HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 02.14.2012 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
The Georgetown City Council will meet on FEBRUARY 14, 2012 at 4:00 P.M. at Council Chambers - 113
East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Policy Development/Review Workshop -
A Discussion and possible direction to staff concerning options for Transit Funding related to the 2010
Census Urban Area Designation -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director; Micki
Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager
B Update on the City’s Sales Tax revenue profile including historical information as well as sales tax
revenue projections -- Chris Foster, Chief Financial Analyst and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
C Council Goal Setting with City Manager -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular
session.
D Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending litigation that has been filed against the City or contemplated
litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including but not
limited to this week's agenda item
Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 14, 2012
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible direction to staff concerning options for Transit Funding related to the 2010 Census
Urban Area Designation -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director; Micki Rundell,
Chief Financial Officer and Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
At the November 8, 2011, City Council Workshop and November 11, 2011, Transportation Advisory Board
(GTAB) Meeting the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) provided a presentation on the possible impacts of
the 2010 Census on Transit Funding. In summary, the 2010 Census has or will include several rounds of data
release. The first release used by State and Local governments was the "Place" level data used in
redistricting used in 2011. The next round of data release, expected in the Spring of 2012, is the "Urban
Area" designations. Urban Areas are created by the Census Bureau using "Places" and the adjacent densely
settled/developed areas. Urban Areas are notdefined by city limits and may include one or more
"Places". The designation of an area as Large Urban, Urban, Small Urban or Rural affects State and Federal
funding for transit programs.
The City of Georgetown, based on the 2000 Census, is currently considered part of the Rural Area and
received transit programs from CARTS the Rural Transit provided for most of Central Texas. Preliminary
results of the TTI study of the 2010 Census shows the City of Georgetown will no longer be considered
Rural, but will be Urban and will lose CARTS programs funded with Rural transit funds. The type of Urban
Area, part of the Austin Large Urban Area or stand alone Small Urban Area will drastically affect the type
and amount of funding scenarios the City will have for transit.
At the conclusion of the November presentations, TTI staff discussed bringing back a report on steps the City
of Georgetown could take to provide a seamless transition from Rural to Urban. We are expecting to be
classified as Small Urban, and the report focuses on the steps necessary to make the transition from Rural to
Small Urban.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: CARTS appears willing to accept the responsibility of creating and
Urban/Rural District in order to accept Federal and State funding for transit operations in our area. However,
the issue remains economy of scale for the additional reporting and administration requirements of an Urban
District. Over time, the program must achieve a sufficient level of those funds to cover the additional
administrative cost.
GTAB RECOMMENDATION: The GTAB Board is meeting on February 10, 2012. A record of the
GTAB recommendation will be presented at the workshop.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff move forward with negotiations with CARTS on an Interlocal
Agreement with CARTS to act our the designated recipient of transit funding for operations, capital facility
planning, and program development through an Urban/Rural Transit District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transporation Services Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft TTI Report
Appendicies Cover Memo
Item # A
2010 Census
and the
Impact on
Transit
Funding
City of Georgetown
Transit Mobility Program
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 32
Item # A
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 1
CONTENTS
Executive Summary | 3
Purpose | 3
Background | 4
Review of Possible Scenarios for Georgetown | 17
Transportation Plans for the City of Georgetown and Williamson County | 17
Federal and State Funds for Transit | 21
Peer City Examples | 27
Transit Governance: GTAB Recommendation | 28
Next Steps | 30
Summary | 30
Appendix A. Federal Funds for Public Transit | A|1
Appendix B. Checklist for Direct Recipients | B|1
Appendix C. Peer City Examples | C|1
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 32
Item # A
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Georgetown City Council will be asked to make several decisions about public transportation for the city
of Georgetown within a few months. The U.S. Census is expected to announce urbanized areas based on
Census 2010 in March 2012. Based on research by TxDOT and TTI, Georgetown is expected to be named
a small urbanized area.1 The way public transportation is funded will certainly change. Federal and state
funds will be available to the urbanized area to provide public transportation within the city of
Georgetown and surrounding urban areas. Funds will be available beginning fiscal year 2013
(September/October 2012). As the local government in the urbanized area, the city of Georgetown will
be responsible for deciding how (and how much) public transportation services will be provided and
how the services will be funded.
The current provider of public transportation in Georgetown is CARTS, the rural transit provider. CARTS
will not be able to continue to provide service within the Georgetown urbanized area using rural transit
funds. The only way CARTS can continue to provide service in the small‐urbanized area is to be
reimbursed from urban funds. The City Council could decide to decline federal and state urban funds for
public transportation, in which case the service provided by CARTS will terminate in September 2012.
Alternatively, the City Council could elect to contract for CARTS to continue to provide the same level of
service the city is currently receiving. CARTS estimates the annual cost to the City would be
approximately $300,000, based on the experience of other urban areas in the county. As a third option,
the City Council could choose to join CARTS in creating a rural‐urban transit district. The annual cost to
the City to match federal and state urban funds will be dependent on the level of public transportation
service the City approves.
GTAB recommends the creation of a rural‐urban transit district in order to maintain a seamless
transition for service. Further GTAB recommends that the city and CARTS work toward implementation
of a fixed route transit system in the city of Georgetown in 2015. The advantage of partnering with
CARTS is the ability to leverage funding in order to create a more expansive transit system for the city.
Additionally, CARTS has many years of experience in providing transit services, and can be an
advantageous partner for the city of Georgetown. A preliminary five‐year financial plan is available to
project the costs to the City of Georgetown for a rural‐urban transit district and fixed route transit
system.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this white paper is to provide an overview of the potential Census‐defined urbanized
area scenarios affecting the City of Georgetown and the impact on transit funding. Over the next
several months, the city council has several decisions to make regarding potential changes to the way
transit is provided. In order to ensure a smooth, uninterrupted transition for transit provision, it is
important for decisions to be finalized by May 31, 2012.
1 There is a possibility that Georgetown may be a part of an expanded Austin urbanized area.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 4
BACKGROUND
Current Transit Services in the City of Georgetown
Public transportation services in the City of Georgetown have been provided for over 30 years through
CARTS, which originally operated a demand response system. In the last 30 years, CARTS has increased
transit services to areas outside of the city as well as offer additional modes.
While the focus of current services in Georgetown remains demand response, service has expanded to
include an interurban route, commuter route, and out of area transit services. The interurban route
operates on a weekday schedule, from 8:00am to 6:30pm, offering service from Georgetown Station to
San Marcos Station via IH‐35 through Round Rock, Tech Ridge, and Austin. Figure 1 depicts the schedule
for the interurban route.
Figure 1. CARTS Interurban Yellow Route Schedule
Additionally, CARTS offers MetroConnector service from Downtown Georgetown, and Georgetown Park
& Ride into downtown Austin, five days a week. MetroConnector schedules are outlined as follows:
Southbound to Austin Northbound to Georgetown
Downtown Georgetown 6:20a North Congress at 17th 4:35p
Georgetown Park & Ride 6:30a Guadalupe at 11th 4:40p
North Congress at 17th 7:15a Congress at 11th 4:42p
Guadalupe at 11th 7:20a Congress at 7th 4:46p
Congress at 11th 7:22a Congress at Caesar Chavez 4:50p
Congress at 7th 7:26a TxDOT at Riverside 4:55p
Congress at Caesar Chavez 7:30a Georgetown Park & Ride 5:40p
TxDOT at Riverside 7:35a Downtown Georgetown 5:50p
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 5
The Georgetown Commuter route offers weekday service for commuters from Georgetown Station to
downtown Austin. The route operates directly from Georgetown to the state office complexes on Lamar
and 51st streets, the University of Texas, and the central business district.
CARTS has several out of area routes that serve the City of Georgetown. The routes operate on
weekday schedules, but on alternating days of the week. From Georgetown Station, passengers can use
transit to access the following locations: Austin, Bartlett, Florence, Granger, Jarrell, Liberty Hill, Round
Rock, Sun City, Taylor, Temple, and Thrall.
Additionally, CARTS recently constructed a $1.8 million dollar multimodal transit station for the City of
Georgetown (Figure 2). The grand opening was in the spring of 2010. All of the CARTS routes serving
Georgetown run out of the station, which includes state‐of‐the‐art indoor waiting facilities, restrooms,
and a ticket window. The station is also solar and wind powered and provides a charging station for
electric vehicles.
Figure 2. CARTS Georgetown Station
Figure 3 depicts a map of the CARTS interurban and connector routes serving Georgetown. CARTS
service currently allows residents of Georgetown the ability to connect to many locations, including
Austin, Round Rock, San Marcos, Leander, Marble Falls, and Burnet.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 6
Figure 3. CARTS Interurban and Connector Routes
Transit Need in the City of Georgetown
Public transit stakeholders, including transit boards, leadership, and customers, need to have an
understanding of the service area from a regional perspective. Developing a clear picture of the service
area allows customers and stakeholders alike to better understand how and why transit services are
provided and developed. For example, there may be geographic or jurisdictional barriers to providing
service in some portions of the service area. Additionally, stakeholders can better comprehend why
transit providers make service decisions when they have a clear picture of the service area. A transit
provider may need to cut underutilized service in a particular area in order to serve an area with greater
demand. Having a clear understanding of the service area and the demographics can make it easier to
see how service is planned and provided.
Researchers and transit planners investigate the demographic characteristics of transit service areas in
order to ensure services match needs. The primary source for demographic information is the Census
Bureau’s website, which contains both decennial census and American Community Survey (ACS) data.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 7
Decennial census data contains population, gender, age, and race/ethnicity information for many
geographic levels in the United States and Puerto Rico (i.e., states, counties, places, tracts, block groups,
metropolitan areas, etc.). The Census collected detailed demographic information using the “long‐form”
survey sample as part of decennial census efforts in 2000 and each decade prior. However, the ACS
replaced the decennial census long‐form survey beginning in 2010. ACS surveys are distributed annually
and new demographic information is released annually; however, the ACS is a smaller sample than the
long‐form sample and as a result, the values have larger margins‐of‐error.
Four demographic characteristics are key indicators of a need for public transit: lower household
income, elderly, people with disabilities, and households with no vehicle available. Other demographic
characteristics, which may indicate a need for transit (i.e., sometimes in the form of a unique transit
market), are single parents with children at home and military veterans. Figures 4‐6 depict some of the
considerations when planning for future transit services. Potential customers for transit not only
include those who have a need for transit, but also people who choose to ride transit, otherwise known
as “choice” riders, which would include students and faculty at Southwestern University. Some of the
demographic considerations for transit services include those households without access to personal
vehicles (Figure 4), lower household income (Figure 5), and the percent of an area that is employed and
may need regular access to jobs (Figure 6).
Figure 4. Percent of Households with No Personal Vehicles
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 8
Age is also a potential indicator of need for transit services. Figure 5 depicts the areas in the darkest
color with the highest number of people aged 65 years and older in the City of Georgetown. The higher
numbers can suggest areas where transit may be in greater demand. Additionally, Sun City is well
represented in the below map, which has one of the highest populations of seniors in the area.
Figure 5. Population 65 Years and Older
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 9
Figure 6 portrays the percentage of the population in the labor force by census tract, which takes into
consideration the segments of the population that are elderly, in school, and not necessarily a part of
the workforce. The map shows that the majority of the population in the City of Georgetown is
employed, and accurately shows that Sun City, which has the highest population of seniors in the area,
has the lowest percent of the population in the labor force.
Figure 6. Percent of Population Employed
Census Information
Population projections are integral to planning for any area. Projections may be made at all levels,
including state, region, county, and city, but the latter are typically depicted on a ten year horizon.
General population data can be collected from the Census with American Fact Finder being the most
popular method of collecting population information for a given area. It is important for transportation
providers to look at population data from a comprehensive perspective, which would include a review of
population projections provided by nearby metropolitan planning organizations and councils of
governments. Projections from metropolitan planning organizations will have data for a larger area,
which will typically provide greater regional perspective for planning considerations.
2010 Survey for the City of Georgetown
In addition to demographic data, surveys can help to determine the level of interest in public
transportation in a given area. In 2010, the city of Georgetown worked with National Service Research
(NSR) to conduct a comprehensive research study with citizen feedback on a variety of topics and issues
that affect residents in the City. The survey was conducted via telephone and online, with well over
700 respondents. Residents ranked traffic/transportation highest as one of the top issues Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 10
will face through 2015. It is important to note that transportation was ranked as one of the highest
issues in the 2008, 2006, and 2004 surveys. Overall, residents ranked provision of public transportation
fourth on the list of changes needed to make Georgetown a better place to live. Notably, citizens taking
the survey online ranked public transportation and the number one change needed to make
Georgetown a better place to live. Overall support was strongest for public transportation, and over
50% of citizens stated they would support a public transportation fixed route system that costs the city
$900,000 annually and raises taxes by up to $58/year. These figures are quite significant in that they
show a strong desire to have public transportation in the City of Georgetown.
