HCAOG 2002-04 RTP Update
The purpose of the Financial Element is to provide a summary of the projected costs of transportation facilities listed in the RTP and the revenue sources required to fund those facilities. This section includes a summary of the costs to implement programs discussed in the Action Element and a discussion of the sources of revenue available to fund them. Surpluses and deficits resulting from the difference in projected revenues and planned expenditures are identified, along with the ramifications of implementing only those improvements that have secure funding. Finally, alternative sources of funding are explored and a summary funding strategy is presented.
The Financial Element takes a realistic look at available funding and proposed projects, consistent with RTP guidelines. The Financial Element's first four years of programming are linked with the STIP Fund Estimates adopted by the CTC. However, the 2004 STIP Fund Estimate will be released and adopted by the CTC at a later date than from the conclusion of this RTP update. Therefore, this RTP relies on information collected from state representatives most knowledgeable with the STIP such as Caltrans and the CTC to approximate the STIP revenues that are anticipated from the 2004 Fund Estimate.
To meet these guidelines the Financial Element includes: an inventory of existing and potential funding sources; and an evaluation of these sources based on a range of revenue assumptions.
The update of the Humboldt County RTP comes at a pivotal juncture in the context of the funding environment. Several past and current conditions, coupled with new funding opportunities, have altered the transportation funding landscape. These events include:
Passage of Proposition 42 in March 2002, which commits revenues from the sales tax on gasoline to transportation.
Statewide economic recession since 2000 that has lowered expectations for funding.
A substantial state budget deficit that resulted in severe borrowing of revenues from the state highway account to offset general fund losses.
Expiration of the federal transportation bill in October 2003 that provides federal transportation revenues.
Passage of Proposition 42
The general electorate in March 2002 overwhelmingly voted in favor of dedicating retail sales tax revenues from the sale of gasoline to transportation indefinitely, thereby expanding the Traffic Congestion Relief Program created in 2000. Before its passage, the sales tax revenues were being deposited into the state general fund for non-transportation purposes. Proposition 42 currently generates over $1 billion annually statewide.
The revenues go toward several programs, including specific projects selected by the Governor, state highways, local streets and roads, and transit. The percentage of revenues allocated to each program is as follows:
Governor's
Traffic Congestion Relief Program ($678 million per year through
2008)
State
Highways (40% of remaining revenues)
Local
Streets (20% of remaining revenues)
County
Roads (20% of remaining revenues)
Transit
(20% of remaining revenues - 10% goes to intercity rail, 10% for
local transit)
Despite its passage, the state legislature has decided to capitalize on a provision in the Proposition that allows the revenues generated from Prop. 42 to be returned back to the General Fund for non-transportation uses. To address the problems created by the troubling economy, the governor, upon agreement by the legislature, transferred $2.5 billion from the TCRP to the general fund for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. To offset the loss from sales tax revenues, the TCRP program was extended two years to 2007-2008. However, this transfer was only the beginning.
The Governor and legislature continued the raid on Prop. 42 revenues in FY 2003-04, diverting all but $289 million to the General Fund (about $838 million is diverted). Of the $289 million, $189 million will go towards TCRP projects already under contract and the remaining $100 million will go toward the STIP. Repayment with interest by 2009 was included in the budget bill, but is not guaranteed. In essence, from its onset, Proposition 42, in its current form, is an unstable new source of transportation revenue, making it difficult for transportation agencies to rely on it for programming projects.
Perhaps the most significant circumstance since adoption of the last RTP is the deterioration of the fiscal condition of the state's general fund. The decline in the growth in state general fund revenues resulted from a weakening economy and a seemingly intractable disruption of the energy supply, resulting in the state purchasing several billions of dollars in electricity. This has a direct impact on the Traffic Congestion Relief Program which is funded by state sales tax revenues from the retail sales of motor vehicle fuels.
Since the economic recession the last few years, $6 billion has been borrowed from the State Highway Account to balance the general fund. With an anticipated continuation of the fiscal crises, revenues remain uncertain for some time.
Since 2000, the state of California has been endeavoring to align general fund revenues and expenditures through a succession of state budgets, after a precipitous decline in state income taxes in 2000. Every source of revenue has contributed to bailing out the state's general fund, including transportation revenues, which were assumed to be committed exclusively to transportation programs due to protective clauses in the state constitution. In fact, with the recent enactment of the FY 2004 state budget, nearly $6 billion in transportation revenues have been shifted to support the general fund either through deferrals in expenditures, loans or direct transfers since the beginning of the crises, according to legislative staff. This is the equivalent to two years of capital outlay expenditures by Caltrans.
While repayment has been promised it is unclearly when it will actually happen and over what period of time. In the meantime, the FY 2005 state budget will begin with an $8 billion deficit that is likely to grow, according to most state budget experts. It may be nearly ten years, nearly a third of the way into the 2030 RTP period, before the state works its way of out of this fiscal crisis.
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is likely to be severely impacted from the fiscal woes. Caltrans is in the process of preparing the 2004 State Fund Estimate which provides a forecast of state transportation revenues available for project programming in the STIP for the next five years. Indications are that the Fund Estimate would not be adopted until December 2003, which would be several months behind schedule. Reasons for the delay include late passage of the state budget, the uncertainty with the reauthorization of TEA-21, and the uncertainty with the general health of the California economy. There are early indications that there will not be any new money for transportation projects in the new STIP.
The federal transportation bill that has provided over $200 billion in revenues for transportation nationwide the past 6 years expires on September 30, 2003. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) needs to be renewed; however, Congress is also grappling with a severe fiscal crisis of its own. Passage of a new bill, or at least an extension of the current one, will allow continued flow of federal dollars to transportation in California, which are primarily programmed into the STIP or made available directly to regional transportation agencies.
TEA-21 provided a total of $218 billion for highway, transit, and safety programs - representing a 40% increase in funding over the previous six-year authorization period under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA -- $155B, 1992-1997). Further, TEA-21 ensured that funding levels for surface transportation programs were tied to receipts coming in to the Highway Trust Fund, and that such funding levels are guaranteed by a budgetary firewall mechanism.
On May 14, 2003, the Bush Administration formally released its reauthorization proposal entitled the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 or SAFETEA. Some highlights of the proposal are as follows:
For fiscal years 2004 through 2009 (6 years), the Bush Administration authorizes a total of $247 billion in funding for surface transportation programs.
There are budgetary firewalls established for the highway category and for the Trust Fund portion of the transit program. The firewall for highways is set at $196.4 billion over 6 years. The guaranteed portion of the transit program is set at $37.6 billion (the mass transit-account funded portion). Another $8 billion in General Fund revenues are authorized for the transit program although these funds are not protected by the budgetary firewall as was the case under TEA-21.
SAFETEA includes modifications to the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) mechanism so that annual funding level adjustments are more dependent on the levels of actual receipts rather than future anticipated receipts.
The Administration proposes a new core highway safety improvement program at $1 billion in FY 2004, growing to $1.5 billion in FY2009. This would replace the existing Surface Transportation Program safety set-aside.
SAFETEA eliminates most discretionary highway grant programs and makes these funds available under the core highway formula grant programs.
