fund with approximately $1.1 billion in FY 2010-11 by shifting the cost of debt service on outstanding transportation bonds from the General Fund to various transportation funds. Relieving the General Fund of these interest obligations results in approximately $11 billion in General Fund savings over the next 10 years. The chief purpose of the proposal is to provide immediate and ongoing support to the state’s General Fund, which currently faces a $20 billion deficit between now and FY 2010-11. The Legislature’s approach differs from the Governor’s budget on a number of counts: • •

It is revenue neutral, whereas the Governor’s proposal would have lowered taxes at the pump by about 5-cents per gallon, resulting in a net loss of about $900 million. It retains and raises the diesel sales tax by 1.75 percent to provide an ongoing source of state funding for public transportation.

This memo provides additional details on the legislation and analyzes its impact on public transit funding in the Bay Area. Mechanics of the Tax Swap The tax swap, contained in AB 6, affects four different taxes — the state portion of the sales tax on gasoline, the excise tax on gasoline, the state portion of the sales tax on diesel fuel, and the excise tax on diesel. Local sales taxes remain unchanged and will continue to include gasoline and diesel fuel. AB 6 contains the following key changes: •

Beginning July 1, 2010, eliminates the 6 percent statewide sales tax on gasoline, and with it, the funding source for Proposition 42 (the 2003 constitutional amendment that required most gasoline sales taxes to go to transportation) and “the spillover,” a funding formula dedicated to public transit.

TFWG/LegUpdate – Page 2

• Raises the excise tax on gasoline by 17.3-cents on July 1, 2010, for a total excise tax of 35.3 cents per gallon. Starting March 1, 2011, and each March 1st thereafter, authorizes the State Board of Equalization (BOE) to estimate how much revenue would have been raised by the sales tax on gasoline and adjust the gasoline excise tax to raise an equivalent amount. • Retains the existing sales tax on diesel fuel and raises it by another 1.75 percent on July 1, 2011 to generate about $120 million in additional funds for public transit, for a total of approximately $436 million in FY 2011-12. • Offsets the diesel sales tax rate increase by lowering the diesel excise tax from 18 cents per gallon to 13.6 cents, effective July 1, 2011. Similar to the gasoline excise tax, the excise tax would be adjusted by the BOE on March 1st of each year to maintain revenue neutrality. Legislature Passes Companion Bill to Avert Governor’s Veto In response to a veto threat from the Governor, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed a companion bill, SB 70, to exempt consumers of dyed diesel fuel (including freight rail, commuter rail, transit buses, and off-road vehicles) from the diesel fuel sales tax rate increase. Since these sectors are not subject to the diesel excise tax, they would have experienced a tax increase without this exemption. This exemption reduces the revenue generated by the sales tax on diesel by roughly $3 million per year. Public Transit Bears the Brunt of General Fund Savings While the overall tax swap is revenue neutral by design (in order to allow for passage by a simple majority vote), public transit loses over $1 billion annually due to the elimination of the sales tax on gasoline, as discussed in greater detail below. AB 9 also appropriates $142 million in Public Transportation Account (PTA) funds to the General Fund to offset the cost of public transit bond debt service in FY 2009-10 and another $254 million for FY 2010-11. An earlier version of the proposal, which ultimately was removed due to opposition by the Schwarzenegger Administration, included a regional motor fuel fee option — subject to voter approval — that had the potential to backfill, at least partially, for this loss of state transit funding. This proposal may be reintroduced in separate legislation later this year. Bay Area to Receive Almost $150 Million for Public Transit Service for FY 2010-11 AB 9 stipulates how the excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel — and the sales tax on diesel — will be distributed, and appropriates $400 million in one lump sum (rather than quarterly) to the State Transit Assistance (STA) program, the only source of state support for public transit operations. For Bay Area transit operators, this will provide approximately $147 million in FY 2010-11. While the bill technically appropriates the funds in the current fiscal year, transit agencies will not be able to access the funds until July 2010, as the law will not take effect for 90 days. There is no additional STA appropriation made in FY 2010-11. For FY 2011-12 and beyond, the bill directs 75 percent of PTA revenues to the STA program and supplements these funds with some State Highway Account (SHA) funds for a total STA program of about $350 million per year. This figure includes approximately $128 million per year for the Bay Area. See Attachment A for an estimate of the amount of STA available to Bay Area transit operators over the next two years. Impact on Public Transit Revenue Streams The elimination of the sales tax on gasoline results in the loss of three sources of PTA funds — the spillover, 20 percent of Proposition 42 funds, and the sales tax on the first nine cents of the gasoline

TFWG/LegUpdate – Page 3

excise tax (commonly referred to as the “Proposition 111 portion”). As shown below, the spillover and Proposition 42 revenue streams fluctuate considerably. Public Transit Revenue Sources Eliminated by Tax Swap Proposal (Dollars in millions) FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Spillover $1,027 $620 Proposition 42 $270 $284 Sales tax on $64 $63 Proposition 111 (9-cents of gas tax) Total $1,361 $967

FY 2010-11 $897 $315 $61

$1,273

While statutes direct these funds to the PTA and voter-approved initiatives provide a degree of protection to the PTA as a “trust fund,” in recent years the Legislature simply amended the statutes to redirect the funds elsewhere or used them to cover questionable “public transit” expenditures, such as K-12 school bus service and transportation to regional centers for the Department of Developmental Services. The California Transit Association (CTA) successfully challenged these practices in court and the California Supreme Court upheld the appeals court ruling in September 2009. With this ruling in hand, coupled with a statewide ballot measure — the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act, pending for the November 2010 ballot — it appeared that this revenue stream had a good chance of being secured. Nevertheless, the initiative was not drafted to explicitly require that the existing fund sources be maintained in perpetuity. The tax swap legislation essentially nullifies the intent of the proposed ballot measure by repealing the fund source it seeks to protect. A Loss of Potential Windfalls, But Improved Stability The tax swap represents a significant loss relative to “what could have been,” but not relative to what was. On the one hand, the proposal eliminates the upside potential for public transit to receive funding windfalls, such as what occurred in FY 2006-07 when the State Transit Assistance (STA) program received an unprecedented $624 million due to a $668 million spillover that year. On the other hand, with PTA funding coming almost entirely from the diesel sales tax, the legislation may provide significantly greater stability and hopefully reduce the Legislature’s temptation to divert the funds in the future. While not required by statute and still subject to appropriation on an annual basis, estimates that the package will enable an STA program of at least $350 million per year appear reasonable. This is a significant improvement in comparison to the status quo or historic funding levels. As part of the FY 2009-10 budget, the Legislature suspended the STA program altogether through FY 2012-13, resulting in zero state support for public transit for the next three years. Looking back over the last 10 years, STA averaged $150 million per year, excluding the FY 2006-07 outlier year, as shown in Attachment B. Actual STA funding levels in a given year will depend on diesel fuel prices, diesel fuel consumption and the extent to which the Legislature transfers to the PTA additional non-Article XIX restricted State Highway Account funds. Additionally, passage of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act on the November 2010 ballot would reduce STA’s share of PTA revenues to 50 percent rather than 75 percent, resulting in a statewide total of approximately $240

TFWG/LegUpdate – Page 4

million rather than $350 million. This would reduce the region’s share by about 31 percent, from $128 million to $88 million. How Will New Gasoline Excise Tax Be Spent? ABx8 9 provides for the new gasoline excise tax revenue to be distributed as follows: •

Fund highway-related transportation bond debt service as the first priority from the new gasoline excise tax increase. In 2010-11 about $1.2 billion would go to debt service, and this amount would grow annually and peak at approximately $1.3 billion in FY 2017-18.

•

In FY 2010-11 only, split the funds available after debt service 50/50 between the STIP and local streets and roads.

•

Beginning in FY 2011-12, split the balance remaining after debt service as follows: o 44 percent to STIP projects o 44 percent to local streets and roads o 12 percent to the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)

Legislation Designed to Hold Local Streets and Roads & the STIP “Harmless” The shares for the STIP and local streets and roads were determined so as to provide at least as much funding to these categories as would have been generated by the portion of the gasoline sales tax that went towards Proposition 42. Under Proposition 42, local streets and roads and the STIP each received 40 percent of revenues, with the remainder allocated to public transit. Under the new framework, funding for local streets and roads and the STIP will depend not only on the overall revenue stream — which will continue to depend on gasoline prices and consumption — but also on how much is set aside for debt service. Based on projections by the Department of Finance, it appears likely that the STIP and local streets and roads will actually receive a net gain in funding relative to Proposition 42. For Bay Area local streets and roads, the swap results in an additional $500,000 region-wide in FY 2010-11, growing to a $20 million gain in FY 2011-12. For the STIP, it results in a net gain of $407,000 region-wide in FY 2010-11, growing to a $15 million gain in FY 2011-12. Whereas STIP funding from Proposition 42 could be spent on any type of transportation project, STIP funding from the new excise tax will be restricted by Section 1 of Article XIX in the State Constitution, which limits gasoline tax revenues to the following: “(a) The research, planning, construction, improvement, maintenance, and operation of public streets and highways (and their related public facilities for nonmotorized traffic), including the mitigation of their environmental effects, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, and the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes. (b) The research, planning, construction, and improvement of exclusive public mass transit guideways (and their related fixed facilities), including the mitigation of their environmental effects, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes, and the maintenance of the structures and the immediate right-of-way for the public mass transit guideways, but excluding the maintenance and operating costs for mass transit power systems and mass transit passenger facilities, vehicles, equipment, and services.”