History of Georgetown
In the past, the City of Georgetown has been a rural area recognized by the Census. In the 1980s, the
population of Georgetown was approximately 10,000, and the city has grown significantly in the last
30 years. The most recent population number for the 2010 Census is approximately 47,000 with the
urbanized area around Georgetown expected to exceed 50,000 people when the Census Bureau
releases the urbanized areas in March 2012. Figure 7 depicts the City of Georgetown’s population
growth over the last fifty years.
Figure 7. City of Georgetown’s Population Growth
Overview of Census Timelines and Process
On April 1, 2011, the Census released information on block level population data, which are primarily
used for redistricting purposes. While the population numbers for the city limits of Georgetown are
below 50,000, the Census determines urbanized areas on criteria for an area without considering
political jurisdictions. The Census uses detailed criteria announced in August 2011 to determine
urbanized areas. The results will be released in March 2012, allowing cities and municipalities to plan
accordingly for future transportation needs. The urbanized area ruling from the Census is expected to
Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 11
impact potential transit funding in fiscal year 2013 for the City of Georgetown. The following outlines
the census timeline thus far:
• April 1, 2011.
Block Level Population (PL‐94‐171) used for redistricting.
Population for specific jurisdictions (state, county, census places).
• August 2011.
2010 Urban Area Criteria released.
• March 2012.
Urbanized Areas reported by Census Bureau.
• Changes in Funding Allocation.
Fiscal 2013 (September/October 2012).
Significance of 2010 Census
Federal transportation funding is based on the most recent decennial census, and the FTA formula
programs are allocated on the basis of population. The largest FTA formula program provides funding to
urbanized areas with the following breakdown:
• Small urban (50,000 to 200,000 population).
• Large urban (over 200,000 population).
An urbanized area is considered to be any urban area with a population of 50,000 or more.
Non‐urbanized areas have a population less than 50,000, and these areas are commonly referred to as
“rural.”
The urbanized areas are determined based on the 2010 Census data, and can be influenced by definition
limits for census blocks, block groups, and tracts. It is important to note that the Census does not
reference jurisdictional boundaries or incorporated status, such as city limits, in the determination of
urbanized areas. Additionally, urbanized areas are based on analytical measures of size and density.
The Census determines urbanized areas using computer analysis with a uniform application of rules.
While the FTA uses urbanized area determination for funding purposes, the Census defines urban areas
solely for statistical purposes, and does not control other agency use of the concept and designations.
Urbanized area designations have the potential to be re‐defined every 10 years following the decennial
census.
There are several building blocks that go into the determination of urban areas, including census blocks,
block groups, and tracts. Census blocks are the smallest statistical areas, a unit representing population
from zero to hundreds. They are bounded by visible features, such as streets, roads, streams, and
railroad tracks, as well as nonvisible boundaries, such as city, town, township, and county limits. Block
groups are essentially multiple census blocks together with a population generally ranging from
600 to 3,000. Census tracts generally have a population ranging from 1,200 to 8,000 with an optimal
population of 4,000. Tracts are finally defined after the census data collection.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 12
Urban Area Delineation Process 2010 Criteria
The census process follows a series of detailed criteria, updated with each decennial census. The
primary steps in the urban area delineation process are as follows:
1. Identify the initial urban core.
2. Add “hop” and “jump” connections.
3. Inclusion of enclaves.
4. Splitting and merging individual urban areas.
5. Inclusion of indentions and airports.
6. Adding nonresidential urban territory based on impervious surface.
The census is a consistent, detailed process to ensure equity throughout the determination of urbanized
areas. Table 1 outlines the major criteria used.
Table 1. U.S. Census Major Criteria for Determining Urbanized Areas
Major Criteria 2010
Urban Area Criteria
Background
Threshold Population 50,000
Grandfathering of Previous UZAs No
Use of Place Boundaries for Definition No
Base Census Units Tracts / Blocks
Identification of Urban
Area Core
Population Density 1,000 people per sq mile
(core) / 500 people per sq
mile for surrounding blocks
Impervious Land Surface of
Census Blocks
1/3 of territory with at least
20% imperviousness AND
compact in shape or 40%
contiguous to qualifying land
Overview of Additional
Steps
Allowable Jump Distance 2.5 miles
Allowable Hop Distance 0.5 mile
Indentation 4X Area of Circle
Exempted Territory Only Water, Military
Reservations, National Parks,
Qualified Floodplains
Figure 8 depicts the identification of the urban cores. The areas in green are census tracts representing
greater than 1,000 persons per square mile.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 13
Figure 8. Census Identification of Urban Cores
Next, the Census adds qualifying blocks creating continuous block groups, which contain greater than
500 persons per square miles (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Census Identification of Contiguous Urban Areas
Once the initial census tracts and blocks are identified, the Census then looks to add urban areas
through hop and jump connections. A hop connection that may be reached from the urban core within
0.5 mile. Exempted territory includes water, military reservations, qualified floodplains, and national
parks.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 14
Figure 10 depicts an example of “jumps” being applied. Additional territory with qualifying density can
be reached using a “jump” connection along a road within a distance greater than 0.5 mile but no more
than 2.5 miles across land that is not classified as “exempted” territory. It is important to note that
there may only be one jump along a road connection. The Census may continue to add any contiguous
areas, which are qualifying areas contiguous to the territory added by a jump connection including any
enclave blocks. Once this process is complete, the Census will revisit any hop connections, and add
qualifying areas contiguous to territory added by hop connections. Figure 10 shows that satellite cores 1
and 2 qualify, but satellite core 3 does not, when the “jump” criterion is applied. Satellite core 3 is a
second jump along the same roadway.
Figure 10. Census Identification of Additional Urban Area by Jump Connections
The Census also includes airports in some areas, adding blocks that approximate the territory of major
airports provided at least one block is contiguous to the urban core. Lastly, the Census looks for
indentations in the boundaries and smoothing out the edges.
One of the new criteria in the 2010 Census is the inclusion of impervious surface land cover. The Census
will review all census blocks with a total area of at least 0.15 square miles and within 0.25 miles of the
urban area that qualify as urban via impervious surface criteria. Figure 11 depicts an example of an
expanded new urban area boundary using impervious surface land cover.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 15
Figure 11. Urban Area Boundary Using Proposed Impervious Surface Criteria
2000 Urban Area ´Urban Area Boundary Using Impervious Land Cover
Impervious Land Cover
Census Blocks 00.20.40.1 Miles
Census Criteria Affecting Georgetown
The Census will make the announcement of the urbanized area for Georgetown in March 2012. There
are two significant urban criteria that may have an effect on the UZA outcomes for the city: the “jump”
connections along roadways and impervious surface. According to 30 meter resolution analysis, there is
an area that has the potential to be considered “impervious surface” running along IH‐35 on the south
side of Georgetown. The Census UZA determination may identify this area as qualifying impervious
surface included as part of the urban area, and, if so, the urban area may be within the jump distance
from the Austin large urbanized area, (northernmost city being Round Rock). Figure 12 illustrates the
projected 2010 Census urban areas.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 16
Figure 12. Projected 2010 Census Urban Areas
Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 17
REVIEW OF POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR GEORGETOWN
Based on the preliminary research conducted by TTI, there are two possible scenarios for the City of
Georgetown with the release of UZAs in March 2012. In scenario 1, Georgetown would become a small
urbanized area. In scenario 2, Georgetown would join the Austin large urbanized area. In scenario 1,
the projected population for Georgetown’s urbanized area is 52,400, and the requirement to become a
small urban area is to have a population greater than 50,000. Currently the actual population of the City
of Georgetown is 47,400; however, the urbanized area boundaries extend beyond city limits, which is
why the population of the UZA is larger. In scenario 2, the City of Georgetown would be linked by a
“jump” connection (less than 2.5 miles along a roadway) to the Austin UZA by an urban area along I‐35.
There are three options for service provision, should the City of Georgetown become a small urbanized
area based on Census information in the spring of 2012. The three options for consideration at this time
are:
• To become a rural‐urban transit district in partnership with CARTS.
• To become an urban transit district with all or part of the services contracted out to a third party
provider (assumes the City is not interested in directly operating transit service).
• To take no action, decline federal and state funds; this would terminate the majority of current
transit services available.
For the purposes of preparing if Georgetown becomes a small urbanized area, the GTAB recommends
planning for scenario 1. One important consideration for small urbanized areas is the potential for
future fixed‐route services. There are three plans that involve Williamson County and the city of
Georgetown, which call for fixed‐route services. The plans are summarized in the following section.
TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY
Williamson County Public Transportation Planning Study
The Williamson County Public Transportation Planning Study was written in 2003 with funding from FTA
and TxDOT. This study focuses on all of Williamson County except Round Rock and Leander, but
includes the City of Pflugerville in Travis County. The City of Leander receives transit services, since it is
a member of Capital Metro. The City of Round Rock is independently studying transit alternatives for
implementation.
The primary goal of the study was to develop a comprehensive/regional approach to planning and
development of public transit service and design an appropriate infrastructure in Williamson County and
Pflugerville. As Williamson County continues its rapid growth, the level and type of transportation
service historically provided by CARTS will no longer meet the needs of their growing urbanized
population.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 18
Service Recommendations
The plan addresses service needs over the next five years. The major service recommendations can be
summarized as follows:
1. Local City Service – This includes separate fixed‐route services in Cedar Park, Pflugerville,
Georgetown, and Taylor. Three of the cities are to have a two bus system, and Georgetown a
three bus system.
2. Regional Service – Three regional routes would connect the more populated areas of Williamson
County with each other and Austin. The emphasis was on commuter service. The commuter
services would connect to Capital Metro for seamless service into Austin. Rural regional service
would include door‐to‐door service in the areas stated. Service would also be available on a
limited basis to Temple and Killeen with connections to Hill Country Transit (The HOP).
3. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Paratransit – Addressing the service needs for ADA
complementary Paratransit and human service needs of clients and agencies.
4. Other Demand Services – Vanpools, carpools, market development services, and other flexible
low cost services should be employed throughout the county.
5. Pflugerville and Cedar Park Paratransit Service – A broker would be established to determine the
least expensive mode appropriate for each trip, reducing service costs while maintaining service
quality. The new fixed‐route and ADA paratransit in these communities would allow even
greater mobility for residents in need of paratransit.
Implementation Plan
The Implementation Plan consists of short‐term and mid‐term activities needed to develop the new
transit system. The plan also looks at long‐term activities to be considered in years 6 to 10. The
short‐term activities call for simple, inexpensive changes to improve the existing operation. The
mid‐term activities include all of the tasks needed for the fixed‐routes, regional routes, and shopper
shuttles.
CARTS, as the public transportation provider in the region, should lead this effort with assistance and
support from the county and each of the cities.
Summary
This plan is designed to bring a practical set of transit solutions to the county and larger municipal
jurisdictions. While the local and the regional service can operate independently, they would be most
effective when operated together as one seamless service. The key element in the success of this plan is
funding in fiscally constrained times.
City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan
According to the Census Bureau, the population within the City of Georgetown study area has grown
from 14,842 persons in 1990 to 28,339 persons in 2000. This represents an annual growth rate of
approximately 6.7 percent per year. Significant commercial and residential developments have
occurred over the past several years, which have and continue to increase traffic volumes on the study
area’s transportation system, and very significant additional development is currently underway.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 19
The overall goal of the City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan is to develop a transportation
system that will accommodate present and future needs for mobility of all people and goods traveling
within and through the area, which is safe, efficient and economically feasible.
CARTS currently provides transit service in the City of Georgetown. In addition, Capital Metro provides
assistance to commuters in Georgetown in forming carpools and vanpools for commuters who have one
trip end in their service area. Additionally, Hill Country Transit operates service in adjacent Bell and
Milam counties, and coordination of their services with those in Georgetown has been examined as a
potential need.
Recommendations
The following is a list of key transit and Transportation Demand Management activities that either
currently are offered or may be offered in the future to the residents of Georgetown. It is important
that the city work with other area agencies to ensure the maximum use of these alternative travel
modes, as they help reduce traffic, improve air quality, and serve special needs populations.
Traditional fixed‐route transit service
• Local routes that operate on fixed routes and schedules.
• Regional rail service ‐ Georgetown as the northern end of regional commuter rail service that
would travel through Round Rock, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels and San Antonio.
