bos agenda/minutes - july 27, 1999 - metroboardarchives.metro.net/other/bos/bos_1_010.pdf(attachment...

AGENDABUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTE]

TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1999 > > 9:30 - 12:30WINDSOR CONFERENCE ROOM - 15th FL

MTA HEADQUARTERS - ONE GATEWAY PLAZALOS ANGELES, CA 90012

MetropolitanTransportation

Authority

One Gateway Plaza

LosAngeles, CA

90012-2952

1. Call to Order

2. Approval of June 29, 1999 Meeting Minutes(Attachment 1, Page 001)

3. Chair’s Comments

4. Legislative Update(Attachment 2, Page 003)

5. Section 5307 15% Principles(Attachment 3, Page 019))

6. Proposition C Discretionary MOU(Attachment 4, Page 025)

7. Distribution of Prop C 40% Discretionary Revenues(Attachment 5, Page030)

8. Task Force for Accelerated Bus Procurement/BusTechnology Fund Guidelines

9. MTA Board Items of Interest at July 29, 1999 Meeting

10.FTA Response re CMAQ Eligible Projects for RTAAFunding (Attachment 6, Page 043)

11. Consent Decree Status

12.Patlnerships for Los Angeles/Ventura RegionalTraveler Information System

13. Transit Zone Update

14. LACTOA I.D. Card Update

David Feinberg, Chair

David Feinberg

Claudette Moody

David FeinbergDiscussion~Possible Action

BOS DiscussionPossible Action

Nalini AhujaDiscussion~Possible Action

David Feinberg/Nalini AhujaDiscussion

Nalini AhujaDiscussion

Brian BoudreauInformation

Jim McLaughlinInformation

Danny Wu/Peter LiuDiscussion

Jon Hillmer/Nalini AhujaDiscussion

Dave Bostwick/Bob MeyersInformation

Bus Operations SubcommitteeJuly 27, 1999 Meeting

15. Y2K Funding

INFORMATION ITEMS

1. BOS Calendar2. Section 5307 TE 1% Allocations for FY003. TDA/STA Guidelines and Forms4. SRTP Revised Form

David Feinberg

Next meeting: August 31, 1999

ATTACHMENT "1"

Approval of June 29, 1999 Meeting Minutes

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETI~IG MINUTESMEETING OF JUNE 29, 1999

Meeting called to order at 9:45 a.m.

Members Present:

Ron Ctmningham, Antelope Valley Transit AuthorityMichael Busch, ArcadiaJim Lewis, ClaremontFernando Mendoza, CommerceMona Babauta, Culver CityBusAndre Colaiace, Foothill TransitBob Hildebrand, Gardena M, micipal Bus LinesJohn DLMario, La Mirada TransitBryan Kernaghan. Long Beach Trzn~tDavid Rzepinski, LADOTJosee Larochelle, NITAKathryn Engel, Montebello Municipal Bus LinesSookylmg Kim. Norwalk TransitBradley Li~dahl, Redondo BeachNicole Kvarda, Santa Clarita TransitDavid Feinberg, Santa Monica’ s Big Bhie BusBob Meyers, Tbrrance Trznfit

I. CI-IA~ REMARKS

David Feinberg introduced Bob Hildebrand who was representing Gardena Municipal Bus Lines. He alsointroduced Iohn DiMario who was representing La Mirada for Ioe Voight. He noted that Larry Torres ofMTA was on vacation and _tha~L_Andy ..~Gal~..d, ez was at the~um~ representing the Transit Planning group

2. APPROVAL OF 5/24/99 and 611199 BOS MEETING MINUTES

David Feinberg moved approval of the 5/24/99 BOS meeting minutes. Andre Colaiace of FoothillTransit noted that under Legislative Update it should read MTA’s rather than Foothill Trausit’samendment to SB 1101 - Mun~y. David Feinberg noted that the minutes for the 6/I/99 BOS meetingwere missing the Funding Principles for Transit Enhancement Act (TEA) monies and requested that theybe included as an information item in next month’s agenda packet. With these exceptions noted, hemoved for approval of the minutes and the motion passed.

3. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Michael Turner of MTA Government Relations went over the legislative matrix update included in theagenda. He noted ~hzt numerous amendments were being proffered to SB 1101- Murray which relates tolabor bargaining agreements and the creation of transit zones. He said the amendments were geared toaccomplishing some/vlTA’s goals which are to preserve the autonomy of the transit zones and to protectthe employees that would be transferred to future zones. He said the bill was scheduled for a hearing onJuly 12, 1999. The MTA opposes SB 1276 (Hayden-Mun~y) which would force the MTA to fulfill theirConsent Decree obligations before money is spent on other projects except for highway repairs. BrynnKernaghzn of Long Beach Transit gave the group a copy of SB 1276 along with a letter that Long Beach

00t.

had written to the bill’s authors expressing concern about this measure. Michael also mentioned bills atthe Federal level that would impact tran.~aortation in Los Angeles County. In particular, he mentioned thetransportation spending cap bill that would limit the percentage of funds available to each state whichwould significantly impact California and New York. Bwan Kemaghan urged members to write toSenators Boxer and Feinstein and passed around a letter that Long Beach had submitted to SenatorBoxer. Returning to SB 1276, Bzyun mentioned that Long Beach had offered an amendment to allow thelVITA to continue to fund the m,,nidpal operators.

4. SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FORMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

Nalini Ahuja of MTA went over each individual table in the SRTP and some minor corrections,omissions and additions were agreed to by the group. David Feinberg reminded the group that thedeadline to submit the SRTP to MTA is July 31, 1999. Nalini said that Carol Martin would mail adiskette for these revised files as well as the TDA-STA claim forms. Nalini reminded the group that theyneed to send a financial audit repoR to the State Controller or their state funds will be withheld. Shenoted that the L-7 table should match what the municipal operator has on the TIP sheets.

5. TDA AND STA CLAIIVI FORMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

Nalini Ahuja and Andy Galindez of MTA went over the TDA and STA claim forms for Fiscal Year 2000included in the agenda. Kath_qrn Engel of Montebello requested that table L-4 from the SRTP besubstituted for table L-1 of the TDA-STA claim forms since they compile the same information. Nalirdagreed to this change. Attachment A was eliminated from the TDA-STA claim form.

6. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PRO/ECTS (RTIP)

Randy Lamm of MTA mentioned that he sent two faxes to BOS members with their existing TIP sheets,instructions for adding new projects and for updating the TIP sheets. He noted that the luly 12, 1999 isthe firm deadline for any additions or updates. Randy went over the way to change the TIP sheets. Thekey elements are the agency, fund and program codes. These codes are attached to the agenda.

7. NEW BUSINESS

James Rojas ofMTA dinh~uted an L.A. Times article over the contract for bus shelters recently awardedby the City of LOs Angeles to Outdoor Systems and the amendment changes to the old contract. AndyCcalindez of MTA distributed an e-mail that the FrA sent to Gladys Lowe of MTA reminding operators ofthe lapsing policies for federal funds. David Rzepinski of LADOT asked members if any of their agencieshad any disposable 40 foot buses. Bob Hildebrand told David to contact Whit Ballenger of Gardena whoha~ some available buses. David Feinberg mentioned that he would be on vacation from July 5 - 16, 1999and that any questions should be addressed to Bryun. He also noted that he included as aninformation item the BOS by-laws and the CMAQ funding guidelines. David formed a sub-groupconsisting of Katluyn, Michael and Andre to review the Proposition C 40% Discretionary MOU. Meetingadjourned until Wednesday, Iuly 27 ( later reseheduled to July 28, 1999) at, 9:30 a.m. in MTAheadquarters.

ATTACHMENT "2"

Legislative Update

999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix Page 1 of 17

The following is an update of major legislation that affects you and your transportation needs. Thispage will be periodically updated as needed.

1999/00 LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVEMATRIX

Last Update - July 19, 1999

Proposal/Actions;200 MillionAgreement with theUlty of Los Angdes

ValleyFransportation Zone

LOCAL

DescriptionMTA and the LA City CounCilfigned an agreement Iuly 24,1997 that committed the City toproviding MTA $200 million3ver eight years to assist with thexnplementation of MTA’s railprogram.

Recently, the LA City Councilipproved a motion to explore thefeasibility of a transportation zone~n the San Fernando Valley.

Status]?he MTA and City of Los Angeles ChiefLegislative Analyst (CLA) are currentlyaegotiating the balance of the agreement.

On May 4, 1999, the Los Angeles CityCouncil unanimously adopted a resolution to~’ormally direct city staffto amend the currentagreement with the MTA. Negotiations3etween the MTA and the City of L.A. are:ontinuing.

3n February 25, 1999, the MTA Board "coted to give the public, municipal transitlgencies, transit unions andothers anadditional month to comment on draftguidelines for proposed new transit zonerecommendations. The board will considerthis motion at it’s April 29, 1999 meeting.

On April 29, 1999, the MTA Boardapproved the zone pre-applications but votedto adopt the Local Transit Zone Guidelines.Staffwas directed to continue to work withthe applicants to revise the guidelines. Theboard will consider the revised guidelines atit’s May 27, 1999 meeting.

On May 27, 1999, the MTA Board ofDirectors approved pre-applications forproposed transit zones filed by Foothill

0http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtreldgr_99 00 matrix.htm 7/20/99

1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix Page 2 of 17,

101 - 405 FreewayInterchange

The LA City Council hasestablished a task force to identifyimprovements and study solution~that could be in place within fiveyears to relieve the trafficcongestion at the interchange.

rransit and the Greater San Femando Valleyl?ransportation Zone. The Board alsolpproved the selection of 36 Metro Bus linesis being significant to the region.OnNovember 19, 1998, MTABoard ofDirectors recommended a list of candidateprojects for consideration by Caltrans forinclusion in the Interregional TransportationImprovement Program (ITIP).

On January 21, 1999, the MTA Planning &Programming Committee adopted to providea 20 % match to the $13.1 million proposalto fund improvements for the interchange.

On April 29, 1999, the MTA Board adoptedthe Planning & Programming Committee’srecommendation to approve the Los Angelescounty project list which prioritizesrebuilding 101-405 Interchange.

Any inquiries regarding MTA’s local legislative program may be directed to Wilbur Babb, Jr. [email protected].

Bill / Author

AB 3O

Description

STATE LEGISLATION

Appropriates$100 million tothe office ofCriminal JusticePlanning to fundgrants for thesalaries andbenefits of peace~fficers~reviously~unded by a[’ederal grant that.~xpires on or9efore January 1,2002.

MTAPositionSupport

Status

~Ield in Assembly Appropriations2ommittee

2-year bill

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 00 matrix.htm 7/20/99

,1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix t’age ~ ot ~

AB 38

,%Vasldngton)

~,A 7/14,~9

AB 71~Cunneen)

7/14/99

kB 102

Hertzberg)

LA 5/28/99

~xtended the $1motor vehicle:egistration fee tcIhe year 2004 forSouth Coast Air~u~tyManagementDistrictISCAQMD)projects.Amended bill isanrelated totransportation.Mandates the re-designation of allexist’ms HighOccupancyVehicles (HOV)as mixed flow-lanes and directsa study beconducted on theefficacy of I-IOVlanes..Would allowlow-emissionvehicles (ILEV)to use HOVlanes and requireDIVlV to designand makeavailable speciallicense plates forILEV’s.

Provides 100)ercent of thefundingnecessary tocompleteconstruction ofthe 1989 RetrofitSoundwall List.rt is anticipatedthat this bill maybe heard onAugust 17, 1999.

Support

Oppose

Oppose

Support

Sponsor

Passed in Senate EducationCommittee, 7/14

In Senate AppropriationsCommittee

Held in Assembly TransportationCommittee

2-year bill

Hearing in Senate Committee onAppropriations, 8/16

In the Senate TransportationCommittee


1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix Page 4 of 17 ~

AB 276

~ongville)

~,k J/18/99

~B 308

(Longville)

LA7/13/99

AB 357

~Calderon)

AB 521

(McClintock_)

Directs all sales:ax proceedsderived from,~asoline sales to:he PublicFransportation~_ccount (PTA).Adds therehabilitation andreconstruction ofrolling stock andtransit capitalinfrastructure tothe list of annualfund estimates.OHginal billadded $45million to $15million offthetop of StateHighwayAccount funding[’or grade~eparationprojectsIhroughout the~tate. Amended)ill for a report)n the sufficiency)fgrade~eparation~arojects.

Support Held in Assembly Appropriations

Support

No position

Committee

2-year bill

Hearing in SenateAppropriations Committee, 8/16

~enate Transportation Committee

Held in Assembly TransportationCommittee

2-year bill

Redirects thestate share ofsales tax ongasoline currentlyallocated to thegeneral fund tofund theconstruction andmaintenance ofmixed flowfreeway lanesand increase theshare of fundingto cities andcounties.

Neutral

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrelaJgr_99 00 matrix.htm 7/20/99

.... 1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix Page 5 of 17

AB 581~irebaugh)

716/99

AB 682

AB 872

(A~quist)

~,A 7/7/99

AB 923

Hertzberg)

LA 7/13f99

Directs a study:onducted to~ssess traffic:ongestion onRoute 710, theLong Beach?.orridor. The.VITA Boarddecided tomaend the bill to3e permissive nota mandate. Thisbill wasamended tomake itpermissive.A "spot" billwhich currentlymakes non-substantivechanges to MTAlaw.Clarifies the~rocedures anduses of fundingre’trnbursement to~

local agenciesfrom the state.Measure relatingto rail safety.Amended tomirror "red-lightrunning," statutesand increasesfines with a~ortion of thesefines to return torailtransportationauthorities formfety programs.