Attachment A TFWG, Leg Update

S.F. BAY AREA STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDING FROM AB X8 9 FY 2009-10 & 2010-11

FY 2011-12

STATEWIDE REVENUE

$

400,000,000

$

350,000,000

MTC REVENUE-BASED FUNDING

$

108,232,749

$

94,703,655

AC Transit $ 13,061,448 ACE $ 418,050 BART $ 26,216,459 Benicia $ 18,245 Caltrain $ 5,131,112 Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection) $ 586,740 Dixon $ 5,259 Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (TriDelta) $ 261,798 Fairfield $ 110,580 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transit District $ 4,213,035 Healdsburg $ 3,811 Livermore-Amador Transit (LAVTA) $ 201,023 Napa Transit Services $ 41,140 Rio Vista $ 1,311 SamTrans $ 5,222,402 San Francisco MTA $ 35,957,211 Santa Rosa $ 138,117 Sonoma County Transit $ 160,199 Union City $ 35,427 Vallejo $ 658,003 Valley Transportation Authority $ 15,505,344 Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) $ 286,036 REVENUE BASED AMOUNT $ 108,232,749 POPULATION BASED AMOUNT $ 38,365,036 BAY AREA STA TOTAL $ 146,597,785 Individual agency shares are based on FY 2008-09 Final Factors from the State Controller's Office

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

11,428,767 365,794 22,939,401 15,964 4,489,723 513,397 4,601 229,073 96,757 3,686,406 3,335 175,895 35,997 1,147 4,569,601 31,462,560 120,852 140,175 30,998 575,753 13,567,176 250,281 94,703,655 33,569,407 128,273,062

Apportionment Jurisdictions

Prepared by MTC Staff

Attachment A TFWG, Leg Update

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDING FROM AB X8 9 FY 2009-10 & 2010-11 Statewide STA Funding MTC POPULATION-BASED FUNDING Apportionment Jurisdictions Northern Counties/Small Operators Marin Napa Solano Sonoma CCCTA ECCTA LAVTA Union City WestCAT Vallejo SUBTOTAL Regional Paratransit Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma SUBTOTAL Lifeline Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma SUBTOTAL MTC Regional Coordination Program POPULATION BASED GRAND TOTAL

$ $

FY 2011-12

400,000,000 $ 350,000,000 38,365,036 $ 33,569,407

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,152,454 612,049 1,910,669 2,148,730 2,218,251 1,297,410 899,875 328,671 312,703 10,880,812

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,008,397 535,543 1,671,836 1,880,139 1,940,970 1,135,234 787,390 287,587 273,615 9,520,710

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,392,253 719,484 160,740 104,970 1,099,221 608,642 1,261,041 299,438 332,919 5,978,708

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,218,222 629,549 140,647 91,849 961,818 532,562 1,103,411 262,008 291,305 5,231,370

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,069,147 1,400,158 302,434 190,422 1,691,391 795,290 2,430,675 616,070 705,680 11,201,265 10,304,251 38,365,036

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2,685,503 1,225,138 264,630 166,619 1,479,967 695,879 2,126,840 539,061 617,470 9,801,107 9,016,220 33,569,407

Attachment B TFWG, Leg Update

State Transit Assistance Funding, FY 2000-2013 700

$624 M

Proposed / Projected STA

600

Prop 42 Payback 500 Millions of $s

Spillover 400

$400 M

Prop 42

$350 M $350 M $316 M

STA Base

300

200

$153 M

100

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

*In 2009, The STA program was arbitrarily set at $153 million with no distinction provided as to the source of funds (Prop 42 or Base).

2005

2006

2007

Fiscal Year

2008

2009*

2010

2011

2012

2013

TFWG Item 3b

TO: Transit Finance Working Group

DATE: April 7, 2010

FR: Mathew Adamo & Rebecca Long RE: County Vehicle Registration Fee Update (SB 83) In October 2009 Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 83 (Hancock). SB 83, codified as Chapter 554, Statutes of 2009, empowers California counties to levy a vehicle registration fee up to $10 per vehicle for the improvement of transportation in that county. This memo summarizes SB 83 and provides a status report on Bay Area counties that are currently pursuing this new funding source. It also provides an overview of another bill, SB 10 (Leno), which may provide another option for counties to increase transportation funding. Senate Bill 83 authorizes congestion management agencies (CMAs) to place on the ballot an annual fee of up to $10 on motor vehicles registered within their county. Each CMA’s board must approve the proposal by a majority vote before it appears on the ballot. The registration fee revenues would fund programs to mitigate congestion and/or pollution. The bill requires that any funds collected be used for programs that benefit or relate to those paying the fees (motor vehicle owners) and that the uses are consistent with a regional transportation plan. It further requires the CMA board to adopt an expenditure plan. If all nine Bay Area CMAs adopt the maximum vehicle registration fee, approximately $60 million would be generated annually. CMAs are currently conducting polls to assess public support, which will influence whether they pursue voter approval this November. The table below shows revenue estimates for a $10 vehicle registration fee in each Bay Area county. These estimates are based on DMV vehicle registration data compiled by MTC and include automobiles, trucks, vans, and motorcycles.

TFWG Item 3b

Estimated Revenue for the Bay Area from a $10 Vehicle Registration Fee

County Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Sonoma Solano Region

Average Annual Revenue $ 12,187,933 $ 9,185,446 $ 2,396,506 $ 1,345,995 $ 4,817,932 $ 7,156,595 $ 15,682,607 $ 4,623,888 $ 3,545,998 $ 60,942,901

Total 10-Year Funding $ 121,879,333 $ 91,854,461 $ 23,965,055 $ 13,459,953 $ 48,179,318 $ 71,565,945 $ 156,826,073 $ 46,238,883 $ 35,459,985 $ 609,429,006

*Source: DMV Estimated Fee Paid Vehicles, 2008. Includes automobiles, trucks, vans, and motorcycles.

Vehicle License Fee Authorization Also Proposed A vehicle license fee is assessed as a percentage of the value of the vehicle and therefore one has greater potential to generate significantly more revenue than a flat per vehicle fee. In addition, another bill introduced by Senator Leno, SB 10, might yield a greater revenue benefit. SB 10 would allow counties, with a simple majority vote approval of the electorate, to impose a general tax on the value of vehicles registered in the county limits. Such a tax, known as a vehicle license fee, could not be specifically dedicated to transportation or it would fall under the legal definition of a “special tax” and thus be subject to a two-thirds vote. However, each county would have the option of allocating the funds to transportation. Next Steps There is generally strong interest among Bay Area CMAs in enacting a vehicle registration fee as authorized by SB 83. Some counties are taking action faster than others, but at this time, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Solano intend to place a measure on the ballot this November. However, if SB 10 is enacted this year, some Bay Area counties may shift their efforts to enact a vehicle license fee given its potential to generate significantly more revenue than SB 83. Currently, however, SB 83 provides a modest, but welcome means for raising additional funding that could benefit public transit.

TFWG Item 4

TO: Transit Finance Working Group FR: Ashley Nguyen and Craig Goldblatt

DATE: April 7, 2010 W. I.

RE: Bay Area Climate Initiatives Program Competitive Grants Background In December 2009 the Commission adopted the New Surface Transportation Act Cycle 1 Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy, which included, among other programs, an $80 million Climate Initiative Program. The primary objectives of the Climate Initiatives Program, based on direction from an ad hoc Climate Initiatives Working Group made up of Commissioners, Partnership staff and stakeholders, are: (1) to make short-term investments that reduce transportation-related emissions and vehicle miles traveled, and encourage the use of cleaner fuels, and (2) evaluate these investments so that we may learn and build a knowledge base that will inform the most effective Bay Area strategies for consideration in the Sustainable Communities Strategy in the next Regional Transportation Plan, which is slated for adoption in spring 2013. The Climate Initiatives Program focuses on four primary elements: (1) $10 million for public education campaign, (2) $17 million for Safe Routes to Schools, (3) $31 million for Innovative Grants, and (4) $4 million for evaluation of the Climate Initiatives Program. It also includes $3 million for Eastern Solano County air quality projects and $15 million for SFgo. Consistent with other regional programs that MTC administers, MTC will deduct funds to cover administrative expenses over the three years of this program. Climate Initiatives Competitive Grants MTC, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and Joint Policy Committee staff have developed the program framework for two competitive grants program of the Climate Initiatives Program – (1) Innovative Grants and (2) Safe Routes to School Creative Grants. An overview of the program framework is outlined below. General Process • One Solicitation: MTC, in partnership with regional agencies, will issue one solicitation for both competitive grant programs. • Two-Part Selection Process: In Step One, applicants first submit a 3-page Letter of Interest that will be evaluated by regional agency staffs, and as needed, the evaluation committee will follow-up with the applicant to clarify, add information or modify the proposal. The committee will consider how well the applicant responded to questions as to why this project is innovative, how the project reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and how the project might be replicated. In Step Two, applicants with projects that show the most promise will be invited to submit a more detailed proposal for further evaluation and funding consideration. • Eligible Applicants: Public agencies are eligible applicants. However, interested non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations, businesses and community organizations may apply if they partner with a public agency.

TFWG Bay Area Climate Initiatives Program Competitive Grants Page 2 of 3

•

•

Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria will be tailored to reflect the goals of each program, but in general, the proposals will be evaluated using a high, medium, and low rating against the following criteria: level of innovation, potential for replication at large scale, quality of the proposal, and potential for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Funding Levels: The Cycle 1 funding levels for the competitive grants are as follows: up to $2 million for the Safe Routes to School Creative Grants and up to $31 million for Innovative Grants.

Innovative Grants (up to $31 million) • Purpose: Funds roughly a dozen high-impact, innovative projects with the greatest potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to be replicated on a larger-scale around the region. • Objectives: Projects funded must achieve as many objectives as possible: (a) measurably reduce emissions of GHG and criteria pollutants, (b) have greatest potential for replication, (c) employ multiple approaches to produce synergy, (c) remove substantial technical, financial or political barrier that impedes successful implementation, and (d) build collaboration and partnerships. • Basic Requirements: Projects must meet basic requirements to be eligible for funding: (a) provide a clear connection to transportation and air quality improvements, (b) must support demonstrated high-impact project areas: parking management and pricing policies, cleaner vehicles, transportation demand management project, innovative transportation project from locally-adopted Climate Action Plan, or be a showcase project that innovatively combines a number of strategies together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, (c) must be implemented within two years, and (d) include a proposed approach for evaluating the project impacts. Sponsors are encouraged to collaborate and cost share with multiple partners and include higher local match in their proposals. Safe Routes to School Creative Grants (up to $2 million) • Purpose: Funds roughly four creative school-related emission reduction strategies and determines their effectiveness and potential replication around the region. • Objectives: Projects funded must achieve as many objectives as possible: (a) measurably reduce emissions of GHG and criteria pollutants, (b) have greatest potential for replication, (c) pilot new, innovative strategies that further best practices, and (c) remove substantial technical, financial or political barrier that impedes successful implementation. • Basic Requirements: Projects must meet basic requirements to be eligible for funding: (a) provide a clear connection to transportation and air quality improvements, (b) pilot new, innovative strategies and approaches in SR2S field; (c) serve as a model project for other schools and communities, (d) include at least one of the five E’s of engineering, evaluation, education, encouragement, and enforcement, (e) must be implemented within two years, and (f) include a proposed approach for evaluating the project impacts, and (g) demonstrate timely expenditure of previously awarded state or federal SR2S funds.