The CARTS study identified the following primary destinations for trips originating in the Georgetown
area: Downtown Georgetown; River/Wolf Ranch/I‐35 Shopping/Dining; Sun City Texas; Round Rock; and
Central Austin. The major purposes for these transit trips included shopping, medical appointments,
travel to/from work, recreation, and visiting friends and family.
Summary
Recent studies commissioned by CARTS have focused on planning future transit and multimodal services
to, from and within Williamson County and the City of Georgetown. Many challenges for transit service
exist as the study area rapidly transforms from a small urban and rural area to a large suburban/urban
component of a metropolitan region. One of the key challenges is that trips often cross multiple
jurisdictional boundaries, bringing up issues of intergovernmental coordination and service area
limitations for some providers.
Public Transportation Plan for the City of Georgetown
The City of Georgetown, worked with CARTS and TxDOT to develop the Georgetown Fixed‐Route Action
Plan, the purpose of which was to design a fixed‐route transit service and an implementation plan for
the City of Georgetown. This study was conducted from September 2007 through February 2008.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 20
The City of Georgetown originally requested the study to determine the feasibility of transit service. The
sole purpose of the plan was to develop a transit system internal to Georgetown. The plan established
the importance of local fixed‐route service in the following ways:
• Brings customers to businesses.
• Brings people to work.
• Provides significant economic benefits to the community.
• Enhances the business climate.
Recommendations
The plan recommended specific transit plans for the City of Georgetown, which includes four buses
operating on six routes. The service would include four half‐hour routes that will be interlined, and a
route that operates exclusively in order to provide passengers access to the major shopping areas.
Figure 13, taken from the public transportation plan, depicts the proposed routing.
Figure 13. Proposed Fixed‐Route Transit Services
Attachment number 1 \nPage 22 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 21
Summary
The plan established potential riders, which included youth, elderly, people with disabilities, low income
residents, and anyone that chooses not to drive. Additionally, the plan included a vision for transit in
the City of Georgetown, as well as goals. The vision for transit is as follows:
Residents and visitors to the City of Georgetown will be able to move throughout the city
safely, reliably, efficiently, and affordably by using a seamless network of transit services
that are easy to comprehend, responsive to individual travel needs, and easy to access.
The goals established by the plan outline the purpose and ambitions behind establishing a strong transit
base within the city.
1. Identify and prioritize transit needs of the city.
2. Conduct extensive outreach into the community
3. Design services to meet the needs of the city.
4. Develop a transit action plan for Georgetown.
FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS FOR TRANSIT
The following sections describe the federal and state funds for a small urbanized area.
Federal Authorization for Surface Transportation Funds
In August of 2005, Congress approved and the President signed into law the Safe Accountable Flexible
and Efficiency Transportation Equity Act – a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU) to fund federal surface
transportation programs from 2003 through September 2009. Congress makes annual appropriations to
the Federal Transit Administration to fund transit pursuant to programs included in SAFETEA‐LU.
Although SAFETEA‐LU technically expired in September 2009, the provisions of the legislation are still in
effect by authority of continuing resolutions passed by the Congress. Until Congress authorizes a new
authorization bill for surface transportation, the funding programs for transit are expected to continue
consistent with SAFETEA‐LU.
Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 and 5340 Funds for Small Urbanized Areas
This section describes the primary source of federal funds to support transit in a small urbanized area.
FTA apportions Section 5307 funds based on legislative formulas. Different formulas apply to UZAs with
a population of at least 50,000 but less than 200,000 (small UZA or small urban area) and to UZAs with a
population of 200,000 or more (large UZA or large urban area).For the small UZAs with a population less
than 200,000, FTA bases the formula solely on population and population density.
For UZAs with a population less than 200,000, FTA apportions Section 5307 funds to the governor of
each state for distribution. The governor or designee may determine the suballocation of funds among
the small UZAs or elect to obligate the funds in the amounts based on the FTA formula.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 23 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 22
Eligible purposes for use of Section 5307 funds include planning, engineering design, and evaluation of
transit projects and other technical transportation‐related studies; capital investments in bus and bus‐
related activities such as replacement of buses, overhaul of buses, rebuilding of buses, crime prevention
and security equipment, and construction of maintenance and passenger facilities; and capital
investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding
of vehicles, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software. All preventive
maintenance and some ADA complementary paratransit service costs qualify as capital costs. For most
projects, up to 80 percent of project cost use federal funds. The federal contribution may be 90 percent
for some projects that support ADA or the Clean Air Act.
Small UZAs with a population of less than 200,000 may also use Section 5307 funds for operating
assistance up to 50 percent of the operating deficit (operating expenses less fare revenue). For UZAs
with populations of 200,000 or more, operating assistance is not an eligible expense.
FTA also apportions funds based upon Section 5340 Growing States and High‐Density States formula
factors. Under the Section 5340 formula, FTA makes available half of the funds under the Growing
States factors and apportions based on state population forecasts for 15 years beyond the most recent
decennial census. FTA then allocates amounts apportioned for each state to urbanized and rural areas
based on the state’s urban/rural population ratio. The High‐Density States factors distribute the other
half of the funds to states with population densities greater than 370 people per square mile. FTA
apportions these funds only to UZAs within those states.
Projected Georgetown Urbanized Area Federal 5307/5340 Funds
Based on Fiscal 2011 Federal Apportionments.
Population 334,600$
Population x Density 290,700$
5340 Growing States 125,100$
750,400$
The estimate of federal funds is based on the fiscal 2011 federal appropriation for FTA Sections 5307
and 5340 under provisions of SAFETEA‐LU. Actual funds available may differ based on a new federal
authorization bill, annual Congressional appropriations, and the number and size (population) of
urbanized areas based on Census 2010.
FTA Section 5307 Recipients
For urbanized areas with 200,000 in population and over, Section 5307 funds are apportioned and flow
directly to a recipient selected locally to apply for and receive federal funds (designated recipient). The
governor of the state, responsible local officials, and publicly owned operators of transit services jointly
designate the recipient to apply for, receive, and dispense funds. The designated recipient (or recipients)
in each urbanized area must be a public body and have the legal authority to receive and dispense
federal funds in the urbanized area.
For UZAs with a population less than 200,000, the funds are apportioned to the governor of each state
for distribution. The state’s governor or the governor's designee(s) is (are) the designated recipient(s) or
urbanized areas under 200,000 in population. In Texas, the Governor designates the Texas
Attachment number 1 \nPage 24 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 23
Transportation Commission as the designated recipient for small urbanized areas under 200,000
population, and the TxDOT Division of Public Transportation (TxDOT) serves as the grants administrator.
TxDOT‐PTN authorizes a local public agency to be the direct applicant for Section 5307 (direct recipient)
for each small urbanized area. This authorization may be made on a one‐time basis or at the time of
each application submission, at the option of TxDOT.
Appendix B outlines the steps in the process for a transit provider to be eligible as the direct recipient to
receive federal funds for the Georgetown small urbanized area. The City of Georgetown could apply to
the Governor and FTA to name CARTS as the direct recipient for the urbanized area.
Other Federal Funding Sources for Transit
The following is not a complete list of federal funding sources for transit but is provided here to highlight
other significant sources of possible funding for a new small urban transit system in Georgetown.
Appendix A includes a complete list of possible federal funding sources for public transit based on
SAFETEA‐LU.
Federal Transit Administration Section 5309 Capital Program – Bus and Bus Facility. Funds for the
Capital Investment Program–Bus and Bus Facilities provide capital assistance for new, replacement
buses, related equipment, and facilities. Eligible capital projects include: purchase of buses for fleet and
service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities, bus malls,
transportation centers, intermodal terminals, park‐and‐ride stations, acquisition of replacement
vehicles, bus rebuilds, bus preventive maintenance, passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and
bus stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles,
fare boxes, computers and shop and garage equipment.
Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facility funds are allocated on a discretionary basis. Eligible recipients for
capital investment funds are public bodies and agencies (transit authorities and other state and local
public bodies and agencies thereof) including states, municipalities, other political subdivisions of states;
public agencies and agencies comprised of one or more states; and certain public corporations, boards
and commissions established under state law.
The FTA has the discretion to allocate funds, although Congress can and often does specify projects for
funding in the annual appropriation bill. The maximum federal share for a discretionary grant is
80 percent, although recent FTA practice is to award funds that represent a lower federal share and
higher state and local contribution.
Federal Surface Transportation Program. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides the
greatest flexibility in the use of funds. These funds may be used (as capital funding) for public
transportation capital improvements, carpool and vanpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and intercity or intracity bus terminals and bus facilities. As funding for
planning, these funds can be used for surface transportation planning activities, wetland mitigation,
transit research and development, and environmental analysis. Other eligible projects under STP
include transit safety improvements and most transportation control measures.
STP funds are distributed among various population and programmatic categories within a state. Some
program funds are made available to metropolitan planning areas containing urbanized areas over
Attachment number 1 \nPage 25 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 24
200,000 population; STP funds are also set aside to areas with a population under 200,000 (small urban
areas) and under 50,000 (rural). STP funds are programmed typically by the local Metropolitan Planning
Organization (Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization).
State of Texas Transit Funding
The Texas Legislature makes appropriations of state funding in support of the urban and rural transit
providers in Texas (Figure 14). The Texas Transportation Commission sets policy for state and federal
funding allocation to public transportation providers in rural areas and in small urban areas in Texas.
The Texas Public Transportation funding formula allocates funds to each transit provider according to
“needs” and “performance.” State funding for public transportation is split 35 percent to state funded
urban transit systems and 65 percent to rural areas.
State funds for urban transit systems are provided 50 percent based on needs and 50 percent based on
performance. The portion of the formula attributed to needs is allocated to small urban transit systems
based on population in each UZA. The portion of the formula attributed to performance is allocated to
small urban transit systems based on four performance measures: local investment per operating
expense – 30 percent; revenue miles per operating expense – 20 percent; passengers per revenue
mile ‐ 30 percent; and passengers per capita – 20 percent. The performance allocation may increase as
transit services and ridership increase. State funds may be used to match (as local share) federal funds.
Figure 14. Texas Transit Funding Formula
Projected Georgetown Urbanized Area State Urban Funds
Based on 2011 State Funding Allocation, Assuming 2010 Average Performance.
Needs 133,000$
Performance 69,600$
202,600$
The estimate of state funds is based on the Texas Transit Funding Formula and the 2011 state allocation
for public transportation. Actual funds available may differ based on appropriations in future biennia,
Attachment number 1 \nPage 26 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 25
the number and size (population) of urban transit systems that qualify for state funds using Census
2010, and any future change in the Texas Transit Funding Formula by the Texas Transportation
Commission.
Financial Plan for the City of Georgetown
A five‐year service and financial plan for the Georgetown urbanized area provides a reasonable
reference to anticipate the local cost to provide transit services. The financial plan illustrated in Table 2
on the following page is based on these assumptions:
• Georgetown will become a part of an urban‐rural transit district created by CARTS through an
interlocal agreement. CARTS will operate transit services, purchase transit vehicles, and develop
additional capital facilities (stops, benches, shelters).
• CARTS will be recognized as the direct recipient for federal and state funding for the
Georgetown urbanized area.
• Transit service by CARTS will continue status quo in 2013 and 2014. The services include
general population demand response transit and a commuter/connector route.
• Planning for expanded transit services, including fixed‐route and complementary ADA
paratransit, will begin and 2013, continue in 2014 and the services will be implemented in 2015.
• Downtown transit shelter improvements will be installed in 2013 to benefit current transit
riders.
• The required capital purchases for vehicles and installation of capital facilities for the fixed‐route
will be budgeted for 2014. Plans include purchase of medium duty buses beginning 2016.
Table 2 provides a sample five‐year financial plan for transit services in Georgetown. The financial
assumptions using 2012 dollars are as follows:
• Operating costs are based on $55 per service hour.
• Additional expenses include funds to reimburse the City for project administration at $30,000
per year, lease of property for a CARTS bus operating facility at $15,000 per year initially and
then $36,000 per year when service expands, and $15,000 per year to reimburse CARTS for a
portion of the cost of transit terminal operations.
• Fare revenues assume a base fare of $1.00 for demand response and paratransit services, $1.00
for fixed‐route with discounts for seniors and individuals with disabilities, and $2.00 for
commuter/connector service.
• The downtown transit shelter improvements are estimated as $40,000 in 2013.
• Capital costs for vehicles are based on $100,000 per cutaway van for initial purchases in 2014
and then $250,000 per medium duty bus starting in 2016.
