Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04172007 - C.31 TO: Board of Supervisors Contra FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Costa (Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair - rT'+EOiI� DATE: April 9, 2007 county �—o SUBJECT: Letter to Metropolitan Transportation Commission regarding proosed distribution o transit funds from Proposition 1 B and Proposition 42 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZE the Chair to sign the attached letter to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission regarding the distribution of Proposition 1 B and Proposition 42 funds to public- transit agencies. FISCAL IMPACT NONE to the General Fund. If the proposed funding distribution takes place as proposed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, it will significantly decrease the amount of funds that will go to the bus transit agencies in east, central and northwest Contra Costa County. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): upervi or Gayle B. Uilkema upervisor Federal D. Glover ACTION OF BOARD ON / 7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE 4UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Greitzer (925/335-1201) cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED J. Bueren, PWD JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF S. Goetz, CDD THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS R. McCleary, CCTA ND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR J. Krieg, Tri Delta Transit R. Ramacier, County Connection C. Anderson, WestCAT /BY , DEPUTY G:\Transportation\TWIC\2007\Board OrdersWpril 17 MTC transit funding.doc MTC Transit Funding April 9, 2007 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Proposition 1B, the$19.9 billion statewide transportation infrastructure bond approved by voters in November 2006, includes a $4 billion program called the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account. With $400 million of those funds designated specifically for intercity rail, $3.6 billion will be available for use in expanding or improving public transit by California's transit operating agencies. Staff on April 9 reported to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on local concerns that have arisen regarding how the funds will be distributed in the Bay Area by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The funds in question include $347 million in so- called "population-based" transit funds from Proposition 1 B, and $72 million in funds from Proposition 42, which is revenue from the state sales tax on gasoline purchases.Together,they total $419 million in funding for Bay Area transit operating agencies. MTC has a long-standing formula for transit funding that is complicated and difficult to understand to begin with. The proposed new MTC policy for the Proposition 1 B and Proposition 42 funds would make the distribution process even more complicated, combining operating and capital funds into one distribution program and dedicating far less funding to the region's smaller transit operators, who generally lack other sources of funding and rely heavily on the existing MTC method of dedicating a certain amount of funds to them. The Proposition 1 B ballot measure states these funds shall be distributed to local public-transit agencies for transit capital projects according to the established formula already in use to distribute state transit funding known as State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. This established formula distributes 50 percent of the annual state transit funds based on the population of each transit service area, and 50 percent on the farebox revenues of each transit service provider. For the Bay Area,there will be an estimated.$347 million in population-based funds and$922 million in revenue- based funds. MTC is the designated recipient of these funds for the nine-county Bay Area, and MTC in turn distributes the funds to the individual transit operating agencies. MTC has a long-standing policy of distributing the STA population-based funds proportionally on a"fair-share"basis to the small transit operating agencies in the Bay Area, for use in meeting their capital needs (such as acquiring new buses or equipment). Assuming the new Proposition 1 B funds would be distributed per this long-standing "fair share" formula,the County's public transit agencies began estimating how much they would receive, so they could begin planning how to use the funds. For example, Tri Delta Transit in East County estimated they would receive approximately$1 million to $2 million annually over the expected ten-year revenue stream from the bond. These funds could be used to improve or expand fixed- route bus service or paratransit service. However, MTC staff has instead proposed to give the bulk of the funds to the Bay Area's largest transit operators in larger cities, with MTC keeping most of the rest for their own regional grant programs, particularly to expand their Lifeline discretionary grant program far beyond its current funding levels. This will leave the smaller systems such as County Connection, WestCAT and Tri Delta Transit with far less new funding than they anticipated. For example, Tri Delta Transit staff estimates that under the MTC staff proposal they could receive as little as$600,000, rather than the $142 million annually under the established formula. MTC.Trarlsit Funding April 9, 2007 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) The Contra Costa Transportation Authority estimates the MTC staff proposal will result in Contra Costa transit operators receiving, on the whole, 26 percent less funding than they would under the standard distribution formula. Their calculation includes AC Transit, which is one of the larger beneficiaries of the MTC proposal. The percentage loss to the County's smaller bus transit agencies is proportionally greater. As the table in Exhibit B shows, MTC proposes to use 36 percent of the $419 million for its own Lifeline Grant Program. This is a competitive, discretionary grant program run by MTC. While the grant program's goals are worthy, and both County Connection and Tri Delta Transit have received these grants,the recommendation that more than a third of the funds will go to expand this MTC program is troubling, because those funds will no longer be dedicated to the smaller transit operators who rely heavily on these funds. MTC is proposing this major expansion of the Lifeline grant program because its Legislation Committee has directed MTC staff to find a way to use the 1B funds to assist low-income communities throughout the Bay Area. That is the focus of the Lifeline