HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1979-9454RESOLUTION N0. 9454
RESOLUTION OF THE CI Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ACCEPTING CHUL VISTA TRANSIT FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL
PLAN UPDATE BY STEPH N GEORGE AND ASSOCIATES AND
AWARDING PAYr![ENT
The City Council of ~he City of Chula Vista does hereby
res lve as follows: ~
WHEREAS, the City ha~ heretofore entered an agreement
wit Stephen George & Associat s, which was approved by Resolution
No. 9299, to perform certain t chnical and/or professional ser-
vic s for the updating of the ive-year (FY 1979-83) Chula Vista
Tra sit Financial Plan and rel ted subtasks, and
WHEREAS, said updati g study has disclosed certain sta-
tis ics and based upon said statistics, certain major conclusions
hav been established by Stephen George and Associates as shown
in hat certain docurnent marked Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
inc rporated herein by refere ce as if set forth in fi.zll, and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works now recommends
tha the City Council accept he Chula Vista Transit Five-Year
Fin ncial Plan Update as prep red by Stephen George and Associates
an award the sum of $810 in ayment to Stephen George, which sum
wi 1 be financed through LTF unds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE T RESOLVED that the City Council of
th City of Chula Vista does ereby accept the Chula Vista Transit
Fi e-Year Financial Plan Upda e by Stephen George and Associates
an awards payment in the amo nt of $810 to Stephen George and
As ociates.
Presented by
~~
W. J. Robens, Director
Pu lic Works
of
Approved as to form. by
.,~ ~ ~ ..
., ~ ~ - ~ ~~
George $. Lindberg, City Atto ey
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA I5TA, CALIFORNIA this 9t day of January
1979 by the following Grote, o-wit:
AYES: CounaiZmen Egdahl, H~
NAYES: CounoiZmen None
ABSENT: Councilmen None
ATTES
Czty Zer
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNT OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY F CHULA VISTA )
el. Gillow
I~/~
~~ , Q' O ~~~R~~
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
I, JENNIE Mo FUL~SZ, CM CITY CLERK of the City of :;hula Vesta,
Calif rnia, DO HEREBY CERTIFY th t the above and foregoing is a f'~ZZ,
and
true nd c;or~reet Dopy a f
that the same has not been amen ed or repealed.
D~1T EL
City CZer
CC-660
f SEAL;
5~1
CHULA VISITA TRANSIT
FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATE
Fiscal Yq'ars 1979-83
Octn~er, 1978
Revised N vember, 1978
Prepz
CHULA VI;
City of C
Department c
STEPHEN G
red For
TA TRANSIT
hula Vista
f Public Works
By
E & ASSOCIATES
onsulting Planners, Traff~.c & Transportation Specialists
856 Deerrun Place San Diego, CA 92120
~Ylrx
CONTENTS
I SUMMARY OF REPORT 1
II FOUNDATION FOR THE UPDATE 3
III REVENUE OF CVT FINANCIAL RECORDS 4
..Funding Sources Utilized 6
..Additional Funding Sources Available 8
..Future CVT Service Improvements Needed 8
IV FIVE-YEAR FIANCIAL PLAN UPDATE 10
..Level of Service/Usage 10
..Expenditures 10
..Revenues 12
..Evaluation of Alternative LTF Claim Options 12
..Summary 13
APPENDIX 17
..A - Bibliography
..B - Program Schedule of Capital Impr'ts
..C - Selected Analysis Calculations
EXHIBITS
Table 1 - Expenditures and Revenues, FY 76-78
Table 2 - Projected Expenditures and Revenues, FY 79-83
Table 3 - Basis for LTF Article 4 Claim
Table 4 - Basis for LTF Article 8 Claim
Figure 1- Accumulated Change in Passenger Mix, FY 76-78
PART I.
Y OF REPORT
By Resolution No. 9299, the C.
ap roved an agreement on Sept
St phen George & Associates t.
se ices in updating the five•
th Chula Vista Transit syste~
st dy is to assess :the need f~
on y maintain, but also imp.
an thereby, increase the mob
Lty of Chula Vista authorized and
ember 26, 1978, with the firm of
~ provide technical and professional
-year (FY 1979-83) financial plan fior
n. The overall objective of the update
~r additional funding sources to not
rove the intra-city transit services;
~lity needs of its citizens.
Th update study included the review of the City's prior Transit
De elopment Reports and suppo ting records, the update (reappraisal)
of the financial needs throug the fiscal year 1983, and the sub-
mi sion of this report.