The CMAQ apportionment formula is changed to include nonattainment and maintenance areas for fine particulate matter (PM-2.5) and for ozone under the new 8 hour standard. The EPA is expected to designate these areas as nonattainment in 2004, which is expected to represent a large expansion in the number of U.S. citizens residing in nonattainment areas.
Although no new programs have been proposed for freight mobility in the SAFETEA reauthorization proposal, SAFETEA does require states to dedicate 2% of their National Highway System (NHS) funds for highway connections between the NHS and intermodal freight facilities, such as ports and rail terminals.
SAFETEA also allows STP funds to be used for publicly owned intermodal freight transportation projects (including rail components) and allows private freight rail projects to qualify for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit enhancement program.
SAFETEA also attempts to encourage private investment in transportation infrastructure by permitting state and local governments to issue tax-exempt private activity bonds for all highway and transit projects.
Moreover, the TIFIA program project cost threshold is lowered from $100 million to $50 million in order to increase access to government loan assistance.
Tolling provisions are included allowing states to charge tolls on federal-aid highways, including the Interstate System, provided that funds are re-invested in the facility and that the tolls are established as part of a congestion or air quality management plan.
Also, SAFETEA would allow states to permit single occupancy vehicles on HOV lanes, within the context of a variable pricing program.
In the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, there is discussion of a six-year $375 billion measure. This would require a gas tax increase. To date, this proposal has been unable to garner the support of the House leadership. In the meantime, without any guidance on future funding levels for transportation, the House Appropriations Committee sent the 2004 transportation budget to the floor of the House, with funding for the Transportation Enhancements Program deleted for FY 2004 and adding provisions to law limiting funding for new starts and mandating a 50% match for all new starts projects. From conversation with knowledgeable people in Washington, D.C., it is believed that reauthorization is unlikely to occur this year and federal transportation funding will operate on a continuing resolution through next year.
Ultimately this uncertainty will influence the funding strategy for RTP. Indeed, it may require more local initiatives at securing state authorization to pursue funding regionally.
C1. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT FUNDING
(INCLUDES FREIGHT)
Federal, State, and local funding sources and programs which are driven by State and Federal fuel taxes, and some sales taxes, available to the Humboldt County region are described in the following section.
C1.1 FEDERAL SOURCES/PROGRAMS FOR ROADWAYS
AND RELATED FACILITIES
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted in 1998 as Public Law 105-178. TEA-21 authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 6-year period 1998-2003. This Act provides a greater deal of flexibility for the State and local jurisdictions in deciding how federal dollars can be spent. TEA-21 includes several programs that provide funding for Humboldt County. With TEA-21 set to expire in September 2003, there is uncertainty as to the continuation of the funding programs. Talks are underway in Congress regarding reauthorization, while President Bush has unveiled his program for reauthorization, entitled Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 or SAFETEA. A summary of key federal programs is provided below.
National Highway System (NHS). The NHS funding level is $28.6 billion nationwide over the life of TEA-21. The funds are distributed based on a formula which has been revised to include each State's lane-miles of principal arterials (excluding Interstate), vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) on those arterials, diesel fuel used on the State's highways, and per capita principal arterial lane-miles. TEA-21 expands and clarifies eligibility of NHS funding for certain types of improvements, such as publicly owned bus terminals, infrastructure-based intelligent transportation system capital improvements, and natural habitat mitigation.
SAFETEA proposes $30 billion nationally for the next 6 years from 2004 through 2009. California's share would be $2.8 billion, or $467 million a year.
Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP). The STP provides flexible funding of $33.3 billion nationally through 2003 distributed among the States based on the following formula:
25% based on each State's lane miles of federal-aid highways.
40% based on total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on those highways.
35% based on estimated contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Transportation Fund (HTF).
A state may augment its RSTP funds by transferring funds from other programs.
The RSTP funds may be used for Highway projects; bridges (including construction, reconstruction, seismic retrofit and painting); transit capital improvements; carpool, parking, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; safety improvements and hazard elimination; research; traffic management systems; surface transportation planning; transportation enhancement activities and control measures; and wetland and other environmental mitigation. A new provision permits a portion of funds (15%) reserved for rural areas to be spent on rural minor collectors.
80% of the STP apportionment is distributed among the urbanized and non-urbanized areas of the state through MPO's and RTPA's such as HCAOG. Another 10% is set aside for safety improvement projects including railway-highway crossings. The remaining 10% is reserved for transportation enhancements, described next.
SAFETEA proposes $31 billion nationally for the next 6 years from 2004 through 2009. SAFETEA proposes $3 billion for California, or $500 million annually.
Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA). TEA funds represent 10% of the statewide STP funds. TEA offers broad opportunities and federal dollars to take unique and creative actions to integrate transportation into local communities and the natural environment. The Program is designed to promote livable communities and strengthen partnerships.
Areas eligible for TEA funding include the following 12 categories:
Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic/historic sites.
Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provisions of tourist and welcome center facilities).
Landscaping and other scenic beautification.
Historic preservation.
Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals).
Preservation of abandoned railway corridor (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails).
Control and removal of outdoor advertising.
Archaeological planning and research.
Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff and reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity.
Establishment of transportation museums.
Under TEA-21, safety education activities for pedestrians and bicyclists was added to the list of eligible projects. HCAOG is responsible for ranking and programming TEA projects countywide, in the same manner as for RTIP projects, but the California Transportation Commission bears final authorization.
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR). The HBRR program provides funding for highway bridges in need of repair according to Federal safety standards. Bridges become unsafe because of structural deficiencies, physical deterioration, or functional obsolescence.
California receives about $155 million per year from the program through 2003 to provide assistance for eligible bridges located on any public road. The program retains the set-aside for off-system bridges, but eliminates the set-aside for timber bridges. The federal government allocates 80% of the funds and the remaining 20% must come from local sources.
HBRR program revenues are discretionary based on the selection from eligible bridge lists maintained by Caltrans. Timely delivery of projects is one criteria for selection.
SAFETEA proposes $22 billion nationwide from 2004 through 2009. California's share would be $1.7 billion, or $283 million a year.
Railroad/Highway At-Grade Crossing Program. The purpose of this program is to reduce the number and severity of highway accidents by eliminating hazards to vehicles and pedestrians at existing railroad crossings. Railroad/highway at-grade crossing improvement projects include, but are not limited to installation and upgrade of railroad protection systems to a state-of-the-art condition at grade crossings and grade crossing eliminations.
Estimated funding is about $10 million a year. Eligibility is rather strict, as there are several requirements to qualify, including the following:
Project must be on a public road.
Project must be sponsored by a city or a county or a railroad company.
The railroad/highway crossing must be included on the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) "Recommended List of Public Crossings in California for Improved Crossing Protection with Federal Funding."
Projects (or lump sums to cover all projects) must be included in the appropriate Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) developed by a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Hazard Elimination Safety Program. The HES program is intended to eliminate or reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents at hazardous highway locations. To be eligible for federal HES funds, the project must be located on any local road. Projects must correct an identified safety hazard or problem.
