HomeMy WebLinkAbout0213.095•
•
0)
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Summary Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COlINClL 12
FROM: CITV MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLA.'\'NING
AGENDA DA TE: April 17. 1995 CMR:213
StJllJECf: Fomliog A1terB~tiv .. ror tbe P.lo Altolntermod.1 Tn.sport.ooD StoUO!l
.4.r .. ~[odifi<:2rion' (Implementation oethe "Dreom T .. m~ Proposals)
REQUEST
(A)uncjJ had previously <frrected staff (CMR:24 7:94; April 28, 1994) 10 secure th<: services
of a transportation financing specialist. foe 2 cost no! 10 exceed $5.000, 10 assess the
potential fur pubIiI: financing of the proposals set forth foe the Palo Alto In!ermcdal
TranspoIf'.dIioo S!ation and SUlTounding area (Dream Team Proposal), That woe'" has !lOW
been c:ompIe!ed. and the JlIHPCS" of this report is 10 IOrward me infoonatioo to th<: Council
fOr its coosiderntion and directioo regardi.,g further action_
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council approve a motion that
2. Supports the Cunber incrementa! development of tbe Palo Alto lntermodat
Transportation Station (Dream T earn) project, and
b. Directs staff to take DC<;eSS"l)' and appropriate steps to secure adequate funding
($300,000 to $400,0(0) foe the required furtl1er schematic design development
wodc, including the pD<sibilil)' of a 1oc.1 funding share 00 the order of 20 percent,
if ne<:esS"l)'.
POLICY IMPUCA nONS
Palo Alto has 2 1onj?"1anOmg record and ongoing romrnitment to imprO'Vemenls and
e!lbancements 10 multi-modal tran..<:pOItatioo options thaI pro.ide quality choices for an
sccto<S of1he hveling public_ The Dream Team project, without question, is a good idea
\bat wou\d significant'>-enhance the civic, ae>theti<:, and economic characteristics of this
important area. as wen as provide the Ojl!lOrtunily foc a more ;l':,egrated transportation
system that woold weO s.xve the needs of Loe area (or many decades into the futu.-e,
Page I af II
',-
"
,-." ..
. -, ,
" "" ~,: ") "~'!:."..::".
-~-
";'
® 0
The primary policy issue. however. is one of project funding priority. DOl project merit.
While the next incremental step is relative!y modest. the ultimate completion of a project
of this magnitude. ifpursued. will require a significant and sustained level of leadership
alld resource commitment Jiom Palo Alto. over all extended period of time. Commitment.
in !he bIn of political, technical. and financial resource directed toward this project. will
compete with other needs in Palo Alto and could result in reduction of e ><i sting semces
(e.g. community semces, pub1ic safety, and facilities maintenance).
&XECUTIVE SUMMARY
PursuanlIo Council direction, staff cootraeted with the finn of Smith &: Kempton to have
Will Kernptoo prepare the desired information. Decision £.conomi.,"S. Inc. sen-ed as a sub
consultant A copy of the final report prepared by the consultants is included as
Altachment 1. Mr. KemptOD will attend the Apnll7 Council meeting.
The funding a1tern.tives report presents all array of specifIC federal, state. and local
funding programs aVaIlable for transportation capital investment, operations. and
mainrenance and also dis<:usses alternative local revenue mechanislJ'.5.
n.e funding aI'.ematives report goes on 10 preserd a bleak, albeit realistic, assessment of
cuaent funding availability fur the proposed project There is an existing major backlog
of planned, b<.Jt unfunded. transportation projects, coupled with increasing costs fur
maintenam:e and major seismic upgrade. All of these compete for a limited amoont of
traospoctation funding that has suffered from a lack of voter suwon for, andfor legal
challenge lO,lransportation funding initiatives. This creates a funding ,ituatioo that is
problematic and ooe fur which competi6on, fur whatever funds are available. is certain
10 be intense.
'The funding ahernative repor1 coocl~ with the recommendation that the most effcxtive
and decisive actioo the City of Palo Alto can take in the near term is to pursue funding for
the schematic design developme'" wOO; that is r.eeded ICr this project. The two suggested
po5Slble sources fOr funding tl10 additional design development work are (I) the Petroleum
VIOlation Escrow Account (PYEA). and (2) I special study grant from the Metropolitan
Transportation ConUni8SXn
The issue before the CounciJ at the present time is whether 10 proceed further with the
next appropriate incr~rnental step in the development of the Intermodal Transportation
Station project The alternatives are as f<n'lows:
Alternative 1: Do DOl proceed with mis project
CMlt:211:9S P",e 2 of]!
"." ~
A1terutive 2:
€) @
Proceed wil" the next awoptiat~ incremental step. which is 10
secure adequale funding lOr !he sch..-matic design development work
(estima!ed 10 cost $300.000 10 $400.(00), including the possibility
of. local funding share 00 the order of 20 Jl"rcent, if necessary,
If Council awroves the staff recommeooation. staff W111 c<>ntmue pursumg possible
funding fur the schematic design development work. Ifand wheG sufficient fuoomg for
the schematic design development work materializes. a contracl for consultant services
wooId come 10 the Cooooil for appfOvai. Follow'.ng ccmpletioo of the schematic <ksign
dcwIopmenI work and changes (poSitive or negative) in the availability of capital fundiog,
which are certain 10 OCCIK. O>uociJ would be at an important decision point reg-..rding
wheIber or not to proceed willi subsequent. mo<e de1at1eci, engineering work, leading 10
project coostructioo.
If Council decides not to proceed with this ned step (schematic design development),
sIalfwill withdraw the fllDding reques! for PVEA funds and rot pursue other sources of
funding Ii:Jr the schematic design developmenl work,
FISCAL IMPACT
The near-Ierm fiscal impact is likely In mafifes! itself in the f{)(TIJ of requiring City funds
roc some portion of the S300,OOO 10 S400,000 needed for the schematic <ksign
developmenl work. Yllule staff is pursuing efforts 10 !;eCUfe fun funding from oIher
sources,. it is likely (and reasonable) thai some local contribution (00 !he order of $6Q,OOO
to S I 00.0(0) will also be needed or required in order 10 attracl funding from other
sources.
The Ioog-!erm po-.,si!)l<: fiscal impacts cooId be a substantial diversion of Palo AIto's local
funding capability (as mat~b to federal and slate funds) toward tile construction of the
project, and away from other local priorit>Cs.
The loog-ternJ. benefits 10 Palo Aho with regare! to ecooomic vitality, quality of services,
reduced reliance on automobile travel, properly values, aesthetics, reduced par\cing
demand. cleaner air and less noise, wlule qua!ttatively e\ldent. are quantitatively
undefined at this point in time. To help better understand such benefits. the Stanford
Planning Office is askillg the Stanford University Graduate Schoo( of Business and the
ScbooI of Engineering 10 complete an economic analysis of 1."-' full range of social alw
enwoornental benefits from the proj ecl~
-0 ._ ~_ ,
fJ)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM~
Planning and fi:asl1>iliJy studies are exempt from the California Em1rOOlllentol Quality Act
(Q;QA) pui"SWlIlllo Sectioo I S262 of the CEQA guidelines; tberefore. 00 enworunenlal
assessroP.rit is required at this time. If the proje<.'t proceeds, an appropriate en wonmental
assessment will be undertaken. in accordance with CEQA.
I'n:pared By: Marvin L. Overway, Ojef Transportation Official
Ci!y Manager Approval:
t/cd-/...L/,Uh~
KENNETH R SCHREIBER
Director of Planning
and Community En vironmellf
~fl.EMING
anager
hf;e .. of Il
#" .. -
.... -...
City Manager's Report (In-Depth)
Slij!JECI' Funding AI!eraa!ive< for the Palo A!!olnlermodal Transportation SUtion
Area Modifkationo (lmpleme"tati<>o oflb. "Dream ream" Propo .. '.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends !hat the Coundl approve a motion that
a. Suworts the further incremental development of the Palo Alto In!ennodal
Transportation Station (Dream Team) project. and
b. ~ $!aff.o take necessary and appropriate sleps to secure adequate funding
($300.000 to $400.000) fur the required further schematic design development
wod<,. including the possibility of a local funding share on the order of 20 "",<'<fit,
if necessaIy.
BACKqROUND
In August 1993. the City Council authorized rhe City's joinl participation with Stanford
University m a feasibility study of the "Dream Team· OIarette results, desc ... lJed in the
report entitled "Dreams 10 VlSioos: A $um!r''''Y of the &:infordlPalo Alto Interface Urban
Desigo Owette.-The firm of Pet ... Walker. William Johr.son, and Partners, in
association with the firms of Brian Kangas Foulk and Fehr & Peers Associates, was
retained 10 ;:ooduct a preliminary feasibilily study, which focused on ooe of the central
ronclusioos Itom the charette: The new ~i,-ic Town Green and round-about entIyw.y 10
Downtown Palo Alto and Stanf«d University.
The feasibility study work established that the original proposed CO!l"~ of depressing
Ibe railroad was ~1mi~aIly infeasible and wen! on 10 develop a revised scheme wbi<;b
cooIained all oC the original civic and enviroomenlal benefits, wit!! ti1~ railroad tracks kept
at cum:nt grade. The revised scheme would uulize a redesigned bridge, which would be
as 1\3ITOW as possible to allow light, landscaping imp<ovement~, and pedestrian activity
beneath it.
CMJU1HS P,,:e' 0( II
"" ' .. ':" >.<-~ .
. -." . -" ., "
".
,-i>~-_'''''" ~, "-.... <·.:.;;.t.r ~
o
The Civic Green/round-about area is estimated 10 cost 0<> the order of SI8,OOO,OOO to
construct The secood area over EI Camino Real would cost OIl the order ofS)O,OOO.OOO
to COIlS!rucl TOOIf design and implementahoD fees would add approximately 20 percent
($6.000.000) 10 the construclion estimates. Schematic design development. which is
nec=ary 10 refine no! only th~ project's specific character and detaIl, \)"t also establish
a better cost estimare fOr the proj~d, is the next appropriate level of effort required in the
funher development of !his proposal. The schematic design development work is
estimated 10 cost between $300.000 to $400.000.