• The unit costs for passenger amenities for fixed‐route include $1,500 per bike rack; $1,500 per
bench; $6,500 per shelter; and $200 per bus stop sign.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 27 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 26
Table 2. Sample Financial Plan
For Georgetown 2013‐2017 – Service and Financial Plan
Assumes 2012 Dollars 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Transit Service Hours
General Population Demand Response 4,160 4,160 0 0 0
Commuter/Connector Route 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080
Urban Fixed‐Route 13,500 15,900 15,900
ADA Complementary Paratransit 3,380 3,980 3,980
Total Service Hours 5,240 5,240 17,960 20,960 20,960
Passenger Trips 21,200 21,200 73,250 116,150 116,150
Service Cost @ $55.00/hour $288,200 $288,200 $987,800 $1,152,800 $1,152,800
Planning $150,000 $50,000
City of Georgetown Administration $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Lease of Property for Bus Ops Facility $15,000 $15,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000
Transit Terminal Operating Cost $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Total Operating Cost $498,200 $398,200 $1,068,800 $1,233,800 $1,233,800
Revenues Fares $32,000 $32,000 $70,600 $103,100 $103,100
Capital Projects
Downtown Transit Shelter Improvements $40,000
Buses Fixed‐Route (5) $500,000
Medium Duty Bus (1 per year begin 2016) $250,000 $250,000
Bike Racks $7,500
Benches $21,000
Shelters $84,500
Signs $20,000
Total Capital Cost $40,000 $633,000 $0 $250,000 $250,000
The five‐year financial plan can be funded through a combination of fare revenues, federal Section 5307
funds and state urban funds for the Georgetown urbanized area, and local funds provided by the City of
Georgetown. Local funds may include city general revenue, other sources of federal funds (non‐U.S.
Department of Transportation), employer subsidies, student fees, economic development sales tax, or
other locally generated funds. Table 3 provides a summary of the uses and sources of funds for the five‐
year sample financial plan.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 28 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 27
Table 3. Sample Financial Plan
For Georgetown 2013‐2017 – Uses and Sources of Funds
Revised by TTI 2/2/12
Assumes 2012 Dollars 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Uses of Funds
Operating/Planning $498,200 $398,200 $1,068,800 $1,233,800 $1,233,800
Capital $40,000 $633,000 $0 $250,000 $250,000
Total Uses of Funds $538,200 $1,031,200 $1,068,800 $1,483,800 $1,483,800
Sources of Funds
Fares $32,000 $32,000 $70,600 $103,100 $103,100
Federal 5307 $325,100 $732,600 $615,600 $895,100 $895,100
State Urban $181,100 $203,000 $203,000 $203,000 $223,300
Local ‐ City of Georgetown $0 $63,600 $179,600 $282,600 $262,300
Total Sources of Funds $538,200 $1,031,200 $1,068,800 $1,483,800 $1,483,800
State funds do increase after the second year of fixed‐route transit, assuming improved performance
indicators for passengers per revenue mile and miles per operating expense. Georgetown can increase
performance funds from the state further by increasing local investment per operating expense.
Table 4 summarizes the application of local funds from the City of Georgetown. The transit program
may be eligible for Transportation Development Credits (“toll credits”) which can replace local funds for
capital projects (and increase the use of federal 5307 funds).
Table 4. Sample Financial Plan
For Georgetown 2013‐2017 –Uses of Local Funds
Revised by TTI 1/30/12
Assumes 2012 Dollars 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Local ‐ City of Georgetown
Use of Funds for Operating $0 $0 $179,600 $232,600 $212,300
Use of Funds for Capital* $0 $63,600 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Total $0 $63,600 $179,600 $282,600 $262,300
* May be eligible for Transportation Development Credits (TDC) in lieu of local funds for Capital
PEER CITY EXAMPLES
The research team profiled four cities similar to Georgetown, including Longview, Victoria, Temple, and
Killeen to provide examples of the development of transit in small urban areas. Longview directly
operates transit services and contracts with a transit management company to provide a manager of
transit. Victoria enters into an annual interlocal agreement with the rural transit provider, Golden
Crescent Regional Planning Commission, to operate the city’s transit services. Killeen and Temple are
part of the rural‐urban Hill Country Transit District. In talking with the representatives of the cities as
well as the transit providers, researchers found that rural‐urban transit districts are preferred as a way
to provide “seamless” services to customers. The Longview city‐management contract provides an
additional perspective on service; however, the manager of transit for Longview emphasized that if
Attachment number 1 \nPage 29 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 28
there is a future demand for service outside of the city, Longview would consider forming a rural‐urban
transit district. Appendix C provides the profiles of the peer city examples.
TRANSIT GOVERNANCE: GTAB RECOMMENDATION
Within scenario 1, in which the City of Georgetown becomes a small urban area, there are additional
choices in terms of transit governance. For the purposes of planning, City of Georgetown
Transportation Advisory Board has recommended the city look at establishing a Rural‐Urban Transit
District in conjunction with CARTS, the current local provider. This particular solution is recommended
because it will allow all parties involved to continue delivering the current services for the residents of
Georgetown and will provide for a seamless transition.
A rural‐urban transit district would allow the City of Georgetown to establish policies and a budget as it
relates to the provision of transit, and CARTS would be responsible for the day to day management,
planning, and operation of the system. Additionally, CARTS would also be responsible for the facilities
and the acquisition and maintenance of the vehicles.
Process to become a Rural‐Urban Transit District
To develop a rural‐urban transit district, the City of Georgetown would enter into an interlocal
agreement with CARTS, agreeing to work with CARTS on the provision of transit services in Georgetown
and naming CARTS the direct recipient of the City of Georgetown’s federal and state transportation
funding. The following excerpt taken from TTI’s previous report, Effect of Expansion of the Austin
Urbanized Area Beyond the Capital Metro Service Area, outlines the advantages of this approach:
Another strategy is for local governments in the urbanized area to enter into an interlocal agreement
with CARTS to provide transit services. CARTS is the rural transit district, but the agency is not
prohibited from providing service in urban areas. Rather, CARTS simply cannot use federal and state
funds intended for rural transit to provide public transportation in urban areas.
The advantage of this approach is seamless service delivery by an existing public transportation
provider. Another advantage is the ability to leverage the resources of CARTS, including human
resources, operating skills, vehicles, and capital infrastructure.
However, CARTS does not have direct access to funds for transit in the urbanized area. The local
government must provide the revenues for the cost of service, including all operating costs and capital
costs. In order to access federal FTA formula funds for the urbanized area, the local government and
CARTS would need to include the designated recipient as a party to the agreement—either directly or by
approval to receive funds as a direct recipient.
Further information on the process to become a rural‐urban transit district can be found in the case
studies in the appendices, where each of the cities reviewed discusses the process they underwent in
the provision of transit services.
Figure 15 highlights the flow chart showing decisions to be made from the time the UZA results are
released by the Census Bureau in March 2012.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 30 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 29
Figure 15. Decision Tree for Options to Provide Transit Service in Georgetown
Applying the Rural‐Urban Transit District Process for Georgetown
In applying the rural‐urban transit district process for the City of Georgetown, some decisions need to be
made quickly in order to take advantage of the state and federal funds available to the city upon
becoming a small urbanized area. The city will need to work closely with representatives from CARTS to
plan accordingly. Ideally, the city will be able to use the plans laid out in the Public Transit Services for
the City of Georgetown in order to determine routes and stops. Considering the financial plan discussed
in the previous section, the timeline for service implementation would roll out as follows:
• Year One – Service remains as status quo; Georgetown forms Rural‐Urban Transit District with
CARTS.
• Year Two – CARTS taps in to capital funding in order to purchase vehicles for the proposed
fixed‐route services.
• Year Three – The City of Georgetown begins running fixed‐route services and complementary
paratransit as a rural‐urban transit district.
In order for the process to move forward accordingly, it is important for finance to have a decision from
the Council by May 31, 2012, so that the budget can be planned out.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 31 of 32
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Page | 30
NEXT STEPS
The next steps are for the City of Georgetown to develop and approve a short term plan, which
highlights the timeline for service transition as well as discusses the transition plan. Additionally, the
city should look to put together a business plan, which includes budget considerations, and a draft
interlocal agreement. The plan should also include a discussion of additional potential funding sources,
for example, the local outlet mall, or the University. Both the City of Georgetown and CARTS should
discuss the strategic initiative to grow service accordingly to also be included in the plan.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, the City Council will be asked to make several decisions about public transportation for
the city of Georgetown within a few months. The U.S. Census is expected to announce urbanized areas
based on Census 2010 in March 2012. Based on research by TxDOT and TTI, Georgetown is expected to
be named a small urbanized area. The way public transportation is funded will certainly change. Federal
and state funds will be available to the urbanized area to provide public transportation within the city of
Georgetown and surrounding urban areas. Funds will be available beginning fiscal year 2013
(September/October 2012). As the local government in the urbanized area, the city of Georgetown will
be responsible for deciding how public transportation services will be provided and how the services will
be funded. Considering the 2010 survey, there is strong citizen support for public transportation in the
City of Georgetown, which should be taken into consideration in the decision process.
The only way CARTS can continue to provide service in the small‐urbanized area is to be reimbursed
from urban funds. The City Council could decide to decline federal and state urban funds for public
transportation, in which case the service provided by CARTS will terminate in September 2012.
Alternatively, the City Council could elect to contract for CARTS to continue to provide the same level of
service the city is currently receiving. CARTS estimates the annual cost to the City would be
approximately $300,000, based on the experience of other urban areas in the county. As a third option,
the City Council could choose to join CARTS in creating a rural‐urban transit district. The annual cost to
the City to match federal and state urban funds will be dependent on the level of public transportation
service the City approves. The advantage of partnering with CARTS is the ability to leverage funding in
order to create a more expansive transit system for the city. Additionally, CARTS has many years of
experience in providing transit services, and can be an advantageous partner for the city of Georgetown.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 32 of 32
Item # A
Appendices
2010 Census
and the Impact
on Transit
Funding
City of Georgetown
Transit Mobility Program
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 49
Item # A
CONTENTS
Appendix A. Federal Funds for Public Transit | A|1
Appendix B. Checklist for Direct Recipients | B|1
Appendix C. Peer City Examples and Interlocal Agreements | C|1
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix A | 1
APPENDIX A. FEDERAL FUNDS FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT
Federal funding for public transit comes primarily through the U.S. Department of Transportation
(U.S. DOT). Funding for the U.S. DOT is authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficiency
Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU), approved by Congress in August 2005 to
fund federal surface transportation programs through September 2009. SAFETEA‐LU provides funding
for the U.S. DOT and its subsidiary agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA).
The following discussion of funding for public transit is based on the provisions of SAFETEA‐LU effective
through September 2009. Although SAFETEA‐LU is technically expired, the provisions of the legislation
are still in effect by authority of continuing resolutions passed by the Congress (effective March 31,
2012). Until Congress authorizes a new authorization bill for surface transportation, the funding
programs for transit are expected to continue consistent with SAFETEA‐LU.
The FTA allocates funding for transit systems in urbanized and rural areas and for programs for the
elderly and people with disabilities. FTA allocates funds based on formulas or discretionary awards. Ten
FTA funding programs that apportioned to urbanized areas or states by specific formula. Eight FTA
programs are based on discretionary funding. In addition to FTA grant programs, the FHWA administers
programs that provide the flexibility to transfer funds to FTA for transit projects.
FTA FORMULA FUNDS
Of the 10 FTA funding programs that are allocated by formula, FTA allocates funds to 9 programs based
on formulas that include population and land area as criteria.1 FTA allocated formula funds according to
classification of an area as rural or urbanized.
All areas are defined as either urbanized or non‐urbanized based on population and population density.
The Census Bureau designates urbanized areas based on the most recent decennial census. While the
U.S. DOT has no direct role in the designation of these areas, they are critical to the administration of
FTA and FHWA transportation programs. UZAs are important to the designation of a metropolitan
planning organization and application of metropolitan planning requirements, designation of
transportation management areas, application of air quality conformity requirements, and allocation of
funding.
Under current definitions, the Census Bureau delineates UZAs according to population densities of
census blocks and block groups and their proximity to an urban core – with the sum of the population
for these geographic units equaling 50,000 people or more. Similarly, urban areas of less than
50,000 people are designated as urban clusters (UCs). For the purposes of transit funding, all UZAs are
considered “urbanized” while all areas outside of UZAs (including UCs) are considered “non‐urbanized.”
For FTA funding allocations, FTA designates UZAs further in three groups according to population: small
1 The formula program that does not use population or land area as criteria is Section 5309 Fixed Guideway
Modernization. Funds are allocated by a statutory formula to UZAs with fixed guideway systems that have been in
operation for at least 7 years. The formula for allocating funds for this program contains seven tiers. The
apportionment of funding for certain areas is specified in law. For other urbanized areas, funding is apportioned
based on the latest available data on route miles and revenue vehicle miles on fixed guideway segments at least
7 years old.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix A | 2
urban areas with population 50,000 to 199,999, large urban areas with population 200,000 to 999,999,
and very large urban areas with a population 1 million and over. Funding formula allocation and
restrictions on the use of funds differ by the size of the UZA according to these three groups.