Each year, Caltrans district staff solicits candidate projects from local agencies. Only city and county agencies may apply for funds. Two lists are developed; one based upon a calculated "Safety Index" and another based upon "Work Type". 25% of the funds go toward Safety Index projects and the remaining 75% fund Work Type projects. These projects are programmed for delivery (construction award) approximately 2 years after they have been approved for funding. Historically, only about 20% of the applications get approved for funding due to current program funding limitations. Projects must be included in the MPO's Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) as a 'lump sum' line item. The annual program funding level is approximately $10 million.
Public
Lands Highway-Discretionary Funds (PLH). The PLH program provides
funding for roadway improvements and transit facilities within public
lands, national parks, and Indian reservations. The program
authorizes $4.1 billion nationwide through 2003. Funding is provided
for the three existing categories of Federal Lands highways including
Indian Reservation Roads (IRR), Park Roads and Parkways, and Public
Lands Highways. The program establishes a nationwide priority program
for improving deficient bridges on Indian Reservations Roads and
allocates a minimum of $13 million nationwide per year for this
purpose. A new provision of this program under TEA-21 is the ability
to fund improvements to federally owned public roads providing access
to or within the National Wildlife Refuge System. In California,
applications are submitted to FHWA via Caltrans annually, prior to
the deadline established by FHWA. Eligible applicants can be local
cities and counties, State, Federal and/or non-profit organizations.
The Native American Tribes have applied for and received funding for transportation planning purposes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. According to the BIA fund administrator in Sacramento, in FY 2000, each tribe that applied for funding received close to $33,000; in FY 2001, $35,000; and in FY 2002, $35,000. However, no planning funds are available for the FY 2003 cycle. In addition, the Yurok Tribe received about $375,000 in FY 2002 for design of the Cooncreek Bridge.
U.S. Department of Forestry. The U.S. Department of Forestry (USDF) places a fee on all timber receipts from federal lands. Humboldt County and the school districts receives half of these receipts, and the USDF receives the remaining half. These monies become part of the County Road Fund and are used for operational improvements.
Safe Route to Schools. AB 1475 (Soto - 1999) called for Caltrans to establish and administer a 'Safe Routes to School' construction program and to use federal transportation funds for construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects. To be eligible for SR2S funds, the project must be located on any state highway or on any local road. Projects must correct an identified safety hazard or problem on a route that students use for trips to, and from, school. The SR2S program was created as a subset of the Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) program.
Grants are made available to local governmental agencies under the program based on the results of a statewide competition that requires submission of proposals for funding and rates those proposals on all of the following factors:
Demonstrated needs of the applicant.
Potential of the proposal for reducing child injuries and fatalities.
Potential of the proposal for encouraging increased walking and bicycling among students.
Identification of safety hazards.
Identification of current and potential walking and bicycling routes to school.
Consultation and support for projects by school-based associations, local traffic engineers, local elected officials, law enforcement agencies, and school officials.
The annual program funding level is approximately $20 million. This program was originally a 2-year demonstration program that was to sunset on January 1, 2002. A statute to extend the program was enacted on October 2, 2001. Governor Davis signed SB 10 (Soto) extending the Safe Routes to School program for three more years. The program sunsets on January 1, 2005, unless a later enacted statute deletes or extends that date.
Caltrans has conducted three annual "call for projects" for this program, generally early each calendar year. The first call was in 2000. Only city and county agencies could apply for funds. Projects must be included in the MPO's Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) as a lump sum line item.
Humboldt County entities have received funding in the first and second calls. The County received $327,150 during the first call in 2000, and $347,850 during the second call in 2001 for installation of sidewalks, curb and gutter in the vicinity of Morris Elementary School and McKinleyville Middle School. The City of Arcata received $296,505 during the second call for installation of sidewalks, curb and gutter in the vicinity of Bloomfield and Sunset Elementary Schools, Sunny Brae Middle School, Arcata High School and Pacific Union School.
Emergency Relief Program. The ER Program is intended to assist local agencies when local resources are inadequate to cope with disasters or catastrophic failures. For a declared disaster, Emergency Relief (ER) funds are intended to aid states and local highway agencies in paying unusually heavy expenses of repairing serious damage to Federal-aid highways resulting from natural disasters or catastrophic failure. Only that work which exceeds heavy maintenance, is extraordinary, and restores the facility to its previous level of service is eligible.
Annually, $100 million per state per disaster is made available nationally for ER projects. The amount available to an individual state varies each year depending on disasters experienced by the states. After a disaster has been declared and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has received approval from the Secretary of Transportation that ER funds are available, damage assessment forms are completed and approved by a team composed of representatives of Caltrans, FHWA and the local agency on a project-by-project basis.
Repetitive highway closures from natural disasters due to the unique geography of Humboldt County poses economic, social and environmental threats. In light of the constant highway failures on Highway 101 near Confusion Hill, the Federal government awarded Humboldt County with a $71 million grant in September 2003 to conduct environmental studies and construct new bridges that will bypass the disaster prone area. The grant has a relatively short lifespan of approximately 5 years in which the environmental studies and construction must be completed. Despite the short timeline of the grant, it presents a significant opportunity for Humboldt County to fix major longstanding problems along Highway 101 near Confusion Hill.
C1.2 STATE SOURCES/PROGRAMS FOR ROADWAYS
State transportation financing has hit yet another crisis. The state budget problem has directly impacted the core state programs supporting transportation, including the State Highway Account and Proposition 42. As described earlier in this chapter, state support for transportation in general has been waning, especially from loans taken from transportation to offset the state deficit, without guaranteed payback.
The overall state program consists of four main broad categories:
State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) which is funded off the top from the State Highway Account;
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funded from 75% of the STIP;
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) funded from 25% of the STIP;
Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) and Proposition 42 funded from the retail sales tax on gasoline and diesel.
Brief summaries of these programs are provided below along with other potential state funding sources.
State Highway Operations & Protection Program (SHOPP). The purpose of the SHOPP program is to maintain the integrity of the State Highway System. Funding for this program is provided through gas tax revenues deposited into the State Highway Account. Projects are nominated within each Caltrans District office and are sent to Caltrans Headquarters for programming. Final project determinations are subject to CTC approval.
Several categories of projects are contained in the SHOPP, including traffic safety, bridge preservation, roadway preservation, roadside preservation, mobility, and facilities.
SHOPP projects are based on statewide priorities within each program category for state highways (i.e., safety, rehabilitation, operations, etc) within each Caltrans District and are not subject to county minimums. SHOPP funds cannot be used for capacity-enhancing projects.
The 2002 SHOPP identified $98 million in SHOPP revenues for Humboldt County projects for fiscal years 2002-03 through 2005-06. The 2004 SHOPP will be adopted after adoption of this RTP update, which may contain a different level of funding for the county.
Minor Program. The Minor A Program is a district-discretionary SHOPP program based on annual statewide/district allocations. This program provides some level of discretion to Caltrans District Offices in funding projects up to $750,000. Minor B funds are used for projects up to $117,000. The advantage of this program is the streamlined nature of the funding process and the local nature of the decision making. Funding is competitive within the funds allocated to a given District.