In April 1994. Council approved a staff recommendation (CMR:247:94) to 5eC\ue the
services of" 1raIISpOrtation financing specialist (fOr a swn 00110 exceed $5,0(0). to assess
the pctential for public tL'Iancing of the proposals set forth for the Palo A1!o lntermodal
Transportation Station and su"oundmg area (Dream Team Proposal). Staff cOIItracted
with the firm of Smith & Kempton 10 have Will Kempton prepare the desired information.
Decision Ecooomics, Inc. served as a su!H:oosullant. That work has DOW been completed
and a copy of the final report, rrejlared by tOe consultants, is included as Attachment f.
The funding alternatives report presents (a) a comprehensive r.v;ew of possible funding
alternatives. (b) a realistic assessment of the limited avaaabili!)' of funds for the subject
project. 2lld (c) a recommendation for proceeding OIl an incremental basis.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Palo Aho has I Ioogst:mding record and ongoing commitmenl 10 improvements and
enhancements to multi-mo.1al transportation 0pb005 that provide Qua lily choices for all
sectors of the traveling pub5c. The Dream T earn project, without questio", is a good idea
thai would significantly enhance the civic, aesthetic, and eOO!lOU1ic characteristics of this
important area, as wen as provide the oppo.-runily for • more integrated transpo<tation
system that would well serve we needs of the area for many decades into !he future.
The primary policy issue. however, is one ofproject fundingprivrity, no! projecl merit.
While the next incremenlat step is relatively modest, We u:tim,re completion of a project
of this magnitude. ifpursued. Wlli require a significant and sustained level of leade;ship
and resource commi1me!ll Uom Palo Aho, over an extended period oHime. Cummitmen!,
in the bin <Jlpolitical, technical and final,,:iaJ resource directeclloward this projed, will
compele with nther need3 in Palo Aho and could result in reduction of existing senOCes
(e.g. communi!)' service;. puNic safety, and facilities maintenance).
CMll:21l:9S
, .
•
-' j
. -.' :.
".-"
.. --"
The funding alternatives report present, a.~ array of specific federal, state, and local
funding programs avrulable for transportation capital investment. operations, and
maintenance. Key characteristics of these programs are summarized in Table I and
descnDed more fully "ithln tIle !ext <>f the funding alternatives report. The report also
di~ses ahernative local revenue mecllanisms, which are presenl in summary form in
Table 2.
Tbefunding aJkmatives report goes O!l to present a bleak, albeit realistic, assessment of
curreDI funding aV3Jlability for the proposed project. There is an existing major backlog
of planned, but unfilllded, transportation projects. wupled with increasing costs for
mainlenan.;e and major seismic upgrade. All of these compete for a limited amount of
lr8llSpO(fatiQn funding Il,a! bas suffered from a lack of vOler support for, and/or legal
challenge to, transportatioo funding i.'1i!iatives, This creates a fi.mding situation that is
problematic and ooe roc whicb competilion. for whatever funds are ava!lable, is certain
to be intense.
The funding alternative report concludes with the rerommendation that, if the City wisl-.es
to proceed forward with this project, the most eff«live and decisive action the City of
Palo Aho can take in Ille near tenn is to ptif>,-," funding for the schematic design
development work that is needed for this project This is consistenl with the direction
suggested by the Peler Walker and William Johnson in tIleif ApnJ 1994 report. In
addiOon to focusing on a more manageable amount ofmooey to be obtained ($300,000
10 $400.(00), this approach bas the aOded benefits of serving 10 better define the overa"
project and the component parts and having improved cost estimates. all ofwhicb are
essential to the competiIive pucsuil of capital dollars.
lbe two suggested possible sources for funding 1.'>0 scbematic design developmeut work
are (1) !be Petroleum VlOIa!ioo Escrow Acc{)Ul1t {1'YEA) from whicb funds are aIIocated
by the Stale legislature. and (2) a special study gran! from tile Metropolitan
Transportatioo Commission, which grants are sometimes approved for speci31 ","oje<;ts
Ihal are important to the Commissioo. \V1ule neitl· .. r ooe of these funding sources
specifically require a local funding match, it is very likely !hat some local contributioo (O!!
the ,order of 20 percent) ",n be needed in order 10 attract funding from other sources.
AssembI)1lllIJl Byroo $her, at the request ofCiIy stafl; bas introduced legislation (AS 970)
that WDold allocate $400,000 of PVEA funds for fr.e design development work.
Competition for PYEA funds is very high. and commitlees wi!hin the Legislature are now
beginning tbeir review process.
Po$< 1 of 11
•
;< ~.
,11
J ~
. J . i! r--;. r=-,.
I' !
~ I .. : I·
r--~ ~ > Ii
j I .
II II ~ ; ! ~ J g L!
If I !It 'i .! I ~ t I--lb 111 ;1 A HI ~ ~.
I--••
iJ I h ~l L r-1 1
I li. I} 'II ill lr r-il
~~ 1
1 I
•• • 11 ~ ,.
:::~ ~~
II .' It
r r:. .
I Ii J fJ d ! ! ! LJ ~ !
! ! I ! ! J :0 ! ,. n H i n j ~
~ i
C i !f { i J
'i
1 i . " II! J i t '!'! i ! I ! i i ~j' J I I J r • I n j l " ] ~ ~ ~ J ~ i , >
n ~s h~ I IiI It f h gJ ~~ <~
~~ W. ~ ~ 'i b ~5!
I I r. I $8 ;;-i!!. I-n U .0 ; t -w if 1 I~ f· H H
1 1 l~j h h I t HI j ii
h HI ~l ~-H H III H ri~ r H
II ,~ h J
~ 1} hi
11
Iii til ih ~ .. t
11 U Iii iii hi ~l iIi
.I-i
H i I { ~e ~ :
t· J -~ i f I l[ ,-b t-n~ I! Hs ~I ~ .' I!! f,--\ • £ • U k!< ,I ~~ ~H t· = ~i ~ .J
.'
I
I
i
I
J , •
t I , I
t J
. ,:, ': ;-
.."r-.. _~ ..
. "-
~l .
/
.-,
.
. . ~-.
®
While !he state of CIlITenI fimding availabiJil)' is bleak. it is not unique 10 this time or this
project The information provided by Wi!! Kempton (and with which staff strongly
coorurs) underscores !he cont~><! in which such large ~ale pc-ojects frequently evolve:
a. Implemenlation ofma5or transportation pc-ojects require a Ioog-term mw. The
lack of aV3!lab!e funding suggests thaI implementation 00 an incremental basis is
!he best approach. This will require a stroog comrnilmentlo the pcoject from !he
City of Palo Mo, as initial project development activities Wlll have 10 be
c:ompleIed prior 10 !he time when aV3!lab!e capital funds migbt malerialiu.1f one
waits until fuOOing is clearly 2V3!lable. most major projects would never
malerialiu.
h. Feasibility. planning and initial design issues must be developed 10 a sufficient level
in order 10 eohance tbe competitive position of one's own project, relative to other
rompeting, equa!Iy impomnt, and wcrt1Jy 0Crnands for !he same limited local, stale
and federal moni"s.
e, A project of this magnitude requires a serious and substantial amount of local
funding, no matter bow mocll federal and Slale funding may eventuaIly become
svaiIabIe. This demand on local funds "'ill inevitably result in a d.'version of local
funds from other need<.
As a point of infonnatioo and reference, Exhibit A il1ustrates the evolution of this pcoject
in &em1S of past, p<esenl and fulUre steps. Steps I, 2 ,md 3 are now complete. Step 4 is
the subject of cunenl Council consideration and action. Decisions regarding Steps S, 6
and 1 w;n need 10 be coosidered at some ""lUre time. If Council has a genuine interest in
pcoceeding with this project, then a commitment \0 Slep 4 IS the next .pp<opriate and
required action \0 be taken. Proceeding with Slep " at the pcesen! lime, does 00(
irrevocably commit the Cooncillo subsequcnl steps.
ALTERNATIVES
The issue before O>uncil at the present time is whelber to pcoceed with the next
~e incremental step in the deV'!lopment of the !nlermoda! T rarlSpO<lat1oo Sta'.ioo
. project The alternatives afe as fuIlows:
Alternative I: Do not proceed wIth this-Koiec\ based U{)Q!l the fuUowing
considerations:
3. The lack of identif.ab!e and reasonably predktab!e fur.ds;
CMlt:llHS I'a&< I of 11
EXHIBIT A:
C\ V
SUMMARY OF STEPS IN DEVELOPMENT or DREAM TEAM PROJECT
t. Dream T earn Olarolte
Esf2bIishment of a broad «><>SenSUS 011
a vision for theslUdy area (bounded
by EI Camino. Alm3. Embarcadero and
San Francisquito Creek).
2. Initial Feasibility Assessment
Investigation of ce.:hnical aspects
and development of a pre1iminary
ro5I: estimate
3. Funding Alternatives Re.l1Q!:!
Identification of the potential foc
pubIi<: financing
4. Schematic Design Deve!ooment
Issue refinement,. initial design
development.. environmental review.
and cos! estimate
s. Preliminary Engineering
Field investigations, further
design development and cost estimate
S 22,000 spent •
$ 42,000 spent •
$ 5,000 spent
$ 400,000 (estimate)
S ) l'1l11jon (estimate)
6. Final EngineWng Plans &; Specifications $ 5 million (estimate)
Final engineering plans, spe~ ifications
and cost estimate
7. Construction
Project construction
$ 2 S Cl111ioo (e>"1irnate)
• Costs were sbarecl5Ot50 between the City and Stanford Unj"ersil)
' .. ,
. ~-"
, ."'i-~,'-.
