HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-07-02; City Council; 3125; Federal Aid Urban ProgramTHE C ITY OF CARLSPAD, CAL I FOR3 IA
Referred To:
__. Sub j ect : Submitted By:
Federal Aid Urban program Public Works
Administrator
- 'J
I_ Statement of the Matter
The County has requested the Councils from the various agencies indicate their approval of projects which are being considered for FAU funding.
The attached reports from the Public Works Administrator and the County Engineer give the background for the FAU program in general and for the reasoning in the selection of the two projects being submitted. -
Exhibit --
e
1. PWA report
2. County Engineer report
Staff Recommendations to City Manager
It is recommended that City Council approve Elm Ave. extension and Palomar Airport Road reconstruction as the candidate projects from the City of Carlsbad for FAU funding.
R
. .. ._ Date: July 2, 1974 ' AB. )lo.
.-
..
City Manager's Recommendation
*
As seated in the report-by the Public Works Administrator,
this matter is being brought to your attention at'this time, even though it ha-s already been plaeed in the preliminary budget.
I understand that previously, the Council had established other priorities for road development. You should,.however, read
you the reasons for making this proposal.
.=.
: . Mr. Beckman's report and ask him ta go through in detail with
The cost savings that he estimates'will accrue to the City, will have tb be offset against the existing Geed for certain road
would like some guidance. If you wish additional ,,information in order to give, that guidance, we will be- glad to' prepare .it
-improvements. This is a policy matter onewhich the staff
' . - for you..
<
Council Action
7-2-74 The Council accepted the recommendation of the staff and approved Elm Ave. 'extension and Palomar Airport Road reconstruction .as the candidate projects for FAU funding. .
..
.
MEMORANDUM
June 24, 1974
TO : City Manager
FROM : Public Works Administrator
SUBJECT: Federal Aid Urban program (FAU)
Federal Aid Urban funds in the amount of $19,045,000 have been made available to San Diego County for programming during the fiscal year 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. FAU money may be used to fund up to 83%* of approved project costs on roadways on the FAU system.
The attached memorandum to the County Board of Supervisors from the County Engineer gives some background on the FAU program and
the policies and procedures which control it.
As a matter of practicality, two of the things staff had to keep in mind in recommending candidate projects were the ability to generate the matching funds required (13% of project costs) and the state of readiness of the project plans and specifications. The deadline for submittal of candidate projects was May 31, 1974, so we had to move fast if we wanted to have any projects at all
in the hopper for consideration. The only project that was
sufficiently ready to even possibly clear the review processes at State level and be eligible for funding was Elm Avenue from Valley to El Camino Real. (As an informational item, Tamarack will be put through from Skyline to El Camino Real as part of
Carlsbad Tract 73-8 by the developer, Douglas-Pacific.)
The City of San Marcos had a project for the improvement of San Marcos Boulevard (Palomar Airport Road) within their City limits. Conversation with the County revealed that they were interested in creating a cooperative project for the improvement of Palomar Airport Road from 1-5 easterly to and including the San Marcos project. This project would have regional appeal, in that it would be multi-agency, would serve a recreational facility (Carlsbad Raceway), a transportation facility (Palomar Airport) and would provide needed access of sufficient structural section to a burgeoning industrial area in Carlsbad. The County agreed to act as lead agency in the design and construction of the project. (As an aside, since all of the County's portion of Palomar Airport Road will eventually be incorporated into the City of Carlsbad, it
would be advisable to get as much County-financed improvements as we can while the road is still under County jurisdiction.
To finance the City's share of these projects, I have submitted a
preliminary budget request to start accumulating funds for Palomar Airport Road from Gas Tax and in discussion with the Manager, we
have arrived at a recommendation which will start accumulating our share of the Elm Avenue project.
4
City Manager
June 24, 1974
Page 2
The County has asked that we formally process candidate projects through Council for approval before they are set on a priority list for possible funding.
Recommendation
It is recommended that City Council approve Elm Ave. extension and Palomar Airport Road reconstruction as the candidate projects from the City of Carlsbad for FAU funding.
A *L Ronald A. Beckman
RAB/de
k
HOWARD fil. TAYLOR County Engineer County Operatio!is.Center, 5555 Dvarland Avenue San DieZo.Califoreia 92123. . . . . . lelephont: 565-5171
April 8, 1974
TO : 3oard of Supervisors (A45)
FROM : County Engineer (0320)
SUBJECT : Federal Aid Urban Program
On April 2, 1974 your 3oard continued for two weeks, action on a recommendation
received fron the City-County Thoroughfare Advisory Ccmmittee. The recommenda-
tTon included expenditure guidelines for a three-year program of Federal Urban
Fund (FAU) expenditures.