Fi dings
A eview of the prior three-y
cl sed the following statisti
. Revenue Miles in 000's
. Revenue Passengers in
. No. Buses Operating (P
. Expenditures in 000's
. Sources of Revenues in
Farebox
City Support
LTF
Federal
. Total Revenues in 000'
. Excess/(Deficit)
ar expenditures and revenues dis-
s:
FY 75-76 FY 76-77 FY 77-78
279 424 480
00's 279 283 351
ak) 7 7 7
225 306 390
000's:
55 63 75
16 30 32
154 228 391
0 0 2
225 321 500
- 15 98
•ing the next five year pe iod (FY 1979-83):
. Revenue Miles are estimated by CVT to increase from 470,000
to 820,000
. Revenue Passengers wi 1 increase from 381,000 to 664,000
. The-bus fleet W.iYl be replaced~and_inc~eased to 16
.. Assumming a seven per ent cost excalation, the base contract
operating cost could 'ncrease from $635,000 to $1,451,000
. Total operating cost er revenue mile could increase from
$1.46 to $1.85
. Planned capital improvrements will cost $2,517,000
. Total expenditures over the period are estimated to be $7,868,000
54
The projected sources of revenue funds over the five-year period
(FY 1979-83) are the following:
1
. Farebox $531,000
. City Support Requirements 877,000
. Local Transportation Funds 3,677,000
. Advertising and Interest Earnings 28,000
. Federal -
UMTA Section 3 Capital Grants 1,532,000
UMTA Section S Operating Grants 730,000
UMTA Section 9 Planning Grants 50,000
FHWA Federal-Aid-Urban Funds 443,000
. Total sources of revenues $7,868,000
LTF funding above was assumed under an Article 4 Claim of the
Transportation Development Act. An alternative option that may
be open to the City is discussed in PART IV.
Conclusions
. The City should maximize the use of Local Transportation
Funds, Federal capital and planning grants and FAU funds.
In addition, Federal Section 5 operating support should be
immediately sought and utilized to balance the budget needs
for improved and expanded intra-city transit services and
to minimize the requirements for local general funds.
. If the City desires to further reduce local general fund
support to CVT in the current fiscal year and thereafter,
as defined in the attached financial plan, further study
will be required to evaluate alternative capital improvement
programs and schedules that may spread the capital expenditurE
over several years and justify possibly higher LTF claim
options and lower local support fund requirements.
Recommendations
. Since more complete financial records of CVT are limited to
to the last two-fiscal years, and the TDA has more recently
been amended, and more significant changes are anticipated
prior to July 1, 1980, a more comprehensive reevaluation and
update of the CVT Transit Development Program should be
scheduled for late FY 1980 to confirm actual past experiences
vs. the projections of revenue miles and revenue passengers,
and thereby, refine and update the financial plan according-
ly to insure maximum LTF funding available based on the latest
amended changes in State and Federal statutes.
. The City should carefully monitor the operator contract,
supporting records system and performance of service provided
periodically to insure the requirements of the contract are
satisfied and actual cost expenditures are reasonable.
1 Rounded to nearest 1,000
-2-
PAR`S' II.
FOUNDATION FAR THE UPDATE
Duri g the past five-year perio~
ride ship has steadily increase
ride s, and the cost of local b'
$225,000 to $402,000. During fi
cont act cost alone will be $63
serv ce. With the passage of P
are aced with the demand for c
be p ovided within the restrai
fund ng resources.
i (FY 1974-78), total passenger
i from 210,000 to 490,000 annual
~s operations has increased from
Kcal year 1979-80, the operator
x,000 or $1.35 per revenue miles of
roposition 13, city officials
~ntinued public services which must
zts of reduced available local
If t e Chula Vista Transit sys
unse ved areas, and utilized b
of s rvice must be increased b
buse must also be provided to
the uality of service. This
and s the subject of this rep
A bi liography of reports and
to f rm a foundation for this
m is to be improved, extended into
more citizens daily, the frequency
expanding the bus fleet and new
educe maintenance cost and improve
tion will require additional funds,
ecords reviewed by the consultant
eport is listed in APPENDIX A.
-3-
4 5 `I
PART III
REVIEW OF CVT FINANCIAL RECORDS
The "Annual Operating Statistical Report", a product of the City's
MIS (Management Information System) was compared to the records
maintained by the City Finance Department. The data base for the
MIS is the daily/monthly farebox counter readings taken by the
bus driver at the beginning and end of each run. The basis for
the City Finance Department records are the encumbered expenditures
and actual receipts received by the City, logged in the month
received.
The farebox revenues are counted by the bus operator and forwarded
to the City quarterly as required by the City-Operator contract.
Since there is time-lag between the records that make-up the MIS
and the City Finance records, the two individually maintained
record systems do not agree and may not represent the same monthly
time period as shown below:
Farebox Receipts MIS City Finance Deft.
FY 1976-77 $69,619 $62,934
FY 1977-78 80,277 74,568
Due to the above difference, the City Finance Department records
were selected as the more valid base for the update of the next
five-year projection of expenditures and revenue requirements.
