French Broad Urban Transit Funding Formula...
97
French Broad Urban Transit Funding Formula Study Draft Report March 20, 2017 Prepared for French Broad River Metropolitan Planning Organization By KFH Group, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland
Transcript of French Broad Urban Transit Funding Formula...
French Broad Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Report
March 20, 2017
Prepared for French Broad River
Metropolitan Planning Organization
By
KFH Group, Inc.
Bethesda, Maryland
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 1 Background .................................................................................................... 3
Demographics and Transit Needs Characteristics ......................................... 8
Transit Operating and Financial Data ............................................................ 13 Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................................... 35 Examples from Other Areas ........................................................................... 37 Potential Model Factors ................................................................................. 38 Allocation Alternatives .................................................................................... 42 Sub-Allocation Process .................................................................................. 53 Oversight and Sub-Allocation Management Alternatives ............................... 54
Appendix A – FBRMPO Resolution Adopting the 5307 Urban Transit
Funding Allocation Formula Appendix B – NTD Profiles Appendix C – Capital Cost of Contracting Scenarios: Turnkey versus
County Owning Vehicles Appendix D – Example of Sub-Allocation Agreement for FTA Funds Appendix E – Asheville’s Subrecipients Oversight Checklists Appendix F – FBRMPO Local Dues
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 1
Draft Final Report
French Broad River Metropolitan Planning Organization
Urban Transit Funding Formula Study Draft Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The French Broad River Metropolitan Planning Organization (FBRMPO) is the transportation planning and policy-making body for the metropolitan area, which is comprised of the City of Asheville, Henderson County, and portions of Buncombe, Haywood, Madison, and Transylvania Counties. On March 27, 2012, the Bureau of Census released its list of Urbanized Areas (UZAs) based on data collected in 2010 Census. The growth of the MPO area resulted in a significant shift for transit funding in the region. Concurrently, NCDOT Public Transportation Division has been implementing rural Section 5311 public transit funding cuts to providers in the region due to urbanizing trends in those counties and a decrease in statewide Section 5311 funding. Adding to the changes, under the FAST Act (adopted in December 2015), demand response transit service became eligible for Section 5307 transit funding. In UZAs with more than one designated recipient, the FTA expects local officials, operating through the MPO, and designated recipients to determine the allocation of Section 5307 funds together. The designated recipient(s) and the MPO(s) should determine the subarea allocation fairly and rationally through a process based on local needs and agreeable to the designated recipients. The purpose of this report is to study the FTA 5307 split between the regional providers and make recommendations on how FTA funds could be allocated.
FTA Section 5307 Transit Funding
With an urbanized area population of 280,648, the FBRMPO region is classified as a “large” urbanized area, eligible for Federal Transit Administration formula grant assistance under the Section 5307 funding program. This program makes federal resources available to urbanized areas of 200,000 and more in population apportioned directly to a “designated recipient,” for transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation related planning. The 2010 U.S. Census update to the Asheville Urbanized Area that expanded the urbanized area boundaries had a number of impacts on transit funding in the region:
The new UZA is eligible for slightly more FTA funding under Section 5307 (since the FTA allocation formula for Section 5307 includes vehicle miles, passenger miles, population, and population density).
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 2
Draft Final Report
Simultaneously, as the urbanized area has grown and the areas considered rural have contracted, several counties are seeing a reduction in their rural transit funds.
Because of the increase in size of the urbanized area, there are additional transit operators and their services eligible for Section 5307 funding. The increase in Section 5307 funding allocation is not large enough to meet these additional needs. As a result, the amount of funding available to the City of Asheville and Henderson County is potentially reduced.
In order to help the MPO devise an equitable, defensible, and transparent allocation formula, NCDOT PTD provided funding assistance for the MPO to hire a consultant. The FBRMPO conducted a procurement process and hired KFH Group to help the MPO and the regional transit partners to develop a formula to split the federal Section 5307 funding allocation. A study advisory committee comprised of area stakeholders met frequently during the study to review interim study findings and build consensus for the eventual recommendations of an allocation model to the FBRMPO technical committee and Board.
Recommended Model
The FBRMPO Planning Board came to consensus that the FTA Section 5307 allocation for the region should be split according to the study’s formula Alternative 9 (see page 43) which adjusts the region’s previously‐utilized formula by removing revenue miles from the equation. It was also recommended that a three‐year phase‐in from the current allocation to the new allocation be applied. A copy of the FBRMPO Resolution Adopting the 5307 Urban Transit Funding Allocation Formula for Use in the French Broad River MPO Region is presented in Appendix A. The committee also decided to:
Keep a ten percent JARC set‐aside
Direct the first year’s Haywood County’s share to be part of the JARC County applicants, to allow a private non‐profit to utilize the funds prior to the County assuming subrecipient responsibilities for Section 5307 funds
Have the City of Asheville remain as the Designated Recipient FTA Section 5307 Apportionment Formula Allocations after Ten Percent JARC Set‐Aside
Year
City of Asheville % of Total
Buncombe County
% of Total
Haywood County
% of Total
Haywood County
% of Total
1st Year (state FY 2018) 67% 10% 5% 18%
2nd Year (state FY 2019) 55% 19% 7% 19%
3rd Year (state FY 2020) 43% 29% 8% 20%
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 3
Draft Final Report
This allocation will be in place for these funds until the 2020 Census. The FTA Section 5307 Formula Funds allocation formula for the Asheville UZA may be revisited prior to 2020 upon request from the City of Asheville, a current Section 5307 subrecipient or a potentially eligible Section 5307 subrecipient agency.
BACKGROUND
When large UZAs include multiple recipients of Section 5307 funds, the designated recipient and the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) are responsible for determining the sub-allocation to the multiple recipients. FTA encourages the designation of a single designated recipient for each UZA that has 200,000 or more in population, including UZAs that span more than one state, in order to streamline the administration of the program and foster coordination. However, nothing precludes the designation of multiple designated recipients. Designated recipients within a region that contain multiple recipients must have a locally developed process for sub-allocating Section 5307 funds that best serve the needs of the region.
Transit Funding in the Asheville Urbanized Area
With an urbanized area population of 280,6481, the FBRMPO region is classified as a “large” urbanized area, eligible for FTA formula grant assistance under the Section 5307 funding program. This program makes federal resources available to urbanized areas of 200,000 and more in population apportioned directly to a “designated recipient,” which is a public agency selected by agreement of all appropriate government agencies in the UZA. The Section 5307 designated recipient for the Asheville UZA is the City of Asheville. To date, the transit system in the City of Asheville (ART) and Henderson County (Apple Country Public Transit) have been receiving all of the region’s FTA Section 5307 funds but the region needs a sub-allocation formula for Section 5307 funds in the Asheville UZA that can support the transit systems operated not only by these two jurisdictions but also by Buncombe and Haywood Counties. The 2010 U.S. Census update to the Asheville Urbanized Area that expanded the UZA boundaries had a number of impacts on transit funding in the region:
The new urbanized area is eligible for slightly more FTA funding under Section 5307 (since the FTA allocation formula for Section 5307 includes vehicle miles, passenger miles, population, and population density).
1 In this study an urbanized area population of 278,456 was used because that is the population in the four jurisdictions
(the City of Asheville, and Buncombe, Haywood, and Henderson Counties) with transit service.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 4
Draft Final Report
Simultaneously, as the urbanized area has grown and the areas considered rural have contracted, several counties are seeing a reduction in their Section 5311 rural transit funds.
Because of the increase in size of the urbanized area, there are additional transit operators and their services eligible for Section 5307 funding. The increase in Section 5307 funding allocation is not large enough to meet these additional needs. As a result, the amount of funding available to the City of Asheville and Henderson County is potentially reduced.
The Section 5307 funding issue first came to light after the 2000 Census when the population of the Asheville Metropolitan Area exceeded 200,000. Figure 1 provides a map of the urbanized area, showing both the Census 2000 and the 2010 Census boundaries. Figure 2 displays the French Broad River MPO boundary and 2010 Asheville Urbanized Area accompanied by the City of Asheville boundary. The growth of the Census designated Urbanized Area and its classification as a “large urban area” resulted in a significant shift for transit funding in the region. As a result of the population increase, FBRMPO became a designated Transportation Management Area (TMA) and Asheville Transit went from being a small urban system, which received its apportionment of FTA Section 5307 funds from the Governor, to being a direct recipient of FTA funds This was a major change with extreme funding ramifications since cities with a population under 200,000 are allowed to use 5307 funds for operating expenses, whereas cities with populations over 200,000 are not. Fortunately, under a special exception passed by congress, the City of Asheville (one of 42 cities) was permitted to use Section 5307 funds for operating expenses through Fiscal Year 2010. This exception was repealed in 2012 and replaced by a single nationwide exemption for fixed route transit operators that operate fewer than one hundred buses in peak service, which includes the City of Asheville. Qualifying operators are eligible to use a portion of the allocated Section 5307 funding for operations in an amount based on an individual operator’s percentage of all public transportation service in the UZA (based on the revenue-hours operated by each provider). Between the need to sub-allocate available Section 5307 funds and the operating cap restriction, a major concern is that the City of Asheville and Henderson County may face reduced availability of federal funding as compared to its previous funding level, particularly for operations. At the same time, the other transit operators that serve the urbanized area would like to access the Section 5307 funding, particularly since NCDOT is "graduating" 5311 systems that are in the the newly designed urbanized areas. This results in a reduction in their Section 5311 rural transit funding. It was in this context that French Broad River Metropolitan Planning Organization requested assistance from KFH Group to develop a financial allocation model to equitably split the federal Section 5307 allocation between the local recipients. The key elements of this process were that the effort needed to be equitable, defensible, and transparent when devising the
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 5
Draft Final Report
allocation formula for the region. This draft report documents the development of the formula. Through this process, it became apparent that a second issue was equally critical: oversight of the Section 5307 program and approach of how the sub-allocation was managed. KFH Group was tasked with conducting the technical task work, meeting individually with stakeholders, and helping the study task force come to consensus. Several tasks were involved during the development of the model and are described below.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 6
Draft Final Report
Figure 1: French Broad River MPO Boundary/2000 and 2010 Asheville UZA
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 7
Draft Final Report
Figure 2: French Broad River MPO/2010 Asheville UZA/City of Asheville Boundaries
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 8
Draft Final Report
Key Issues
At the initial meeting with the project Advisory Committee, a number of issues with the Section 5307 allocation (to the UZA) and sub-allocation (within the UZA to the different transit operators) were discussed. This study needs to be even-handed (in terms of consideration of the interests of regional operators and funders), transparent, and data-driven. There was also some discussion of the proper focus of the study. Although NCDOT/PTD (Public Transportation Division) is revising its state transit funding programs, the Steering Committee and the FBRMPO staff both indicated that the primary focus should be limited to the allocation of FTA Section 5307 funding within the Urbanized Area, rather than addressing the potential impact of state program funding or other federal grants. It was noted that the boundaries of the UZA should be mapped in the study along with the transit routes. Additionally, Madison, McDowell and Transylvania Counties “opted out” and should not be considered as a transit system within the UZA for Section 5307 funding, as its primary origin area is Non-Urbanized (although some of its services take passengers into the UZA). Given the directive to be even-handed, transparent and data-driven, the study team began by focusing on transit needs and populations served (and unserved) as revealed by the most recent Census data.
DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRANSIT NEEDS CHARACTERISTICS
This section provides an overview of basic demographic and transit needs characteristics that could be considered in the development of the model. The basic demographic characteristics are presented first, followed by a transit needs analysis.
Basic Demographics
Any cost allocation model that is developed for the FBRMPO is likely to consider population and population density, as these factors are used by the FTA in its allocation formula. The primary population characteristics of the urbanized area are presented in Table 1. As this data indicates, roughly two-thirds of the urbanized area population lives within the general service area of the City of Asheville and Buncombe County, about one-quarter lives within Henderson County, and the remaining 9 percent lives within the general service area of Haywood County.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 9
Draft Final Report
Table 1: Urbanized Area Population Characteristics
2010 2010 Population Land Land Area Population
Jurisdiction Population Population % of Total Area % of Total Density
Within the Urbanized Area
City of Asheville 83,393 83,393 30% 44.93 17% 1,856
Buncombe County1 154,925 97,539 35% 108.79 41% 897
Haywood County 59,036 26,306 9% 24.28 9% 1,083
Henderson County 106,740 71,227 26% 84.96 32% 838
McDowell County 44,996
Madison County 20,764
Transylvania County 33,090
Totals 502,944 278,465
262.96
904
(1) Separated the City of Asheville and Buncombe County population and land area.
To gain better insight concerning the regional population make-up of the region, Table 2 displays the urban versus rural population breakdown for each jurisdiction and the region who have “opted-in” for Section 5307 funding. Table 2: Urban Versus Rural Population
Jurisdiction 2010 Urbanized Area Population
Urbanized Area Population
Percent of Total 2010 Rural Population
Rural Population Percent of Total
City of Asheville 83,393 30% 0 0%
Buncombe County1 97,539 35% 57,386 46%
Haywood County 26,306 9% 32,730 26%
Henderson County 71,227 26% 35,513 28%
Totals 278,465
125,629
Population Density
Population density is often an effective indicator of the types of public transit services that are most feasible within a study area. While exceptions exist, an area with a density of 2,000 persons per square mile will generally be able to sustain frequent, daily fixed route transit service. Conversely, an area with a population density below this threshold, but above 1,000 persons per square mile, may be better suited for demand response or deviated fixed route services. Demand response service is typically the ideal option with a density under 1,000 persons per square mile.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 10
Draft Final Report
Figure 3 portrays the FBRMPO population density by Census block group. The block groups that have a population density greater than 2,000 persons per square mile are generally clustered in the City of Asheville.
Transit Needs Characteristics
Public transportation needs are defined in part by identifying the relative size and location of those segments within the general population that are most likely to be dependent on transit services. These include individuals who may not have access to a personal vehicle or are unable to drive themselves due to age, disability, or income status. Determining the location of transit dependent populations allows for an evaluation of current transit services and the extent to which they meet community needs.
Transit Dependence Index (TDI)
The TDI is an aggregate measure that utilizes recent data from the American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates and the United State Decennial Census to display relative concentrations of transit dependent populations. Six factors make up the TDI calculation, as shown in the following formula: TDI = PD * (AVNV + AVE + AVY + AVD + AVBP)
1. PD: Population per square mile 2. AVNV: Amount of vulnerability based on no vehicle households 3. AVE: Amount of vulnerability based on elderly populations 4. AVY: Amount of vulnerability based on youth populations 5. AVD: Amount of vulnerability based on disabled populations 6. AVBP: Amount of vulnerability based on below-poverty populations
In addition to population density (PD), the factors above represent specific socioeconomic characteristics of area residents. For each factor, individual block groups are classified according to the prevalence of the vulnerable population relative to the urbanized area average. The factors are then plugged into the TDI equation to determine the relative transit dependence of each block group (very low, low, moderate, high, or very high). Figure 4 displays the overall TDI rankings for the FBRMPO area. Areas with the greatest potential transit need include several pockets in each jurisdiction. The majority of the highest need block groups are currently served by transit.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 11
Draft Final Report
Figure 3: Population Density in the French Broad River Region
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 12
Draft Final Report
Figure 4: Transit Dependent Index for the French Broad River Region
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 13
Draft Final Report
The point of the demographic analysis is that each jurisdiction has transit needs, and operates services designed to address them. A sub-allocation formula must address all of the needs —there is no case of a jurisdiction that does not merit funding due to lack of transit dependent population.
TRANSIT OPERATING AND FINANCIAL DATA
Operating Data
Although there are six transit services that provide transportation services with the Asheville Urbanized Area, this report is solely focusing on Asheville Redefines Transit (ART), Mountain Mobility (Buncombe County), Apple Country Public Transit (Henderson County), and Haywood Public Transit. Table 3 presents operating data filed within each system’s 2014 National Transit Database Annual Agency Profile (agency profiles included in Appendix B). A key point is that the operating data is for each system’s entire service area, which may go beyond the UZA. UZA specific data is solely analyzed when looking at potential model factors later in the report. Additionally, Figures 5-8 are maps displaying Asheville UZA overlaid with the transit services each agency operates in the FBRMPO area. Of note is that Asheville Transit does provide service beyond city limits.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 14
Draft Final Report
Table 3: Transit Operating Data
Type
Asheville Redefines Transit
(ART) Mountain Mobility
Haywood County Public Transit
Apple Country Public Transit
Ridership Bus 1,430,959 28,646
103,426
DR
133,454 37,414 4,856
Revenue Hours
Bus 62,288 8,162
9,015
DR
56,229 19,754 1,900
Trips per Hour
Bus 23.0 3.5
11.5
DR
2.4 1.9 2.6
Revenue Miles
Bus 876,958 108,719
169,032
DR
1,053,746 311,917 32,684
Trips per Mile Bus 1.6 0.3
0.6
DR
0.1 0.1 0.1
Operating Expense
Bus $5,223,986 $598,273
$519,083
DR
$2,809,390 $832,612 $80,030
Cost per Hour Bus $83.87 $73.30
$57.58
DR
$49.96 $42.15 $42.12
Cost per Revenue Mile
Bus $5.96 $5.50
$3.07
DR
$2.67 $2.67 $2.45
Cost per Trip Bus $3.65 $20.89
$5.02
DR
$21.05 $22.25 $16.48
Fare Revenue Bus $676,236 $14,056
$50,563
DR
$81,325 $10,708 $5,959
Fares Bus 12.9% 2.3%
9.7%
DR
2.9% 1.3% 7.4%
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 15
Draft Final Report
Figure 5: Transit Services in the French Broad Region
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 16
Draft Final Report
Figure 6: Asheville Redefines Transit (ART) Service
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 17
Draft Final Report
Figure 7: Mountain Mobility/Buncombe County Transit Service
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 18
Draft Final Report
Figure 8: Apple Country Public Transit/Henderson County Transit
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 19
Draft Final Report
Financial Data
Public transit services in the FBRMPO area are funded through a mix of federal, state, and local funds. The two primary sources of federal funds are the Section 5307 and Section 5311 programs, which provide operating and/or capital assistance based on urban and rural designations. The FY 2016 current budget, and FY 2017-2020 projected budgets for both operating and capital needs are presented in Tables 4 - 13. They are important since they provide insight on how the locally agreed upon allocation of Section 5307 funds will affect what was once historical federal funding support to some of the subrecipients.
