HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09171996 - SD1 'TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
s
=- Contra
:FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON, DIRECTOR Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
County
DATE: September 17 1996 .....
__NT
SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE CCTA'S PROPOSED PROCESS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF
TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR AND MEASURE C CARPOOL FUNDS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept report.
FISCAL IMPACT
None directly to the General Fund. The process will allocate up to $1 .4 million in vehicle
registration fees and Measure C-1988 revenues to local agencies in Fiscal Year 1997/98 for
transportation projects that will improve air quality. The County is an eligible recipient of these
funds.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
At its September 18 meeting, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority will consider the a
process for the allocation of $1 .4 million in Transportation Fund for Clean Air and Measure C-
1988 revenues to local agencies for transportation projects that will improve air quality (see
Exhibit A). The Board of Supervisors may wish to advise the Authority to consider how these
revenues could be used to help supplement the currently under-funded Measure C Strategic Plan
and implement additional projects included in the Measure C-1988 Expenditure Plan. The
Board may also wish to advise the Authority to include a minimum cost-effectiveness criterion
to help ensure that public funds are not used for marginally effective projec r programs.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATU
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_ APPROVE
OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 17, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT --------- TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 335-1240 ATTESTED September 17, 1996
Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BO RD OF SUPERV ORS
A C TY ADM S AT
SLG:c\transcom\tfca.bo BY
C-vi-I Sl 1 S�
CCTA - PLANNING AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (PGA) September 4, 1996
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CRITERIA AND PROCESS FOR THE
ALLOCATION OF FY 1997-98 TFCA AND MEASURE C
CARPOOL FUNDS
SUMMARY OF As mandated by law, the Authority must adopt allocation criteria for
ISSUES: Contra Costa's Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program
Manager (40%) funds. Per Authority directive, a joint committee of the
Action Plan Coordinating Committee and the TDM Program Managers
is proposing allocation criteria and a process for the allocation of
Transportation Fund for Clean Air and Measure C Carpool funds for
FY 1997-98.
RECOMMENDA- Staff recommends:
TIONS: Approval of Pre-Screening Criteria for Proposed Projects;
Approval of Scoring Criteria for Proposed Projects;
Approval of Overall Allocation Approach and Subarea Funding
Allocations;
Approval of Allocation Process; and
Approval of Schedule of Activities.
(See Summary of Recommendations and APCC17DM Managers
Committee, Work Program Description II, August 28, 1996—
ATTACHED)
FINANCIAL The recommendations of the APCC/TDM Committee pertain to the
IMPLICATIONS: allocation of approximately $1.2 million in new TFCA revenues; an
unspecified amount of rollover and reprogrammed funds from the
current fiscal year; and approximately $200,000 in Measure C Carpool
funds.
OPTIONS: PGA may amend any of the recommendations as determined.
ATTACHMENTS: A. APCC/TDM Managers Committee Summary of
Recommendations, including Allocation Process and Schedule of
Activities.
B. APCC/TDM Managers Committee Work Program Description H,
August 28, 1996.
CHANGES FROM N/A.
COMMITTEE:
Background:
In April, 1996, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority assigned to the APCC/TDM Managers Committee
the following tasks:
I. Develop recommended criteria and a project selection process for FY 1997-98 Transportation Fund
for Clean Air(TFCA) Program Manager(40%) funds and Measure C Carpool funds; and
TDM.96/ITEMS/PGA3.Sep—aelb C: 6-1
CCTA - PLANNING AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (PGA) September 4, 1996
11. Develop a recommendation with respect to the TSM ordinance requirement contained in Measure C
in light of the fact that current law prohibits employer trip reduction mandates.
The attached Work Program describes the efforts of the APCCnDM Committee and recommendations
discussed for Item I. Recommendations for Item 11 are still in development.