The following list of sections from SAFETEA‐LU identifies the formula funding category and the basis for
formula apportionments.
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program
The largest FTA funding program is the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program. Section 5307
authorizes federal capital and, in some cases, operating assistance for transit in UZAs. A UZA is an area
with a population of 50,000 or more that has been defined as such in the most recent decennial census
(2000) by the Census Bureau.
FTA apportions Section 5307 funds based on legislative formulas. Different formulas apply to UZAs with
a population of less than 200,000 (small UZA or small urban area) and to UZAs with a population of
200,000 or more (large UZA or large urban area). FTA allocates to UZAs with a population 1 million or
more (very large UZA or very large urban area) based on the same formula as large UZA.
For the small UZAs with a population less than 200,000, FTA bases the formula solely on population and
population density. FTA sets aside one percent of Section 5307 funds for Small Transit Intensive Cities.
FTA apportions these funds to UZAs with a population less than 200,000 that operate at a level of
service equal to or above the industry average level of service for all UZAs with a population of at least
200,000 but not more than 999,999. FTA allocates the funds based on level of service and performance
in one or more of six categories: passenger miles per vehicle revenue mile, passenger miles per vehicle
revenue hour, vehicle revenue miles per capita, vehicle revenue hours per capita, passenger miles per
capita, and passenger trips per capita.
For UZAs with a population less than 200,000, FTA apportions Section 5307 funds to the governor of
each state for distribution. The governor or designee may determine the suballocation of funds among
the small UZAs or elect to obligate the funds in the amounts based on the legislative formula.2
For UZAs with a population of 200,000 or more, FTA bases the Section 5307 formula on bus vehicle
revenue miles, as well as population and population density. An incentive payment is based on bus
passenger miles divided by operating costs. An agency that provides transit using fixed guideway is
eligible for additional formula funds based on fixed guideway vehicle revenue miles and fixed guideway
route miles. An incentive payment is based on fixed guideway passenger miles divided by operating
costs. FTA apportions funds directly to a designated recipient selected locally to apply for and receive
federal funds.
Eligible purposes for use of Section 5307 funds include planning, engineering design, and evaluation of
transit projects and other technical transportation‐related studies; capital investments in bus and bus‐
related activities such as replacement of buses, overhaul of buses, rebuilding of buses, crime prevention
and security equipment, and construction of maintenance and passenger facilities; and capital
2 In Texas, the Governor has designated the Texas Transportation Commission as responsible for the allocation of
small urban funds. The policy of the Commission is to allocate to each small urban area the amount originally
apportioned by FTA formula.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix A | 3
investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding
of vehicles, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software. All preventive
maintenance and some Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit service costs
qualify as capital costs. For most projects, up to 80 percent of project cost use federal funds. The federal
contribution may be 90 percent for some projects that support ADA or the Clean Air Act.
Small UZAs with a population of less than 200,000 may also use Section 5307 funds for operating
assistance up to 50 percent of the operating deficit (operating expenses less fare revenue). For UZAs
with populations of 200,000 or more, operating assistance is not an eligible expense. FTA provides UZAs
that reach or exceed the 200,000 population threshold for the first time after the most recent decennial
census a transition period of several years to eliminate the use of Section 5307 funds for operating
assistance.
In urban areas with a population 200,000 or more, at least 1 percent of the funding apportioned to each
area must be used for transit enhancement activities such as historic preservation, landscaping, public
art, pedestrian access, bicycle access, and enhanced access for people with disabilities.
Section 5309 Capital Program – Fixed Guideway Modernization
Funds for the Capital Investment Program – Fixed Guideway Modernization must be used for capital
projects to maintain, modernize, or improve fixed guideway systems. A “fixed guideway” refers to any
transit service that uses exclusive or controlled rights of way or rails, entirely or in part. The term
includes heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, monorail, trolleybus, aerial tramway, inclined plane, cable
car, automated guideway transit, ferryboats, that portion of motor bus service operated on exclusive or
controlled rights‐of‐way, and high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Eligible UZAs are those with a
population of 200,000 or more with fixed guideway systems that are at least seven years old. There is a
threshold requirement for a minimum of one mile of fixed guideway. Eligible applicants are the public
transit agencies in those urbanized areas to which the funds are allocated.
Funds are allocated by a statutory formula to UZAs with fixed guideway systems that have been in
operation for at least seven years. The formula for allocating funds for this program contains seven tiers.
The apportionment of funding for certain areas is specified in law. For other urbanized areas, funding is
apportioned based on the latest available data on route miles and revenue vehicle miles on fixed
guideway segments at least seven years old.
Section 5340 Growing States and High‐Density States Formula Program
FTA also apportions funds based upon Section 5340 Growing States and High‐Density States formula
factors. Under the Section 5340 formula, FTA makes available half of the funds under the Growing States
factors and apportions based on state population forecasts for 15 years beyond the most recent
decennial census. FTA then allocates amounts apportioned for each state to urbanized and rural areas
based on the state’s urban/rural population ratio. The High‐Density States factors distribute the other
half of the funds to states with population densities greater than 370 people per square mile.3 FTA
apportions these funds only to UZAs within those states.
3 Texas does not receive funds in the category for High‐Density States.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix A | 4
Section 5311 Non‐Urbanized Area Formula Program
The Section 5311 Non‐Urbanized Area (rural) program provides formula funding to states for the
purpose of supporting public transit in rural areas with a population of less than 50,000. FTA bases
eighty percent of the statutory formula on the rural population of the states and twenty percent of the
formula on land area. No state may receive more than 5 percent of the amount apportioned for land
area. In addition, FTA adds amounts apportioned according to the Growing States formula factors to
rural areas. Each state prepares an annual program of projects, which must provide for fair and
equitable distribution of funds within the state and must provide for maximum feasible coordination
with transportation services assisted by other federal sources.
Funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative assistance to state agencies, local public
bodies, nonprofit organizations, and operators of public transit services. The maximum federal share for
capital and project administration is 80 percent. Projects to meet the requirements of the ADA, the
Clean Air Act, or bicycle access projects may be funded at 90 percent federal contribution. The
maximum FTA contribution for operating assistance is 50 percent of the net operating costs. State or
local funding sources may provide the local share.
FTA makes available fifteen percent of the Section 5311 funds in each state for improvement of intercity
bus services, also known as the Section 5311(f) program. The funds are to be used for planning,
infrastructure, and operating needs related to the linkage of cities through intercity bus carriers unless
the chief executive officer of the state certifies that the intercity bus service needs of the state are being
met adequately. If all funds are not obligated to intercity bus improvements, the funds may revert to the
general Section 5311 program for public transit in rural areas.
Section 5310 Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and People with disabilities Program
Section 5310 provides formula funding to states for the purpose of meeting the transportation needs of
the elderly and people with disabilities when the transportation service provided is unavailable,
insufficient, or inappropriate to meeting these needs. FTA apportions $125,000 to each state and then
apportions the balance based on each state’s share of population for these groups of people.
Capital projects are eligible for funding. Most funds are used to purchase vehicles or provide preventive
maintenance for transit fleets, but acquisition of transportation services under contract, lease or other
arrangements, and state program administration are also eligible expenses. The maximum federal share
is 80 percent. State or local funding sources may provide local share.
Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute
The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program addresses the unique transportation challenges
faced by low‐income persons seeking to get and keep jobs. FTA allocates JARC funding by formula to
states for areas with population below 200,000 and to designated recipients for areas with population of
200,000 or more. States may transfer funds to urbanized or non‐urbanized area programs as long as
funds are used for JARC program purposes. In fiscal 2008, Low‐income population in urbanized and rural
areas is the basis for fund allocation. The formula‐based program provides equitable funding
distribution to states and communities as well as stable and reliable funding in order to implement
locally developed, coordinated public transit‐human services transportation plans.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix A | 5
Section 5317 New Freedom Program
The New Freedom Program is a new category of funds introduced in SAFETEA‐LU. The purpose of these
funds is for public transit projects that provide new public transit services and public transit alternatives
beyond those currently required by ADA. The funds are to be used to assist people with disabilities with
transportation, including transportation to and from jobs and employment support services.
FTA allocates New Freedom Program funds through a formula based upon population of people with
disabilities. FTA makes allocations to designated recipients in areas with a population of 200,000 or
more and to states for areas under 200,000 population and non‐urbanized areas. States and designated
recipients must select grantees competitively. Eligible recipients include local governmental authorities,
private nonprofit organizations, operators of public transit services, and private for‐profit operators of
public transit services. Matching share requirements are flexible to encourage coordination with other
federal programs that may provide transportation, such as programs sponsored by the departments of
Health and Human Services or Agriculture. Projects must be included in a locally developed human
service transportation coordinated plan.
Section 5303 Metropolitan Transportation Planning
Congress appropriates federal funding to support a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive
planning program for transportation investment decision‐making at the metropolitan area level. State
departments of transportation are direct recipients of funds, which are then allocated by formula for
planning activities.
FTA allocates eighty percent of funds to states as a basic allocation according to each state’s UZA
population for the most recent decennial census. FTA provides the remaining 20 percent to states as a
supplemental allocation based on an FTA administrative formula to address planning needs in the larger,
more complex UZAs. Generally, funds require a 20 percent local match, although FTA planning funds can
be awarded as a consolidated planning grant with FHWA, which permits a 10 percent local match.
Section 5304 Statewide Transportation Planning
The Section 5304 program provides financial assistance to states for statewide transportation planning
and other technical assistance activities (including supplementing the technical assistance program
provided through the Section 5303 Metropolitan Planning Program). FTA apportions the funds to states
by a statutory formula that is based on each state’s UZA population as compared to the UZA population
of all states according to the most recent decennial census.
Section 5311(b) (3) Rural Transit Assistance Program
The Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) provides funding to assist in the design and
implementation of training and technical assistance projects, research, and other support services
tailored to meet the needs of transit operators in non‐urbanized areas. FTA allocates $65,000 to each
state and then allocates the balance of funds to each state based on an administrative formula using the
non‐urbanized population according to the most recent decennial census.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix A | 6
FTA DISCRETIONARY FUNDS
Section 5309 Capital Program – Bus and Bus Facility
Funds for the Capital Investment Program (49 U.S.C. 5309) – Bus and Bus Facilities provides capital
assistance for new and replacement buses and related equipment and facilities. Eligible capital projects
include the purchase of buses for fleet and service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative
facilities, transfer facilities, bus malls, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, park‐and‐ride
stations, acquisition of replacement vehicles, bus rebuilds, bus preventive maintenance, passenger
amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such
as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers and shop and garage equipment.
Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facility funds are allocated on a discretionary basis. Eligible recipients for
capital investment funds are public bodies and agencies (transit authorities and other state and local
public bodies and agencies thereof) including states, municipalities, other political subdivisions of states;
public agencies and agencies comprised of one or more states; and certain public corporations, boards
and commissions established under state law. Prior to SAFETEA–LU, private non‐profit entities could
receive FTA funds only if they were selected by a public authority through a competitive process, and
private operators were not eligible sub‐recipients. Under SAFETEA‐LU, private companies engaged in
public transportation and private non‐profit organizations are eligible sub‐recipients of FTA grants.
Private operators may now receive FTA funds as a pass‐through without competition if they are included
in a program of projects submitted by the designated public authority acting as the direct recipient of a
grant.
The FTA has the discretion to allocate funds, although Congress often fully earmarks all available
funding. The maximum federal share for a discretionary grant is 80 percent, although recent FTA
practice is to award funds that represent a lower federal share and higher state and local contribution.
Section 5314 National Research Program
FTA’s National Research Programs include the National Research and Technology Program (NRTP), the
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), the National Transit Institute (NTI), and the University
Transportation Centers Program (UTC).
Clean Fuels Grant Program
In 1998, TEA‐21 established the Clean Fuels Grant Program. The program was developed to assist non‐
attainment and maintenance areas in achieving or maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone and carbon monoxide (CO). Additionally, the program supports emerging clean fuel
and advanced propulsion technologies for transit buses and markets for those technologies. Although
the program was authorized as a formula grant program from its inception, Congress did not fund the
program in annual appropriations. SAFETEA‐LU changed the grant program from a formula‐based to a
discretionary grant program (49 U.S.C. 5308). The program, however, retains its initial purpose.