State Transportation Improvement Program. The STIP is a five-year capital improvement program to assist the state and local entities to plan and implement transportation improvements and to utilize resources in a cost effective manner. All STIP projects must be capital projects (including project development costs) needed to improve transportation, including improvements to mobility, accessibility, reliability, sustainability and safety.
A Fund Estimate is prepared every two years by Caltrans and approved by the California CTC each odd numbered year (e.g. 2003). Regional agencies and Caltrans must submit their project lists by the end of the year. The California CTC then adopts the STIP by the following April.
From passage of SB 45, the STIP is split 75% to Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), decided by regional agencies such as HCAOG, and 25% to Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), projects nominated by Caltrans. Below is a description of each program.
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The RTIP receives 75% of STIP funding. The 75% is further subdivided by formula of population and road mileage into county shares. A primary source of funding is the motor vehicle fuel excise tax and the retail sales tax on motor vehicle fuel.
In the 2002 STIP, Humboldt County was allocated approximately $19 million over a five-year period. With the inclusion of carry-over funds not used from previous STIPs, the County's share was $52.2 million through June 30, 2003. Of this amount, about $36.6 million is programmed for specific projects in the RTIP, leaving an unprogrammed balance of $15.5 million. The 2004 STIP will be adopted by April 2004.
In late 2001, HCAOG took the formal initiative to invite the Federally recognized Native American Tribes to solicit candidate improvement projects using resources set-aside by HCAOG in the 2002 STIP. HCAOG provided guidelines detailing the requirements for project nomination and submittal, including the conduct of a Project Study Report (PSR). An allocation formula based on population and road mileage was derived to determine the set-aside for each of the eight tribes in the County. Projects nominated would be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) that HCAOG submits to the California Transportation Commission for inclusion in the STIP. The following provides the target STIP resources reserved for each tribe:
Target STIP Resources for Native American Tribes
|
Native American Tribe |
STIP Funding Target |
|
Big Lagoon Rancheria |
$59,000 |
|
Blue Lake Rancheria |
$62,000 |
|
Hoopa Valley Reservation |
$547,000 |
|
Karuk Tribe of California |
$65,000 |
|
Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria |
$61,000 |
|
Table Bluff Reservation |
$63,000 |
|
Trinidad Rancheria |
$66,000 |
|
Yurok Tribe |
$165,000 |
|
Total |
$1,088,000 |
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). The ITIP receives the remaining 25% of STIP funding. This program is controlled by Caltrans, but regional agencies can provide input and seek co-funding on the specific ITIP projects for their region. Caltrans nominates projects totaling the first 10% of the ITIP, including State highways, intercity passenger rail, mass transit guideway, or grade separation projects. Non-capital costs for transportation system management or transportation demand management may be included where Caltrans finds the project to be a cost-effective substitute for capital expenditures.
The remaining 15% is limited by statute to intercity rail projects (including interregional commuter rail and grade separation projects) and to improvements outside urbanized areas on interregional road system routes (which are specified in statute), selected by Caltrans.
There are no ITIP projects programmed for Humboldt County in the 2002 STIP, however, HCAOG intends to request ITIP funds for Highway 101 improvements.
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Program. Similar to TEA, the EEM offers funding to remedy environmental impacts of new or improved transportation facilities. The program mitigates environmental impacts of new or modified public transportation facilities beyond the mitigation level required by the project's environmental document. Mitigation can include highway landscapes and urban forestry or development of roadside recreational facilities such as roadside rest stops, trails, scenic overlooks, trail heads, parks, and snow-parks. This grant program is managed by the State Resources Agency, although HCAOG makes final funding decisions. Each cycle allocates $4 million to the Northern California counties out of a total of $10 million. The application process is competitive with a $500,000 project cap, and is open to governmental or non-profit entities.
Highway-Railroad Grade Separation Program. The purpose of the Program is to improve safety and to expedite the movement of vehicles by eliminating highway-rail crossings at grade. Agencies with jurisdiction over public roadways that cross railroad tracks are eligible to receive funds under this program. Three types of projects are considered:
The alteration or reconstruction of existing grade separations.
The construction of new grade separations to eliminate existing or proposed grade crossings.
The removal or relocation of roads or tracks to eliminate existing grade crossings.
On grade separations, the project includes all approaches, ramps, connections, drainage, and other construction required to make the grade separation operable and to effect the separation of grades. Annual budget can be $15 million for grade separation projects under this program. In general, State participation per project is limited to $5 million or 80 percent of the project cost, whichever is less. There is also a matching requirement of 10 percent local and 10 percent railroad.
The Public Utilities Commission (PUC), prior to July 1 of each year, establishes a list of projects, in priority order, which it has determined to be the most urgently in need of separation or alteration. The criteria for such prioritization is established by the PUC. Allocations for projects are made by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), although this authority is currently delegated to Caltrans. A project must meet certain readiness criteria in order to receive an allocation, the most important is that an agreement with the railroad must be in place.
Petroleum Violation Escrow Account. Funds from the PVEA are intended to result in energy savings or displacement of nonrenewable energy. PVEA funds are available as a result of Federal Court decisions and settlement agreements against a number of oil companies and producers which ordered refunds to the States for petroleum product price overcharges. PVEA projects must result in energy savings or displace nonrenewable energy and provide restitution to the motoring public who were injured by the oil price overcharges. PVEA funding cannot be used to:
supplant funds which are already available for the proposed project,
fund projects with restitution too far into the future,
fund projects whose primary concern is environmental, safety, or has very little energy saving,
fund studies because they might not result in project implementation, or
fund administrative expenses that exceed 5 percent.
Annual funding varies. PVEA funds must be allocated to transportation projects through special legislation carried in behalf of Caltrans for inclusion in the Budget Act or for allocation to local agencies. Upon legislative approval, the Department of Finance determines which specific court case has funds available to fund the project. Each project must be submitted as a proposal to the California Energy Commission and approved by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Funds can only be encumbered following DOE approval. Any project costs incurred prior to DOE approval will not be paid.
Traffic Congestion Relief Program/Proposition 42.
Through the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), more than $5.3 billion in funding was identified for 141 specific projects that will relieve traffic congestion, improve goods movement, and provide connectivity between systems. Additionally, approximately $1.5 billion was estimated to be made available over five years (2001/2002 FY through 2005/2006 FY) for continued local street and road maintenance, to augment funding for the STIP and to augment funding for public transit. Unfortunately, as described earlier in this chapter, the state budget crisis and economic downturns the past few years have severely constrained this program as revenues have not materialized, or have been loaned out. However, passage of Proposition 42 extends this program in perpetuity, which at least provides future opportunities for additional transportation funding.
Gas Tax Subventions. The 18 cent per gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel is divided among several programs, including the State Highway Account which funds the SHOPP and STIP, and local city and county street and road maintenance, often referred to as subventions. State law designates the amount of revenues that are allocated to each program. In turn, formulas based on mileage of maintained roads, vehicle registration, and population determine the share of subventions to each county and city.
In FY 2000-01, about $1.2 million in subventions was made available to the cities, and $3.3 million to the County, for a total of $4.5 million. This revenue is generally used for general maintenance of the roadway system, including patching, sealing, and rehabilitation.
