The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - December 4, 1991 (52)OF CITY OF LOD1 �rFOR�. � r r AGENDA TITLE: Approve Transportation Development Act (TDA) Claim for 1991-92 MEETING DATE: December 4, 1991 PREPARED BY: Assistant City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council adopt a resolution approving the City's 1991-1992 Transportation Development Act, "TDA" claim for local transportation funds, "LTF" and State Transit Assistance, "STA" and authorize the City Manager to sign on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City's 1991-92 TDA claim requests all of the LTF apportionment which amounts to $1,767,110 and the STA apportionment which is $92,916. It is estimated that we will be using approximately $345,330 of LTF and $92,916 STA money for the transit system including purchase of vehicles. The remainder of LTF is used for street purposes. TDA funds are used in conjunction with other street funds for the transportation��Vin vement program and maintenance of our streets. This claim includes progress projects as well as street projects that are expected to be included in the capital improvement plan which will use the LTF. Projects are shown on the attached list. Showing these projects on our claim allows us the flexibility to use TDA funds. It does not approve these projects for construction. The pedestrian and bicycle apportionment, $21,700 will be used on the City sidewalk upgrading program together with other funds. Since this project includes pedestrian safety, it meets the requirements of this portion of the claim. A complete claim form is in the City Managers file, but not included as part of this commcnication. FUNDING: N/A ACMTDA/TXTA.01V 1 APPROVED: y _L� Glen As istant City Manager THOMAS A. PETERSON Citv Manager Am recycled per col RESOLUTION NO. 91-226 ---------------------- ---------------------- A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE CITY OF LODI'S 1991-92 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council does hereby approve the City's 1991-92 Transportation Development Act (TOA) claim for Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Transit Assistance Funds (STA); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute the subject Claim on behalf of the City of Lodi. Dated: December 4, 1991 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 91-226 was passed and adopted by the Lodi City Council in a regular meeting held December 4, 1991 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members - Hinchman, Pennino, Sieglock, Snider and Pinkerton (Mayor) Noes= Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Alice M. Reimche City Clerk 91-226 RES91226/TXTA.02J LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND TO: San Joaquin County Council of Governments 1860 East Kazelton Avenue Stockton, CA 95205 FROM: Applicant: City of Lodi Address : P. 0. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 (City, Zip) Jerry L. Glenn/Transit (209) 333-6700 Contact Person:Sharon Blaufus/Street Phone: (209) 333-6706 The CITY OF LODI hereby requests, in accordance with Chapter 1400, Statutes 1971 and applicable rules and regulations, that its annual transportation claim be approved in the amount of $1,667 ,110 for fiscal year 1991-00 , to be drawn from the Local Transportation Fund. When approved, please transmit this claim to the County Auditor for payment. Approval of the claim and payment by the County Auditor to this applicant is subject to such monies being on hand and available for distribution, and to the provisions that such monies will be used only in accordance with the terms otf the approved annual financial plan. The claimant certifies that this Local Transportation Fund claim and the financial information contained therein, is reasonable and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that the aforementioned information indicates the eligibility of this claimant for funds for the fiscal year of the application pursuant to CAC Section 6634 and 6734. San Joaquin County Council of Governments us BARTON MEAYS Title: Executive Director Date : 19 -5- Name : Thomas A. Peterson Title: City Manager TO: STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE CWIM San Joaquin County Council of Governments 1860 East Hazelton Avenue Stockton, CA 95205 FROM: Applicant: Citv of Lndi Address: P. 0. Box 3006. Lodi, CA 95241 (city, Zip) Contact Person: Jerry L. Glenn Phcne: (209) 333-6700 This claimant, qualified pursuant to Sections 99313.6, 99314.5 and 99314..6' of the Public Utilities. Code, hereby requests, in accordance with 'Chapter 1400, Statutes cf 1971 as amended, and applicable rules and regulations, that an allocation be made in the amount of $ 92,916 for fiscal year 1991-92 to be drawn from the State Transit Assistance trust fund of San Joaquin County for the following purposes and in the following respective amounts: Purposes Dial -A -Ride Transit System Amounts $92,916 Allocation instruction and payment by the County Auditor to this claimant are subject to such monies being on hand and available for distribution, and to the provisions that such monies will be used only in accordance with the terms of the approved claim. The claimant certifies that this State Transit Assistance Fund claim and the financial information contained herein, i reasonable and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that tht aforementioned information indicates the eligibility of this claimant for funds for the fiscal year of the application pursuant to CAC Section 6634 and 6734. APPROVED: Sari Joaquin County Council of Governments By: BARTOt7 MEAYS Title: Executive Director Date: 19 Applicant: it f Lodi Signed: _I -6- Name: Thomas A. Peterson Title: City Manager Date: T 19f TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT APPORTIONMENTS I. Local Transportation Fund Available Apportionment A. Area Apportionment 1991-92 1,031,634 B. Pedestrian/Bicycle Apportionment 21.701 C. Previous Years' Unclaimed Apportionment 50C 5. Unexpended Carryover * 703.275 E. Total Available for 1991-92 Claim(s)r2in F. Less any LTF Already Claimed 1991-92 G. TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR THIS CLAIM $ 1.767.110 (Also enter on page 8, 1st column) 11. State Transit Assistance Fund Available Apportionment A. Area Apportionment 1991-92 $ 5. Special Operator Apportionment 1991-92 C. Previous Years' Unclaimed Apportionment D. Unexpended Carryover E. Total Available for 1991-92 Claim(s) F. Less any STA Already Claimed 1991-92 G. TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR THIS CLAIM $ (Also enter on page 8, 2nd column) * Amount shown as unexpended on July 1, 1991 -7- 48,473 1,174 43,269 G 92,916 0 92,916 A - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ALLOCATIONS Claim Purpose I. LTF II. STA I. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Article 4 (99260) -operators 316,759 92,916 Article 8 (99400 (c) ) Contractor operating 30,200 Article 8 (99400(e)) Contractor capital II. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE N/A Article 3 (99234) 21.701 111. ROADS AND STREETS N/A Article 8 (99400(a)) 1,295,200 IV. OTHER Article 8 (99400(b) N/A or 99400(d) 3,250 TOTAL THIS CLAIM 1,667,110 9'' ,916 TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR THIS CLAIM (from page 7, I. and II_ G.) 1,767,110 92,916 UNCLAIMED APPORTIONMENT (TOTAL AVAIL. less TOTAL THIS CLAIM) 100.700 IMPORTANT: To avoid accidental overpayment, please identify in the space below any unexpended carryover included in the amounts being claimed above. Identify the amount of carryover and the purpose for which it is being reclaimed. $703,275 was carried over for street and road purposes. --------------- 1. Operators claiming STA funds must neet qualifying criteria (PUC Section 39314.6). Page 15 of this form must be completed. -8- PART i - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Please Circle either: FTNANCIAL INFORMATION ( Article 4 operator) Article 8 Contractor 1994-91 Please Circle 1991-92 I_ OPEP.AMIG REVS? UE ACTUAL or ESTIMATE Budget 401 Passenger Fares 43,575 48,550 402 Special Transit Fares 405 Charter Service Revenues 406 Auxiliary Transportation Revenues (includes advertising) 407 Non -Transportation Revenues 3,266 1.00c1 408 Tax Revenue (Specify:) Property Tax Sales Tax (not TDA) 409 Local Grants & Reimbursements Purchase of Service Local Transportation Fund (LTF) 777 313.050 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 State Cash Grants & Reimbursements State Transit Assistance (STA) 5.221 Other 412 State Special F'�re Ass istar,ce 413 Federal Grants & Reimbursements (Specify) UMTA Grants 430 Contributed Services (Not Cash) 440 Subsidy from other Sector of Cperations _ TOTAL �RE,A3�_ 399,600 11. CAPITAL REVENUE 464 Capital Grants & Subsidies Specify Fed, State, Local: State Transit Assistance (STA) 92,91fi._ Local Transportation Fund (LTF) 61,654 3,709 Non -Governmental Donations TOTAL 61.654 X625 ARTICLE IV III. OPERATING EXPENSES 1990-91 Please Circle 1991-92 Actual or Estimate Budget 501 Labor *Allowable capital expenses are limited for Article 8 claimants; see 99400 (e). -10- Operators Salaries/Wages 289 7,200 Other Salaries/Wages 502 Fringe Benefits 76 1,500 503 Services 2.539 3.800 504 Materials/Supplies Fuels/Lubricants Tires/Tubes Other 505 Utilities 506 Casualty/Liability Costs 30,414 —.34.78 5 '7 Taxes 508 4'.7rchased Transportation Service 244.906 303,130 509 Miscellaneous Expenses 10.187 12.000 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases and Rentals 513 Depreciation/Amortization Operator Funds Grant Funds . TOTAL 288,411 -3-62,600 IV. CAPITAL EXPEMSES* Debt Service Land/Property Acquisition Vehicles 61,654 95,000 Construction Other(telephone system, radios) 1,625 TOTAL 61,654 96,625 *Allowable capital expenses are limited for Article 8 claimants; see 99400 (e). -10- II. CAPITAL REVENUE 464 capital Grants & Subsidies Specify Fed, State, Local: State Transit Assistance (STX) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Non -Governmental Donations TOTAL PART -I - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Please Circle either: FINANCIAL INFORMATION Article 4 Operator (Article 8 Contractor( 1990-91 Please Circle 1991-92 I. OPERATING REVENUE ACTUAL or ESTIMATE Budget 401 Passenger Fares 29.200 30,600 402 Special Transit Fares 405 Charter Service Revenues 406 Auxiliary Transportation Revenues (includes advertising 407 Non -Transportation Revenues 408 Tax Revenue (Specify:) Property Tax Sales Tax (not TDA) 409 Local Grants & Reimbursements Purchase of Service Local Transportation Fund ( LTF) 28.707 30.200 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 State Cash Grants & Reimbursements State Transit Assistance (STA) Other 412 State Special Fare Assistance 41.2 Federal Grants & Reimbursements (Specify) UMrA Grants 430 Contributed Services (Not Cash) 440 Subsidy from other Sector of Operations TOTAL 57,gn7 tm Rnn II. CAPITAL REVENUE 464 capital Grants & Subsidies Specify Fed, State, Local: State Transit Assistance (STX) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Non -Governmental Donations TOTAL I ARTICLE VIII III. OPERATING EXPENSES 1990-91 please Circle 1991-92 Actual or Estimate Budget 501 Labor Operators Salaries/Wages Other Salaries/Wages 502 Fringe Benefits 503 Services 504 Materials/Supplies Fuels/Lubricants Tires/Tubes Other 505 Utilities 506 Casualty/Liability costs 507 Taxes 508 Purchased Transportation Service 57,907 64,600 509 Miscellaneous Expenses 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases and Rentals 513 Depreciation/Amortization Operator Funds Grant Funds TOTAL 57,907 64,600 IV. CAPITAL EXPENSES* Debt Service Land/Property Acquisition Vehicles Construction . Other TOTAL *Allowable capital expenses are limited for Article 8 claimants: see 99400 (e). =KIM *Attach additional pages as necessary to alter or complete description -II- OPERATIONAL INFORMATION* Actual (ActualyEst. Proposed FY 1989-90 FY 1990-91 FY 1991-92 1. Patronacte a. Total Passengers 76,605 85,343 92,600 b. Revenue Passengers 6,928 8,712 10,500 c. Youth Passengers d Elderly Passengers 68,610 72,418 76,100 e VAQ" &RI Passengers 2,067 4,213 6,000 2. Vehicle Miles a. Total Vehicle Miles 156,104 . 178,488 189,200 b. Revenue Vehicle Miles 3. Revenue Vehicle Hours 13,580 14,930 16.200 4. Revenue Vehicle Fuel Consumption a. Diesel b. Gasoline 14,183 15,467 16,800 5. Fare Structure a. Base .50 .50 .50 b. Zone c. Youth d. Senior 1.00 1.00 1.00 e. Handicapped .50 .50 .50 f- Monthly Pass _ g. Other h. Average Fare .55 .55 56 *Attach additional pages as necessary to alter or complete description -II- -12- THREE YEAR FISCAL PLAN 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Operating Expenses $ 406,000 $ 429,000 $ 452,000 Operating Revenues: Sources: LTF $ 354,000 $ 374,500 $ 394J50 STA Federal Fares 51,000 53,500 56,250 General Fund Other (Interest) 1,000 1,000 1,000 Total $ 354,000 $ 373,500 $ 394,750 Capital Expenses $ 75,000 $ 80,000 $ 85,000 Capital Revenue Sources: LTF $ $ $ STA 75,000 80,000 85,000 Federal Other Total $ 71;.Qno $ Rn,nnn $ 89.000 -12- ARTICLE VIII OPERATIONAL INFOP14ATION* Actual Actual/Est. Proposed FY 1989-90 FY 1990-91 FY 1991-92 1. Patronage a. Total. Passengers b. Revenue Passengers c. Youth Passengers d Elderly Passengers e. Handicapped Passengers 2. Vehicle Miles a. Total Vehicle Miles b. Revenue Vehicle Miles 3. Revenue Vehicle Hours 4. Revenue Vehicle Fuel consumation a. Diesel b. Gasoline 5. Fare Structure a. Base b. zone c. Youth d. Senior e. Handicapped f. Monthly Pass g. Other h. Average Fare 18,653 19,500 o �/'n n inn *Attach additional pages as necessary to alter or complete description -11- Operating Expenses Operating Revenues= Sources: LTF Total STA Federal Fares THREE General Fun PLAN Other Total Capital Expenses Capital Revenue Sources: LTF 1994-95 STA 63,830 Federal 67,000 Other Total -12- ARTICLE VIII THREE YEAR FISCAL PLAN 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 $ 63,830 $ 67,000 $ 70,400 $ 31,700 $ 33.300 $ 35.000 32,130 33,700 35,400 d S $ $ S $ $ $ $ S -12- FLEET INVENTORY (Transit Vehicle Owners Only) TOTAL I XXXXXXXXX:1 10 I XXXX) Chevrof e t Ake & Model ,roduction # of Veh. Fuel Type Seat apacityjAC Spee=1a1 Features Sta Wagon EP WC Other X X X X X X X X. Chev Sta Wag Chev Sta Wag Chev Sta Wag Dodge Minivan Dodge Sedan Dodge Minivan 1986 1988 1989 1989 1989 1991 1 2 2 1 3 1 Sas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas 6 6 6 6 5 6 TOTAL I XXXXXXXXX:1 10 I XXXX) Chevrof e t 1 Gas 5 X Sta Wagon 1990 Minivan 1991 2 Gas 12 X X -13- Article 4 Operator TDA Requirements 1. Fare Ratio/Local Support Requirements All Article 4 claimants are required to maintain a specified ratio of fare revenue to operating :ost. In addition, SMTD only is required to maintain a ratio of fare revenue plus 1, -.)cal support to operating cost of 320. See 99268.2 - 99268.19 for details and exemptions pertaining to ratios. A. What is this system's required farebox recovery ratio? 10% B. Does the attached budget demonstrate that this system will meet its required farebox recovery and for SMTD its farebox plus local support ratios? Yes C. Has this system utilized its grace year? D. Has this system been in non-compliance with its required ratio(s)? No If yes, identify the year or years 2. Extension of Service/New Service An extension of service or new service is exempt from the required farebox and focal support ratios if: A. The extension of service or new service has been in operation for less than two full fiscal years. The two-year extension of services exclusion applies until two years after the end of the fiscal year in which t h e extension of services w a s put into operation. B. The claimant submits a report: on the extension of services to the COG within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year. (For details of the report, see 6633.8(b)). Is an extension of service/new service being claimed? No If so, has the required report been submitted for the most recently completed full fiscal year? If not, that report must accompany this claim. -14- 3. Operator's STA Qualifying criteria (99314.6) EXPLANATION A transit operator must meet one of two efficiency standards before STA funds nay be "fully" allocated for operating purposes: A) The operator's operating cost per revenue vehicle hour, in the latest year for which audited data are available, must not exceed the sum of the preceding year's operating cost per revenue vehicle hour and an amount equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) multiplied by the preceding year's operating cost per revenue vehicle hour. The formula below accomplishes this exercise: (opcost/RVH)FY90 < [(opcost/RVH)FY891 * [1.048] OR B) The operator's average operating cost per revenue