Support withAmendment

Neutral

Support

Sponsor


In Assembly

Passed in Senate TransportationCommittee, 6/29


Passed in Senate JudiciaryCommittee, 7/13


http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 O0 matrix.htm 7/20/99


AB 958

IScott)

~A 7/14/99

.kB1012

Torlakson)

AB1425

?rovides a31eater process~’or the utilization9y local agencies3fthe design-3uildiroeurementauthority~stablished in1996.Streamlines theproject delivery~rocess at~altrans and"speed down" the3ver $1.6 billion:ash balance inIhe State[-IighwayAccount.Provides that~unding identified~s federalregional surfaceIransportation~rogram fundsa~ould not mereb3e added to the~verall STIP fordistribution, but:ather beapportioned toaaetropolitan?lanning3rganizations, orin Southern~ali£ornia, to7,0untyxansportation:ommissions~ased uponpopulation.Uommitteeamendmentadded toapportion 20%~f the fnnds tomvironmentalmhaneement

Support

Support withAmendments

Sponsor

Passed in Senate Local GovernmentCommittee, 7/14

In Senate TransportationCommittee

In Senate, read second time, 7/12

Re-r~fered to SenateTransportation Committee


007

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrelaJgr_99 O0 matrix.htm 7/20/99

.... 1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix Page 7 of 17

]programs.h,B 1473 Streamlines the

~ertzberg)

LA 5/28/99

AB 1475

(Soto)

LA 7/13/x)9

~kB 1571

and Brulte)

AB 1593_

~lorez)

Director ofFinance’s reporton the state’sneed for majorcapital projects.Urgency~rovisionadopted.Provides amechanism forlocal jurisdictionsto accessavailable federalmfety-related~unds for "Safe?.out es toSchool"~rograms.

Memorial AirStandardsAttainmentProgram, a grantprogram for themrchase of lowemissions heavy-duty engines.Urgency~rovisionadopted.A. "spot" bill~¢hich currentlymakes non-~ubstantive~hanges to MTA

Directs $300million in StateHighwayAccount (SHA)funds for localstreets and roadsrehabilitation andstorm drainagerepairs. Thismeasure is

Support

Support


Neutral

Neutral seekamendments

A~pearing in Senatepropriations Committee, 8/16


In Senate Transportation andEnvironmental Quality Committees


Not heard in Senate Transportation~.ommittee, 7/6


1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix

~tion~ommittee)

6/3O/99

SB 10

bA 4/21/~9

~B 14

e, ainey)

~.7/12/99

Ildentical to SB0 (Rainey).}iven the facthat these are~entical, staffaas noted a MTAposition ofneutral seekamendments.OmnibusCommittee billwhich includes~ITA’s language:elating to non-.,ommutingbicycle tiding ontransit agency)roperty. MTA;taft worked witha statewidebicycleorganization toinclude clarifyingegislation that:he prohibitionwas not to:lissuade bicyclecommuters withvalid permitsfrom using railand bus transit aspermitted.)irects $300zillion in StateaighwayAccount (SHA)~unds for local~treets and roadsrehabilitation andstoan drainagerepairs..~equires the~)epartment oftransportation’<Caltrans) to~omplete a studysetting forthcriteria fordetermining the

Sponsor

Neutral; seekamendmems

Opposeunless

amended

ha Senate Transportation2,ommittee

Held in Senate TransportationCommittee

Passed in Assembly Transportatio-Committee, 7/12

In Assembly AppropriationsCommittee

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 00 matrix.htm 7/2O/99


SB 63

(Solis)

LA 7/12D9

SB 65

LA 3/23/99

"effectiveness" of[-IOV lanes.Mandates thatCaltrans cannot5esignate or:onstruct anyaew HOV lanesantil study is:ompleted..~aaended to a,-tudy b’dl only.?rovides a taxncenfive foremployers whosubsidize transitpasses for theiremployees bygranting a taxcredit equal to 40)ercent of the employer’s cost.Requires thatCaltrans convertthe HighOccupancyVehicle ~OV)fanes on the SanBemardino (I-10) portion ofthe E1 Monte)usway to a "2-person plus"

3ccupancy:equirement:ather than the"’3-person plus"requirement.Provides $20million in fundsfor transportationprograms forCalWORKSrecipients.

Support

Opposeunlessamendedpeak only

Support withamendments

~Ield in Senate Appropriations2ommittee

2-year bill

Era’oiled to the Governor

Reld in Senate AppropriationsCommittee

2-year bill


1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix Page 1o ot I J ~

SB 9___~8

"Alarcon)

~A. 5/10~9

~B 315

~urton/

~amette)

~ 7112/99

SB 364

Perata)

A 6/2/99

Original billextended the $1motor vehicle:egistration fee to:he year 2004 for3outh Coast AirQualityManagementDistrictISCAQMD))to jeers.

Amended billrequiresSCAQMD toestablish anofticc technologyadvancement todminister the3lean-burning~uels program.?rovides for $16Billion in four3ond measures to3e placed on theballot..Part of a)acket ofmeasures, SCA 3and SR 8,relating tofunding forCalifornia’stransportation~capital needs.

~Would extend~dae State and~Local Partnership~Program to July

2ooo..~heprogram IS set tO

~xpire July 1,1999. The billwould alsoallocate up to$200 from theState HighwayAccount (SHA)to fund projectsalready slated forfunding only.

Originalneutral asamended

Support

Neutral

2haptered No. 36

Passed in Assembly TransportationCommittee, 7/12

In Assembly

Signed by Governor, 6/28

Chapter #47


,1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix Page 11 of 17

SB 532

SenateCommittee onl?ransportation)

SB 601

Kamette)

;A 6/16/99

SB 677

~olanco.)

LA 4/21/99

Amended toclarify the billdoes not extendthe programs, bu~only allows forthe completion oiprojects.Urgencyprovision wasadded.Dmnibus~ommittee bill,~,hich includes~anguage relating~o: (1) increasingVITA’s threshold."or advertisingfor bidders oncontracts from$25,000 to$40,000; and, (2)increasing theMTA threshold[’or requiringprice quotes onsmall purchasesfi-om $1,000 to$2,400.CTA sponsored~ate-wide billgehich provides:hat transitigencies may use’competitivenegotiation" to3urehase buses.Provides for a~artial andtemporaryexemption of thesales taxspecifically forMTA and its~urehase oftransit vehicles.

Sponsor ofM’rA~rovisions

Support/co-sponsor

Sponsor

Hearing in AssemblyAppropriations Committee, 8/18

Signed by Governor

Chapter #101

Held in Senate Revenue andTaxation Committee, 4/21

2-year bill

0.1.2

http://www.mta.neffcorporate/depts/govtrela/g~ 99 O0 matrix.htm : 7/20/99

1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix rage 12 ot l / ~,

SB 681

(Speier)

~B 85i

SB 864

~amette)

;B 928

,~uaon)7114/99

SB 1101

.Vlurray)

7113/99

Relates to olresponsibilitiesindividuals inminor caraccidents andliability issues forfreeway servicepatrolsthroughout thestate.Similar to SB1886, this bill¢¢ould establish~even~ransportation~lanning boardsfftroughout the;ounty to be the"sole andexclusive"flanning entitiesfor transportationand capitalprojects withingivengeographicalareas.A "spot" billwhich currentlymake non-substantivechanges to MTAlaw.

Support

Oppose

Neutral


Held in Senate TransportationCommittee, April 20

2-year bill

Senate Rules Committee

Mlows for thessuance of3ARVEE bonds~or infrastructure9rojects.DesignatesIransportationgones as~rganizationalanits of the MTAwith itsemployees to bepart of the samecollectivebargainingagreements as


Oppose


Re-referred to AssemblyTransportation Committee

013

http://www.mta.neffcorporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 O0 matrix.htm 7/20/99

,1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix rage 1~ ot ~ /

SB 1202

Karnette_)

SB 1243

(Murray)

LA 4/19/99

SB 1276

(Hayden)

LA 6/9/99

~,epresented bybe MTA.Nould requirebat in resolving~ssues relating tolaborarganization~epresentation~’or MTA, theState Director ofIndustrialRelations mustlefme the term’employee" asncludingndividuals:rnployed as,’upcrvisors andmanagers. MTAwill work withKarnette’s staffto:larify and amend)ill to reflect:eccnt MTAwtions in thisregard.Original wmcreates aconstructionauthority for anundefined projectalong theExpositionRight-of-Way.Would providethat the MTABoard ofDirectors maynot pass anyagenda item"with less thansevenaffarmative"votes. Urgency)rovision added.

Opposeunless

amended

No positiontue to)otential~nendments

Oppose

Senate Industrial RelationsCommittee

In Senate Transportation2ommittee

)--year bill

I]earing in Senatetransportation Committee, 8/17

0 014


1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix Page 14 or 17. ,

SCA 3

Burton)

A 718/99

3riginal measureprovided thatlocal:ransportation;ales taxes can bexpproved by a~ajority vote,rather than the2/3rds voterequired by stateConstitution fortax measures.Amendedmeasure providesFor a statewidesales tax with arequirement that"non-

~ransportationsales taxcounties" mustsubmit anexpenditure planto voters on acountywideballot. Currenttransportationsales tax countie.,could extendtheir measureswith a vote of theCountyTransportationAuthority Board.This measure asmrrently written,aas no impact onLos AngelesEountya’ansportation~ales taxmeasures. Part of~ packet ofmeasures, SP, 8and SB 315,rdating tofianding forCalifornia’stransportation

Support Adopted by Senate, 7/12

In Assembly TransportationCommittee

015


¯ . ,1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix Page l ~ ott /

IR 8 Calls for aninventory of the

Burton) state’stransportationneeds, providesmechanism for

~1~ identifying the~gh-priorityprojects forfunding by thebond proceedsand forrecommendation.,on how to ~enhance Caltransproject delivery.Part of a packetof measures, SB315 and SCA3,relating tofunding forCallfomia’stransportation

Support Adopted by the Senate on February19, 1999

Deferred = bill will b~ brought up at another time; Chaptered = bill has become law; LA = Last Amended; Enrolled =bill sent to Governor for approval or veto; and, Held in Committee = bill is dead for this calendar year, could beconsidered next calendar year

Any inquiries regarding MTA’s state legislative program may be directed to C.A. Moody [email protected].

Bill / Author

FY 2000TransportationAppropriationsrequest

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Description

VITA’s request for FY 2000 Transportation~_ppropriations is as follows:

$50 million of Section 5309 FixedGuideway-Discretionaty Funding for theconstruction of Metro Rail Red Line,Segment 3, North Hollywood Extension;$9 milllon of Section 5309 FixedGuideway-Discretionary funding forpreliminary engineering, design andenvironmental work for furore fixedguideway projects in the East Side andMid-City corridors;

Status

Testimony was submitted to theHouse Subcommittee onTransportation Appropriations,March 26, 1999, and to theSenate Subcommittee onTransportation Appropriations,March 31

Mark-up in the SenateTransportation AppropriationsSubcommittee on May 25 and fulcommittee action on May 27. TheHouse mark-up has not been 016


1999/00 Local, State and Federal Legislative Matrix ~’age to oi t ~

[-I.R. 2084-Wolf

2000Appropriations

¯ $15 million in Section 5309 Bus and BusRelated Facilities Program Discretionaryfunding to assist MTA in complying withthe Bus Rider’s Union (BRU) ConsentDecree and implementing MTA’sAccelerated Bus Procurement Plan; and,

¯ $10 million in Section 5308 Clean FuelsBus Program funding to assist in fundingthe construction of additional CNGfacilities and bus technologyimprovements.

H.R. 2084-FY 2000 TransportationAppropriations bill includes the followingearmarks for MTA programs:

¯ $50 million of Section 5309 FixedGuideway-Discretionary Funding forconstruction of Metro Rail Red Line,Segment 3 North Hollywood;

¯ $5 million of Section 5309 FixedGuideway-Discretionary Funding forpreliminary engineering, design andenvironmental work for future fixedguideway projects in the East Side andMid-City corridors;

¯ $7 million in Section 5309 Bus and BusRelated Facilities Program Discretionaryfunding;

¯ $0 in Section 5308 Clean Fuels BusProgram;

¯ $1.8 million in Section 5209 (c) forIntelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)deployment projects; and,

¯ $1 million 3037 for Iob Access andReverse Commute Grant Grants.

~cheduled.

May 19, the HouseAppropriations Committees actedon 302 (b) spending allocationsfor 13 subcommittees. Thespending allocation figures for FY2000 Transportations are: $12.7billion in discretionary budgetauthority; $43.5 billion indiscretionary outlays; and, $12.3billion in FY 99 current yearspending level.

May 27, 1999 - The HouseSubcommittee on Transportationand Related Agencies reportedthe F¥ 2000 TransportationAppropriations bill to the fullHouse AppropriationsCommittee.

June 8, 1999- The HouseAppropriations Committeeunanimously approved the HouseSubcommittee on Transportationand Related Agencies FY 2000l’ransportation Appropriations~ill.

tune 23, 1999-On a 429-3 vote,.:he house voted to approve HR~.084. The bill provides $50.79illion in transportation spendingFor FY 2000, and $47.2 billion for?Y 99. The Administration’s:equests is $50.2 billion. HR 20849rovides $5.8 billion to the FTAmd $28.9 billion to the FHW,~. 0.1.7

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrela/gr 99 00 matrix.htm 7/20/99


1143- Shelby

2000transportation.~ppropriations

.Vlay 25, 1999- Senate Subcommitteel’ransportation Appropriations reported the total~unding level for FY 2000 of $3.098 billion.2alifornia would receive $456.681 in formula5nds. The Senate Subcommittee did not earmark5nds for specific New Starts transit or bus~rojects. The report language includes a "TransitEquity Provision" which "prevents any state fromreceiving more than 12.5% of the aggregateformula and capital investment grants programs’funds." CA could lose $117 million.

May 27, 1999- The SenateAppropriations Committeeapproved and reported out on a21-7 vote, (Feinstein-no) the 2000 Transportation bill to theSenate Floor.

On June 28, Senate MajorityLeader Trent Lott scheduled a:loture motion for S. 1143.I?he motion for a cloture voterailed by a vote of 49 Ayes-40~Tays. The cloture motion

..requires 60 votes for passage.

Any inquiries regarding MTA’s federal legislative program may be directed to A. Noda [email protected].

Government RelationsLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityOne Gateway PlazaMail Stop 99-19-6Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952

Return to Government Relations Home

[MTA Home] [RTP&D Linl~.]

0.18

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrelw’gr_99 00 matrix.htm 7/20/99

ATTACHMENT "3"

Section 5307 15% Principles

March 6, 1997Bus Operations Subcommittee Meeting .-

PREVIOUS POLICY DOCUMI~NTSON THE ALLOCATION PROCEDURE FOR

15% SEC 9 DISCRETIONARY CAPITAL FUNDS

To:

From:

Date:

RE:

BOS Members /f~

Tim Galbraith, AVTA ~:2~ ~~

February 14, 1996 ~ ..

Allocation Procedure for 15% Discretionary Capital Funda

Beginning in April 1995, the BOS at one of its regular Tuesday meetingsattempted to develop and discuss an allocation procedure for the 15%discretionary capital funds. Consensus was difficult and a working groupwas subsequently established to better define the process. The workinggroup (MTA, Foothill, AVTA, Santa Monica) me~ in late April and a broadoutline was discussed. While there was no great detail discussed, theframework for allocation became clear and ! have taken the liberty in thismemo to add more specific items in an attempt to move thisprocess along.

The Process:Discretionary projects are submitted using a format similar to capital transitprojects in the MTA Call for Projects. Projects are ranked in two separate,parallel and distinct stages: (1) BOS will rank projects; and (2), MTA staffwill rank same list of projects.

Then, both sets of rankings would be presented to BOS for an attempt toconsolidate projects into a single list to be sent to the Board.

Eli_oibilitv; .-It was discussed that any and all capital project would be eligible forsubmission. Standard 80/20 grant/match split. Uml~.s~ p~o.ycJ-

QuantiW of Funds.E0u[tv_and otherPoss|ble Restrictions: .* 50% Umit of Discretionary pot maximum for individual project~

All of operator’s current year CAP funds must be programmed towardthe proposed projectPrior year CAP balances must be programmed *=~..... ...... ~ ~.-~---- .......Discourage funding redundancy (COP off the top, then same agencyapplies for more vehicles)

* Discourage demonstration or pilot capital projects* Encourage multi-agency procurements* Projects requesting funds for cost-overruns require 50% local match* Projects o ’pr posing vehicle replacement - higher priority to higher

average fleet age. 020

v~- ¯ . Annual Fundina priorities: ~!*.c.;n- ~*- or=:~t:c: (:~h;~o -~~ " ":

~ * MuNi-ye~ programming ~om di~cretiona~ pot ..... . ’ ~.

~e categofi~ and point s~ucture fiom the MTA Call applica~on could sereas a base for cdteda developm~t.

Regional SignificanceCost EffectivenessLand Use and Environmental CompatibilityBenefit to Transit UsersManagement of Existing SystemsIntermodal IntegrationLong-term Project DevelopmentProject Readiness

More work needs to be done with respect to evaluation criteria. There wassome di~¢u~.~,lon regarding dropping regional significance and projectreadiness. Here, transit replacement or improvement projects beg theregionally significant label and no proje¢~ should even be proposed if it is"ready-to-go.

Before developing specific point values and categories, it is important forBO$ to come to some consensus regarding the general direction of thisproposed allocation procedure. Additionally, there hoods to b¢ attentiongiven to some of the more specific suggestions such as alternating annualfunding priorities and multi-year programming.

2

021

TOTAL P. 83

To: Jim Mills, Gardena Municipal Bus LinesChair, BOS

From: Tun GalbrakhAVTA

Date: May 26, 1995

Subject: Report from BOS Working Group on 1~% DiScretionary Capital

This memo will serve as an interim repor~ from the BOS Working Group regarding theprogress on developing criteria for the allocation of the 15% Discretionary Capital ~nds.

The ~st meeting was on April 27 and it was attended by.myselt~ Julle Austin (Foothill),Ytm McLanghin (IVITA), Steve Brown (MTA) and Norm Stabeck (MTA). StephanieGriffin (Santa Monica) was unable to attend due to a meeting conflict but did FAX memo outlining her initial comments.

There was general agreement to allow for a broad category of eligible projects. Noprojects, including those currently funded with formula capital funds, should be consideredineligt~ole for discretionary funds. The FTA Section 9 definition for capital projects couldbe used as a standard. Moreover, no project sponsor should be eliminated from applyingfor discretionary funding even if’that sponsor was already receiving funding "offthe top."In short, the 15% would be open to all. ,.

lVfl" A staff expressed concern that these discretionary funds should be flexible and perhapsthe criteria should be reviewed annually to ensure funding was "needs based." Mandates/

and "Board mandates" remained problematic. Only current BOS operators could be ̄ .eligible for the 15% allocation.

It was suggested at this meeting to develop a process that had the framework of an openannual competition in which BOS would rank all projects.. An MTA working groupwould then rank the same group of projects, returning their recommendations to BOS.Ideally, diff’erences in rankings could be worked odt at this level. Ifcoasensus is notachieved, dual rankings could move forward. Rankings would be then sent through the"lVfI’A committee structure for eventual adoption by the full Board. This "TransitOperator Capital Call" would address lVITA staff’s concerns that both staffand theBoard should have input into this process. Additionally, having BOS rank projects wouldaddress BOS members’ concerns that currently MTA staff’alone ranks all projects. Theserecommendations for the 15% would could be reviewed by TAC, although the TAC’s rolein this Transit Operator Call maybe more limited than in the MTA’s regular Call for

Projects. MTA staffsaid they would also evaluate and review the SRTP process to make(.,sure this Transit Operator Cap!tal Ca!l and the SRTP cpuld .be. ,.~. ~achron..i,z...ey!..-~,:~i;-. ’::5:i~:..~ "::":_:~;:.-.2~:--,,:0 22

Bus Operations Subcommittee Me~tingFebruary 28, 199515% Discretionary Portion of the Capital Formula ]~u~ds

Agenda Item

PURPOSE OF THE 15% ~)ISCRETIONARY PORTIONOF THE TRANSIT CAPITAL FORMULA FUNDS

To assist ope~t_ors in attaining an average arm.a! bus fleet age of six years and assist in thedevelopment of operator facilities, where an operator’s annaal formula allocation is in~cientto provide that type of development effort.

To attempt to remedy any disparity between the actual annual capital needs of each operator and.assignment of available funding based on the ~e.~u!-...~ecztior" Prec~

3./"

o

CRITERIA FOR FUNDING

No operator may be assigned more than 50% of the annual discretionary allocationwithout unanimous consent of the Bus Operations Subcommlttee.

Any operator participating in a COP or any other "off the top" funding using the buscapital pool during the allocation year will not be eligi’ble for funding from the 15%discretionary portion of the capital formula funds. .

The 15% discretionary portion of the capital formula funds ":"

To qualify for funds for use in bus replacement, an operator’s average fleet age(including buses on order) must exceed six (6) years. Replacement of buses will limited to those that are at or over 12 years of useful life. Agencies with the oldestaverage fleet years would have priority.

To qualify for funds for use in facility development, an operator’s total annual formulaallocation for the sum of four (4) years, if fully allocated to a facility project, must .beinsufficient to fund the ect. .,- - :"~ ....... : .-.-.--

Bus Operations Subcommittee MeetingFebruary 28, 199515% Discretionary Portion of the Capital Formula Funds

PROCEDURES FOR FLrNDING

,-~ cc.:ju.’:ctic, a ;,~th the atm~l S~,T’/’~ }eoee~,"~e Bus Operations sub~ommlttee will determinefunding commltnlents for the 15% discretionary portion of the capital formula funds, by thefollowing procedures:

Annually, at a meeting of the Bus Operations Subcommittee, all operators may submitappropriate capital project needs for the upcoming./~,feer year period, to the Commlttee forfunding consideration.

A--ually, as discretionary funds are available to meet the needs presented, the BusOperations Subcommittee may commit/recommend the allocation of such funds, with thebalance of unallocated funds (if any) to be distributed through the capital formula l~Ai~.

At the discretion of the Bus Operations Subcommittee, a funding ~ommltment may beallocated over multiple years when.insufficient funds are a~allable on an annu,%l basis to.meet the needs presented.a~ I.o:~ as ~ ~ ~, ~ go o~,,xz,~

At the conclnsion of a project funded with the 15% discretionary portion of the .capita]formula funds, any unexpended funds will be returned to the same 15% discretionaryfund for reprogramming.

In FY 2000, the Bus Operations Subcommittee will reevaluate the methods fordistribution of the 15% discretionary portion of the capital foo,,ula funds.

Fage 2

::

ATTACHMENT "4"

Proposition C Discretionary MOU

TO: Mike Busch, ArcadiaAndre Colaiace, FoothillNalini Ahuja, MTA Strategic Planning

FROM: Kathryn Engel, Montebello

SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON PROP C 40% DRAFT MOU

Included in thi.~ emall are two versions of the draft MOU sent to me by Andy Galindez. The MOU hadalready been marked up by someone at MTA these edits are shown in blue. My markups are shown in red.To save you time, I am also seeding you a version of the MOU that accepts all of the changes, so that youcan read it like a real MOU!

Here are some cornrn~1~ts or my reasoning on some of the major items to be edited. You can follow thesein the marked up version.

Section 2.1. The "funding marks" or summary page of the funding marks are the plan. There are notseparate documents for each fund source.Section 3.2. Insert use of BSIP funds here instead of at old Section 4.5. All uses of funds should beunder Article 3. Also eliminate resolution because everyone getting BSIP funds has already done aresolution. There are no new BSIP recipients and the MOU can reassert the use of the funds. There doesnot seem to be any value to either the MTA or an Operator in an annual resolution. "Section 3.3. This is from the old fair share MOU and it may not be applicable to this MOU. Sharefunds are treated just like formula funds and have no restricted uses. The language from 1997 in (iii) and(iv) I think dealt with MTA only issues at the time. Nalini, would you please check this out? I have notstricken it but recommend that it be investigated and eliminated ffposs~le.Section 3.4. I just changed the order on 3.3. and 3.4.Section 4.3. Added language clarifying the reporting requirement.Section 4.4 Combined FMIT and SHARE since they are both used like formula funds and are nottracked as separate programs. The only way to report the funds is through the agency’s annual financialaudit.Section 4.5 See comments in 3.2.

If you have any additional comments or questions please call me on Thursday at 323-887-4609. Andyasked that we get back comments to hira by the end of the day on Thursday. Thanks for your help on theMOU.

MOU #

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGTO AI.LOCATE PROPOSITION C 40% DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

This Memorandum of Understanding (~VIOU") is entered into as of July 1, 1999 by and betweenthe Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA") and("G~rn~E").

WHEREAS, on November 6, 1990, the voters of the County of Los Angeles approved by majorityProposition C, an ordinance establishing a one-half percent sales tax for public transit purposes;and

WHEREAS, the MTA, is the agency respons~le for administering the tax; and

WHEREAS, Proposition C 40% Discretionary Funds (the "FUNDS") have been identified as thelanding source for the following programs: Transit Service Expansion ("TSE"), FoothillMitigation ("FM1T"), Fair Share Allocation ("SHARE"), Overcrowding Relief to the TransitDependent ("BSIP"), and Base Restructuring ("BASE") (referred to, individually as a "Program"and collectively, as "Progrzm.~ ")

WHEREAS, the GRANTEE is an eligible operator and desires to receive the FUNDS from MTAfor the following programs: .(the "GRANTEE’s Programs"); and

WHEREAS, MTA and GRANTEE desire to agree to the terms and conditions of the grant ofFUNDS for the GRANTEE’s Progmm~ ("MOU").

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual term and conditions contained herein, MTAand GRANTEE hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 - TERM

1.1. This MOU will be in effect from July 1, 1999 through Iune 30, 2002 unlessterminated earlier as provided herein.

ARTICLE 2 - ALLOCATION OF PROPOSITION C DISCRETIONARY FUNDS AND INVOICEPROCEDURE

2.1. Each fiscal year, to the extent the FUNDS are available, MTA staff, incoordination with the Eligible/Included Operators, will develop funding allocationplans for those Programs to be funded that fiscal year (the "Annual Allocation Plans").The Annual Allocation Plans will descn"oe GRANTEE’s share of the FUNDS forGRANTEE’s Programs to the extent such Programs are funded that fiscal year.GRANTEE shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the applicable AnnualAllocation Plans prior to MTA staff submitting the Annual Allocation Plans to the MTABoard for approval.

2.2. For each fiscal year covered by this MOU, GRANTEE hereby directs MTA toallocate GRANTEE’s shzre of the FUNDS pursuant to the applicable Annual AllocationPlan for that fiscal year as approved by the MTA Board. Attached as Exhibit A are theapplicable Annual Allocation Plans for GRANTEE’s Projects in FY 1999. IfMTA staff,

in coordination with the Eligible/Included Operators, develops a mid-year rcallocationof any Annual Allocation Plan that is approved by the MTA Board, GRANTEE herebydirects and authorizes MTA to make such mid-year adjnstmcnts to its Annual AllocationPlan, as approved by the MTA Board, ff applicable.

2.3. ~ach fiscal year, GRANTEE shall send MTA one invoice for each GRANTEEProgram in an amount consistent with the amount shown on the applicable AnnualAllocation Plan. MTA shall not be obligated to forward the FUNDS for a particularProgram to GRANTEE until it receives an invoice. For each Program, MTA shall makepayments to GRANTEE on a quarterly basis, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.