The Clean Fuels Grant Program is available to an entity designated to receive federal urbanized formula
funds under Section 5307, in accordance with the applicable metropolitan and statewide transportation
planning processes. SAFETEA‐LU amended the term “recipient” to now include smaller urbanized areas
Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix A | 7
with populations of less than 200,000. All recipients must meet one of the following criteria: (1) be
designated as an ozone or CO non‐attainment area or (2) be designated as a maintenance area for
ozone or CO.
Eligible activities include purchasing or leasing clean fuel buses and constructing new or improving
existing facilities to accommodate clean fuel buses. The federal share for eligible activities undertaken
for the purpose of complying with or maintaining compliance with the Clean Air Act under this program
is limited to 90 percent of the net (incremental) cost of the activity. The FTA administrator may exercise
discretion and determine the percent of the federal share for eligible activities to be less than 90
percent. Funding for clean diesel buses is limited to not more than 25 percent of the amount made
available each fiscal year to carry out the program.
5320 Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands
The Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands program is administered by FTA in partnership
with the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. The
program funds capital and planning expenses for alternative transportation systems such as buses and
trams in federally managed parks and public lands.
5339 Alternatives Analysis
The Alternatives Analysis Program provides grants to states, authorities of states, MPOs, and local
government authorities to develop studies as part of the transportation planning process. These studies
include assessments of a wide range of public transportation alternatives designed to address a
transportation problem in a corridor or subarea. The federal share may not exceed 80 percent of the
cost of the activity.
5311(c) (1) Public Transportation on Indian Reservation Program
FTA refers to 5311(c) (1) as the Tribal Transit Program. The are drawn from the Section 5311
Non‐urbanized Area Program. The funds are to be apportioned for grants to Indian tribes for any
purpose eligible under Section 5311, which includes capital, operating, planning, and administrative
assistance for rural public transit services and rural intercity bus service. The funds are not meant to
replace or reduce funds that Indian tribes receive through the Section 5311 program but are to be used
to enhance public transportation on Indian reservations and transit serving tribal communities.
Over‐the‐Road Bus Accessibility Program
The Over‐the‐Road Bus (OTRB) Accessibility Program was authorized under TEA‐21 and amended by
SAFETEA‐LU. OTRBs are used in intercity fixed‐route service as well as other services, such as commuter,
charter, and tour bus services. The OTRB Accessibility Program is intended to assist OTRB operators in
complying with the OTRB accessibility regulation, “Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities’’
(49 CFR Part 37, Subpart H).
Capital projects eligible for funding include adding lifts and other accessibility components to new
vehicle purchases and purchasing lifts and associated components to retrofit existing vehicles. Eligible
training costs include developing training materials or providing training for local providers of over‐the‐
road bus services. This funding is provided on a national competitive basis. The federal share is
Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix A | 8
90 percent, and the local share is 10 percent. Funding is available to private operators of over‐the‐road
buses.
OTHER MAJOR SOURCES of FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT
In addition to FTA grant programs, there are other sources of funding for transit from a variety of federal
agencies. In most cases other sources of funding for transit are available only to the extent that
transportation is supportive of the primary purpose of the federal agency. However, the FHWA does
administer programs that provide the flexibility to transfer funds to FTA for transit projects. Four
programs are highlighted below.
Surface Transportation Program
The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides the greatest flexibility in the use of funds. These
funds may be used (as capital funding) for public transit capital improvements, carpool and vanpool
projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and intercity or intracity
bus terminals and bus facilities. As funding for planning, these funds can be used for surface
transportation planning activities, wetland mitigation, transit research and development, and
environmental analysis. Other eligible projects under STP include transit safety improvements and most
transportation control measures.
STP funds are distributed among various population and programmatic categories within a state. Some
program funds are made available to metropolitan planning areas containing urbanized areas over
200,000 population; STP funds are also set aside to areas with a population under 200,000 (small urban
areas) and under 50,000 (rural). STP funds are programmed typically by the local MPO.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
Under the Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990 (Clean Air Act), urbanized areas are classified by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as non‐attainment areas if air pollution levels exceed the
national Ambient Air Quality Standards on a continual basis. Depending upon the level of pollution and
the frequency the standards are exceeded, urbanized areas are classified according to increasing
pollution levels as either marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, with marginal being the
lowest level of pollution and extreme being the highest. Cities meeting the standard, but with concern
that the standards may be exceeded, are classified as maintenance areas. Vehicle emissions are
significant contributors to the ozone pollution. Vehicle emissions increase with traffic congestion and
the number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) has the objective of
improving the nation’s air quality and managing traffic congestion. CMAQ projects and programs are
often innovative solutions to common mobility problems and are driven by Clean Air Act mandates to
attain national ambient air quality standards. Eligible activities under CMAQ include transit system
capital expansion and improvements that are projected to realize an increase in ridership; projects to
demonstrate travel demand management strategies and shared ride services; pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and promotional activities that encourage bicycle commuting. Programs and projects are
funded in air quality non‐attainment and maintenance areas for ozone, CO, and small particulate matter
(PM‐10) that reduce transportation‐related emissions.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix A | 9
CMAQ funds are distributed according to a formula based on population and severity of pollution. The
federal share can fund up to 90 percent of transit vehicle‐related equipment attributable to compliance
with the Clean Air Act, up to 80 percent of other capital projects, and 80 percent of the operations costs
for demonstration of services. Demonstration projects can be funded for up to three years.
Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Program
TEA‐21 established an FHWA program “to investigate and address the relationships between
transportation and community and system preservation and identify private sector‐based initiatives.”
SAFETEA‐LU continues the program with funding levels of $25 million annually. Eligible recipients are
local governments, MPOs, and transit agencies.
The purposes of the TCSP program are to improve transportation efficiency; reduce transportation’s
environmental impacts; reduce the need for future investments in infrastructure; provide access to jobs;
and encourage private sector development that supports these initiatives. The program includes a
research program to investigate these relationships; funds to integrate transportation and community
and system preservation plans and practices; and funds to address transportation efficiency and
community system preservation.
Two types of grants are awarded through this program: planning and implementation. Planning grants
are designed to research, plan, and develop strategies to meet the purposes of the TCSP. Priority for
planning grants is given to applicants that demonstrate a commitment of non‐federal resources to the
proposal, including involvement of non‐traditional partners. Implementation grants are designed to
carry out projects that meet the purposes of the TCSP. Priority for implementation grants is given to
applicants that promote cost‐effective and strategic investments in transportation infrastructure that
minimize adverse impacts of the environment and promote innovative private sector strategies.
There is no local share requirement under this program. Activities are eligible for full federal funding.
The TCSP program research and grant components require dedication of a portion of the awarded funds
toward an evaluation component for the program.
National Highway System
The National Highway System (NHS), established in 1995, provides funding for a wide range of
transportation activities (23 U.S.C. 103(b)). Eligible transit projects under the NHS program include fringe
and corridor parking facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, carpool and vanpool projects, and public
transit facilities in NHS corridors, where they would be cost‐effective and improve the level of service on
a particular NHS limited access facility.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix B |1
APPENDIX B. CHECKLIST FOR DIRECT RECIPIENTS
The general FTA Grantee requirements and responsibilities are outlined as follows. It is important for
any recipient to go through the following steps before approval to become a direct recipient. More
detailed information can be found through FTA circulars; however, the list that follows contains basic
information on the process.
1. Legal, Financial and Technical Capacity.
2. Certifications and Assurances / Master Agreement.
3. Civil Rights.
‐ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
‐ Disadvantage Business Enterprise Program.
4. Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) Process – Grants.
5. Vendor Form.
6. Program Specific Requirements such as FTA Section 5309.
• Approval/authorization of designated recipient.
(The designated recipient may make this authorization one‐time or at the time of each application
submission, at the option of the designated recipient.)
• The public agency submits an independent grant application, which includes the following:
• All projects – complete forms for project description/detail and budget and timeline/milestones.
• FTA Certifications and Assurances – should be completed annually for each new federal fiscal year,
which begins on October 1.
• Proof of acceptable A‐133 audit if over $500,000 of federal funds are received on an annual basis
(includes all federal sources).
• Construction projects/environmental requirements – Categorical exclusions, State Historic
Preservation Office, etc.
• Revenue vehicles – changes to fleet plan.
• Upon award of the grant, the designated recipient and the public agency execute a supplemental
agreement, which releases the designated recipient from any liability under the grant agreement.
• Upon approval to become a direct recipient, the agency must meet FTA requirements, including:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO).
• Boilerplate FTA language must be included and flowed through to all levels.
• Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying (FTA Form LLL).
• Americans with Disabilities Act Program Implementation.
• Financial management oversight.
• Vehicle procurement plan.
• Triennial review.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix B |2
• Grant Administration Process.
• Procurement rules and guidance questions to Council.
• Prior approvals – Buy America waivers, scope changes, etc.
• Rebudgeting, revision, or amendment.
• Record keeping.
• Reporting – financial and milestone.
• Other – Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) reporting.
• Closeout.
• Audit.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |1
APPENDIX C PEER CITY EXAMPLES
The following pages profile four cities that reflect different models of providing transit services in a small
urbanized area. To summarize, the research team reviewed transit in four cities, served by three
different transit operators. Three of the four cities are part of a rural‐urban transit district (Temple and
Killeen are part of the Hill County Transit District and Victoria has an interlocal agreement with the rural
transit provider, Golden Crescent Regional Planning Commission). One city (Longview) directly operates
transit service and contracts with a private firm to manage the operation. In the three cities
participating in a rural‐urban transit district, the transit provider was the rural transit provider before
expanding to provide urban transit. Longview provides transit services within the city only, which is why
administration chose to directly operate the transit. The transit manager for Longview did note;
however, that if there is a future demand for service outside of the city limits, staff would consider
developing an rural‐urban transit district approach.
The city of Georgetown can learn from all of the approaches; the most important commonality is the
desire for all of the cities and transit providers to develop a coordinated system that meets the needs of
the individuals in the area. Additionally, all of the cities and agencies represented worked to leverage
the state and federal funding to develop and expand fixed route services within the communities.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |2
TEMPLE URBANIZED AREA
The Temple and Killeen urbanized areas are part of the Hill Country Transit District.
Temple UZA Population
Census 2000 71,937
Census 2010 Projected 79,839
Change 7,902
Growth 11%
Transit Provider Hill Country Transit District (HCTD), The HOP
History Temple was named a small urbanized area as of 1990. The City of Temple initially
directly operated transit services. The City decided to terminate operating transit
services, but there was still a need for transit services, especially demand
response transit for seniors and individuals accessing medical services in the city.
The City of Temple began negotiations with the rural transit provider. HCTD
began operating rural‐urban transit services in the Temple UZA in 2002.
Grant Recipient HCTD is the direct recipient for rural and urban federal and state funding for
transit in the 9‐county area. HCTD serves two separate urbanized areas (Temple
and Killeen). The Temple UZA includes Temple‐Belton.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |3
Process HCTD began providing rural services in conjunction with Hill Country Community
Action. In 1998, the transit board voted for HCTD to stand alone and create an
independent rural transit district. HCTD was already providing service in both
Killeen and Temple using Section 5310 elderly and disabled funding. HCTD also
previously worked with social service agencies in the cities.
Much of the framework established in Killeen applied to the process in Temple.
HCTD met with Killeen in 2000‐2002 and told the city about the Section 5307 and
state funding that was available. Parallel to the meetings, HCTD began setting up
a structure and by‐laws to become an urban‐rural transit district, so the agency
was ready to begin offering service when the agreement with the city was
finalized. HCTD worked with the state government and attorneys to ensure the
agency was recognized as an urban‐rural transit district.
As the rural‐urban transit district was finalized, and discussions with Killeen
progressed, the City of Temple indicated an interest in joining to be a part of the
rural‐urban transit district.
Governance HCTD has a 14 member board of all elected officials. Elected officials include
county commissioners, mayors, and judges. The transit district includes 9 rural
counties, and the board has a representative from each county, and a
representative from each of the following cities: Temple, Belton, Killeen, Copperas
Cove, and Harker Heights.
City Staff/
Responsibilities
There is currently no City of Temple staff position or partial staff equivalent
dedicated to overseeing the HCTD operations. At this time, the HCTD Finance
Director works with a financial representative from each city for annual funding
requests, but this is the only city position involved.
Temple does have a transit advisory committee (TAC), which acts as a liaison
between the public and HCTD. The TAC is made up of riders, representatives from
social service agencies, and a city council representative from Temple. Advisory
committee members bring the interests of the cities to the meetings
Strengths Because of the partnerships, HCTD has been able to expand the fixed route
system, install more shelters, and increase the number of amenities and facilities
available to the public. HCTD participates in the Medical Transportation Program
and the revenues help to reduce local share requirements.
Challenges Funding sustainability is always a challenge.