Eligible Activities
Eligible activities include planning, engineering design and evaluation of transit projects and technical transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement of buses, overhaul and rebuilding of buses; crime prevention and security equipment; 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 Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service costs are considered capital costs.2
2 USDOT/FTA Fact Sheet: Urbanized Area Formula Program Grants 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Sections 5307 & 5340
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 20
Draft Final Report
Table 4: FY 2016 Current Operating Budget Sy
ste
m
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Tota
l Exp
en
ses
$0$5
,978
,587
$597
,209
$2,8
49,8
44$2
57,6
98$5
27,8
28$2
06,5
73$4
63,4
07$1
,061
,480
$9,8
19,6
66
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ad
min
istr
atio
n F
un
din
g$1
65,2
32$2
06,1
58$1
07,4
17$4
78,8
07$0
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ad
min
istr
atio
n O
pe
rati
ng
$29,
798
$0$2
9,79
8
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P$1
7,44
9$1
7,44
9$0
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
309:
Cap
ital
Inve
stm
en
t G
ran
t P
rogr
am
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y an
d D
isab
led
Ind
ivid
ual
s Tr
ansp
ort
atio
n P
rogr
am$9
9,00
0$6
6,12
6$1
9,47
4$5
7,09
5$0
$241
,695
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
316:
Jo
bs
Acc
ess
an
d R
eve
rse
Co
mm
ute
Pro
gram
$160
,000
$57,
245
$0$2
17,2
45
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
317:
Ne
w F
ree
do
m P
rogr
am
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am$1
,523
,000
$0$1
,523
,000
AR
RA
Re
gio
nal
an
d In
terc
ity
Pro
gram
Oth
er
$164
,741
$0$1
64,7
41
Fed
era
l To
tal
$0$1
,782
,000
$182
,681
$123
,371
$206
,158
$214
,013
$107
,417
$57,
095
$496
,256
$2,1
76,4
79
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
ura
l Cap
ital
Pro
gram
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Eld
erl
y an
d D
isab
led
TA
P$1
05,0
21$8
9,81
2$6
5,66
2$0
$260
,495
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Ru
ral G
en
era
l Pro
gram
$78,
611
$93,
170
$59,
544
$0$2
31,3
25
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Em
plo
yme
nt
$53,
983
$24,
147
$0$7
8,13
0St
ate
of
NC
: Hu
man
Se
rvic
e T
ran
spo
rtat
ion
Man
age
me
nt
Pro
gram
Stat
e o
f N
C: S
tate
Mai
nte
nan
ce A
ssis
tan
ce P
rogr
am (
SMA
P)
$653
,547
$0$6
53,5
47
Stat
e o
f N
C: U
rban
/Re
gio
nal
Bu
s Fa
cili
ty P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: U
rban
/Re
gio
nal
Te
chn
olo
gy P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: P
ub
lic
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Gra
nt
Pro
gram
Stat
e o
f N
C: A
dm
inis
trat
ive
Mat
ch$1
33,5
91$1
2,88
4$6
8,16
9$2
14,6
44$0
Oth
er
$25,
567
$0$2
5,56
7
Stat
e T
ota
l$0
$653
,547
$133
,591
$263
,182
$12,
884
$207
,129
$68,
169
$125
,206
$214
,644
$1,2
49,0
64
Loca
l Re
ven
ue
$488
,677
$280
,937
$1,3
29,1
72$3
8,65
6$1
8,30
5$3
0,98
7$3
50,5
80$1
,836
,154
Fun
d B
alan
ce$2
,406
,992
$26,
875
$0$2
,433
,867
Me
dic
aid
$466
,307
$0$4
66,3
07
No
n-M
ed
icai
d C
on
trac
t $5
52,9
71$4
4,06
5$2
62,0
36$0
$859
,072
Fare
Bo
x$6
47,3
71$1
14,8
41$1
7,44
1$1
9,07
0$0
$798
,723
Oth
er
Re
ven
ue
To
tal
$0$3
,543
,040
$280
,937
$2,4
63,2
91$3
8,65
6$1
06,6
86$3
0,98
7$2
81,1
06$3
50,5
80$6
,394
,123
Tota
l Re
ven
ue
s$0
$5,9
78,5
87$5
97,2
09$2
,849
,844
$257
,698
$527
,828
$206
,573
$463
,407
$1,0
61,4
80$9
,819
,666
Oth
er
Re
ven
ue
Stat
e R
eve
nu
e
Fed
era
l Re
ven
ue
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e/A
she
vill
e
Tran
sit
Serv
ice
s
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c
Tran
sit
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/M
ou
nta
in
Pro
ject
sR
egi
on
al T
ota
l
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 21
Draft Final Report
Table 5: FY 2017 Projected Operating Budget
Syst
em
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Tota
l Exp
en
ses
$0$7
,078
,388
$650
,000
$3,2
45,7
32$2
73,3
66$5
88,3
56$2
06,5
73$4
79,9
79$1
,129
,939
$11,
392,
455
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ad
min
istr
atio
n F
un
din
g$1
65,2
34$2
06,1
58$1
07,4
17$4
78,8
09$0
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ad
min
istr
atio
n O
pe
rati
ng
$29,
798
$0$2
9,79
8
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P$3
5,99
6$3
5,99
6$0
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
309:
Cap
ital
Inve
stm
en
t G
ran
t P
rogr
am
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y an
d D
isab
led
Ind
ivid
ual
s Tr
ansp
ort
atio
n P
rogr
am$9
9,00
0$5
7,44
4$2
0,65
8$5
7,09
4$0
$234
,196
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
316:
Jo
bs
Acc
ess
an
d R
eve
rse
Co
mm
ute
Pro
gram
$160
,000
$58,
046
$0$2
18,0
46
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
317:
Ne
w F
ree
do
m P
rogr
am
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am$1
,603
,000
$12,
535
$16,
048
$12,
535
$1,6
19,0
48
AR
RA
Re
gio
nal
an
d In
terc
ity
Pro
gram
Oth
er:
$174
,757
$0$1
74,7
57
Fed
era
l To
tal
$0$1
,862
,000
$201
,230
$115
,490
$218
,693
$241
,261
$107
,417
$57,
094
$527
,340
$2,2
75,8
45
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
ura
l Cap
ital
Pro
gram
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Eld
erl
y an
d D
isab
led
TA
P$1
32,3
32$1
09,5
09$7
3,79
7$0
$315
,638
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Ru
ral G
en
era
l Pro
gram
$78,
611
$98,
835
$67,
018
$0$2
44,4
64
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Em
plo
yme
nt
$53,
983
$25,
615
$0$7
9,59
8
Stat
e o
f N
C: H
um
an S
erv
ice
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n M
anag
em
en
t P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: S
tate
Mai
nte
nan
ce A
ssis
tan
ce P
rogr
am (
SMA
P)
$660
,000
$0$6
60,0
00
Stat
e o
f N
C: U
rban
/Re
gio
nal
Bu
s Fa
cili
ty P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: U
rban
/Re
gio
nal
Te
chn
olo
gy P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: P
ub
lic
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Gra
nt
Pro
gram
Stat
e o
f N
C: A
dm
inis
trat
ive
Mat
ch$1
33,5
93$1
3,66
7$6
8,16
9$2
15,4
29$0
Oth
er
Stat
e T
ota
l$0
$660
,000
$133
,593
$264
,926
$13,
667
$233
,959
$68,
169
$140
,815
$215
,429
$1,2
99,7
00
Loca
l Re
ven
ue
$408
,677
$315
,177
$1,3
61,0
27$4
1,00
6$3
3,65
5$3
0,98
7$3
87,1
70$1
,803
,359
Fun
d B
alan
ce$3
,467
,711
$0$3
,467
,711
Me
dic
aid
$542
,905
$0$5
42,9
05
No
n-M
ed
icai
d C
on
trac
t $8
56,9
00$6
0,98
0$2
63,0
00$0
$1,1
80,8
80
Fare
Bo
x$6
80,0
00$1
04,4
84$1
8,50
1$1
9,07
0$0
$822
,055
Oth
er
Re
ven
ue
To
tal
$0$4
,556
,388
$315
,177
$2,8
65,3
16$4
1,00
6$1
13,1
36$3
0,98
7$2
82,0
70$3
87,1
70$7
,816
,910
Tota
l Re
ven
ue
s$0
$7,0
78,3
88$6
50,0
00$3
,245
,732
$273
,366
$588
,356
$206
,573
$479
,979
$1,1
29,9
39$1
1,39
2,45
5
Re
gio
nal
To
tal
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e/A
she
vill
e
Tran
sit
Serv
ice
s
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c
Tran
sit
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/M
ou
nta
in
Pro
ject
s
Fed
era
l Re
ven
ue
Stat
e R
eve
nu
e
Oth
er
Re
ven
ue
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 22
Draft Final Report
Table 6: FY 2018 Projected Operating Budget Sy
ste
m
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Tota
l Exp
en
ses
$0$7
,102
,000
$676
,000
$3,1
85,7
63$2
84,2
93$6
39,0
14$1
77,0
14$4
86,3
15$1
,137
,307
$11,
413,
092
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ad
min
istr
atio
n F
un
din
g$1
65,2
34$2
06,1
58$9
2,04
7$4
63,4
39$0
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ad
min
istr
atio
n O
pe
rati
ng
$29,
798
$0$2
9,79
8
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
309:
Cap
ital
Inve
stm
en
t G
ran
t P
rogr
am
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y an
d D
isab
led
Ind
ivid
ual
s Tr
ansp
ort
atio
n P
rogr
am$9
9,00
0$2
1,48
4$6
2,50
0$0
$182
,984
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
316:
Jo
bs
Acc
ess
an
d R
eve
rse
Co
mm
ute
Pro
gram
$160
,000
$60,
368
$0$2
20,3
68
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
317:
Ne
w F
ree
do
m P
rogr
am
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am$1
,603
,000
$21,
276
$25,
987
$21,
276
$1,6
28,9
87
AR
RA
Re
gio
nal
an
d In
terc
ity
Pro
gram
Oth
er
$181
,742
$0$1
81,7
42
Fed
era
l To
tal
$0$1
,862
,000
$165
,234
$60,
368
$227
,434
$259
,011
$92,
047
$62,
500
$484
,715
$2,2
43,8
79
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
ura
l Cap
ital
Pro
gram
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Eld
erl
y an
d D
isab
led
TA
P$1
37,6
25$1
19,3
50$7
3,79
7$0
$330
,772
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Ru
ral G
en
era
l Pro
gram
$81,
755
$102
,786
$67,
018
$0$2
51,5
59
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Em
plo
yme
nt
$56,
142
$26,
639
$0$8
2,78
1
Stat
e o
f N
C: H
um
an S
erv
ice
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n M
anag
em
en
t P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: S
tate
Mai
nte
nan
ce A
ssis
tan
ce P
rogr
am (
SMA
P)
$660
,000
$0$6
60,0
00
Stat
e o
f N
C: U
rban
/Re
gio
nal
Bu
s Fa
cili
ty P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: U
rban
/Re
gio
nal
Te
chn
olo
gy P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: P
ub
lic
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Gra
nt
Pro
gram
Stat
e o
f N
C: A
dm
inis
trat
ive
Mat
ch$1
38,9
37$1
4,21
4$5
8,41
4$2
11,5
65$0
Oth
er
$134
,762
$0$1
34,7
62
Stat
e T
ota
l$0
$660
,000
$138
,937
$410
,284
$14,
214
$248
,775
$58,
414
$140
,815
$211
,565
$1,4
59,8
74
Loca
l Re
ven
ue
$400
,000
$371
,829
$1,1
76,7
16$4
2,64
5$4
3,10
6$2
6,55
3$4
41,0
27$1
,619
,822
Fun
d B
alan
ce$3
,500
,000
$0$3
,500
,000
Me
dic
aid
$564
,621
$0$5
64,6
21
No
n-M
ed
icai
d C
on
trac
t $8
74,4
71$6
8,88
2$2
63,0
00$0
$1,2
06,3
53
Fare
Bo
x$6
80,0
00$9
9,30
3$1
9,24
0$2
0,00
0$0
$818
,543
Oth
er
Re
ven
ue
To
tal
$0$4
,580
,000
$371
,829
$2,7
15,1
11$4
2,64
5$1
31,2
28$2
6,55
3$2
83,0
00$4
41,0
27$7
,709
,339
Tota
l Re
ven
ue
s$0
$7,1
02,0
00$6
76,0
00$3
,185
,763
$284
,293
$639
,014
$177
,014
$486
,315
$1,1
37,3
07$1
1,41
3,09
2
Stat
e R
eve
nu
e
Oth
er
Re
ven
ue
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e/A
she
vill
e
Tran
sit
Serv
ice
s
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c
Tran
sit
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/M
ou
nta
in
Pro
ject
sR
egi
on
al T
ota
l
Fed
era
l Re
ven
ue
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 23
Draft Final Report
Table 7: FY 2019 Projected Operating Budget Sy
ste
m
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Tota
l Exp
en
ses
$0$7
,102
,000
$1,0
58,0
40$3
,216
,423
$295
,683
$677
,840
$171
,351
$486
,315
$1,5
25,0
74$1
1,48
2,57
8
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ad
min
istr
atio
n F
un
din
g$1
65,2
34$2
06,1
58$1
45,6
48$5
17,0
40$0
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ad
min
istr
atio
n O
pe
rati
ng
$29,
798
$0$2
9,79
8
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
309:
Cap
ital
Inve
stm
en
t G
ran
t P
rogr
am
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y an
d D
isab
led
Ind
ivid
ual
s Tr
ansp
ort
atio
n P
rogr
am$9
9,00
0$2
8,40
0$3
1,70
4$6
2,50
0$2
8,40
0$1
93,2
04
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
316:
Jo
bs
Acc
ess
an
d R
eve
rse
Co
mm
ute
Pro
gram
$160
,000
$62,
783
$0$2
22,7
83
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
317:
Ne
w F
ree
do
m P
rogr
am
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am$1
,603
,000
$30,
388
$25,
474
$30,
388
$1,6
28,4
74
AR
RA
Re
gio
nal
an
d In
terc
ity
Pro
gram
Oth
er
$255
,600
$664
,368
$189
,024
$255
,600
$853
,392
Fed
era
l To
tal
$0$1
,862
,000
$449
,234
$727
,151
$236
,546
$276
,000
$145
,648
$62,
500
$831
,428
$2,9
27,6
51
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
ura
l Cap
ital
Pro
gram
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Eld
erl
y an
d D
isab
led
TA
P$1
43,1
30$1
24,1
32$7
3,79
7$0
$341
,059
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Ru
ral G
en
era
l Pro
gram
$85,
025
$106
,904
$67,
018
$0$2
58,9
47
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Em
plo
yme
nt
$58,
388
$27,
706
$0$8
6,09
4
Stat
e o
f N
C: H
um
an S
erv
ice
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n M
anag
em
en
t P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: S
tate
Mai
nte
nan
ce A
ssis
tan
ce P
rogr
am (
SMA
P)
$660
,000
$0$6
60,0
00
Stat
e o
f N
C: U
rban
/Re
gio
nal
Bu
s Fa
cili
ty P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: U
rban
/Re
gio
nal
Te
chn
olo
gy P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: P
ub
lic
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Gra
nt
Pro
gram
$144
,494
$144
,494
$0
Stat
e o
f N
C: A
dm
inis
trat
ive
Mat
ch$3
1,95
0$1
4,78
3$4
6,73
3$0
Oth
er
Stat
e T
ota
l$0
$660
,000
$176
,444
$286
,543
$14,
783
$258
,742
$0$1
40,8
15$1
91,2
27$1
,346
,100
Loca
l Re
ven
ue
$400
,000
$432
,362
$609
,767
$44,
354
$46,
765
$25,
703
$502
,419
$1,0
56,5
32
Fun
d B
alan
ce$3
,500
,000
$0$3
,500
,000
Me
dic
aid
$587
,206
$0$5
87,2
06
No
n-M
ed
icai
d C
on
trac
t $8
92,7
45$7
6,32
2$2
63,0
00$0
$1,2
32,0
67
Fare
Bo
x$6
80,0
00$1
13,0
11$2
0,01
1$2
0,00
0$0
$833
,022
Oth
er
Re
ven
ue
To
tal
$0$4
,580
,000
$432
,362
$2,2
02,7
29$4
4,35
4$1
43,0
98$2
5,70
3$2
83,0
00$5
02,4
19$7
,208
,827
Tota
l Re
ven
ue
s$0
$7,1
02,0
00$1
,058
,040
$3,2
16,4
23$2
95,6
83$6
77,8
40$1
71,3
51$4
86,3
15$1
,525
,074
$11,
482,
578
Re
gio
nal
To
tal
Fed
era
l Re
ven
ue
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/M
ou
nta
in
Pro
ject
s
Stat
e R
eve
nu
e
Oth
er
Re
ven
ue
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e/A
she
vill
e
Tran
sit
Serv
ice
s
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c
Tran
sit
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 24
Draft Final Report
Table 8: FY 2020 Projected Operating Budget Sy
ste
m
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Ad
min
istr
ativ
eO
pe
rati
ng
Tota
l Exp
en
ses
$0$7
,102
,000
$731
,162
$3,4
21,8
53$3
07,5
11$7
38,9
32$1
75,6
16$4
87,3
15$1
,214
,289
$11,
750,
100
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ad
min
istr
atio
n F
un
din
g$1
65,2
34$2
06,1
58$1
49,2
74$5
20,6
66$0
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ad
min
istr
atio
n O
pe
rati
ng
$29,
798
$0$2
9,79
8
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
309:
Cap
ital
Inve
stm
en
t G
ran
t P
rogr
am
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y an
d D
isab
led
Ind
ivid
ual
s Tr
ansp
ort
atio
n P
rogr
am$9
9,00
0$4
7,57
4$6
2,50
0$0
$209
,074
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
316:
Jo
bs
Acc