The recommendations were:
Spend 100% of the Urban Fund available for Fiscal Year 1973-74 on roads.
This year ends June 30, 1974,
1974-75 Urban Funds on Transit.
1975-76 Urban Funds on Transit.
Spend up to 25% of the Fiscal Year
Spend up to 50% of the Fiscal Year
A project list was recommended for the program for Fiscal Year 1973-74.
Your direction was for staff to review the proposed FAU program and to return
with a staff recommendation which would either support the committee recornen-
dation or recommend changes in the proportion and percentage of funding which
should be allocated to transit.
That review has been made as directed, and it is my
REXOWNDATION : .
That your Board
1. Approve the recommended project list establishing the program for Fiscal
Year 1973-74 only. Authorize sending that program to the California Depart-
ment of Transportation arid to the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO).
G40UPS . . . . . . . Co~istiuction EnZlncerin:. . . . . . . . Eneineertng Services . . . . . . . . . F~eld Operdtions . . . . . . . . . Planning & Land Development
Board of Supervisors . -2- April 8, 1974
2.
3.
Authorize staff to determine from the City Councils in San Diego County,
the State of California Department of Transportation, the San Diego
Transit Corporation, and the Oceanside Transit System their desires for
Urban Fund transit expenditures. The proportion and percentage of Urban
Funds to be allocatsd to transit in the three-year program will be
analyzed from the results.
After you receive response from the member agencies, direct staff to
prepare policy guidelines, based OR the response, to be met by the
Advisory Cornittee in preparing the remainder of the three-year program
for the region.
Discuss ion :
During your April 2nd discussion, you identified three areas to be included in
a report. These are Funding, Procedures and Program. The Federal Aid Program . is complex and this response is therefore long.
The Federal Aid Highway Act of 2973 defines several classes of roads
for w5ich aid is provided. These include:
FUND USED FOR
I Interstate System
A Primary System
B Secondary Road System
C
D
Urban Extension System. This
has been used historically only
for State Highways
Urban System
Each state receives an apportionment for each fund. Actual funds are .
not received until the state receives an obligational authority.
Summarized below is a comparison of pertinent authorizations to Calif-
ornia for the 1972-73 fiscal year and estimates for the 1973-74, 1974-75
and 1975-76 fiscal years.
Board of Supervisors -3- April 8, 1974
h
ESTIXATED AUTHORIZATIONS TO THE STATE OF CiLIFORXIA
Program
Interstate (I)
Prinary (A)
Secondary (B)
Urban Extension (C)
Urban (D)
TOPICS
Priority Primary
Urban High Density
Econ. Growth Centers
Hwy SaEety Programs
($ Millions)
1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 -1
$294
26
10
33
13
12
None
None
3
19
$175
30
12
35
88
Dropped
7
6
4
25
$202
30
12
36
90
15
6
4
48
-
-
$202
30
12
36
90
15
6
4
5F
-
-
$410 $382 $443 $445
The Highway Act of 1973 also provides for the diversion of Urban System
apportionments for uses such as the purchase of buses and fixed rail transit
systems. Approxiinately 25% of the funds available in the 1974-75 fiscal
year can be used for the purchase of buses and 100% of the 1975-76 qpor-
tionment may be used fur buses or fixed rail transit. Trust funds cannot
be used as mass transit operating subsidies.
for the 1953-74 fiscal year except any mass transit grants must be funded
through the General Fund. A formula for the allocation of Urban System
funds to urbanized areas must be developed by the State and approved by
the Secretary. (Federal D.O.T.).
The same option is available
.
I Funds
Prcvisions are made which permit a state to give up a segment of Inter-
state Route in an urbanized area where it is determined that such sepent
System.
local officials of such an urbanized area may notify the State Highway
Department that, in lieu of a route, their needs require a non-highway
public mass transit project involving the construction of fixed rail
facilities, or the purchase of passenger equipment, including rolling
stock for any mode of mass transit, or both.
If approved by the StateTHighway Department and the Secretary (D.O.T.),
General Funds from the Treasury may be used for the proportional share
of the cost of such a project.
the Federal share of the cost which would have been paid for such route
as indicated in the 1972 Interstate System cost estimate.