C: 6--2
Planning and Governmental Affairs ATTACHMENT A September 4, 1996
APCC/TDM MANAGERS COMM TTEE
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
PGA COMMITTEE
September 4, 1996
Pre-Screening Criteria for Proposed Projects:
Proposed projects must be:
1. Non-duplicative of any projects being funded on the regional level(60%funds)by the
BAAQMD;
2. Consistent with applicable law;
3. Supportive of Action Plan goals; and
4. Able to show quantifiable/measurable results.
Scoring Criteria for Proposed Projects:
Proposed projects must be able to demonstrate:
1. Cost effectiveness
2. Effectiveness in reducing vehicle emissions.
1n addition:
• The"Call for Projects"will mention that agencies should review the projects listed in the
Action Plans and Strategic Plan for applicability to TFCA funding.
• Project sponsors will be asked to indicate in their applications whether the project being
proposed is in support of either Strategic Plan or Action Plan goals. This information
would be provided in a yes/no check box.
Overall Allocation Approach and Subarea Funding Level
1. $1 million in new available revenues would be allocated to the subareas by
population/employment formula. This amount is inclusive of the approximately$200,000
in available Measure C Carpool funds,which would be used by the TDM Program
Managers,consistent with existing Authority policy,to cover costs associated with the
implementation of TFCA projects,but which are not fundable under TFCA regulations;
2. The remainder of new available TFCA revenues would be allocated on a competitive
basis, using the agreed-upon criteria;
3. Any Measure C Carpool funds not applied for by the TDM Program Managers(per No. 1
above)in a given fiscal year,would be available for competitive projects;
4. All TFCA funds allocated to the subareas in the prior fiscal year,but not expended or
allocated to a multi-year project,would be allocated to competitive projects.
Allocation Process(See flow chart attached)
Schedule of Activities(See attached schedule)
C: 6-3
IVCD
a- bo
to
40.
cn C4
CF,
+
to ca
cl
:
0. 0
cy
0 �
C4
fk
00 fw
044
4-.
>1
cis
tc,
<
ink
y b0
u
ti
as
OC a
40
tea . . • . " '
C, 60—11
Table 1
DRAFT
SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
APCC/TDM MANAGERS COMMn7EE
Date Activity Remarks
April 17, 1996 CCTA assigns APCC/TDM
managers;task of developing
FY 1997-98 budget
May 22, 1996 First APCC/TDM manager Discussed history,
meeting parameters,
reviewed time frame,
sequence of activities, and
schedule.
June 19, 1996 Second APCC/TDM manager Discussed criteria,
meeting: relationship to Strategic
Plan/Action Plans, cost
effectiveness,call for
projects, geographic equity
July 24, 1996 Third APCC/TDM manager Review draft"Heads-Up"
meeting: letter.
August 21, 1996 Fourth APCC/TDM manager Finalize recommendations re
meeting: criteria and process.
August 27, 1996 . Fifth APCC/TDM manager Review final PGA packet
meeting materials
August 28, 1996 Mailout PGA packet Includes allocation criteria
and process.
September 4, 1996 PGA Mtg. Approval of allocation
criteria and process.
September, 1996 RTPC review: RTPCs review allocation
SWAT 9/9/96 criteria and process
TRANSPLAN 9/12/96
TRANSPAC 9/12/96
WCCTAC-TAC 9/13/96
Revised August 27,1996 Page 1
SD. I .
Date Activity Remarks
i
September 18, 1996 CCTA Mtg. Authority approves allocation
criteria and process.
September 19, 1996 TDM Managers send out
"Heads-up" letter to all
potential project proponents.
September 25, 1996 Sixth APCOTDM manager Discuss composition of
meeting Independent Panel
September, 1996 Receive cost effectiveness BAAQMD will expect us to
calculations from BAAQMD take this information into
re FY 1996-97 projects = account in preparing our FY
i 1997-98 application
October 1996 Seventh APCC/TDM ! Finalize composition of
manager meeting ` Independent Panel.
October 4, 1996 Call for Projects
"Project Application Kit" for i
the FY 1997-98 funding
cycle, sent to all potential
project proponents.