C1.3 REGIONAL AND LOCAL SOURCES/PROGRAMS FOR ROADWAYS
As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Humboldt County, HCAOG administers several state and federal government fund sources.
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. Since 1972, TDA funds are generated from a 1/4 cent of the state retail sales tax. Revenues from the sales tax are deposited into the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) which is one of two programs under TDA. These funds are apportioned to the Association's member entities on a population percentage basis. The primary use of TDA funds is for public transportation; however, streets and roads are eligible for the LTF revenue after HCAOG undertakes the annual transit "unmet needs" process. In recent years, little LTF remains available for streets and roads at the end of the allocation process.
From the most recent State Board of Equalization annual report, Humboldt County generated $3.3 million in FY 2001-02. Historically since 1996, TDA revenues for the County are as follows:
Annual TDA Revenues
Humboldt County
1996-2002
|
Year |
Amount |
% Change |
|
1996 |
$ 2,648,255 |
|
|
1997 |
$ 2,717,041 |
2.6% |
|
1998 |
$ 2,777,628 |
2.2% |
|
1999 |
$ 2,873,727 |
3.5% |
|
2000 |
$ 3,126,108 |
8.8% |
|
2001 |
$ 3,291,739 |
5.3% |
|
2002 |
$ 3,310,843 |
0.6% |
TDA revenue in Humboldt County has grown an average 3.8% annually since 1996, which is slightly above the rate of inflation.
The state also provides funds from the Public Transportation Account (PTA). This is divided between regions for State Transit Assistance, which is the second program under TDA, and Caltrans for state rail commute/passenger programs.
Humboldt County Transportation Systems. Revenues available to support the county road system, including gas tax subventions, are projected to increase slightly in the short-term; however, the actual purchasing power of the available dollars will likely further decline as a result of increased inflation and better auto fuel economy. The funds available for new facilities have become virtually non-existent at all levels of government, forcing a focus on maintenance of current levels of service. The Humboldt County Public Works Department displays similar conditions as shown by their limited programming of transportation construction dollars.
City Of Eureka Transportation Systems. The City of Eureka will continue to face long-term financial challenges in providing for new facilities projects. Available local revenues will be focused on street maintenance, e.g. overlays, slurry seals and crack filling. Upcoming projects include the completion of Waterfront Drive, and continuing congestion relief improvements along the 101 corridor.
Arcata City Streets. General fund and other city revenues range from 40% to 50% of the total revenues. Influencing factors include limited federal funding for city streets and static state revenues. Transportation Development Act funds available are used for public transit. Success in obtaining state and federal grants (such as STIP, Bike Transportation Account, TEA, Hazard Mitigation, etc.) are becoming more limited in light of the state budget crisis and increased competition for funds.
Small Cities Programs. All of the smaller cities in Humboldt County, (Fortuna, Rio Dell, Blue Lake, Ferndale, and Trinidad) have major problems in financing street maintenance and construction. In general, state gas tax revenues are only sufficient to cover maintenance costs, leaving street construction or reconstruction projects under-funded. There are projects which these cities would like to implement, which as a practical matter, cannot be constructed because the cost far exceeds projected revenues.
Projected revenues for the smaller cities are expected to grow at an annual rate of 2.5% to 3.5%, unless otherwise provided by the entity. For the most part, revenues fall short of expenditures, which reflects the inadequacy of revenue levels. Of the five cities, only Fortuna receives RSTP revenues in a significant amount. HCAOG has developed a small cities program to supplement the funding hardship facing the region's smaller municipalities.
C1.4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ROADWAYS
The following local funding sources may potentially be considered in Humboldt County.
New Development/Traffic Mitigation Fees. Traffic mitigation fees are one-time charges on new development to pay for required public facilities, and to mitigate impacts created by the development or reasonably related to it. There are a number of approaches to charging developers for the provision of public facilities. In all cases, however, the fees must be clearly related to the costs incurred as a result of the development. AB 1600, which was passed to govern the imposition of development fees, requires that a nexus, or rational connection, be made between a fee and the type of development on which the fee is based. Furthermore, fees cannot be used to correct existing problems or pay for improvements needed for existing development. A county may only levy such fees in the unincorporated area over which it has jurisdiction.
Development Mitigation Measures/Agreements. Development mitigation measures are imposed whenever developments require approval by a local entity. Generally, mitigation measures are imposed as conditions on tentative maps. These conditions reflect on- and off-site project mitigation that must be completed in order to be able to develop. Development agreements are also used to gain cooperation of developers in constructing off-site infrastructure improvements or dedicating rights-of-way needed as a result of the proposed development.
Road Operations And Maintenance. Besides the major capital projects recommended in this transportation study, Humboldt County has significant, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) needs. To some extent, the funding for O&M and capital projects overlap. Therefore, it is important to understand the annual O&M funding sources. Each source is briefly described below.
State Gas Taxes - The State of California returns a portion of the statewide gas tax revenues to each jurisdiction for the purpose of maintaining roadways. These funds are restricted for use to the City's Road Fund and are accrued on an annual basis. The formula for determining the amount of allocation to each City is complex, but primarily determined based on population.
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees - The Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees are motor vehicle registration funds returned to the County from the State based on a jurisdiction's population. These funds are General Fund revenues and are not restricted for roadway use. Therefore, the dedication of these funds to provide roadway O&M is essentially a use of General Fund revenues.
Local Transportation Fund (LTF) - As stated above, any
funds not allocated to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facility
improvements can be used for road operations and
maintenance.
Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 - The Benefit
Assessment Act of 1982 allowed for the development of County-wide
assessments for drainage, flood control, and street lighting. A 1989
amendment to the Act added street maintenance assessments. To date
very few cities or counties have instituted this assessment for
street maintenance.
COSTS AND REVENUE ESTIMATE FOR ROADWAYS
Assumptions
During the plan's development, it is required that reasonable estimates of expected revenues be forecasted during the life of the RTP.
The following funding assumptions are made for regional improvements contained in the Action Element.
Humboldt County received $19 million from its 3-year
formula share in the 2002 STIP cycle, which reflects a five year
period from FY 2002-03 through 2006-07 prescribed in law. Adding
this amount to its prior reserves of $33 million brings the total to
about $52 million. Of the $52 million, over $36 million is already
committed to projects in the STIP, leaving an unprogrammed balance
of about $16 million for new projects.
However, with lower funding expectations anticipated for
the 2004 STIP and possibly beyond, it is reasonable to assume a lower
formula share amount in future STIP cycles. Early indications are
that there will be no new revenues for the 2004 STIP, which would
cause projects to be delayed. A reasonable assumption can be made
that no new revenues are available for the next three years from FY's
2004-05 through 2006-07. In addition, because the 2002 STIP included
more optimistic assumptions in developing its revenues, coupled with
the continuing state budget crisis which may possibly last through
the rest of this decade, it would be reasonable to assume an
arbitrary 50% reduction in revenues after 2007, even with the
potential infusion of STIP dollars coming from Proposition 42 formula
share. On an annual basis, this would amount to about $3.2 million a
year ($19 million/3 years, then taking 50%) beginning in FY 2007-08.