. -' . -.: ~ ~ .... --'
, .. -:
.,-,
1>. The stroog rompetitioa with other jurisdictions for wbalever Iimi!ed
fedcrallstate funds are .''allahle;
c. The competition foc federal/state funds Deeded for other Palo Alto
projects (e.g. pedestrianAlicycle railroad track under-croosing);
d. Concerns regarding the inevitable diversion of City funds away from
other local priority needs; and
e. The likely, o:ventual. need 10 removeltrade l'ali< land in order for the
pro~ 10 woric.
Alternative 1: Proceed with the next appropriate incremental step. which is 10 secure
~ funOmg for the schematic design deve!otxnent work (estimated
10 cos! $300 000 10 $400.(00). including the possiMiry ora local funding
share of up to 20 percenl if neasS3r\ based upon Ii,., follcwing
COIIsiderafioos:
CMlt:213:9S
a. The proposed project is a major civic. urban design and transportation
improvement in a vel)' important area of the City that is in need of
change; .
1>. The opportunity 10 incO<jlO!'a!e a variety of ex~g regional and local
transportation services and modes info a high quality. multi-modal
traru;por1ation system, bJ.rJding upon the existing core CalTrain
service;
c. The potentia! for establishing a planning framework that will help
guide decisions regarding land use and developmeot proposals l'l the
area;
d. An understanding that major projects, of signific'IDl merit, waracler
isticaily evolve over time and in incremenlal steps and are
nevertheless impor!an!. scmevallle, and do eventuaDy make a positive
difference for many decades to come; and
e. The high \evel of interest. consensus and sUJl!lOll that has heen
generated amoog the broad range of stilkebo!ders involved in this
study area
--. --".
" ':--.r
o
FISCAL IMPACT
The near-Ie!m fiscal iII'.pact. 10 tile City of Palo Alro, is like!)' 10 mani res! itself in the fum,
of requiring City funds fur some po<1->on of the $300,000 to $400,000 needed fur the
scl>ematic design development woric. \IIlu1e staff is pur>-uing efforts 10 secure fun funding
Jfom oIh« sources. it is likely (and reasonable) that some Icc at contribution (on 1l1e order
0($60,000 10 S[OO,OOO) will also be needed 0< required in Ofder 10 attract funding from
other sources.
The Ioog-tfml possit'J~ fiscal impact could be a substantial diversion of Palo Alto's local
f.mding capability (as match 10 federal and state funds) Ioward the coostruct)oo of the
jicoject and aWll'J nom other local priorities. for example, if. local match of 2Q percent
is required for the d..-sign and COIlsIT'JCtion of a proje<,"1 estimated to cost 534 miiIion.local
funds in the 3IDOOIllofnearly 57 IIuThon OO!lars could be required, over a b'kely per..oo of
Syears.
The Ioog~term benefits to Palo Alto ill lenns of economic vitility, quality of services,
reduced reliance on automobile travel, property values, esthetics, re<ioced parbng
demand" deanel' air and less noise, wlule qualitatively evident. are quantitatively
tIlldefined at this point in time. To help bette. unJerstand such benefits, the Stanford
Planning otIke is asking the Stanford Upjvei"Sily Graduate Schoo! of Busir>ess and the
School olEngineering 10 comp!"te an ecooomic analysis of the f.lll range of social and
environmental benefits from the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
flanniog and feasibility studies are exempt from the CaIiforni. EnvU-orunen!aI Quality Act
(CEQA)pursuanllo Section 15262 o(the CEQA guiddines; thereiOre, 00 env'.roome.tal
assessmenI is require-d at this time. If the project proceeds, an appropriate environmental
assessment will be undertaken, L'l accordance with CEQA.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
If Council approves the staff recommendatiori, staff wiU cootinue pursding possible
funding fur the schematic design deve1opme1l! woric from the Petroleum Violation Escrow
Accoo.nt and also initiate discussions with representatives from the Metropolitan .
. Transportation Commission regarding MTCs role in funding this special project
If and ",lIen sufficient fu1lding. for the schematic design development work materi.lizes,
the subsequent steps would be to (a) develop a draft scope 0( services f« the required
Pa&e ;0 of II
,
. ,~
;
.~.
. "~ .. ":-
'-:~ ~~ . . -.,
wad<, (b) ref« the scope ofwork 10 the appropriate Council Ccmmittee(s) fO( review, and
(c) soticit and sele<;t a consultant team. A contracllOr cOilsultant services would then
come before the OY.mcil foc their foonal review and approval. Staff would per;oo;call}'
advise Council of the progress and status of such efforts, and integrale consideration of
tIIis project into the development of next year's Capit.! Improvem<:DI Program.
Following completion of the schematic design development work as wen as ch&flges
(positive or oegative) in 1he a vailabillty of capital f;.mding, Council would be at an
impoI1ant &.cision point regarding whether or not 10 proceed with subsequent, more detail
engineering worlc, leading 10 pC'Oj~t coostnK;tion.
If Council now decides no! 10 proceed with L~ next step identified as schematic design
developmcnt. staff will ""jihdraw the funding request for PYEA funds and not pursue
. other SOOJ<:e5 of funding lOr the scbematic design development wo,k
A IT ACHMENTSlEXHIBITS
Attachment I: Report 00 Funding Alternatives; April 1995
cc: Dream Team Advisory Committee
Stanford University (David Newnan. Olarks ClIl1er, Andy Cae, Julia Freman.
kffTumIin)
Stanford Management Cvmpany (Curtis Feeney, Leonie Batkin, Bill Phillips,
Carolyn Johnson)
San<a Clara Manufacturing Group (Tom Manriquez)
Peninsula Commute Joinl Powers Board (Larry Stueck, Tom D-4vids)
City of Menlo Park (Jan Dolan. Don Dey, Don de 13 Pel")
Santa Clara County Transit (Jim LiglItOOdy, Mike Evanho<:)
Smith & Kempton (Will Kempton)
Decision &ooomics (Robert Schae,itz)
Peter Walker William Jol'Jlsoo & Partners (Pe!er Walker)
Brian KruJg-aS Foulk (David Richwood)
Fehc & Peers (Jeny Walters)
" -,;
'&&e 11 ail!
• ..1_"._ .
DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO
INTERMODAL TRANSIT STAUON
JlBVID OJ' lI'UIiDlBa UUJUQ'tl'91!8
Clt'Y OF PALO UN
Prepared by
In ~~sociatioc ~tb
PSCISXOX BOOHQH+CI. I.C.
SlS L Street, Suite 1.'0
Sacramento f CA 95814
(916) U6-5S08
April 19U
. ~-:: .
l
!:ABLE OF CONTENTS
1
UVZIIIf 01' I'tJJI!JDKl ALftllJlJIIUVZ8 o . ° 1
... ',
Pundinq X.pl .. entatloQ OVervl ••
The following discussion is inter~ed to provide a perspective on
hOV aajor transportation p~ojects such as the Intermodal Transit
stat.ion t.ypically evolve. 'l'he-se issues provide a f"rame'W'ork for the
tollawinq discussion of funding opportunities ~ constraints.
The implementation ot: a. major 'transpo:!ltatioo. project such
as the IntertiOdal Transit Station requires a long-term
view based upon current project development and funding
requirements. The present lac"k of available funding for
lItajor projects at the federal, state .. and regional/local
level suqqest that illples:ent.atlon on an incremental basis
is the best approach. This will require a strong
oommitment to the project fr~ the city of Palo Alto, as
initial project develop~ent &ctlvities will have to be
complete~ prior to the time when available capital funds
.1gbt materiali~e~
FeasibilitY6 pla~~iD9 and initial design efforts must be
developed to a sufficient level in orde~ to e~~ance the
competitive_ position of one's project relative to other
competing projects~ In qeneral, a project increases both
its competitiveness and the nwnber of funding options
that it: viII qualIfy for-the closer a p-roject. is to J:oeing
fully designed and ready to <}O to bid. For example"
federal funds have been released during the early
~rtlons of past presidental campaigns for projects that
can go to construction within a lialted period of time
(i.e •• typically less than a year)~
Finally, projects of this J'lagnitude al»ost always require
a serious and substantial amount of local funding no
matter how zuch federal and state funding may become
availabloa. This is especially true given the curre~_t.
st.atus of the federal and state budgets. The allocation
of local funds to the project. regardless of the source,
vill inevitably result in a diversion or fl.lnds from other
public or private needs.
aed .. of P1u141nq Option
Transportation ca~ital investment, operations. ar~ maintena~ are
carrently supported by over twent.y standing grant funding programs
at tJ:.e federal, state" and local level. Existing grant funding
programs at the federal le"Vel include Section 3 Transit Major
PAGE i
-1.
·-
-:. --
Capital and section 9 Orban Transit qrants as well as ISTEA grants
such as the Surface. Tre.nsportatioc.... Transportation Enhancement
Activities 6 ~nd CongestIon Management ~nd Air QUality Improvement
proqrams.
Relevant state programs include the Flexible Congestion Relie~ and
Transit -Capital .Improvement proqrams. The TDA/Local Transportation
Fund and the AS 4H Air Quality prograA are existing regional/local
programs t'or tl'ansp.:>rtation purposes. potential new l.ocal revenue
meebanisms that. could be (!!,eveloped to support the InterEOdal
Terminal are summarized as follows~
Regional/county-vide ~~el Tax
COImtywide Property TaX/G.O. Debt
Mello-Roos Special Tax
Parking Tax
Impact Fees
Special Assessment District
Joint oe,relopment
Turnkey Procurement
AlIalY81a of Funding OpUons
The CIty's desire to obtain funding for this major transportation
couldn't. surfece at a. worse possible time.. The state
Transporta:tion Improvement Proqrara is fa.cing a $5 billion deficit,
the ability of municipal aqencies to raise money at the local level
is res~ricted at best, and avai14ble Federal subsidies are either
comia.itted or W\C$rtain ..
Given the aboVe status or transportation fundinq, it is difficult
to envision movifl9 -to undertake a significant transportation
project without assistance fram a new local revenue sourceS. We
believe that a slWstantive sbare of the capital costs tor tbe
Intermodal T~rsinal will have to come froa a local source. Xost
State or Federal qrants vill likely require a 20 percent match, and
a sizeable 1~1 investment will increase the chances of securing
O'.Jtslde money ..