Additional
Information
There has been a significant amount of growth in the region since 1998. HCTD
was initially operating using only Section 5311 (Rural) and Section 5310 (Elderly &
Disabled) funding resources prior to 1998 in the nine rural counties. Since that
time, the district grew exponentially and began to offer fixed route, and
paratransit services in the city. Additionally, HCTD also has the medical
transportation contract for the 9‐county service area.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |4
Annual Formula Fund Allocation ‐ Federal and State Funds for Temple
Temple 71,937 1,740 2008 2009* 2010 2011
2012
6 mos**
Federal Section 5307/5340 Apportioned $870,042 $925,529 $922,789 $925,525 $466,100
Texas Transit Funding Allocation***$228,602 $256,906 $262,261 $267,188 $248,410
* SAFTEA‐LU expires in 2009
** Approximately 50% of 2011 apportionment
*** State funds are also calculated 50% based on performance. Performance indicators change year to year.
Formula Federal and State Funds
Urbanized
Area
Population
2000 Density
Sources and Uses of Funds Actually Applied for Temple
Source of Funds 2008 2009 2010 2011
Section 5307 Federal* $719,132 $1,342,332 $1,083,494 $2,097,882
Section State Urban $228,602 $257,143 $262,261 $267,189
Section 5309 Discretionary Capital $0 $497,104 $0 $0
Passenger Fares $89,133 $92,283 $115,045 $135,118
Local Contributions $135,000 $85,108 $61,746 $51,361
Medical Transportation Program $694,833 $906,309 $1,068,618 $922,641
Dept. of Aging & Disabilities $23,889 $27,808 $26,288 $17,878
Section 5310 $0 $186,303 $0 $110,858
Section 5317 (New Freedom) $0 $0 $30,318 $256,286
Other Contracts $0 $0 $0 $40
Total $1,890,589 $3,394,390 $2,647,770 $3,859,253
* Section 5307 includes ARRA funds
Use of Funds 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operational Expenses
Operating $1,135,720 $1,274,478 $1,543,683 $1,831,657
Maintenance $134,432 $242,003 $282,275 $272,148
Administrative $149,646 $188,535 $231,548 $258,251
Planning $13,071 $19,041 $25,422 $26,885
Total Operating Expenses $1,442,381 $1,377,353 $1,534,648 $1,562,154
Capital Expenses** $448,208 $2,017,037 $1,113,122 $2,297,099
** Assumes Total Expenses less Operating = Capital
Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |5
KILLEEN URBANIZED AREA
The Temple and Killeen urbanized areas are part of the Hill Country Transit District.
Killeen UZA Population
Census 2000 167,976
Census 2010 Projected 200,416
Change 32,440
Growth 19%
Transit Provider Hill Country Transit District (HCTD), The HOP
History In 1998, Killeen named HCTD as the direct recipient for the Killeen UZA transit
funds. HCTD began operating transit services in Killeen in 2000.
Grant Recipient HCTD is the direct recipient for rural and urban federal and state funding for
transit in the 9‐county area. HCTD serves two separate urbanized areas
(Temple and Killeen). Killeen, Harker Heights, and Copperas Cove are part of
the Killeen UZA.
Process HCTD began providing rural services in conjunction with Hill Country
Community Action. In 1998, the transit board voted for HCTD to stand alone
and create an independent rural transit district. HCTD was already providing
service in both Killeen and Temple using Section 5310 elderly and disabled
Attachment number 2 \nPage 19 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |6
funding. HCTD also previously worked with social service agencies in the cities.
HCTD met with Killeen in 2000‐2002 and told the city about the Section 5307
and state funding that was available. Parallel to the meetings, HCTD began
setting up a structure and by‐laws to become an urban‐rural transit district, so
the agency was ready to begin offering service when the agreement with the
city was finalized. HCTD worked with the state government and attorneys to
ensure the agency was recognized as an urban‐rural transit district.
Governance HCTD has a 14 member board of all elected officials. Elected officials include
county commissioners, mayors, and judges. The transit district includes 9 rural
counties, and the board has a representative from each county, and a
representative from each of the following cities: Temple, Belton, Killeen,
Copperas Cove, and Harker Heights.
City Staff/
Responsibilities
There is currently no City of Killeen staff position or partial staff equivalent
dedicated to overseeing the HCTD operations. At this time, the HCTD Finance
Director works with a financial representative from each city for annual funding
requests, but this is the only city position involved.
Killeen has a transportation committee that is primarily made up of elected
officials with a few general public representatives. The committee meets
regularly to discuss transportation matters, and serves as a voice for both the
city and public to HCTD.
Strengths Because of the partnerships, HCTD has been able to expand the fixed route
system, install more shelters, and increase the number of amenities and
facilities available to the public. HCTD participates in the Medical
Transportation Program and the revenues help to reduce local share
requirements.
Challenges HCTD will be transitioning to a large urban system for the Killeen UZA because
Killeen is expected to grow past the 200,000 population mark. The governance
will not change, and HCTD will still have the same board representation.
However, planning for the new change, finding funding, and working out the
agreement will prove to be a challenge because it is uncharted territory for
both the agency and the city.
Additional
Information
There has been a significant amount of growth in the region since 1998. HCTD
was initially operating using only Section 5311 (Rural) and Section 5310 (Elderly
& Disabled) funding resources prior to 1998 in the nine rural counties. Since
that time, the district grew exponentially and began to offer fixed route, and
paratransit services in the city. Additionally, HCTD also has the medical
transportation contract for the 9‐county service area.
The interlocal agreement between HCTD and the local governments of Bell County, Coryell County, City
of Copperas Cove, City of Harker Heights, and City of Killeen is provided at the end of this Appendix.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 20 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |7
Annual Formula Fund Allocation ‐ Federal and State Funds for Killeen
Killeen 167,976 2,622 2008 2009* 2010 2011
2012
6 mos**
Federal Section 5307/5340 Apportioned $2,474,311 $2,632,122 $2,624,272 $2,631,954 $1,325,509
Texas Transit Funding Allocation***$427,562 $448,498 $404,769 $396,234 $406,121
* SAFTEA‐LU expires in 2009
** Approximately 50% of 2011 apportionment
*** State funds are also calculated 50% based on performance. Performance indicators change year to year.
Formula Federal and State Funds
Urbanized
Area
Population
2000 Density
Sources and Uses of Funds Actually Applied for Killeen
Source of Funds 2008 2009 2010 2011
Section 5311 Federal* $1,218,116 $2,561,773 $1,553,088 $6,166,869
Section 5311 State $427,563 $448,706 $404,769 $396,235
5309 Capital Revenues $0 $1,159,687 $0 $0
Passenger Fares $108,146 $108,354 $202,623 $242,085
Local Contributions $83,743 $113,743 $122,262 $113,565
Medical Transportation Program $1,089,962 $1,204,190 $1,375,528 $1,582,958
Head Start $0 $0 $0 $0
Dept. of Aging & Disabilities $2,555 $2,247 $3,742 $3,799
Section 5317 (New Freedom) $0 $0 $67,482 $491,473
Other Contracts $0 $320 $2,358 $1,760
Total $2,930,085 $5,599,020 $3,731,852 $8,998,744
* Section 5307 includes ARRA funds
Use of Funds 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operational Expenses
Operating $1,785,451 $1,948,179 $2,153,461 $2,585,818
Maintenance $234,870 $404,892 $374,444 $413,184
Administrative $316,503 $388,689 $416,299 $473,560
Planning $30,032 $37,818 $33,366 $35,283
Total $2,366,856 $2,779,578 $2,977,570 $3,507,845
Capital Expenses** $563,229 $2,819,442 $754,282 $5,490,899
** Assumes Total Expenses less Operating = Capital
Attachment number 2 \nPage 21 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |8
VICTORIA URBANIZED AREA
Transit service in the Victoria urbanized area is provided by the Golden Crescent Regional Planning
Commission (the rural transit district in the area) through an annual interlocal agreement.
Victoria UZA Population
Census 2000 61,529
Census 2010 Projected 63,046
Change 1,517
Growth 2%
Transit Provider Golden Crescent Regional Planning Commission (GCRPC)
History Victoria became urbanized after the 1990 Census. The City and GCRPC originally
met in 1993 to discuss transit and not lose funding. The City approached GCRPC
because the commission was already providing rural public transportation.
Grant Recipient The City is the direct recipient of funds, but the City has an interlocal agreement
(ILA) with GCRPC to operate the service within the city of Victoria, and the GCRPC
is named as a grant recipient in a supplemental agreement with FTA. In this way,
the City retains direct recipient status, but the commission can facilitate grants
administration and financing. Every year, the City Council approves funding and
renews the ILA. GCRPC applies to the FTA directly for funding. All transit funds
come directly to GCRPC; however, the City’s staff representative (the MPO
coordinator) signs off on behalf of the City of Victoria.
Process GCRPC began working with the City of Victoria to provide door‐to‐door demand
response transit. The city initially chose demand response because staff wanted
to see if the services were going to be used; the city did not want to immediately
Attachment number 2 \nPage 22 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |9
begin fixed route service. Over time, the demand increased to the point where
fixed routes became necessary. The first year fixed routes were offered in 1997,
ridership exploded. The city and the GCRPC worked with a consultant to develop
a plan for fixed routes and complementary paratransit.
Governance The GCRPC has a board of directors, consisting of 27 members that represent the
various cities and counties, including hospital districts, etc. The City of Victoria
has a council member on the board, as does the county. The GCRPC board can
have up to three members representing the city and county of Victoria. Transit
service is specifically governed by the annual ILA between the City of Victoria and
GCRPC and the annual budget process.
City Staff/
Responsibilities
GCRPC does not answer directly to the Council but has a relationship with the
MPO coordinator. The City of Victoria is also the MPO for the metropolitan
planning area. This relationship was chosen because GCRPC does the regional
planning for transportation with the MPO. GCRPC provides monthly transit
reports to the MPO and if anything needs to be changed, and then the staffs of
both agencies work together. If GCRPC has an item for the Victoria City Council,
the MPO coordinator addresses council on behalf of GCRPC.
Strengths One strength of a rural‐urban partnership is that the GCRPC is able to utilize all of
its resources to the city’s advantage. Cost allocation is a necessity if the rural
transit district is running multiple services together.
An additional strength is the shared space and facilities. Also, a shared system is
good for the customers—some customers will ride in on the rural system and
then use the fixed route system to get around the city. The GCRPC operations
center is the major transfer center for when people come in on the rural routes.
Challenges There were some communication difficulties in the past between the agencies.
Requests and concerns are handled through the MPO coordinator as opposed to
the rural transit district being involved in regular meetings with Council. These
communications differences were worked out through a third‐party facilitator
and things have improved with the cooperative efforts. Three years ago when
the City needed to reduce local share, the two agencies worked together to
develop an acceptable revised service plan.
Additional
Information
A rural‐urban district was chosen because the infrastructure was already in place.
GCRPC already had the expertise in running a system, as the commission had
been providing services in the region since 1986. When the issue of establishing
an urban transportation system for the City of Victoria arose, city staff contacted
GCRPC to assist. While the city also considered management contracts, staff
decided to go with a rural‐urban transit district.
GCRPC provides rural and urban transit, medical transportation, complementary
paratransit, Job Access Reverse Commute routes on the evenings and weekends,
employer sponsored shuttles, a rural vanpool program, and 5310 services for the
elderly and disabled.
The interlocal agreement between GCRPC and City of Victoria is provided at the end of this Appendix.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 23 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |10
Annual Formula Fund Allocation ‐ Federal and State Funds for Victoria
Victoria 61,529 1,206 2008 2009* 2010 2011
2012
6 mos**
Federal Section 5307/5340 Apportioned $645,978 $687,143 $685,151 $687,204 $346,042
Texas Transit Funding Allocation***$231,045 $238,393 $273,645 $262,225 $259,861
* SAFTEA‐LU expires in 2009
** Approximately 50% of 2011 apportionment
*** State funds are also calculated 50% based on performance. Performance indicators change year to year.
Formula Federal and State Funds
Urbanized
Area
Population
2000 Density
Sources and Uses of Funds Actually Applied for Victoria
Source of Funds 2008 2009 2010 2011
Section 5307 Federal $658,190 $665,373 $1,179,697 $876,103
Section State Urban $231,183 $238,496 $273,644 $262,225
Section 5309 Discretionary Capital $0 $0 $290,941 $237,500
Passenger Fares $87,024 $107,274 $107,827 $120,407
Local Contributions $166,498 $233,224 $254,933 $213,147
Contributed Services (non‐cash) $39,162 $0 $0 $0
Medical Transportation Program $219,982 $332,344 $361,832 $490,992
Section 5316 (JARC) $213,446 $120,620 $185,588 $312,138
Other Contracts $4,988 $12,909 $20,327 $11,002
Total $1,620,473 $1,710,240 $2,674,789 $2,523,514
* Section 5307 includes ARRA funds
Use of Funds 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operational Expenses
Operating $1,366,179 $1,402,319 $1,456,648 $1,529,221
Maintenance $223,819 $289,920 $251,857 $237,778
Administrative
Planning
Total $1,589,998 $1,692,239 $1,708,505 $1,766,999
Capital Expenses** $30,475 $18,001 $966,284 $756,515
** Assumes Total Expenses less Operating = Capital
Attachment number 2 \nPage 24 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |11
LONGVIEW URBANIZED AREA
The City of Longview directly operates transit services within the city and contracts with a private transit
management firm to provide a general manager.
