Local Cost Allocation Options

Transcription

1 Local Cost Allocation Options presented to SCAT Revenue Study Committee August 2010

2 Agenda Welcome and Introductions SCAT Budget Update Local Cost Allocation Options Review Local and National Case Studies Key Observations Implications for SCAT Discussion Next Steps 1

3 SCAT FY Budget Update Jim Liesenfelt, Transit Director

4 Services Provided to the Public Fixed Routes Paratransit Service includes: Door to door Contract services Volunteers in Motion Vanpool Service 3

5 Service Level Impacts General Fund Reduction: ($86,287) No bus service on the first Friday of the month System will operate the same number of bus routes as FY Furloughs will reduce total service hours by approximately 6,000 hours 4

6 Service Level Impacts 5

7 Types of Fixed Route Trips Lost Due to Furloughs Work Shopping/Errands 73,920 Total Trips 35, Trips 12,566 Trips Medical 6, Trips Training/Tech 2,218 Trips School 1,478 Trips Court/VA/Clerk 739 Trips Visiting/Recreationiti 362 Trips Other 8,131 Trips 6

8 Types of Paratransit Trips Lost Due to Furloughs Training Center Seniors At Lunch 6,091 Total Trips 2,444 Trips 1,229 Trips Work/Education 578 Trips Medical 545 Trips Dialysis i 358 Trips Shopping/Social Other Volunteers in Motion 346 Trips 387 Trips 204 Trips 7

9 Future Budget Challenges Retaining enough Local Match for State and Federal Grants, current leverage ratio is 9 to 1 Loss of State funds for SR 520 and SR A1A Corridor Service Alternative Funding Sources review by the Space Coast TPO 8

10 Local Cost Allocation Options Review Jessica Vargas and Matthew Click, g, Cambridge Systematics

11 Background Transit Financial Analysis calculated local contributions based on total service hours weighted by share of population. Full municipal contributions would result in $5 million. Only 20 percent through FY 2015 would be needed to balance the deficit. Revenue Study Committee was formed to explore SCAT cost-sharing options with municipalities. 10

12 Local and National Case Studies Cost Allocation Methodologies Fixed Route Bus Service Central Florida f Butte County, CA f f Chapel Hill, NC Charlottesville, VA f f Des Moines, IA f f San Luis Obispo, CA f f f f Washington, DC f f f f f Williamsburg, VA f f f Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority Plan, Regional Cost Allocation Options, August

13 Local and National Case Studies Central Florida - LYNX Regional Allocation Model Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties Formula to allocate County Specific Contribution: 1. Net Total Operating Cost / Systemwide Fixed Route Service Hours = Systemwide Hourly Rate 2. Systemwide Hourly Rate x County Fixed Route Service Hours = County Total Fixed Route Costs 3. County Total Fixed Route Cost Estimated County Farebox Revenue = Net County Fixed Route Costs 4. Net County Fixed Route Costs + ADA County Costs + Special Local TD Request Cities Contribution = County Specific Request 12

14

15 Local and National Case Studies Charlottesville, VA CTS Local Share of Operating Costs City of Charlottesville and Albermale County Costs are split based on which h jurisdiction is considered d (through agreement) to be the primary beneficiary of the route. Individual routes are designated either City or County routes to allocate funding responsibility. 14

16 Local and National Case Studies San Luis Obispo, CA - SLORTA Ad-hoc Cost Allocation Methodology San Luis Obispo County and eight cities Case-by-case cost allocation method as new routes are developed determined by jurisdictions served by new service Cost Allocation Methods: 1. Combination of population of areas served and passenger-miles traveled by residents of each area (determined through passenger surveys). 2. Equal division of costs between jurisdiction served. 3. Proportional distribution ib ti of costs between the jurisdictions served based on relative population. 15

17 Local and National Case Studies Washington, DC WMATA Bus Regional Bus Formula District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia Total Operating Cost Total Revenue = Total Operating Subsidy Elements and Weighting for Formula Distribution: ib ti 1. Population / Population Density 25% 2. Ridership by jurisdiction of residence 15% Average weekday ridership (determined by bus survey) 3. Revenue Miles 35% Assigned geographically or by Board agreement 4. Revenue Hours 25% Assigned geographically or by Board agreement 16

18 Local and National Case Studies Washington, DC WMATA Bus Regional Bus Operating Subsidy is distributed based on this Regional Bus Formula:

19 Local and National Case Studies Des Moines, IA - DART Regional Cost Allocation Formula Polk County, City of Des Moines and 18 participating cities Total Cost Total Revenue = RTA Subsidy Requirement, which is converted into a Tax Levy value Formula to allocate the RTA Subsidy Requirement: 1. Allocate $4,789,223 proportionally based on service mileage to each of the 19 cities and Polk County. 2. Spread the balance of the RTA Subsidy Requirement based on the proportional share of the total taxable property valuation in all RTA Participating Communities. 3. The City of Des Moines is credited the Downtown Shuttle funds and the credit amount is added to the other Participating Communities. 4. The values of Step 1 to 3 are added and divided by $1,000 to express the requirement in terms of a taxable levy per $1,000 of taxable value. 18

20 19

21 Local and National Case Studies Des Moines, IA - DART 20

22 Key Observations Wide variety of cost allocation methods used. Central Florida f Butte County, CA f f Chapel Hill, NC Charlottesville, VA f f Des Moines, IA f f San Luis Obispo, CA f f f f Washington, DC f f f f f Williamsburg, VA f f f Population, Service Hours and Service Miles are most common measures in cost-sharing formulas. Data availability is key and must be considered. d 21

23 Key Observations (continued) Simple approaches are more straightforward and easy to explain to the public. May be less precise compared to more complicated approaches. Complex methodologies developed to address specific issues of individual partners. Multiple measures are weighted in ways intended to be equitable and efficient. Degree of accuracy needed is at the expense of the administrative cost and complexity. 22

24 Implications for SCAT Measures available by jurisdiction are: SCAT FY 2009 Service Hours SCAT Route Miles 2008 Population Estimates Potential ti SCAT local l cost-sharing options: 1. Total contributions based on proportion of service hours, route miles and/or population = Total Operating Deficit 2. Operating cost per hour x Share of total service hours by jurisdiction = Total Cost of Service by jurisdiction 3. Route-specific agreements of funding responsibility by jurisdictions served by each route 23

25 Questions for Discussion What cost should be allocated? Cost of service by jurisdiction, including the County s contribution Estimated operating deficit Target or fixed amount What measures should be used to allocate cost? Population Service Hours Route Miles Combination of Measures 24

26 Thank you!