grant program, and therefore MTC staff is proposing to use 36 percent of the funds to expand that program. In Contra Costa County, the Lifeline program has provided grants that will assist the Bay Point and Monument Boulevard Corridor communities. The MTC proposal also devotes 40 percent of the funds to what MTC calls Urban Core Transit Improvements, which refers to transit capital improvements in San Francisco, Santa Clara and the BART Warm Springs extension. MTC proposes only ten percent for "Small Operators—Operating Enhancements" throughout the Bay Area and only six percent for"Small Operators—Capital Improvements"throughout the Bay Area. These are the categories that include such agencies as WestCAT, Tri Delta Transit and County Connection, and similar small transit agencies in the Bay Area's other counties. So rather than having all of these funds dedicated to the small transit operators, only 16 percent will be dedicated to them. MTC's schedule calls for the funding issue to be considered by its Programming and Allocations Committee on May 9, and by the full MTC for adoption on May 23. MTC Commissioners and staff have been sent letters of concern on this topic from TRANSPLAN, the regional transportation planning committee for East County, and from a coalition of five countywide congestion management agencies–those in Contra Costa, Napa, Solano, Sonoma, and Marin Counties -- raising similar concerns about the MTC funding proposal. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on April 9 expressed its concern over this topic, and the Committee recommended the Board of Supervisors also-should send a letter expressing these concerns. The letter is attached as Exhibit A. Exhibit B contains information regarding expected revenues from Proposition 1 B and Proposition 42, and MTC staff's proposed expenditures of these revenues. EXHIBIT B Metropolitan Transportation Commission Staff proposal to MTC Programming and Allocations Committee March 7, 2007 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND PROPOSITION 1B INVESTMENT STRATEGY REVENUE Amount Funding Source (in millions) State Transit Assistance (Existing Program) $ 26 State Transit Assistance (Proposition 42 Increment) $ 46 Proposition 1B Transit (Population-Based Formula allocation to MTC) $ 347 Total $ 419 EXPENDITURES Proposed Proposed Funding Funding Proposed Expenditure Category (in millions) (% of total) MTC Lifeline Program (discretionary grants) $ 153 36% Urban Core Transit Improvements $ 169 40% Small Operators— Operating Enhancements $ 41 10% Small Operators—Capital Improvements $ 25 6% Zero Emission Buses $ 20 5% Program Reserves $ 11 3% Total $ 419 100% This table was prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department staff from information provided by MTC to its Programming and Allocations Committee as noted above. 141 The Board o Supervisors Contra John Cullen County Administration Building Costa Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street,Room 106 and Martinez, California 94553-1293Co ��� Co(925)335-1900unty Administrator .John Gioia,1st District , Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District Mary N.Piepho,3rd District Susan A.Bonilla,4th District tri: Federal D.Glover,5th District April 17, 2007 The Honorable Bill Dodd Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Napa County Board of Supervisors 1195 3rd Street, Room 310 Napa, CA 94559 Dear Chair Dodd: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors today authorized me to sign this letter requesting the Metropolitan Transportation Commission take more time to discuss its proposed distribution of transit funding from Proposition 1B and Proposition 42. It is our understanding MTC intends to adopt its distribution policy on May 23. We believe this schedule doesn't leave adequate time for local input and discussion of the proposals and its impacts on transit operating agencies here in Contra Costa County and elsewhere. There had been an expectation after passage of Proposition 113 that the funds would be allocated according to the long-standing method of distributing state transit funds, in which 50 percent of the funds are distributed to individual transit operators based on farebox revenue and 50 percent _ of the funds are distributed based on the population of their service-areas. In fact, Proposition 1B itself states the transit funds should be distributed according to these existing state transit formulas. This raised expectations that these formulas would be followed and that MTC, in turn, would use its.traditional method of distributing the funds among the Bay Area's smaller transit operators, which is based on a fair-share formula. However, it is our understanding that MTC staff proposes to give the smaller transit operators very little of the $347 million in population-based 113 funds and $72 million in Proposition 42 funds. The MTC staff proposal, as we understand it, would give 40 percent of the funds to the large transit agencies (Muni, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and BART), and 36 percent would be retained by MTC to expand its Lifeline grant program, leaving only a small portion of the funds to the smaller transit agencies who typically depend on these funds. The MTC proposal would takc funds that Tri Delta Transit, County Connection and WestCAT expected to put to good use, and instead give the bulk of the funds to the Bay Area's largest transit operators and to expand MTC's grant program. Honorable Bill Dodd Letter April 17,2007 Page 2 of 2 The Lifeline grant program is a worthy program and some of our communities in Contra Costa County have benefited from these grants. However, it is troubling that MTC proposes to keep more than a third of the available funds and use them for this program, while leaving only a small percentage of the funds for the smaller operators. The Board of Supervisors does not believe such a distribution reflects the expectations of voters in Contra Costa County who supported both Proposition 1B and Proposition 42. We ask that MTC take more time to deliberate on the issue of how to distribute the transit funds. Rather than adopting a final distribution plan in May as is currently scheduled, we urge MTC to extend the discussions on this item through the summer months to ensure that all affected parties have.a chance to provide input. Sine rely, r ep o air Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors C: Members,Board of Supervisors D. Barry, Community Development Director C. Anderson,WestCAT S. Heminger, MTC J. Krieg, Tri Delta Transit R. McCleary, Contra Costa Transportation Authority R.Ramacier, County Connection M. Shiu, Public Works Director