October-November 1996 TDM Program Managers
work with project proponents
to develop projects.
November 1996 Guidance fr. BAAQMD re This information will give
eligibility and criteria overall guidance on
development of TFCA 40%
application.
November 13, 1996 Deadline for submittal of TDM Program Mgrs. will be
project applications to TDM responsible to package
Program Mgrs. projects in"subregional"or
"competitive"categories.
December, 1996 RTPC Review: Review TDM Managers
WCCTAC 12/6/96 project proposals.
TRANSPAC 12/12/96
TRANSPLAN 12/12/96
SWAT 12/2/96
Revised August 28,1996 Page 2
G 6 -6
Date Activity Remarks
December 20, 1996 TDM Program Mgrs. submit CCTA staff will distribute
application packages to completed package of
CCTA applications to the
APCC/TDM members, and to
the Independent Panel.
Late December 1996/ APCC/TDM meeting Review applications and
Early January 1997 prepare for Independent
Panel review. Check
emission reduction
calculations.
January 13, 1997 Independent Panel verifies Outcome of scoring process
screening of all projects and is circulated by CCTA staff
prioritizes competitive to APCC/TDM members.
projects.
January, 1997 APCC/TDM Mtg. Review and comment on
Independent Panel
recommendations. Develop
recommended funding
application.
January 28, 1997 PGA packet mailout incl. Copies sent to RTPCs.
draft application.
February 5, 1997 PGA approves draft CCTA staff distributes draft
application for circulation to application to RTPCs. and
RTPCs. all interested parties
February 1997 RTPC review: RTPCs review draft
SWAT- application package
TRANSPAC-
TRANSPLAN -
Tri-Delta-
WCCTAC-
March 11, 1997 Deadline for receipt of RTPC
comments.
March 1997 APCC/TDM Managers
meeting
March 25, 1997 PGA mail-out for April Includes RTPC comments
meeting.
Revised August 27, 19% Page 3
G-6-7
Date Activity Remarks
April 2, 1997 PGA review. Includes draft final TFCA
CCTA mail-out application.
April 1997 APCC/TDM Managers Discuss comments form
meeting PGA.
April 16, 1997 CCTA approves TFCA
application
April 30, 1997 Deadline for submission of
TFCA to BAAQMD
May 1997 Discuss TFCA applications
with Air District staff
July 1997 Air District approves 40%
TFCA applications
MRE:C:\wPF11. MP\TDM98\SCHED.896
Revised August 27, 1996 Page 4
G (o'�
SD. I
Planning and Governmental Affairs ATTACHMENT B September 4, 1996
APCC/TDM MANAGERS COMMITTEE
WORK PROGRAM DESCRIPTION II
August 28, 1996
Background
In April, 1996, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority assigned to the APCC/TDM Managers
Committee the following tasks:
I. Develop recommended criteria and a project selection process for FY 1997-98
Transportation Fund for Clean Air(TFCA) Program Manager(40%) funds and
Measure C Carpool funds; and
H. Develop a recommendation with respect to the TSM ordinance requirement contained
in Measure C in light of the fact that current law prohibits employer trip reduction
mandates.
This Work Program describes the efforts of the APCC/TDM Committee and recommendations
discussed. A list of committee participants is attached.
A. Review Revenue Estimates.
Based on information available at this time, the APCC/TDM Committee, for purposes of discussion,
may estimate revenue sources for FY 1997-98 as follows:
New TFCA revenue . . . . $1,200,000
Measure C Carpool funds 200,000
Projected rollover funds ???
Projected reprogrammed funds ??2
Total potentially available: $1,400,000+
B. Review Legal Funding Parameters.
The legislation enabling the TFCA is very specific and limiting as to how these funds can be spent (see
attached excerpt from a BAAQMD guidance document). Furthermore, in a departure from previous
practice, BAAQMD staff have informed us that, effective immediately, they intend to interpret the
legislative parameters for the TFCA Program Manager(40%) funds in the strictest sense, i.e.,
disallowing any proposed expenditures not specifically set forth in the legislation.