ARTICLE 3 - USE OF FUNDS

3.1. GRANT~. shall ufiliTe the FUNDS (i) in accordance with the MTAProposition C 40% Discretionary Guidelines (the "GUIDELINES") (as adopted by in May 1992, (ii) only for operating assistance of the applicable Program transit servicesfor which GRANTEE has received FUNDS; and (’hi) in accordance with MTA boardaction in approving the FUNDS to GRANTEE.

3.2. GRANT~ shall not use any FUNDS received for a particular Program tosubstitute for any other funds, senrice, or project except as otherwise specificallyprovided for in this MOU.

3.3. GRANTEE shall utilize the BS1P ~S for services that will relieveovercrowding for the most transit dependent customers and results in improving serviceqlmlity for the transit dependent.

3.4. GRANTEE shall not use any FUNDS received for the SHARE Program tosubstitute for other funds; provided, however, GRANTEE may use the FUNDS receivedfor the SHARE Program to substitute for the following funds only: (I) FormulaAllocation Procedure funds; (ii) Proposition A Discretionary funds; (iii) if GRANTEEha~ incurred debts or is planning to incur debts to balance its Fiscal Year 19_ operatingand capital budgets, GRANTEE may use the FUNDS received for the SHARE Programin lieu of such borrowings; and/or (iv) Proposition A & C Local Return funds budgetedin Fiscal Year 19__ which were originally programmed as operating revenues andwhich have been reprogrnmmed for capital purposes; provided, however, the totalamount of FUNDS received for the SHARE Program budgeted in Fiscal Year 19__ asoperating revenues does not decrease as a result of such reprogramming and theMaintenance of Effort continues to be met.

3.4. Any lm~pent FUNDS received for a particular Program must be returned toMTA no later than 60 days after the completion of any required fiscal and complianceaudits of such Program performed either by the MTA or GRANTEE.

ARTICLE 4 - AUDIT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

financial4.1. Each fiscal year, MTA or its designee shall have the right to conduct a

and compliance audit(s) of GRANTEE’s Programs. GRANTEE agrees to establish andmaintain proper accounting procedures and cash management records and documents inaccordance with conditions defined by this MOU. GRANTEE shall maintain financialrecords for three (3) years after the end of the fiscal year within which the FUNDS were

027

dispersed. MTA may audit as provided herein up to three years a~ter the end of thefiscal year within which the FLrNDS were dispersed.

4.2. GRAN~.F. shall comply with all Federal National Transit Database reportingrequirements and slmll anmmlly submit a completed copy of said report to MTA.

4.3. If GRANTEE receives FUNDS for the TSE, BASE and/or BSIP Programs,GRANTEE shall comply with the following:

By November 1st of each year, the GRANTEE shall submit to the MTA a completedTPM form which separately reports prior fiscal year data pertaining to the TSE, BASEand/or BSIP Progmm~ as non formula service.

4.4. If G~ receives FUNDS for the FM1T and/or SHARE Programs,GRANTEE shall comply with the following:

By December 30 of each year, the GRANTEE shall submit to the MTA an annualfinancial audit repo~ which identifies the use of the FUNDS for transit purposes.

ARTICLE 5 - MISCELLANEOUS

5.1. Each grant given pursuant to an Annual Allocation Plan shall be a one-timegrant subject to the terms and conditions agreed to herein and in the GUIDELllqES.Notwithstanding the term of this MOU, each grant does not imply nor obligate anyfuture funding commitment on the part of the NIT.&.

5.2. GRANTI~. Understands and agrees that in programming the FUNDS andentering into thi.~ MOU, MTA is acting punnmnt to its statutory authority and shall haveno liability in connection with the use of these FUNDS for public transit purposes or forany of the Progr~m~, GRANTEE shall fully indemnify, defend and hold the MTA, itsdirectors, officers, employees and agents harmless from and against any liability andexpenses, including without limitation, defense costs, any costs or liability on account ofbodily injmy, death or person.al injury of any person or for damage to or loss of risk ofproperty, any environmental obligation, legal fees and any claims for damages of anynature whatsoever arising out of (i) breach of GRANTEE’S obligations under thisMOU; (ii) misuse of the FUNDS by GRANTEE, or its officers, agents, employees subcontractors; (hi) any act or omission of the GRANTEE or its officers, agents,employees or subcontractors in the performance and/or provision of the servicesprovided nnder the GRANTEE’S Programs.

5.3. GRANTEE agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federallaws and regulations in the provision of public transit services and any services renderedfor the GRANTEE’s Program~.

5.4.The MTA reserves the fight to terminate this MOU and withhold the FUNDS if it isdetermined that the GRANTEE has not complied with all the terms and conditionscol~tzined herein or in the GUIDELINES.

5.5. Any withholding Of FUNDS, termination of the MOU, or imposition of anyfinancial penalty against GRANTEE pursuant to the GUIDELINES is subject to nine (9)affirmative votes by the governing board of the MTA.

5.6. No amendment or modification to this MOU shall be binding upon either partyunless such amendment or modification is in writing duly executed by both parties.This MOU shall not be amended or modified by any acts or conduct of the parties.

5.7. GRAN~TEE is not a contractor, agent or employee of the MTA. GRANTEE$h~l! not represent itself as a contractor, agent or employee of the MTA and shall haveno power to bind the MTA in contract or otherwise.

5.8. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect tothe subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all prior and contemporaneousagreements and understandings.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of Understanding to be dulyexecuted as of the dates below with all the formalities required by law.

GRANTEE

Name:Title:

Date:

LOS ANGELES COUNTYMETROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATIONAU’I~ORITY

lulian BurkeChief Executive O~cer

Date:

ATTEST:

Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

LLOYD W. PELLMANCOUNTY COUNSEL

By:Deputy

0

ATTACHMENT "5"

Distribution of Prop C 40%Discretionary Revenues


Authority

One Gateway PlazaLosAngeles, CA

90012-2952

July 9, 1999

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

GENERAL MANAGERS- f~

CHIEF OPERATING OlcFICER ~ V

DISTRIBUTION OF PROPC 40% DISCRETIONARYREVENUES

As you know, despite the good faith efforts of negotiators representing the MTAand the Muni’s we have been unable to agree on a formula for "fair sharing" PropC 40% revenues. MTA management sincerely regrets this failure because weremain fully committed to rebuilding our relationships with all county transitoperators. We believe our commitment is evident by the matching funds weprogrammed for the Municipal Operators in the Regional Transit AlternativeAnalysis, as well as the continuing involvement we are seeking in developingcountywide fare collection technology and similar programs.

The Prop C 40% issue is particularly difficult because of the exposures for all of usin the current Consent Decree litigation.

For your review, I have attached a portion of the declaration Tom Rubin (a formerMTA Chief Financial Officer, now a consultant to the Consent Decree plaintiffs)filed for the July 19th hearing by Judge Terry Hatter. While we dispute Mr.Rubin’s analysis, it shows why our Board must be constrained in changing the waybus eligible funds are allocated.

Also attached is a memorandum CEO Julian Burke sent to Board membersexplaining his position on Prop C 40% revenues. We will continue ourdiscussions with your representatives to see if we can reach agreement on thisdifficult issue.

Attachments

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E. RICHARD L.~RSON. Bar No. 171678ERICA J. TEASLEY, Bar No. 178498KIM WEST-FAULCON, Bar No. 199501THEODORE SHAW, Bar No. 139123NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE Aa\q3

EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.315 West 9th Street. Suite 208Los .angeles, CA 90015(213) 624-2405(213) 624-0075 (fax)

CONSTANCE L. RICE, Bar No. 153372ENGLISH, MUNGER & RICE801 South Grand AvenueSuite 1900Los Angeles, CA 90017(213) 615-1660(213) 615-1673 (fax)

ELAINE R. JONESNORMAN J. CHACHKINNAACP LEGAL DEFENSE .4aND

EDUCATIONAL FI.J.~D, INC.99 Hudson StreetSuite t 600New York, NY 10013(212) 965-2200(212) 226-7592 (fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LABOR/COMuM’U,’NITY STRATEGYCENTER, et al.,

Plaintiff,

Vo

LOS ANGELES COUNTYMETROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATIONAUTHORITY and JULIAN BURKE,

Defendants.

~,,frA’~COURT.REC,.99WA~- DF.C.70 |

Case No. CV 94-5936 TJH (Mcx)

DECLARATION OF THOMAS A. RUBININ SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’OPPOSITION TO MTA’S MOTION FORREVIEW

Date: July 19, 1999Time: 11:00 a.m.Dept: Courtroom 17

Honorable Terry J. Hatter, Jr.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF THOMAS A. RUBIN

I, Thomas A. Rubin, declare as follows:

I. I have over twenty years of governmental transit experience, including approximately four

years as Controller-Treasurer (chief financial officer) of the Southern Caiifomia Rapid Transit District

(SCRTD), one of the two predecessor agencies of the Los Angeles County Metrop61itan Transportation

Authority (MTA) prior to the merger that formed MTA in 1993. I have served over 100 transit

operators, metropolitan planning organizations, state departments of transportation, the Federal Transit

Administration, and other governmental transportation agencies with a wide variety of audit and

consulting projects. I have been engaged as an expert to the plaintiffs in Labor~Community Strategy

Center et al v. ~7"A et al (L/CSC v MTA) since approximately the commencement of this Federal Title

VI (discrimination in the utilization of Federal financial assistance) lawsuit in September of t 994. Since

the execution of the Consent Decree (CD) in this case in late 1996, I have attended the vast majority

the Joint Working Qroup meetings and have devoted hundreds of hours to various matters affecting

virtually all aspects of MTA operations and finances. I enclose my summary resume as Exhibit I and

reference Exhibit A. to my First Supplemental Declaration of October 11, 1994, previously submitted

in re this matter, a more extensive record of my transit industry, governmental finance, and Los Angeles

County transportation experience.

2. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below, except as otherwise stated, and

I would and could competently testify concerning these matters if called as a witness in this matter.

3. I submit this declaration in response to the MTA’s Motion for Review of the Special

Master’s Memoranda Dated May 6, 1999 and May 14, 1999 and to various declarations filed in support

thereof. I reference and incorporate in this Declaration my Declaration of April 26, 1999, in re remedies

for MTA’s systemwide violations of the 1.35 load factor ceiling, submitted in the Stage IIproceedings

before Special Master Donald T. Bliss, Jr. and my Declaration of February 5, 1999 submitted in support

of the Bus Riders Union Load Factor Remedial Plan in re the original proceeding before Special Master

Bliss in this matter.

-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

$

9

lO

ll

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

2O

22

23

24

25

26

27

ko

mo

no

passenger-miles by county of residency and has not taken any effective steps to

cause the other Metrolink member counties to significantly increase their funding

percentages.

¶ 44. - MTA has elected to contract for police services ~vith the City of Los

Angeles Police Department and the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department,

disestablishing its far less expensive internal MTA Transit Police Department,

and has taken only minimal steps to replace expensive s~vom law enforcement

officers with less costly armed security guards and civilian, "soft uniform"

personnel where applicable.

¶¶ 45.-54. - MTA has not utilized Proposition C 25% Transit-Related Highway

Improvement funds for bus purchases or operations, but has used, plans tb use,

and/or has planned to use such funds for rail construction, the Alameda Corridor

freight rail project, and Construction of the Long Beach Freeway extension to the

Foothill Freeway.

¶¶ 55.-57. - MT~ has treated Prol~osition C 40% allocations to itself for bus

operations as if they were part of the County-wide formula allocation utilized for

TDA, Proposition A 40% Discretionary, STA, and other operating fimds, thereby

allocating additional funding to the Murticipal operators as it allocates funds to

itself.

¶¶ 58.-59. - MTA has agreed to reduce the City of Los Angeles’ funding

requirements for cost overruns on Red Line Segments 1 and 2 by at least tens of

r~_illions of dollars, began eon~isaetion on Red Line Segment 3 without an

executed funding agreement with the City, agreed to conditions On receipt of

Segment 3 funding from the City that have proven impossible to comply with

(and should have been known by MTA to have been impossible when the

agreement was adopted), and allowed the City to take a 5% discount on the

Segment 3 payments that it did make to MTA.

- 35 -’ 033

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2"1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

o. ¶ 60.a. - MTA has not abandoned the Universal Fare System program.

p. ¶ 60.b. - MTA has taken no steps to attempt to have Federal Red Line Segment

3 Eastside and Mid-City funds reprogrammed for bus purposes.

q. ¶ 61. - MTA is still studying and considering subway construction of the Red

Line Segment 3 Eastside and Mid-City, even after the passage of Proposition A

(1998) and the elimination of these projects fi:om the Southern California

Association of Governments’ approved list.

r. ¶ 62. - MTA has consistently overestimated the availability of funding and

underestimated the cost of many ~rojects, including every rail project it has ever

been associated. In September, 1994, MTA was forced to admit that it had

overestimated total revenue that would be available over the first twenty years of

the "30-Year Plan" (adopted March, 1992) by $36 billion.

s. (New) MTA has done virtually nothing to create high-occupancy toil(HOT)

lanes to finance the construction ofbusways.

t. (New) With one exception, MTA ~ never issued debt to purchase buses,

despite issuing billions of dollars of debt for rail construction purposes. Even

this sole usage of debt for bus purchases was to allow the shift of funds that

would have otherwise gone for the local share of the cost of the buses to cover

bus operations, thereby allowing MTA to proceed-with its accelerated rail

construction program.

63. As far as ~ejeeting my Declaration and instead relying on Mr. Yale’s Revised Declaration,

I will limited my comments to stating that the Special Master had both Declarations before him for his

consideration and he drew his conclusions according to the credence he gave to both.