The only viable lIe_ans over the past fea.~ years for attracting
substantial Federal m~ey outside the normal distribution process
has been througb special grants. Sant.a Clara County has had sOi:Ie
success in obtaining so-called -delDOtlstration project-funding.
l~rgely because local congressman held key positions on the Public
Vcrks a..ndi Transportat:.ion committee in t.he House of Repl"esent~tives.
That chanqed as a result of thE lS94 elections, and given Federal
budget policy and conservatIVe opposition to thi.s type of funding,
the availability of funding is certainly open to question~
PAGE ii
. ,~ .' .... ,.?j-.:<
.;;... ,-;-
· '~
•• coca.D4&4 FUD41D9 OptloD.
POtential sources for a local match include the reqional gas tax
(e.C)'. i-return to source revenues) being: discussed bY' HTC .. specIal
district tax (Kello-Roos).. 131pact tees .or othp-r ex.actions.. a
s~!al aseessment pr09raa, and/or a joint devel0p5ent mechanism
a~5OClate4 vith t.~e project.
It is clear to ,,"8 that ooe of the most effective and -decisive
actioa.s the city of Palo Alto can take-in the i:JOmediate future
req"r4ing-the Int.,nIOdsl 'I'erainal i5 to obt&in seed funding-to do
some pr.ella1nary or conceptual project 'Work. In addition to
focusi.ng on a much .more aanaq09able 4%iO'.lnt of money to be obtained:,
thi.. approach has the added benefit of serving-to better define the
overall project whtch vill help both in defining-whether and bow
the project can be Phased as well as in the pursuit of capital
dollars.
There e.re two sources of funding 'Which -we suqqest should be
explore<! for this purpose. The first. is funds t.hrouqh the
Pet.roleUll Violation Escrow Account. (PVEA). The BOney must be used
tor enerqy savings projects, and California qrants have included
project: developcent activities .for interaoClal facilities. i'he
availability of PVEA funds Is in question, however .. as these fu·nds
were diverted in 199-4 by the Le9islature to assist in balancil'lq the
state budget. The second source of potential funds is the State
Transit A&sistance proqraD l specifically discretionary m~ey
through this proqralll "'hieb is controlled by the MTC. l'ITC typically
uses these fund. to pay for spec tal proj ects important to the
CODrDlisslon. but: there :may b£ an opportunity to 9arner at -least a
portion of that agency's annua.l allocation for the Jntermodal
-Stati.,.,.
SlflTS , KEHi''l''01I PAGE Ui
, ~-. . . --'. ~~
-~;-
D. J. Smith Associa.tes# in consultati.on vith Oecisio:ii-Economics,
[nc., is please~ t~ submit this revle~ cf funding options for the
proposed Palo Alto Intermodal Center. The report is intended to
provide an und~rstanding of funding sources which could be used to
develop an interJiOdal center Jl a brief revie",..-of the proced·ures for
pursuing these sources and a s~ested plan of action for the City
to tolleY in implementing this project.
IAClqaomm
In Karch of 1993, the City of Palo Alto and St~n!ord University
jointly sponsored a design charette to review land use options for
tbe area between downtow~ Palo Alto and the Stanford campus and
shopping center. This eftort v~s a very successful exercise in
developing a strong consensus of oomounity support for
implementation of an int.egrated land use and multi-mooi!l
transportation design coocept at this site.
A subsequent: study t.o evaluate the feasibility of the concept
identified some necessary changes in the proposal, established
rougb cost est.imates and oor.firmeci the viablity of such a project~
".l'he consultants involved in this study also indicated tha.t $300 .. 000
.to S400 .. 000 woald be need"O!d in order to de"",elop a 1!IVre detailed
design sufficien~ to pursue funding ror the project.
Mr. ,Will :kempton of o. J .. Smith Associates 'Was e.ngaged by the city
in August, 1994 to assess the potential for public financing of
both a scbematic eesiqn packa9'e and tile subsequent desiqn and
construct.ion of the ir.termodal facility~ :Mr. Robert Schaevitz of
Decision Economics .. Inc" ... assisted Kr. )Cempton in the compilation
of data necessary to respond to the city's direct.ion in this
regard. Further.. Mr. Kempton was charqed: with tie ta5k of
realistically assessing the possibility of funding the project and
recommending a strategy for the city to folIo" in obtaining an~~
available funds.
This report is divided into three sections ~ The :first section
includes a review of federal ... state and SOllIe local fundiDg' options
which could apply to a project of this nature. The second section
reviews the overall transportation funding picture and analyzes the
funding opticms with the highest potential.. 'l'he third section
includes specific recommendations for the city to consider in
pursuing tbe next step in what must be an incre~ental process of
project imple.mentation.
1. REVIEW OF FUNDING JH,TERNATIVES
The following section provides a review of existing grant funding
programs and perspective new local funding m~chanisms.
SMI ri , KEMPTON
.-.< .. >.--
-----------_.-. -~'!"',.;
, -'
-'
, ~
... --'_ . . ~.
_______ , _______________________ ,~PALO~~.~~~TO~~r~.T~t~RHD~AL s~ro~ r~~DING ASSESSMENT
E:rI lI'liliO GRAIII'I' J'l1!IDIIiO PROGRAMS
TransportatiDn. capital investme::.t .. operations" and lI!alntenartce are
currently supported ky over twenty standing grant fundinq programs
at the tederel" state, and local levels~ Key cheracterlstics of
those progr!lR8 with potential applic.ability to the ITS are
su:DtiIarizod In Table 1, ~low, inclw:!.inq:
Applicability of funds;
Bligible recipients;
CUrrent funding: levels: and
Coordination required yhen applying tor funds.
£aeh progra. is briefly ~9sGribed .. belovo
,.4.'11 Proqr •• '.
~on 3 piscretionary PrograM 'capital only>.
AdmInistered by the Federal Transit Administration, section 3
Is the primary federal funding proqraJl for capital inve.stment
in ne¥ transit facilities and equipment, as ~ell as special
allocations to "older-existing rail systems. As 8'uthorized
under ISTEA ... the program is funded nationwide.at $12~4 billion
over the six-year period Fl ~9!l2-97 as follows: :New ;tail
starts (and extensions) -40\ ($5 billion). Rail Kodernization
-40l ($5 billion), and Bus Capital ~ojects -20\ ($2.4
billion). Fur~ing is extremely lImited and competition for
fundin'} is intense. While technically a ·discretionary
proqraa where projects c~mpete on technical ~erlts# it is a
reality that virtually all funds are now earma.rked to specific
projects or agencies by Congress through the annual DOT
appropriations process l amounts Which var)" dramatically from
year to yea.r ..
Total FY 1995 Section 3 earmarks for the Bay Area. include $20
-.jllion in "new start-funds (BART extensions)" $52 Dillion in
rail modernization funds ($4 .illion for San Jose), and $S
.illi~n for buses and ferry building iMprovements.
Thf! Section ') program. though heavily oversubscribed. may
still be the best source of discretionary funding for the ITS
oyer the next several ye.ars. Applications for funds should be
made througb the Santa clara County Transportation
Agency/Congestion Management Program and the XTC.
iTA Section 91gB urbanized Area FOrmula Program (Capjtal ar4
Operations) • The fede.rl"l Section 9}98 formula program is
~11ocated to urbanized areas over 50,0~O in population
pAl>£ 2
~ ... -.
."~ .. '.
.".-.....
o
____________________ . __________ -CP~>LO==~AC='~'~O I~!E~~DAL STA!10S FUNDING ASStSS~l
tAILI I
£"""" E...,. J'un4fiq Uvcf Appblin_
Pncnm Ap9lkab ility ..... "'1>"" .. (MlJlIo .. ) C.,tdlMdoa
rit!EIW. ..
Stcda_ ;, Trans. MaIor ~",." s:.n-Urbi:.n Tnmlit ~S20 (BAJ'l5) 'C. Co""'l'l
eq ... (Db="""') Em Guidew:TjJ; Major = """"'-S52 (BM<) Mf{:OCl
System Rms!1, ellS 8u>-S& (BA'I5) HA
SedIot , Viii .. TztDlll ~=&""" uman rmasir SJ UA-S24 ('95) s.c. ComJyl
"anIni;') oper«tin& support Operal..oo. SFA) UA-S93 IS'S) MICcrCl
(1imited1 ITA
SorliKoT ............ ~-Hlghwoy""" local ~c:ncics. md MTC-SSS (Aver&Jr;e) Is C. Umnt)'/
""'"""" (STJ')
rumit Irupro~ts ""'" MfGofHWA
S'IPfTraDi,POrtatiDll :!aha-~-"Enhmx=eot' loc.aI Agencies and: CA-$40 {Average} SC<:~!MTCf
-..-.&rtiv_ (rIAl "",j«ts. (s.,,!<xl} S,., .. ~C
C~ MltIptio ... 1 ~~Proj<ct Local AjdX"~ md MFC-~ (A"l:3j=) SC (:mylMfCi
Air QuDtJ IIIlpro.cmew: Conltibt~ 10 Air State;. Pmjed!: Wlin 8MQMO'
!"MAil! Quslity lI:Iq:wvcz:em: N,m.Att:!rumt Areas FHWA
~;·i···.· ..•...... ······.··· •. ····· .. · .... ..
FlnibJe Ceacesliol RdM:f ~q !.ocal ...... "". CA~-$.3O(h)-ear {Aft} SCCnri~a
(FeR) ~ .. Umodes c..!ln= }Ii() mas sntil 200 1+ ~<:
TlUI. C.pIW ~iX<d Trar.si!~. CA-S67 ('Y:S) . ~C. County!
!mpro-..emmt (I'CI) """"""" ~ ... Local Aemcies., SCC-s" ('>5) MICCaltransr'
!net ~ IU!d P_OW Cal!n= eTC
RWlONALILOCAL ...