During the remaining 18-years of the RTP, this would amount to $58
million. Therefore, the total amount for new projects beyond those
already programmed in the existing STIP is $74 million ($58 million
plus $16 million reserves). By including the revenues for already
programmed projects of $36 million in the 2002 STIP, the STIP
forecast through 2025 would be $110 million.
The County is expected to request ITIP funding for Highway 101 improvements; however, no assumption of funding amount is made.
The
County is currently allocated $98 million in SHOPP funds over a four
year period from fiscal year 2002-03 through 2005-06. However, one
of the four years includes an extraordinary amount ($60 million) for
a few larger rehabilitation projects. The annual average for the
remaining three years is about $13 million. Funding for the SHOPP is
different from funding the STIP in several ways. One, revenues for
the SHOPP is taken "off the top" before money is allocated to
STIP projects, meaning SHOPP receives priority by Caltrans. Second,
there is no formula for allocating SHOPP revenues, so that Humboldt
County could receive a large share of revenues in one cycle, then
much less in future cycles, thus presenting a degree of uncertainty.
Selection and programming of SHOPP projects is based on Caltrans'
estimates of the delivery of the project. However, a revenue deficit
would potentially impact the delivery of any transportation project.
It
is assumed, prior to adoption of the 2004 SHOPP, that revenues of $98
million is available for short term SHOPP projects. Because future
SHOPP revenues are unknown, the remaining unprogrammed SHOPP eligible
projects do not have funding identified.
Humboldt County receives over $3 million per year in LTF funds. About $1 million, or 33%, of LTF is used by the County and cities for street and road purposes. The cities of Arcata and Eureka allocate all of their LTF shares to public transit, which is the primary use of the funds. Over the remaining 20-years of the plan, LTF revenues would be $66 million (assumes growth of 1% above inflation), with $22 million being used for street and road projects.
Humboldt County receives approximately $1.3 million per year in RSTP funds for improvements to roadways and bridges. Over the next 20 years, assuming revenues continue through the federal reauthorization of TEA-21, funding would be $26 million.
Humboldt County and the cities receive a total of $4.5 million per year in gas tax subventions. This would amount to $90 million over the next 20-years. However, because these funds are for any roadway use, it is reasonable to assume that a portion of the revenues are used for roadway related expenses (e.g. engineering, other maintenance) that are not contained in the Action Element of the RTP. Using State Controller’s data, it can be assumed that 40% of subventions are used for non-major rehabilitation/construction projects. Therefore, the 20-year forecast is reduced to $54 million.
The County receives about $600,000 in new revenues per year from the enactment of Proposition 42, while the cities receive about $120,000. Through the formula allocation, revenues can be used for local street and road maintenance. The recent budget defers this funding in fiscal year 2003-04 with payback by 2009. Over a 20-year period, assuming revenues continue flowing, the total amount would be $14.4 million.
HBRR program revenues are discretionary based on the selection from eligible bridge lists maintained by Caltrans. Timely delivery of projects is one criteria for selection. Caltrans Local Assistance documents show that about $20,000 in HBRR funds have been allocated to Humboldt County, but not yet spent. Due to the discretionary nature of this program, no additional future funding is identified.
COMPARISON OF COSTS TO EXPECTED REVENUES FOR
ROADWAYS
Table V-1 shows the summary of anticipated RTP revenues and costs for various roadway projects identified in the Action Element, including STIP projects, SHOPP and Bridges. Specific revenues for each cost categories are included. The figures are for the forecast period through 2025.
Table V-1. Summary of 2004 RTP Revenues and Costs for
Roadways forecast through 2025
($millions,
in 2003 Dollars)
|
Revenue/Cost |
Revenues |
Cost |
Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
STIP |
$110 |
|
|
|
LTF |
$22 |
|
|
|
Gas Subventions |
$54 |
|
|
|
Proposition 42 |
$14 |
|
|
|
RSTP |
$26 |
|
|
|
Subtotal |
$226 |
|
|
|
STIP & Hazard Elimination/Emergency Repair |
|
$550 |
($324) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHOPP Revenues |
$98 |
|
|
|
SHOPP Projects |
|
$195 |
($97) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
HBRR Revenues |
$ 0.02 |
|
|
|
HBRR Projects |
|
$11 |
($10.98) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
$324 |
$756 |
($432) |
RAMIFICATIONS OF FUNDING SHORTFALL FOR ROADWAYS
A total shortfall of $432 million is projected during the 20-year planning period for roadway projects. In light of constrained funding for transportation and economic hardships for both state and federal governments, competition for limited resources will continue to be pressing for the County. This creates an environment in which HCAOG must build on its leadership role in its regional capacity to prioritize candidate projects that promote an efficient regional transportation system. There remains several million dollars of programmed STIP projects that HCAOG has nominated that are still awaiting funds from the California Transportation Commission. These projects can serve as the basis for prioritization.
The passage of Proposition 42 in March 2002 provides a new channel of potential revenue for transportation. However, as has been occurring, the law allows the legislature and the Governor to delay implementation of this program during times of state financial hardships, and redirect the revenues for general fund relief. However, Proposition 42 revenues are included in the forecast to reflect the impact on projects contained in the RTP.
The revenue projections assumed no ITIP funding through Caltrans even though US 101 and SR 299 are included in the Caltrans list of high emphasis and focused interregional routes. The deficit of STIP funds clearly indicates that some of the larger cost projects or several of the smaller cost projects cannot be implemented in the next twenty years.
Projections of SHOPP funds may also not be realized depending on the availability of state funds. The list of mid- to long-range candidate SHOPP projects is not exhaustive and probably does not reflect all of the candidate projects that Caltrans will identify throughout the 20-year planning process.
This RTP is being updated during an uncertain period in which transportation revenues are in great flux, ranging from loans being made from state transportation coffers to the renewal of federal transportation legislation. In addition, the ongoing issue of project delivery remains, with lack of revenues only compounding the problem.
Funding for public transit systems is available from a variety of sources. The following is a brief description of the principal sources expected to be available, as well as projected revenues for Humboldt County.
C2.1 FEDERAL SOURCES/PROGRAMS FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT
Funding for transit capital and operational costs has traditionally been provided by federal, state and local sources. Federal funding is passed through the Federal Transit Administration. TEA-21 expanded the use of transit revenues through the addition of new programs. However, the majority of public transit revenues are generally designated by law for use in larger urbanized areas. Below are federal transit programs identified for potential use by the transit operators.
FTA Section 5311 Funds (Nonurbanized Area Formula Program for Public Transportation). The FTA apportions Section 5311 funds annually to each state for public transportation projects in non-urbanized areas. The State prepares an annual program of projects, which must provide for fair and equitable distribution of funds. Approximately $1.18 billion nationally is available for apportionment in proportion to each State's non-urbanized population from 1998 through 2003. The reauthorization of TEA-21 will determine future appropriations. President Bush’s SAFETEA proposal proposes close to $100 million in 5311 funds for California between 2004 and 2009, or about $17 million per year.
This revenue source is shared among the Humboldt County transit operators. The operators collaborate on programming of the grant fund, normally five years at a time. Typically, one vehicle per year is funded by the grant, with a matching amount from state sources. Humboldt Transit Authority has replacement vehicles programmed in the near future.
