STAFF REPORT ACTION ITEM

28  Download (0)

Full text

(1)

T/'?91VS/T Report No:

~

I

Meeting Date:

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT

TO: Finance and Audit Committee

AC Transit Board of Directors FROM:

SUBJECT:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager City of Alameda DOT TIGER Grant Proposal

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

15-150 May 27,2015

Consider authorizing the Interim General Manager or her designee to file and execute a joint application with the City of Alameda on a United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant proposal for the Naval Air Station Alameda Multi-Modal Regional Connections Project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Alameda has requested the District to jointly apply for a USDOT TIGER grant for $10 million for the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Multi-Modal Regional Connections Project (MRCP). The MRCP will help transform the former Navy Base into a transit-oriented development (TOO) by improving the infrastructure supporting public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. The project will include roadway improvements, bicycle and pedestrian paths,

queue jump lanes for buses, signal improvements, and intersection modifications.

The District will be a joint applicant to show its approval of the project and commitment as the incumbent service provider for the City of Alameda. This will make for a more effective application. The application will propose that the City of Alameda be the project manager and responsible for project execution. While Alameda is an eligible recipient of TIGER funds through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as a joint application it will be possible for AC Transit to be the recipient of the TIGER funding through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). As the project planning progresses, it may turn out to be more useful to have the funding available under the FTA's somewhat simpler project delivery requirements, so staff wants to preserve that option. If the FTA funding option is deemed best, the District will have to pass -through the funding to Alameda. As specified in Board Policy 364, the funding agreement will be brought before the Board for approval.

BUDGETARY /FISCAL IMPACT:

The City of Alameda has not requested that the District contribute any funds directly to the project. Depending on the grant and project management arrangement, the District will likely have to commit some level of staff resources to the project. Reimbursement can be sought directly as a project partner or through a percentage of funds on a pass-through agreement. If required, the pass-through agreement would be brought to the Board for approval.

(2)

Report No. 15-150 Page 2 of 4

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

The MRCP will help transform the former Navy Base into a TOD and maximize the efficiency of existing egress points off the Island of Alameda by improving the infrastructure supporting public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. The MRCP builds upon the work of three other projects to enhance mobility options in Alameda: the Webster Street SMART corridor, AC Transit's Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability project, and the Cross-Alameda Trail project. These projects form the first phase of improvements in Alameda. The second phase, for which the TIGER funding is requested, has three complete streets components which can stand on their own as contributing solutions to Alameda's isolation from the regional transportation network.

The project will include roadway improvements, bicycle and pedestrian paths, queue jump lanes for buses, signal improvements, and intersection modifications. There are four main elements to the project: Main Street Improvements & Intersection Modifications, Central Avenue Realignment & Bicycle Lane, Stargell Avenue Queue Jump Lanes and Class I Bicycle and Pedestrian Path, and the Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway Bus Rapid Transit Lanes/Multi-Modal Street Conversion.

RAMP and Stargell Avenue is the main east/west thoroughfare in Western Alameda. RAMP stands to be completely redesigned as part of this project. RAMP not only connects the NAS Alameda property to the Webster Street Tube, but also offers access to many travel destinations along its route. Due to the space afforded by an abandoned railroad right-of-way along the parkway, it can support bike lanes, pedestrian improvements, and dedicated bus lanes. Stargell Avenue will be improved with Class I bicycle and pedestrian facilities including curb separation between pedestrians and bicyclists for safety. Stargell Avenue will also feature a bus route, so the project calls for queue jump lanes for eastbound buses at Main &

s'h

Streets. Main and Central Streets are the Eastern boundary between the NAS Alameda property and Alameda proper and as such act as feeders to the main East/West arteries of RAMP and Stargell Avenue. Main and Central Streets will gain a Class I bicycle trail. The intersection at Main Street, Central Street, and Pacific Street will be modified to eliminate the dangerous dog-leg configuration and create a clearer and safer flow of traffic.