TD,,~ rl"lllUpGl"tllk. ~TumsiI: .it\d Local Loc.s! Asc::ncic5 End SC'.A: -S49 (113) S C Co-tmt}f
..... (LTJ) Street Impmnnu.. 1cd rnP.li.5it~l"li (95% tD SCC!A) MJC
Tran'llt <¥-Sapprxt
All .... Air Qoalily ~AnyTnmsp. Local ~ie5 ar4 AQMD--S18 BAAQMD< _.u,,,,." .... '-" Tmnstt~ {A.~e} SCCCMA
Qualit)' Impro".:menr.
SMl '!'i , KE""tPTOa
...
according to a tIered formula based on size.. The i'TA has
traditionally only awarded qrants to one recipient per
urbanized area.,. le.bviog that recipient to then pass funds
tbrOQqb to other qualified users. The KTC' is the desiqnated
grant reciplent for the entire. Bay Area, and is responsible
tor all project prlo~itization and program. ~'ever, funds
apportIoned: to an urban area are fully progra..l:Uled within that
urban area. The sectIon 9 program is structured to provide
tot.al flexibIlIty t.o end-users regarding use. of the
fu.~pital outlay and operatill9 support-except t.hat a
ceiling Is set on the azount of funding 'Which. can be used tor
operatill9 support. (One inn<>vation of ISTEA is t.Mt all
operating assistance ·caps· of section 9 qrant recipients will
now increase at the rate of ge.neral inflation.,
The Fl 1995 apportionment to the San Jose urbanized area is
'$2:3.5 ailllon, of whIch a maximum of $S~8 million can be used
~or operatinq support. Note that the Santa Clara Transit
District t.ypically receives 65-751: of the to-tal apportior.ment,
with the balance going to Caltrain. Capital funds are
. prioritized: in the fcllowing: manner: {l) Bus procurement: (.2)
Caltrain way imp-rovements (track.. etc.); {3} Radios ...
Earebo~8s, etca; and "J Stations.,. intermodal terminals etc.
Applications for fUnds should be made throuqh the santa Clara
county Transportation Agency/Congestion Management Program and
the lfi'C.
SUrface trAnsportation ProoraL (Capital On],tl.. New with
ISTEA ... the Surface Transportation Progra)'l. .essentially replaces
tha now-eliminated federal-aid primary. urban ... and secondary
progralllS. The STP is a formulaJblock grant program 'Whose
funds can be applied to most classifications of roads and most
transit capital projects, thus permlttincg! -intermodal competi
tIon-fo~ the first time. Apportionments to states are based
on adja.sted FY 1987-91 shares of total national funding.
After set-asides for safety (lOt) and ·en.'lancemen"!::s· {lO%; see
TEA program, below) ... regional apportionments within California
are based principally by population.. aCljust-ed to maintain
previous levels of secondary fundinq~ The total proqram
nationwide is authorized at $23.9 billion, though that amount
could increase with the transfer of funds from the Na~lonal
Highway System (NES) program.
Tot.al annual STP funding in the Bay Area. is approximately $50
.i11ioo. STP funds are apportioned within Bay Area counties
using an lfa5\: county minil!l.1.!m-population tormula--that is, 851:
of all funds received by the KTC are allocated to counties for
programming according populat.ion share. The remaining IS\ is
SMITH Ii lEMPTOIi PAGE ..
','-.
".'
" .... :.-.
~.' -, -
.1:
o
proqrammed on. a reqiQ::1al bas15. l.'he Santa Clara county annual
-minimum-is approximately $6 .illion. Projects are selected
t!slng a ~ulti-st.e.ge process of (1) Project screeninq, (2)
Project Prioritit:ation., a.nd (3) Project Frogra:ulinq~ Applica
tions for funds shoul~ be made throu9h the Santa Cl~ra County
Trar~portation Aqency/Cor~e&t!on Management Program end tbe
wrc.
SIP/Transportation Enhance.ment Acti:'£l.ties f=1.lnd (TEAl (capital
Qnlxl.. Federal currently provides that 10 percent of all STP
funds apportioned to a state eacil fiscal year lIlust be use,:! tor
-transportation enhancement activities.-Permitted uses
include: pedestrian and bicycle facilitles~ acquisition of
scenic or historic sites, scenicjbistoric highway proqrams l
1andscaping, historic preservati.on~ rehabilitation and
operation of historic transportation facilities, preservation
of abandoned rail corridors, control and removal of ~tdoor
advertjsinq, arChaeological planning and research~ and
~itigation of highway runoff pollution.
Projects competl!: on a statewide basis and are approved by the
CTC as part of the two-year STIP cycle ~ To-tal funding
statewide fer the program is approximately $~G .illion~ which
has nov been programmed through FY 1995. {In 1994, the CTC
a~roved $3.7 Dillion in projects for Santa Clara County from
a requested list totalling $5.2 aillion., Approximately $S4
million remains t.o be programmed for FY 199Ei and 1997.
Application for funds should be coordinated througll the County
and the wrc.
Congestion Management and Air Quality ImprovQment (CHAO)
(Capital Only1 r The .federal CMAQ prc-gram directs fu,J"..ds toward
projects in Clean Air Act non-attainment areas. All fu..~s
expended under this program m;Jst be for projects that contrib
ute to the attainment of nati~,al aEbient air qll3lity stan
dards, as determined by the US 001' in consul tation with the us
EPA. A wide ~ange of transit-related applications is
theoretically permitted.
The total proqram nationwide is funded at $6 billion through
FY 1996-91. Funds are apportioned to non-attainment areas
based and population and weignted by air pollutIon severity.
~nding for the Bay Area is approxImately $2~ million
annually. The santa Clara county share, by population, is
approximately $6.5 l1illion, though there are no fOn'lula
~larante~s at the county level foz this program.
PAGE 5
'---:" .. '
'~-.. -.
.;;., -.. i'
, ,-
PALO )'.LTC IlIITER!~OA!. StATIOll E'UNi):::NG J',SSESS~r
:Not. that CHAQ fllMinq is presently -.t risk-es the rego!on
has recently been certIfied as belTl9 ·in. atta1nmant-of
federal ~lr quality standards. Applications f~r funds should
be 3&de through the Santa Clar~ County Transportation
AqencylCor.,qestion Hdnage:ment Program and the XTC •
• tat. rr-ograq
state flexible Conge$tioy BAli~f IFeB) (~oital~. This
1s the ·workhorse-program for local and reqiOl'lal input to the
st~te STIP process and provides for both roadway and transit
capital projects both on and off the state highway systeD.
Projects •. re typically nominated I:>y the regionel
transportation planning: agency,. though Caltrans may also
nominate PC!!. projects. Progrillllling of FCR funds lly county is
partially 4etermlne~ by five-year -county minimums-(equal to
a formula. share. of 70 percent of all fund.s programmed in the
STIP) which, in adQiti~~ to the FCR program. inclodes o~ber
pr~Tams ~uch BSOPP, Soundwalls~ Interreqional Road System,.
and t.he -guideways-portion of TCI program funds.
rile 1992 S'l'IP vas approved containing approlt:i.mately $270
.lliion in ~ funds tor the seven-period through FY 19~9.
6t: this amount. .. approxaately $90 :million was allocated to the
TaslIin LR'l" corridor project and $180 million in various
road"-.ray project.s. Due to a lack of adequate fUnding,.
inclua.ing the tailure of Prop 156, the second of three $1
billIon. rail bond elect-iOlls authorized in 1989, the 199, S'fIP
~s approved Containing no new F~~ pr~jects anywhere in the
state. Given, the recent (November. 1994) rejection by the
vot.ers of Proposition lel,. the third rail bond installlllent, it
is likely t.hat t.h" CTC will llegin moving to ~rogram FCR
projects unless new statewide funaill9 proposals are advanced.1-
Should new proposals win acceptance, the F'('"R prograla s-bould be
revisited as a potential funding sources for the ITS.
Application for funding is made through the Santa Clara CO'.mty
~ransportation Agency/Congeeticn Management prograa via the
MTC TIP process.
State Transit Capital Inyestm@nt fTC!) (Capital Onlxl. The
Tel proqr3.ll. is one of ttle .I).oo~t (X'lG.plex and lJ.....~predictable of
california's transit funding programs. It is funded from two
~Propo3ition lSS~ ~n i~itiative sp~nsoreJ by the ;lanning and ~ons~rvation
!.ea~e to place iI. four percent :.ales tall 00 gii50line fo: .rail -transit purp",ls"e!l. also
~s rejected by th~ vpte.s by an ev~n great~r ma.gin.
SKI'li " KEMP'PQiiJ >'AGE •
.. "
f
" -F_
sources: (1' sales tax revenue from the TP'DAccount; and (2)
fual tax revenue from the State Hlqhway Account. Funds under
this program are appropriated annually for urban# commuter,
and intercity quideways and tor ~ther transit capital needs.
The quldeway projects are eli-;ible to rli!ceive so-calle:5:
-Article XIX· guideway r\L~S 11 voters of the County
requesting the tundi:ng has authori.z.ed the use cf fuel tax
proceeds for this purpose tbrough a special election.2
The program is "t"oJ.rthe.c cot:Iplicated by th.a req-olirement that at
least SO, of e,11 Article XIX f\lJ."'1ds be allocated amonq the
counties who have approved. tht2ir use on a per capita basis .. In
pr.act.ice., 100\ of the T'CI program is a,11oca.ted. among Prop
5/Artlcle XIX counties, so there Is no need to segregate the
two sources of funding except _here non-guideway projects are
proposed. 1'he overall program size is deter:ained annually
through the state"s .budgetary process--amO'.lnts to be allocated
from the highway acoou.nt and the. TP'D accou!'lt a~e determined
in part through the actions of the Governor's office, the
Leqislature,. caltrans .. and the CTC.
It should be noted or recalled that urban and commuter rail
projects, as well as otber transit capital project.s.. are
required to have SOl local matching funds (after deducting any
federal contribution), While the non-fe~eral share Qf
intercity rail pr.o'ecl:s can be fundeQ entirely from Tel or
other st.ate SOI.lrces.