64. MTA: "The Special Master also states that the RTAA:

... concluded that as a result of suspended rail projects and expanded funding ~ources, the

MTA is expected to have approximately $1.4 billion in funds available between FY99

and FY04. While there are, of course, other important projects that call for the use of

-36-

034

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

-21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

these funds, the fact remains that, on this record, the MTA has not shown why some of

these funds could not be used to fund or to secure the funding of the expansion buses

required by the Remedial Plan.

[May 14, 1999, Memorandum at 21.] Here, the Special Master has neglected to consider the evidence

that the MTA has already reprogrammed for buses substantially all of the funds referred to by the Special

Master. [Revised Yale Decl. ¶ 16.]" (Page 24, lines 11-20.)

65. In responding to this point, it must fast be stated that there are many degrees of action

taken by the MTA Board in regard to allocations of funding, ranging from reviewing a plan submitted

by staff for future spending as an information item only to entering into binding contractual a~eements.

With this in mind, let us review page 30F of the M"I’A Regional Transit Alternatives Analysis,

November 9, 1998 (Exhibit 8). The RTAA is the financial plan submitted to the California

Transportation Commission in satisfaction of the requirement that theCTC imposed on MTA to adopt

and present a financial plan that showed that MTA could proceed with various projects.

66. First, a note of explanation. In the above, the Special Master refers to "approximatel3

$1.4 billion in funds available between FYY99 and FY04.".-The top line of page 30F, ’¢Net Available,"

shows $1,084.4 million available for this period. To arrive at $1.4 billion, it is necessary to add t~) this

the $266.1 million in "Suspended Projects" (referring to funds that had originally been allocated to the

suspended Red Line Eastside and Mid-City extensions) approximately two-thirds down the page.

a total of $1,350.5 million, which, rounded up, produces $1.4 billion.

67. Now let us examine the line items contained on page 30F and allocate the dollar value

of each to the various categories shown below:

-37- 035

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2627

28

MTA¯ Bus

Non-MTABus

¢Millions)TotalBus Other Totals

Call for ProjectsStorm DamageRehabilitationSoundwallRehabilitationMTA UniversalFare System $ 31.0MTA BusTechnology 42.8Municipal OpCall for Projects

Rapid BusDemonstration 60.9Rapid BusPhase II &III 206.2Eastside/Mid-CityReserve

$31.5

$ 31.0

42.8

31.5

60.9

206.2

$558.7 .... $ 558.7

50.0 50.0

34.8 34.8

7.8 38.83z

42.8

31.5

60.9

206.2

220.0 220.0

$340.9 $31.5 $372.4 $871.3 . 1,243.7Net Available 106.8

Total $1.350.5

Percentages 25.2% 2.3% 27.5% 64.5%

Relying on the data from the above RTAA page, then, rather than MTA’s statement that, "MTA has

already reprogrammed for buses substantially all of the funds referred to by the Special Master," it ¯

appears that MTA has reprogrammed approximately 27.5% of these funds to bus. 27~5% appears to fall

far short of meeting the minimum qualifications for a categorization of "substantially all." Indeed,

given that MTA has reprogtammed 64.5% of these funds (a portion that appears far closer to meeting

the "substantially all" test) for non-bus uses, it would appear that, even if all of the unallocated "Net

Available" funds were to be allocated to bus, the bus portion would barely reach one-third of the total.

68. However, as I stated above, there are various levels of MTA Board action regarding

funding allocations. In particular, let us examine two of the above items, the "Rapid Bus

32 My allocation of the cost of this line item: 80% for bus fareboxes and 20% for miI lineticket vending machines and related equipment~

-38-

036

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Demonstration" and "Rapid Bus Phase II &III," which, together, constitute $267.1 million~3, or over,

70%, of the $372.4 million that is shown above for bus. When the RTAA was presented to the MTA

Board in November, the Board specifically refused to formally adopt these items at that time. Instead,

it directed staff to return to the Board with a plan to implement the three-line Demonstration Program

only. When this report was submitted, the Board accepted it, but held up implementation of the

Demonstration Program until the issue of Consent Decree implementation costs is resolved. Therefore,

at this time, it would be highly improper to state that the MTA Board has actually accepted the"Rapid

Bus Phase II &III" program and it is, at best, highly questionable if it has formally adopted even the

"Rapid Bus Demonstration" program at this time.

69. One thing that the MTA Board has most definitely adopted, however, is the $220.0

million "Eastside/Mid-City Reserve." From my observations at the MTA Board meeting where these

actions were taken, it was highly obvious that there was far ~eater support on the Board for this rail

construction program than there was for the Rapid Bus program -- in fact, I believe that a strong case

can be made that the MTA Board elected to adopt the $220.0 million for the "Eastside/Mid-City

Reserve" instead of adopting the $267.1 million for implementation for the Rapid Bus program.

70. Therefore, at the present time, not only is it highly improper to state that the "MTA has

already reprogr’ammed for buses substantially all of the funds referred to by the Special Master," but it

is entirely proper to state that, to date, MTA has formally adopted a far larger portion of these funds for

rail construction than it has for bus capital and operations. The above statement by MTA is absolutely

and totally false.

71. MTA: "The Special Master also apparently accepted the conclusion of Tom Rubin, a

witness for the Plaintiffs, that the MTA may discontinue sharing Proposition C discretionary funds with

As I discuss in detail in footnote 32 to my April 26, 1999 Declaration, it appears that theactual MTA cost for the Rapid Bus project will be far lower than what is shown in the RTAA. In b.rief,most of the buses that will be utilized for the actual Rapid Bus service are buses that are currently inservice on the lines that would be converted to Rapid Bus, but MTA appears to be. counting theiroperating costs as "Rapid Bus" costs, even though these costs are already.in the MTA budget. Also;although MTA is expecting significant numbers of new riders when Rapid Bus service is initiated, thereis no offset to the operating cost for the increased fare revenues the added riders will generate.

-39-

037

I0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the municipal bus operations "at any time it wishes." (May 14, 1999, Memorandum at 19-20; Rubin

~ecl. ¶ 57 at 37.] Not only is this a shortsighted remedy because it would merely take bus transit away

from some residents of the County in order to provide additional bus service to others, but the MTA

cannot reduce the percentage of state, federal and local funds paid to the municipal bus operators without

a three-fourths vote of the principal members of the MTA. Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 99285. Six of the

thirteen principal members of the MTA (the Board of Directors) are city council members with

obligations to their constituencies and cannot be compelled to vote in favor of reducing the funding to

the municipal bus operators. Spallone v. United States, 110 S. Ct. 625, 634-635 (1990)(city council

m,embers who voted against legislation ordered by a district court were improperly subjected to coercive

monetary sanctions where the court failed to first proceed with contempt sanctions against the city alone

to secure compliance with the remedial order.)" (Page 24, line 21 to page 25, line 5.)

72. Although I discuss this matter in detail at ¶¶ 55.-57.(a) of my Declaration of April 26,

1999, MTA has not elected to attempt to refute any of the contents thereof-- perhaps because it does

choose to fight this question on the issue of what the law states. While it is certainly correct that PUC

§ 99285 conta~.’ns extensive restrictions o’n lessening or elimination of formula funding distributions,

there is one very important matter about § 99285 that MTA somehow neglects to point out in its Motion:

Proposition C 40% discretionary funds are mentioned nowhere therein. All of the other funding

elements included in MTA’s formal operating subsidies formula distribution process (Federal § 5309,

TDA, TP&D, Proposition A 40% Discretionary, STA, etc.), and even some other funding sources

(Proposition C 5% Security), are specifically included, but Proposition C 40% Discretionary funds are

not.

73. In attempting to dispute this point, the MTA motion actually proves it for me. The ab._ove

cite itself admits that the formula can be changed by a three-quarters vote of the MTA Board. While it

appears that the three-quarters vote is not necessary, because Proposition C 40% Discretionary Funds

are not covered by PUC § 99285, and, therefore, the three-quarters vote requirement found in PUC §

992._85(e) is not applicable to this question, MTA is admitting that it can change the distribution of these

fun_dds by a vote of the MTA Board. Even if one accepts MTA’s three-quarters requirement, we are still

- 40 -

¯ 038

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

left with a situation where MTA has made a contractual agreement (the CD) with another party to carry

out certain actions. If it is necessary for MTA to utilize Proposition C 40% Discretionary funds in the

manner in issue to do so, then it is obligated to take the necessary actions to fulfill its contractual

responsibilities34.

74. Finally, I wish to respond to MTA’s claim in the above, "Not only is this a shortsighted

remedy because it would merely take bus transit away from some residents of the County in order to

provide additional bus service to others ..." It is. certainly correct that this is a zero-sum game- any such

funds added to MTA funding must result in an equal reduction of funding for another operator or

operators. However, tliere are two important issues that this ignores. The first is equity. While many

bfthe Municipal operators also serve highly minority riderships, MTA’s ridership is far more minority,

far poorer, and far more transit-dependent that virtually all of the riderships of the Municipal operators.

Second, of course, the MTA ridership is the only ridership in the County. that has an enforceable CD that

requires MTA to improve bus service. The last issue is productivity and cost-effectiveness. With only

There are two other interesting matters in this section. First, as IvlTA points out, "six ofthe thirteen principal members of the MTA (the Board of’Directors) are city council members withobligations to their constituencies ..." I certainly agree that many MTA members have acted not onlyto protect, but also to promote, the interests of the constituencies (the cities and the County) on manyoccasions. This raises, however, an interesting issue: if it proper for a member of a city council or acountry board of supervisors, when acting in his/her capacity as a member of another government board,to take actions that promote the interests ofhis"home" governmental unit at the expense of the interestsof the other governmental unit and the people it serves? The number of such cases that have impactedMTA and MTA riders is far too lengthy to even begin to address here.

The other interesting point is the s/x city council members on the MTA Board. MTA’senabling legislation, A.B. 152, at PUC § 130551(d) stipulates that four of the thirteen Board memberswill be locally elected mayors or city council members representing the smaller cites in the County (allbut the City of Los Angeles). PUC § 13055t(b) states that the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles willbe a member of the MTA Board and PUC § 130551 (c) states that the Board will include, "Two publicmembers and one member of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles appointed by the Mayor of theCity of Los Angeles." However, it appears that there are not one, but two Los Angeles City Councilmembers on the MTA Board. (At times in the past, there have been three and it is difficult to fred anytime where there was only the maximum one City Council member on the MTA-Board.)

The story is told that, in the early days ofMTA, then-Lbs Angeles Mayor Bradley "over-appointed" City Council members to the MTA Board and, when this matter and PUC § 130551 (c) werebrought to his attention, his response was, "So when does someone stop being a member of the publicjust because he’s elected to the City Council," and no further action was taken. Of course, anydisinterested analysis of this section can reach no conclusion other than "public member" and"memberof the City Council" are mutually exclusive in the context ofPUC § 130551.

This is offered as still another example of how MTA and its Board members frequentlyelect to disregard legal requirements that they do not wish to comply with.

-41 -

039

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

2O

2:1

22

23

25

26

27

28

very rare exceptions, the general rule is that the most cost-effective way to add transit driers in Los

Angeles county is to increase MTA bus service. Indeed, while MTA bus ridership was increasing by

9.2% increase FY96 to FY98, MTA actually lowered what it spent on its own bus transit services

(Exhibit 9). The increased fare revenues from the new riders more than offset the increased costs

service, after the impact of inflation is considered.

75. MTA: "The Special Master found that the MTA has not made bus operations its "fast

priority." [May 14, 1999, Memorandum at 20.} There is no evidence in the record to support such a

conclusion. Rather, the evidence indicates that the MTA has made bus operations its first priority, - it

simply has not and cannot legally make it directly operated b~ system its only priority. (Revised Burke

Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10.]" (Page 25, lines 6-7.)

76. Given what I have presented above, let alone what I have previously presented on this

matter, and what the entire record of this case shows, I see absolutely no necessity to respond to this

claim in detail. In fairness to MTA, I do believe that, since the original temporary restraining order, the

preliminary injunctions, and finally, the CD was entered into, bus transit service has slowly become a

far higher priority for MTA than it was prior to the originaliewsuit being filed. However, based on the

record in this matter, there is no question that the Special Master’s statement cited above is absolutely

co~cct.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this fast day of July, 1999, in Oakland, California.

Thomas A. Rubin

- 42 -

040

July 9, 1999


Authority

One Gateway Plaza

LosAngeles, CA

900124952

TO:

FROM:

SUBffECT:

BOARD OF DIRECTORSJrLL~NCHIEF EXECUTe/OFFICERMUNICIPAL OPERATOR’S SHARE OF PROP C 40%REVENUES

BACKGROUND

Proposition C 40% Discretionary Fair Share Allocation

During the FY00 budgeting process we consulted continuously withrepresentatives of the Municipal Operators to arrive at an agreement on thedistribution of Prop C 40% revenues. The MTA has followed a "fair share" policywith respect to Prop C 40% revenues whereby the muni’s received a matchingshare of Prop C 40% distributed to MTA bus operations. Beginning in FY 1997some Prop C 40% revenues were allocated to Consent Decree costs and were notfair shared, on the theory that the Consent Decree is a regional obligation. Eachyear the amount of Prop C 40% allocated to the Consent Decree has increased asshown below:

FY

Prop C 40%Consent Decree Revenues

98 $24 million99 $37 million00 $44 million

During FY00 budget process the Municipal Operators requested that all Prop C40% revenues allocated to the MTA bus be fair shared, including Consent Decreecosts. We pointed out that the Consent Decree requires the MTA to prioritize bus.eligible revenues to meet the MTA’s directly operated bus service requirements,and that a precedent for excluding Consent Decree costs had been set.

0a.1

In an effort to meet the Muni’s concerns, we offered to recommend that the MTA Boardfix the maximum Consent Decree Prop C 40% share at the FY99 level of $37 million.The Muni’s would not accept this pmposat. This led to the introduction of a resolutionrequiring staff to work with the municipal operators and remm within 60 days to theBoard with an analysis. The Board resolution also required that the funds be set asideuntil the analysis was complete. "

We now understand that the Muni’s plan to ask the Board to set a policy that all Prop C¯40% revenues received for MTA bus operations be fair shared. Some muni generalmanagers are also in favor of seeking new legislation in Sacramento if a satisfactorypolicy is not approved by the MTA Board.

Since the allocation of discretionary, lines eligible revenues is a principal issue in thecurrent Consent Decree litigation, we plan to ask the Board to delay any decision on themuni’s proposal until immediate Consent Decree obligations become clearer.

Recent filings by the Consem Decree plaintiffs specifically question the proprie~ ofgiving any priority, fair share distributions to the Munis.

Therefore, Board members will want to review our legal and financial presentation beforedeciding this issue.

0,~2

ATTACHMENT "6"

FTA Response re CMAQ EligibleProjects for RTAA Funding

U.S. Depa,lmentof TransportationFederal TransitAdministration

REGION IXArizona, California,Hawaii, Nevada, Guam

201 Mis~on StreetSuite 2210San Francisco, CA ~4105518394155744-3133415-744-2726 (fax)

Mr. Brian Boudreau, DirectorGrants Management & AdministrationLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityOne Gateway PlazaLos Angeles, CA 90012-2932

¯ ~Re: CMAQ Project Eligibility

Dear Mr. ~u:

We have reviewed your letter of May 11, 1999, concerning the eligibility of four proposedCongestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) projects. The Federal TransitAdministration (FTA) has reviewed the projects using the latest CMAQ ProgramGuidance issued April 1999. This guidance is posted on the FTA’s web page atwww.ffa.dot..qov.

The projects for the automated voice annunciator system, the automated passengercounting system, and the surveillance and secudty systems are not considered eligiblefor CMAQ funding. However, the integrated radio communication systems may beconsidered eligible for CMAQ funding.

If you have any further questions concaming CMAQ eligibility, please contact me at(41.5) 744-3116.

Sincerely,

Robei-{ Horn, DirectorOffice of Planning & Program Development

Cc: Rosemar~ Ayala, SCAG

¯ 043

May13,1999

: ’ " TO:

~ FROM:

SUBJECT:

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ::..~ ’~::*" :

CMAQ ELIGIBILITY FOR RTAA PROJECTS

~ITEROFFICEMEMO

Los Angeles County

Metropolitan

Transportation

Author/ty

MTA staffhave reviewed the list of projects submitted by the members of theBus Operations Committee (BOS) members which are proposed to be funded usingthe Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds provided under theRegional Transit Altematives Analysis (RTAA). We have determined that thefollowing projects are explicitly included in the federal CMAQ gtfia~_nce as eligible:

¯ Clean fuel buses, including Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), electric and"clean" diesel

¯ CNG fueling stations and maintenance facilities¯ Electronic fare payment systems ( i.e. Universal Fare System)¯ Transit information systems (Idosks)¯ Park and Ride Facilities¯ Transit transfer centers¯ Transit Store operations¯ Transit marketing and outreach activities¯ Priority signalization for buses

The following projects may be eligible for CMAQ funding and we have soughtFederal Transit Administration approval (see attached letter):

¯ Automated voice enunciator systems¯ Automated passengers counting systems¯ Radio communications systems, including automated vehicle locator systems¯ Surveillance and security systems ..

We believe that the following projects are not eligible for CMAQ funding:

¯ Shop equipment¯ Modifications to maintenance facilities not related to alternative fuels¯ Bus components (i.e. engines, transmissions, etc.) that are not part of a clean fuel

bus purchase¯ Computer hardware or software development or purchase not related to an -

CMAQ-eligible capital project¯ Lighting at bus stops¯ Driving simulators¯ Asset management system

If you have any questions.regarding this information, please call me at (213) 922-2474.s:grant su~btian~docs~m-cmaqbos

Attachment 044

Metropolitan

TransportationAuthority

e Gateway P187aLosAngeles, CA

90012-2932

(213) 922-2000

May ll, 1999

Mr. Robert HomDirectorOffice of Planning and Program DevelopmentFederal Trun~it AdministrationRe,on IX201 Mission Street, Suite 2210San Francisco, CA 94105-2726

REGIONAL TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PROSECTS

~ t ~ ELIGIBI’LITY FOR CMAQ FUNDING

Dear Mr. JJ~n:

In November 1998, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Tmn~ortation Authority(MTA) completed the Regional Transit Alternatives Analysis (P, TAA) whichevaluated viable options for improving Wansk to all parts of Los Angeles County.One of the recommendations of the RTAA was to undertake immediate transitimprovements in Los Angeles County. Toward this end, the MTA Board ofDirectors approved funding for a number of capital projects to improve theefficiency, reliability and ease of use of the region’s transit systems. Thesesystemwide improvements are expected to either directly or indirectly enhanceservice and lead to increased ridership on the region’s transit systems.

All of these improvements are planned to be funded by Congestion Mitigation andAir Quality (CMAQ) funds available to Los Angeles County. Per federal CMAQProgram ~maidauce dated March 7, 1996 and April 1999, most of these projects areexplicitly eligible for CMAQ funding and therefore we will not address thoseprojects in this letter. While we believe that the remaining projects are also eligibi~for CMAQ funding, we felt it would be prudent to resolve any potential eligibility.issues with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) prior to submission of the .re’antapplications by the MTA and the municipal transit operators. The projects for whichFTA approval of eligibility is being sought are as follows:

Automated Voice Annunciator SystemThe Automated Voice Annunciator Systems announce stops and other pertinenttransit information in a variety of methods to provide persons with hearing and visualimpairments with auxiliary aids and services. The system includes audio recordingfor both inside and outside the bus and a LED si.ma inside the bus to enablepassengers with hearing impairments to see announcements of the stops.

Automated Passenger Countin~ SystemThe Automated Passenger Eounting Systems will be used to accurately andefficiently identify passenger loads in order to assist in scheduling service, reducingovercrowding and determining ridership levels.

OzlS_.

Mr. Robert HornMay 1 I, 1999Page 2

Intearated Radio Communications SystemsThe Integrated Radio Communication Systems will utilize state-of-the-art tmn~k vehicletechnology enhancement to provide a reliable communication service to controllers, busoperators, management and the riding public. Included in this system will be Automated VehicleLocator Systems utili~ng Global Positioning Satellite technology. These system~ will enable theeffective monitoring of the bus fleet and allow transit operators to make timely adjustments toservice levels as needed.

Surveillance and Security SystemsThe Surveillance and Security Systems consist of cameras, recording devices and relatedequipment onboard buses. The systems aim to (1) improve the safety and. security of bothoperators and passengers by providing state-of-the-art video observation system~ that detercriminal acts; (2) reduce graffiti and vandalism by providing views of the bus interior;, ~nd(3) provide "real time" information to control centers and law enforcement to allow them monitor incidents, provide instruction, and advise passengers of mlsconduet or transit violations.

The March 7, 1996 federal gxtidance on the CMAQ Program (Enclosure A) indicates that whendetemHning the eligibility of transit equipment for CMAQ funding "Major system-wideupgrades, such as advanced si~maal and communication systems which improve the speed andreliability" of transit service will likely be eligible...". The ~m.tidanee also states "the guideline iswhether or not the equipment can reasonably be expected to enhance service and generateadditional ridership."

Given that these proposed capital projects (1) are part of major system-wide improvements whichwill improve the speed and reliability oftrausit service, and (2) can reasonably be expected enhance service and generate additional ridership, we believe they are eligible for CMAQfunding. To assist in the timely processing of grant applications for these projects, we arerequesting that the FTA make an eligibility dete~,,ination on these projects by dune 10, 1999.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please call me at (213) 922-2474. Thank youtbr your assistance.

Sincerely,

BRIAN BOUDREAUDirectorGrants Management & Administration

Enclosure

Err Poka. FTA Metro OfficeDonna Turchie, FTA Region 9

O46

n~.~[: be done in conjunction with new park-and-Hale fac~|~des and a mstru~g of busroutes ~o enha.nce tr~nsk s~rvice. In such cases, th~ di~bilky de~n~r~on by FT~ willfocus on whether it is reasonable to e.xpec~ a signii~cant ~ in ddemhip due to the project.

Trar~tfacilities - Eligible capital projects include such facilities as new sr~Hons, t~als,transit centers, transit malls, intermodal transfer facilities, and preferential treatment forbuse~,"IOVs on existing roads. Consistent with previous policy, park-and-ride fa~iIidesIoc.ar~ adjacent to a transit stop are dig~7~le~ although in a CO or PM-10.no~rr~irmaent orm~int~nance area. air q~m!ity analysis may be required to demor~t,,a.c that no"hot-spot" violations w~’ll occur. Major new fixed-guideway and bus/~OV facRides andextensions to existing facilities are also di~ole.

Trazmit vehicles and eq~dpment - New buses, vans. locomotives and rail _~s to expand thefleet and au_m~nent service are efigible. One-for-one vehicle replacements of the existing bus.rail or van fleet are eli,-pie, although the caveat in previous guidan~ still applies: that is,CMAQ fianding for bus replacements in PM-10 nonarr~irtment and maintenanc~ areas isclearly justified, whereas bus replacements in CO and ozone nonarmlrtment and maintenanceareas will provide much smaller air quality benefits with respect to the pollutua~s of concern. ’Purchase of new buses, as well as refueling infrastructure, dedicated to alternative fuels isetigible notwithstanding the conditions in Section [II.A.9. Automobiles used solefy by thetransit agency are not eligible.

Determining the eli~oility of transit-related equipment will be handled on a case-by-case basis.Major system-wide upgrades, such as advanc~-~i signal and communications systems whichimprove st;cccI and/or refiability of transit service will h’keiy be efig~’ole., wher~s in-kindreplacements will not be. Again, the guide!ine is whether or not the equipment can w~sonablybe expected to enhance service and generate additional ridership.

Trarmit-ossociated development - This includes various types of r~rult and other services ..located in or very dose to transit facilities. They offer convenience for the transit patron butare not required for the functioning of the system. In general, transit-associated developmentis not e~gible under the CMAQ Program. Child-care centers loe~rmt adjacent to ~. majortransit ~op have been proposed in the past as beneAqcial to air q, atity.. This type of use couldnow be funded as an experimental pilot projecL

Transit operations - Operating assistance under the CMAQ Program is limited to theintroduction of new transit se~ices. ~_xamptes are: shuttle service feeding a ~urioa; circulatorservice within an activity center:, or fixed-route service linking ~_erlvity ce.ntm-s. Nfmoradju.~u,,ents in existing routes and service schedules do not constitute new service. The intentis to support demonzt,ations of new transit or paratransit service to try to tap new marketsand increase transit use. Service demonstrations will usually involve buses or vans since the ̄service should be relatively low-cost and ~fily terminated if ~t~cient ridership is nota~,hieved. The 3-year period of funding assistance should be long enough to assess whether

047

INFORMATION ITEMS

¯ BOS Calendar¯ Section 5307 TE 1% Allocations for FY00¯ TDA/STA Guidelines and Forms¯ " SRTP Revised Form

July 1999B US OPERA TIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

1 2 3

4

11

18

25

12

19

26

6

13

2010:30a Southeast Bus

Restructuring(Southgate)

279:30am BUS OPS

SUBCOMMITTEEMTG - WINDSORCONF RM- 15 FLR

14

21l:30pm Construction

Committeell:00am Operations


Committee

28

8

15l:00pm Ping & Prog

Committeel:30p Fin&

BudgCommittee

22

299:00am MTA Board

Meeting

9

16

23

3O

Printed by Calendar Creator for Windows on 7121199

10

17

24

31

August 1999B US OPERA TIONS SUB COMMITTEE

8

2I’!TI’i’I

3

15

22

29

9

16

23

30

10

1710:30a Southeast Bus

Restructuring(Southgate)

249:30am BUS OPS

SUBCOMMITTEEMTG - WINDSORCONF RM-15 FLR

31

4

11

18l:30pm Construction

Committee1 l:00am Operations


Committee

25

5 6

12 13

19 20l:00pm Ping & Prog

Committeel:30p Fin&

BudgCommittee

26 279:00am MTA Board

Meeting

14

21

28

ATTACHMENT

FY 2000 PROYECTS -1% TRANSIT ENI:LANCEIWENTSECTION 5307 ALLOCATqON

AGEMCY PROJECT SECTION ~07 ,~VIOUNT

FOOqq’IILL BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS

LONG BEACH SIGNAGELIGH’I’INGBUS STOP I]MPRO~BUS STOP hMPROVEMENTS

~ooS~O,O00S138,000~ 19.000

LACMTA $265,600

$90.000

BII<~ KACKS ON BUSESL:aNDSCAP.q’4G OPERATING.

D~SIONS~GD~OA CO~O~37 ~ STA~ON I~RO~M~S ~600.000

NORWAL~ BUS STOP [~RO~ ~i. 16 ] .956

SANTA CLARA ~.~NCED PED~W AND%9~ELCHAIR ACCESS AT BUS STOPS ~367~00

MO~BELLO BUS S~B~ ~CK ON BUS~ S 48.000

BUS S~EL~RS ~2~2.500

TOTAL $ z. 1 ~6.960

t

June 1, 1999

MEMO TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - JUNE 29, 1999MEETING

LARRY TORRES, PROJECT MANAGER

FY 2000 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (LTF STAF) CLAIM FORMS

Attached is a Fiscal Year 2000 TDA claim form with instructions for yourconvenience in preparing claims for Local Transportation Funds (LTF - Article4) and State Transportation Assistance Funds (STA - Article 6.5).