The sum total of the phase one and MRCP projects will achieve three critical goals for Alameda and the region. First, it will make a bold, early statement and lay the foundation to transform the former NAS Alameda property into a true Transit Oriented Development (TOD), with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), multimodal complete streets, and links to a new ferry terminal. Second, the project will increase the efficiency of the limited existing crossings on and off the island, which are already at capacity. Third, the project provides vastly improved transit access to the regional assets in and around the NAS Alameda property.

The total cost of the MRCP is $20.5 million. Alameda has committed $9 million in Measure BB funds and $2.5 million in developer contributions. The TIGER application is requesting $9 million to complete the funding package. If awarded, the project plan is to start the design in

(3)

Report No. 15-150 Page 3 of 4

early 2016, begin construction in the summer of 2016, and complete the project by the summer of 2017.

AC Transit Role

The TIGER application will propose that the City of Alameda be the Project Manager (PM) and responsible for project execution. The City has limited experience with large projects such as this, so the project will necessarily utilize consultant project and construction managers. As the improvements are considerable and will directly affect District service, it will be prudent for the District to appoint a PM with civil construction experience to assist the City's PM and consultants. The District can seek reimbursement for staff time spent on the project either through an agreement with the City or through a percentage of the grant funds passed through, depending on the arrangement.

The District and Alameda have had preliminary discussions on what the optimal funding scenario will be for the project, and Alameda has discussed the project with the FTA. TIGER grants are awarded by the US DOT, with the funding being obligated through the appropriate modal administration (FHWA or FTA, in this case). Alameda would receive the funding through the FHWA, and the District would receive the funding through the FTA. FTA funding has fewer restrictions in certain ways and can be simpler to administer and award contracts through. As the project planning progresses staff wants to preserve the option to have the funding available under the FTA's somewhat simpler project delivery requirements. As per Board Policy 364, if the District and the City decide on a pass-through arrangement the resulting agreement would return to the Board for approval.

With the dedicated busway along RAMP and queue-jumps along Stargell, AC Transit will be able to provide a high-level of service between Alameda Point and Downtown Oakland. The busway allows the most frequent and reliable service because it provides dedicated right-of-way to transit. The queue-jumps will provide similar benefits at congested intersections. Through use of existing revenues available to AC Transit coupled with potential developer contributions and grant funds, AC Transit plans to operate a robust level of service along the busway. Depending upon demand and levels of growth in Alameda Point, AC Transit will operate service at 15-minute frequency or better along RAMP, which is ideal for creating a frequent service route network for the area. AC Transit will also target 15-30 minute frequency along Stargell based on demand and available funds

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

The advantages of applying jointly with Alameda on the TIGER application are mainly in improving the chances of the project being awarded funding. As the incumbent transit provider for Alameda, transit-friendly infrastructure that the project will implement will increase service efficiency, promote transit oriented development, and ultimately help to increase ridership, which benefits the District.

The disadvantages in applying jointly are the increased staff burden and risk in administering the pass-through funding agreement, and/or the staff burden in handling some level of project management and implementation.

(4)

Report No. 15-150 Page 4 of 4

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The Board can decide to not apply jointly with Alameda on the grant application and instead just submit a letter of support. This will likely decrease the chances of winning an award, as it does not show full commitment to the project from the main partner and incumbent transit service provider.

The Board can also decide to not apply jointly nor submit a support letter for the application. This is not recommended as Alameda might then decide to look at other agencies or private companies to implement the project and/or the service for the planned development.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

None

ATTACHMENTS:

None

Department Head Approval: James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer

Reviewed

by:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel

Robert Del Rosario, Director of Service Planning

Prepared

by:

Chris Andrichak, Manager, Capital Planning & Grants

(5)

FY 2015-16 Proposed

Operating & Capital Budgets

Presentation to the Board of Directors

May 27, 2015

Presented by

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager

James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer

Donald Eckert, Director of Management & Budget

Chris Andrichak, Manager of Capital Planning & Grants

PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET

1

Finance and Audit Committee

May 27, 2015

(6)

Budget Calendar

START

NOW

Proposed Budget

Draft Operating

Strategic Plan

Next Step

Adopted Budget

June 10th

SCHEDULE

Draft - Capital

(7)