ess
an
d R
eve
rse
Co
mm
ute
Pro
gram
$160
,000
$64,
106
$0$2
24,1
06
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
317:
Ne
w F
ree
do
m P
rogr
am
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am$1
,603
,000
$39,
851
$27,
685
$39,
851
$1,6
30,6
85
AR
RA
Re
gio
nal
an
d In
terc
ity
Pro
gram
Oth
er
$803
,738
$196
,586
$0$1
,000
,324
Fed
era
l To
tal
$0$1
,862
,000
$165
,234
$867
,844
$246
,009
$301
,643
$149
,274
$62,
500
$560
,517
$3,0
93,9
87
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
ura
l Cap
ital
Pro
gram
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Eld
erl
y an
d D
isab
led
TA
P$1
43,1
30$1
31,4
84$7
3,79
7$0
$348
,411
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Ru
ral G
en
era
l Pro
gram
$85,
025
$111
,180
$67,
018
$0$2
63,2
23
Stat
e o
f N
C: R
OA
P -
Em
plo
yme
nt
$58,
388
$28,
815
$0$8
7,20
3
Stat
e o
f N
C: H
um
an S
erv
ice
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n M
anag
em
en
t P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: S
tate
Mai
nte
nan
ce A
ssis
tan
ce P
rogr
am (
SMA
P)
$660
,000
$0$6
60,0
00
Stat
e o
f N
C: U
rban
/Re
gio
nal
Bu
s Fa
cili
ty P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: U
rban
/Re
gio
nal
Te
chn
olo
gy P
rogr
am
Stat
e o
f N
C: P
ub
lic
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Gra
nt
Pro
gram
Stat
e o
f N
C: A
dm
inis
trat
ive
Mat
ch$1
44,4
94$1
5,37
4$1
59,8
68$0
Oth
er
Stat
e T
ota
l$0
$660
,000
$144
,494
$286
,543
$15,
374
$271
,479
$0$1
40,8
15$1
59,8
68$1
,358
,837
Loca
l Re
ven
ue
$400
,000
$421
,434
$684
,239
$46,
128
$58,
323
$26,
342
$493
,904
$1,1
42,5
62
Fun
d B
alan
ce$3
,500
,000
$0$3
,500
,000
Me
dic
aid
$587
,206
$0$5
87,2
06
No
n-M
ed
icai
d C
on
trac
t $8
92,7
45$8
6,67
5$2
63,0
00$0
$1,2
42,4
20
Fare
Bo
x$6
80,0
00$1
03,2
76$2
0,81
2$2
1,00
0$0
$825
,088
Oth
er
Re
ven
ue
To
tal
$0$4
,580
,000
$421
,434
$2,2
67,4
66$4
6,12
8$1
65,8
10$2
6,34
2$2
84,0
00$4
93,9
04$7
,297
,276
Tota
l Re
ven
ue
s$0
$7,1
02,0
00$7
31,1
62$3
,421
,853
$307
,511
$738
,932
$175
,616
$487
,315
$1,2
14,2
89$1
1,75
0,10
0
Oth
er
Re
ven
ue
Re
gio
nal
To
tal
Fed
era
l Re
ven
ue
Stat
e R
eve
nu
e
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e/A
she
vill
e
Tran
sit
Serv
ice
s
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c
Tran
sit
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/M
ou
nta
in
Pro
ject
s
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 25
Draft Final Report
Table 9: FY 2016 Current Capital Budget
Cit
y o
f
Ash
evi
lle
/Ash
evi
lle
Tran
sit
Serv
ice
s
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/
Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c
Tran
sit
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/M
ou
nta
in
Pro
ject
s
Re
gio
nal
Tota
l
Re
pla
cem
en
t V
eh
icle
s$4
84,8
66$8
5,80
0$5
70,6
66
Exp
ansi
on
Ve
hic
les
Faci
lity
Faci
lity
Imp
rove
me
nts
Tech
no
logy
$66,
120
$66,
120
Oth
er
$9,7
21$9
,721
Tota
l$0
$560
,707
$85,
800
$0$6
46,5
07
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Cap
ital
$168
,597
$77,
220
$245
,817
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P$5
2,89
6$5
2,89
6
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y &
Dis
able
d In
div
idu
als
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am
Oth
er
Fed
era
l To
tal
$0$2
21,4
93$7
7,22
0$0
$570
,666
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Cap
ital
$226
,552
$226
,552
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y &
Dis
able
d In
div
idu
als
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am
Oth
er
Stat
e T
ota
l$0
$226
,552
$0$0
$226
,552
Loca
l Mat
ch$1
08,9
39$8
,580
$117
,519
Oth
er
$3,7
23$3
,723
Loca
l To
tal
$0$1
12,6
62$8
,580
$0$1
21,2
42
Tota
l$0
$560
,707
$85,
800
$0$5
70,6
66
Cap
ital
Ite
m
Fed
era
l Re
ven
ue
Pro
gram
Stat
e R
eve
nu
e P
rogr
am
Loca
l Re
ven
ue
Pro
gram
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 26
Draft Final Report
Table 10: FY 2017 Projected Capital Budget
Cit
y o
f
Ash
evi
lle
/Ash
evi
lle
Tran
sit
Serv
ice
s
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/
Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c
Tran
sit
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/M
ou
nta
in
Pro
ject
s
Re
gio
nal
Tota
l
Re
pla
cem
en
t V
eh
icle
s$4
50,0
00$7
89,0
37$1
35,3
58$1
16,0
00$1
,490
,395
Exp
ansi
on
Ve
hic
les
Faci
lity
Faci
lity
Imp
rove
me
nts
$79,
560
$79,
560
Tech
no
logy
$21,
216
$21,
216
Oth
er
$20,
315
$20,
315
Tota
l$4
50,0
00$8
09,3
52$2
36,1
34$1
16,0
00$1
,611
,486
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Cap
ital
$310
,675
$121
,822
$81,
249
$513
,746
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P$1
9,09
4$1
9,09
4
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
$14,
516
$14,
516
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y &
Dis
able
d In
div
idu
als
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
$14,
609
$14,
609
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am
Oth
er
Fed
era
l To
tal
$0$3
10,6
75$1
40,9
16$1
10,3
74$5
61,9
65
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Cap
ital
$417
,470
$10,
156
$427
,626
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
$1,8
14$1
,814
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y &
Dis
able
d In
div
idu
als
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
$1,8
26$1
,826
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am
Oth
er
$33,
102
$33,
102
Stat
e T
ota
l$0
$417
,470
$0$4
6,89
8$4
64,3
68
Loca
l Mat
ch$9
0,00
0$6
0,20
7$9
5,21
7$2
45,4
24
Oth
er
$21,
000
$21,
000
Loca
l To
tal
$90,
000
$81,
207
$95,
217
$0$2
66,4
24
Tota
l$9
0,00
0$8
09,3
52$2
36,1
34$1
57,2
72$1
,292
,758
Fed
era
l Re
ven
ue
Pro
gram
Stat
e R
eve
nu
e P
rogr
am
Loca
l Re
ven
ue
Pro
gram
Cap
ital
Ite
m
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 27
Draft Final Report
Table 11: FY 2018 Projected Capital Budget
Cit
y o
f
Ash
evi
lle
/Ash
evi
lle
Tran
sit
Serv
ice
s
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/
Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c
Tran
sit
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/M
ou
nta
in
Pro
ject
s
Re
gio
nal
Tota
l
Re
pla
cem
en
t V
eh
icle
s$4
50,0
00$5
43,5
00$2
57,1
65$5
8,50
0$1
,309
,165
Exp
ansi
on
Ve
hic
les
$67,
604
$67,
604
Faci
lity
Faci
lity
Imp
rove
me
nts
$1,0
00,0
00$1
,000
,000
Tech
no
logy
Oth
er
$250
,000
$250
,000
Tota
l$1
,700
,000
$611
,104
$257
,165
$58,
500
$2,6
26,7
69
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Cap
ital
$206
,530
$82,
874
$289
,404
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
$360
,000
$14,
806
$374
,806
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y &
Dis
able
d In
div
idu
als
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
$14,
901
$14,
901
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am$2
31,4
48$2
31,4
48
Oth
er
$54,
083
$54,
083
Fed
era
l To
tal
$360
,000
$260
,613
$231
,448
$112
,581
$964
,642
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Cap
ital
$282
,620
$10,
359
$292
,979
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
$45,
000
$1,8
51$4
6,85
1
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y &
Dis
able
d In
div
idu
als
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
$1,8
63$1
,863
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am
Oth
er
$33,
764
$33,
764
Stat
e T
ota
l$4
5,00
0$2
82,6
20$0
$47,
837
$375
,457
Loca
l Mat
ch$1
,045
,000
$46,
871
$25,
716
$1,1
17,5
87
Oth
er
$21,
000
$21,
000
Loca
l To
tal
$1,0
45,0
00$6
7,87
1$2
5,71
6$0
$1,1
38,5
87
Tota
l$1
,450
,000
$611
,104
$257
,164
$160
,418
$2,4
78,6
86
Cap
ital
Ite
m
Stat
e R
eve
nu
e P
rogr
am
Fed
era
l Re
ven
ue
Pro
gram
Loca
l Re
ven
ue
Pro
gram
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 28
Draft Final Report
Table 12: FY 2019 Projected Capital Budget
Cit
y o
f
Ash
evi
lle
/Ash
evi
lle
Tran
sit
Serv
ice
s
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/
Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c
Tran
sit
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/M
ou
nta
in
Pro
ject
s
Re
gio
nal
Tota
l
Re
pla
cem
en
t V
eh
icle
s$2
,250
,000
$625
,560
$92,
194
$191
,500
$3,1
59,2
54
Exp
ansi
on
Ve
hic
les
$378
,096
$378
,096
Faci
lity
Faci
lity
Imp
rove
me
nts
Tech
no
logy
$350
,000
$350
,000
Oth
er
Tota
l$2
,250
,000
$1,3
53,6
56$9
2,19
4$1
91,5
00$3
,887
,350
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Cap
ital
$237
,713
$84,
531
$322
,244
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P$8
5,00
0$8
5,00
0
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
$15,
102
$15,
102
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y &
Dis
able
d In
div
idu
als
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
$120
,000
$15,
199
$135
,199
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am$8
2,97
5$8
2,97
5
Oth
er
$1,8
00,0
00$8
0,00
0$1
,880
,000
Fed
era
l To
tal
$1,8
00,0
00$5
22,7
13$8
2,97
5$1
14,8
32$2
,520
,520
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Cap
ital
$325
,291
$10,
566
$335
,857
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
$225
,000
$1,8
88$2
26,8
88
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y &
Dis
able
d In
div
idu
als
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
$1,9
00$1
,900
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am
Oth
er
$302
,477
$34,
439
$336
,916
Stat
e T
ota
l$2
25,0
00$6
27,7
68$0
$48,
793
$901
,561
Loca
l Mat
ch
$225
,000
$180
,461
$9,2
19$4
14,6
80
Oth
er
$22,
714
$22,
714
Loca
l To
tal
$225
,000
$203
,175
$9,2
19$0
$437
,394
Tota
l$2
,250
,000
$1,3
53,6
56$9
2,19
4$1
63,6
25$3
,859
,475
Loca
l Re
ven
ue
Pro
gram
Stat
e R
eve
nu
e P
rogr
am
Fed
era
l Re
ven
ue
Pro
gram
Cap
ital
Ite
m
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 29
Draft Final Report
Table 13: FY 2020 Projected Capital Budget
Cit
y o
f
Ash
evi
lle
/Ash
evi
lle
Tran
sit
Serv
ice
s
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/
Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c
Tran
sit
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/M
ou
nta
in
Pro
ject
s
Re
gio
nal
Tota
l
Re
pla
cem
en
t V
eh
icle
s$1
18,0
40$3
0,02
1$5
8,50
0$2
06,5
61
Exp
ansi
on
Ve
hic
les
$307
,788
$307
,788
Faci
lity
$100
,000
$100
,000
Faci
lity
Imp
rove
me
nts
Tech
no
logy
Oth
er
$1,0
00$1
,000
Tota
l$0
$526
,828
$30,
021
$58,
500
$615
,349
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Cap
ital
$83,
235
$86,
222
$169
,457
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
$15,
404
$15,
404
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y &
Dis
able
d In
div
idu
als
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
$15,
503
$15,
503
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am$2
7,01
9$2
7,01
9
Oth
er
Fed
era
l To
tal
$0$8
3,23
5$2
7,01
9$1
17,1
29$2
27,3
83
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Cap
ital
$113
,901
$10,
778
$124
,679
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
311:
Ap
pal
ach
ian
De
velo
pm
en
t TA
P
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
339:
Bu
s an
d B
us
Faci
liti
es
Form
ula
$1,9
26$1
,926
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
310:
Eld
erl
y &
Dis
able
d In
div
idu
als
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
$1,9
38$1
,938
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307:
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a Fo
rmu
la P
rogr
am
Oth
er
$246
,230
$35,
128
$281
,358
Stat
e T
ota
l$0
$360
,131
$0$4
9,77
0$4
09,9
01
Loca
l Mat
ch$6
0,74
8$3
,002
$63,
750
Oth
er
$22,
714
$22,
714
Loca
l To
tal
$0$8
3,46
2$3
,002
$0$8
6,46
4
Tota
l$0
$526
,828
$30,
021
$166
,899
$723
,748
Loca
l Re
ven
ue
Pro
gram
Cap
ital
Ite
m
Fed
era
l Re
ven
ue
Pro
gram
Stat
e R
eve
nu
e P
rogr
am
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 30
Draft Final Report
FTA Funding
The FTA provides funding to eligible recipients for costs incurred in the operation of public transportation service, a maximum federal share of 50 percent of the net operating deficit. In general, operating expenses are those costs necessary to operate, maintain, and manage a public transportation system. Operating expenses usually include costs such as driver salaries, fuel, and items having a useful life of less than one year. The FTA also provides funds for capital expenses (with an 80 percent federal/20 percent local share).
Expenses Eligible for Operating Assistance
Eligible operating expenses are direct labor, material, and overhead expenses incurred during a specified project period, most often one local fiscal year. Costs are calculated on the accrual basis of accounting by the operator providing public transportation services in the UZA. Expenses for contractual services directly related to the management and operations of public transportation services, which are otherwise not reimbursed, are included. Cost principles established in 2 CFR part 225 (formerly OMB Circular A-87) must be used as guidelines for determining the eligibility of specific types of expenses. FTA C 9030.1E provides a list of representative operating expenses eligible for FTA operating assistance:
Fuel, wages, and other expenses incurred in the operation of public transportation services to or within the UZA;
Pension benefits and contributions to a pension plan, only if actually paid and only up to a maximum of the current year accrual;
Self-insurance costs are limited to the extent of actual contribution to a reserve for an approved self-insurance program;
Purchase of service contracts for public transportation services (except that certain portions of a service contract may be treated as a capital expense under the Capital Cost of Contracting);
Interest and other financial costs associated with borrowing to provide working capital for the payment of current operating expenses. The recipient must properly document the loan agreement and open it to audit;
Operating expenses associated with special public transportation services for people with disabilities (some of these costs may be supported with capital funds);
Amortization of leasehold improvements may be eligible. Recipients should discuss this with the FTA regional office;
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 31
Draft Final Report
For private operators, a reasonable return on investment (profit) is an eligible expense;
Eligible public transportation security operating assistance projects (for UZAs with a population of 200,000 or less) include, but are not limited to:
o Staff salaries for personnel exclusively involved with security o Contracts for security services o Operating projects intended to increase the security and safety of an existing or
planned public transportation system
Indirect costs, provided that there is an approved cost allocation plan before incurring costs.