TFWG Bay Area Climate Initiatives Program Competitive Grants Page 3 of 3

Next Steps The key activities and completion dates for the review of the program guidelines, call for projects and selection and approval process for the Innovative and Safe Routes to School Creative Grant Programs are shown in the table below. Activity Review Draft Program Guidelines by: - Partnership Technical Advisory Committee - Climate Initiatives Working Group Review and Approval of Program Guidelines by the Programming and Allocations Committee (PAC) and Commission Call For Projects Outreach Workshops (3) Letters of Interest Due Review of Letters of Interests by Evaluation Committee, including follow-up with promising applicants Review of Candidate Projects Advancing in Evaluation Process by PAC (if needed) Detailed Project Proposals Due Review of Proposals and Project Selection by Evaluation Committee PAC Approval of Draft List of Projects Commission Approval of Draft List of Projects

Completion Date March 15 Week of March 29 April 14 PAC April 28 Commission April 30 May 6, 13 &14 June 1 June 30 July 14 August 4 August 20 September 8 September 22

J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership TFWG\_Transit Finance WG\2010\10 Memos\04_April\04_ClimateInitatives_031010AN.doc

TFWG Item 6

TO:

Transit Finance Working Group

FR:

Theresa Romell

RE:

FY 2011 SRTP Policy Update

DATE: April 7, 2010

Background At September’s TFWG, MTC staff proposed an alternate FY 2010 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) policy to allow agencies to opt in or out of completing the plan. If an operator opted in, it committed to meeting the revised deliverable deadlines of December 2009 for the draft and March 2010 for the final in order to receive FTA 5303 reimbursement. Of 23 Bay Area Transit Operators, 14 opted in and 9 opted out. Of those 14 that opted in, MTC has received 12 draft and 9 final mini-SRTPs. The current agreements terminate on June 30, 2010 and any remaining funds from either the 2009 or 2010 mini-SRTPs will be disencumbered shortly after. Next Steps MTC staff is proposing to suspend the SRTP policy for one fiscal year therefore operators will not be required to submit a FY 2011 mini SRTP. The FTA 5303 planning funds are proposed to support the Transit Sustainability Project (TSP) and to complete an update of the Transit Passenger Demographic Survey. As you may recall, the last regional passenger demographic survey was completed in 2007. The goal was to update the survey approximately every four years to ensure the data is current enough to inform MTC and transit operator planning efforts.

J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership TFWG\_Transit Finance WG\2010\10 Memos\04_April\06_2010 SRTP Policy Update.doc

TFWG Item 7

TO: Transit Finance Working Group

DATE: April 7, 2009

FR: Glen Tepke RE: RTCI Update

Background The Regional Transit Capital Inventory (RTCI) is a database of transit capital assets, including replacement and rehabilitation costs and lifecycles, used to project transit capital maintenance needs for the Regional Transportation Plan and the Transit Capital Priorities funding program. A first-generation RTCI was developed in Phase 1 of the project in collaboration with the region’s transit operators. Phase 2 will focus on: 1) refining the current data to improve the accuracy of cost projections and to ensure that projected costs are comparable across operators and asset types; 2) developing a process for updating the data in preparation for the next RTP; 3) developing better ways to measure the state of good repair of the region’s transit system, and to model the impact on asset condition and system performance of alternative levels of reinvestment; 4) identifying ways of making RTCI data more useful to the transit operators for their own asset management programs; and 5) providing support for SFMTA’s capital inventory project, and integrating SFMTA’s data into the RTCI. The first four tasks will be completed under a firm fixed price contract; the fifth task will be conducted on a time and materials basis under task orders issued at MTC’s option. The detailed scope of work from the RFP is attached. The due dates for the deliverables spelled out in the scope may be revised when the final contract is negotiated. Phase 2 Consultant Selection Process A Request for Proposals (RFP) for Phase 2 was issued on January 13, 2010. Three proposals were received by the deadline of February 10. A selection panel consisting of staff from MTC

TFWG Item 7 and three regional transit operators evaluated the proposals based on the evaluation criteria spelled out in the RFP, including the firms’ experience with similar and related projects, the expertise of the individual staff assigned to the project, and the proposed approach to completing the project. Based on the results of the initial evaluation, the panel conducted interviews on March 11 with the two teams with the highest preliminary scores. The selection panel’s final recommendation will be presented to MTC’s Administration Committee on April 14. We expect to execute a contract later in the month. Project Work Schedule A project kickoff meeting with the RTCI Working Group and the consultants will be scheduled in May. Operator staff should expect to be contacted by consultant team members in May to initiate work on tasks that require up-front operator input, particularly tasks 1, 2 and 4. The tentative completion dates for each task are: Task 1 – September Task 2 – September Task 4 – October Task 3 – December Task 5 – TBD These dates may be revised when the final contract is negotiated. Work on updating the inventory will begin after Task 2 is complete, i.e., in the fourth quarter of 2010.

J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership TFWG\_Transit Finance WG\2010\10 Memos\04_April\07 RTCI.doc

APPENDIX A - SCOPE OF WORK REGIONAL TRANSIT CAPITAL INVENTORY PHASE 2 The goals of Phase 2 of the Regional Transit Capital Inventory (RTCI), and the services and recommendations to be provided by the Consultant include, but are not limited to, the following: •

Refine the asset inventory and cost data currently included in the RTCI for the San Francisco Bay Area region’s transit operators in order to make projections of the region’s transit capital replacement and rehabilitation needs more accurate and more comparable across transit operators;

•

Develop a process for efficiently updating the data in the RTCI on a recurring basis;

•

Develop improved measures of the State of Good Repair of the region’s transit capital assets, and improve the region’s ability to assess the impact of investments in transit capital replacement and rehabilitation on the State of Good Repair; and

•

Make the RTCI more accessible and useful to the region’s transit operators in their individual asset management programs.

MTC will provide an electronic copy of the current RTCI to the Consultant, and will provide electronic copies of a sample of the current RTCI data to potential proposers at the Proposer’s conference or upon request. In general, work performed using the RTCI data files will be conducted at the Consultant’s workplace, with copies of the data files provided by MTC. Task 1. Refinement of Current Inventory and Cost Data 1.1 Consultant will recommend revisions to the asset classification system currently used in the RTCI to make the data more accurate and comparable across operators, and, upon approval by MTC, will make such revisions to the asset classification system and associated asset data. 1.2 Consultant will recommend any revisions to the asset classification system currently used in the RTCI that are needed to ensure it is compatible with forthcoming National Transit Database capital asset reporting requirements, and, upon approval by MTC, will make the recommended revisions to the asset classification system and associated asset data in the RTCI. Consultant should give special consideration to compatibility with FTA’s Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM). 1.3 Consultant will make recommendations to refine the replacement and rehabilitation costs and lifecycles currently used in the RTCI in order to make capital need projections based on RTCI data more accurate and comparable across operators, and, upon approval by MTC, Consultant will implement the recommendations by revising cost and lifecycle values in the RTCI. Consultant will note where this information is consistent with costs and lifecycles used by or under consideration for use by FTA in TERM. 1.4 Consultant will use statistical analysis, review of Short-Range Transit Plans, or other methods proposed by Consultant to check current RTCI asset data quality to determine if the

type and quantity of assets reported for each operator listed in Table 2 are in line with industry norms, taking into account the size and modes of each operator. 1.5 Consultant will consider the results of task 1.4 and, in cooperation with the transit operators, will recommend revisions and corrections to the current RTCI data to make the data more complete, accurate and comparable across operators, and, upon approval by MTC, will make such revisions and corrections in the RTCI. 1.6 Consultant will review the RTCI asset and cost data for the region’s ferry operators to ensure their assets and capital needs are accurately represented in the RTCI, make recommendations regarding any needed revisions, and, upon approval by MTC, Consultant will implement the recommendations by revising ferry operator asset data in the RTCI. Consultant will be expected to perform on-site work with the ferry operators to complete this task. 1.7 Consultant will review the plans and any preliminary results for SFMTA’s capital inventory and condition assessment project, and make recommendations to MTC and SFMTA regarding the compatibility of SFMTA’s asset classification system and inventory data with the RTCI, and the most cost-effective means of integrating SFMTA capital inventory data into the RTCI. Consultant will be expected to perform on-site work with the SFMTA to complete this task. Deliverables:

1a Interim Task 1 & 2 Report with recommendations outlined under Section 1.1 through Section 1.5 is required by May 24, 2010. 1b Draft Final Task 1 & 2 Report which addresses any comments made by MTC staff or the RTCI Working Group on the Interim Task 1 & 2 Report, and that includes recommendations outlined under Section 1.6 and Section 1.7, is required by June 28, 2010. 1c Final Task 1 & 2 Report which addresses any comments made by MTC staff or the RTCI Working Group on the Draft Final Task 1 & 2 Report is required by August 31, 2010. 1d Completed revisions to the asset classification system, cost and lifecycle values, and/or asset data in the RTCI, as recommended in response to Section 1.1 through Section 1.7 within one month of approval of the recommendations by MTC.

Task 2. Process for Updating Regional Transit Capital Inventory 2.1 Consultant will make specific recommendations regarding the most cost-effective approach to periodically integrating new data into the RTCI, so that MTC and the transit operators can perform recurring updates with minimal time and effort, while maintaining or improving data quality. 2.2 Consultant will review the data sources and processes used by each of the transit operators listed in Tier 1 of Table 2 to provide asset data for the initial RTCI development, and recommend asset data sources and processes for each transit operator that will enable the 2

operators to update data in the RTCI with minimal time and effort, while maintaining or improving data quality. Consultant will incorporate the results of Phase 1 so as not to duplicate Phase 1 work in reviewing asset data sources. Consultant will be expected to perform on-site work with the transit operators listed in Tier 1 of Table 2 to complete this task. Deliverables:

2a Interim Task 1 & 2 Report with recommendations outlined under Section 2.1 is required by May 24, 2010. 2b Draft Final Task 1 & 2 Report which addresses any comments made by MTC staff or the RTCI Working Group on the Interim Task 1 & 2 Report, and that includes recommendations outlined under Section 2.2 is required by June 28, 2010. 2c Final Task 1 & 2 Report which addresses any comments made by MTC staff or the RTCI Working Group on the Draft Final Task 1 & 2 Report is required by August 31, 2010.

Task 3. Measures and Modeling of State of Good Repair For the purposes of this contract, MTC defines State of Good Repair as a condition in which all assets perform their assigned functions without limitation, throughout their useful life. 3.1 Consultant will recommend an approach or approaches to measuring or estimating the State of Good Repair (SGR) of the region’s transit capital assets so that SGR can be compared across operators and asset types in a cost-effective way, and SGR can be tracked and updated over the long term. Consultant’s recommendations are to be aligned with any information on potential standards or guidance on measuring or reporting SGR from the FTA. Consultant’s recommendations will include an assessment of the desirability and feasibility of adopting the measure of SGR proposed by FTA’s SGR Working Group. Other factors, such as the maintenance that has been performed on assets, should be considered in developing recommendations. 3.2 Consultant will recommend a cost-effective approach to estimating or modeling the cost of investments in transit capital replacement and rehabilitation that would be required to bring the region’s transit capital assets into SGR under the Consultant’s recommended measure of SGR. 3.3 Keeping in mind the information that has been collected for the RTCI including the results of Tasks 1 and 2, Consultant will recommend a cost-effective approach to developing a decision-support tool that models the impact of various transit capital investment levels on SGR, and on transit operating costs. The Consultant’s recommendations will include an assessment of whether TERM could be adapted for this purpose. MTC is generally not interested in research and development of a new system, but instead wants to build on existing available solutions. 3.4 Upon approval of the recommended measures of SGR by MTC, Consultant will develop an action plan that spells out the specific steps, including data collection and analysis, MTC and the region’s transit operators would need to take to implement the approach or approaches to 3

measuring or estimating the State of Good Repair (SGR) of the region’s transit capital assets recommended under Task 3.1, and the approach to estimating or modeling the cost of investments in transit capital replacement and rehabilitation that would be required to bring the region’s transit capital assets into SGR recommended under Task 3.2, in the most cost-effective way possible. If the recommended SGR measure requires asset condition assessments that are not currently available, Consultant will recommend the most cost-effective way to conduct such assessments for the region’s transit operators. Deliverables:

3a Interim Task 3 & 4 Report with recommendations outlined under Section 3.1 through 3.3 is required by July 26, 2010. 3b Draft Final Task 3 & 4 Report which addresses any comments made by MTC staff or the RTCI Working Group on the Interim Task 3 & 4 Report, and which includes the plan outlined under Section 3.4, is required by September 27, 2010. 3c Final Task 3 & 4 Report which addresses any comments made by MTC staff or the RTCI Working Group on the Draft Final Task 3 Report is required by December 6, 2010.

Task 4. Use of RTCI by Transit Operators for Asset Management 4.1 Consultant will make recommendations regarding how the RTCI be made more accessible and useful to transit operators in their individual asset management programs. 4.2 Consultant will make general recommendations regarding how each transit operator listed in Tier 1 of Table 2 can improve its use of capital asset data to manage rehabilitation and replacement work, to estimate costs for such projects, and to meet FTA and MTC reporting requirements. The Consultant’s recommendations will include an assessment of whether TERM could be adapted for these purposes. Consultant will be expected to perform on-site work with the transit operators listed in Tier 1 of Table 2 to complete this task. 4.3 Consultant will make any other recommendations regarding transit operators’ transit capital data and data management systems that are relevant to the RTCI project as identified by the Consultant. Deliverables:

4a Interim Task 3 & 4 Report with recommendations outlined under Section 4.1 is required by June 28, 2010. 4b Draft Final Task 3 & 4 Report which addresses any comments made by MTC staff or the RTCI Working Group on the Interim Task 3 & 4 Report and which includes recommendations outlined under Section 4.2 through 4.3 is required by August 31, 2010. 4c Final Task 3 & 4 Report which addresses any comments made by MTC staff or the RTCI Working Group on the Draft Final Task 3 & 4 Report is required by September 27, 2010.

4

Task 5. Additional Support for SFMTA Capital Inventory Project 5.1 Consultant will provide additional support for the SFMTA Capital Inventory Project as requested in Task Orders issued by MTC’s Project Manager, which potentially could include providing advice on or actual performance of tasks such as assigning SFMTA assets to the categories used in the RTCI, determining replacement and rehabilitation costs and lifecycles for SFMTA assets, and integrating SFMTA asset data into the RTCI. All work related to Task 5 will be assigned pursuant to signed task orders. The task orders resulting from this RFP will be compensated on a time and materials basis. A sample task order form is attached hereto as part of Appendix F, Task Order Process. Deliverables:

5a Task Order Progress Reports on any Task Orders are required biweekly after issuance of the Task Order until the Task Order is completed.

Table 1 summarizes the reports required by the Scope of Work. Table 1. Deliverables Summary Deliverable #/Report Tasks Covered

Due Date

1a & 2a Interim Task 1 & 2 Report

Section 1.1 through 1.5, and 2.1 May 24, 2010

1b & 2b Draft Final Task 1 & 2 Report

Section 1.6 and 1.7, and 2.2

3a & 4a Interim Task 3 & 4 Report

Section 3.1 through 3.3, and 4.1 July 26, 2010

1c & 2c Final Task 1 & 2 Report

Section 1.1 through 1.7, 2.1 and August 31, 2010 2.2

3b & 4b Draft Final Task 3 & 4 Report

Section 3.4, 4.2 and 4.3

3c & 4c Final Task 3 & 4 Report

Section 3.1 through 3.4, and 4.1 December 6, 2010 through 4.3

5a Task Order Progress Reports

Section 5.1

June 28, 2010

September 27, 2010

Biweekly after issuance of the Task Order until the Task Order is completed

Meeting Requirements Consultant will be expected to participate in the following meetings as part of completing the Scope of Work: One meeting with MTC staff and RTCI Working Group at the outset of the project to review the consultant’s approach to the project. One meeting with SFMTA and MTC staff to review recommendations regarding SFMTA’s capital inventory and condition assessment project. 5

One meeting with MTC and ferry operator staff to review recommendations regarding ferry operator asset data in the RTCI. One meeting with MTC staff and RTCI Working Group to review deliverables 1a and 2a Interim Task 1 & 2 Report. One meeting with MTC staff and RTCI Working Group to review deliverables 1b and 2b Draft Final Task 1 & 2 Report. One meeting with MTC staff and RTCI Working Group to review deliverables 3a and 4a Interim Task 3 & 4 Report. One meeting with MTC staff and RTCI Working Group to review deliverables 3b and 4b Draft Final Task 3 & 4 Report. Additional working meetings/sessions may be scheduled as needed, and Consultant will be expected to perform on-site work with the ferry operators and SFMTA as noted in the Scope of Work for Task 1. Bay Area Transit Operators In order to establish priorities for the development and implementation of the RTCI , MTC divided the Bay Area transit operators into two tiers as listed in Table 2.

6

Table 2. Bay Area Transit Operators Tier 1:

o Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) o San Joaquin Rail Commission (ACE) o San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) o Peninsula Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) o Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) o Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD) o Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) o San Francisco Municipal Railway (SFMTA) o Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) o San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) o Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta Transit) o Vallejo Transit (including Benicia Transit) o Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA), including AlamedaOakland and Vallejo Ferries o Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT)

Tier 2:

o Napa Valley Transit o Petaluma Transit o Santa Rosa City Bus o Sonoma County Transit o Union City Transit o Fairfield-Suisun Transit o Vacaville City Coach

7

TFWG Item 8

2011 TIP Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Attachment 1: Draft 2011 TIP Development Schedule Revised January 21, 2010 Monday, February 01, 2010 Friday, March 19, 2010 Wednesday, March 31, 2010 Wednesday, April 21, 2010 Wednesday, April 28, 2010 Wednesday, May 05, 2010 Friday, May 28, 2010 Friday, May 28, 2010 Friday, June 04, 2010 Thursday, June 17, 2010 Monday, June 21, 2010 Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Friday, July 09, 2010 Wednesday, July 14, 2010 Wednesday, July 14, 2010 Late July, 2010 Friday, August 06, 2010 Wednesday, September 08, 2010 Friday, September 10, 2010 Friday, September 17, 2010 Friday, October 01, 2010 Wednesday, October 06, 2010 Friday, October 08, 2010 Wednesday, October 13, 2010 Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Friday, October 29, 2010 Sunday, November 14, 2010 Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Call for new non-exempt projects not listed in the TIP that need to be included in the 2011 TIP Deadline for list of new non-exempt projects not in current TIP to be included in 2011 TIP Last day to submit new projects for current TIP for the last 2009 Formal TIP Amendment Review of New Non-Exempt 2009 TIP project list and conformity approach by AQCTF Start coding 2009 TIP projects into networks Final 2009 formal TIP Amendment released for public comment Last day to submit changes to current TIP for final 2009 TIP Administrative Action TIP Locked Down – No more changes to 2009 TIP – Start of 2011 TIP Development Start of review and update by project sponsors and CMAs Completion of project review by sponsors and CMAs Start of review of revised TIP listings by MTC Program Managers Completion of project listing review by MTC Program Managers Complete forecasting/regional emissions analysis Completion of project review by TIP Administrator PAC Meeting – authorize public hearing and release Draft 2009 TIP & AQ Conformity All elements for 2011 TIP to be completed in final draft form Review of Admin. Draft Conformity Analysis by AQCTF Begin of Public Review Period for 2011 TIP and Conformity Analysis Public Hearing on Draft TIP and AQ Conformity Analysis – Sep. PAC Meeting End of Public Review Period for Draft TIP and Conformity Analysis Review response to comments / Final AQ Conformity report by AQCTF Final Draft 2011 TIP & AQ Conformity complete / Response to comments available (Copy sent to Caltrans) Final Draft 2011 TIP posted on the website as well as the PAC Packet posting (no changes after that) Caltrans Begin Public Review and Comment on Draft FSTIP PAC review of Final 2011 TIP and Final Conformity analysis and referral to Commission Final 2011 TIP and Final Air Quality Conformity analysis approved by Commission Commission approved 2011 TIP submitted to Caltrans / AQ Conformity Analysis submitted to FHWA/FTA Final 2011 FSTIP and AQ Due to FHWA/FTA Final 2011 TIP approved by FHWA and FTA

Please note that the highlighted tasks are those requiring project sponsor action

TFWG Item 12

TO: Transit Finance Working Group

DATE: April 7, 2010

FR: Glen Tepke RE: California Air Resources Board Harbor Craft Regulation Background In the TFWG’s discussion of proposed amendments to the Transit Capital Priorities policy regarding funding for replacement of bus emission reduction devices that are required to meet the requirements of the California Air Resources Board’s Transit Fleet Rule, a question was raised about the impact of another CARB regulation, the Harbor Craft Rule, which regulates emissions from ferries and other vessels operated in harbors. To answer this question, MTC requested information from the region’s ferry operators regarding the impacts of the Harbor Craft Rule. Ferry Operator Survey Ferry operators complied with MTC staff requests to provide the following information: •

What capital investments are needed for ferry operators to comply with the Harbor Craft Rule?

•

What is the status of those projects – planned, underway or complete?

•

How are the projects being funded? If not fully funded what is the shortfall?

Ferry Operator Responses MTC staff received the following responses from ferry operators regarding the requested information: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District operates 7 vessels, 2 of which have a total $6.2M unfunded engine replacements costs. One vessel will need an engine replacement in November 2011 at the cost of $3M and another vessel will need engine and generator replacements in November

Operato GGBHT AOFS Vallej Total

Engine Repower/ $6.2M $0.35M $9M $15.55

TFWG Item 12 2012 at a cost of $3.2M. The City of Alameda and WETA operate 4 vessels, one of which will be retired in 2015. Another vessel had its engine replaced in 2008 and its generator replaced in 2009 and is therefore compliant with CARB. The third vessel will have its engine and generator replaced in June 2010 with previously secured funding and the fourth vessel is set for engine replacement in 2018 at an estimated cost of $350,000. Currently no grant funding has been identified for the fourth vessel. The City of Vallejo operates 4 vessels. The City will seek a waiver for one vessel’s generator set replacement given the proximity to the vessel’s retirement date. If CARB does not grant the waiver, the generator sets will cost $50,000 to replace and currently no grant funds have been identified. Two other vessels have a generator and engine replacement cost of $6.9M. Pending other grants, the City will use FTA 5309 FG funds programmed in FY10. The last vessel has an estimated repower cost of $9M with no grant funding currently identified. The City plans to seek Carl Moyer grant funds and other Federal, State, or Regional grants to fund the project. Recommendations Given the shortfall in anticipated FY10 TCP apportionments, MTC staff does not recommend programming any additional FY10 funds for CARB Harbor Craft regulation compliance at this time. Staff recommends that this issue be revisited in the FY11 POP amendment, with priority for required repower projects if sufficient FY11 TCP funds are available.

J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership TFWG\_Transit Finance WG\2010\10 Memos\04_April\12_CARB Harbor Craft Regulation.doc

2

TFWG Item 13

TO:

Transit Finance Working Group

FR:

Amy Burch

RE:

Prop 1B Update: Transit (PTMISEA) and Transit Security (CTSGP)

DATE: April 7, 2010

Summary This memo provides an update on funding and upcoming deadlines for the Proposition 1B Transit (PTMISEA) and Transit Security (CTSGP) programs. Key Deadlines for PTMISEA and CTSGP • Due to Caltrans by May 1: PTMISEA Cycle 2 FY 2009-10 Allocation Requests. Operators submit their revenue-only requests directly to Caltrans. • Due to OHS by May 24: CTSGP FY 2009-10 Financial Workbooks. Operators submit directly to OHS at [email protected]. PTMISEA – Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) Process Letters of No Prejudice (LONP) may be requested in order to spend future years’ funds on approved projects and then be reimbursed when bond funds become available (see Attachment 1, Appendix B). An LONP is useful for ongoing projects that span many years of PTMISEA funding. A project sponsor does not need an LONP to expend current year funds before an allocation request is approved, provided eligible costs are incurred after the current fiscal year’s Budget Act. For example, for FY 2009-10 the Budget Act passed on July 28, 2009 and costs incurred after that date are eligible for reimbursement (see page 7 of Attachment 1). PTMISEA – FY 09-10 Cycle Two Requests MTC staff will take the population-based program for cycle two FY 2009-10 PTMISEA requests to the April Commission meeting; and we will submit them to Caltrans by the May 1st deadline. Operators submit revenue-only requests directly to Caltrans. Please cc Amy Burch [email protected] and Kenneth Folan [email protected] on submittals to Caltrans. Attachment 2 lists the funds available to program for FY 2009-10. PTMISEA – Remaining Balances from FY 07-08 and 08-09 On February 18th, MTC staff forwarded requests totaling nearly $2.5 million for the populationbased remaining balances from FY 07-08 and 08-09 to Caltrans for review (see Attachment 3). Caltrans plans to send out award letters by mid-April, after which the SCO could issue funds by early June.

TFWG Item 13 Draft Schedule for PTMISEA in FY 2009-10* First Cycle Allocation requests due to Caltrans March 1, 2010 Caltrans releases adopted list to SCO April 2010 SCO allocates funds for first cycle** June 2010 Second Cycle Population-based requests due to MTC (Excel) March 12, 2010 Population-based requests due to MTC (Hard Copy) March 22, 2010 MTC Commission adopts program, MTC staff forwards April 28, 2010 resolution to Caltrans Allocation requests due to Caltrans May 1, 2010 Caltrans releases adopted list to SCO June 2010 SCO allocates funds for second cycle** July 2010 *Schedule subject to change based on direction from Caltrans. **Dependent on bond sales. CTSGP – Payment Status for FY 08-09 Projects OHS released a draft list of FY 08-09 CTSGP projects and their payment status (Attachment 4). Bay Area operators stand to receive FY 08-09 funds totaling approximately $6.3 million from the November 2009 bond sale, and another $14.9 million after a future bond sale. Agencies may receive award letters for projects approved for payment from the November bond sale within the next two weeks. Draft Schedule for CTSGP in FY 2009-10* Investment Justifications due to OHS OHS selects projects Financial Management Forms Workbook due to OHS FY 2009-10 Grantee Performance Period ends *Schedule subject to change based on direction from OHS.

March 8, 2010 March 22, 2010 May 24, 2010 March 31, 2013

PTMISEA and CTSGP Contact Information • PTMISEA – Glenn Bailey 916.657.4059 [email protected] • CTSGP – Jason Peery 916.324.5947 [email protected] • PTMISEA – website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Proposition-1B.html • CTSGP – website: http://www.homeland.ca.gov/transitsystemsafety.html Feel free to contact me at 510.817.5735 and [email protected] or Kenneth Folan at 510.817.5804 and [email protected] with questions regarding the Prop 1B Transit and Transit Security Programs. Attachments 1. PTMISEA Guidelines 2. PTMISEA Funding Summary – Population and Revenue 3. PTMISEA Remaining Balances Requests – FY 07-08 and 08-09 4. CTSGP FY 08-09 Payment Status J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership TFWG\_Transit Finance WG\2010\10 Memos\04_April\13_0_Prop 1B Update.doc

January 2010 California Department of Transportation

Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) Guidelines The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, Government Code, Chapter 12.49, Section 8879.20, approved as Proposition 1B on the November 7, 2006 ballot, includes $4 billion for the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA). The amount of $3.6 billion is for sponsors of public transportation projects to protect the environment and public health, conserve energy, reduce congestion, and increase mobility and access. Each year funds are appropriated to the State Controller’s Office for allocation to eligible agencies. In fiscal year (FY) 2007-08, Senate Bill (SB) 88 named the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as the administering agency, and $600 million was appropriated in the Budget Act of 2007. Assembly Bill (AB) 268 extended the procedures in SB 88 for one year, and $350 million was appropriated in the Budget Act of 2008. The 2009-10 Budget Act appropriated $350 million for PTMISEA. Starting in FY 2009-10, per AB 1072 (Eng) [Chapter 271], Statutes of 2009, which was signed into law on October 11, 2009, the State Controller’s Office will compute each sponsor’s share of the remaining $2.65 billion of bond funds ($3.6 billion minus $600 million for FY 2007-08 and $350 million for FY 2008-09). The State Controller’s Office sent letters of notification to the sponsors or sponsor agencies eligible to receive PTMISEA funds listing each sponsor’s share of funds for the life of the bond and its share of the FY 2009-10 appropriations. AB 1072 also specifies or identifies the process for PTMISEA fund distribution for FY 2009-10 and subsequent fiscal years. Note: California bonds have not been sold regularly. Approved projects do not receive bond fund allocations until bonds are sold or capacity is created in the Pooled Money Investment Account. 1. Purpose Caltrans develops guidelines for: a. Program Expenditure Plan. b. Defining the useful life of a project, an essential part of the project allocation request. c. Project delivery milestones (start and completion dates for environmental clearance, design, right-of-way, construction, vehicle/equipment procurement, and project closeout). d. Total Project Cost and Funding Plan.

January 2010 e. Reporting. (i.e. Semiannual, Final Report, and Expanded Transportation Development Act (TDA) audit etc.) f. Audit of project expenditures and outcomes. These guidelines help project sponsors and Caltrans verify that projects meet the criteria in the Bond Act and statutes. Caltrans may revise these guidelines for future fiscal years. 2. Project Sponsors “Project sponsor” means: a. A transit operator, including a rail transit, commuter rail, bus, or waterborne transit operator eligible for an allocation of funds under State Transit Assistance per Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 99314; or b. A local agency, including a transportation planning agency, county transportation commission, or the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, eligible for an allocation of funds under the State Transit Assistance per PUC, Section 99313. “Recipient/Lead Agency” means: The project sponsor that is responsible when multiple project sponsors contribute their PTMISEA funds to a joint project. The Recipient/Lead Agency receives funds from the State Controller’s Office and is accountable for reporting and the annual audit. 3. Allocation The State Controller’s Office lists eligible sponsors and the amount of funds each is to receive, per PUC Sections 99313 and 99314. The State Controller’s Office notifies project sponsors of their eligibility and funding level via an annual letter. The amount depends on the annual appropriation. FY 2007-08 PTMISEA Allocation FY 2007-08 funds are available for allocation until June 30, 2010 (no later than the second cycle of FY 2009-10) and for encumbrance and liquidation until June 30, 2013, per the Budget Act of 2007. FY 2008-09 PTMISEA Allocation FY 2008-09 funds are available for allocation until June 30, 2010 (no later than the second cycle of FY 2009-10) and for encumbrance and liquidation until June 30, 2014, per the Budget Act of 2008. The recent delay of bond sales has impacted the availability of PTMISEA funding for Cycle 2 of FY 2008-09. The Legislature may consider extending the liquidation date of the remaining balances for both FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09.

2

January 2010

4. Process Changes Due to AB 1072 Effective with FY 2009-10, AB 1072 makes the following changes: ¾ The State Controller’s Office notified project sponsors of their share of remaining funds. ¾ Before seeking a disbursement of funds in FY 2009-10, project sponsors must submit a PTMISEA Program Expenditure Plan listing all projects they intend to fund with their share of PTMISEA funds for the life of the bond, including the amount requested for each project and the year in which the funds will be used. ¾ Caltrans will summarize all PTMISEA Program Expenditure Plans for the life of the bond and submit the summary to the Department of Finance, which determines annual appropriations. ¾ Project sponsors may choose not to submit a project in a particular fiscal year, but to accumulate those funds for use in a later year, if this choice is clearly stated in the PTMISEA Program Expenditure Plan. ¾ If one project sponsor is not using its allocation in a fiscal year, it may lend that allocated amount to another project sponsor for an eligible project, for maximum fund use each fiscal year. In addition to ensuring that all appropriated and allocated funds are maximized, this process also allows other project sponsors to complete its projects on schedule. 5. Eligible Projects Eligible projects are transit capital projects (including a minimum operable segment of a project) for: ¾ Rehabilitation, safety, or modernization: includes purchase of equipment (such as bus engines, computer systems, and signage) for rehabilitation, operation, modernization, or safety. ¾ Capital service enhancement or expansion, such as modernization of bus shelters, transit centers, and operation and maintenance facilities, for design and/or construction phases. ¾ New capital projects. New construction, expansion, or modernization of buildings, bus shelters, transit centers, and operation and maintenance facilities, for design, right-of -way, or construction phases. ¾ Bus rapid transit improvements. Construction or expansion of BRT lanes or equipment.

3

January 2010 ¾ Rolling stock, to purchase, replace or rehabilitate transit vehicles, such as buses, vans, paratransit vehicles, and rail transit vehicles. ¾ Note: A project’s environmental phase is not eligible for PTMISEA funding. Useful Life To be eligible, projects must have a useful life not less than that required for capital assets under the General Obligation Bond Law, Government Code Section 16727(a). Short-Range Transit Plan Projects must be consistent with the project sponsor’s most recent short-range transit plan or publicly-adopted plan (including a transportation improvement program) that programs funds for transit capital improvements. A certified board endorsement also meets this requirement. Project Full Funding Plan The project sponsor must provide a project full funding plan that shows funds to be available to complete the project or a minimum operable segment. Funding for a minimum operable segment will only be approved if the benefits of the segment are sufficient to meet the objectives of the PTMISEA. The executive authority of a project sponsor must sign the statement on the funding plan cover sheet to assume liability for all fiscal responsibilities. 6. Authorized Agent Form The executive authority of a project sponsor must submit to Caltrans a signed, dated Authorized Agent form, naming the agent with the authority to act for the project sponsor to submit the PTMISEA Program Expenditure Plan, Allocation Requests, and reporting documents. The form is valid for one fiscal year. If there is a change in the authorized agent within a fiscal year, the project sponsor must submit a new form. This form is required even when the authorized agent is the executive authority himself. 7.

PTMISEA Program Expenditure Plan (for requesting funds in FY 2009-10 or later) Before seeking a disbursement of funds in FY 2009-10 or later, sponsors or sponsor agencies must submit to Caltrans a PTMISEA Program Expenditure Plan. The plan should contain a list of all projects the project sponsor intends to fund with its share of PTMISEA for the life of the bond, including the amount for each project and the year in which the funds will be used. The initial plan is due to Caltrans by February 1, 2010. Amendments will be accepted annually by June 30 of each year. See PTMISEA Program Expenditure Plan Template (Appendix A) 4

January 2010

8. PTMISEA Allocation Request and Project Description (to be completed for requests for bond funds or requests to reassign existing bond funds to a new project) The project sponsor or “recipient/lead agency” must sign the Allocation Request. A project sponsor becomes a “recipient/lead agency” when more than one project sponsor is contributing to a project. The contributing project sponsors must also sign the Allocation Request showing the amounts to be contributed and whether the funds are provided in accordance with SB 1781, Statutes of 2008, or else provide a signed letter with this information. If there are multiple contributing project sponsors, each must submit a signed letter with the required information. If funds are being reassigned to a new or different project, an authorized signing authority must sign the new project request. Project sponsors must submit to Caltrans a description of the proposed transit capital project or projects it intends to fund with its PTMISEA allocation. The “project lead” is the project sponsor or recipient/lead agency. The project lead must complete Table 1 of the Allocation Request. The contributing project sponsors must complete Table 2 of the Allocation Request. The PTMISEA Allocation Request is to be submitted in Microsoft Excel. The PTMISEA Allocation Request is the basis for the Department of Transportation’s verification that the project is consistent with PTMISEA requirements, which includes: a. A detailed description of the project, including its benefit. b. The project’s useful life. c. The schedule for project completion. Allocations will only be made to projects scheduled to start within six months of funds receipt. d. The total cost of the project, including the identification of all funding sources necessary to complete the project.

9. Allocation Request Submittal The signed original Allocation Request (including relevant sections of the publicly-adopted plan) and letter of verification from the regional entity must be mailed to: Michael Lange, PTMISEA Program Manager California Department of Transportation Division of Mass Transportation, MS #39 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 A scan of the Allocation Request may be e-mailed, but a signed original must follow by mail.

5

January 2010

10.

Project Review, Approval and Adoption Caltrans reviews Allocation Requests and approves only those projects that meet the requirements of PTMISEA. A minimal operable segment will not be approved unless it meets the objectives of the PTMISEA. Project sponsors must have the financial means to maintain and operate project services and the ability to accept their legal liabilities and fulfill financial obligations for the project’s useful life. Project sponsors must follow the California Air Resources Board’s regulations on transit equipment and emissions. Upon approval, Caltrans adopts a list of eligible projects and allocations by project sponsor to start within six-months of allocation, and submits that list to the State Controller’s Office. Caltrans will send written notification to project sponsors, along with an accounting of the PTMISEA share remaining for future projects. Note: For FY 2008-09 and previous years, Allocation Requests may be submitted for up to the amount appropriated for that year. For FY 2009-10 and later years, Allocation Requests consistent with the Project Sponsor’s Program Expenditure Plan will be accepted.

11.

Biannual Project Lists Caltrans submits to the State Controller’s Office a list of approved PTMISEA projects twice a year.

12.

Allocations from PTMISEA After receiving Caltrans’ adopted PTMISEA list, the State Controller’s Office will issue warrants to project sponsors, up to the level of funding each is eligible to receive. Funds are allocated based on project readiness as shown in the submitted project schedule. To receive funds by electronic funds transfer, the project sponsor can complete the form at http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/state/forms/fam34.pdf and send it to the State Controller’s Office. If the project sponsor does not request electronic fund transfer, the State Controller’s Office automatically mails the warrant to the project sponsor’s physical address. Upon receipt, the project sponsor must deposit its PTMISEA funds into a bank account holding only PTMISEA funds, for transparency of fund receipt, and to simplify tracking of PTMISEA interest earned. This will facilitate the required annual TDA audit.

13.

Eligible Bond Expenditures/Fiscal Year Budget Acts Eligible expenditures include costs directly related to construction or acquisition (design, right-of-way, construction, vehicle or equipment procurement, and project closeout).

6

January 2010 Project costs incurred before passage of the following fiscal fear Budget Acts are not eligible for PTMISEA funds: FY 2007-08: August 24, 2007 FY 2008-09: September 23, 2008 FY 2009-10: July 28, 2009 14.

Interest Earned Interest on PTMISEA funds must be used in the same manner as the principal. Interest earned must only be used for approved PTMISEA projects, in the following ways: ¾ If project costs exceed the amount on the approved Allocation Request, any interest earned may be applied to the project, if a project sponsor first submits a Corrective Action Plan (available on the Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation website, or from Caltrans PTMISEA staff) and Caltrans approves that Corrective Action Plan before any interest earned is applied to the project. ¾ Interest remaining after project closeout must be applied to another approved PTMISEA project.