If you are still doing the claims manually, MTA staff will provide a copy of theTDA claim diskette upon request. Please contact Andy Galindez at (213) 922-6981 if you would like a copy of the disk sent to you.

Attachment

FY 2000 TDA/STA ClaimREVISED June 1, 1999

FISCAL YEAR 2000

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT PROGRAMINSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CLAIMS

General Info.-~,ation

These instructions pertain to claims filed for public transportation purposes under thefollowing categories:

Local Transportation Fund (LTF)

Article 4, PUC Section 99260(a), for support of public transportationsystems; and

State Transit Assistance Fund (STAF)

Article 6.5, PUC Section 99315, for operators, cities and counties eligibleto receive Article 4, 4.5 or 8c in meeting public transportation needs.

When filling out claim forms, claimants should refer to sections of Caltrans’ TDAStatutes and Administrative Code for 1999

When and Where to File

The attached claim forms may be used to file claims for Local Transportation Fundsand/or State Transit Assistance Funds as follows:

Local Transportation Funds (LTF)

Claimants in Los Angeles County should submit a claim with an originalsignature to the attention of Larry Torres or Andy Galindez at Los AngelesCounty Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza LosAngeles, CA 90012-2952 (Mail Stop 99-23-1), no later than November 1999. Claims will be processed in the order in which they are received.Larry Torres may be contacted at (213) 922-3050, and Andy Galindez (213) 922-6981

State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF)

Claimants should submit claim forms for STA funds to the address notedabove.

FY 2000 TDA/STA CLAIM INSTRUCTIONSPage ii.

ITEMS TO BE FILED

1. STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES

Each claim must include a copy of the "Standard Assurances for Applicants".Applicable paragraphs should be initialed and signed by the authorizing party.

2. CLAIM FORM

A claim form (Pages I and 2, LTF and STAF) is required for each request Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds. Informationshould be provided as follows:

Claimant: Enter the name of the jurisdiction or transit operator filing the claim.

Contact Person: The name and phone number of the person to be contactedregarding information contained in the claim.

Date: Enter the month, day and year the claim is signed.

Payment Recipient: Enter the address and to whose attention the CountyAuditor should transmit payments.

Purpose: All TDA claims will be Article 4, PUC Section 99260(a). For STAclaims, check the applicable regulation. Refer to Caltrans’ TDA Statutes andAdministrative Code for appropriate statute or regulation.

Detail of Requested Payment: Enter the amounts requested for operating,capital, and capital reserves after completion of table 2.

Authorizing Si.qnature: The claim must contain an original signature of theclaimant’s Chief Financial Officer or Chief Administrative Officer. Please includename and title. Enter the name of the jurisdiction or transit operator and thetransit mode (e.g., fixed route, dial-a-ride) on each table.

HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED FINANCIAL STATUS- TABLE L- 1

These financial statements are applicable to LTF and STAF claims and must beincluded with all requests for funds.

FY 2000 TDA/STA CLAIM INSTRUCTIONSPage iii.

All line items on the statements are consistent with the State Controller’s UniformSystem of Accounts for Public Transit Operators, and claimants should refer tothe State Controller’s system for definitions.

Figures entered in the "Audited" column (FY 1998 ) must correlate to theFY 1998 Fiscal and Compliance Audit figures. Figures for the "Actual"column must be an annualized estimate of FY 1999, based on claimant’s recordsup to the time the statement is prepared, or upon audited figures for the claimyear, if available.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELECTED LINE ITEMS ON TABLE 1 ARE LISTEDBELOW. PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL CLAIMANTS ARE REQUIRED TOSUBMIT TABLE L-1 FOR EACH MODE OF TRANSIT SERVICE AND FORTHE SYSTEM TOTAL.

$O~-RCES O1~ t~LTNI)$ ]~OR CA])]T_~[~: This part of Table L-1 depicts sourcesof funds made available for capital purposes only.

OPERATORS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO HOLD CAPITAL FUNDS IN THEIROWN ACCOUNTS; ANY EXCESS ALLOCATIONS SHOULD BE RETURNEDTO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND REPROGRAMMED OR RE-RESERVED ASAUTHORIZED BY MTA. OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAINDETAILED ACCOUNTING BY PROGRAM YEAR FOR ALL CAPITALPROJECTS

TDA/STA CLAIM FORMS: Operators may apply TDA Art 4 funds to operatingand/or capital. The amount of the allocation applied to operating shouldcorrespond with Payment from Unallocated -Operations (item #1 on the claimform). Item #2 is the amount that the operator requests to place in capitalreserve from the current years allocation and should correspond with the totalcapital funds reserved for future payment in Table 2. Item #3 is the Total FY2000 fund mark and is the sum of #1 and #2.

TDA/STA CAPITAL ALLOCATION Table L-1 : The top portion of this formrepresents the TDA/STA, Proposition A and C funds that the operator annuallydecides to allocate to capital. MTA administrative practice requires that all TDAcapital funds be placed in reserve until the operator submits a written request toMTA for drawdown. Secondly, operators must meet the annual eligibility test toapply STA funds to operating, however they may apply these funds to capitalprojects for that year. The amount entered on Table L- 1 (Source of CapitalFunds for TDNSTA) as the FY 2000 planned capital allocation, shouldcorrespond with the amount entered on line 2 of the TDNSTA Claim form andthe amount reserved for future payment on Table 2. (sum of columns A &B).Only Prop A Discretionary funds that are carried over from a prior year areallowed to be applied to capital expenses.

TDNSTA TABLE 2. Operators are required to identify the capital projects thatare to be reserved for payment in FY 2000 or future years. Enter the name ofthe capital project and the amount of the anticipated expenditure. This shouldalso be supported with documentation in the operators Short Range Transit Plan

FY 2000 TDNSTA CLAIM INSTRUCTIONSPage iv.

and Transit Improvement Program (TIP). Identify the planned expenditure in 2000 and the amount planned for expenditure in future years. Prop A & CDiscretionary Capital projects should be separately identified in the TIPsheet and Short Range Transit Plan.

SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING:

SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING: This part of Table L-1 depictssources of funds made available for operating purposes only, some of which areexplained below.

TDA CARRYOVER - PRIOR YEAR: This represents unspent TDA fundsreceived in prior years for operations. Because Proposition A Discretionaryfunds are to be the last funds spent, this line should always be zero. ONLYCLAIMANTS WHO DID NOT RECEIVE PROPOSITION A DISCRETIONARYFUNDS (LINE 30) SHOULD HAVE TDA CARRYOVER, AS MTA POLICYALLOWS EXPENDITURE OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDS ONLY AFTER THEEXPENDITURE OF ALL OTHER SUBSIDIES.

TDA CURRENT FROM UNALLOCATED: Amounts entered on this linerepresent total LTF operating payments received or requested by the claimantfor each year. The amount entered on Table 1 should correspond to the TDAclaim form Item #1.

STA CURRENT FROM UNALLOCATED: Amounts entered on this linerepresent STA payments received or requested for claims filed in a particularfiscal year. Operators must have passed the annual eligibility test to apply STAfunds to operating. The amount entered on Table L- 1 should correspond to theSTA claim form Item #1.

PASSENGER FARES: Passenger fares include farebox revenues and thoseProposition A Local Return Special Fare Assistance monies received on aper-passenger basis that qualify as fare revenue. Proposition A Local Returnfunds included in this category should be noted at the bottom of Table 1.

PROPOSITION A DISCRETIONARY GRANT: Amounts entered on this linerepresent Prop. A monies received by Article 4 operators from MTA under aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU), If funds are shown in FY 2000, complete the Proposition A Discretionary Worksheet supplement enclosed inthis package (Table 4).

PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN: Amounts entered on this line representProp. A monies received by any operator from a municipality under the LocalReturn Program, exclusive of those that qualify as fare revenues.

PROPOSITION A INCENTIVE FUND: Amounts entered on this line representProp. A monies received by any operator from a municipality under the IncentiveProgram.

OTHER LOCAL - PROP. A EXCHANGES: Profit earned or funds lost as a .result of Proposition A Local Return fund exchanges should be noted here, as

FY 2000 TDNSTA CLAIM INSTRUCTIONSPage v.

well as any other local subsidies not covered by one of the above categories.

PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN: Amounts entered on this line reflectestimates of Prop. C funds in Operators’ budgets during FY 1999.

PROPOSITION C DISCRETIONARY GRANT: Amounts entered on this linerepresent Prop. C monies received by any operator from a municipality underthe Local Return Program.

suBTOTAL OPERATING REVENUES:. Operators should enter the sum ofLines 16 through 35.

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES: This amount reflects total operatingexpenses, excluding depreciation and amortization, and must correlate to thefiscal audit for FY 1998. Any excess of expenses over revenues will have thenet effect of reducing eligibility for funds for the following fiscal year(s). FY 2000planned operating expenses must equal Line 36 - Subtotal Operating Revenues.Multimodal operators should use a separate Table 1 to show operatin.q

expenses for each mode, and should include an additional Table 1 to summarizeTotal System Expenses. Indicate the mode at the top of each table.

o

o

o

o

GOVERNING BODY AUTHORIZATION

Each claim must include a copy of a resolution or minute order in which theclaimant’s governing body authorizes the claim and approves the basic purposefor which it is being filed.

JUSTIFICATION STATEMENTS

Justification statements must accompany the claim when either: a) the operatingbudget indicates an increase of over 15 percent from the preceding fiscal year;or b) a major capital project (e.g., over $100,000) is to be funded without federalfunds.

PROPOSED COMMITMENT STATEMENT

When it is requested that funds be reserved for long-term capital projects, theclaimant must submit a description of the project. The SRTP description willsuffice for this requirement.

EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT STATEMENT (Article 4 only)

A statement must accompany the claim, signed by the claimant’s Chief FinancialOfficer or a Certified Public Accountant, certifying that the current cost of theoperator’s retirement system is fully funded.

PROOF OF FUNDING OBLIGATION (Article 4 only)

When requesting drawdown of funds reserved for major capital projects, tangibleevidence of a legal commitment to expend these funds (invoice, purchase order

FY 2000 TDA/STA CLAIM INSTRUCTIONSPage vi.

or contract, or schedule of projects with Board resolution) must be submitted.This may be done quarterly.

o COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT

Claims filed through cooperative agreements and joint powers agreements by alocal agency or operator must be accompanied by an executed copy of theagreement, unless a copy is already on file with the MTA.

10. TDA RESERVE FUNDS HELD BY COUNTY AUDITOR

Operators who have TDA (LTF) reserve accounts with the County Auditor mustseparately complete and submit their drawdown request on a quarterly basis totheir respective Project Manager. The request should identify the name of theproject, the TIP project identifying number, the amount of the drawdown, theFiscal Year the funds were programmed and any remaining balance in theproject account. The MTA shall pay the request utilizing the first in first out rule.However, operators are responsible to maintain fund balances by project, byFiscal Year and with identifying number which corresponds to the project in theTIP.

11. TDA RESERVE FUNDS HELD BY OPERATOR

12.

Operators who are, for any reason, holding TDA capital reserves in their ownaccount must complete a form and submit it with their claim to comply withrequirements in the Conformance Auditing Guide. UNEXPENDED TDA CAPITALFUNDS MUST BE RETURNED TO MTA AND MAY BE RE-RESERVED ORREALLOCATED AT MTA’S DISCRETION.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL CERTIFICATION (Pull Notice)

Operators are required to have their buses inspected by a representative of theCalifornia Highway patrol within the past 13 months. A copy of this certificatemust be submitted with the claim

12. PROPOSITION A DISCRETIONARY GRANT WORKSHEET (Table 4) -.

This table is required to be completed in order to receive Proposition ADiscretionary Grant funds. However, only Lines 38 to 42 need to be completed ifTable 1 is completed and submitted simultaneously. Instructions for completingLines 38 to 42 are as follows:

LINE 38 - VEHICLE SERVICE HOURS (VSH): This figure should be consistentwith National Transit Data (NTD) and TPM data for the transit mode for whichfinancial statistics are being reported.

LINE 39 - COST PER VSH: This figure is calculated by dividing Line 37 by Line38. ~

FY 2000 TDA/STA CLAIM INSTRUCTIONSPage vii.

LINE 40 - PERCENT CHANGE IN COST PER VSH: This figure is calculated bysubtracting Line 39 for FY 1999 from Line 39 for FY 2000. The difference isthen divided by Line 39 for FY 1999, which will equal the percentage change. Ifthis change is greater than CPI then the claimant should attach an explanationof why the cost per hour is increasing over the CPI.

LINE 41 - 5% OF OPERATING EXPENSES: Line 37 (Total OperatingExpenses) multiplied by five percent (.05).

LINE 42 - 25% OF LOCAL RETURN FUNDS: Calculate 25% of the city’s Prop.A Local Return allocation for the fiscal year.

THE "MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT" REQUIREMENT IS THE LESSER OFLINES 41 AND 42. LINE 31 (PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN) SHOULD GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THIS AMOUNT.

Public Transportation System Claim

CHECKLIST OF ITEMS FILED

FISCAL YEAR:

CLAIMANT: DATE:

The items checked below are enclosed in connection with the claim filed herein:

Pages I and 2 for TDA and STA(See instructions for completing the form in the instructionpackage).

o Financial Statement (Table L-l)(A separate table must be completed for each mode. The tableshould be consistent with the table included in the SRTP.)

3. Standard Assurances for Claimants

° Governing Body AuthorizationSubmit a certified copy of a resolution or minute order.

5. Justification Statements

6. , Proposed Commitment Statement(s)Complete when requesting long-term capital reserves.