Unt.il thi. year,. the tc>tal i!.nn·o.al Tel prograIl aver.aqed $100
Billion in size. With Pl 199~, the proqra~ has been cu~ to
less than half that amoant, or spproximately $45 .111ioo.
Onder current proqraa recommendations .. santa Clara County has
been award~ a :t.Qt.Al of approximately $1.): million in
projects.. an lUIIO·.mt almost exact1.y equal to it.s --mini:m.um
allocation. The siz:e of the FY" 1996 proqrcm cannot be
forecast at this time.
Application for fundIng is made through the Santa Clara County
Transportation Agenc7/Congesti~ Management Program and the
HTC.
Local Prograp'
1M Local Tr?lnsportat.i~n FUnd tLTY) ~al and Qperations).
"l'be Local Transportation Fu·nd is funded from a qu;lrter-cent
2santa C:lar.t; county is S'Llch ill county.
SKI'l'K Iii KEMi'TOIi PAGE 7
","
•
r· •.
, .~.---~
. -~:-
<.-.
. "--= .~ ..
______________________________ -"P~ALO~~A1to IWTE~~OAL S~10M FUNDrNG ASSESSMENY
sales tax on all taxakle items (including fuel). Apportion
w.e.n:ts to local qoverlf'dlents are based on population after
various ·off-the-top· allocations. While available revenue
does 'Wary with .general economic eonditions.r the proqralll is
"ery flexible {funds can :be. applied to any legitimate tra!"lsit
pu.rp6Se. ineludinq capita.l' and c:perating needs} and
apport.!orune:nts are not subject to spending restrictions at t.1"J.e
state Ie-vel.. O'".lerall, the LTF is one of the most reliable
tunding-source available to transit operators. .Receipts
statewide have 9'rown steadily since. 1982, increasing-by an
annual rate in excess of sIx: percent.
FUn<1s from this program can be applied for street and road
purposes Where recipients dalK)f"jstrate that they have -00 unmet
transit ceeds whlcb can be rea~onably ~et.· All funds within
Santa Clara county are U5'e~ for transit purposes: FY 1991)
expenditures were as follows: ~~A -$(6~8 sill ion, Bicycle
Projects $61) tbopsand, Planning $1.2 5111ion, and
Administration -$463 th¢usand.
Application for t'.be direct -:undinq: cou1d be made to the Santa
~lara County Transportation Agency to allocate A portion Qf
its LTP f~~ing to bus-related improve~ents at ~he ITS.
AS .,,, Air 2\lality As,si§tanee frogram.. This program .. adm.inis
tered by the Bay Area Air ~Jality Manage:ent District
(BAAQMD} I provides funds to local 90vernments {or projects and
programs supportive of ai~ quality improvement transportation
oontrol ~e&sures_ peraitted_uses include: regional trip
reduction programs, clean fuel vehicles, shattle and feeder
bus services. trafficjar'terial manaqement projects (siqnal
t.blng) '1 bicycle. project.s, and v-drious d.elllonstr-ation project:s"
·including alternative fuel vebicles l smoking vehicle program.
arA congestion pricing. it appears that railjbus interface
improvezents at the ITS you14 q~alify for AS 434 fundinq~
The program yields $17-18 .illion annually through an annual
surcharge of $4 per motor vehicle. Funds may ~ awarded to
public agencies only.. sixty percent of funds are awarded
CODpetit.ivelyon a reqion'Wide basis. The remaining-4G percent
is returned to county CHAs tor competitive ;ewara at the county
level. Funds may DQt be used tor plar.ninq, and 00 more than
5\ of tunds awarded reglonwide ~ay be used for administration
'By Ia~. only c~untje$ can ~cmmit LfF funds to 5~CUI~ debt, and tb~n only
~re t.here is no trar'..!!it-operat.or .nth sefarate. st.a't'-lt.:lry banding authorit!'_
Other recIpients m~st apply thea ~n a pay-~s-yo~-g~ ba~i$_
PAGE •
....
-.-~
.~
~
:'-'.-~~'--:
and ·overbea4~· (No funds awarded at the county level may be
applied to the recipient's sdmlnistrative costs.)
Application for tundlfl9 ah<>lllcl be made to the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District for the 60' of funds awarded
competitively on a re<jionwlde basis and to the Sar:ta Clara
County Transportation Aqer6C'f/Congestion Manaqement Program for
the 40. awarded at the county level.
A ~umber of other funding p~oqrams are eit~er ~ully committed to
currfllDt. t.ransit operations or vould hAve liaited or no applicabili
ty to the proposed ITS project. Tbese sources include: FTA
section 18 ~ar&l Transit assistance (not applicable), FTA section
15 (bJ (2) aSl5it;tance for elderly ,and handicapped transit service
(not applicable), Proposition. 116 rail bond funds {fully pro
grammed" the state and Local Transportation partnership program
(not applicable to guideway projects). state Transit Assistance
(too liaited to be useful), the FAA Secti.on 130 Grade-Crossing
Haza;:-d Program (very lim.ited and largely not applicable).. the
Calif~rnia POC Gra4e-separation Program (same)1 ar~ the Petroleum
Violation Escrow Account. (PVEA funds were diverted in the 1994
budget process and progr"aJm:l:ec! for qualifying qenera! ftJl')d purposes
by the state Legislature. Although their status in 1995 is
unclear, legislators are aqain accepting proposals contingent on
the availability of funds after the ~et process is complete.)
PROBPBC'UVB RW LOCAL JlEVBWl! IQ!CIIA)IXBJIS
A number of local and regional revenue sOt..1!"cea and assocIated
mechanism.s have received attention. from t.ransportation planners in
recent years, particularly since federal and state funding have
continued to laq behind local needs ~rd desires. Many of ~hese
sources are alm~st universally conside~ed powerful ar~ appropriate
t.ools fer locally-sponsored transpcortation improv6lrIent... Others are
lOOre speculative in nature. A number of these programs and
meChanisms are listed in Table 2. below~ where the applicability of
funds to capital and/or operating needs is indicated l as well as a
prelillinary assessment of t.heir -effec'tiveness--that is.. their
ability to-make a siq·nificant contribution to-the ITS project. based
on program-level revenue availability and presant. competition for
that revenue for other transportation needs. DescriptIons of the
more complex or controversial ~ecbanisms are provided here:
Countywide s-ales Tax. Pursuant to eXisting state law, the
countIes have the authority to place initiatives before the
voters to ~uthcrize a sales tax fer transportation purposes.
SMITS , :K'EMPTOS
" ,~
'.":.-;
PALO ALTO !N'ttJUoDOAL Sr.a.rlCN FUNDING ASSESSMENl'
TABLE J
S{;"MMARY Ci!ARACfERISTJCS OF
LOCAL A."ID REGIONAL REV£.'IIlJE MECHANlSMS
Soan:e'McdlGina Apl'liubmt,
GO~i>fuoGAnVi ........ ,-_. -..... .. . .....•.. .
Galen! F .. d So..,.,.. 1-
~FCIi9~.~ ....•
Sales ta Bolli -
Foe! Tax Bo.1!
PropertyT .. C""ib!
Mello Roes SpcI T",,-Capital
~·"IIECi~ENT .. ..
SpeciiI Assessmcu .. c..,ifal
Impa;:t Fees c..,'UII
ParkinZTax: Bo'" .
Vtility Tax Bolli
~ghta:Disl Capital
IDA Tla In=m"" Capital
Tnmsieot O=.pOD<:) BoIh
p~RlV.ln; ...
.JOint ~Ollment Both!
TumJrey Procurem.". Bo"'!
V:udoc F.,.".,." Capital
MvortlsiDgM".ac. Bolli
'"'ECdioa tL ~ ~ • _ 'CbaI:l twch-c 1C:9l~ cleeton..
t9r::r::!fw "= iD br1rd ~
"
o.cnn
AHn.c:tn-e:Dtft
. ... . .......
[u,w
. . .....
fEgh
La u. .M04c:l1lc:
Low-Moder6f.e
Modeut.e
.' . . ...
Modo<..,
Modena
Mod .....
l<>w-M_
u,w
u,w
Low
Low-Modeme
u,w
u".
Low
PAGE 1('1
-,
'.
..
i
."-
t;;\ .. v o
-, .
. " ,-. ""
All s~ch initiatives ~oday are for fixed periods ot time and
typically involve apportionments cf funds amortg a variety of
uses, mode$~ and projects. The sales tax is ~ preferred
mechanism tor local transportation funding throuqhout califor-
nia and elsewhere in the United states. It is difficult to
envision Ilovinq to undertake a sig7.1ficant capital program
without asaistance frcm a local sales tax.
It is important to note that. to date, county salas taxes for
transportation have been implemented in california bas@4 on
simple majority election margins. L{tigation brought by santa
Clara County on the 'ssug of t~ed for a simple maio~itf
barc!n versus a tYO-tbir49 ·supermajority. has resulted in an
adverse ruling by a CalifOrnia appellate coqrt. The case is
being appealed to the state SUpreme Court yith a ruling
expEN;ted sometiJ)e in 1995. Afflrmatioo of the appel13te
ruling bv the SUpreme Court; WQuld almost certainly place this
lIechanism beyond t:be re.ach of most count.ies~
Couptwid.e Fuel Tax.. As an alternative to t.he sales tax ...
California counties alsG have the authority to seek approval
from the voters tor a local option fuel tax~ though a two
thirds Elajority is required for passage. As result, this
.echanis~ bas not enjoYB~ extensive support, and effGrts to
pass initiatives in the 19805 tailed.. Nevertheless, such an
approach might prove attractive in light of the apparant
resistance to a sales tax for transit.
Countywide Property Ta~O~ Debt:. Though not usually popular
1Ifith t.he voters.,. cit.ies and cou!lttes nevertheless have the
autoorit-y t.o seek approval for property tax increments to
secure qen~ral obligation bonds. Such financil"l9 could be use
to fund a portion of the cost of any rail guideway prcject.