FTA Section 5310 Fund (Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program). Provides funds to each state to assist private nonprofit organizations in the purchase of vehicles and related equipment to provide transportation services which meet the special needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities. Section 5310 funds are apportioned among the states by a formula which is based on the number of elderly persons and persons with disabilities in each state according to the latest available U.S. census data. The funds are available to the states only for the fiscal year in which they are apportioned. Any funds remaining unobligated at the end of the fiscal year are added to the next year's program apportionment and are reapportioned among all the states. Under the current SAFETEA proposal, about $60 million would be apportioned to California from 2004 through 2009, or about $10 million annually.
TEA-21 Section 3038 (Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program). This program provides $24.3 million through 2003 for over-the-road bus service. The purpose of the fund is to help public and private operators finance the incremental capital and training costs of complying with the DOT's final rule on accessibility of over-the-road buses. Funding may be used for intercity fixed-route over-the-road bus service and other over-the-road service such as local fixed route, commuter, charter, and tour service. Intercity fixed route services are limited stops using buses with under-deck baggage compartments. The program helps connect with additional intercity bus services. The program is administered through a national competitive grant selection process.
TEA-21 Section 3037 (Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants). Provides $750 million nationally in TEA-21 through 2003 to develop transportation services that are specifically designed to transport welfare recipients and low-income individuals to and from job locations. Emphasis is placed on projects that use mass transportation services.
A coordinated transportation/human service planning mechanism is required to develop Access to Jobs programs; transit agencies must approve these programs. The program authorizes a reverse commute program to provide services to suburban employment centers from urban centers, rural areas and other suburban locations.
The Bush SAFETEA proposal would appropriate $105 million over the next 6 years for California, or $17.5 million annually
Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP). This program is part of the FTA 5311 grant program. TEA-21 authorized $30.75 million nationally through 2003 to promote delivery of safe and effective transit service in rural areas, including providing technical and training materials produced by the National RTAP, and supplementing their program with California specific technical assistance, management workshops, peer networking and scholarship assistance. This program is administered by California Association for Coordinated Transportation, Inc. (CalACT), based in Sacramento, through an agreement with Caltrans. The Bush proposal in SAFETEA would authorize $1.5 million for California over the next 6 years, or about $250,000 a year.
Other Federal Transit Revenue. Humboldt Transit Authority is currently investigating the feasibility of implementing alternative fuel technology for its transit fleet. Its latest 5-year Transit Development Plan identified potential funding that could be utilized should HTA select an alternative fuel scenario. These funding sources include the Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program (formerly Discretionary Grant program of FTA Section 5309) that earmarks funds for bus modernization and improvement. In addition, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program was identified as a potential source; however, these funds are typically awarded to areas that are in Federal non-attainment for Federal air quality standards. Humboldt County is not a non-attainment area.
C2.2 STATE AND LOCAL SOURCES/PROGRAMS FOR PUBLIC
TRANSIT
The following summarizes the state transit funding programs.
Local Transportation Fund. The primary source of local funds used to operate the Humboldt Transit System in recent years has been the LTF, made available by Senate Bill 325 (1971) and amended. SB 325 is also known as the Transportation Development Act (TDA). LTF funds are returned to county of source generation, and are apportioned to each entity based on population. Transit receives its share within a County based on the ability of the transit system to meet the County's transit needs that are reasonable to meet. Historically, the transit allocation of LTF funds to Humboldt County, City of Fortuna, City of Arcata and City of Eureka have been a substantial percentage of the total LTF. Arcata and Eureka allocate all of their TDA shares to transit. The remaining funds will be used for LTF administration, subsidized transit and taxi programs, bicycle facilities and street and road maintenance.
From the most recent State Board of Equalization annual report, Humboldt County generated $3.3 million in FY 2001-02. Historically, TDA revenues for the County are as follows:
Annual TDA Revenues
Humboldt County
|
Year |
Amount |
% Change |
|
1996 |
$ 2,648,255 |
|
|
1997 |
$ 2,717,041 |
2.6% |
|
1998 |
$ 2,777,628 |
2.2% |
|
1999 |
$ 2,873,727 |
3.5% |
|
2000 |
$ 3,126,108 |
8.8% |
|
2001 |
$ 3,291,739 |
5.3% |
|
2002 |
$ 3,310,843 |
0.6% |
TDA revenue in Humboldt County has grown an average 3.8% annually since 1996, which is slightly above the rate of inflation.
State Transit Assistance (STA). STA is a second component of TDA funding for public transit. These funds were established in 1979 under SB 620 and amended in 1982 under SB 215 and AB 251/SB 1335. The funds are derived from sources including gasoline sales tax receipts and diesel fuel sales that help fund the Public Transportation Account (PTA), which is the primary state transit funding pot. The STA portion of the PTA is allocated directly to the transit operators in the State for any transit use, including operations, maintenance and capital projects. Two formulas are applied to distribute the revenues; one is by population, the other is by each operator’s share of transit revenues generated relative to those of the other operators in the state.
In recent years, the STA program has been relatively stable, with statewide funding of about $100 million annually. Humboldt County’s share is about $200,000 per year. The passage of Proposition 42 in March 2002 is supposed to add revenues to STA. However, this year’s budget (FY 2003-04) has reduced the overall amount of revenues that would have otherwise flowed to the STA, including “spillover” gasoline revenues and transit revenues from Proposition 42. This keeps the County’s share at about $200,000.
Proposition 42 revenues for transit are derived from the formula that distributes the funds from the retail sales tax on gasoline and diesel. Transit receives 20% of the annual revenues, with half being used for local transit operations, and the other half being used for state intercity rail services. The allocation among the counties is the same as that of the State Transit Assistance fund. However, the recently passed budget defers Proposition 42 revenues to transit for general fund use in FY 2003-04, with payback in 2009. The transit operators stand to lose $37 million this year, with Humboldt County’s share of the loss at about $77,000
Fares. Farebox recovery for the Humboldt fixed route transit systems range from 26% to 43% of total operating costs. Dial-a-ride farebox recovery is generally lower due to the nature of the differences between the two systems. Fares are collected from both general passengers as well as through contracts with other public entities, such as A&MRTS's arrangement with Humboldt State University. Fluctuations in these contracts may cause overall fare revenue to vary from year-to-year. Fares for the most recent audited year, FY 2001-02 for the operators include the following:
|
Transit System (Fixed Route & DAR) |
Audited Fare Revenues FY 2001-02 |
|
Arcata |
$94,792 |
|
Eureka |
$257,660 |
|
Fortuna |
$9,294 |
|
Humboldt Transit Authority |
$487,406 |
|
Total |
$849,152 |
Surface Transportation Program. State STP funds are available to fund transit capital projects. In the Humboldt region, one-half of a transit vehicle is replaced annually from this source, and the other half from FTA 5311 sources.
Advertising and Interest. Interest earnings and revenues from advertisement on buses help to pay for transit operations. Using audited FY 2001-02 data, revenues from these miscellaneous sources generates about $150,000.
COMPARISON OF COSTS AND REVENUES FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT
Assumptions
During the plan’s development, it is required that reasonable estimates of expected revenues be forecasted during the life of the RTP.