DRAFT VS. PROPOSED

• DRAFT

• PROPOSED

(MILLIONS)

REVENUES

$398.5

OPERATING EXPENSES

$375.1

DISTRICT FUNDED CAPITAL

$26.4

SHORTFALL

($3.0)

(MILLIONS)

REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS

FAREBOX

($0.9)

BART TRANSFERS

($0.4)

PROPOSED REVENUES

$397.2

EXPENSE ADJUSTMENTS

PENSION

$3.0

OPERATOR ADDITIONS

$1.3

FRINGE BENEFITS

($0.2)

PROPOSED EXPENSES

$379.2

CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS

($11.4)

PROPOSED DISTRICT CAPITAL

$15.0

(8)

STRATEGIC PLAN

OPERATING

REVENUES

CAPITAL

FUNDING AND

GRANTS

HIGH QUALITY

WORKFORCE

RELIABILITY

SAFETY

EFFECTIVE

COMMUNICATION

SUBSIDIES

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

(9)

OPERATING REVENUES

(Millions)

FY 13-14

Actuals

FY 14-15

Mid-Year

Budget

Proposed FY

15-16

$69.0

$68.9

$72.2

• Farebox Up

$1.5M

– Strong

economy

– New Service

• Contract

Services Up

$2.1M

– Bus Bridge

Service

Compared to Mid-Year

(10)

SUBSIDIES

(Millions)

FY 13-14

Actuals

FY 14-15

Mid-Year

Budget

Proposed FY

15-16

$277.9

$281.4

$325.0

Compared to Mid-Year

• Full Year of

Measure BB

• Strong Economy

– Sales Tax Up

$4.9M

– Property Tax Up

$4.1M

• Lifeline 3 Year

Cycle

• RM2 Subsidies

• Labor

Reimbursement

(11)

18%

44%

29%

9%

Operating Revenues

Sales-Tax Based

Property-Tax Based

Other Subsidy

REVENUE COMPOSITION

The District is

disproportionately

impacted by the

economy.

Staff is reviewing

implementation of

Sales-Tax

Stabilization Fund

to mitigate service

cuts during

economic

downturns.

Federal funding

contributes <2%

(12)

OPERATING EXPENSES

(Millions)

FY 13-14

Actuals

FY 14-15

Mid-Year

Budget

Proposed FY

15-16

$327.3

$343.5

$379.2

New Service

Labor Costs

– Rising Health care

– Pension Increase

• $2 million in

Draft budget

• $3 million for

actuarial life

expectancy

assumptions

– Contractual Wage

Increase

• 3 ½% Unrep.

Insurance Premiums

Purchased

Transportation

Compared to Mid-Year

(13)

71%

8%

9%

12%

Labor

Purch. Transp.

Fuel, Mat. & Suppl.

Services & Other

EXPENSE COMPOSITION

Labor Costs is 71%

of the Budget

– Salaries & Wages

$130.7 million

– Pension $45.5 million

– Fringe-Other $94.4

million

Purchased

Transportation

($ Thousands)

FY13-14

Mid Year Proposed

Revenues

ADA Paratransit Fund

6,271

5,812

6,000

Federal Assistance

9,332

5,583

5,463

Measure B/BB

4,862

6,319

10,974

Total Revenues

20,465

17,714

22,437

Expenses

23,104

23,612

25,465

(14)

DEPARTMENT BUDGETS

PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET

*

*

Reduction of District Overhead due to allocation of fringe benefits to Departments

DEPARTMENT FY 2013-14 ACTUALS FY 2014-15 MID-YEAR BIDGET FY 2015-16 BUDGET ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES $7,253,664 $8,151,981 $9,287,613 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 232,482 248,132 405,500 DISTRICT OVERHEAD 22,725,257 19,524,923 13,146,983 DISTRICT SECRETARY 353,965 463,281 563,131 FINANCE 12,408,498 13,127,128 15,506,822 GENERAL MANAGER 1,660,026 1,705,189 2,736,271 INFORMATION SERVICES 12,434,362 13,642,726 15,887,836 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 12,268,733 13,354,170 15,507,753 OPERATIONS 227,042,772 237,715,003 268,113,283 PLANNING, ENGINEERING 30,811,738 35,488,858 38,036,156 & CONSTRUCTION RETIREMENT 76,520 85,864 -TOTAL $327,268,017 $343,507,255 $379,191,348