On the other hand, the Authority has considerable latitude in allocating the Measure C Carpool funds.
In FY 1996-97, the Authority gave priority in allocating these funds to covering the indirect costs
associated with implementing TFCA projects. These costs were deemed essential to successful project
implementation, and include the cost of office machinery, rent and utilities, as well as staff time not
billable to TFCA.
tdm.96/apcctdm.2/workplan.aug/aelb
page 1
L"6-9
The APCC/TDM Committee has agreed to make the following recommendations concerning
funding parameters:
1. That the Authority should take the position that maximum flexibility be allowed TFCA
Program Managers in allocating TFCA funds, within the parameters of the law.
2. That the Authority reaffirm its policy providing that the priority use for Measure C
Carpool funds is indirect costs of implementing TFCA projects, which are not fundable
with TFCA funds.
C. Establish Pre-Screening Criteria.
The Committee reached consensus on recommending that all projects applying for TFCA or
Measure C Carpool funds be pre-screened using the same criteria as was used in FY 1996-97, i.e.,
proposed projects must be:
1. Non-duplicative of any projects being funded on the regional level (60% funds) by
the BAAQMD;
2. Consistent with applicable law;
3. Supportive of Action Plan goals; and
4. Able to show quantifiable/measurable results.
During the course of the Committee's discussion on the subject of pre-screening criteria, consideration
was given to adding "project readiness" to the criteria indicated above. However, agreement could not
be reached as to an appropriate definition of"readiness," as it applies to TSM projects. Moreover, a
certain degree of readiness is presumed in requiring consistency with applicable law, since the law
requires that all TFCA funds be expended within two years of allocation. As a result, the Committee
did not add readiness as a separate criterion.
D. Establish Draft Scoring Criteria.
In FY 1996-97, the Authority adopted the following scoring criteria to be applied to proposed projects
which met the pre-screening criteria:
1. Ability to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
2. Ability to reduce vehicle emissions (VER)
'3. Ability to reduce vehicle trips (VTR)
4. Ability to be cost effective.
The APCC/TDM Committee discussed these criteria in light of current BAAQMD policy and policy
interpretation as it applies to TFCA funding. Specifically, BAAQMD staff have made it clear that cost
effectiveness will be considered the premier criterion. To simplify, the formula for determining cost
effectiveness is the cost per ton of vehicle emissions reduced per each project. The APCC/TDM
Committee concluded that, according to BAAQMD calculations, reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle
miles traveled are considered means of arriving at vehicle emissions reductions, rather than goals unto
themselves. Therefore, in the interest of ensuring that the Authority's scoring criteria is in
tdm.96/apcctdm.2/workplan.aug/aelb
page 2
G
5D. I
maximum alignment with the BAAQMD's, the APCC/TDM Committee agreed to recommend
that the Authority's scoring criteria be as follows:
1. Cost effectiveness
2. Effectiveness in reducing vehicle emissions.
The APCC/TDM Committee also agreed to inform itself of the precise methodology the BAAQMD
uses to compute cost effectiveness, so as to be in a better position to evaluate proposed projects
accordingly.
The APCC/TDM Committee had considerable discussion as to whether a proposed project's inclusion
in either the Strategic Plan or Action Plan should be added to the criteria. Several options were
proposed as to how this might be done, e.g.:
• The "Call for Projects" should encourage potential project sponsors to review the Authority's
Strategic Plan and their RTPC Action Plans for projects fundable through the TFCA.
• Potential projects could be scored partly on how they align with the objectives of the Strategic
Plan or Action Plans.
• Priority could be given to projects which are in the Strategic Plan or Action Plans.
As a whole, the APCC/TDM Committee agreed that it makes sense that some consideration of the
Strategic Plan and Action Plans should be incorporated into the funding allocation process. There was
some concern with giving projects included in those plans priority treatment, however, as Strategic
Plan and Action Plan projects might not be as appropriate to recommend for TFCA funding as other
projects.