vehicle hour, in the latest three years for which audited data are available, must not exceed the sum of the average of the operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for the three years preceding the latest year for which audited data are avail- able and an amount equal to the average change in the CPI for the same period. The formula below accomplishes this exercise: AVG(opcost/RVH)FY88,89,90 < (AVG(opcost/RVH)FY87.,88,89) * (1.049) As used here, operating Costs are defined by PUC Section 99247: All costs in the operating expense object classes exclusive of the costs in the depreciation and amortization expense object class, and exclusive of all direct costs for provid- ing charter services, and exclusive of all vehicle lease costs. STA allows for other exclusions, to be granted by the COG, if deemed appropriate. These additional operating cost exclusions include 1) Exclusion of cost increases beyond the change in the CPI for fuel, alternative fuel programs, insurance, or state and fed - era 1 mandates. 2) Exclusion of startup costs for new services for a period of not more than two years (refer to PUC Section 99268.8 for a definition of new service). If you wish to claim these exclusions when calculating the operation cost per revenue vehicle hour, you m c s t state the request and show calculations in support of the cost to be excluded. -Page 15- PUC Section 99314.6 is somewhat obscure about how much STA may be allocated in the event that an operator does not meet the efficiency standards. The legislation says that the funds may not be "fully" allocated, but does not define what is meant by "fully". COG will address this issue if it becomes necessary. The following documents pertain to the new STA efficiency standards and are available at your request: • PUC Section 99314.6, also known as Chapter 35 Statutes of 1991 ISB 3 -Kopp). • The Uniform System of Accounts for Public Transit Operators. • consumer Price Index Data for California, January, 1981 through May, 1991. + Transportation Development Act Audit Reports, FY 1987 through FY 1990. Please complete the attached worksheet to determine if you fully qualify for your STA apportionment. TDA Audit reports will address this efficiency criteria beginning vk-'! the Audit for FY 1991. -Page 15a- 3. Operator's STA Qualifying Criteria (99314.6) - WORKSHEET FISCAL YEAR: 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 (use audited data) A. Operating Cost $ S $ 262,475 $ 276,355 B. Operating Cost .fxclusions : 1,5470 1,295 2. 3. 4. C. Adjusted Operating Cost (A- B) 260,858 275,064 D. W{MuTRVR*icle 12,639 13,580 E. R+7H Exclusions: 393 353 2. 3. (if more, show on separate sheet) F. Adjusted RVH 12,246 13,227 (D- E) G. Operating Cost ------- per RVH tW— i (C (C -.'F)({ � �M� k 2� ! 200 Efficiency Standard 1: Z must be less than or equal to (Y)*(1.048) Show calculation: Y = 22.32 Efficiency Standard 2: [(X+Y+Z)T3] must be less gran Or equal to <(W+X+Y)=3)>*(1.049) Show calculation: -__-__-;For COG use only=-- — --- --_-___�--__�__�______ Operator qualifies under: Standard 1 Yes x No Standard 2 Yes NO -Page 15b- 4. Fifteen Percent Expenditure Increase (6632) If any of the line items on the attached budget exceed by more than 15% the expend-_ture for that same item in the previous year's budget, then an explanation for that increase must be given below. Attach an extra page if necessary. (501, 502) Labor costs - Assistant City Manager is spending Wore time on transit issues. 10%of time is realistic charge. Ridership increasing as wel l as increased reimbursement. (503) Budgeting costs for additional advertising and New Year's eve free rides. 508) Ridership is increasing by 6.7%. Reimbursement per ride has projected increase to $3.50 per ride. 5. Narrative Description (6632) Please describe in the space below any cnanges in service characteristics from the previous fiscal year. This should specifically include any substantial increase or decrease in the geographic area served, major charges to the scope of operations, or addition of major new fixed facilities- Please attach an additional page if necessary. Dial -A -Ride is reaching its capacity. Demand by public for alternative transportation sources. This is requiring redirection of staff time to this problem. SPECIAL NOTES FOR RATIO CALCULATIONS SMTD - Exclude certain costs and fares as specified in the mos:. recent Compliance Audit Retort. Lodi - Exclude County ser.•ice when calculating tares and expenses. -16- A r t i c l e 8 Contractor TDA Requirements For contracted transportation service providers, the San Joaquin County Council of Governments' Executive Board has waived the farebox and local support ratios as it is empowered to do by 99405(c) . The COG Board has established a two-step process. 1. Match Requirement For -any Article 8 transit claim, no more than 90% of the total operating funds (minus depreciation) in the budget may be TDA (LTF and STA) derived. The ten percent or more matching funds may come from any other source available to the claimant besides TDA. 2. operating Cost Per Passenger Objective To receive an amount of TDA operating funds (LTF and STA combined) in excess of what was claimed the previous fiscal year, the claimant must establish an oneratina cold per nasaenner objective for the fiscal year of the claim. "Operating cost" is defined as in the TDA statutes and regulations. The objective should be a realistic one based on current and past system performance, but should be low enough to represent an "improvement" when warranted- The COG Executive Board will adopt the systemwide operating cost per passenger objective for the fiscal year of the claim. If the system failed to meet its operating cost per passenger objective in the fiscal year prior to the fiscal year of the claim, then the claimant is only eligible to file a claiir, for the level of TDA operating funding received in that prior fiscal year. In the case of a unified transit system, each claimant would be limited to the prior year's level of TDA operating funding. If a system wishes to be eligible for increased TDA operating funding in a future fiscal year, then the claimant should identify an operating cost per passenger objective. a. What was the level of TDA operating funding received in the previous fiscal year for this system by this claimant (LTF plus STA)? $ 28,707 b. Does the attached budget information demonstrate at least a 10%match of non -TDA funds in FY 1990-91? Yes Does the FY 1991-92 budget demonstrate a 10%match of non -TDA funds? ver, C. Is this claim requesting more TDA operating funds than were received for this system by this claimant in the previous fiscal year?yeg d. If yes, did the system meet its operating cost per passengsr objective in the previous fiscal year? ren (An affirmative answer should be documented in Parr_ -17- pn w e. What was lastyyear's Operating Cost per Passenger objective? 44 17 What was the actual operating cost per passenger? i. FY 1990-91 Operating Cost $ 54,272 ii. Total Passengers 18,653 iii. Op((E�ri i pg Cost Per Passenger $ 2.91 f. what is the Operating Cost per Passenger Objective for this claim? iv. . Budgeted Operating Cost $ 60,800 V. Estimated Total Passengers 19,600 vi. Projected Operating Cost per Passenger (iv/v) $ 3.10 vii. FY 1991-92 OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER OBJECTIVE $ 3.10 viii. If this claim is for a unified transit systema, has the contributing claimant been appraised of the planned systemwide objective set in vii. above? 3. Fifteen Percent Expenditure Increase (6632) If any of the line items on the attached budget exceed by more than 15% the expenditure for that same item in the previous year's budget, then an explanation for that increase must be given below. Attach an additional page if necessary. 4. Narrative Description (6632) Please describe on an attached page any changes in service characteristics from the previous fiscal year. This should specifically include any substantial increase or decrease in the geographic area sewed, major changes to the scope of operations, or addition of major new fixed facilities. 