Mello R09S Special Tax~ community facilities dist_~icts (CFOs)
are authorized under the Melle-Roes CFD Act of 1982a This
mechanisms was originally inte~ed as a replacement for
gene~al obligation debt financing (eliDinated under Prop 13
i>'.lt late.r restored), but has in fact functIoned as one Qf the
important infrastructure ~1nancing tools for larger ne~
development projects. ·Special taxes· are levied on pr-operty
within a designated CFD according to a formula specified at
the incept.ion of the district. Unlike special assessment dis
tricts, there is no requirement that the levy be linked to
benefit received~ The taxes may be used to fund a wide range
of infrastructure needs (including transit) as well as some
ongoing operations and maintenance activities (~ including
transit)~ CFDs are authorized by a vote of residents of the
PAGE 11
, ,"
• -~ ... : .
-:,
••••• , .0
~-, ,,",1.
_ ..
dis~~ict or, it tewer than eleven voters reside within the
district l a vote of property owners. A two-thirds vote is
required in both cases. .
~. Numerous municipalities throu<;h the country levy
taxes in varyiM amounts on QOrm.ercial/paid parking
facilities, typically in high-density downtown business
distriets. Use of the tax proceeds alsO' varies: some
oommun.itles allocate it to parkinq and transportation needs
while others place it in their qeneral fund. The broader
concept of imposing a tax on lil oft-street commercial parkinq
to raise money for transportation and discourage solo driving
bas recelve~ considerable discussion in recent years.
Howe'Ver l to date, there has been no siqn of :broa~ move:ment in
th is 4i recti on °
Impact Feel/Other ExactIons. Impact fees and other exactions
are requirements often mandated as conditions for approval of
new-devel<:lpment in order to defray the cost of pro~.ridill9
necessary public facilities and infrastructure. The police
power basis ~or local qovertmlents to assess fees and make
other exactlons (e.q., ~ndated construction, dedication of
land and/or Improveme~ts~ etc.) for a wide range of uses is
nov well-established in California~ There also is a
reasonable body of experience with negotiated development
agreements involving transit-related project design ~~
construction. However, there-is to da,te only sinimal
precedent for implementation of 9~~eralized fee for transit,
thouqb a numbe-r o~ .. colGlunities are presently in the process of
converting -traffic· fees to -transportation-fees.
Special Assessment pistrict:. Creation of special capital
finar~inq dis~ricts based on the concept of ·special benefit
is well-establlsbed in california under a variety of options
first created in legislation in 1911 1 1911 1 and 1915. Special
assessment districts, or SADS, have traditionally been
amp-loyed for street paving, water and s.e'Wer~ and a. variety of
otber C01IllDOD infrastructure needs. The mechanism ~n be
employed for both new development and tor improvements to
developed areas.. Like impact fee.s, there is limited precedent
tor the use of SAOs fo.r t.ra.nsit. The two. most. wel.l-l:nown uses
of special benefit theory for transit fu,ndinq in California.
(downtown San Francisco and LA MetrQRail station areas) both
utilized speCial legislation, but there does no~ appear to be
any funda~ental impediment to e~loying zore qeneral-purpose
.atbods (e.g'l 1913 Act or 1915 Act).
SMI'l'1 • ICEMP1'OII PAGE 12
. ,
".-
PA1£) MTO IN'!t~ S'!'A1IOI' f"1JNDING ASSESSMEN1'
JQint, Qeyel~nt.. JoInt development 11]",1'01 yes the sale or
lease of real property owned or co,...,trolled by the t.ransit
provider (or related entity] to priv~te interests in a ~anner
that vill yield income to the operator. Priv~te use 1s often
intended to be in conjunction with the ·primary • transporta
tion use (e.g., commercial development at stations)-hence the
tt!rlI. -joint development.. -Joint development has received
extensive atter..tion frOom the t.rans! t industry, and there have
been SOllIe hiqhly s\!CCessful projects involv1Dg1 heavy rail
systems. Experience 'With liqht rail or other types of systems
is mucb more limited, parti~~larly if projects involving the
t.ransit operating: itself (e.g-•• KTDB in San Diego) are exclud
ed. Experience SU9gests that income from an aggressive joint
development aiqht provide up to 10 percent of annu!ll operating
costs. There is no experience to suggest that joint develop
ment -can provide sIgnificant f"..mdinq for construction or
procurement. This Is based on the assumption that the large
sc~le comu:.erclal deyalopment that 'Would be required on the
Intenaodal station site. t:o just.ify the contciJ:-ution of a
significant infusion of ~p-front capital for const~Jction or
procurement. purposes is not acceptable to the City of Palo
Alto and Sbnford: University. Tn additiO!"l., we understand that
the pabllcly owned land in the stu~y area vIII continue to be
designated for t.ransportation and recreatiO£lal uses rather
than hiqh-density commercial ase. Final.ly .. the market. for
commercial development is unpredictable and could impact the
tiRing of tbe facility should its implementation be dependent
on fUnds from private development sources.
Turnkey Procurement. Turnkey procurelllent is an oft-cited
example ot ·privati!~tion,-whereby a more integrated design
build procurement process is substituted for the more -tradi
tional-process of separate design, construction, and
.operation contracts. Improved effiCiency and resulti:lg cost;-
6avinq is frequently cited as the major motivation for e.
desiqn-build or e-"en more inclusive process (including
operations and l possibly, project financing). This view is
not without controversy, however .. and unamb_iquous evidence on
its cost-effectiv-eness relative to the more traditional public
works :.Ietbod is difficul t to come by. There is no e~ample of
a major transit system yet delivered in this fashion in the
O.S., tbougb the practice is cammon elsevhere in the vorld.
PAGE: !3
" .
;"'
'-.> -
",-, .
2. NtALYSIS OF FtlNDING AVl\J:v.BrLITY
The City's desire to Obtain funding tor a transportation project
couldn't .. urface at a worse possible time.. Tee state
'I'r&n.Oportation Proqr .... is facing a $5 bil11:>n deficit. the ability
of -auniclpal agancles to raise money at the local level is
re$tricte;! at best, and available Federal subsidies are either
comal tted or uncertain.
In 1990, California's voters approved three transportation
initiatives designed to carry the state into the twenty-first
century from the st;i!Uldpoil't of transportation infrastructure
de'11!lopment. Collectively, the measures doubled the state 'g"as ta){,
authorized the Issuance or $1 ~illion in general obligation bonds
for raIl purposes ~~ provided an additional $2 billion in bond
funding Lor specific rail and transit projects.
While the so-called -Tr3nsportation Blueprint--was intended to be
a ten-year, program, unanticipated circumstances have rendered the
plan inadequat~ and unwo~k&ble~ ~ne seismic upgrades required as
a resul t of t.wo major e:artbquakes have a.c)ded over a billion d911ars
in unantlci~ted ccst.s to the p,t'oqram, two subsequent billion
dollar rail bond issues necessary to support scheduled project.s
have been rejected by the voters, and lewer tha!'l planned state and
Federal revenues have combined to create a subst.antial hole in
av~ilable funding for transportation projects.
The State programs available transportation resources in a document
known as the state 'I'ransportation Improvement Proqras (STIP).. The
program includes all capital projects scheduled tor state funding
over a seven year period,. and 1s updated every two years to add two
additional years of proj ected revence and to divide those funds
among new projects. UnfortunatelYr the fundir19 shortfall at: the
state level has not allowed any additional programming o~ projects
since 1992, and the mag.nitude o.f the dollar shortage makes the
potential for adding new work speculatIve at best.
While the State AdDinistratlon and the Legislature reoogni~e the
prcblem.6 there appears to be litt.le consensus reqardinq a solution.
Appointm9Dt of a Blue Ribbon Committee~ as suggested by Governor
Wilson in 1~94, has been delayed. In fact, the charge of such a
qroup, if appointe~, may well be to suggest modification to federal
ISTEIs. programs and issues as part of t.he next round of authoriz:ing
le9isla.tion in the congress.. HO"tiever.. a private,. non-profit
foundation is being formed to review the issues of transportation
financing. Members of the foundation rep~esent statewide
interests. including the Associated General Contractors, the State
Chamber of Commerce, and the California Manufacturing Association.
rAGE 14
~. _.
,-:.-
o
The Leqislature will undOubtedly consider the prObleu durinq the
upcoming session l but there 1s no 9u~rantee that agreement viII be
reached this year on bow to deal with the shortfall. As is widely
known, Willie Bro~~ bas been re-elect~ Speaker of the Asse~ly~
and Richard J::at.a: bas retained his chairmanship of the Asselllbly
Transportation Committee as a result. While Assemblyman ~atz is
8upportiva of resolvinq the transportation funding crisis, there is
little symp~thy in the Legislature to deal with this issue at this
time. QUentin Xopp, Chalrma.'1 of the Senate Transportation
comaitt£e~ has indicated that he ~ould not support lmplementatIon
of neW' revenue mechanisms for transportation purposes. rt is
becoail'19 increasingly clear that a financIng initiative will likely
have to come from outside the Administrat.ion and the Leqislat'ure~
Regardles~ of ~he degree of attention to this problem in
Sacramento, it is highly likely that ;"ny (,roposed solution viII
ba\"e to be presented to the voters prior to implementation.
Realistically, that means voter ~.sid~ration In 1996 J and no ne~
money until at l~ast January of 1991. The next STIP whIch could
include nm." projects liould not be approved until 1998!
At-,t.he l~al le,rel l the picture is sim.ilarly bleak. The state
budget crisis has left municipalities severely strapped
financially. and in SOlle cases J on the brink of bankruptcy.
Efforts to raise sales taxes loeallYJ a hiqhly successful funding
source for transportation p~ojects in the la~e 1980'S and early
1990"sl are stymied pending resolution of the Santa Clara County
case currently before the state Supreme Court. Ta~ increases of
any nature are T~ popular politically,. and there are li~itations
on what can be raised throuqh cevelopment fees cr other fee type
prograJIIs ..
What about Federal transportation qrants? The 1991 Intermodal
surtllce Transpo-rtation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). funded in part
throaqh a rece~t increase in Federal fuel taxes. provides national
support tor transportation programs through the 1995-97 timeframe.