Operating Assistance Special Rule
According to the Section 5307 Circular, “Recipients in UZAs with populations of 200,000 or more may not use Section 5307 funds for operating assistance unless identified by the FTA as being eligible under Section 5307(a)(2).” Under this section, public transportation operators that operate 100 or fewer buses in fixed route service during peak service hours may use a variable percentage of their UZA’s 5307 apportionment for operating assistance. Eligible agencies may use program funds for operating assistance, excluding rail-fixed guideway, up to the amount published by the FTA for a given fiscal year. The use of program funds for operating assistance is subject to metropolitan and statewide planning requirements and requires that funds be allocated to a recipient for this purpose by the designated recipient for a UZA. The amount available to eligible operators is based on the following:
Systems that operate a minimum of 76 buses and a maximum of 100 buses in fixed route service during peak hour service may receive operating assistance in an amount not to exceed 50 percent of the share of apportionment that is attributable to such systems within the UZA as measured by vehicle revenue hours.
Systems that operate 75 or fewer buses in fixed route service during peak hour service may receive operating assistance in an amount not to exceed 75 percent of the share of apportionment that is attributable to such systems within the UZA as measured by vehicle revenue hours.
The amount available (operating cap) is calculated by dividing the UZA apportionment by the total number of vehicle revenue hours reported in the UZA from all public operators and multiplying this quotient by the number of total vehicle revenue hours operated in the UZA by the eligible system, and then by either 50 or 75 percent as indicated above.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 32
Draft Final Report
Table 14 presents the FTA FY 2016 and FY 2017 (Partial Year) Section 5307 Operating Assistance Special Rule calculation for the Asheville UZA eligible public transportation systems – ART, Buncombe County, Henderson County and Haywood County. The table documents the fiscal year’s maximum amount of Section 5307 operating assistance, although this amount might be less, contingent upon if the locality contracts out service and/or maintenance (discussed below).
Capital Cost of Contracting3
Some FTA recipients turn to an outside source to obtain public transportation service, maintenance service, or vehicles that the recipient will use in public transportation service. When a recipient enters a contract for such service, FTA will provide assistance for the capital consumed in the course of the contract. In the case of a contractor providing vehicles for public transportation service, the capital consumed is equivalent to the depreciation of vehicles in use in the public transportation service during the contract period. In the case of a maintenance contract, the capital consumed may be, for example, depreciation of the maintenance garage, or depreciation of the machine that lifts the vehicle. Capital consumed may also include a proportionate share of the interest the contractor might pay out as the contractor purchases and makes available to the recipient these capital assets. FTA refers to the concept of assisting with capital consumed as the “capital cost of contracting.” Only the costs attributable to the privately owned assets are eligible under this policy. With one exception, items purchased with federal, state, or local government assistance are not eligible. The exception is a public transportation vehicle privately owned in which the recipient has invested FTA funds from the Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program to finance incremental capital costs of complying with ADA. Capital consumed for service or maintenance in the provision of service outside the public transportation portion of the contract, such as for charter or school bus service, is not an eligible cost. FTA provides assistance for preventive maintenance, which is defined as all maintenance. In some instances, the recipient contracts with outside sources for maintenance and public transportation service, and the contractor provides maintenance and vehicles. In such cases, FTA’s capital cost of contracting and preventive maintenance standards will apply. To avoid imposing burdensome accounting rules with regard to contracts for bus, paratransit, and demand responsive related services, FTA will allow the recipient to consider a percentage of leased service or contracted maintenance to provide assistance for 80 percent of the resultant amount. Exhibit 1 shows capital costs as percentages without further justification and the corresponding type of contract service for bus, paratransit, and demand responsive related services. The percentages are calculations using data from the National Transit Database (NTD). Presented by type of contract, the calculations represent industry averages
3 FTA C 9030.1E
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 33
Draft Final Report
Table 14: FTA FY 2016 and FY 2017 (Partial Year) Section 5307 Operating Assistance Special Rule for Asheville UZA Systems
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a o
f Se
rvic
e P
rovi
de
dP
ub
lic
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Sys
tem
Op
era
tor
Ve
hic
les
Op
era
ted
in
Pe
ak F
ixe
d R
ou
te a
nd
De
man
d R
esp
on
se
Serv
ice
Ap
po
rtio
nm
en
t to
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a
Pe
rce
nt
of A
pp
ort
ion
me
nt
Att
rib
uta
ble
to
Op
era
tor
bas
ed
on
Ve
hic
le R
eve
nu
e
Ho
urs
Elig
ible
Pe
rce
nt
Fact
or
Cat
ego
ry
FY 2
01
6 M
axim
um
Am
ou
nt
of
Sect
ion
53
07
Op
era
tin
g
Ass
ista
nce
All
ow
ed
Ash
evi
lle
, NC
AR
T (A
she
vill
e R
ed
efi
ne
s Tr
an
sit)
16
$2
,60
2,3
79
52
.19
8%
75
%$
1,0
18
,79
4
Ash
evi
lle
, NC
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
5$
2,6
02
,37
93
1.2
06
%7
5%
$6
09
,07
2
Ash
evi
lle
, NC
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty/
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c Tr
an
sit
3$
2,6
02
,37
99
.14
7%
75
%$
17
8,5
28
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a o
f Se
rvic
e P
rovi
de
dP
ub
lic
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Sys
tem
Op
era
tor
Ve
hic
les
Op
era
ted
in
Pe
ak F
ixe
d R
ou
te a
nd
De
man
d R
esp
on
se
Serv
ice
Ap
po
rtio
nm
en
t to
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a
Pe
rce
nt
of A
pp
ort
ion
me
nt
Att
rib
uta
ble
to
Op
era
tor
bas
ed
on
Ve
hic
le R
eve
nu
e
Ho
urs
Elig
ible
Pe
rce
nt
Fact
or
Cat
ego
ry
FY 2
01
7 (P
arti
al Y
ear
) Max
imu
m
Am
ou
nt
of S
ect
ion
53
07
Op
era
tin
g A
ssis
tan
ce A
llo
we
d
Ash
evi
lle
, NC
AR
T (A
she
vill
e R
ed
efi
ne
s Tr
an
sit)
16
$1
,50
8,2
43
54
.93
1%
75
%$
62
1,3
74
Ash
evi
lle
, NC
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
3$
1,5
08
,24
33
1.0
96
%7
5%
$3
51
,75
3
Ash
evi
lle
, NC
Ha
ywo
od
Pu
bli
c Tr
an
sit
17
$1
,50
8,2
43
5.2
02
%7
5%
$5
8,8
49
Ash
evi
lle
, NC
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty/
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c Tr
an
sit
3$
1,5
08
,24
38
.77
0%
75
%$
99
,20
6
NO
TES:
FED
ERA
L TR
AN
SIT
AD
MIN
ISTR
ATI
ON
TAB
LE 3
A
FTA
FY
2016
SEC
TIO
N 5
307
OP
ERA
TIN
G A
SSIS
TAN
CE S
PEC
IAL
RU
LE
The
tota
l ava
ilabl
e fo
r op
erat
ing
assi
stan
ce is
bas
ed o
n FY
201
4 N
TD D
ata
and
the
Sect
ion
5307
fun
ding
sho
wn
in F
TA A
ppor
tion
men
t Ta
ble
#3.
7. A
gen
cies
th
at
con
tra
ct f
or
pu
blic
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
ser
vice
fro
m a
pri
vate
op
era
tor,
an
d w
hic
h o
ther
wis
e q
ua
lify
for
an
op
era
tin
g c
ap
un
der
th
is p
rovi
sio
n, h
ave
bee
n
cred
ited
wit
h t
he
veh
icle
rev
enu
e h
ou
rs r
epo
rted
by
the
pri
vate
pro
vid
er a
s a
ttri
bu
tab
le t
o t
he
pu
blic
ag
ency
.
1. A
gen
cies
th
at
are
incl
ud
ed in
th
is t
ab
le A
ND
th
at
are
elig
ible
fo
r g
ran
ts u
nd
er t
he
Sect
ion
530
7 U
rba
niz
ed A
rea
Fo
rmu
la P
rog
ram
are
elig
ible
to
rec
eive
op
era
tin
g
ass
ista
nce
, su
bje
ct t
o lo
cal a
lloca
tio
n, u
p t
o t
he
spec
ifie
d a
mo
un
t in
Fis
cal Y
ear
2016
.
2. T
his
list
do
es N
OT
ind
ica
te a
n a
gen
cy's
elig
ibili
ty o
r en
titl
emen
t fo
r fu
nd
ing
an
d d
oes
no
t re
pre
sen
t a
n a
lloca
tio
n o
f fu
nd
ing
un
der
th
e U
rba
niz
ed A
rea
Fo
rmu
la
Pro
gra
m o
r a
ny
oth
er F
TA p
rog
ram
.
3. P
ub
lic a
gen
cies
th
at
op
era
te f
ixed
ro
ute
bu
s se
rvic
e a
nd
dem
an
d r
esp
on
se s
ervi
ce, e
xclu
din
g c
om
ple
men
tary
AD
A s
ervi
ce, a
re p
erm
itte
d t
o u
se t
his
pro
visi
on
in t
hei
r
Urb
an
ized
Are
a F
orm
ula
Pro
gra
m g
ran
ts.
4. C
erta
in t
ran
sit
op
era
tors
th
at
rep
ort
ed t
o N
TD in
a c
on
solid
ate
d (
mu
lti-
ag
ency
) re
po
rt a
re in
clu
ded
ba
sed
on
a v
ehic
le r
even
ue
ho
ur
sha
re p
rop
ort
ion
al t
o t
he
nu
mb
er o
f ve
hic
les
rep
ort
ed in
ma
xim
um
ser
vice
.
5. U
nd
er t
he
FAST
Act
, in
det
erm
inin
g t
he
am
ou
nt
of
op
era
tin
g a
ssis
tan
ce a
vaila
ble
fo
r sp
ecif
ic s
yste
ms
in u
rba
niz
ed a
rea
s u
nd
er t
his
ru
le, p
ub
lic t
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
syst
ems
ma
y ex
ecu
te a
wri
tten
ag
reem
ent
wit
h o
ne
or
mo
re o
ther
pu
blic
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
sys
tem
s w
ith
in t
he
urb
an
ized
are
a t
o a
lloca
te f
un
ds
by
a m
eth
od
oth
er t
ha
n
by
mea
suri
ng
veh
icle
rev
enu
e h
ou
rs.
6. T
ran
sit
op
era
tors
ma
y re
ceiv
e a
ca
p f
or
each
urb
an
ized
are
a in
wh
ich
th
ey o
per
ate
an
d r
epo
rt t
ran
sit
serv
ice.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 34
Draft Final Report
in counting capital-eligible activities as a share of total cost. The percentages apply whether the service is local, express, shuttle, paratransit, or demand responsive service. Exhibit 1: Percent of Contract Allowed for Capital Assistance without Further Justification
Source: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/procurement/third-party-procurement/capital-cost-contracting
Some of the calculations in Exhibit 1 are based on the assumption that the contractor (or someone other than the recipient) provides the assets. For example, if a contractor provides maintenance, FTA assumes that the contractor does so in a facility provided by the contractor. For another example, in a contractor-operated vanpool program that qualifies under a Turnkey Contract (see type 6), a vanpool driver may provide the service rather than a contractor employee, but because the recipient does not provide the service, these costs are treated as part of the contract.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 35
Draft Final Report
A recipient may request FTA participation at a higher percentage of the contract than FTA shows in Exhibit 1, but must provide substantiation of the actual costs in order to do so. A recipient applying for assistance with costs that contain any capital costs of contracting permutations listed in Exhibit 1 may list costs for the contracted service in the capital cost of contracting budget category, or the recipient may use both that category and another appropriate category such as preventive maintenance or leasing, as long as the total costs do not exceed the amount of the contract. In the case where the grantee owns the facilities (constructed with FTA funds) from which the contractor operates, vehicles (purchased with FTA funds) are maintained by the contractor, and the service contractor is responsible for maintenance of the facility and vehicles within the scope of the service contract, the grantee will need to calculate the proportion of the contract that represents allowable capital costs. These include (1) all vehicle maintenance costs, and (2) all costs to maintain the grantee’s facilities, because such costs are eligible as preventive maintenance. In this case, because the facility is already owned by the grantee, depreciation of the facility cannot be included as an eligible cost, because to do so would be double counting because FTA and grantee funds have already been used to cover the capital costs of the maintenance facility itself. Because the facility is owned by the grantee, although capital cost of contracting applies, the eligible amount will have to be determined based on the contract. The amount of the contract costs attributed to vehicle maintenance and facility maintenance is eligible for federal capital funds at 80 percent as an eligible preventive maintenance expense. Costs of a contract which remain, after application of capital cost of contracting, are operating expenses. They may, depending on the size of the UZA, recipient, or purpose of the service, be eligible for federal operating assistance. For example, in a UZA with a population under 200,000, 50 percent of a turnkey contract (type 6) would be eligible for federal capital assistance at a matching ratio of 80 percent federal. The remaining 50 percent of the costs of the contract, less fares received, would be eligible for federal operating assistance at a matching ratio of 50 percent. The same costs of a contract may not be double counted and receive both capital and operating assistance. Thus, if a maintenance/lease contract (type 5) is treated as a capital expense under capital cost of contracting, none of these expenses would be reimbursable as an operating expense. Appendix C provides an example of two basic capital cost of contracting scenarios – turnkey versus a county owning its own vehicles.
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
In order to facilitate the consensus building process and learn more about potential opportunities and challenges, the study team conducted several stakeholder interviews. The purposes for conducting interviews were to determine in-depth, the stakeholders perspectives on the allocation process, likely political and financial commitment to transit, current transit
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 36
Draft Final Report
assets, and issues for the allocation plan that were of particular concern to the affected parties. Interviews were held via telephone with representatives from:
City of Asheville/ Asheville Redefines Transit (ART)
Buncombe County/Mountain Mobility
Henderson County/Apple Country Transit
Haywood County/Haywood Public Transit
French Broad River Metropolitan Planning Organization
NCDOT/PTD Stakeholders were asked the following standard questions:
1. What is your vision for public transportation in the region? 2. What are your goals for public transportation in the region? 3. Do you see opportunities/challenges to meeting these goals? – What are they? 4. Do you see current/or likely future unmet transit needs in the region? – If so, what
are they? 5. Do you see coordination opportunities among the region’s transit providers? 6. What do you think the roles, with regard to funding and operating public transit,
should be for the municipalities? 7. What factors do you think are most important in developing an equitable funding
formula? (i.e., service provided (hours/miles), service consumed (ridership), population/service area parameters, performance, ease of data collection)
8. What is the source of the funds your municipality provides as local match? What are the future prospects for this source growing? Shrinking?
9. In developing a methodology for splitting the Federal Section 5307 allocation, what conditions would be “deal- breakers” for your municipality to agree?
These questions typically opened the discussion to a variety of topics. Stakeholder opinions are summarized below.
Growth of the UZA and sharing funds among more providers is a major issue for Asheville.
All parties recognize that the new funding allocation will have a bigger impact on ART, as Section 5307 federal operating assistance comprises a higher percentage of its budget. There appears to be a local willingness to consider a phase-in of the recommended formula once it has been developed.
All parties are interested in developing a formula that results in the least amount of harm to the respective transit programs.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 37
Draft Final Report
There are unmet transit needs throughout the region. It is important to explore ways to increase coordination and cooperation among jurisdictions.
None of the transit providers feel they can cut service given the level of transit need in the region.
Ensure reporting and operations are not burdens placed on the shoulders of one jurisdiction.
Coordination of federal programs should be done by an entity that is not a transit provider.
Concerns about the political environment and how that will influence who is the local recipient of Section 5307 funds.
Difficulty managing grants without financial support.
Stakeholders do not want an allocation model that results in significant funding swings from year to year.
Stakeholders do not want an allocation model that necessitates a complex data collection and analysis process.
Stakeholders want a method to split the Section 5307 allocation that is equitable, transparent, defensible, and easy to understand.
Connectivity between jurisdictions in the region is important.
EXAMPLES FROM OTHER AREAS
FTA apportions Section 5307 Urbanized Area funds to designated recipients in census designated areas (UZA) having over a population of 50,000, which is how DRPT is appropriating funds for the Blacksburg-Christiansburg UZA. In TCRP Project J-07 Synthesis Topic SH-14: Sub-Allocating FTA Section 5307 Funding Among Multiple Recipients in Metropolitan Areas, the DMP Group used surveys to document methodologies and practices for the sub-allocation of FTA Section 5307 funds in UZAs of multiple types and sizes. A key finding was that “most of the respondents (63%) that sub-allocate use the exact FTA formula data and values to sub-allocate Section 5307 funds.” Another report reviewed to assist in KFH Group’s analysis was the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority Plan: Appendix I Regional Cost Allocation Options, authored by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates. They noted that for urbanized areas that do not allocate costs between partners, a number of measures are used, the most common being:
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 38
Draft Final Report
Population
Passengers
Service hours
Service miles
Assignment of routes to specific entities The Charlottesville study documents cost allocation formulas used by ten agencies (including three from Virginia – Williamsburg Area Transport4, Fredericksburg Regional Transit, and Virginia Railway Express and one from Washington, D.C. - Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority). Of the transit systems examined, four use a single measure to allocate costs, and the other six split costs based on multiple measures. The TCRP report included six case studies, two of which KFH Group emulated to a degree within the allocation alternatives component of this project. The first was Port St. Lucie, Florida since this UZA encompassed two designated recipients – St. Lucie County and Martin County, each operating its own public transportation systems. Their current formula for determining the split utilizes population (50%), revenue miles (25%), and population density (25%). The second case study was Milwaukee, Wisconsin since ridership and service criteria were the key factors. The Milwaukee UZA includes four designated recipients – Milwaukee County, Ozaukee County, Washington County, and Waukesha County, each with its own public transportation system. Each year when FTA funding apportionments are announced, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission uses the most recent NTD ridership and service data (equally weighted) reported by each operator to distribute the funds.