15. Reassigned Funds Project sponsors may find that they have surplus funds at the completion of an approved PTMISEA project, or they may determine that the funded PTMISEA project is no longer the highest priority for fund use. These funds may be reassigned to another project if: ¾ The project sponsor submits a Corrective Action Plan for the project that supplied the surplus funds, indicating the original estimate and the final expenditure, the surplus funds, and the project that will receive the reassigned funds. ¾ The project sponsor submits a Project Description and Allocation Request for the new project. ¾ The new project will expend the funds within the time limits of the applicable Budget Act. ¾ The new Allocation Request has all the authorized signatures as the original project, so that all contributing project sponsors are aware of the new use of their contributed funds. The project sponsor may not expend the surplus funds on another project before receiving an authorizing letter from Caltrans.

7

January 2010 16.

Changes to Scope of Work, Budget, or Schedule To change an Allocation Request, including any changes to the originally approved scope of work or schedule, the project sponsor must first obtain approval from Caltrans. If a project sponsor expects a project to exceed its approved budget, the project sponsor must provide a Corrective Action Plan to Caltrans to show how the project sponsor will address the cost increase by: ¾ Contacting Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation’s PTMISEA office to request a Corrective Action Plan form. ¾ Completing and returning the Corrective Action Plan. The project sponsor may either reduce the scope of the project or identify an additional funding source. Unallocated FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 PTMISEA funds may be used as additional funding. The amended PTMISEA Project Completion Date must fall within the original Budget Act time limits.

17.

Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) (for a project ready to proceed before allocation) Project Sponsors may apply to Caltrans for a letter of no prejudice for one or more projects or project components that are already approved for funding. See PTMISEA Bond Funds LONP Guidelines (Appendix B)

18.

Lending Funds to Other Project Sponsors A project sponsor may, in a particular fiscal year, loan its allocation to another project sponsor with an identified eligible project in order to ensure that all allocations in that fiscal year are put to use.

19.

Project Accountability and Semi-Annual Reporting Each project must meet the front-end, in-progress, and follow-up accountability requirements of Governor’s Executive Order S-02-07, at: http://www.bondaccountability.ca.gov/Executive_Order/ Caltrans will submit to the Department of Finance, the State Controller’s Office, and the State Treasurer’s Office a summary of project information from Allocation Requests and the adopted list of projects. This report will fulfill Executive Order S-02-07’s front-end reporting requirement for project sponsors.

8

January 2010

Government Code Section 8879.50(f)(1) requires project sponsors to report semiannually to Caltrans on activities and progress on the project to ensure the activities funded from bond proceeds are timely, within approved scope and cost, and achieving intended purposes. Project sponsors must also notify Caltrans when allocated funds have been encumbered. These semiannual reports to Caltrans fulfill Executive Order S-02-07’s in-progress reporting requirements. A list of agencies that do not comply with semiannual project status reporting requirements will be posted on the Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation’s website 30 days after the missed report’s due date. Information in the semiannual reports will be available online, accessible through the Governor’s Bond Accountability website: http://www.bondaccountability.dot.ca.gov/bondacc/MainMenuAction.do?>&page=modern ization Each project listed on the site will be updated by Caltrans with information reported by project sponsors in semiannual reports and Corrective Action Plans. Reports are due 45 days after the end of the fiscal year (June 30) and 45 days after the end of calendar year (December 31). Due dates for semi-annual reports: Report due:

Data effective as of:

February 15, 2010 August 15, 2010 February 15, 2011 August 15, 2011 February 15, 2012 August 15, 2012 February 15, 2013 August 15, 2013 February 15, 2014 August 15, 2014 Report due:

December 31, 2009 June 30, 2010 December 31, 2010 June 30, 2011 December 31, 2011 June 30, 2012 December 31, 2012 June 30, 2013 December 31, 2013 June 30, 2014 Data effective as of:

February 15, 2015 August 15, 2015 February 15, 2016 August 15, 2016 February 15, 2017 August 15, 2017 February 15, 2018 August 15, 2018 February 15, 2019

December 31, 2014 June 30, 2015 December 31, 2015 June 30, 2016 December 31, 2016 June 30, 2017 December 31, 2017 June 30, 2018 December 31, 2018

9

January 2010 August 15, 2019 20.

June 30, 2019

Final Report ¾ Notice of Completion: When a project is complete, the project sponsor must notify Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation, by e-mail or letter. ¾ Final Project Report: Six months after project completion, the project sponsor must submit a Final Project Report to Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation, comparing actual project performance to projected performance. This form is at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Proposition-1B.html ¾ Additional Outcome Report: The project sponsor must submit this form 12 months after completion of a project to report long-term benefits of the project. ¾ Verification of project completion as scoped: The project sponsor must provide evidence of project completion, such as a photo of the completed project.

21.

Project Audit (Transportation Development Act) Annual audit of public transportation operators required under the Transportation Development Act (TDA), per PUC 99245, must include verification of receipt and appropriate expenditure of bond funds. Project sponsors receiving PTMISEA funds in a fiscal year for which a TDA audit is conducted must submit a copy of the audit to Caltrans by six months after the close of the fiscal year (by December 31). Caltrans will make the audits available to the Legislature and the State Controller’s Office, as necessary, to comply with Executive Order S-02-07’s follow-up reporting requirement. Project sponsors may request for a 90-day extension from the December 31 deadline to March 31. They must notify Caltrans in writing via e-mail or a formal letter. Project sponsors that fail to submit their expanded TDA audit, documenting PTMISEA funding, put future funding at risk.

22.

California Transportation Commission’s Annual Report Caltrans will provide project information to the California Transportation Commission to include in its annual report to the Legislature. The report will include a summary of PTMISEA projects, with description and location, amount of funds allocated to each project, progress made to date, and public benefits achieved, noting projects that have been audited.

10

January 2010 23.

Timeline for FY 2009-10 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

State Controller’s Office calculates allocation distribution Revised guidelines distribution Project sponsors submit spending plan for life of bond Project sponsors submit Cycle 1 requests to Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation Cycle 1 list of eligible projects submitted to Caltrans Budgets/ Dept. of Finance/State Treasurer’s Office for approval Authorizing letters from Caltrans Director sent to Cycle 1 project sponsors Caltrans sends adopted Cycle 1 list to the State Controller’s Office Project sponsors submit Cycle 2 requests to Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation Cycle 2 list of eligible projects submitted to Caltrans Budgets/ Dept. of Finance/State Treasurer’s Office for approval Authorizing letters from Caltrans Director sent to Cycle 2 project sponsors Caltrans sends adopted Cycle 2 list to the State Controller’s Office

October 2009 December 2009 February 1, 2010 March 1, 2010 March 2010 April 2010 April 1, 2010 May 1, 2010 June 2010 June 2010 June 2010

These dates may be revised based on when Bond sales occur and funding is available. 24. Additional Information Website for additional information about Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation, PTMISEA Branch: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Proposition-1B.html

11

Lifeline

112,000,000

30,688,000 14,000,000 3,024,000 1,904,000 16,912,000 7,952,000 24,304,000 6,160,000 7,056,000

Estimated Prop 1B Total

1,734,416 791,248 170,910 107,610 955,828 449,429 1,373,607 348,149 398,789 12,278,000 18,607,987

FY 2007-08 Appropriated

12,278,000 17,376,588

5,098,588

Actual Allocations (Paid)

FY 2007-08

1,231,399

212,018 45,796 28,834 256,123 120,426 368,063 93,288 106,857

CARRYOVER Unallocated FY 2007-08

A

0 1,804,823 389,842 245,456 2,180,226 1,025,140 3,133,173 794,122 909,631 10,482,412

FY 2008-09 Appropriated

B

11,713,817

5,447,277

587,410 967,488

1,716,841 435,638 274,290 1,365,610 100,000

Actual Allocations (Paid)

Available Lifeline: FY 2007-08 Carryover FY 2008-09 Appropriation (Adjusted for redistribution)

2,016,841 435,638 274,290 2,436,349 1,145,566 3,501,236 887,410 1,016,488

D

C=A+B

FY 2008-09

33,726,977

33,726,977

9,726,977

24,000,000

0

18,999,373

3,999,373

15,000,000

18,999,373

3,999,373

15,000,000

2,407,179

1,336,440

1,070,739

19,083,710

10,528,943

2,884,930 1,316,118 284,281 178,992 1,589,870 747,555 2,284,781 579,092 663,323

FY 2009-10 Appropriated

16,676,536

12,936,117

2,884,930 1,316,118 284,281 178,992 2,660,609 893,121 3,475,650 579,092 663,323

5,682,360 6,449,431 6,555,668 3,654,151 2,583,887

Solano (includes Vallejo)

Sonoma

CCCTA

ECCTA

LAVTA

347,000,000

32,000,000 57,651,532

5,316,568

158,878 150,701

429,294

607,111

1,089,177

1,071,526

944,083

300,170

565,629

56,420,133

5,316,568

158,878 150,701

429,294

607,111

1,089,177

1,071,526

944,082

300,170

565,629

1,231,399

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

32,476,760

2,994,975

89,500 84,894

241,834

342,003

613,564

603,621

531,829

169,094

318,635

J:\PROJECT\Funding\Infastructure Bond\I-Bond\Transit\MTC Regional Transit Proposal - $347M\FY 2009-10\[PTMISEA Project List_3_29_2010.xls]POP

FY 2007-08 CARRYOVER Funds are available for allocation until June 30, 2010, and available for encumbrance and liquidation until June 30, 2013. FY 2008-09 funds are available for allocation until June 30, 2010, and available for encumbrance and liquidation until June 30, 2014.