The following funding assumptions are made for transit improvements contained in the Action Element, and the 20-year forecast represents a cumulative un-adjusted total.
Operations and maintenance costs are assumed to grow with inflation, essentially maintaining a flat growth pattern in constant dollar terms. The assumed O&M expenses for the larger transit systems are as follows:
|
Transit System |
Annual Cost |
20-Year Forecast |
|
Arcata |
$436,040 |
$8,720,800 |
|
Eureka |
$1,187,027 |
$23,740,540 |
|
Fortuna |
$58,919 |
$1,178,380 |
|
Humboldt Transit Authority |
$1,305,828 |
$26,116,560 |
|
Total |
$2,987,814 |
$59,756,280 |
FTA 5311 funds are assumed at $120,000 per year, based on current and anticipated allocations. Reauthorization of TEA-21 could change this assumption, although it is assumed this program will continue. The 20-year forecast would be $2.4 million.
FTA 5310 revenues are very competitive for non-profit organizations. To keep conservative, no revenues are assumed.
LTF revenues grow at a rate slightly above inflation, as described in the roadway revenue section. Revenues available for transit would be $44 million, which is two-thirds of the total forecast. The remaining LTF is assumed used for street and roads.
STA revenues are about $200,000 annually, with a 20-year projection of $4 million.
Proposition 42 transit revenues of about $77,000 a year for the County are assumed to continue flowing for the next 20-years, assuming the current loans for general fund use are paid back. This would generate $1.5 million through 2025.
Interest income and advertising are assumed at $150,000 a year, or $3 million over 20-years.
Surface Transportation Program funds are assumed to continue to be used for vehicle procurement. Over 20-years, the revenue would generate $2.4 million.
Fares of all transit operators are approximately $850,000 a year. Over 20-years, assuming fares keep pace with operating cost and inflation, would be $17 million.
Table V-2 summarizes the expected costs and revenues for transit operations and capital improvements.
Table V-2. Summary of 2004 RTP Revenues and Costs for Transit forecast for 20 years
($millions, in 2003 Dollars)
|
Revenue/Cost |
Revenues |
Cost |
Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FTA 5311 |
$2.4 |
|
|
|
LTF |
$44 |
|
|
|
STA |
$4 |
|
|
|
Proposition 42 |
$1.5 |
|
|
|
Interest/Advertising |
$3 |
|
|
|
STP |
$2.4 |
|
|
|
Fares |
$17 |
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
$74.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O&M Cost |
|
$59.7 |
|
|
Capital Cost |
|
$20.7 |
|
|
Total Cost |
|
$80.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
$74.3 |
$80.4 |
($6.1) |
C3. AVIATION
The Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides 90% Federal funding with 10% local funding for general aviation airports. The program focuses on projects that enhance capacity, safety, security, and noise mitigation.
AIP funds are derived from user charges such as taxes on aviation fuels, taxes on civil aircraft and a surcharge on air passenger fares, and can be used for most capital expenditures. The State of California Aid to Airports Program (CAAP) makes grant funds available for airport development and operations to promote a statewide system of safe and environmentally compatible publicly owned airports.
Three types of state financial aid to publicly owned airports are available through the CAAP.
Annual Grants. (Public Utilities Code section 21682) are available to public-use, publicly owned general aviation airports. Commercial services and reliever airports are not eligible. An eligible airport is credited annually with a grant of $10,000 which may be used for capital improvements, maintenance and operation. This grant may be accumulated for up to five years (a maximum of $50,000). These grants do not require matching funds.
Acquisition & Development (A&D) (Public Utilities Code Section 21683). These funds are allocated by the CTC on a discretionary basis for capital projects. To be eligible, an airport must have its project listed in the state's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP is a ten-year list of projects divided into two five-year phases. The project listings are developed from local, regional, state and federal sources and are submitted to the Aeronautics Program through the RTPAs.
AIP Matching Grants (Public Utilities Code 21684). This grant assists the sponsor in meeting the local match for FAA AIP grants. The sponsor must meet the same eligibility requirements as for the Annual Grant except that reliever airports can receive AIP matching grants. The matching rate is 5% of the AIP grant. State funds for an AIP matching grant cannot be allocated by the sate until the Federal grant has been accepted by the sponsor. The highest rated projects are normally those that relate to safety and State mandates.
Because of the competitive nature of the State and Federal funding programs, it is difficult to accurately project potential revenue from these sources. Furthermore, the AB 597 split of funds between the AIP match and state acquisition and development grants, provides even less discretionary funds for State projects.
Airport Sponsor Self-Funding. At large, publicly-owned airports, airport sponsored self-funding typically involves the issuance of general obligation bonds or revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing governmental agency. Their use is usually limited by a restriction or cap placed on the issuing governmental agency's indebtedness. Revenue bonds are secured by the pledge of revenue from one or more airport facilities. A particular disadvantage of revenue bonds is the coverage requirement that net operating revenue exceed debt service by a stipulated ratio. The fixed underwriting costs and complexities of a bond sale generally dictate their use only for large-scale projects.
For all but the largest airports, the cost and restrictions associated with the issuance of general obligation bonds or revenue bonds combine to make these sources impractical for use in funding capital improvement projects at small airports. On occasion, small projects at an airport have been combined with other community projects to create one economically fundable project. Such an approach might prove applicable within Humboldt County.
At Humboldt County's publicly-owned airports, airport sponsor self-funding is principally provided by a combination of airport-generated income and retained earnings, and the airport sponsor's internal financial resources (i.e., airport funds and general funds). Funding of airport improvements and providing the local matching share for grants-in-aid from these sources is the simplest and often most economical method because direct interest costs are eliminated.
Passenger Facility Charge. Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) is an airport funding mechanism authorized by the US Congress as part of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 and the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. The rules and regulations for collection and use of PFCs are set forth in Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Upon approval of the Federal Aviation Administration, the regulations allow commercial service airports to impose a charge of up to $3.00 on each enplaning passenger. Commercial service airports are defined as airports which have scheduled passenger service and enplane 2,500 or more passengers annually.
Revenues generated by PFCs are intended to be applied toward projects which:
Serve or enhance safety, security, or capacity;
Reduce noise or mitigate noise impacts resulting from airport operations; or
Furnish opportunities for enhanced competition between or among air carriers.
These funds have been used by Humboldt County to fund projects at Arcata-Eureka Airport, and other county-owned airports.
Private Investment. Private sector investment is an important source of funding for such airport improvements as fixed base operations facilities and aircraft storage hangars. The agencies that own the public-use airports can continue to enhance the airports' attractiveness to private investors by promoting the airports, improving their facilities, and expanding service offerings. By maintaining a prudent lease policy and enforcing reasonable development standards, additional private investment can be attracted to an airport. In this manner, the airport owner can shift the burden of financing certain facility development to the tenant while increasing the asset value of the airport, thereby adding to the airport's revenue-producing capability.
The most common sources of funding for private sector development are commercial lending institutions and insurance companies. However, in the case of private development on public lands, financing may be difficult and expensive to obtain because the borrower can encumber as loan collateral only the improvements and not the underlying publicly-owned land. These conditi