POTENTIAL MODEL FACTORS
As the examples from other MPO areas indicate, there are a number of potential factors that could be considered when contemplating a fair, transparent, and data driven methodology to share the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 funds that have been appropriated for the Asheville UZA. These factors fall into two broad categories: those associated with the demographics of the area, such as population; and those associated with the level of transit supplied and/or consumed in the region (such as revenue hours, revenue miles, and/or ridership). In order to better understand the full range of these factors and how each could affect the funding split in the FBRMPO region, they are defined and discussed below.
4 Developed by KFH Group
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 39
Draft Final Report
Demographic Factors
Population
Definition: The number of people who live in a place (Merriam-Webster).
Resident population
Definition: In Census 2010, people were counted at their "usual residence.” Usual residence has been defined as the place where the person lives and sleeps most of the time. This place is not necessarily the same as the person's voting residence or legal residence. Persons temporarily away from their usual residence, such as on vacation or on a business trip on Census Day, were counted at their usual residence. People who live at more than one residence during the week, month, or year were counted at the place where they live most of the year. People without a usual residence were counted where they were staying on Census Day.5
Discussion: Population is the most fundamental indicator regarding the level of transit need, reflecting the complete universe of potential transit riders. It is included as one of the FTA Section 5307 formula allocation factors, along with population density (for areas with a population 200,000 and greater).
Population Density
Definition: The number of residents per unit of land area. Population density is expressed as the number of people per square mile. It is a measure of the intensity of residential land use in an area.
Discussion: Population density is one of the factors used by the FTA in its appropriation of Section 5307 funds to the area. Population density is typically a good indicator of the potential for public transportation to succeed. Higher population densities allow public transportation services to be efficient, providing the ability to serve more riders per unit of service supplied.
Employment Density
Definition: The number of jobs per unit of land area.
5 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population, Public Law 94-171.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 40
Draft Final Report
Discussion: According to some researchers, employment density is more strongly associated with transit ridership than residential density.6 Higher employment densities allow for common destinations and also allow public transportation services to be efficient, providing the ability to serve more riders per unit of service supplied. Employment numbers at the town level are not as readily available as are some other demographic characteristics.
Transit Service Supply Factors
Transit service supply factors reflect the level of transit service supplied by operators. These factors include revenue hours, revenue miles, and route miles. Including a transit service supply factor acknowledges how much or how little service the transit system is providing in the service area, potentially rewarding systems that provide high levels of service.
Revenue Hours of Service
Definition: A revenue hour is one hour of one vehicle being in service for passengers. Revenue hours of service include those provided for passenger service regardless of the type of revenue payment (i.e., fares, contracts, subsidy arrangements). Layover and recovery time are included, but deadhead time is not.
Revenue Miles of Service
Definition: A revenue mile is one mile of one vehicle being in service for passengers. Similar to revenue hours, revenue miles include those provided for passenger service regardless of the type of revenue payment (i.e., fares, contracts, subsidy arrangements). Deadhead mileage is not included.
Route Mileage
Definition: Route mileage refers to the total one-way mileage of all of the system’s routes. It measures the geographic coverage of the transit system, rather than the level of service.
Discussion: Each of the transit service supply factors measures some aspect of how much transit service is being supplied. The intensity of service can be derived from studying these factors, as very busy services will likely exhibit lower revenue miles per hour, reflecting the time required to stop to pick up and deliver passengers. For example, an urban route that operates 3,500 revenue hours per year may travel an
6 Kolko, Jed, et.al. 2011. “Making the Most of Transit- Density, Employment Growth, and Ridership around New
Stations,” Public Policy Institute of California. 21-22.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 41
Draft Final Report
average of only 8 miles per hour, for a total of 28,000 annual revenue miles. A more suburban route that also operates 3,500 revenue hours may average 13 miles per hour, for a total of 45,500 annual revenue miles. To account for different types of service areas fairly, it may be appropriate to use both measures, if a transit service supply measure is used.
Using route mileage would favor a system that has a large geographic footprint, rather than one that concentrates service in a smaller service area. Route mileage does not take into account how many times the vehicle traverses the route; it is simply the sum of the mileage for each route.
Transit Service Consumption Factors
The transit service consumption factors reflect system usage and can include passenger trips and passenger miles.
Passenger Trip
Definition: A passenger trip is one passenger boarding a vehicle one time. The number of passenger trips summed is referred to as the ridership.
Discussion: This measure of transit ridership is not straightforward, because of the difference between linked and unlinked trips and the impact of route structure on ridership. A linked trip is one person’s travel from point A to point B, regardless of how many times that person transfers from one route to another to make the trip. An unlinked trip is one passenger boarding one route. If unlinked trips are used, a system that includes a hub and spoke pattern would tend to have ridership that is over-stated. For example if a person’s trip from home to work on transit includes a transfer from one route to another, two passenger trips would be recorded.
Passenger Miles
Definition: Passenger miles are a measure of transit service consumption that is used by the Federal Transit Administration. This data is collected through the National Transit Database. A passenger mile is one passenger traveling one mile.
Discussion: This data is collected using a sampling methodology, as it is necessary to count passenger loads and mileage between stops to tabulate. High passenger miles can result from either high ridership, long trip lengths, or a combination of both. If a system has high ridership, but the trip lengths are short, the passenger mile total may be lower than for a system that has fewer, but longer trips. For these reasons the use of passenger miles as an allocation factor may be problematic.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 42
Draft Final Report
ALLOCATION ALTERNATIVES
Seven alternatives were designed for consideration, evaluation, and input. KFH Group presented the potential formula allocation factors (described above) and initial allocation alternatives. These alternatives are listed below and are not reflecting any order of preference:
1. Using FBRMPO – FTA Section 5307 Apportionment Formula
Non-incentive bus portion tier – 90.8 percent o 50 percent apportioned based on bus revenue vehicle miles o 25 percent apportioned based on population o 25 percent apportioned based on population x population density
Incentive bus portion tier – 9.2 percent o Bus passenger miles x bus passenger miles/operating cost
2. NCDOT/PTD Recommended Allocation – Uses FTA Apportionment Data Unit Values
Population
Population density
Low income population
Revenue vehicle miles
Performance allocation
Section 5340 funds
3. Population and Population Density
50 percent apportioned based on population
50 percent apportioned based on population density
4. Population
5. Revenue Miles
6. Population and Employment
50 percent apportioned based on population
50 percent apportioned based on employment
7. Population/Employment/Revenue Miles
50 percent apportioned based on population
25 percent apportioned based on employment
25 percent apportioned based on revenue miles Based on input received at the Advisory Committee Meeting, the following two additional alternatives were developed:
8. Revenue Hours
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 43
Draft Final Report
9. Using FBRMPO – FTA Section 5307 Apportionment Formula without Revenue Miles
Non-incentive bus portion tier – 90.8 percent o 50 percent apportioned based on population o 50 percent apportioned based on population x population density
Incentive bus portion tier – 9.2 percent o Bus passenger miles x bus passenger miles/operating cost
Section 5307 Sub-Allocation Alternatives
Decisions regarding the sub‐allocation of Section 5307 funds to public transportation operators within a UZA ultimately resides with the UZA designated recipient and the MPO. The lack of explicit guidance regarding sub‐allocation methods leaves the Asheville UZA with a choice – recreate the FTA Urbanized Area Program Formula used to determine Section 5307 UZA funding levels or develop a local sub‐allocation process that reflects the needs of the UZA. This study is intended to increase awareness of how individual transit systems earn money for their UZAs and be used as a resource for evaluating the fairness and equity of funding distribution formula. The tables shown below are methodologies that have been offered by FBRMPO, NCDOT/PTD, as well as new options for the region to consider. The formulas in this document display ways that federal funds can be shared fairly and equitably. For contextual understanding, Table 15 provides the historic Section 5307 funding split for the last three fiscal years. Table 16 details the process and variables employed for each formula. The allocation is based on the FTA Section 5307 FY 2016 allocation of $2,602,379 for the Asheville UZA. Table 15: Alternatives Allocation Process
County Historic Section 5307 Funding Split
FY 2013
FY 2013 Percent
FY 2014 FY 2014 Percent
FY 2015 FY 2015 Percent
Asheville/Buncombe County $1,477,306.43 79.5% $1,498,210.28 79.5% $1,932,059.00 82.8%
Henderson County $382,085.57 20.5% $385,315.12 20.5% $400,191.52 17.2%
$1,859,392.00
$1,883,525.40
$2,332,250.52 Note: These funding levels do not include the 10% JARC funds
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 44
Draft Final Report
Table 16: Alternatives Allocation Process
FTA
S. 5
307
All
oca
tio
n$2
,602
,379
.00
JAR
C S
et-
Asi
de
(10
%)
$260
,237
.90
Re
gio
nal
All
oca
tio
n T
ota
l$2
,342
,141
.10
No
n-I
nce
nti
ve B
us
Tie
r (9
0.8%
)$2
,126
,664
.12
Ince
nti
ve B
us
Tie
r (9
.2%
)$2
15,4
76.9
8
2010
Po
pu
lati
on
Lan
d
Lan
d A
rea
Po
pu
lati
on
Juri
sdic
tio
nP
op
ula
tio
n%
to
tal
Are
a%
to
tal
De
nsi
ty
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e83
,393
30%
44.9
317
%1,
856
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
97,5
39
35
%10
8.79
41%
897
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty26
,306
9%24
.28
9%1,
083
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty71
,227
26%
84.9
632
%83
8
Tota
ls27
8,46
5
262.
961,
059
50
% R
eve
nu
e M
ile
s
25
% P
op
ula
tio
n
25
% P
op
ula
tio
n x
de
nsi
ty
In
cen
tive
Bu
s Ti
er
%
Po
pu
lati
on
%P
op
. All
oca
tio
n
Po
pu
lati
on
De
nsi
ty
Po
p X
Po
p
De
nsi
ty%
Po
p. X
Po
p.
De
nsi
ty
All
oca
tio
nR
eve
nu
e M
ile
s%
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e83
,393
30%
$159
,220
.10
1,85
6
154,
782,
828
46.8
4%$2
49,0
33.0
087
6,95
8
45%
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
97,5
39
35
%$1
86,2
28.6
989
7
87
,451
,572
26
.46%
$140
,702
.48
732,
353
38
%
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty26
,306
9%$5
0,22
5.37
1,08
3
28,5
01,0
56
8.62
%$4
5,85
5.88
140,
363
7%
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty71
,227
26%
$135
,991
.87
838
59,7
13,8
13
18.0
7%$9
6,07
4.67
201,
716
10
%
Tota
l27
8,46
5
$531
,666
.03
330,
449,
268
$531
,666
.03
1,95
1,39
0
Re
ven
ue
Mil
es
All
oca
tio
nO
pe
rati
ng
Co
st
Bu
s P
asse
nge
r
Mil
es
Ince
nti
ve
Cal
cula
tio
nIn
cen
tive
%
No
n-I
nce
nti
ve
Tota
lIn
cen
tive
To
tal
Co
mb
ine
d T
ota
l
% A
llo
cati
on
Dis
trib
uti
on
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e$4
77,8
63.3
4$5
,223
,986
.00
4,60
7,68
8
$4
,064
,097
.55
84%
$886
,116
.44
$181
,993
.67
$1,0
68,1
1046
%
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
$399
,066
.58
$2,1
46,8
27.6
988
9,11
0
$368
,225
.05
8%$7
25,9
97.7
5$1
6,48
9.42
$742
,487
32%
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty$7
6,48
5.04
$374
,675
.40
163,
312
$7
1,18
3.87
1%$1
72,5
66.2
9$3
,187
.67
$175
,754
8%
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty$1
09,9
17.1
0$5
99,1
13.0
042
9,77
9
$308
,306
.33
6%$3
41,9
83.6
5$1
3,80
6.21
$355
,790
15%
Tota
l$1
,063
,332
.06
$4,8
11,8
12.8
1$2
,126
,664
.12
$215
,476
.98
$2,3
42,1
41
No
te:
1) A
pp
lie
d %
of
po
pu
lati
on
in U
ZA p
erc
en
t fr
om
201
0 C
en
sus
for
Pas
sen
ger
Mil
es,
Re
ven
ue
Mil
es
and
Op
era
tin
g C
ost
ap
pli
ed
to
Bu
nco
mb
e a
nd
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
tie
s
2) P
asse
nge
r m
ile
s ca
lcu
late
d f
or
Hay
wo
od
an
d H
en
de
rso
n C
ou
nti
es
by
assu
min
g av
era
ge t
rip
len
gth
of
3.7
trip
pe
r m
ile
fo
r "B
us"
tri
ps
and
9.7
tri
p p
er
mil
e f
or
"de
man
d r
esp
on
se"
trip
s b
ase
d o
n 2
015
AP
TA P
ub
lic
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Fac
t B
oo
k
FTA
FY
201
6O
pe
rati
ng
Dat
a So
urc
e: 2
014
NTD
Alt
ern
ativ
es
1) F
BR
MP
O
Urb
aniz
ed
Are
a P
op
ula
tio
n C
har
acte
rist
ics
Wit
hin
th
e u
rba
niz
ed a
rea
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 45
Draft Final Report
2) N
CD
OT/
PTD
Rec
om
men
ded
All
oca
tio
n -
Use
s FT
A A
pp
ort
ion
men
t D
ata
Un
it V
alu
es
Po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
Shar
e
Po
pu
lati
on
De
nsi
ty
Low
Inco
me
Po
pu
lati
on
Re
ven
ue
Mil
es
Po
pu
lati
on
All
oca
tio
n
Po
pu
lati
on
De
nsi
ty
All
oca
tio
n
Low
Inco
me
Po
pu
lati
on
All
oca
tio
n
FY16
S.5
307
Ra
tes:
2.72
0107
578
0.00
1246
462
2.23
4218
52
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e83
,393
0.29
9473
902
1,85
6
24,7
29
87
6,95
8
$226
,838
$192
,931
$55,
250
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
97,5
39
0.