A summary of the prior three-year expenditures and revenues are
shown in TABLE 1. During this period, revenue miles of service
increased 36 percent, from 279.000 to 480.,000; revenue passengers
(full fare and reduced fare passengers, and excluding transfers)
increased 26 percent, from 279,000 to 351,000; and farebox revenues
increased 36 percent, from $55,000 to $75,000. The increases were
mainly attributed to the increase in revenue miles provided by the
bus fleet increase from four to seven scheduled buses operating
within the City. This period also included a fare increase made
effective in September, 1976. The base full fare was increased
from 25 to 35 cents, senior citizens (60 years or over) and handi-
-~4 -
TA LE 1
EXPENDITUR S AND REVENUESI
CHULA V STA TRANSIT
Fiscal Year 1976 to 1978
LEV L OF SERVICE/USAGE ~ FY 1975-76 FY 1976-77 FY 1977-78
evenue Miles 279 424 480
evenue Passengers 279 283 351
otal Vehicle Fleet 7 9 10
o. Vehicles Scheduled 4 6 7
EXP NDITURES
ase Operator Contract Cost $203 $264 $355
Operating Cost/Rev. Mi. 0.73 0.62 0.74
dministrative/Other Costs 22 39 41
OTAL OPERATING COST $225 $303 $396
Operating Cost/Rev. Mi. 0.81 0.71 0.80
apital Costs 0 3 6
OTAL CAPITAL COSTS 0 3 0
OTAL EXPENDITURES $225 $306 $402
REVENUES
on-Federal: Farebox $55 $63 $75
City Support 15 29 29
Interest Earn. 1 1 3
LTF (SB 325) 154 22& 391
OTAL NON-FEDERAL $225 $321 $498
ederal Section 3 - - -
Section 9 - - 2
FAU - - -
Section 5 - - -
OTAL FEDERAL _ _ _
OTAL REVENUES $225 $321 $500
Exc ss/(Deficit) 15 98
So rce: City of Chula Vista A counting Rec ords,
Special revenue Fund,, Year Ending June 30, 1978
C'JT Financial Summary, FY 1976-77, Rev. 2-23-78 & 10-23-78
1 11 figures in $1,000, except vehicles a nd operating cost/rev. mi.
-5-
~~y
capped fare was reduced to 15 cents, and the reduced fare for
juniors (high school or under) was continued.
As shown in the attached FIGURE 1, the fare increase for full fare
passengers and fare decreases for E and H ( Elderly and Handicapped)
resulted in a 22 percent reduction in the number of full fare
passengers, a 70 percent increase.in the number of reduced fare
passengers and a 50 percent increase in the number of transfers.
During the past three-year period, the numerical statistics are
shown below:
Type Fare FY 1975-7f FY 1976-77 FY 1977-78
Full Fare 206,278 159,768 185,736
Reduced Fare 72,304 123,124 165,044
Transfers 75,848 113,839 139,683
Total 354,430 396,731 490,463
Source: CVT Annual Operating Statistical Report, Aug. 14, 1978
While the full fare passengers decreased, from 58 percent of they
total passengers to 38 percent; reduced fare passengers increased,
from 20 percent to 33 percent; and the number of transfers increased,
from 21 percent to 28 percent of the total during the three-year
per iod noted above. The combination of policy decisions, to
increase the fleet and revenue miles of service, to increase the
base fare and to reduce the E and H fare, resulted in improved and
more attractive service to a greater number of citizens of the City.
Further increases in revenue miles of service by the exist-
ing bus fleet (of the same vintage) are not likely to continue
the increase in future revenue passengers as experienced in the pas-
three-year period. Other considerations are necessary.
Funding Sources Utilized
As demonstrated in TABLE 1, the effectiveness of farebox revenues
along with general revenue funds of the City reduced from 40 percent
to 17 percent, while the effectiveness of the total budget by the
Local Transportation Fund (LTF) increased from 60 percent to 83
percent, even though the City support, over and above the farebox,
increased from $16,000 to $32,000. The value of the LTF funding
-6-
0
0
0
z
H
W
C~
Z
W
a
00
00
300
200
100
0
Fiscal Year
-7-
FIGURE 1.
y ~-/,~ ACCUMULATED CHANGE IN PASSENGER MIX
7I Chula Vista Transit
supportis clearly demonstrated. During this period federal funding
assistance was not utilized,and was not fully available. With the
recent certification of CVT by the Urban Mass Transportation Agency,
additional funding sources are now possible.
Additional Funding Sources Available.
The expected escalation in annual operating costs, over the next
five-years will require additional funding resources, even if the
ridership did not increase. Expanded service by increasing the
frequency of service on each designated City route can result in
making CVT more attractive and convenient to more citizens, but the
bus fleet should be increased as planned.
Since the age of the current bus fleet of the contract operator
averages over 18 years, compared to the recommended standard bus
life of 5-8 years, the City intention to replace the bus fleet with
modern new vehicles is a logical consideration, and still leaves
several options open for alternative management and ownership.
Federal assistance to support the cost of 80 percent or more
of the capital improvements was conditioned on CVT certification by
the U. S. Department of Transportation. This step has recently been
achieved. Additional funding opportunities open to the City include
UMTA Section 5 operating support; UMTA Section 3 capital grants
for new vehicles; FHWA Federal-Aid-Urban funds for selected improve-
ments related to the street and highways, such as a new maintenance
garage and passenger transfer and boarding improvements. UMTA
Section 9 planning/engineering design grants are also available and
will be utilized by the City.
Future CVT Facility and Service Improvements Needed
The TIP's {Transportation Improvement Programs) prepared by the
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) for its area of juris-
diction and the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) for the Sa
Diego Region includes capital improvements desired and identified by
the City. A reevaluation of the program time schedule for the pro-
-8-
pos d capital improvements byiyear was completed for this update,
and is summarized in APPENDIX B. In general, improvements can be
ide tified as increase in fre uency of service, extensions of
exi ting routes and improved acilities for maintenance, storage
and passenger transfer and bo rding, and the acquisition of new
bus s. These desired improve ents should be provided as soon as
the availability of local andlfederal funding opportunities are
def'ned and agreed-to by the City Council.
-9-
9y
PART IV .
FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATE
The projected expenditures and revenues are summarized in TABLE 2.
The basic assumptions and rational for the projections are identi-
fied below and were established from the review and analysis of the
financial records and supporting documents discussed in the previous
section.
Level of Service/Usage
The estimates for revenue miles of service were estimated and pro-
vided by CVT. For the estimates of revenue passengers, the analysis
of the past three-year records established the relationship of
revenue passengers per revenue miles of service, which was found to
vary from 0.999 in FY 1976 to 0.666 in FY 1977 and 0.730 in FY 1978.
An additional year of two of experience will be needed to stabilize
this relationship for CVT. The revenue passengers per revenue miles
ratio was assumed to be 0.81 or greater in the next five-year period
and is considered a reasonable estimate for this update. The pro-
jected change in vehicle fleet was given by CVT, along with their
desired capital improvement program and schedule.l
E eizditures
The base operator contract cost for FY 1979 is the most recent
contract price negotiated between the City and the private operator.
The basis for the apparent,significant increase in operator cost
over the prior year was negotiated upon documentations submitted
by the operator as a more realistic actual cost incurred in pro-
viding the transit service--drivers and vehicles. A seven percent
escalation factor was assumed (consistent with MTDB application) for
each year over the next five-year period.
"Administrative/Other Costs" are costs incurred by the City in
managing and administering the operator contract, and includes
support services provided to the CVT operation. A seven percent
escalation factor was also assumed for the City's "Administrative/
Other Costs" over the five-year update period.
1See Appendix C for more detailed calculations
-10-
N
O
[-~ O~'O N OlN M
N l~ O d~ ~ ~O r I
N l.() ~ I I O I
w N ~' I
w
I w w w
M M N LC1 LC1
LC') f~4
[~ LCl
M [~ CO
O
~ O O Q' l0 M rl r-I O~ O O .-I
~--I N r-I l0 r-{ r{ lf) IIl r-I N
O O~ l~ ~' lCl
~.{ w w
~I r.{
{~-
N
O
r-I
(~
r-I
O
M Ol
00 r-1
O ~
C~
Zs
O O
~ O
~ ~
~ (~
O
~ ~
Y~ ~
fis O~
~ ~
r-I w
rt1
U
• ri
f~
O O rI lO M
M rl d~ rl r-I
l~ CO LC1
OMI11~''-I
tD M M r-i .-i
O ~ ~
OO~I~ N0~
d" d1 M H
LCl l(l ~'
O N r-I rl l~
l~ N CO ~
cp lf1 M
ICS
l.fl ri Lfl O O '-i
O U1 r-I [~
N N
w ~
r1 r-I
89-
l.C) [i'
~ O
M ~-I N O I.fl r~
N l1'1 ~-I N
O O
H H
~' co
~' tt1
N r-I O Lf'1 ~-I .--I
t` d" NI lfl
~ O
~7'
~ O
M Q'
L(1 r~ lfl 1~ l~ rl
M v' I co
O O
b4-
.,~
~-. ~
r~ +~ ~
U ~ N
a
~
v ~~
U +~
U ~ U
U N
~ t
4
~ U
~ cn Ul O Z3 -
~ is -I
Ul •r
~
O O
~ ~ ~
L ~ 4-i Ul l ,~
~- -
h O ~
W U~
U
l W
O (
~ U Ul
O
v ~ ~
W ~ U1 U ~ -
~ r~
U O ~ O
H r
-I ~ Ul p., ,~ U ~
rl ~ Q1 •ri N ~ O -rl
z ~ ma ~~~ ~ syU ~~
O ~o
w ~y~ ~~ N c
n~
O O O O N O O H r~ 0 'Z3 ~+
~rx~ rx~z z wU ~a
a
x
w
a w
>M~Inl.n co ~~ cotes M NooM~n ~
M O M ~1 tD M (~ N [~ ~-I M M I.C) Q' Lf) l0
M N N ~' N tf10~ l0 r-I
w tit I~ ~' l~
w w ~
w
~ .~
{ N w
[~ M lfl r~ N (~
~} ~}'
o M
o ~
o~ m o o
m~ ~ l
tf1 ri M CO M H ~--I t.C)
w
w
H w
~-'I r'I
bQ• ~
O O ~p M lf1 d" O O O O
l0 O
[~ N lfl r-I 0~ I
l~ (~ [~
N rl N [~ O r-I r-I N
~ r-I r{
iy4- ~'
L(1 OlN Mt` ~ OtD07O ~' ~
O O O~ rl N Lft lQ 0~
O .-1 r-~I O ~ r-I '-I O
H H
~ ~
~ M N Lf1 O '-1
b r-I ~ M O I11
,p M N M ~-1
w w 1
,--I N M
b4-
Ol O r-I M M N O O l0 CO ~-I
CO r-I l0 l0 M N N r-I CO tIl
O .-I 111 r-i M Ol ri
w w w w
r-I ~ ri .-I M
64
~O~OItII N
N M lfl ~'
.--I r-{ O
O ~' O if 1 l.C) O d' lD l~ l~ N
I~ CO M I O O N M ~'
d" O ~ ~--I N CO
64
', TA +~
~ ~
~a H
t3' U ~
N +~ ~+
W ~ U M l.C) ~
H '~ r-i
~~ w o0o s~
~ ~ ~
r-I bl U1 O ~ I -rl •rl •ri N
~~ ~ U I~+ U1 O U U U~ O
Ul f~ ~ ?C ~ -r-I Z 4J U O ~ Ga
C7 ~ ~Ul~fs,
U ~ ' ~ r>s W A ~, ,~ H
s~ ~ N s~ -~ !~ m ~, O r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
t31 O I U O •rl p ~, a.+ 5 W ~ E-i E-~ E-+ +~
I~ ~ ~ U C~ E~ r0 • r-I '~ E-~ O ~ ~
~ O
-~, a~ ~ ~ H w U~a~ w
~~ ~
~ ~ ~ " Q
~ -
O ~ ~ O
U ~~ W '~ H
w~ N O~ w ~
~~ a
fC ~ -~ ~ I U
o w o v
0 o r a
~~ U N ~ z w
-11-
w
w
w
z
W
a
0
E-+
rl r{
a' -ri
W ~
~' ~
N v
A \
~ +~
~ ~
O
O U
a~
~~
w Q~
-~
H
U O
O
V' O
a~ ~ ~
U ~ ~
•r-I -r-I ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~z ~
~, a
~~
~~
,-{ N ~
,may
For "Capital Costs", information in the adopted TIP's of the MTDB
and CPO were utilized and adjusted for more current unit costs.
APPENDIX B summarizes the established priority program desired by
the City. "Other Costs" includes new fareboxes, maintenance
equipment, fare sorting and counting equipment, a communications
system, and bus stop improvements.
Revenues
The projection of farebox was estimated for each year from the
past relationship of farebox revenues per revenue passengers
estimated above. This factor is considered "conservative", and
should increase in the coming years with more operating experience.
It should be noted that the drop in revenues miles in FY 1979,
compared to the previous year, was due to a reduction in night-time
and weekend hour of service affected when passenger ridership was
found to be very low and unproductive.
To assist the City in supporting at least 80 percent of the
proposed capital improvement program def fined by the City, Federal
Section 3 grants for the capital bus acquisition and Federal Section
3 grants for the engineering design grants will be utilized to
maximize capital and planning support to CVT. In addition, FHWA's
Federal-Aid-Urban funds will be utilized for the design and construc-
tion of a much needed central Transit Center, a focal point of
transfer for the entire system, and a maintenance garage located
within the City instead of continued use of the dperator's yard in
San Diego which currently requires excess (deadhead) mileage to and
from the City.
Evaluation of Alternative LTF Claim Options
To identify the maximum available LTF funding, the Transportation
Development Act, as amended through 1978, was carefully reviewed
by the consultant. The applicability of several alternaive claim.
articles of the ACS were researched. Discussions were held with the
MTDB, CPO and CALTRANS District 11 staffs to clarify and confirm
applicability, even if past experience suggested non-applicability.
The consultant also clarified and confirmed his preliminary findings
on the advantages and disadvantages and interpetations of the
subsections of the Act with the CALTRANS staff in Sacramento, the
Division of Mass Transportation, State Assistance Programs.
-12-
Art cle 4 LTF Claims are normally considered by "municipal operators".
The City is eligible as a "municipal operator", even though the transit
ser ice is provided under a contract to a private entity and a common
car Ter). The consultants revjiew of the unique operating conditions
of VT indicates that Article8 is equally applicable to the City.
But the section (99400) will }~e in effect only until July 1, 1980,
unl ss it is extended in legislative amendments being prepared.
Art cle 8 is equally applicable for non-transit projects (streets,
hig ways, pedestrians and bic cles~, as well as transit operations
and r specific consition, dep nding on "who" controls, operates,
col ects moneys, leases and o s. Article 8 was found to provide
som added advantages to the ity by increasing the amount of
LTF and reducing the amount o local general fund necessary to
mai tain the level of intra-c ty transit services desired.
The differences of eligible L F funds and its impact on local
ge ral funds is summarized i TABLES 3 and 4 from application of
Article 4 and Article 8, resp ctively. As indicated in the tables,
LTF funding opportunities wou d be the highest and the requirements
for local funds would be the owest under the LTF Article 8 claim,
pr ided the section of the A t is extended beyond July 1, 1980.
LT funds over the five year eriod may be over $700,000 more under
Ar icle 8 compared to Article 4, recognizing the limitations noted
ab ve. Further clarification of Claim applicability is recommended.
Si ce future extensions of Se tion 99400 of the Act is unkown at
th's time, the source of LTF funds for the updated five year
fi ancial plan update was pre ared under an Article 4 claim assump-
ti n. The Cit is ur ed to e lore the possiblity of a budget
wa ver identified under section 99268.9. If a budget waiver is
ac epted, the allocations li itations under section 99268 would
in rease LTF funding for a two year period, or more.
Su ar
On fact is very clear, addi Tonal funding support will be needed
by the City to continue the peration of CVT over the next five-year
pe Tod, over and above LTF. 'The projected amount is shown in
TA LE 2
-13-
ys-y
H
a
U
N
Q' H
W
M H [~~
w a ~
aw ~ ~
~ Cx.i H
~ a ~
o ~
w x
U
H
~~
E-~
0
E'+ O lC1 M N O l~ t!l Q' l~
O In r-I Lfl M l~ lQ ~ l~ ri
~± O t` r-I Lcl l~ Q' (~ ~ O rt v
I t` N ~ N c'n V" N •r1
L(l b4 ~" ~
v ~
~1 v
M
00 O O ~ O
d1
N ~ ~ I CI' ~ ~' U O
H ul ,~ c+') ~O H O H M O
w R '~ '~ a °
- .,~
. ~,
+~ ~
N
O +~
O O ~
~ ~ ~ ~' O I r-i I ~ ~ v t!1
r-I N r-I O lfl H l` ~ N '~
w "
r"I ~ ~-I 00
O
~+ b4 r-I W N
RS O~
U 'Z3 ~
H
~
~
O ~ ~ ~
O
01 00 O N l0 ~ r-I O ~
I v U .
''~ O ~•-I Q1 Q' H O O r-I U 0 ~
~ rl 'U H N
w ~- v ra ~
~ ~
O ~ ~ ~
~ H ao m N o o~ H r1 0
01 Ill 00 l0 CO N Q' Ln lf7 (S.i ~ 4-I 'i~
rl r-i Q1 r-I lfl ~-1 ~' ,-.I O E-~ }-I O
a ~ i ~ a w o ~ ~
w ~ •- r •
~ v
~ °
~
~
~ ~~
a1 m o ~ ~
~ +~ •r-I ru ~`I
l~ lt7 M Q' CD In O d" ~ ~ I
OJ N l0 M r-I I Q+ lC1
~-I ?~ r-1 4-I
~ n •ri v ft7
. ~ ~
~ ~
(IS O --~ •
-
~ a v r>s ~ ~,
o ~ ~ ~
~°
M
~ ~" 'J Q' ~.I r-{ ~`I Ul
~ ~ ~ ~ ~A
u
i v ¢, o
-~ rt! ~ O O f.Z rn 'II •r-I
~ i
a a ~ a v
i o u r
~ a~ ~
H O H ~
.-1 Ul c\° Lf1 t` W +~ ~-I N ~
Ul -I-I O H r-i
x
~
v ~ CO to N (>~ l~ RS O 0.
1 ~ U 4-I
(0
~I (d O ... ~ S-1 O +~ ~ ~ ~ v
'~' }-I N N v N -r1 N F..] [_,~ (Jl w ,S~ ,--I
+~ C7 Q~ ~ Q~ 't3 0~ A+rn H H M fU
-.-I 01 O 0~ v ~ f~ 01 ~ N .~ R7 r-1 C -rl a~
O f~ 0 +~ ~ W ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ U O II
N S.a O v f~ O ~i O ~-t O 'Z3 v N N ~ +~ fh
f]a v •r-I U U •rl O •~-I O -•~ (~ v ~ H ~ -r-I ~-~I
w v u v ~ U U u a z c~ ~ ~ +~ o~ H
~
v ~ ~~ ~~ ~
v ~ v '~
~+ v
i - -
r
n a ~ ~ a
i o ~~
r>~ ~ ~-+ ~ ~ ~ v ~ •• z s~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~+ w~ v~ vs~ F ~ U v vino v
o v v -~•I ~ v ~ v ~, v o ~ o U .~ ~, ~, a
F aa, Q aa ~n ~~ ~ ~ a ~I v ~a
~ ~ v ~ v ~
'-I N M Q" 111 l0 l~ DO ~1 (/1 ,~] U1 4-I ''~ Ul
...r v v ~..~ ~. ~.. ~ v ... H N M
-14-
I
~' ~ ~ o
0
~ ~ ~ o u.-~
~ ~n a~ v ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~n ~ -
-~
M
OJ
O
O
~
N
l~ • r-I O
~ N ~ MI ~ ~ +~ U
rl lf'1 [~ r-I r-i N N ~
~ ~ r-I Ul N
~ b
4• ~ ~
~ ~
N ~
v
CO O l.t~ O .--I ~O
~ I~ f,") N
I ~ r-i
N ~
fLJ
,-{ N ~ ,-I O~ U
r-I 'rl Q',
~ ~- ~ F
1~
H
O
lC)
('~
01
~
~ N N
+~ ~
,~ Q1 CO Q' I
O I
O ~ 4-a -u
a ,..i O ~ ~ m ~ ~
~
c~ F ~ ~ ~-~
0~ H (~ ~- O
~ ~
N ~ ~ Ei
U 0~ rl O ~ M O a
F ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
O O .~ RSA.,
-,~
~ u1
Q' '"~ ''{ ~ .