AC TRANSIT

GENERAL FUND OPERATING EXPENSE BUDGET

(15)

STAFFING

*

*Note: 20 Operators Expected Hire 4

th

Quarter of FY 2015-16

AUTHORIZED FTE's AUTHORIZED FTE's PROPOSED FTE's CHANGE DEPARTMENT FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 MID-YEAR FY 2015-16 FROM MID-YEAR GENERAL MANAGER 8 9 9 -DISTRICT SECRETARY 2 3 3

-OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 14 13 13

-OPERATIONS - OPERATORS 1,136 1,196 1,236 40

OPERATIONS - NON OPERATORS 514 527 544 17

TOTAL OPERATIONS 1,650 1,723 1,780 57 PLANNING, ENGINEERING 55 52 57 5 & CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION SERVICES 35 55 60 5 ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES 30 32 35 3 FINANCE 73 77 80 3 RETIREMENT 3 3 3 -TOTAL STAFF 1,870 1,967 2,040 73

(16)

NEW POSITIONS

PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET

DEPARTMENT

UNREP

AFSCME

ATU

IBEW

TOTAL

SERVICE

NON-SERVICE

TOTAL

GENERAL MANAGER

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-GENERAL COUNSEL

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-OPERATIONS

OPERATORS

40

-

40

40

40

NON-OPERATORS

2

6

9

-

17

15

2

17

PLANNING, ENGINEERING

1

3

1

-

5

1

4

5

& CONSTRUCTION

INFORMATION SERVICES

1

4

-

-

5

-

5

5

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

-

3

-

-

3

-

3

3

FINANCE

1

2

-

-

3

-

3

3

TOTAL

5

18

50

-

73

56

17

73

12

(17)

10 Year Forecast

-$5

-$3

-$1

$1

$3

$5

$7

$9

$11

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24

M

illio

ns

(18)

RISK AND CHALLENGES

Economy The District is disproportionately

impacted by economic cycles.

Pension

Actuarial assumptions and

uncertainty with reforms.

Fuel Prices Both a benefit (low prices) and a

cost (reduced STA funding).

Health Care Controlling cost always a challenge

(19)

Proposed FY 2015-16

Capital Budget

(20)

Changes from Draft Budget

District Capital Contribution

Draft Capital Budget (March)

$26.4 million

Changes

($11.4) million

Proposed Capital Budget (May)

$15.0 million

(21)

Changes from Draft Budget Cont’d

Major Changes

Reduce CAD/AVL Budget

($7,189,110)

Reduce D4 Design Budget

($2,160,000)

Deferrals

Four proposed projects

($3,060,000)

Additions

Line 51 TSP Equipment

$400,000

Boardroom Rehab additional

$260,000

Additional bus expansion equipment cost

$100,000

Adjustments for completed projects*

$181,245

($11,467,865)

(22)

Existing Capital Program

$427.3 million total

Corridor

3%

Facilities

13.2%

IS

11%

Environmental

0.2%

Other

7%

BRT

40%

Vehicles

22%

ZEBA

4%

Capital Program Elements

Federal

48%

State

34.9%

Local

8%

District

9%

Capital Program Funds

(23)

Completed Capital Projects

Category Project Budget Spent District Remaining

Completed

Vehicles 23 x 60' Artic Buses 18,811,548 18,778,285 -Vehicles 65 x 40' Urban Buses 29,192,670 29,146,285 -Vehicles 16 x 40' Transbay Buses 7,543,750 7,543,750 -Vehicles 38 x 40' Transbay Buses 18,240,993 18,240,993 -Vehicles 68 x 40' Urban Buses 31,129,959 31,128,549 -Facilities GO-Repl.SmokeDamperEnd Switch 39,337 39,337 -Facilities D6/D4- Purchase solar PV yr.6 1,509,100 1,509,100 -Facilities Photovoltaic Solar Panels Phase 2 3,425,266 3,271,520 -IS/IT PeopleSoft Server Migration 389,574 249,574 140,000 IS/IT Disaster Plan-ITS Systems 458,630 454,871 3,759 IS/IT Automatic Passenger Counters 133,500 125,164 8,336 IS/IT IS-Unity upgrade to 8.x 60,000 30,850 29,150 Other Richmond Parkway Transit Ctr Study 650,000 607,393

-111,643,811

(24)

Funding for key facilities projects

D3 rehabilitation – construction funding

D4 rehabilitation – preliminary engineering

Operator restroom facilities

Fleet replacement

IS/IT core equipment replacements

Continued corridor investments

Proposed FY 2015-16 Capital Budget

Goals/Highlights

(25)

FY 2015-16 Capital Budget

Category Project Description District Federal State Local Grand Total

Vehicles (29) 60ft Artic Diesels 1,443,042 19,226,130 4,299,828 24,969,000 Vehicles (37) 40ft Urban Diesels 3,922,000 13,130,190 17,052,190 Vehicles Expansion Bus Equipment 500,000 500,000 Vehicles Non Revenue Fleet Replacement 450,000 450,000 Facilities DistrictWide Upgrade Aboveground Oil Tanks 1,050,000 1,050,000 Facilities Operator Restroom Upgrades 57,000 57,000 Facilities New Operator Restrooms 250,000 250,000 Facilities D4 Rehabilitation (Pre-Design only in FY16) 1,000,000 1,000,000 Facilities New infrastructure for DEF 100,000 100,000 Facilities TEC Auditorium AV Refresh 50,000 50,000 Facilities GO Boiler Replacement 70,000 70,000 Facilities Facilities Equipment Replace 200,000 200,000 Facilities Finance Equipment Replace 10,000 10,000 Facilities Emergency Facilities Maintenance 200,000 200,000 Facilities (Adjustment) GO Garage/Parking Gates - Construction 132,000 132,000 Facilities (Adjustment) GO Customer Service Reno - Construction 110,000 110,000 Facilities (Adjustment) Boardroom Renovation (Construction) 260,000 260,000 Facilities (Adjustment) GO-Space Plan/Design Augment 100,000 100,000 Facilities (Adjustment) D3 Rehab Construction 12,330,000 12,330,000

(26)

FY 2015-16 Capital Budget Cont’d.

Category Project Description District Federal State Local Grand Total

IS/IT IS-Replace Badge readers 150,000 150,000 IS/IT IS-LAN Core Equip Upgrade 270,000 270,000 IS/IT Internal Firewalls 95,000 95,000 IS/IT DistWide Fiber Infrastructure 210,000 210,000 IS/IT Planning & Budgeting System 1,200,000 1,200,000 IS/IT Rebuild AC Transit Web Site 245,000 245,000 IS/IT IS-Equipment Replacements 160,000 160,000 IS/IT (Adjustment) CAD/AVL Replacement (7,189,110) (7,189,110) Corridors South County Corridors Line 97 457,803 5,000,000 190,000 5,647,803 Corridors (Adjustment) Line 51 Bus Emitters and Related Equip 400,000 400,000 Deferral GO, Replace 'Total Doors' (68,644) (68,644) Deferral D4,D6-New Guard Shack (55,000) (55,000) Deferral GO-Relocate Guard Desk Phase 1 (134,000) (134,000) Deferral D4-Transportation Building/Chiller Repl (3,030,000) (3,030,000)

TOTAL 14,945,091 37,356,320 4,299,828 190,000 56,791,239

(27)

1

2

3

The Operating

Budget supports

Measure BB new

service and

provides

improvements

to existing

service

The Capital

Budget provides

for replacing

buses, fixing

aging

infrastructure

and new

facilities.

The District is

Financially Stable

but vulnerable to

changes in the

economy. Staff

exploring

stabilization fund.

CONCLUSION

(28)

QUESTIONS

Figure

Updating...

References

Related subjects :