3502
7382
389
7
25
,309
732,
353
$2
65,3
17$1
09,0
05$5
6,54
6
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty26
,306
0.09
4467
886
1,08
3
7,18
2
140,
363
$7
1,55
5$3
5,52
5$1
6,04
6
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty71
,227
0.25
5784
389
838
17,8
58
20
1,71
6
$193
,745
$74,
431
$39,
899
Tota
l27
8,46
5
11,
059
75
,078
1,95
1,39
0
$7
57,4
55$4
11,8
92$1
67,7
41
Re
ven
ue
Ve
hic
le M
ile
s
All
oca
tio
n
S.53
07 w
ith
ou
t
Pe
rfo
rman
ce%
Tota
l All
oca
tio
n
0.53
1441
254
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e$4
66,0
52$9
41,0
7040
%$9
28,3
88
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
$389
,203
$820
,070
35%
$809
,018
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty$7
4,59
5$1
97,7
218%
$195
,057
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty$1
07,2
00$4
15,2
7517
%$4
09,6
79
Tota
l$1
,037
,049
$2,3
74,1
37$2
,342
,141
No
te:
1) 2
010-
2014
Am
eri
can
Co
mm
un
ity
Surv
ey
Tab
le S
1701
- 1
50 p
erc
en
t o
f p
ove
rty
leve
l an
d a
pp
lie
d %
of
po
pu
lati
on
in U
ZA p
erc
en
t fr
om
201
0 C
en
sus
Dat
a
2) N
CD
OT
Ru
ral/
Urb
an S
pli
t C
alcu
lati
on
s u
sed
fo
r P
asse
nge
r M
ile
s, P
asse
nge
r Tr
ips,
Re
ven
ue
Mil
es
and
Op
era
tin
g C
ost
ap
pli
ed
to
Bu
nco
mb
e a
nd
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
tie
s
3) B
asi
c Fo
rmu
la
50
% a
pp
ort
ion
ed
bas
ed
on
po
pu
lati
on
50
% a
pp
ort
ion
ed
bas
ed
on
po
pu
lati
on
x p
op
ula
tio
n d
en
sity
Po
pu
lati
on
%
of
Po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
All
oca
tio
n
Po
pu
lati
on
De
nsi
ty
Po
p X
Po
p
De
nsi
ty
%
of
Po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
All
oca
tio
n
Juri
sdic
tio
nal
Tota
l
Juri
sdic
tio
nal
%
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e83
,393
30%
$350
,705
.07
1,85
615
4,78
2,82
8
46
.84%
$548
,530
.83
$899
,236
38%
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
97,5
3935
%$4
10,1
95.3
689
787
,451
,572
26
.46%
$309
,917
.35
$720
,113
31%
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty26
,306
9%$1
10,6
28.5
61,
083
28,5
01,0
56
8.62
%$1
01,0
04.1
5$2
11,6
339%
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty71
,227
26%
$299
,541
.57
838
59,7
13,8
13
18.0
7%$2
11,6
18.2
2$5
11,1
6022
%
Re
gio
nal
S. 5
307
FTA
Fu
nd
s$2
,342
,141
330,
449,
268
$2,3
42,1
41
50%
of
fun
ds
$1,1
71,0
70.5
5
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 46
Draft Final Report
4) P
op
ula
tio
n
Po
pu
lati
on
%
of
Po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
All
oca
tio
n
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e83
,393
30%
$701
,410
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
97,5
3935
%$8
20,3
91
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty26
,306
9%$2
21,2
57
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty71
,227
26%
$599
,083
Tota
ls27
8,46
5$2
,342
,141
5) R
even
ue
Mil
es
Re
ven
ue
Mil
es
%
Re
ven
ue
Mil
es
Re
ven
ue
Mil
es
All
oca
tio
n
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e87
6,95
845
%$1
,052
,562
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
732,
353
38%
$879
,001
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty14
0,36
37%
$168
,469
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty20
1,71
610
%$2
42,1
08
Tota
ls1,
951,
390
$2,3
42,1
41
6) P
op
ula
tio
n a
nd
Em
plo
ymen
t
Po
pu
lati
on
%
of
Po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
All
oca
tio
n
Emp
loym
en
t
Po
pu
lati
on
% o
f
Emp
loym
en
t
Po
pu
lati
on
Emp
loym
en
t
Po
pu
lati
on
All
oca
tio
n
Juri
sdic
tio
nal
Tota
l
Juri
sdic
tio
nal
%
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e83
,393
30%
$350
,705
77,5
2062
%$7
23,0
75$1
,073
,780
46%
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
97,5
3935
%$4
10,1
9513
,213
11%
$123
,246
$533
,441
23%
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty26
,306
9%$1
10,6
2910
,222
8%$9
5,34
7$2
05,9
759%
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty71
,227
26%
$299
,542
24,5
9420
%$2
29,4
03$5
28,9
4523
%
Tota
ls27
8,46
5$1
,171
,071
125,
549
$1,1
71,0
70.5
5$2
,342
,141
No
te:
1) E
mp
loym
en
t So
urc
e: U
.S. C
en
sus,
On
The
Map
, 201
4 W
ork
Are
a C
om
par
iso
n R
ep
ort
2) B
un
com
be
Co
un
ty E
mp
loym
en
t -
de
du
cte
d C
ity
of
Ash
evi
lle
job
s
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 47
Draft Final Report
7) P
op
ula
tio
n (
50%
) &
Em
plo
ymen
t (2
5%)
& S
ervi
ce P
rovi
sio
n (
25%
)
Po
pu
lati
on
%
of
Po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
All
oca
tio
n
Emp
loym
en
t
Po
pu
lati
on
% o
f
Emp
loym
en
t
Po
pu
lati
on
Emp
loym
en
t
Po
pu
lati
on
All
oca
tio
n
Re
ven
ue
Mil
es
%
Re
ven
ue
Mil
es
All
oca
tio
n
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e83
,393
30%
$350
,705
77,5
2062
%$3
61,5
3887
6,95
845
%$2
63,1
41
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
97,5
3935
%$4
10,1
9513
,213
11%
$61,
623
732,
353
38%
$219
,750
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty26
,306
9%$1
10,6
2910
,222
8%$4
7,67
314
0,36
37%
$42,
117
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty71
,227
26%
$299
,542
24,5
9420
%$1
14,7
0120
1,71
610
%$6
0,52
7
Tota
ls27
8,46
5$1
,171
,070
.55
125,
549
$585
,535
1,95
1,39
0$5
85,5
35
Tota
l
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e$9
75,3
8342
%
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
$691
,568
30%
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty$2
00,4
199%
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty$4
74,7
7020
%
$2,3
42,1
41
8) R
even
ue
Ho
urs
Re
ven
ue
Ho
urs
%
Re
ven
ue
Ho
urs
Re
ven
ue
Ho
urs
All
oca
tio
n
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e62
,288
51%
$1,1
89,3
76
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
40,5
6633
%$7
74,6
06
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty8,
889
7%$1
69,7
39
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty10
,915
9%$2
08,4
20
Tota
ls12
2,65
9$2
,342
,141
.10
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 48
Draft Final Report
50
% P
op
ula
tio
n
50
% P
op
ula
tio
n x
de
nsi
ty
In
cen
tive
Bu
s Ti
er
%
Po
pu
lati
on
%P
op
. All
oca
tio
n
Po
pu
lati
on
De
nsi
ty
Po
p X
Po
p
De
nsi
ty%
Po
p. X
Po
p.
De
nsi
ty
All
oca
tio
n
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e83
,393
30%
$318
,440
.20
1,85
6
154,
782,
828
46.8
4%$4
98,0
65.9
9
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
97,5
39
35
%$3
72,4
57.3
989
7
87
,451
,572
26
.46%
$281
,404
.95
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty26
,306
9%$1
00,4
50.7
31,
083
28
,501
,056
8.
62%
$91,
711.
77
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty71
,227
26%
$271
,983
.74
838
59,7
13,8
13
18.0
7%$1
92,1
49.3
5
Tota
l27
8,46
5
$1,0
63,3
32.0
633
0,44
9,26
8
$1
,063
,332
.06
Op
era
tin
g C
ost
Bu
s P
asse
nge
r
Mil
es
Ince
nti
ve
Cal
cula
tio
nIn
cen
tive
%
No
n-I
nce
nti
ve
Tota
lIn
cen
tive
To
tal
Co
mb
ine
d
Tota
l
% A
llo
cati
on
Dis
trib
uti
on
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e$5
,223
,986
.00
4,60
7,68
8
$4
,064
,097
.55
84%
$816
,506
.19
$181
,993
.67
$998
,500
43%
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
$2,1
46,8
27.6
988
9,11
0
$368
,225
.05
8%$6
53,8
62.3
4$1
6,48
9.42
$670
,352
29%
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty$3
74,6
75.4
016
3,31
2
$71,
183.
871%
$192
,162
.50
$3,1
87.6
7$1
95,3
508%
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty$5
99,1
13.0
042
9,77
9
$308
,306
.33
6%$4
64,1
33.0
9$1
3,80
6.21
$477
,939
20%
Tota
l$4
,811
,812
.81
$2,1
26,6
64.1
2$2
15,4
76.9
8$2
,342
,141
9) F
BR
MP
O w
ith
ou
t R
eve
nu
e M
ile
s
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 49
Draft Final Report
Summary of Alternatives
Presented in Table 17 are the potential Asheville UZA FTA Section 5307 allocation split details that would result from each alternative formula. This exercise solidified that, with the exception of a few outlier options, the split falls between 40 percent and 46 percent for the City of Asheville; between 28 percent and 35 percent for Buncombe County; between 7 percent and 9 percent for Haywood County; and between 16 percent and 23 percent for Henderson County.
Additional Considerations
Regional Service Sub-Allocation Set-Aside
A potential concern for any of the Section 5307 sub-allocation alternatives is that ART service extends beyond the city limits into Buncombe County to Black Mountain on the I-70 route. Demand response systems also provide regional connections at/close to county lines that connect to other transit systems, and those systems travel farther and off of a regular fixed route in order to make those connections. Some demand response systems may also travel out of the county for medical and other trip purposes without connections. Although ART captures operating data that contributes to the Section 5307 regional allocation, local share and a smaller funding pot need to be recognized. A means to address this, and future “out of jurisdiction” service, is to establish a regional share out of the Section 5307 allocation. This could be a straight percentage or an agreed upon amount each year based on the level of regional service provided by any given transit agency.
Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Sub-Allocation Set-Aside
The Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC) was a former formula grant program for projects that improve access to employment-related transportation services for welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals, and that transport residents of urbanized and non-urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities. MAP-21 repealed this program. Although the Section 5316 JARC program was repealed under MAP-21, job access and reverse commute projects are now an eligible project activity under the Urbanized Area Formula Program. Program funds are available for capital, planning, and operating expenses for eligible projects. Also noteworthy is that up to 10 percent of the recipient’s total fiscal year apportionment may be used to fund program administration costs including administration, planning, and technical assistance. Currently, the Asheville UZA has employed the JARC program. The City of Asheville is currently the direct recipient for Section 5307 funds allocated to the Asheville UZA and
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 50
Draft Final Report
Table 17: Summary of Alternatives
FTA
FY
16
All
oca
tio
n
Alt
ern
ativ
es
All
oca
tio
n
%
of
Tota
lA
llo
cati
on
%
of
Tota
lA
llo
cati
on
%
of
Tota
lA
llo
cati
on
%
of
Tota
lTo
tal
#1 F
BR
MP
O –
FTA
Se
ctio
n 5
307
Ap
po
rtio
nm
en
t Fo
rmu
la$1
,068
,110
46%
$742
,487
32%
$175
,754
8%$3
55,7
9015
%$2
,342
,141
#2 N
CD
OT/
PTD
Re
com
me
nd
ed
All
oca
tio
n$9
28,3
8840
%$8
09,0
1835
%$1
95,0
578%
$409
,679
17%
$2,3
42,1
41
#3 P
op
ula
tio
n/P
op
ula
tio
n D
en
sity
$899
,236
38%
$720
,113
31%
$211
,633
9%$5
11,1
6022
%$2
,342
,141
#4 P
op
ula
tio
n$7
01,4
1030
%$8
20,3
9135
%$2
21,2
579%
$599
,083
26%
$2,3
42,1
41
#5 R
eve
nu
e M
ile
s$1
,052
,562
45%
$879
,001
38%
$168
,469
7%$2
42,1
0810
%$2
,342
,141
#6 P
op
ula
tio
n/E
mp
loym
en
t$1
,073
,780
46%
$533
,441
23%
$205
,975
9%$5
28,9
4523
%$2
,342
,141
#7 P
op
ula
tio
n/
Emp
loym
en
t/R
eve
nu
e
Mil
es
$975
,383
42%
$691
,568
30%
$200
,419
9%$4
74,7
7020
%$2
,342
,141
Ad
dit
ion
al A
lte
rnat
ive
sA
llo
cati
on
%
of
Tota
lA
llo
cati
on
%
of
Tota
lA
llo
cati
on
%
of
Tota
lA
llo
cati
on
%
of
Tota
lTo
tal
#8 R
eve
nu
e H
ou
rs$1
,189
,376
51%
$774
,606
33%
$169
,739
7%$2
08,4
209%
$2,3
42,1
41
#9 F
BR
MP
O w
/o R
eve
nu
e M
ile
s$9
98,5
0043
%$6
70,3
5229
%$1
95,3
508%
$477
,939
20%
$2,3
42,1
41
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
eB
un
com
be
Co
un
tyH
ayw
oo
d C
ou
nty
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 51
Draft Final Report
Henderson County is a sub-recipient, although the FBRMPO administers the JARC program and funds with the help of a local selection committee. The region has used JARC funding for projects such as the Mountain Mobility Black Mountain Trailblazer, the Asheville Transit Black Mountain Route and other transportation projects. To fund these projects, a ten percent set-aside of FTA 5307 funds was instituted, and in the event all funds were not expended, the remainder may be returned and redistributed for general Section 5307 use in the Asheville Urbanized Area. JARC is available for member jurisdictions in the French Broad River Metropolitan Planning Organization. Applicants may include state or local government authorities, private non-profit organizations, and operators of public transportation services including private operators of public transportation services. The fact that private non-profit agencies are eligible recipients for the JARC set-aside is important as a potential means of allocating Section 5307 funds to Haywood County.
Three-Year Phase-In Option
A potential option to help offset the decrease in funding both for the region, as well as for the larger hit that the City of Asheville and Henderson County will potentially endure from the agreed upon allocation, is to apply a three-year phase-in from the current allocation to the new allocation. This phase-in period will allow Asheville more time to determine how it will offset their decrease in federal funding. Table 18 provides financial details of the potential phase-in period by using Alternatives 1 and 9 as the example, since these were the two preferred alternatives identified by the Advisory Committee.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 52
Draft Final Report
Table 18: Potential 3-Year Phase-In of Section 5307 Funding
Alt
ern
ativ
e 1
- F
TA S
ect
ion
530
7 A
pp
ort
ion
me
nt
Form
ula
*
Ye
ar
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e/
Ash
evi
lle
Tra
nsi
t
Serv
ice
s
% o
f
Tota
l
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/
Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
% o
f
Tota
l
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/
Mo
un
tain
Pro
ject
s
% o
f
Tota
l
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty/
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c Tr
ansi
t
% o
f
Tota
l
Tota
l Se
ctio
n
5307
All
oca
tio
n
FY 2
015
$1,9
32,0
5983
%$0
0%$0
0%$4
00,1
9217
%$2
,332
,251
1st
Year
$1,5
93,1
0768
%$2
52,8
2711
%$1
10,8
165%
$385
,391
16%
$2,3
42,1
41
2nd
Ye
ar$1
,330
,608
57%
$497
,657
21%
$143
,285
6%$3
70,5
9116
%$2
,342
,141
3rd
Ye
ar**
$1,0
68,1
1046
%$7
42,4
8732
%$1
75,7
548%
$355
,790
15%
$2,3
42,1
41
Alt
ern
ativ
e 9
- F
TA S
ect
ion
530
7 A
pp
ort
ion
me
nt
Form
ula
wit
ho
ut
Re
ven
ue
Mil
es*
Ye
ar
Cit
y o
f A
she
vill
e/
Ash
evi
lle
Tra
nsi
t
Serv
ice
s
% o
f
Tota
l
Bu
nco
mb
e C
ou
nty
/
Mo
un
tain
Mo
bil
ity
% o
f
Tota
l
Hay
wo
od
Co
un
ty/
Mo
un
tain
Pro
ject
s
% o
f
Tota
l
He
nd
ers
on
Co
un
ty/
Ap
ple
Co
un
try
Pu
bli
c Tr
ansi
t
% o
f
Tota
l
Tota
l Se
ctio
n
5307
All
oca
tio
n
FY 2
015
$1,9
32,0
5983
%$0
0%$0
0%$4
00,1
9217
%$2
,332
,251
1st
Year
$1,5
60,7
8367
%$2
28,5
5610
%$1
26,6
955%
$426
,107
18%
$2,3
42,1
41
2nd
Ye
ar$1
,279
,640
55%
$449
,454
19%
$161
,023
7%$4
52,0
2319
%$2
,342
,141
3rd
Ye
ar**
$998
,500
43%
$670
,352
29%
$195
,350
8%$4
77,9
3920
%$2
,342
,141
*10%
se
t-as
ide
fu
nd
s fo
r JA
RC
.
*10%
se
t-as
ide
fu
nd
s fo
r JA
RC
.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 53
Draft Final Report
SUB-ALLOCATION PROCESS
For urbanized areas with 200,000 in population and over, funds are apportioned and flow directly to a designated recipient selected locally to apply for and receive federal funds. FTA encourages the designation of a single designated recipient for each UZA of 200,000 or more in population, however, nothing precludes the designation of multiple designated recipients.
Recipient Designation Process
“Designations for UZAs of 200,000 or more in population become effective when the governor of a state officially notifies the appropriate FTA regional administrator(s) in writing of that designation, and remains in effect until changed by the governor of a state by official written notice of re-designation to the appropriate FTA regional administrator”. The written designation notice must include:
A letter expressing the governor’s concurrence; and
Documentation of concurrence in the selection of the designated recipient by the providers of publicly owned public transportation service in the UZA, and an appropriately certified resolution of the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) concurring in the designation.”7
Direct Recipient and Sub-Recipient Eligibility
A designated recipient may authorize another public entity to be a “direct recipient” for Section 5307 funds. “A direct recipient is a public entity that is legally eligible under federal transit law to apply for and receive grants directly from FTA. The designated recipient may make this authorization one time or at the time of each application submission, at the option of the designated recipient.”8 The designated recipient must inform FTA of the arrangement in a “split letter,” which establishes the allocation of Section 5307 funds in a large UZA. Once an agency has been authorized to apply to FTA as a direct recipient, it is not necessary to repeat this authorization upon each future allocation of program funds. FTA Circular 9030.1E states that a public agency other than the designated recipient may apply for some or all of the UZA Section 5307 apportionment if:
The designated recipient authorizes the public agency to do so;
The public agency submits an independent grant application; and 7 FTA C 9030.1E
8 FTA C 9030.1E
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 54
Draft Final Report
Upon award of the grant, the designated recipient and the public agency execute a supplemental agreement, which releases the designated recipient from liability under the grant agreement. The supplemental agreement permits the grant recipient (e.g., direct recipient) to receive and expend the federal funds and sets forth that the grant recipient assumes all responsibilities of the grant agreement. This supplemental agreement is required for all grantees in UZAs under 200,000 in population, as well as for all recipients in UZAs with populations of at least 200,000 that are not a designated recipient.
The amount of funds available to direct recipients is determined cooperatively by public transit providers, the MPO, and the designated recipient(s) for the UZA and communicated to FTA by the designated recipient. FTA can only make grants to direct recipients after the designated recipient provides a split or sub-allocation letter to the FTA regional office.
Sub-Recipient Arrangements
A Section 5307 recipient, whether designated recipient or direct recipient, may choose to pass its grant funds through to another entity (sub-recipient) to carry out a project eligible under Section 5307. An example of this type of arrangement is the allocation of funding to projects undertaken by a smaller cooperating agency on behalf of a designated or direct recipient. Another instance is where a private nonprofit organization is responsible for a job access and reverse commute project within or near the service area of a designated or direct recipient. Unlike supplemental agreements between a direct recipient and FTA, a sub-recipient arrangement does not relieve the original recipient of its responsibilities to carry out the terms and conditions of the grant agreement.
OVERSIGHT AND SUB-ALLOCATION MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, there are 179 UZAs that are apportioned Section 5307 funds, of which 137 are UZAs that have a population between 200,000 and 1 million. The number of UZAs that had a population between 200,000 and 1 million increased 71 percent over the last four decades, which includes the Asheville UZA. According to TCRP Synthesis 113: Sub-allocating FTA Section 5307 Funding Among Multiple Recipients in Metropolitan Areas, 23 percent of these UZAs sub-allocate their Section 5307 funds. Interestingly, transit operators were more likely to use the exact FTA formula and MPOs were more likely to use a local approach. The earlier section presents both options for the region. This section aims to provide information in terms of requirements and management for the direct recipient(s).
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 55
Draft Final Report
Status Quo
Currently, Asheville is the established designated recipient for the UZA. As such, Asheville is the local governmental agency that currently receives the regional allocation of Section 5307 funds for public transit management, and Henderson County is an eligible recipient of program funding. This necessitates program obligations onto the city, as well as pass-through general obligations onto the county, specifically:
Direct Recipient – The city would retain this role. In doing so they continue taking on responsibility for complying with FTA regulations. The city would manage grants directly with FTA and manage the sub-recipient(s).
Capacity - The county/subrecipient agrees to maintain sufficient legal, financial, technical and managerial capacity to:
o Plan, manage and complete the project and provide for the use of project services
o Comply with the terms of this agreement, the Approved Project Budget, and the project schedule
o Comply with all applicable federal laws, regulations and requirements, FTA’s Master Agreement, and the annual Certifications and Assurances to FTA
Schedule - The county/subrecipient has submitted a detailed schedule to the city for the project as described in their annual application. The county shall update the schedule every month and show progress of major milestones.
Notification - The county/subrecipient shall notify the city immediately of any change in conditions (including its legal, technical, financial or managerial capacity), change in local law, or other event that may significantly affect the sub-recipient’s ability to perform the project in accordance with the terms of their agreement.
Implications
New sub-recipient agreements would be required between the City of Asheville and Buncombe County, Henderson County, and Haywood County. Appendix D is an example of the City of Asheville and Henderson County’s prior Section 5307 subrecipient agreement.
Since Haywood Public Transit/Mountain Projects is a private non-profit, they would not be eligible under this scenario.
This would add further financial burden onto the City of Asheville who already is struggling to meet these demands since general administrative expenses that a designated recipient incurs to implement the program are not eligible as a direct cost under the
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 56
Draft Final Report
Section 5307 program. Added subrecipient oversight would now include Buncombe County and Haywood County, in addition to Henderson County. Appendix E is the City of Asheville’s existing oversight checklists for transit subrecipients.
What role would FBRMPO play? Would this affect JARC funding?
Asheville currently procures all Section 5307 vehicles and then leases them to its subrecipient. Would this apply to Buncombe County?
Sub-recipient’s unused funds could be flexed to other subrecipients in the region.
NCDOT Section 5307 Applicant
NCDOT issued a memorandum on May 25, 2016 which notified large urban transit operators and their MPOs of NCDOT’s willingness to be the Section 5307 applicant for their current Section 5311 sub-recipients, based on local decisions. By doing so, NCDOT would retain the system oversight and would be submitted as part of a split letter to FTA. This also means that the split letter and annual application must follow NCDOT’s grant cycle each year.
Implications
This would allow Buncombe and Henderson County to use NCDOT as their direct recipient for all federal funds.
Since Haywood Public Transit/Mountain Projects is a private non-profit, they would not be eligible under this scenario. NCDOT would require that funds go to the county which politically is problematic. NCDOT has also stated that it will not be taking on new Section 5311 sub-recipients.
Grant funds would only be permitted to be used by sub-recipients. Thus, funds could not be flexed to other providers in the region.
FBRMPO Direct Recipient
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5303(d), a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), which in some cases may also serve as the designated recipient, is the forum for cooperative decision making to carry out the transportation planning process.9 This is the arrangement for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (DCHC-MPO). As a designated UZA and appointed Designated Recipient (DR) of this apportionment, FBRMPO would be responsible for providing reasonable oversight of local transit agencies and member
9 FTA C 9030.1E
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 57
Draft Final Report
governments that have designated any portion of the Section 5307 program to metropolitan planning activities included in the current year Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). This would include the following oversight procedures. MPO
The MPO will receive notification from the FTA of the annual apportionment available to the Asheville UZA.
The MPO will make recommendations to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC)/sub-recipients to approve and authorize the distribution of Asheville UZA Section 5307 funds.
The MPO will send an approved distribution letter to the FTA Transportation Program Specialist. This letter is used to monitor the transit agency’s application and provide an additional layer of oversight.
A copy of the approved distribution letter will be sent to each participating transit agency along with the MPO’s oversight responsibilities.
Grant Recipient
Each transit agency receiving funding will submit an application to FTA.
Each transit agency must forward a copy of the approved application and certificate of award/grant agreement to FBRMPO.
The required quarterly reporting includes: o Narrative reports o UPWP detailed expenditure report o Funds/status
Implications
FBRMPO does not have a large staff. This new role would add a financial burden onto the agency without additional funding support. A small amount of local match would have to be paid by local government members to support the draw-down of Section 5303 funds. Currently, NCDOT pays ten percent local match so the remaining ten percent would need to be covered. Appendix F illustrates the local dues that would be required.
Politically, shifting direct recipient authority to the MPO might face roadblocks.
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 58
Draft Final Report
Since Haywood Public Transit/Mountain Projects is a private non‐profit, they would not be eligible under this scenario.
Sub‐recipient’s unused funds could be flexed to other subrecipients in the region.
Each subrecipient would be responsible for their own vehicle procurement, maintenance, and reporting.
Multiple Designated Recipients
Based on FTA C 9030.1E, the recipient(s) designated in each UZA must be a governmental authority and have the legal authority to receive and dispense federal funds in the UZA. Except for Haywood County, all other jurisdictions and their transit agencies are public agencies. Haywood County’s transit provider is a private non‐profit and is not eligible for Section 5307 funding. The institutional role and responsibility of how to administer the sub‐allocation process would need to be agreed upon. All designated recipients in the UZA would execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) each year stipulating the distribution of funds and the administrative requirements of receiving the grants from FTA. Additionally, a “split letter” would be sent to FTA which would document the local arrangement and establish the allocation of Section 5307 funds.
Implications
Still need to determine which agency would administer the sub‐allocation process.
Still need to determine a means for Haywood County to receive Section 5307 funds.
Each direct recipient would be responsible for reporting and compliance to FTA.
Each sub‐recipient would be responsible for their own vehicle procurement, maintenance, and reporting.
Recommended Model
The FBRMPO Planning Board came to consensus that the FTA Section 5307 allocation for the region should be split according to the study’s formula Alternative 9 (see page 43) which adjusts the region’s previously‐utilized formula by removing revenue miles from the equation. It was also recommended that a three‐year phase‐in from the current allocation to the new allocation be applied. A copy of the FBRMPO Resolution Adopting the 5307 Urban Transit Funding Allocation Formula for Use in the French Broad River MPO Region is presented in Appendix A. The committee also decided to:
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 59
Draft Final Report
Keep a ten percent JARC set-aside
Direct the first year’s Haywood County’s share to be part of the JARC County applicants, to allow a private non-profit to utilize the funds prior to the County assuming subrecipient responsibilities for Section 5307 funds
Have the City of Asheville remain as the Designated Recipient This allocation will be in place for these funds until the 2020 Census. The FTA Section 5307 Formula Funds allocation formula for the Asheville UZA may be revisited prior to 2020 upon request from the City of Asheville, a current Section 5307 subrecipient or a potentially eligible Section 5307 subrecipient agency. FTA Section 5307 Apportionment Formula Allocations after Ten Percent JARC Set-Aside
Year
City of Asheville % of Total
Buncombe County
% of Total
Haywood County
% of Total
Haywood County
% of Total
1st Year (state FY 2018) 67% 10% 5% 18%
2nd Year (state FY 2019) 55% 19% 7% 19%
3rd Year (state FY 2020) 43% 29% 8% 20%
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study 60
Draft Final Report
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
APPENDIX A – FBRMPO RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 5307 URBAN
TRANSIT FUNDING ALLOCATION FORMULA
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
APPENDIX B – NTD PROFILES
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
http://www.ridetheart.com/ ART (Asheville Redefines Transit) (ART)360 West Haywood Street 2014 Annual Agency Profile Transportation Planning Manager: Ms. Mariate EcheverryAsheville, NC 28801 828-232-4528
General Information Financial InformationUrbanized Area Statistics - 2010 Census Service Consumption Database Information Sources of Operating Funds Expended Operating Funding SourcesAsheville, NC 4,607,688 Annual Passenger Miles (PMT) NTDID: 40005 Fare Revenues $730,804 13.0%
265 Square Miles 1,430,959 Annual Unlinked Trips (UPT) Reporter Type: Full Reporter Local Funds $2,450,642 43.5%280,648 Population 4,809 Average Weekday Unlinked Trips State Funds $614,558 10.9%
133 Pop. Rank out of 498 UZAs 3,954 Average Saturday Unlinked Trips Federal Assistance $1,605,681 28.5%0 Average Sunday Unlinked Trips Other Funds $233,987 4.2%
Total Operating Funds Expended $5,635,672 100.0%
Service Area Statistics Service Supplied Sources of Capital Funds Expended45 Square Miles 876,958 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) Fare Revenues $0 0.0%
83,393 Population 62,288 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH) Local Funds $0 0.0%16 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS) State Funds $0 0.0%23 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service (VAMS) Federal Assistance $1,309,494 100.0%
Other Funds $0 0.0% Capital Funding SourcesModal Characteristics Total Capital Funds Expended $1,309,494 100.0%
Modal Overview Summary of Operating Expenses (OE)
ModeDirectly
OperatedPurchased
TransportationRevenue Vehicles
Systems and Guideways
Facilities and Stations Other Total Salary, Wages, Benefits $3,689,718 70.3%
Bus 16 - $625,348 $0 $27,447 $656,699 $1,309,494 Materials and Supplies $1,025,463 19.5%Total 16 - $625,348 $0 $27,447 $656,699 $1,309,494 Purchased Transportation $0 0.0%
Other Operating Expenses $532,900 10.2%Total Operating Expenses $5,248,081 100.0%
Reconciling OE Cash Expenditures $0Purchased Transportation
(Reported Separately) $387,591 *Fare Revenue Federal Assistance: 100.%
Operation Characteristics
ModeOperating Expenses Fare Revenues
Uses ofCapital Funds
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual VehicleRevenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Bus $5,223,986 $676,236 $1,309,494 4,607,688 1,430,959 876,958 62,288 0.0 23 16 30.4% 4.4Total $5,223,986 $676,236 $1,309,494 4,607,688 1,430,959 876,958 62,288 0.0 23 16 30.4%
Performance Measures
Mode ModeBus $5.96 $83.87 Bus $1.13 $3.65 1.6 23.0Total $5.96 $83.87 Total $1.13 $3.65 1.6 23.0
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 BusOE/VRM $3.92 $4.22 # $4.71 # $5.33 # $5.75 # $5.96 2005: $3.922006: $4.222007: $4.322008: $4.712009: $5.142010: $5.332011: $5.962012: $5.752013: $6.022014: $5.96OE/PMT $0.75 $0.77 # $0.72 # $0.66 # $0.92 # $1.13 2005: $.752006: $.772007: $.662008: $.722009: $.642010: $.662011: $1.2012: $.922013: $1.142014: $1.13UPT/VRM 1.29 1.37 # 1.63 # 1.76 # 1.89 # 1.63 2005: 1.292006: 1.372007: 1.632008: 1.632009: 1.762010: 1.762011: 1.812012: 1.892013: 1.622014: 1.63OE/VRMOE/PMTUPT/VRM
Notes:¹Demand Response - Taxi (DT) and non-dedicated fleets do not report fleet age data.*This agency has a purchased transportation relationship in which they buy service from Buncombe County (NTDID: 40224), and in which the data are captured in another report for mode DR/PT.
Average Fleet Age in
Years¹Annual
Unlinked TripsPercent
Spare Vehicles
Vehicles Operatedin Maximum Service Uses of Capital Funds
Fixed GuidewayDirectional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available for Maximum
Service
Vehicles Operated in Maximum
Service
Service Efficiency Service EffectivenessOperating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue MileOperating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue HourOperating Expenses per
Passenger MileOperating Expenses per Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Trips perVehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Trips perVehicle Revenue Hour
13.0%
43.5%
10.9%
28.5%4.2%
100.0%
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bus
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile: Bus
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bus
http://www.buncombecounty.org/transportation Buncombe County (Mountain Mobility)c/o Buncombe County Planning and Development 2014 Annual Agency Profile Planner III: Mrs. Denise Braine46 Valley Street 828-250-4838Asheville , NC 28801
General Information Financial InformationUrbanized Area Statistics - 2010 Census Service Consumption Database Information Sources of Operating Funds Expended Operating Funding SourcesAsheville, NC 1,709,826 Annual Passenger Miles (PMT) NTDID: 40224 Fare Revenues $95,381 2.8%
265 Square Miles 162,100 Annual Unlinked Trips (UPT) Reporter Type: Full Reporter Local Funds $1,160,047 33.6%280,648 Population 602 Average Weekday Unlinked Trips State Funds $373,371 10.8%
133 Pop. Rank out of 498 UZAs 131 Average Saturday Unlinked Trips Federal Assistance $262,132 7.6%Other UZAs Served 0 Average Sunday Unlinked Trips Other Funds $1,563,702 45.3%0 North Carolina Non-UZA Total Operating Funds Expended $3,454,633 100.0%
Service Area Statistics Service Supplied Sources of Capital Funds Expended657 Square Miles 1,162,465 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) Fare Revenues $0 0.0%
238,318 Population 64,391 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH) Local Funds $12,470 1.7%43 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS) State Funds $306,891 41.3%86 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service (VAMS) Federal Assistance $361,031 48.6%
Other Funds $61,852 8.3% Capital Funding SourcesModal Characteristics Total Capital Funds Expended $742,244 100.0%
Modal Overview Summary of Operating Expenses (OE)
ModeDirectly
OperatedPurchased
TransportationRevenue Vehicles
Systems and Guideways
Facilities and Stations Other Total Salary, Wages, Benefits $385,353 11.3%
Demand Response - 38 $737,750 $4,494 $0 $0 $742,244 Materials and Supplies $440,666 12.9%Bus - 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Purchased Transportation $2,534,364 74.4%Total - 43 $737,750 $4,494 $0 $0 $742,244 Other Operating Expenses $47,280 1.4%
Total Operating Expenses $3,407,663 100.0%Reconciling OE Cash Expenditures $46,970
Purchased Transportation(Reported Separately) $0
Fare Revenue Local Funds: 1.7%State Funds: 41.3%Federal Assistance: 48.6%Other Funds: 8.3%
Operation Characteristics
ModeOperating Expenses Fare Revenues
Uses ofCapital Funds
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual VehicleRevenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Demand Response $2,809,390 $81,325 $742,244 1,377,267 133,454 1,053,746 56,229 0.0 43 38 11.6% 2.3Bus $598,273 $14,056 $0 332,559 28,646 108,719 8,162 0.0 43 5 88.4% 5.6Total $3,407,663 $95,381 $742,244 1,709,826 162,100 1,162,465 64,391 0.0 86 43 50.0%
Performance Measures
Mode ModeDemand Response $2.67 $49.96 Demand Response $2.04 $21.05 0.1 2.4Bus $5.50 $73.30 Bus $1.80 $20.89 0.3 3.5Total $2.93 $52.92 Total $1.99 $21.02 0.1 2.5
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Demand ResponseOE/VRM # $2.67 Bus 2013: $2.822014: $2.67OE/PMT # $2.04 2013: $2.212014: $2.04UPT/VRM # 0.13 2013: .132014: .13OE/VRM # $5.50 2013: $3.362014: $5.5OE/PMT # $1.80 2013: $1.042014: $1.8UPT/VRM # 0.26 2013: .292014: .26
Notes:¹Demand Response - Taxi (DT) and non-dedicated fleets do not report fleet age data.
Average Fleet Age in
Years¹Annual
Unlinked TripsPercent
Spare Vehicles
Vehicles Operatedin Maximum Service Uses of Capital Funds
Fixed GuidewayDirectional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available for Maximum
Service
Vehicles Operated in Maximum
Service
Service Efficiency Service EffectivenessOperating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue MileOperating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue HourOperating Expenses per
Passenger MileOperating Expenses per Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Trips perVehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Trips perVehicle Revenue Hour
2.8%
33.6%
10.8%
7.6%
45.3%
1.7%
41.3%
48.6%
8.3%
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
13 14
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Demand Response
$0.00$0.50$1.00$1.50$2.00$2.50
13 14
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile: Demand Response
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
13 14
Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Demand Response
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
13 14
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bus
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
13 14
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile: Bus
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
13 14
Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bus
http://www.mountainprojects.org/ Mountain Projects, Inc. (MPI)2251 Old Balsam Road 2014 Annual Agency Profile Executive Director: Ms. Patsy DowlingWaynesville, NC 28786 828-452-1447
Financial InformationUrbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2010 Census Operating Funding Sources Capital Funding SourcesAsheville, NC Fare Revenues $10,708 1.3% Fare Revenues
265 Square Miles Local Funds $67,296 8.1% Local Funds280,648 Population State Funds $180,676 21.7% State Funds
133 Pop. Rank out of 498 UZAs Federal Assistance $273,053 32.8% Federal AssistanceOther UZAs Served Other Funds $300,879 36.1% Other Funds0 North Carolina Non-UZA Total Operating Funds Expended $832,612 100.0%
Local FundsService Area Statistics State Funds
546 Square Miles Federal Assistance59,690 Population Fare Revenues $0 0.0% Other Funds
Local Funds $23,386 9.7%Service Consumption State Funds $23,754 9.9%
37,414 Annual Unlinked Trips (UPT) Federal Assistance $190,068 79.2%Other Funds $2,803 1.2%
Service Supplied Total Capital Funds Expended $240,011 100.0%311,917 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM)19,754 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH) Fare Revenues: 1 Local Funds: 9.7%State Funds: 9.9%Federal Assistance: 79.2%Other Funds
Database InformationNTDID: 40226
Reporter Type: Small Systems ReporterModal Characteristics
Operation Characteristics
ModeDirectly
OperatedOperating Expenses
Fare Revenues
Uses of Capital Funds
AnnualUnlinked Trips
Demand Response 17 - $832,612 $10,708 $240,011 37,414 311,917 19,754 3.0Total 17 - $832,612 $10,708 $240,011 37,414 311,917 19,754
Performance Measures
Mode ModeDemand Response $2.67 $42.15 Demand Response $22.25 0.1 1.9Total $2.67 $42.15 Total $22.25 0.1 1.9
05 06 07 08 09 10 1112 13 14 2013: $2.432014: $2.67OE/VRM # 2.67 2013: .122014: .12UPT/VRM # 0.12OE/VRM Demand ResponseUPT/VRM
Notes:¹Demand Response - Taxi (DT) and non-dedicated fleets do not report fleet age data.
General InformationSources of Operating Funds Expended
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Vehicles Operatedat Maximum Service
Purchased Transportation
Annual VehicleRevenue Hours
Average Fleet Agein Years¹
Service Efficiency Service Effectiveness
Operating Expenses perVehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses perVehicle Revenue Hour
Operating Expensesper Unlinked
Passenger TripUnlinked Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Trips perVehicle Revenue
Hour
Annual VehicleRevenue Miles
1.3%
8.1%
21.7%
32.8%
36.1%
9.7%
9.9%79.2%
1.2%
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
13 14
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Demand Response
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
13 14
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Demand Response
http://www.applecountrytransit.com/ Henderson County/ Apple Country Public TransitHenderson County Planning Department 2014 Annual Agency Profile Senior Planner: Mrs. Autumn Radcliff100 N. King St. 828-694-6558Hendersonville, NC 28792
Financial InformationUrbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2010 Census Operating Funding SourcesAsheville, NC Fare Revenues $56,522 9.4% Fare Revenues
265 Square Miles Local Funds $198,348 33.1% Local Funds280,648 Population State Funds $152,089 25.4% State Funds
133 Pop. Rank out of 498 UZAs Federal Assistance $192,153 32.1% Federal AssistanceOther UZAs Served Other Funds $0 0.0%0 North Carolina Non-UZA Total Operating Funds Expended $599,112 100.0%
Service Area Statistics39 Square Miles
71,227 Population Fare Revenues $0Local Funds $0
Service Consumption State Funds $0108,282 Annual Unlinked Trips (UPT) Federal Assistance $0
Other Funds $0Service Supplied Total Capital Funds Expended $0
201,716 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM)10,915 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH) Fare Revenues: 9
Database InformationNTDID: 40229
Reporter Type: Small Systems ReporterModal Characteristics
Operation Characteristics
ModeDirectly
OperatedOperating Expenses
Fare Revenues
Uses of Capital Funds
AnnualUnlinked Trips
Demand Response - 2 $80,030 $5,959 $0 4,856 32,684 1,900 5.5Bus - 3 $519,083 $50,563 $0 103,426 169,032 9,015 3.8Total - 5 $599,113 $56,522 $0 108,282 201,716 10,915
Performance Measures
Mode ModeDemand Response $2.45 $42.12 Demand Response $16.48 0.1 2.6Bus $3.07 $57.58 Bus $5.02 0.6 11.5Total $2.97 $54.89 Total $5.53 0.5 9.9
05 06 07 08 09 10 1112 13 14 2013: $2.992014: $3.07OE/VRM # 3.07 2013: .552014: .61UPT/VRM # 0.61 2013: $2.292014: $2.45OE/VRM # 2.45 Bus 2013: .122014: .15UPT/VRM # 0.15 Demand Response
Notes:¹Demand Response - Taxi (DT) and non-dedicated fleets do not report fleet age data.
General InformationSources of Operating Funds Expended
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Vehicles Operatedat Maximum Service
Purchased Transportation
Annual VehicleRevenue Hours
Average Fleet Agein Years¹
Service Efficiency Service Effectiveness
Operating Expenses perVehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses perVehicle Revenue Hour
Operating Expensesper Unlinked
Passenger TripUnlinked Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Trips perVehicle Revenue
Hour
Annual VehicleRevenue Miles
9.4%
33.1%
25.4%
32.1%
$0.00$1.00$2.00$3.00$4.00
13 14
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bus
0.000.200.400.600.80
13 14
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bus
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
13 14
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Demand Response
0.000.050.100.150.20
13 14
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Demand Response
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
APPENDIX C – CAPITAL COST OF CONTRACTING SCENARIOS: TURNKEY
VERSUS COUNTY OWNING VEHICLES
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
Scenario 1 Haywood County Buys Vehicle and
Contractor Provides Maintenance and Service
Scenario 2 Haywood County - Turnkey Contract
Assumptions
Haywood County Purchases Vehicle(s) during the First Year,
Mountain Projects Provides the Service
Assumptions
Mountain Projects Purchases Vehicles and Provides the
Service
Vehicle Cost to Haywood Co -first year $100,000 Vehicle Cost to Haywood Co-first year $0
Federal Share (80%) $80,000 Federal Share (80%) $0
Local Share (20%) $20,000 Local Share (20%) $0
Contract Amount (annually) $200,000 Contract Amount (annually) $230,000
Capital Cost of Contract Amount (40%) $80,000 Capital Cost of Contract Amount (50%)
$115,000
Federal Share (80%) $64,000 Federal Share (80%) $92,000
Local Share (20%) $16,000 Local Share (20%) $23,000
Operating Component $120,000 Operating Component $115,000
Federal Share (50%) $60,000 Federal Share (50%) $57,500
Local Share (50%) $60,000 Local Share (50%) $57,500
5 Year Transit Capital + Contract Cost to County (capital cost for only the first year)
$1,100,000
5 Year Transit Capital + Contract Cost to County
(capital cost included with contract amount)
$1,150,000
Federal Share $700,000 Federal Share $747,500
Local Share $400,000 Local Share $402,500
Federal Reimbursement Share 63.6% Federal Reimbursement Share 65.0%
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
APPENDIX D – EXAMPLE OF SUB-ALLOCATION AGREEMENT FOR FTA
FUNDS
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
APPENDIX E – ASHEVILLE’S SUB RECIPIENTS OVERSIGHT CHECKLISTS
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
Date of Visit: COA Employee Completing: Location of Site Visit:
Criterion Applicable Sub-rec./contractor Compliant? Yes or No Additional Information
Review contact or sub-recipient agreement
COA FT
MM Hender
Is there a "Compliance Monitoring File" for each organization,
which contains the 10 sections outlined in the most recent FTA
Oversight Procedures COA
Ensure that the City's Title VI plan is up to date (every 3 years) and
request list of Title VI complaints since last visit
COA FT
MM Hender
Review Website for Title VI non-discrimination and complaint
process, fare, ADA paratransit services description
COA FT
MM Hender
Are drug & alcohol program files and documentation being updated
monthly/quarterly, and are percentages being met?
COA FT
MM Hender
Does the contractor/subrecipients have an established, written
contract with testing providers and verify that the vendor is HHS
certified
COA FT
MM Hender
Have subrecipients/contractor send/compile its list of received
comments
COA FT
MM Hender
Ensure that the formal procedure for considering public
comments
COA FT
MM Hender
Request list of projects that require financial reports COA
Request program reports for all projects in the above list COA
Request a list of all federal grants received in the last 3 years
COA FT
MM Hender
Request a copy of rolling stock maintenance plan
COA FT
Hender
Request list of all construction projects that each organization is
undertaking so that the necessary inspections occur
COA FT
Hender
The COA's DBE Plan is updated COA
DBE Reports are up to date
COA FT
Hender
The COA should have a system for training the employees of
contractors and subrecipients in ADA-related issues
COA FT
MM Hender
Is the COA using a schedule for calling reservation lines for ADA
paratransit periodically throughout the year?
COA FT
MM Hender
Request the ADA complaint process that is currently is use
COA FT
MM Hender
Request list of ADA trainings that have occurred since last review
COA FT
MM Hender
ADA Paratransit
Title VI
Drug & Alcohol
Public Comment Procedures
Project reporting: Construction, grants, rolling stock
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)
Date of Visit: Representative: COA Employee Visiting: Organization visited:
Criterion Applicable Sub-rec./contractor Compliant? Yes or No Additional Information
Notifying Customers of their rights under Title VI - on their website, on transit
vehicles & in administrative offices
COA FT
MM Hender
Have Title VI Complaint Procedures available to the public & review any Title
VI Complaints
COA FT
MM Hender
Review LEP Plan and ensure they are taking reasonable steps to ensure access
to LEP populations
COA FT
MM Hender
Review input from minority, low-income & LEP populations during outreach
COA FT
MM Hender
Review annual certification and Assurances (Title VI)
COA
MM Hender
Are any construction project expected requiring an EJ analysis
COA FT
MM Hender
Criterion Compliant? Yes or No Additional Information
Maintaining drug & alcohol program records in a secure location
COA FT
MM Hender
These records should go back at last five (5) years
COA FT
MM Hender
Ensuring that the right type of tests are being performed, and the proper
forms are being used and completed
COA FT
MM Hender
Yuri needs to better understand this
requirement
Verify test by calling testing agency to verify paper work of sub-
recipient/contractor
COA FT
MM Hender
Criterion Compliant? Yes or No Additional Information
Updating their EEO plan every three (3) years. Threshold: 50 or more transit-
related employees, or capital or operating assistance over $1 million, or
planning assistance over $250,000 FT
Criterion Compliant? Yes or No Additional Information
Following the COA's procedures for considering public comments, unless they
have developed their own procedures approved by COA. Documentation of
public input regarding long and short range plans, service modification, fare
changes, capital/operating expenditures and grant applications.(from Sub-
recipient agreement)
COA FT
MM Hender
Criterion Compliant? Yes or No Additional Information
Final financial and program reports must be submitted within 90 days of
project completion or expiration of funding
Close-out reports should be clearly identified as final, show all activities &
expenditures are completed, and include a project description focused on
outcomes
Program reports should include hard data showing the effectiveness of the
program, and how it met the needs and intentions of the grant award. For
example, Mountain Mobility would show JARC & New Freedom data.
Maintain all documents and records related to costs incurred under a federal
grant award during the grant and for three (3) years after
Criterion Compliant? Yes or No Additional Information
Ensure the development of a maintenance plan which is supplemented by
periodic written reports on maintenance activities FT Hender
Purchases of rolling stock are accompanied by pre-award and post-delivery
audits ensuring Buy America and other required certifications COA Hender
When procuring rolling stock, the vendor must be on the FTA's list of eligible
TVMs and meet the stated DBE goal COA Hender
Criterion Compliant? Yes or No Additional Information
Spot-checked construction logs/diaries and certified payrolls comply with
Davis-Bacon
COA
Hender
Source documents supporting progress payments made to the contractor are
available
COA
Hender
Ensure that wage rates are part of bid project specifics
COA
Hender
Review construction areas and yards quarterly to ensure that foreign iron &
steel are not being used without an FTA waiver or the resident engineer's
approval
COA
Hender
Criterion Compliant? Yes or No Additional Information
Written DBE program reporting is required and must be in compliance with 49
CFR Part 26
COA
Hender
The following DBE aspects are required: contract clauses requiring non-
discrimination and prompt payment and retainage, a provision for DBE
subcontractor termination, and project invoicing must explicitly show progress
on DBE goals
COA FT
Hender
DBE liaison must be invited to all project meetings, project updates must
include an update on payments to DBEs and overall DBE goals, and DBE
reports must be generated every 6 months
COA FT
Hender
Rolling Stock
Title VI
Drug & Alcohol
Equal Opportunity Employment (EEO)
Public Comment Procedures
Final Financial and Program Reports Closeout
Construction
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)
ADA Paratransit
Criterion Compliant? Yes or No Additional Information
Review the contractor or subrecipients ADA-related policies and monitor
compliance with the policies. Review ADA complaints and the process &
procedures for addressing American With Disabilities Act complaints.
COA FT
MM Hender
Inform subrecipients and contractors of the ADA requirements via training.
This training is required to ensure that personnel operate vehicles and
equipment safely, assist passengers properly, and treat persons with
disabilities who use the service in a respectful and courteous way, with
appropriate attention to the differences among persons with disabilities.
COA FT
MM Hender
Does COA need to provide this
training?
All contracts for the operation of ADA Paratransit service must include
mandatory driver training requirements. Training provisions must include
requirements regarding curriculum, length of training period, resources, and
assurances. Contracts must call for initial driver training and annual refresher
trainings. Training programs must also include passenger assistance
techniques and disability sensitivity modules. ((training agenda, lesson plans)
COA FT
MM Hender
Employ surveys, checklists and interview forms, as well as follow-up
correspondence to effectively document compliance. All documentation
reflecting monitoring results is maintained as evidence of oversight.
COA FT
MM Hender City of Asheville needs to develop
Review whether route deviation services have the characteristics of a demand
responsive service MM
Review how trips are scheduled. Have trips or individuals been denied ADA
paratransit services? If so review denials. Also is their an appeal process?
Have denials been informed of this process? Are there any appeals?
COA MM
Hender
Maintain a record keeping system for monitoring on-time performance and
tracking these indicators of capacity constraints. At any given time, the City of
Asheville should be able to demonstrate that the denials it does have, as well
as the missed trips, late pickups, etc., are not an operational pattern or
practice that significantly limits the availability of ADA paratransit service.
COA MM
Hender
Review map detailing ADA paratransit area showing 3/4 mile buff of fixed
routes
COA MM
Hender
Track ADA-eligible trips separately from non-eligible trips. Periodic reservation
line calls must be conducted at various times of the day to determine if a caller
can reach a reservation agent. If third-party contractors or subrecipients have
communication systems that provide data on average call wait time, number
of missed calls, call abandonment rates, and other indicators of performance,
such data must be collected and reviewed to determine compliance.
COA MM
Hender
Monitor service capacity constraints and review no-show policies. Review
Suspension policy. How is this communicated to riders.
COA MM
Hender
ADA Paratransit advertised on vehiclesCOA FT
MM Hender
Ensure that all subrecipients and third-party contractor vehicle accessibility
features, such as wheelchair lifts, ramps, securement devices, signs, and
communication equipment for persons with disabilities, be maintained and
operational.
COA FT
MM Hender
The fare charged to elderly persons, ADA-eligible disabled riders and Medicare
card-holders shall not exceed half the normal fare - check signage, website &
pamphlets to verify
COA FT
MM Hender
Ensure that FTA-funded vehicles are maintained regardless of who operates
them
COA FT
Hender
For all equipment under warranty, there must be a system for identifying,
recording and enforcing claims with manufacturers
COA FT
Hender
Formal performance reviews should be completed quarterly, with
documented corrective actions for larger and more complex projects; or
formal reviews every 12 months for multi-year contracts
COA FT
MM Hender
Do we need to change this time frame
to match our bi-yearly checks?
Oversight Procedures
Fixed Route Service Monitoring
Sub recipient Maintenance Monitoring
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
APPENDIX F – FBRMPO LOCAL DUES
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
FBRMPO Urban Transit Funding Formula Study
Draft Final Report
LOS Transit Planner
Item Amount per Year Action Required
Total Estimated Cost - Including indirect, overhead and travel cost
$107,842 ---
***additional costs might be required for legal support
5310 Admin
$32,400
Designate FBRMPO as the 5310 Designated Recipient; update the Program Management Plan; hold the next call for 5310 projects
Remaining Funding Required $75,442 ---
PL Funding (5303) $60,353.60 Designate FBRMPO as the
5303 Designated Recipient
Local Dues - 10% covered by NCDOT
$7,544.20
FBRMPO would need to file annual 5303 grant application through NCDOT
Buncombe County $2,843.44 ---
City of Asheville $1,620.23 ---
Henderson County $2,073.83 ---
Haywood County $1,006.70 ---
Local Dues Calculation
Jurisdiction Population Percentage
Buncombe County 146,352 37.7%
City of Asheville 83,393 21.5%
Henderson County 106,740 27.5%
Haywood County 51,815 13.3%
Population based on 2010 Census Results in the MPO Planning Area
Henderson County population figure includes the City of Hendersonville
Haywood County population figure includes the Town of Waynesville