w U ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~"~ ~ ~ }~I
v 1 ~I ~- ~ 'r-~
~ .
~ a ~ a ~' ~
~ o ~
o ~ ~ ~ ~I ~I ~ ~ v
~ w ~ o ~
H
o O ~ ~ !x
O M ~
~ ~ ~ aJ
N U RS Ul ~
x ~' ~ -~
~
_
'" ~ '~ ~
''~ - ~
~
a
U a, a, ~
~ a ~ ~, ,~ .~ -~
~~ ~ ~
~
~ o
cn~r vo
~a~ ~
a ~
w -
~A ~
w
orn w~ ~
M ~+
Rf v o
N ~ RS ~
~ -ri ~
~ ~ `'CS r3' ~
~
N r~ O O 0 'a U N O ''C3 O N
- ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
w ~u cnU a z c
7 ~ rn .~ -~ ~ ~
~
rn ~~
a~ v ~
a~ ~
~ ,~ ~ ~ cn ' ~ N ~ •• ~ ~ z
-~
~ ~
v ~
~
o
° o ~
u ~
~
~ - +~ a
~ °a ~ ~ H ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~
., ~ ., ., r. .,
o ~ ~ ,~
'~
r-I N f~l ~' LCl lSJ C/) (l) ''~ F ~ (/~
v ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ rl N M
a S4 -~5-
Without Federal Section 5 funding support, the level of City
general fund contribution would need to be increased accordingly
to accomplish the capital improvement program outlined in Appendix
B. In light of Proposition 13, recently inacted, the future
operations of CVT will be conditioned on the availability and
use of maximum funding opportunities from LTF, and other sources.
The immediate utilization of Federal Section 5 operating funds
is recommended; its use will minimize the amount of local general
funds provided by the City.
If the City chooses to amend its current claim, from Article 4 to 8,
information will need to be assembled, documented and resubmitted
to MTDB and CPO for approval, and will require assistance from
legal counsel representatives of the City, MTDB and CPO. '!Minor amend-
ments in the operator contract should be considered, if the
language can be made more compatible to the Act.
Since the contract cost for service has significantly increased
in the current fiscal year compared to the previous, and operating
cost is expected to continue to increase, the City should carefully
monitor the operator contract, supporting records system and eval-
uated the performance of the service being provided by the contract
operator to insure the requirements of the contract are satisfied
and actual cost and performance are reasonable.
-16-
IX
A. Bibliogra
B. Program Sch~dule of Capital Improvements
C. Selected
ysis Calculations
-17-
~~
APPENDIX A.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., Chula Vista Transit
Development Program, March, 1976
(2) City of Chula Vista, "Transit Development Program", FY 1979-
78 Update", March, 1977
(3) City of Chula Vista, "Chula Vista Transit Annual Operating
Statistical Report FY 1977-78", August 14, 1978
(4) City of Chula Vista, Finance Department, "Chula Vista Transit
Financial Summary", Revised 2/23/78
(5) City of Chula Vista, "Agreement Between the City of Chula
Vista and• the Astec Bus Lines to Provide Intra-City Bus
Service in the City of Chula Vista for Twenty-four Months,
Commencing July 1, 1978"
(6) Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO), Regional Transpor-
tation Improvement Program, FY 1979-83, June, 1978
(7) CPO, 1978 Transportation Systems Management Element for the
San Diego Region, June, 1978
(8) CPO, Local Transportation Fund, Procedural Guidelines for
Fiscal Year 1978-79 Claims, February, 1978
(9) State of California, "Senate Bill No. 1900", March 24, 1978
(10) San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB),
Transportation Improvement Program, FY 1979-83, June, 1978
(11) MTDB, Transportation Development Program, Fiscal Years
1979-83, July, 1978
(12) CALTRANS, Multimodal Planning Branch, District 11, Feasibility
of Combined Social Agency Transportation Service, National
City-Chula Vista, California Study Area, September, 1977
PE ND IX B .
PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Chula V'sta Transit
Fis
Yea
19
198
y 5 ~(
1
Proiect Description
Maintenance Garage
Phase 1
Transit Center
Phase 1
Subtotal
13 Std. Buses with A,
& Lifts O $1?.0,000
3 Mid-Size Buses wit:
A/C & Lifts C $40,00
Subtotal
17 Fareboxes
Radio Control Center
and 17 Mobile Units
17 Passenger Counter
Maintenance Equipmen
1 Spare Engine and
Transmission
Fare Sorting and Cou
Equipment
Bus Stop Improvement
Subtotal
Maintenance Garage
Phase 2 (Const.)
Transit Center
Phase 2 (Const.)
Subtotal
Cost in $1,000
Total Federal Local
$20 $16 $4
135 111 24
$155 $127 $28
1,450 1,248 312
120 96 24
$1,680 $1,344 $336
40 32 8
35 28 7
13 10 3
86 69 17
5 4 1
ting 6 5 1
50 40 10
$235 $188 $47
313 257 56
72 59 13
$385 $316 $69
n v ,C V'j .~ W U \ '~ N W
~p~ w r
v ~~ ~ ~s•~ ~w ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~
=a; ~ ~ ~ J m
~ , M . ~ ~ `e ° Q ~ ~1
e O d. w -~
~` ~~ ~ o ~ e ~ w c
~ ~ ~~
w o ~ ~~
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b N ti
sue` ~ tS~'` n ~ ~
,~-
~~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ -.
~ ~ ~. w
~. ,.~ .w
a ~~ m ~ w ~ ~
.n ~ w v .p t W
N
~~y ~ o ~ ~ w
~ p OD
~ L C -1~` a J: C ~ ~
n ~ r0 V ~ V', r .~ ~ ~
.~ ~ .O O O a O `O ~'C tC
~~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ C ; v Q
0
N ~ ° r ° ~
~'~ M ~1
~o ~ v
";
.~
.~ _ ~ ~ -
N'. ~ '°
J
w
..
w ~
~
~
w ~
~
w ~
W
w
v
g~
G~
\~
e
c ~
~1
e
° w
~
a
o ~+~i
V
~
~ QO
e
~~ `^...
\~
.°i
~ ~
~~
~n
y J
~~
~
N
~ W d` A
O n
{'` A
~
s
c
W r -'
V ~ M `~ ~
p \
o
w
e V
~
v
~:
~v M
~
Z
N
a
~
v
w N
~ ~' `
a r s
°e
0 e
e
0 ~
~
~ ~
a
@
° m
'
°
b V `n `n `O .p `~,~
~ w N ~ ~ ~ ~ n
v v w ti v ~~
...\ ~ ~
~o
~~
y
w t~
N V O ~
~ ~ ~
_. __
_ _ 11 ~ _ . _
~ ~~
~ ~
_ _ _ _ _ __.
t
(0
--_ _ _ y
~ ~
h _ _~
c~ ~ '~ _
`w u ~ ,C w N h. ~ ``I
V ~ ~O b e C ~ V
~^ ~ O
i w
_ ~
Z v° N N ~ ~ ~
~ c
n
___
o
~~
\~
I~
I~
__ ~
x
h
~E R
~_
X W
~' x
~~ O
I~ ~~
f'~t ~cT~''/) j ~ir/~'~-Y5'~S CMG t vu} 7tv~,f'
~ ~79 8y ~/ ~~- ~'3
T/arc. / ~-S~yry, ~-8,351 :~,S6z. z~~~3P z-~[,5v~
/Yc t ~~ r ~I ~ 70~ S ~ 9r3 !or Dg7 6rzc! 6, 7~3 s''
GvT ~ ?g ( 43 7 S 3 j S''t/ ~`~l
sofa-lS y, 5-ut 3~.9~~ 3~-,88~! ~Y, age 3T, i7?
~e~- 7tr~l~' ~ ~ys
S~TC /
rf/G 7/~
cvr
~o fps
/1,8x3 /z.,o~7 /~,,ys? /3,zy6 /3,zy`
? D s'~p 66 0 ?30 8 y0
/8, 3eZ /8,~sc /a,p~b zoo3S~ ~,•=r
1 ~ / ~j~j/~N ~~/'T/T ,f@GTir~ r
/f //i!r/~. /
7 yt~ 7,G3P 7,7q~ 7ff~ ~//~
/. i o ~, z~ i. ~3 /.73 ~ ~~
li~,Qd 4 76 6o a /o z-, o ~• // o o r. /~6~ D o u
f 20 ~~i ~ 1v f..~ i~ .
I c r /~~~~- ~.-. ~-s./~f
~o~~ L'd7 9'~/ou fia..~~~t ~f
~17~/1 / Dad. 6978
/, ygsid /,si7 G /S's{!-L /,.5'S/.G /,tL3.L
i. S'6 2.8y 3•~fg 3.6*/ x/.07
3lOOa ~y0~ S~~e .S~oua 66,uoo
po o /x, of a /1'6, oao iG~ Odo /~i, Gda
9 u5~