Population-based Total

Subtotal - Small Operators/North Counties

956,272 907,058

1,806,699

Union City WestCat

3,404,473

Napa

Small Operators/North Counties

Marin

26,118,776

1,672,126

89,500 84,894

241,834

342,003

613,564

131,237

169,094

7,589,393

1,322,848

-

-

-

-

472,384

531,829

-

318,635

32,620,922

3,008,269

89,898 85,271

242,907

343,521

616,288

606,301

534,190

169,845

320,049

32,620,922

3,008,269

89,898 85,271

242,907

343,521

616,288

606,301

534,190

169,845

320,049

25,374,893

2,115,887

89,898 85,271

242,907

616,288

591,629

169,845

320,049

16,676,536

8,338,268

8,338,268

6,582,470

579,092 663,323

2,884,930 1,316,118 284,281 178,992 675,734

7,246,029

892,383

343,521

14,672

534,190

-

6,353,646

1,984,875 893,121 3,475,650

FY 2009-10 Total FY 2009-10 Cycle 1 Available - Including Requests - Pending Adjustment for Caltrans Approval FY 2009-10 Available Urban Core Payback and Future Bond for Programming in to Lifeline Sale Cycle 2

FY 2009-10

*To meet timely use of funds requirements, MTC advanced $2.4 million to the Urban Core from the Lifeline category. This advance has been credited to the FY 2009-10 Lifeline funding available: San Francisco $1,070,739; San Mateo $145,566; Santa Clara $1,190,869.

203,000,000

17,000,000 17,000,000

BART to Warm Springs East Contra Costa BART Extension

Subtotal - Urban Core

45,000,000

Santa Clara VTA Line 522/523 BRT

24,000,000 100,000,000

Urban Core Transit Improvements

San Francisco Muni Central Subway

BART Seismic

3,859,367

900,000 2,310,367 300,000 49,000

300,000

Pending Payment or Future Cycle

FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09

DRAFT - POPULATION-BASED PROPOSITION 1B - PTMISEA

*In FY 2008-09, MTC approved San Francisco Lifeline projects totaling $2,436,344. However, Caltrans only approved $212,000 for project work scheduled for completion within 6 months. SF project sponsors need to reapply to Caltrans when contract award is within 6 months of funding cycle. **MTC Regional Projects funded with 1B to free up STA funds for Lifeline.

Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco* San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma MTC - Regional Projects** Subtotal - Lifeline Program

Investment Category

Updated: March 24, 2010

Attachment 2 Page 1 of 2

1,099,151 1,392,500 411,210 5,933,235 143,993,645 2,371,371 2,484,810 294,177,728 94,030,133 235,238,734 309,462,843 638,731,711 932,909,439

Santa Rosa Sonoma County Transit Union City Vallejo VTA VTA - for ACE WestCAT SUBTOTAL

AC Transit BART SFMTA SUBTOTAL Revenue-based Total

15,668,020 39,197,278 51,565,067 106,430,365 155,448,509

183,149 232,029 68,519 988,641 23,993,323 395,136 414,038 49,018,144

283,155 21,583 6,849,847 852,676 6,922 345,981 120,749 5,852,482 1,869 267,621 71,497 8,068,927

FY 2007-08 Appropriated

15,668,020 39,197,278 50,365,000 105,230,298 138,989,078

414,038 33,758,780

183,149 232,029 68,519 988,641 9,251,713

267,621 71,497 8,068,927

5,852,482

283,155 21,583 6,849,847 852,676 6,922 345,981

Actual Allocations (Paid)

8,826,245 22,080,949 29,048,079 59,955,273 87,568,598

103,173 130,708 38,599 556,930 13,516,126 222,592 233,239 27,613,325

159,509 12,158 3,858,715 480,337 3,900 194,901 68,021 3,296,871 1,053 150,759 40,276 4,545,458

FY 2008-09 Appropriated

8,826,245 22,080,949 16,700,000 47,607,194 54,340,133

233,239 6,732,939

103,173 130,708 38,599 556,930

150,759 40,276 2,568,430

480,337 3,900 194,901 68,021 2,163,666

Actual Allocations (Paid)

FY 2008-09

0 0 13,548,146 13,548,146 49,687,896

0 0 0 0 28,257,736 617,728 0 36,139,750

159,509 12,158 3,858,715 0 0 0 120,749 1,133,205 2,922 0 0 1,977,028

Pending Payment or Future Cycle

J:\PROJECT\Funding\Infastructure Bond\I-Bond\Transit\MTC Regional Transit Proposal - $347M\FY 2009-10\[PTMISEA Project List_3_29_2010.xls]POP

8,865,424 22,178,966 29,177,022 60,221,412 87,957,311

103,631 131,289 38,770 559,402 13,576,124 223,580 234,275 27,735,899

160,217 12,212 3,875,844 482,469 3,917 195,766 68,323 3,311,505 1,057 151,428 40,455 4,565,635

FY 2009-10 Appropriated

FY 2007-08 CARRYOVER Funds are available for allocation until June 30, 2010, and available for encumbrance and liquidation until June 30, 2013. FY 2008-09 Funds are available for allocation until June 30, 2010, and available for encumbrance and liquidation until June 30, 2014.

1,699,328 129,528 41,108,705 5,117,254 41,542 2,076,372 724,664 35,123,114 11,217 1,606,102 429,082 48,424,898

Estimated Prop 1B Total

FY 2007-08

FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09

DRAFT - REVENUE-BASED PROPOSITION 1B - PTMISEA

Alameda CMA - for ACE Benicia Caltrain CCCTA Dixon ECCTA Fairfield* GGBHTD Healdsburg LAVTA NCPTA SamTrans

Agency

Updated: March 24, 2010

8,865,424 20,000,000 27,131,732 55,997,156 59,882,346

103,631 131,289 38,770 0 0 0 234,275 3,885,190

0 0 0 482,469 0 0 0 2,702,873 0 151,428 40,455 0

0 2,178,966 2,045,290 4,224,256 28,074,965

0 0 0 559,402 13,576,124 223,580 0 23,850,709

160,217 12,212 3,875,844 0 3,917 195,766 68,323 608,632 1,057 0 0 4,565,635

FY 2009-10 Requests FY 2009-10 Pending Caltrans Available for Approval and Programming in Future Bond Sale Cycle 2

FY 2009-10

Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2

PTMISEA Bay Area Requests for Remaining Population-based Balances from FY 07-08 and 08-09

Project Sponsor/ Recipient Agency

Attachment 3

Amount Requested Populationbased funds

Project Name

Central Contra Costa Transit 1 Authority

Replacement Vehicles

$

32,885

2 City of Fairfield

Bus Stop Improvements

$

98,654

City of Healdsburg/Healdsburg 3 Transit

Replacement Bus Purchase

$

63,767

4 City of Santa Rosa

Three Vehicle Project (Petaluma)

$

107,690

5 City of Vallejo

One Hybrid Bus Purchase (Replace 20 Buses Project)

$

174,891

Eastern Contra Costa Transit 6 Autority

Bus Shelters and Amenities for Communities of Concern

$

65,770

Golden Gate Bridge Highway & 7 Transit District

Ferry Terminal Public Restroom Facilities Rehabilitation

$

104,783

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid 8 Transit District

BART Warm Springs Extension Alameda County

$

439,484

San Francisco Municipal 9 Transportation Agency

Central Subway light rail line in San Francisco

$

352,111

10 San Mateo County Transit District

Route 17 Bus Procurement

$

295,963

Santa Clara Valley Transportation 11 Authority

Hybrid Bus Replacements

$

759,760

Total $

2,495,757

J:\PROJECT\Funding\Infastructure Bond\I-Bond\Transit\MTC Regional Transit Proposal - $347M\FY 200910\Funding Priority\PTMISEA Pending List_revised_2.16.2010.xls

Attachment 4

DRAFT Prop 1B CTSGP - Payment Status of Bay Area FY 08-09 Projects

Project Sponsor Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority County of Sonoma Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

FY 2008-09 CTSGP Approved for Payment from November 2009 Bond Sale $ 802,488 $ 589,415 $ 942,187 $ 562,994 $ 982,282 $ 213,070 $ 31,815 $ 751,612 $ 1,396,776 Total $

Project Sponsor Central Contra Costa Transit Authority Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority City of Fairfield Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board San Mateo County Transit District San Mateo County Transit District City of Vallejo Western Contra Costa Transit Authority San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

6,272,639

FY 2008-09 CTSGP Approved for Payment from Future Bond Sales $ 116,919 $ 32,834 $ 14,606 $ 20,136 $ 46,624 $ 30,809 $ 110,177 $ 798,260 $ 109,231 $ 997,175 $ 135,562 $ 56,772 $ 3,800,000 $ 2,570,567 $ 700,000 $ 5,374,704 Total $

14,914,376

J:\PROJECT\Funding\Infastructure Bond\I-Bond\Security-Transit\FY 2009-10\Project Status_FY2008-09_CTSGPCTAF_nov09_bond_sale.xls

TFWG Item 14

TO:

Transit Finance Working Group

DATE: April 7, 2010

FR:

Anne Richman

RE:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Update

ARRA Tier 1/Tier 2/Flex Funds Obligation Status By March 5 all of the transit Tier 1 and Tier 2 system preservation grants, and all of the nine flexfunded system preservation grants were approved by FTA, allowing the region to obligate 100% of funds before the federal deadline. The chart below shows the distribution of funds by project type as of March 5: ARRA Transit Projects by Category Includes Tier 1, Tier 2, and Flex-Funded Grants Total = $356,336,357

Track, Bridges, and Train Control, $74,462,467, 21%

Operations and Preventive Maintenance, $117,854,309, 33%

Stations, $8,060,813, 2% Facilities, $10,084,492, 3% Other, $16,598,016, 5%

Vehicle Replacement/Rehab, $129,276,260, 36%

Several operators are in the process of making adjustments to their approved grants; these changes are being processed in Administrative TIP Amendment 09-42, and revisions to the ARRA Program (Resolution 3885, Revised) will be considered at the Programming and Allocation Committee meeting on April 14th.

Page 2 of 2

Contract Award Dates As a reminder, projects funded with Tier 2 funds must have awarded contracts by June 30, 2010. Potential “Jobs Bill” The second “Jobs Bill” (HR 2847) was passed into law, but the only transportation related element was the extension of the SAFETEA-LU authorization period to December 31, 2010. No transportation stimulus funds were included. MTC continues to monitor federal activities related to another possible economic stimulus package. As further information becomes available we will inform transit operators. Thank you for your continued efforts on the ARRA programs. Please contact Anne Richman [email protected] or Glen Tepke [email protected] with questions.