Ultimately, the APCC/TDM Committee agreed to recommend:
1. The "Call for Projects" will mention that agencies should review the projects listed
in the Action Plans and Strategic Plan for applicability to TFCA funding.
2. That project sponsors indicate in their applications whether the project being
proposed is in support of either Strategic Plan or Action Plan goals. This
information would be provided in a yes/no check box.
E. Overall Approach for Allocation of FY 1997-98 Funds.
In connection with the FY 1996-97 TFCA application, the Authority approved an approach which
involved a formulaic allocation(population and employment) of a portion of total revenues to the
RTPCs, with the remainder of the funds allocated on a competitive basis.
This approach was intended to address two concerns:
1. Geographic equity
2. Continuity of the subarea TDM Programs
The Committee discussed the overall approach at length. Issues raised included whether the existing
subarea TDM "structure" was still appropriate, given the demise of employer trip reduction mandates;
tdm.%/ap=UIm.2/workplan.aug/aelb
Me 3
C-=6-//
SD. I,.
whether the subareas should.amalgamate their TDM/TSM efforts, and whether this approach is more
cost effective; whether a portion of available funds (and if so, what portion) should be "guaranteed" to
the existing subarea TDM Program Managers to ensure continuity of their work and staffing levels; or
whether all proposed projects should be scored and funded on a competitive basis.
Ultimately, consensus was reached on the recommendation that the subareas would receive an
allocation, based on formula, to be used consistent with TFCA legislation, subject to the proposed
projects meeting the pre-screening criteria. County staff proposed that projects also be required to
meet a minimum score, however, consensus was not reached on this proposal. Available funds, over
and above the subarea allocations would be scored and funded on a competitive basis.
The Committee subsequently discussed the recommended amount for the subarea allocations.
Alternatives considered included: (1) a percentage of total annual TFCA/Measure C Carpool revenues;
(2) same as (1), but with the addition of reprogrammed unexpended funds from the prior fiscal year;
(3) a specified dollar amount, with unexpended funds from the prior fiscal year being made available
for allocation on a competitive basis.
The Committee agreed to recommend—with County staff dissenting—that:
1. $1 million in new available revenues would be allocated to the subareas by
population/employment formula. This amount is inclusive of the approximately
$200,000 in available Measure C Carpool funds, which would be used by the.TDM
Program Managers, consistent with existing Authority policy, to cover costs
associated with the implementation of TFCA projects, but which are not fundable
under TFCA regulations;
2. The remainder of new available TFCA revenues would be allocated on a
competitive basis, using the agreed-upon criteria;
3. Any Measure C Carpool funds not applied for by the TDM Program Managers
(per No. 1 above) in a given fiscal year, would be available for competitive
projects;
4. All TFCA funds allocated to the subareas in the prior fiscal year, but not expended
or allocated to a multi-year project, would be allocated to competitive projects.
F. Allocation Process.
The APCC/TDM APCCfMM Committee agreed that the allocation process should:
• Provide maximum opportunity for all Contra Costa agencies to submit
applications.*
• Begin at the sub-regional level to encourage the development of cohesive
application packages
• Include both pre-screening of projects for minimum eligibility standards and
scoring of the competitively funded projects for cost effectiveness and effectiveness
to reduce vehicle emissions.
• Involve an independent project review panel to provide objective scoring of
competitively funded projects.
tdm.9&apectdm.2/workplan.aug/aelb
page 4
ZIP.
*To accomplish this, potential applicants will receive:
• A heads-up letter, informing them of upcoming allocation process
• A complete application package, providing details on TFCA 40% allocation, a
listing of the types of projects eligible for TFCA funding, description of pre-
screening and evaluation criteria, and a set of application and calculation forms.
A flow chart depicting the Committee's recommended allocation process is enclosed in the
September PGA packet. The proposed process, which involves the TDM Program Managers
coordinating the project development effort at the regional level, followed by a preliminary screening
and evaluation by the APCC/TDM Committee, followed by a review/scoring by an independent review
panel. Final recommendations to the Authority would be made by the APCC/TDM Committee.
This proposed process presumes a certain role for the TDM Program Managers, in implementing this
process and in assisting prospective project sponsors in developing concepts into fundable applications.
Also, the process presumes that the Program Managers will coordinate the project development efforts
within their subregions so as to form a cohesive package of projects.
G. Recommendation on TSM Ordinance.
The Committee appointed a subcommittee to address the issues associated with the TSM ordinance
requirement, still a requirement under Measure C. In particular, the subcommittee discussed the fact
that employer based trip reduction mandates, the implied focus of the Measure C requirement, are no
longer permissible under California law.
The Committee discussed a proposed draft amendment to the existing Authority model TSM ordinance,
however, no recommendations have been developed as yet. Options under discussion include the
possible amending of Measure C to eliminate the requirement for such an ordinance; amending the
existing ordinance to reaffirm the commitment of the jurisdictions to congestion management and clean
air goals, but providing jurisdictions with options as to how to achieve those goals. This subject is
agendized for the Committee's September 25 meeting.
tdm.96/apcctdm.2/workplan.aug/aelb
page 5
APCC/TDM MANAGERS COMMITTEE
Participants
(May-August 1996)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Steve Goetz
CCTA
Arielle Bourgart
Martin Engelmann
TRANSPAC
Barbara Neustadter
Lynn Osborn
TRA SPLAN
Pat Roche
TRI-DELTA
Leah Thon
SWAT
John Dillon
Chris McCann
Juliet Shanks
Karen Stein
Melissa Taylor
WCCTAC
Summer Brenner
Lisa Hogeboom
st),�
AB 414 adds Government Code Section 65089.1:
Any congestion management agency that is located In rhe SAAQMD and receives funds
pursuant to Section 44241 of the Health and Safety Code for the purpose of
Implementing paragraph(3) of subdivision(6)of Section 65089 shall ensure that those
funds are expended as part of an overall program for Improving air quality and for the
Purposes of this chapter.
Existing law referenced above(Section 65089(b)(3)(A))states that the CMP shall include: '
A trip reduction and travel demand clement that promotes alternative transportation
methods, including but not limited to carpools, vanpools. transit, bicycles, and park-and-
ride lots;improvements in the balance between jobs and housing;and other strategies,
Including but not limited to flexible work hours, telecommuting and parking management
programs. The agency shall consider parking cash-out programs during the
development and update of the trip reduction and travel demand element.
Most of these trip reduction actions are already eligible for AB 434 funds, including:
• Carpool and vanpool formation
• Transit service,but specifically only feeder buses,transit ticket subsidies, rail-bus
integration and regional transit information projects.
• Bicycle projects(with the passage of All 414,not just bicycle projects on arterials)
Parking management(e.g.parking cash-out).
AB 414 deleted telecommuting demonstration projects from the list of eligible projects.
Howcver, AB 414 does expand the types of projects eligible for 40'/o funds to include
additional types of projects that promote alternative transportation modes:
i
• Park and ride lots connected to HOY system in the Year 2005 HOY Master Plan(TCM 8)
• Land use actions to improve the balance of jobs and housing(TCM 15)
• Other types of transit service
TCM 3-Improve Areawide Transit Service
TCM 4 Expedite and Expand Regional Rail Agroement
TCM 5 -Improve Access to Rail and Ferries
TCM 6-Improve Intercity Rail Service
TCM 7-Improve Ferry Scrvicc
TCM 10-Youth Transportation
TCM 13 -Transit Usc Incentives
Following limitations still apply:
• Projects must reduce motor vehicle emissions
• Projects cannot be planning or technical studies
• Projects must implement transportation measures in the CAP
Question: Must a project be specifically listed in the CMP Trip Reduction and Travel
Demand Element to be eligible for'ITFCA 40% funds?
•_ c: 6- is