3. If this claim is for a unified transit system (definition page 19), all calculations and numbers for operating costs per passenger must include system totals. Also contributing claimants to unified transit systems should not use page 17 or 18, use page 19 instead. -18- ARTICLE 8 CONTRACTOR TDA REQUIREMENTS (CONTRIBUTING CLAIMANTS) In the case of a "unified transit system," this page is to be used by the "contributing claimant" -rather than pages 17 and 1 a . A "unified transit system" is defined as one which has the same fare structure throughout the service area, but whose TDA expenses are claimed separately by two different TDA claimants. Additionally, to qualify as a unified transit system, all system TDA funding must be claimed under article 8 (both claimants). "Contributing claimant" is aefined as the claimant contributing a minority of the unified transit system's TDA funds. The claimant furnishing the majority of TDA funds is defined as the "primary claimant. " Currently, the following local transit services qualify as unified transit systems: FY 1990-91 unified Transit Svstems Tracy Trans Tracy Taxi Escalon Public Transit System I. 1. Name of unified transit system This Paqe Used by: County County County 2. Systemwide operating cost per passenger objective for FY 1991-92 identified in primary claimant's adopted transit claim (from that claim, page 18, (2) f. vii.) 3. Date of primary claimant's adopted transit claim (or anticipated future date, if not yet adopted) IMPORTANT: The operating cost per passenger objective identified above (I. 2) will be applied uniformly to the total of City and County TDA funds used by the unified transit system, to determine eligibility for increased T_'DA funding as explained on page 17. Separate calculations will not be done for city and County. -3.9- PART II - PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROJECTS Proiect T, i m i t various locations LTF Cost Total Cost S21,700 50,000 LTF COST : 21,700 _ TOTAL COST: 50.000 I(Use additional page if necessary) MWIM PART III - ROAD AND STREET PROJECTS ** Please provide the requested information for each project being identified for Transportation Development Act funding. ion Proiect Limits Total Cost *Hutchins Street Overlay *Sacramento Street Overlay *Church Street Improvements *Cherokee Lane RR Crossing Protect *Mills/Kettleman, Hutchins/Vine & Church Street Traffic Signals *Mi lls Avenue Overlay *Overlay Analysis *Pacific Ave./Oak St. Overlay *Ilam Lane Overlay *Hutchins Street Widening *Cherokee Lane/Hale Road Flashing Beacon Miscellaneousg Miscellaneous- k Replacement Handicap Ramp Installation Miscellaneous Traffic Improvement: Pleasant Ave. Sidewalk Almond Drive Street Widening Cherokee Lane Overlay Church St. Overlay Lockeford St. Overlay Lodi Avenue Overlay Pine Street Overlay Stockton Street - Prel. Eng. - Overlay Traffic Signal - location to be determined when CIP i s adoptee Street Maintenance St. Division Loader/Backhoe *Work in progress ** Street CIP has not been adopte Pine to Lockeford Lockeford to Turner Century to Kettleman Lodi t o Elm Kettleman t o Vine Lodi t o Pine various locations various locations various locations various locations 150'S/Lodi to Lcdi 500'-1100' W/Cherokee Kettleman to Delores Vine to Tokay Cluff to 600' E/Cluff Main to Central Hutchins to School Tokay t o Lodi Locust to Lockeford City-wide 76,000 173,000 65,000 20,000 4,000 15,000 6,000 13,000 10,000 270,000 10,000 50,000 28,000 10,000 15,000 50,000 17,000 84,000 89,000 21,000 153,000 70,000 10,000 54,000 110,000 237,000 45,200 I - some of these r�ew pro�ects could chang� I E I L7F COST- 1,295,200 TOTAL C -Si : 1,705,200 PART IV - OTHER PURPOSES It is possible that a claimant may wish to expend TDA funds for purposes allowed within the Act, but not covered by the three previous parts. For instance, TDA funds may be claimed under Article 8, 99400(b) to subsidize AMTRAX service in a community, or under 99400(d) for administration and planning costs for Article 8 transit services. To complete this section, piease identify the project, the our�a_se of the uroiect, the gsttmated cost, and the fund from which money -is being claimed. =7 s advisable to communicate with COG staff before completing this section. The San Joaquin County Council of Governments has received a grant to conduct a City-wide transit needs assessment. The City is required to match a portion of these costs: $3,250.00 (Local Transportation Fund) -22-