7. Employee Retirement System Certification Statement

o Proof of Funding ObligationSubmit tangible evidence of imminent need for capital reservedrawdowns.

o Cooperative Agreement or ContractSubmit copies if applicable

10o TDA Reserves Held by County Auditor (Table 2)

11. California Highway Patrol Certification (Pull Notice)Current within 13 months.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CLAIM

STANDARD ASSURANCES FOR APPLICANTSFOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS (LTF) AND

STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS (STAF)

Claimant: Fiscal Year:PLEASE INITIAL ALL APPLICABLE PARAGRAPHS PURSUANT TO WHICH THECLAIM IS BEING SUBMITTED.

MTATDAGUIDESECTION

1.8.11.8.3

1.8.21.8.3

5o6.2b

Initial

CERTIFIED FISCAL AND COMPLIANCE AUDITClaimant certifies that it has submitted asatisfactory, independent fiscal and complianceaudit, with required certification statement, to SCAG, MTA, and theDepartment of Transportation, pursuant to PUC Section 99245 and CACSection 6664 for the prior fiscal year (project year minus two). Claimantassures that this audit requirement will be completed for the current fiscalyear (project year minus one), and submitted to MTA no later than 120days after the close of the fiscal year.

90-DAY ANNUAL REPORT (STATE CONTROLLER’S REPORT)Claimant certifies that it has submitted a StateController’s Report in conformance with the UniformSystem of Accounts and Records, to SCAG, MTA, and the State Controller,pursuant to PUC Section 99243, for the prior year (project year minus two).Claimant assures that this report will be completed for the current fiscal

year (project year minus one), and submitted no later than 90 days after theclose of the fiscal year. :

PART-TIME EMPLOYEES*Claimant certifies that it is not precluded, byany contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979, from employingpart-time drivers or contracting with common carriers of persons operatingunder a franchise or license. Claimant further certifies that no person’whowas a full-time employee on June 28, 1979, shall have his or heremployment, excluding overtime, reduced as a result of it employingpart-time drivers or contracting with those common carriers. (PUC Section99314.5c)

STANDARD ASSURANCES FOR APPLICANTSPage 2.

MTATDA

GUIDESECTION Initial

o

2.2.1

FIFTY PERCENT EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONClaimant filing a claim pursuant to PUC Section99268.1 certifies that it was in compliance with PUC Section 99268 duringthe 1978-79 fiscal year, and further certifies that it will remain in compliancewith that section during the project year.

2.2.2

REVENUE RATIOS FOR OLDER OPERATORSClaimant filing a claim pursuant to PUC Section 99268.2certifies that it will maintain for the project year that ratio of fare revenuesand local support to operating cost which was maintained during the1978-79 fiscal year, and further assures for the project year that itreasonably anticipates achieving the ratio of fare revenues to operatingcost at least equal to the ratio maintained in FY 1978-79, or (a) 20 percentif serving an urbanized area, and (b) 10 percent if serving a nonurbanizedarea, whichever is greater.

2.2.2

REVENUE RATIOS FOR NEWER URBANIZED AREA OPERATORSClaimant filing a claim pursuant to PUC Section99268.3 certifies that it will maintain for the project year at least that ratio offare revenues and local support to operating cost which was maintainedduring FY 1978-79 if that ratio was greater than 20 percent; claimant furtherassures, for the project year, that it reasonably anticipates achieving a ratioof fare revenues to operating cost equal to or greater than 20 percent forthe project year.

o

2.2.2

REVENUE RATIOS FOR NEWER NON-URBANIZED AREAOPERATORSClaimant filing a claim pursuant to PUC Section 99268.4 certifies that it willmaintain for the project year at least that ratio of fare revenues and localsupport to operating cost which was maintained during FY 1978-79 if thatratio was greater than 10 percent; claimant further assures, for the projectyear, that it reasonably anticipates achieving a ratio of fare revenues tooperating cost equal to or greater than 10 percent.

8a.

2.2.3

REVENUE RATIOS FOR EXCLUSIVE SERVICES TOELDERLY AND HANDICAPPEDClaimant filing a claim pursuant to PUC Section 99268.5 certifies that, forthe purpose of the claim, it provides services using vehicles for theexclusive use of elderly and handicapped persons.


MTATDAGUIDESECTION

8b.

2.2.3

1.8.42.2.5

10.

2.1.7

Initial

REVENUE RATIOS FOR PARATRANSlT SERVICESClaimant filing a claim pursuant to PUC Section99275.5c (Article 4.5) further certifies that, for the project year, reasonably anticipates achieving the performance criteria, local matchrequirements, or fare recovery ratios adopted by MTA.

EXTENSION OF SERVICEClaimant that received an allocation of LocalTransportation Funds for an extension of servicepursuant to PUC Section 99268.8 certifies that it will file a report of theseservices pursuant to CAC Section 6633.8b within 90 days after the close ofthe fiscal year in which that allocation was granted.

RETIREMENT SERVICEClaimant filing a claim pursuant to PUC Section99260 certifies that: (a) the current cost of its retirement system is fullyfunded with respect to the officers and employees of its publictransportation system; or (b) the operator is implementing a plan approvedby the transportation planning agency which will fully fund the retirementsystem for such officers and employees within 40 years; or (c) the operatorhas a private pension plan which sets aside and invests, or on a currentbasis, funds sufficient to provide for the payment of future benefits, andwhich is fully compliant with the requirements stated in PUC Sections99272 and 99273.

11a.

2.2.12.2.8

11b.

2.2.1d

USE OF FEDERAL FUNDSClaimant filing a claim for TDA funds for capitalintensive projects pursuant to PUC Sec. 99268.7certifies that it has made every effort to obtain federal funding for anyproject which is funded pursuant to PUC Sec. 99268.7.

Claimant qualifying for funds pursuant to PUG Sec.99268.1 and filing a claim for TDA funds inexcess of the amount allowed under PUC Sec. 99268 certifies that suchfunds are required in order to obtain maximum federal operating funds inthe year such funds are claimed, pursuant to PUC Sec. 99267.5 and CACSec. 6633.1.


MTATDAGUIDESECTION

Initial

12.

2.2.9

13.

CliP CERTIFICATIONClaimant filing a claim for Local TransportationFunds has included in the claim a certification completed within the last 13months by the California Highway Patrol indicating compliance with VehicleCode Section 1808.1, indicating that the operator has participated in a "pullnotice system" to examine driver’s records, as specified in PUC Sec.99251.

STA EFFICIENCY STANDARDS*Beginning in FY 1992, claimant filing a claim for State Transit AssistanceFunds for operating purposes certifies that it has met the efficiencystandards which limit cost per hour increases, pursuant to PUC Sec.99314.6.

14. REDUCED TRANSIT FARESClaimants of TDA funds who offer reduced fares to senior citizens certifythat: (a) The Federal Medicare Identification Card is sufficient identificationto receive senior citizen reduced fares if such fares are available; and (b) disabled person or disabled veteran identification card issued pursuant tosubdivision (d) of Vehicle Code Sections 22511.5 or 22511.9 (whichever applicable) is sufficient identification to receive disabled person reducedfares if such reduced fares are available.

*STAP Claimants Only.

(Legal Name of Applicant/Claimant)

(Authorizing Signature)

(Print Name & Title)

CLAIM FORMTDA CLAIM FORM

LTF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - ARTICLE 4

CLAIMANT:

CONTACT PERSON:,

DATE: FISCAL YEAR:.Angeles

TELEPHONE:

COUNTY STAFF: Los

PAYMENT RECIPIENT:

ADDRESS:

ATTENTION:

(Name and Tide)

PURPOSE

Article 4PUC 99260(a)

REQ~ PAYMENT AND RESERVES

i. Payment from FY Allocation

o Amount placed in Capital Reserve fromcurrent year allocation (CompleteTable 2)

3. Total FY 2000 funding mark (1 +2)

AMOUNT

Authorized Signature:(Claimant’s Chief Administrator or Finance Officer)

(Print name and tide)

CONDITION OF APPROVAL:Approval of this claim and payment by the County Auditor to this claimant are subject to funds being availableand to the provisions that such monies will be used only in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth bythis claim.

CLAIM FORMSTATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND

Pursuant to Sections 6730-6735 of the California Administrative Code

CLAIMANT:

CONTACT PERSON:.TELEPHONE:

DATE:Angeles

ADDRESS:

ATTENTION:

FISCAL YEAR: COUNTY LTF: Los

PURPOSE

( ) CAC, Section 6730 (a)( ) CAC, Section 6730 (b)( ) CAC, Section 6730 (c)

( ) CAC, Section 6731 (a)( ) CAC, Section 6731 (b)

( ) CAC, Se~ion 6731 (c)

(Name and Tide)

REQ~ PAYMENT AND RESERVES AMOUNT

1. Payment from Unallocated-Operations $

2. Amount placed in Capital Reserve fromcurrent year allocation (Complete Table 2) $

3. Total FY 2000 Fund Mark (1 & 2) $

Authorized Signature:

(Claimant’s Chief Administrator or Finance Officer)

(Print name and tide)

CONDITION OF APPROVAL:Approval of this claim and payment by the County Auditor to this claimant are subject to monies being availableand to the provisions that such monies will be used only in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth bythis claim and SCAG Allocation Instructions.

TABLE 2TDA

Total Capital Funds Reservedfor Future Payment (Total A & B):$

PROJECTDESCRIPTION

(A)ANTICIPATEDEXPENDITURE

FY 2000

(B)ANTICIPATEDEXPENDITURE

TABLE 2 (B)STA

Total Capital Funds Reservedfor Future Payment: $

PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

(A)ANTICIPATEDEXPENDITURE

FY 2000

(B)EXPENDITUREFUTURE YEARS

Table L- 1

Current Fare Structure: FY 1999

Type of ServiceFixed Route Demand Responsive

Cash~TokenRegularTokenElderlyDisabled/MedicareStudentCollegeExpress - Specify Zone Structure

Cash TransfersRegular within SystemRegular to other SystemElderlyDisabled/Medicare

Multi-use Cards (specify" number of uses)RegularElderlyDisabled/Medicare

Metro CardDiscountsOther

PassesRegularElderlyDisabledStudentCollegeExpress - Specify Zone Stamp

Joint PassesRegularElderlyDisabledStudentCollege

Not Listed above (please describe) I I I

TABLE L - 3

HISTORICAL & PROJECTED FLEET CHARACTERISTICS

Peak-Hour FleetSpares For Maint.Spare Ratio*Energy Contigency ReserveInactive FleetTotal VehiclesNew Expansion Vehiclesi New Replacement Vehicles

1998Audited

FIXED ROUTE SERVICE1999Actual

2000Planned

Peak-Hour FleetSpares For Maint.Spare Ratio*Energy Contigency ReserveInactive FleetTotal VehiclesNew Expansion VehiclesNew Replacement Vehicles

DEMAND RESPONSIVE SERVICE20001998

Audited1999Actual Planned

Peak-Hour FleetSpares For Maint.iSpare Ratio*Energy Contigency ReserveInactive FleetTotal VehiclesNew Expansion VehiclesNew Replacement Vehicles

1998Audited

SYSTEM TOTAL1999Actual

2000Planned

*Spare Ratio = Spares for Maint/Peak-Hour Reet

TABLE L - 4HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED FINANCIAL STATUS

SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF CAPITAL FUNDSBY YEAR OF EXPENDITURE ($ 000)

MODE:

SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS: 1998Audited 199912000I

Actual Planned

FTA Sec. 5307(Sec. 9)FTA Sec. 5309 (Sec. 3)FTA Sec. 5310FTA Sec. 5311(Sec. 18)CMAQ FundsOther Federal (Assume 80/20 match) (Specify source)

TDA (ART 4)-Carryover Prior YearTDA current FY allocationTDA (ART 8)STA current FY allocationSTA Carryover Prior YearOther State (Specify)

System GeneratedGeneral FundProp. A Local ReturnProp. A DiscretionaryProp. C DiscretionaryProp. C Local ReturnProp, C Other (Specify)Other Local (Specify)

TOTAL CAPITAL REVENUETOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSES

(Table Lo4 continued)

SOURCE OF OPERA TING FUNDS:

F]’A Sec. 5303 (Sec. 8) Technical Studiest~l"A Sec. 53O7 (Sec. 9) Opera~ng~’TA Sec. 5311 (Sec. 18) OperatingOther Federal (Specify)

TDA Ca.myover - Prior YearsTDA Current FY allocationSTA Current FY allocationOther State (Specify)

Passenger FaresSpecial Transit ServiceCharter Service RevenuesAuxiliary Transportation RevenuesNon-tr~n~ortation RevenuesProp. A %40 DiscretionaryProp. A %25 Local ReturnProp. A Incentive fundProp. A InterestProp. C %40 Discretionary:

Base RestructuringBSIPFoothill Transit Zone MitigationTran~t Service Expansion (TSE)Zero-Fare Compensation

Prop. C %20 Local ReturnProp. C %5 SecurityProp. C InterestOther Lo~ (Specify)

’TOTAL OPERATING REVENUESTOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES

TABLE L - 6PERFORMANCE AUDIT FOLLOW-UP

OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LASTCOMPLETED PERFORMANCE AUDIT

PERFORMANCE AUDITRECOMMENDED ACTIONS OPERATOR PROGRESS TO DATE

TABLE L - 7CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY

FY 2000

Project NameFundingFederalAmount

State/Local

Amount

TotalProject

Cost

FY 2001

Project NameFundingFederalAmount

State/Local

Amount

TotalProject

Cost

(Table L-7 continued)

Project Name

FY 2002FundingFederalAmount

State/Local

.Amount

TotalProject

Cost

THESE TABLES SHOULD MATCH THE T/P SHEETS

bos agenda/minutes - july 27, 1999 - metroboardarchives.metro.net/other/bos/bos_1_010.pdf(attachment...

Documents