.is not essential to completion o€ a unified and connected Interstate
After the segment has been deleted from the Interstate Systen,
-
Costs for such projects cannot exceed
Board of Supervisors . - 4- April 8, 1974
In turn, funds apportioned to such state for the Interstate System
shall be reduced by an mount equal to the share of the cost of such
project as such share becomes a contractual obligation. Funds avail-
able for transit as part of this action are supplementary to and not
in substitution for funds available pursuant to the Urban Mass Trans-
portat ion Act.
The Interstate Routes in San Diego County are 5, 805, 15 and 8. These
are part of the regional plan, and to date completion of these has been
encouraged by local government.
It does not appear that I funds will be requested for transit in San
Diego.
A Funds
The Federal Aid Highway Act allows for 40% transferability between A
and B Funds.
built by the State.
A Ftlnds are spent primarily on Federal Aid Primary Routes
B Funds
B Funds are spent primarily on Federal Aid Secondary Routes built
either by the State or counties in the rural areas. This choice is
made by the Governor and the Secretary of the Department of Transpor-
tation and normally is not controlled locally. There is no transfer-
ability for transit from these sources.
Transfer between A and B Funds is not of transit importarice to San
Diego.
- D Funds
D Funds for the Federal Aid Urban System Program can be exchanged for
Federal General Funds and used for transit. The D Trust Funds for
1973-74 cannot be used directly for transit, but on local request in
accordance with the regional transportation plan, the State could request
the Federal Government to exchange D Trust Funds for Federal General
Funds. In 1974-75 up to 25% of the D Trust Fund could be used for
transit without substitution for Federal General Fund, but it would
also be possible to request a substitution of Federal General Funds for
the remaining 75% of Trust Funds for transit purposes if this is the
approved desire of the local community.
Board of Supervisors
a
-5- April 8, 1974
For Fiscal Year 1975-76 there is no restriction on the use of D Trust
Funds for transit. No substitution for Federal General Funds is necessary.
These funds can be used only for capital improvements such as exclusive
or preferential bus, truck and emergency vehicle routes or lanes and
for the purchase of buses.
costs.
These funds cannot be used to meet operating
C and D Funds
There is 40% transferability allowable between C and D Funds.
choice also is made by the Governor and the Secretary of the Department
of Transportation and is not controlled locally, except that 3 Funds
allocated to urbanized areas of 200,000 population or more cannot be
transferred to the C Fund without local approval. In the San Diego
region the approval to transfer UrbaE Funds for use on State Highways
vould have to come from the City of San Diego, which is the city with
more than 200,000 population.
This
The State is not likely to recommend transfer of funds for State
Highway purposes (C Fund) to the D Fund under local control.
Transfer between C Funds and D Funds by the State is not likely to be a
matter of transityrogram significance to the San Diego region.
money is exchanged between funds, it is more likely to be done to pro-
tect California Federal Aid Revenue than it is to be a full transfer
between programs.
revenues in 1973-74.
If
Such an exchange is being worked out to save state
Funding Problems of Fiscal Year 1973-74
For 1973-74, late passage of th2 Federal Aid Act and delay in receiving
approved procedures posed a severe timing problem on the expenditure
of D Fcnds ir, California. In order to avoid loss of allocated funds,
the State moved to protect local agencies by making transfers between
funds and funding years.
The State staff felt that all D Funds could not be obligated by
deadline dates in 1973-74. The State took what it could from the
1973-74 D Funds to avoid loss and transferred it to this year's C
Funds for State Highway construction.
replace an equal amount of C Funds from its 1974-75 entitlement to
the D Fund for 1974-75. I
At the same time it agreed to
Although this transfer was made, it was also necessary, in March of
1974, to seek 22 million dollars' worth of urban (D Fund) projects to
Board of Supervisors e -6- .April 8, 1974
assure that Cafifornia would not lose any 1973-74 entitlement.
have heen told that the State feels it is within 2 million dollars of
encumbering all its allocated funds, if the San Diego list of 6 million
dollars' worth of projects is included.
able to gork out a progran~ withotit San Diego's projects.
Ne
The State has not yet been
If California is unable to encumber full funding, San Diego as a
region will not lose D Funds.
to pick up excess funds from the Federal Government because of its
failure to spend all of its 1973-74 funds.
Federal funds cannot be accumulated as vas done in California with
S.B. 325 funds but must be obligated and spent within two years after
flinds are appropriated.
The State stands to lose its opportunity
Each Federal Aid Highway Act can be expected to create changes in
funding, hue it is expected that Urban Funds will be appropriated
again in 1976.
Program which is winding down.
This program is a partial replacement for the Interstate
The country now appears to be in transition to support transit. San
Diego needs organization and policies to guide that expenditure. It
will take some time to get organized to make effective use of the
money.
PROCEDlJRES
The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 designates the states as the Admini-
strators of the Federal Aid Urban Program.
The California Dfrector of Transportation has issuad policy and procedures
for imp.lementing the program. These include:
A. Each urbanized and urban area is to have a cooperative process to
produce a three-year program.
B. Each county takes a lead role in developing the process.
process must be approved by the regional transportation planning
agency\and by the state.
The
C. The process shall hvolve cities, counties, state and transit
agencies.
member - The District Director of Transportation will be a
D. The cooperative process must be acceptable to:
Cities over 200,000
Cities representing majority of population
Majority of cities
_-
Board oE Supervisors , -7- April 8, 1974
Your Boar4 did take the lead i-n developing a procedure.
procedure to the 13 cities for approval.
your Eoard were approved by 12 of 13 cities.
process. The Stare has approved the process.
State to be approved.
The 2ppcovrz.d process cail be i~sed by you to determine regional destres.
By obtaining from the cities their desires for transit programs you
can develop a transit policy for direction to the Advisory Committee.
This is the reason for recommendation two (2).
You sent the
The procedures approved by
The GPO approved the
It is the first in the
PROGRQf
San Diego can select its own mix of spending for the Urban Fund.
this region desires to spend all of its money on transit, it can. The
State Director of Transportation has stated that he wants highway needs
considered and h2 retains the power of veto over a local program But
we understand that once local choice is made and found to conform with
If
. the regional planning process, that clearance is probably only procedural.
As a local program is implemented, it is necessary to meet procedural
requirements such as having plans, specifications and estimates ready hy
certain deadlines.
Federal Gas Tax Trust Fund and Federal General Fund if an amount equal
to 1OOX of the allocated Urban Fund is to be spent on transit in
1973-1974 or in 1974-1975. These are procedures, not obstacles.
It would be necessary to obtain fun.d transfers between
The decision to spend money on transit rests in local hands, and these
decisions can be made using the San Diego County FAU process which has
been approved. For any program to be approved requires acceptance by
the City Council of San Diego, the City Councils representing a majority
of the population, an6 the City Councils of a majority of the cities.
The transit question can be placed before the cities by the County and
the majority response will provide your Board with the information to
determine the regional answer to the question.
The State guidelines requirements say
1. Each urbanized and urban area is to have a cooperative process
to produce a three-year program identifying:
- Local projects - Transit projects - Regional Highway projects, including State
Highway projects (by priority listing)
I. I.
.I
_- ----
Board o€ Supervisors . -8- April 8, 1974
The projgcts on the 1973-74 list were approved by the respoctive City
Councils either by resolution or minute act: 7 on.
The City Councils have not been asked directly by the County if they
would prefer to substitute transit projects for road projects. Recoinmen-
dation tvo (2) would give them the opportunity to tell you what they want
to do for the long run withouc stopping the prosran this year.
The guidelines €or developing the FAU progran were received in March.
The state emphasized the fact that fund loss was possible. No transit
projects were known to be ready in time to meet the early deadline.
Both the Transit Corporation and the City of Oceanside participated in
the development of the 1973-74 program.
We have contacted the staff of the City of San Diego. An in-depth
report on Urban Funding is being prepared for presentation to the City
Council.
Improvement Program with the San Diego Transit Corporation.
meeting with Corporation officials is scheduled to follow if the request
is approved.
development.
for the next two years program.
That report will request approval to begin working on a Transit
A staff
County staff has been invited to participate in the program
We understand that transit projects are being considered
t
Urban Funds in 1974-75 can be used for transit and 1973-1974 Urban Funds
can be exchanged for Federal General Funds which can be used €or transit.
The funds cannot be accumulated.
The local area was not reaciy to utilize 1973-1974 Urban Funds for transit
this year but is getting ready for the 1974-75 apportionments,
The need nGw is to provide organization and leadership to develop a
program.
already adopted.
The County can provide this partially through the procedures
In the meantime, it is recommended that the first year program utilizing
1973-74 Urban D Funds be approved and forwarded and a future year program
policy be developed.
This letter is concurred in by the County Transportation Director.
County Engineer '
IY. X. SPEEX' Fiscal Impact: Several agencies of the regionPublic
will receive grant aid for Urban System brojects in ??iscal k'or IC, 4,dnlnis.tr ar
Year 1973-74. San Diego County will receive $350,000 in
grant aid for the construction of Pomerado Road in Fiscal
Year 1973-74. IIXT : RJM : p mi
cc: )I. Rosenthai; PIJ.4.; Docket r'
r--