This lIlulti-year spending authorization includes liloney for both
state and regional programs. These dollars are largely flexible~
meaning they ean be spent for transit and highway projects. but
they generally require. some sort of matching tullOS.. Some pc;ts of
money, however, are restricted l bot.h by mode and in tenns at
capital or operating liaitations.
The sobering fact about these Federal dollars is that they are
programmed through state and/or regional prO<:'esses. The bottom
line is that the money made available by ISTEA is essentially
already committed to specific projects. For example,
appropriations for Calito~nia·s portion of tbe interstate highway
SMl'IH , KEMPtoN PAGE 15
system are included in the seven-year State TransportatIon
[mp-rovement Proqram. Funding-for other the Surface TransportatIon
&nd conqe-stion SitigationjAir Quality Programs are allocated at the
regional level, and the Xetropol itan Transportation Commission
(MTC) has alre~dy spent this monP.Y.
The only viable means over the past few years for attracting
substantial Federal lIlOl'ley outside tbe no:nlal distribution process
~& been through special qrants. Sa.nta Clara County has bad some
scccess in obtaining so-called -demonstration project-fu.ndinq,
largely ~..ause a local coll9re:ssman held ):ey positions on the.
PUblic Works and Transportation co~ittee in the Bouse of
Representat lves. The changes in the U. s. Congress tha t occurred as
a consequence of the 1991 elections have resulted in leadership
changes tha~ are not favorable either to Santa Clara County or the
state in qeneral. Nonetheless, Santa Clara County's congressional
representatives can be extremely helpful within the federal
legislative process. Although the new Chair of the House ~ublic
Works and Infrast~ture Committee bas indicated his support fer
-demonst.rat.ion-type projects., the Republicall leadership en the
Transportat.ion Appropriations Su1:>cc>mDittee (e.q., subcommitt.ee
responsible for allocating funds for transportation projects) bas
siqnaled their opposition to ·pork-projects.
CO!!CLUsrOK
As stated at the beginning ot t.his section, the outlook tor
significar,t new financIng not already included in an existing
program is severely liJai ted:. In addi tion.. the current cost
estimat.e of $33 million tor design and construction of the
intermodal facility presents a particularly difficult cballenge in
liqht of the eXisting funding picture. The size of the project
yill likely require that at least a portion of the funding yill
have to cOC!e through traditional sources. U·nfortunately, tbe
dollars available from these sources are already conrmitted, and
future allocations will be highly competitive qiv.en the current
fiscal limits facing the transportation program.
It is our ~lusion that the city should pursue an incremental
approach to funding this facility .. While efforts to secure capital
funding can begin immediately, it should be understood that the
chances of fairly immediate and/or complete financing through
traditional funding sources are extremely slim. A non-traditional
approach to project funding may offer a more practical alternative.
but the timinq of that financing is just as uncertain. However.
concurrent with any efforts to bring in capital and ~ajor design
dollars J the City should pursue a separate approach to obtain the
smaller amount of lIlOl'ley necessary to develop a schemc:!.tic design for
.• " ...... .
,
~ :---".;~
:~ "~'
\
PAGE l'
, .-"-
--~' .
the project. This pIlased appro..ch is JIIOte realistic in terms of
the exisitn9 fiscal e%lvironment, end it will allow the City to
refine costs and develop a more pr~cise package of info-aatlon
Which c.a.n be used: to compete for money through BlIl:isting programs or
specialized 9rants.
PAGE 11
.
.. "'{ ."
"j . . ~,:;"'-,
~~~~~~i~cJ~~~~~~~·~··~··C'c y~;Q"=~O~2u
3 • BEI'XJ"1P'PA'f ION
A preceding ~eetioo of this report provides a comprehensive review
of available f~~ing alternatives .~icb could be used to provide
financial support for the dovntown Intermodd Transit station
envisioned in the ·Dre~ Team-proposal.. For establis:bed tundinq
proqrUlS, Table 1 displays applicability, eligibility and other
characteristIcs relative to the those individual programs. Other
programS are discussed in the text of the -Fundinq Alternatives·
section.
We belle'Ve that at least a share of the capital costs for the
InterBodal Center will have' to come from ~ local source. Host
State or Federal 9rL~ts will 1ike1y require a 20 to 50 percent
.atcbl and a sizeable local investment vill increase the chances of
securinq outside mon6:y. Pot.ential sources for a local match
include a special district tax (Hello-Roos), impact tees or other
dev~loper exactions, a special assess~ent prog~aa, and/or a joint
davelopment mechanism associated with the project [see Table 2).
The list of possible local funding sources is ~t all-inclosive,
and an acceptable strategy may require a combination of sources to
provide a reasonable level of contribution. It is also important
to note that there are politicsl risks associated with some or all
of tile mechanisms suggested, and we do not reCO!!JlPend their
oonsidera~lon light1y. Nonett!eless, we are firaly convince6 that
some local money will be necessary to finance the capital costs of
the Intermodal Transit station.
The tiaing .of an application for the capital portion of the project
is somewhat problematic. In terms of traditional funding sources z
discussions should commence immediately betwe~n the City of Palo
Alto and the Santa Clara County Transportation Aqency/Conqestion
Xanageme.."1t Program. regardirl9 the project. As previously indicated,
most state and Federal dollars are programmed well into the tuture.
Indications are that California, already baving bypassed one
proqram cycle due to the current fiscal shortfall, may be looking
at foregoinq the 1~96 STIP cycle as veIl. This underscores the
difficulty in securing early funding through the customar.f avenues.
In terms o:f a possibl.e Federal qrant# we recommend a fairly
immediate meeting with local congressional represent.atives to
review options at t.be fed.:ral level. ISTEA co..,tains a requirement
for the adopticn of a National Highway Sys'tell oms} bill by
September 30, 1995. and the impl~entinq legislation could ~ a
vehicle fcr allocating some amount of Federal money for the
st.ation. The version of this bill already adopt.ed by the House
inclodes several lIlillion dollars in -reallocated-detllOl'lstration
PAG!: 1 a
.. -_.
o
PALO AL'!'O IJII'rEPx;.DA!. S'IM'10l!O FUNDING ASSESSMENl'
funding:, and. thare may be some possibilities here~ Project
readiness will be a problem, however", in t..'le pursuit of any
de.sonst.ra.tion funds through the NBS bil1... Those doll&.r& which are
beIng reilllocated are being taken from. pr-ojects -whicb are not
BOvlng 21~ng in the project ~evelopment pipeline. The ITS project
is not developed to a point vhich ~ould ensure positive
~~sl~eratlOD in terms of its de1iverability.
A fallback position in terms of Federal legislatior., however, is
the reau+~rization of ISTEA itself. This current authorization
bill. vill eYpire soon and t.he Federal. transportation programs :l:;USt.
be reauthorized in the lS96j97 timeframe~ Discussion will probably
begin late this year or ea.rly n.ert year on this subject, and if the
City c.tn move development of the Intermodal station along, the
project. could be a viable candidate foy any special prograJIIs
includ~ in the upcoming Federal bill.
We should point out: in any discussion ot Federal qrants or programs
that the sea ox cb&nge the nation will see in 'Wasbington based on
the November election may well impact the ~vailabjlity of Federal
funding. The Clinton AdDinistratien is already con5idering
substantial Cilts in Federal tr-ansportatlc-n pr09ra:ms, and these
actions viiI undoUbt~ly have some effect on available dollars.
The issue o~ cuts in the federal transportat.ion. program seelllS to be
on bold at the aoment. This questio.,''l viII be dealt with as part cf
the budget process, but we feel it is unlikely that the cbanges
being considered vill affect ongoir~ proqrams.
It Is clea.r to us: that one o£ the most e.f.fective and decisive
actions the City of Palo Alto can take in the i~eQiate future
~e9ard~ng the Intermodal Station is to Obtain seed funding to do
some prel1mary or ocncept.ual project work. This recommendation is
consistent with the di:r:ection suq-qested by Peter Walker anQ William
Johnson in their report of AFril 5 .. 1994. In addition to focusing:
on a :much -more manageable amount of money to be obtaineO l this
approach has the added benefit of serving to better define the
overall project which will help in the pursuit of capital dollars.
There are two sources of funding which we sU9gest should: be
explored for this purpose. The first is funds~ through the
Petroleum Viol~tion Escrow Account (PVEA). Money in this account
consists of court-awarded settle~ents for ov~rcbarqes by the oil
companies for petroleWl products. The llO!ley must be-used for
ener9Y savings projectsl and California grants have included
project development activities foc intermodal facilities.
:sMIT'B , KEMPTOli VtGE 19
. -.".'
'.'~
". ~. ,-
These tur~s are allocated ar~ually ~y the Legislature with input
froa the: Governor. The only caveat regarding these funds is t.heir
qtlestlo.""lable. availability to-r t~e ccminq year.. Last year, the
Legisht>U"e applied these funds against oIl9'>ing General Fund
acHvlties which met the el1qibility req.irements. If tIlis happens
~qa!n this year, money from this source may not be available tor
ape,;:i .. } projects. )1Qneti'leless .. we recommend that. Palo Altv's local
assemblyman be contacted to either introduce appropriate
legisla.t.ion or to ensure that t.his project is -considered as part of
any budqet deliberations dea.ling 1iith the distrib!,Jtion of PVEA.
funds.
The second s~rce .ot potential funds is the State TransIt
Assistance proqraD. specifically discretionary 50ney thr~~h this
p-c09raa which is controlled by -th-e Ketropolita...'l Transportation
COIlDission.. HTC typIcally uses these fu.""lds to pay tor speCial
projects important to the Com:rdssion... but there :may be an
opportunity to garner at least a portion of that agency's annua1
allocation tor the ITS.. We recomme.nQ an illlll1ediate conta.ct with
staff at the Santa Clara county TransporLation Agency/congestion
Hanagement Pr~rall. prelbinary to a me~ting with MTC staft' to
discus", tile viability <of tIlis fund sourc ...
SKIn , I<EMPTOJi PAGE 20