HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1985/06/25 Item 12 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 12
Meeting Date 6/25/85
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /51.0 /Approving agreement between the City of
Chula Vista and San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC) for
transit service during FY 1985-86
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x )
SDTC has submitted two agreements for approval by the City of Chula Vista for
the provi sion of transit service in Chula Vista during FY 1985-86. One
agreement is contingent upon the consolidation of MTDB and SDTC by July 1 ,
1985, in which case, SDTC Route 29 would become a regional route and the City
of Chula Vista would contract for Route 32 service only. If the consolidation
does not occur on July 1 , then the alternate proposed agreement would be
executed between the City and SDTC for Route 32 and 29 service. If
consolidation does not occur on July 1 , 1985, then the consolidation will be
delayed until July 1 , 1986. MTDB staff has told the Transit Coordinator that
there is a high degree of 32 service (assuming a that consolidation
for uF Y 1985 86 is s
1985. The cost of Route
an increase of 96% t29s and 32 year' s
(assumRngt no 32 dat o�) 5i s
The FY 1985-86 cost for Routes
$147,643, an increase of 61% over this year' s cost for both routes in the
amount of $91 ,760.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve:
1 . Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and SDTC for Route 32 service
during FY 1985-86 in the 9amount and $39,265, contingent upon MTDB and SDTC
consolidation by July 1 , 1
2. Agreement between the City 6 1 of Chula hulth Vista amount and
of SDTC
$147r643uteassumi ngd no
service during FY 1985-86
between MTDB and STDC by July 1 , 1985.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
r i
Ir.2„.if
Page 2, Item 12
Meeting Date 6/25/35
DISCUSSION:
The following statistics compare the FY 1934-35 and FY 1985-86 SDTC costs for
Routes 29 and 32, separately and combined.
Percent
Route
FY Net Cost Difference
1935 $ 91 ,760 +61
29/32 1936 147,643
1935 $ 20,051 +96
32
1936 39,265
1905 $ 71 ,709 +51
29 1936 103,373
The following are significant changes between the FY 1934-85 and FY 1985-36
contracts.
- An estimated 50% decrease in the level of Federal operating subsidy.
- Decrease in State Transit Assistance (STA) subsidy from $.0777 to $.0213
per passenger.
- Increase in capital cost from $.0199 to $.1273 per mile.
- Decrease in gross cost per mile from $3.6755 to $3.6138.
- An increase in estimated revenue passengers, particularly on Route 29.
The most significant impact on the contract cost for next fiscal year A F is the
estimated 50% reduction in the amount of Federal operating subsidy.
subsidy credit in the FY 1934-35 was subsidy amount lfor FY $935-36 2554
85 per
of
passenger compared with the projected Federal
$.0501 per mile and $.1196 per ,na in total Federal dsubsady credit t eonl Route subsidy 29
credits to Chula Vista results �
and
for FY 1935-II6 in the amount of , f�scalm year compared,9 �'65 th this
$36y351 ear; this s
$18,279 credited to Route 32 n ext
fiscal year. SDTC has also indicated Chas t a t"si if the"significant f i cant actual mpactunon t oSan eDiego
subsidy received next fiscal year
FY 36 budget", an amendment to this agreement will be requested.
SDTC cost for providing Route 32 service to the City of add additional
increase approximately 96% next fiscal year and it appears itioral
increases in the coming years may be likely due to proposed decreasing
operating subsidies. Therefore, the Transit Coordinator proposes that Transit
staff work with MTDB and SDTC
alternatives for providing transit
including a route operated by CVT.
A representative of SDTC is present to answer any questions Council may have.
f
Page 3, Item 12
Meeting Date 6/25/85
FISCAL IMPACT:
1 . Assuming consolidation of MTDB and SDTC by July 1 , 1985, the total of
Transportation Development Act SDTC ofe Route 32
Chula Vista' s apportionment
service. The funding for Rasse �entrtoc why will $82,6$91 widllbbe MTDB
contrgbuted
a regional transit service
to the regional assessment pool of funds from the FY 1985-86 City of Chula
Vista apportionment.
2. Assuming no consolidation on
apportionment 1,1 the $147,643. claim sagainst mount the
s
City of Chula Vistas app
$25,689 more than under the claimed MTDB takes orT
therefore, an additional $2 , 89 u be agai nst the FY 1985-86
City of Chula Vi sta' s apportionment vJii ch could be taken from the Chula
Vi sta capital reserve for FY 1985-86.
WMG:f p/D S03 5
WPC 0589T