Transit Provider Longview Transit
History The city transit system began in 2003.
Grant Recipient The City of Longview maintains the direct recipient status, and Longview Transit
Management, Inc. is the subsidiary company for the employment of workers.
McDonald Transit has a management contract with the city to provide
management and planning services. The scope of the work is relatively fluid; and
the city maintains ownership of the facilities and equipment.
Process In 2003, Longview expressed interest in establishing a city transit system and
reached out to McDonald Transit.
Governance The governing board is the city of Longview’s City Council. The city also has a
transit advisory board (TAB) that meets every other month and brings policy,
performance, and grant opportunity issues forward to discuss. The TAB serves as
a means to communicate the public’s wishes and serves as a go‐between for the
public and City Council. Additionally, McDonald staff will occasionally make
recommendations, such as fare increases and route changes, which are usually
presented to City Council for a vote.
Longview
Attachment number 2 \nPage 25 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |12
City Staff/
Responsibilities
The City dedicates approximately 1.25 staff positions to transit. The positions
include a manager, basic administrative functions, and ¼ of a finance/accounting
staff person.
Strengths The city remains in control of the assets and is the direct recipient for FTA funds.
Additionally, the city receives expert management and planning services from
McDonald, where the staff is competent and dependable.
Challenges A challenge is continuity. In a management contract, the managers are changing
with some frequency. While the quality of manager is good, the issue is that
each time someone comes on board; there is a learning curve, which is
frustrating to both sides of the operation.
Additional
Information
Longview Transit provides fixed route and complementary paratransit services in
the city. Medical Transportation Program services are provided by East Texas
Support Services, and the Salvation Army is the new 5310 provider in Tyler.
The City of Longview is working on a shared facility with Amtrak. The city
received transportation enhancement funds to upgrade the facility in May 2012.
The terminal will be a multi‐modal facility, and the city will be bringing in
Greyhound as well.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 26 of 49
Item # A
Texas Transportation Institute Appendix C |13
Annual Formula Fund Allocation ‐ Federal and State Funds for Longview
Victoria 61,529 1,206 2008 2009* 2010 2011
2012
6 mos**
Federal Section 5307/5340 Apportioned $645,978 $687,143 $685,151 $687,204 $346,042
Texas Transit Funding Allocation***$231,045 $238,393 $273,645 $262,225 $259,861
* SAFTEA‐LU expires in 2009
** Approximately 50% of 2011 apportionment
*** State funds are also calculated 50% based on performance. Performance indicators change year to year.
Formula Federal and State Funds
Urbanized
Area
Population
2000 Density
Sources and Uses of Funds Actually Applied for Longview
Source of Funds 2008 2009 2010 2011
Section 5307 Federal $936,025 $682,880 $2,076,171 $1,253,066
Section State Urban $181,296 $237,397 $238,830 $258,072
Section 5309 Discretionary Capital $0 $8,450 $48,266 $118,690
Passenger Fares $124,828 $122,891 $134,260 $165,419
Local Contributions $242,217 $225,951 $322,014 $235,307
Non‐Transit Revenues $0 $0 $0 $34,592
Section 5310 Elderly & Disabled $0 $203,913 $13,778 $0
Total $1,484,366 $1,481,482 $2,833,319 $2,065,146
* Section 5307 includes ARRA funds
Use of Funds 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operational Expenses
Operating $945,137 $864,126 $939,214 $882,509
Maintenance $397,047 $418,139 $481,414 $554,792
Administrative $0 $0 $0 $0
Planning $100,197 $95,088 $114,020 $124,853
Total Operational Expenses $1,442,381 $1,377,353 $1,534,648 $1,562,154
Capital Expenses** $41,985 $104,129 $1,298,671 $502,992
** Assumes Total Expenses less Operating = Capital
Attachment number 2 \nPage 27 of 49
Item # A
Example Interlocal Agreements
Attachment number 2 \nPage 28 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 29 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 30 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 31 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 32 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 33 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 34 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 35 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 36 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 37 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 38 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 39 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 40 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 41 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 42 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 43 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 44 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 45 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 46 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 47 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 48 of 49
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 49 of 49
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 14, 2012
SUBJECT:
Update on the City’s Sales Tax revenue profile including historical information as well as sales tax revenue
projections -- Chris Foster, Chief Financial Analyst and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
ITEM SUMMARY:
This update report, based on data from the STARS (Sales Tax Analysis and Reporting Services) provided
much of the detail information and is the primary source for the historical review. In addition, other sources
include the Dallas Federal Reserve and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The report identifies sectors of the local economy and their related contribution to the City’s sales tax
revenue. Wolf Ranch is also segregated.
The primary purpose is to provide the City Council an idea of where the Sales Tax Collections in the City
come from, what economic sectors are changing, and a projection of revenue for the next few years based
upon Staff’s internal modeling.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Sales Tax Presentation
Cover Memo
Item # B
City of Georgetown Sales Tax
Update - 2011
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
Context
•This presentation is to give you confidenceThis presentation is to give you confidence
in how we make sales tax projections
•Charts are based on economic distribution•Charts are based on economic distribution
of sales tax collections
Dt i lldf STARS hih•Data is pulled from S.T.A.R.S. which
collects it from the State Comptroller
• Dollar figures are shown as total 1%
contribution to the General Fund
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
By Economic Categoryygy
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
Retail
Accommodation and Food
Service
MISC
Nt tdb Stt/Oth
1,000,000
Not reported by State/Other
Ag/Mining/Manufacturing
City
Wholesalers
500,000
0
Q307 Q407 Q108 Q208 Q308 Q408 Q109 Q209 Q309 Q409 Q110 Q210 Q310 Q410 Q111 Q211 Q311 Q411
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
Economic category changes Fy10 to
FY11
• Retail 1.88% (+71,329)(,)
• Accommodation/Food 7.37% (+54,037)
• Service -4.62% (-38,091)
• MISC -8.50% (-62,597)
• Unreported by State -5.99% (-37,177)
•Ag/Mining/Manufacturing 45.03% (+175,238)
• City -6.43% (-28,391)
Wh l l 4 84% (13 008)•Wholesalers -4.84% (-13,008)
• Overall 1.56% (+121,340)
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
Retail Only - Wolf Ranchy
1,200,000.00
1,000,000.00
Wolf Ranch (1%)
600,000.00
800,000.00 Wolf Ranch (1%)
Retail minus WR
400,000.00
200,000.00
0.00
Q307 Q407 Q108 Q208 Q308 Q408 Q109 Q209 Q309 Q409 Q110 Q210 Q310 Q410 Q111 Q211 Q311 Q411
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
Segment Variabilitygy
900,000
1,000,000
700,000
800,000
500,000
600,000
Total ALL Other
Building Materials
General Merchandise
Food Services
Other Retail
300,000
400,000
Other Retail
Information
City
Motor Vehicle and Parts
100,000
200,000
0
Q307Q407Q108Q208Q308Q408Q109Q209Q309Q409Q110Q210Q310Q410Q111Q211Q311Q411
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
SegmentQ1Q2Q3Q4Y-Y %
change
Y-Y $
change
Building
Materials
212,633 208,326 248,788 218,952 -5.43% -50,986
Materials
General
Merchandise
277,913 187,495 215,082 200,927 -3.04% -27,637
Food Services
193,108 189,753 206,502 198,006 +7.37% +54,037
Other Retail
186,622 170,360 187,493 180,035 +4.72% +32,683
Information
159,456 147,489 164,266 179,253 -8.61% -61,252
Not reported by 166,428 156,502 155,836 105,063 -5.99%-37,177py
State
599%3,
Manufacturing
123,282 212,473 116,387 89,430 +44.04% +165,584
City
84,255 86,450 94,696 148,106 -6.42% -28,391
City
Motor Vehicle and
Parts
78,599 76,668 85,761 87,599 +7.51% +22,947
MISC Store
80,498 65,742 84,139 68,930 +18.93% +47,637
Electronics and 89 684 63 896 61 689 61 185 +10 20%+25 599Electronics and
Appliance
89,684 63,896 61,689 61,185 +10.20%+25,599
Wholesalers
49,613 76,841 56,952 72,144 -4.84% -13,008
Apparel Store
65,097 43,940 54,371 46,068 +7.88% +15,295
Apparel Store
Sporting
Goods/Hobby
44,653 19,888 21,502 39,049 -2.42% -3,107
Utilities
25,279 43,263 23,801 28,912 -21.88% -33,954
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
SegmentQ1Q2Q3Q4Y-Y %
change
Y-Y $
change
Arts,
Entertainment
23,877 28,416 27,582 29,417 +7.95% +8,047
Entertainment,
Rec
Transportation/
Delivery
29,920 20,538 32,012 25,835 +14.56% +13,767
Professional/
Scientific
21,778 19,440 32,078 33,982 +74.05% +45,641
Scientific
Furniture and
Home Furn
28,345 24,224 25,863 24,993 +9.54% +9,004
Repair and Maint
22,650 24,679 24,129 27,059 +5.60% +5,223
16 983 14 997 20 797 24 082 52 54%85 092
Construction
16,983 14,997 20,797 24,082 -52.54%-85,092
Health Care and
Social
22,106 16,092 11,905 21,866 +5.93% +4,030
Real Estate and
Rental
15,050 13,698 12,903 13,014 +6.31% +3,247
Rental
Ag and Mining
4,207 3,020 7,628 7,977 +73.26% +9,654
Personal and
Laundry
6,547 5,612 5,467 4,848 -5.11% -1,209
Nonstore 7 062 5 077 4 520 4 779 049%105Nonstore
Retailers
7,062 5,077 4,520 4,779 -0.49%-105
Finance and
Insurance
3,807 3,293 6,158 3,397 +19.54% +2,722
Governmental/
Non-Profit
2,879 2,868 2,762 3,429 +2.63% +306
Non-Profit
Other Misc
2,798 3,007 3,182 2,631 -7.47% -938
Educational
Services
120 0 0 0 -91.07% -1,224
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
Inflation highlightgg
• Indexes watched (CPI, PPI, CCI, and MCI)
– Averaged 3-4% annually over 30 years
– Used in long term planning.
• Short term inflation very volatile year to year
–2011 used inflation factor of 0-2%2011 used inflation factor of 0 2%
– Dec to Dec indexes
Nat CPI Nat PPI Nat CCI Nat MCI Reg RegNat. CPI Nat. PPI Nat. CCI Nat. MCI Reg.
CPI
Reg.
CCI
3.4% 5.9% 4.9% 2.7% 4.0% 1.1%
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
Forecast –General Fund Inflation % Change
• FY 2009 collections $6,943,035
• FY 2010 collections $7,437,048
Inflation
Estimate
% Change
$, ,
• FY 2011 collections $7,793,638
• So far FY 2012 is 2.40% lower
than this time in FY 2011
2011 0-2%
2012 3-6%
than this time in FY 2011
• Econometric Future Trend
–FY2012 $7,995,725
2013 5%
2014 4%
2015 3%– FY2013 $8,316,826
– FY2014 $8,861,614
–FY2015 $9 435 094
2015 3%
2016 3%
2017 3%FY2015 $9,435,094
– FY2016 $10,289,676
2018 3%
2019 2%
2020 2%2020 2%
2021 3%
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
Conclusion
• Sales Tax dominated by Retail
•WR averages 29 34%Total Retail•WR averages 29-34% -Total Retail
• Building Materials - largest component
segmentsegment
• Food Services, Other Retail, and Motor
Vehicle and Parts -least variable producersVehicle and Parts -least variable producers
• Expect future population growth to be driver of
Sales Tax revenue gainsSales Tax revenue gains
• Inflation may cause volatile data in next few
years.years.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
1
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
Questions?Questions?
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
B
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 14, 2012
SUBJECT:
Council Goal Setting with City Manager -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # C
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 14, 2012
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending litigation that has been filed against the City or contemplated litigation
and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including but not limited to
this week's agenda item
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # D