san joaquin regional rail commission

SAN JOAQUIN
Commissioner, Bob Johnson, Chair, City of Lodi
Commissioner, Kathy Miller,Vice-Chair, San Joaquin County
Commissioner, Christina Fugazi, San JoaquinCounty
Commissioner,Steve Dresser, City of Lathrop
REGIONAL
RAIL COMMISSION
Commissioner, Vince Hernandez, City of Manteca
Commissioner, Mike Maciel, City of Tracy
Commissioner, Scott Haggerty, Alameda County
Commissioner, Tom Blalock, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Executive Director, Stacey Mortensen
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown
Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or
accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission staff, at (209) 944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to
the time of the meeting.
All proceedings before the Commission are conducted in English. The San Joaquin Regional
Rail Commission does not furnish interpreters and, if one is needed, it shall be the responsibility of the
person needing one. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding
any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive
Director located at 949 E. Channel Street, Stockton, California, 95202 during normal business hours or
by calling (209) 944-6220. The Agenda is available on the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
Website: http://www.acerail.com.
AGENDA
February 5, 2016 – 8:00 a.m.
Robert J. Cabral Station
South Hall Meeting Room
949 East Channel Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Heritage House
(Conference Call)
County of Alameda
4501 Pleasanton Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
1
Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll
Chair Johnson
Call
Roll Call:
Blalock, Haggerty, Fugazi, Dresser, Hernandez, Maciel,
Vice-Chair Miller, Chair Johnson
Ex-Officios: Agar, Chesley, DeMartino
2
Public Comments
Persons wishing to address the Commission on any item of interest to the public
regarding rail shall state their names and addresses and make their presentation. Please
limit presentations to five minutes. The Commission cannot take action on matters not on
the agenda unless the action is authorized by Section 54954.2 of the Government Code.
Materials related to an item on the Agenda submitted to the Board of Directors after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for the public inspection in the Commission
Office at 949 E. Channel Street during normal business hours. These documents are also
available on the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission website at
www.acerail.com/about-ace/sjrrc-board/sjrrc-board.htm subject to staff’s ability to post the
documents before the meeting.
949 East Channel Street
Stockton, CA 95202
{800) 411-RAI L {7245)
www .acerail.com
3
Presentations and Recognitions
4
Consent Calendar
4.1
4.2
4.3
Minutes of November 6, 2015
Rail Commission/ACE Monthly Expenditure Report
ACE Monthly Fare Revenue
ACTION
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
4
9
11
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
ACE Ridership
ACE On-Time Performance
Washington Update
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
ACTION
12
13
14
19
4.8
Approve a Resolution of the Board of
Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission Authorizing and Directing the
Executive Director to Submit and Execute Any
and All Certifications and Assurances Necessary
to Obtain Financial Assistance Provided by the
California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA)
Under the Cap and Trade Program.
Approve a Resolution of the Board of
Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission Authorizing and Directing the
Executive Director to Sign and Submit the State
Transit Assistance Application to Claim Alameda
County Transportation Commission
Apportionment for the ACE Service in the Amount
of $450,000 for the Fiscal Years 2014/2015 and
2015/16
ACTION
21
5
Discuss and Approve an SJRRC Position on the
SJCOG Staff Recommendation for the 2016/17
and 2017/18 Local Transportation Fund
Allocations to SJRRC (Stacey Mortensen)
ACTION
23
6
Approve a Resolution of the Board of
Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission Adopting the SJRRC Federal
Legislative Priorities for 2016 and Authorizing
Submittal into the SJCOG One Voice Program
(Brian Schmidt)
ACTION
36
7
Election of Officers
ACTION
38
2 of 39
8
Update on Amtrak Agreement Negotiations for the
San Joaquins (Stacey Mortensen)
9
Commissioner Comments
10
Ex-Officio Comments
11
Executive Director Report
12
Adjournment
The next regular meeting is scheduled for March 4, 2016 – 8:00 AM
Robert J. Cabral Station 949 East Channel Street, Stockton, CA
INFORMATION
39
3 of 39
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
February 5, 2016
Item 4.1
ACTION
Minutes of November 6, 2015
The regular meeting of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission was held at 8:00 a.m., November 6,
2015 at the Robert J. Cabral Station, 949 East Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202.
1
Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call
Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and led the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Commissioners Present:
Blalock, Haggerty, Dresser, Hernandez, Maciel, Vice-Chair Miller
Chair Johnson
Ex-Officio Members Present: Knodt (SJRTD), Chesley (SJCOG), Dumas (Caltrans)
The Oath of Office was administered for incoming Commissioners: Christina Fugazi
2
Public Comments
None
3
Presentations and Recognitions
None
4
Consent Calendar
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Minutes of August 7, 2015
Rail Commission/ACE Monthly Expenditure Report
ACE Monthly Fare Revenue
ACE Ridership
ACE On-Time Performance
Washington Update
Letter from Supervisor Scott Haggerty/Wayside Horn
2016 ACE Service Holidays
ACTION
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
ACTION
M/S/C (Maciel/Dresser) Approve the Consent Calendar. Passed and Adopted
by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 6th day of November, 2015
by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
8
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
0
0
0
Blalock, Haggerty, Dresser, Fugazi, Hernandez, Maciel, Vice-Chair Miller,
Chair Johnson
4 of 39
5
Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin
ACTION
Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) Authorizing and Directing the Chair to
Appoint a Member of the SJRRC Board of Directors to the Tri-Valley Regional
Rail Advisory Group to Represent the SJRRC.
Stacey Mortensen informed the Board that Commissioner Haggerty would introduce the item.
Commissioner Haggerty informed the Board of all the activities and funding opportunities
being pursued for a BART extension. Commissioner Haggerty introduced Bob Vinn, Assistant
City Engineer for the City of Livermore. He presented on the status of efforts in the Tri-Valley
to connect BART to ACE (refer to PowerPoint presentation titled "Update to ACE Board of
Directors: BART to ACE"). Mr. Vinn then introduced Michael Tree, the Executive Director of
LAVTA. Mr. Tree discussed membership proposed for the Tri-Valley Regional Rail Advisory
Group, as well as the group's purpose and goals. Mr. Tree informed the Board that he will be
the administrative person working with the group. Commissioner Haggerty introduced the
Mayor of Livermore, Mayor John Marchand and City Manager of Livermore, Marc Roberts,
both of whom were attending the meeting.
Chair Johnson asked what the distribution of the membership would be. Mr. Tree stated that
it would be one member per agency.
Tim Sbranti, Deputy Chief of Staff for Congressman Eric Swalwell, expressed the support of
the Congressman and stated that they would be active participants in the Tri-Valley Regional
Rail Advisory Group.
Chair Johnson asked if they have looked at the possibility of holding meetings for the group
telephonically for the ACE representative. Commissioner Haggerty said that should not be a
problem.
Commissioner Fugazi asked about the frequency of the meetings. Commission Haggerty
said that would be established by the group, but he hoped for a once-month frequency, with
meetings lasting about 1-2 hours.
Commissioner Miller stated that she would be the representative for San Joaquin County.
Chair Johnson suggested that he work with Ms. Mortensen to come up with a
representative for the SJRRC.
M/S/C (Haggerty/Fugazi) Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners
of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) Authorizing and Directing
the Chair to Appoint a Member of the SJRRC Board of Directors to the Tri-Valley Regional
Rail Advisory Group to Represent the SJRRC. Passed and Adopted
by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 6th day of November, 2015
by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
8
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
0
0
0
Blalock, Haggerty, Dresser, Fugazi, Hernandez, Maciel, Vice-Chair Miller,
Chair Johnson
5 of 39
6
Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San
Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Approving an Increase to the
Construction Budget in the amount of $1,369,233 for the Stockton
Track Extension/Gap Closure Project, Included in the Third Amendment
to the Trackage Rights Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad
Company, Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute all
Documents Related to the Agreement.
ACTION
Bryan Pennino presented the amendment noting the project is a multi-phased project, and
construction has been underway over the past two years and is likely to continue for the next
two years. As part of regular “true-up” efforts for project milestones and expenditures, last
April, SJRRC and UPRR determined a revised project budget was required. In the true up
process it was determined the project experienced both labor and material shortages which
lead to added mobilization of construction crews and equipment costs than originally
planned. Additionally, in order to keep the project moving forward signal infrastructure
required to support the next phase of the project was incorporated into the current phase of
construction, thereby reducing the costs of future phases. On October 23rd, 2015, UPRR
provided the final construction amount of $7,630,485, which represents a $1,369,233 (18%)
increase from the original construction estimate, which is typical for signal related work. to
the moving up of a future phase of the project.
Commissioner Maciel noted the funding for the increase are in the Approved Capiotal
Budget.
M/S/C (Maciel/Hernandez) Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Approving an Increase to the Construction
Budget in the amount of $1,369,233 for the Stockton Track Extension/Gap Closure Project,
Included in the Third Amendment to the Trackage Rights Agreement with the Union
Pacific Railroad Company, Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute all
Documents Related to the Agreement.Passed and Adoptedby the San Joaquin Regional
Rail Commission on the 6th day of November, 2015 by the following vote to wit:
7.
AYES:
8
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
0
0
0
Blalock, Haggerty, Dresser, Fugazi, Hernandez, Maciel, Vice-Chair Miller,
Chair Johnson
Presentation on ACEforward Tri-Valley BART Connection Alternatives
and Update on ACEforward
INFORMATION
Dan Leavitt gave a presentation updating the Board about the progress in examining alternatives
for connecting BART and ACE in the Tri-Valley (refer to PowerPoint presentation titled
"Presentation on ACEforward Tri-Valley BART Connection Alternatives and Update on
ACEforward"). Mr. Leavitt thanked the Board for moving forward with the Tri-Valley Regional
Rail Advisory Group and commented on how helpful the Group will be to the ACEforward
program.
Mr. Leavitt then discussed the six alternatives being considered for connecting ACE to BART in
the Tri-Valley, plus a "No-Project Alternative." All the alternatives are shown on Mr. Leavitt's
Power Point presentation referred to above. Mr. Leavitt also mentioned the ACEforward effort is
6 of 39
completely complementary with the work BART is doing in their program-level work. He
discussed the importance of the BART connection, as the ridership projection for connecting to
BART is higher than a connection to high-speed rail.
Following a discussion of the schedule for the environmental process, Mr. Leavitt mentioned that
improvements that are within the right-of-way between Stockton and San Jose may be pulled out
of the environmental document to seek a CEQA exemption so projects can seek funding and get
underway more quickly.
Mr. Leavitt then thanked Supervisor Haggerty for his efforts to get funding for the wayside horn
project in Sunol, and he noted that this project is the first project being implemented from the
ACEforward program.
Commissioner Maciel asked about the extension option and if a connection to the Pleasanton
BART would require a separate ACE spur. Mr. Leavitt mentioned that as ACE adds trains, one
option would be to create a new ACE branch line that would terminate at a new Isabel BART
station. The second option is you would transfer over to a rail shuttle. Commissioner Maciel
noted then if some trains could go to Dublin/Pleasanton Station, while other could continue to run
on the existing route. Mr. Leavitt confirmed this.
Commissioner Maciel asked if the projections of 800,000 in increased ridership was annual. Mr.
Leavitt confirmed, mentioning that it was for the year 2025 and beyond.
8
Update on Amtrak Agreement Negotiations for the San Joaquin’s
INFORMATION
Ms. Mortensen briefed the Board on the on-going negotiations with Amtrak. Ms. Mortensen
noted the only items remaining are indemnification and Insurance provisions, with a potential
San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority approval of Amtrak agreement in December.
9
Briefing on August 21 Hearing for the California Assembly Select Committee INFORMATION
on Rail
Mr. Leavitt reported to the board about the California Assembly Select Committee on Rail
hearing that took place in Modesto on August 21. The main purpose of the meeting was to
promote ACE and San Joaquin services and their expansion. Mr. Leavitt reported that there was
a very good crowd attending the meeting. Four members from the legislature attended. There
was strong bi-partisan support. Chair Gray, Senators Canella and Galgiani, Assemblymember
Olsen attended and said very supportive things about the San Joaquin service. Mr. Leavitt also
mentioned that Chair Gray made a commitment to work with the Members in attendance to get
full support for ACE and the San Joaquin service throughout the whole San Joaquin caucus, and
to work towards basically doubling the amount of funds from Cap and Trade for the Transit and
Intercity Program.
Mr. Leavitt then mentioned that the Chair of the SJJPA Pedrozo gave a presentation on the San
Joaquin service at the hearing. Mr. Leavitt also mentioned he gave a presentation on the needs
of the San Joaquin Service, which is a $1.5 billion capital program for the next 10 years. Chair of
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Johnson also spoke on ACE, followed by Executive
Director Mortensen, who discussed expansion plans and the needs for ACE. Mr. Leavitt then
mentioned that several supervisors or former supervisors from around the San Joaquin Valley
7 of 39
spoke very highly of ACE service at the hearing. He also mentioned that about 40 members of
the public gave comments, and all were positive.
Chair Johnson commented that it was a very impressive day, and asked if we had heard any
feedback from members of the Select Committee. Mr. Leavitt responded that we had not heard
anything back yet, but that we would be circling back with them and that there will be another
Select Committee meeting in the coming months. Mr. Leavitt also said he knows that increasing
the amount of cap and trade funds is under discussion.
Mr. Leavitt then mentioned that the event got a lot of press, including a front page article in the
Modesto Bee, and coverage in a number of papers in the northern San Joaquin Valley.
10
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Dresser requested a copy of the Tri-Valley Regional Rail Advisory Group
presentation.
11
Ex-Officio Comments
Mr. Chesley provided an update on the LTF fund discussion and the Rail Commission’s request,
informing the Board that until the LTF issue is resolved, regional consensus cannot be achieved
on the Regional Transit Systems Plan. Mr. Chesley noted he is working with Ms. Mortensen and
Donna DeMartino (SJRTD) on this issue.
12
Executive Director Comments
Ms. Mortensen informed the Board on three items:
ACE ridership is continuing to increase to all-time highs, and staff is working with UPRR on
increasing the length of the trains,
The World’s Greatest TV Show featuring ACE will air in December on the ION channel,
and Ms. Mortensen thanked Supervisor Miller for acknowledging Staff member Steve Walker for
his work during the fires in Lake County.
13
Adjournment –
The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 am.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for:
February 5, 2015 – 8:00 am
Robert J. Cabral Station
949 E. Channel Street, Stockton CA
8 of 39
Item 4.2
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
Altamont Corridor Express
Operating and Capital Expense Report
December 2015
50 % of Budget Year Elapsed
OPERATING EXPENSES
Project Management, Services & Supplies
Salaries/Benefits/Contract Help
Office Expense Postage
Subscriptions/Periodicals/Memberships
Office Equipment Lease/Furniture
Computer Systems
Communications
Motor Pool
Transportation/Travel
Training
Training - Security Grant Fund
Audits Regulatory Reporting
Professional Services Legislative
Professional Services Legal
Professional Services General
Publications/Legal Notices
Taxes Assessments
Indirect Overhead SJJPA
Project Management, Services & Supplies Subtotal
Contracted Services
Maintenance of San Joaquin County Facilities
Maintenance and Improve System Wide ACE Stations
Maintenance of Headquarters Structures/Grounds
ACE Operations & Maintenance
Consumables/Repair Parts
Leases/Maintenance of Rail Facilities
Fuel
RR Maintenance Oversight/Dispatching
Insurance
Insurance Management Fees
Security Services/Safety Program
FRA/FTA Drug Testing Program
Strategic Development & Communication
Special Trains
Passenger Services
Ticketing Services
Professional Services Operations
Communications, Operations
Communications, Wi-Fi
Emergency Ride Home Emergency Bus Bridges
Rail Maintenance Facility
Contingencies
Fuel Contingencies
Contracted Services Subtotal
Shuttle Services
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
SJRRC
FY 15-16
ALLOCATION
EXPENSE
TO
DATE
%
SPENT
TO DATE
407,246
26,165
6,250
17,401
6,915
8,763
19,480
6,200
3,815
160,529
3,208
5,226
5,498
3,030
4,475
2,474
174
630
39%
12%
84%
32%
44%
51%
13%
3%
17%
3,900
25,000
40,000
43,692
7,000
23,025
644,852
900
12,380
4,996
12,061
5,979
221,561
23%
50%
12%
28%
0%
26%
75,800
27,368
17,184
7,686
42,584
15,750
1,535
-
399,739
2,508
114,614
36%
0%
35%
0%
0%
27%
0%
0%
30%
50%
23%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
29%
1,044,591
336,175
32%
49,720
28,500
141,309
31,500
6,685
25,000
41,225
CAPITAL PROJECTS
1 Cabral Track Extension
2 A1 & A2 Bond Repayment
3 Altamont Corridor Rail Project HSR/Regional Rail EIR/EIS
4 UPRR Capital Access Fee
5 Positive Train Control
6 Mid Life Overhaul of 1 Locomotive
7 Capital Spares/Upgrades for Passenger Cars and Locomotives
8 San Joaquin Intercity Minor Capital Project ( Funded by State of California)
9 eTicketing
10 ACE Maintenance & Layover Facility
11 Security Project (On Board Cameras)
12 Sunol Wayside Horn Project
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
34%
ACE
FY 15-16
ALLOCATION
EXPENSE
TO
DATE
%
SPENT
TO DATE
3,532,387
36,660
8,750
53,854
35,235
79,566
55,890
26,550
14,085
30,000
79,100
75,000
50,000
130,293
10,000
4,217,370
1,424,918
10,923
1,630
17,729
17,307
40,500
13,481
5,729
3,470
40%
30%
19%
33%
49%
51%
24%
22%
25%
17,100
37,139
16,930
35,533
1,642,389
22%
50%
34%
27%
0%
0%
51,900
150,660
5,508,543
1,000,000
70,200
1,834,500
1,698,000
2,041,414
143,500
182,200
4,600
340,472
297,970
14,500
416,900
252,900
111,620
129,856
36,000
900,414
15,186,149
1,203,190
20,606,709
12,377
52,605
1,965,534
271,881
18,008
514,151
536,667
1,020,464
71,752
72,816
1,803
88,304
29,343
160,408
54,845
42,933
44,119
278,584
5,236,595
308,849
7,187,832
0%
24%
35%
36%
0%
26%
28%
32%
50%
50%
40%
39%
26%
10%
0%
38%
22%
38%
34%
0%
31%
0%
0%
34%
26%
35%
CAPITAL
FY 15-16
ALLOCATION
1,946,720
3,038,013
10,200,000
3,242,516
5,000,000
1,400,000
850,000
500,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
30,177,249
EXPENSE
TO
DATE
10,982
688,328
3,948,000
1,186
3,155
1,765
4,653,417
39%
%
SPENT
TO DATE
1%
23%
0%
0%
79%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15%
9 of 39
Status on Capital Projects
1 Cabral Track Extension Phases 1-3 - Cabral Track Extension is currently ongoing and is
scheduled to be completed in a future fiscal year.
2 Bond Repayments - Bond repayments are made bi-annually. The first payment for the
fiscal year was made on October 9, 2015. The second payment is scheduled for April 15,
2016.
3 Altamont Corridor Rail Project HSR/Regional Rail EIR/EIS - Project is currently ongoing.
4 UPRR Capital Access Fee - Payment due January 2016
5 Positive Train Control - Expected completion is 15-16. PTC Installation invoice received
August 2015.
6 Mid Life Overhaul of 1 Locomotive - No activity to date.
7 Capital Spares/Upgrades for Passenger Cars and Locomotives - No activity to date.
8 San Joaquin Intercity Minor Capital Project (Funded by State of California) - No activity to
date.
9 eTicketing Project - is currently ongoing.
10 ACE Maintenance & Layover Facility - Final processing of change orders, final payments
applications and other paperwork are underway, this will allow the project to be formally “closedout.”
11 Security Project (On Board Cameras) - In final phase of testing.
12 Sunol Wayside Horn Project - In development stage.
10 of 39
Fare Revenue
Item 4.3
800,000
750,000
700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
FY
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep-15
Oct-15
Nov-15
Dec-15
Jan-16
Feb-16
Mar-16
Apr-16
May-16
Jun-16
FY 15-16 Fare Revenue
691,120
739,765
756,505
775,946
689,118
612,243
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,264,696
FY 14-15 Fare Revenue
622,997
656,896
745,617
732,067
544,828
623,202
680,375
622,604
721,746
689,067
729,375
617,884
7,986,657
TOTAL
% of Budget Year Elapsed: 50%
FY 15-16 % of Budgeted Fare Revenue Received to Date: 53.3%
Projected Annual Fare Revenue: $8,000,000
11 of 39
ACE DAILY AVERAGE RIDERSHIP
83,910
95,503
93,727
106,573 104,176 103,190 105,411 105,454 109,072 115,890 122,306 102,515
91,386
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Item 4.4
Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15
DAILY AVERAGE
3996
4775
4686
4844
4735
5160
4791
4793
5133
5519
5436
5325
4107
MONTHLY RIDERSHIP 83,910 95,503 93,727 106,573 104,176 103,190 105,411 105,454 109,072 115,890 122,306 102,515 91,386
% CHANGE
15%
1%
6%
11%
4%
-2%
7%
5%
7%
6%
4%
15%
9%
12 of 39
ACE ON TIME PERFORMANCE
100
90
80
OTP %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
13 of 39
YTD OTP %
Monthly OTP %
Dec-14 Jan-15
85.44
91.14
92.46
91.14
Feb-15 Mar-15
95.51
91.48
93.31
92.65
Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15
90.91
95.00
93.18
92.19
92.74
92.81
Jul-15
93.18
92.87
Aug-15 Sep-15
97.62
91.02
93.46
93.19
Oct-15
90.86
92.95
Nov-15 Dec-15
90.13
95.83
92.72
92.98
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
Monthly Report – January 2016
Congress has been slow to return to work following the winter holiday break. Week-long
recesses taken by each chamber combined with a winter snow storm which left the city
shut down for the better part of a week haven’t left much room for legislative action this
month.
SJRRC and MHGS Items
•
•
•
•
MHGS conducted outreach to the Senate Appropriations Committee to clarify the
structure of funding for state supported intercity passenger rail in the FAST Act and
FY16 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
MHGS shared and highlighted relevant section of a GAO report regarding Amtrak’s
reporting of financial information.
MHGS provided a list of in-session days for the spring that would work for a visit
from SJRRC.
MHGS is in the process of setting up a call with DOT to discuss the TIGER VII
application and upcoming TIGER VIII process.
FY16 Congressional Appropriations and Budget Process
•
•
•
•
•
Omnibus:
On December 18th the House (316-113) and Senate (65-33) passed the FY16
Omnibus Appropriations bill. The omnibus combines all 12 annual appropriations
bills to fund the government at $1.149 trillion (consistent with the 2-year budget
deal passed in October) through the end of FY16.
The bill includes $18.65 billion in FY2016 discretionary appropriations for the
Department of Transportation, $847 million above the FY2015 enacted level and
$2.7 billion below the President’s request (disregarding the Administration’s
request to shift more funding in certain programs from discretionary to mandatory
spending.) Within this amount, funding is prioritized on programs to make the
transportation systems safe, efficient, and reliable.
TIGER Grants are funded at $500 million, equal to the FY2015 enacted level, for
TIGER grants, which are also known as National Infrastructure Investments.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is funded at $1.68 billion, an increase of
$52 million above the FY2015 enacted level. This includes $289 million for Amtrak
operations and continued service for all current routes, and $1.1 billion for capital
grants. The bill also promotes necessary reforms to Amtrak, and repurposes $19
million in old, unobligated rail funding to support the Northeast Corridor.
The bill includes $288 million to support rail safety and research programs,
including inspectors and safety personnel to help ensure the safety of passengers
and local communities. This funding also includes $50 million for rail safety grants,
14 of 39
•
•
•
•
•
to support the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) and improve rail
infrastructure, such as track, tunnels and bridges.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is funded at $11.76 billion, consistent
with the recently-passed authorization in the FAST Act. The bill provides a total of
$2.177 billion for Capital Investment Grants (“New Starts”), fully funding all current
“Full Funding Grant Agreement” (FFGA) transit projects, as well as supports new
projects anticipated to receive FFGA awards. Also $50 million is provided for core
capacity projects, and $353 million for Small Starts projects.
In total, Congress passed three CRs before passing a final omnibus bill for FY16.
Budget:
The Administration has reported that it will release it’s FY 2017 budget on February
9th.
On 10/27 House Republican Leadership released a draft 2-year budget framework
that was negotiated with the support of the White House. The legislation would
raise the debt ceiling through March 2017 and establish defense and non-defense
spending caps for FY16 and FY17 which would increase spending by $80 billion
over those two fiscal years. The increase in spending is offset by tapping the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, auctioning spectrum and other revenues and cuts.
The House passed the measure on 10/28, and on 10/30, the Senate cleared the twoyear budget and debt ceiling deal, just 72 hours after it was unveiled by
congressional leaders and the White House.
FAST Act/Surface Transportation/Passenger Rail
•
•
•
•
On December 4th, President Obama signed into law the FAST Act, a 5-year
authorization of surface transportation programs. Amtrak and passenger rail
programs were reauthorized as part of the FAST Act.
The House passed the bill on December 3rd (359-65) and the Senate passed the bill
on the same day (83-16).
The FAST Act is the result of intense conference negotiations between the House
and Senate to resolve differences between their two different surface transportation
bills.
With regard to Hazardous Materials, the bill:
o Grants states more power to decide how to spend training and planning
funds for first responders
o Requires Class I railroads to provide crude oil movement information to
emergency responders
o Reforms an underutilized grant program for state and Indian tribe
emergency response efforts
o Better leverages training funding for hazmat employees and those enforcing
hazmat regulations
o Requires real-world testing and a data-driven approach to braking
technology
15 of 39
•
o Enhances safety for both new tank cars and legacy tank cars
o Speeds up administrative processes for hazmat special permits and
approvals
o Cuts red tape to allow a more nimble federal response during national
emergencies
The rail title of the bill:
o Provides robust reforms for Amtrak, including reorganizing the way Amtrak
operates into business lines
o Gives states greater control over their routes, by creating a State-Supported
Route Committee
o Speeds up the environmental review process for rail projects, without
sacrificing environmental protections
o Creates opportunities for the private sector through station and right-of-way
development
o Consolidates rail grant programs for passenger, freight, and other rail
activities
o Establishes a Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair grant
program
o Strengthens Northeast Corridor planning to make Amtrak more accountable
and states equal partners
o Allows competitors to operate up to three Amtrak long-distance lines, if at
less cost to the taxpayer
o Strengthens passenger and commuter rail safety, and track and bridge safety
o Preserves historic sites for rail while ensuring that safety improvements can
move forward
o Unlocks and reforms the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
(RRIF) loan program
o Includes reforms to get RRIF loans approved more quickly with enhanced
transparency
o Provides commuter railroads with competitive grants and loans to spur
timely Positive Train Control implementation
o Provides competitive opportunities for the enhancement and restoration of
rail service
o Increases the rail liability cap
Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Bill
•
•
•
•
On December 18th the President signed the Surface Transportation Board
Reauthorization, S. 808, into law. The bill was passed by the House on December
10th by voice vote.
On June 18th, the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization bill passed the
Senate by Unanimous Consent. The bill was then sent to the House.
The bill was introduced on March 19, 2015 by Senators Thune and Nelson.
Specifically, the bill: 1) Sets timelines for rate reviews and expands voluntary
arbitration procedures, 2) Grants STB new authority to proactively investigate rail
16 of 39
•
delay issues and enhances transparency, and 3) Enacts structural reforms on the
board (increases to 5 members) to allow for direct discussion to improve efficiency
The bill was passed out of the Commerce Committee on March 25th. MHGS covered
the mark up and provided a separate memo.
Tax extenders/Tax Reform
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
On December 17, 2015, the House passed tax extenders legislation by a vote of 318109, and the Senate followed suit the very next day by a 65-33 vote.
The extenders package included $680B in in permanent and short term extensions
of tax breaks for businesses and individuals.
The recently passed legislation includes a number of items specific to
transportation. The 45G short line tax credit was extended for two years, through
January 1, 2017. It also allows short lines created after 2005 to claim the credit.
The tax extender legislation also increases and permanently extends the commuter
transit tax benefit (from $130 per month to $255 per month).
With the 2016 election now coming into full swing, the prospect for tax reform in
the 114th Congress remains dim.
However, some believe that the recently passed tax extenders bill increases the
chances for tax reform to be accomplished in 2017.
The thinking is that the extenders package altered the budget baseline in such a way
that it will be easier to lower the 35% corporate tax rate.
Additionally, now that the former W&M Chairman Paul Ryan is the House Speaker,
he may work to leverage his new power to attain his goal of tax reform.
Short Line Tax Credit
•
•
•
•
The Short Line Tax Credit was extended as part of the tax extenders package passed
in December 2015 (along with the omnibus).
Senators Crapo, Wyden, Moran, Schumer, Isakson, Casey, Boozman and Blumenthal
introduced the Short Line Tax Credit bill, S. 637, on March 3, 2015. The bill has been
referred to the Finance Committee. There are currently 42 co-sponsors.
This legislation would extend the Short Line Railroad tax credit until January 1,
2017.
A similar bill has been introduced in the House (H.R. 721) by Representative
Jenkins. The bill was referred to the Ways and Means Committee and currently has
247 co-sponsors.
Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act
Congress included a PTC extension in the short term transportation bill extension
that they passed in late October.
• The bill would extend the deadline to install PTC to Dec. 31, 2018, from Dec. 31,
2015.
• On March 4, 2015, Senators Blunt, Thune, and McCaskill introduced a PTC extension
bill, S. 650. There are ten additional co-sponsors: Johnson, Fischer, Inhofe, Sullivan,
•
17 of 39
•
•
•
•
Murkowski, Moran, Heller, Rubio, Ayotte, and Portman. The bill was referred to the
Senate Commerce Committee.
The purpose of the bill is to extend from December 31, 2015, to December 31, 2020,
the deadline for Class 1 Railroads to implement PTC. The bill authorizes the
Secretary of DOT to extend the implementation deadline, upon application, in oneyear increments. The Secretary is directed to revise federal regulations requiring a
Class II or Class III railroad to equip its locomotives with an onboard PTC system to
operate in PTC territory.
The bill was passed out of the Commerce Committee in March. MHGS covered the
mark up and provided a memo.
Prior to the recent Amtrak derailment, MHGS heard that Sen. Blunt’s strategy was to
seek inclusion of this legislation in the THUD appropriations package that will pass
later this year. However, the derailment changed the political landscape for a PTC
delay.
A PTC extension was included in the House’s version of the Surface Transportation
Reauthorization bill, as well as the recently announced short term extension.
18 of 39
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
February 5, 2016
STAFF REPORT
Item 4.7
ACTION
Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional
Rail Commission Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Submit and
Execute Any and All Certifications and Assurances Necessary to Obtain Financial
Assistance Provided by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) Under
the Cap and Trade Program.
Background:
In 2014 California Legislature established new Cap and Trade funding programs including
–1) Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and 2) Low Carbon Transit
Operations Program (LCTOP) from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program was created by SB862 to fund capital
improvements and operational investments that will modernize California’s transit systems
and intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems to reduce greenhouse gases by reducing
vehicle miles traveled throughout California. TIRCP is allocated 10% of Cap and Trade
auction proceeds. Project allocations will be selected through a competitive process based
on the evaluation criteria outlined in the program guidelines.
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program was created by SB852 to provide operating and
capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve
mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. LCTOP is allocated 5% of
the annual proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund pursuant to the
distribution formula in sections 99313 and 99314 of the Public Utilities Code.
This resolution allows the Executive Director to execute the Certifications and Assurances
for TIRCP and LCTOP programs. Any projects proposed for submission in these
programs will be brought before the Board for consideration and approval by Resolution.
Fiscal Impact:
No Fiscal Impact at this time. These funds will be included in the Capital Budget upon
receipt of the funds.
Recommendation:
Approve a Resolution of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing and
Directing the Executive Director to Submit and Execute any and all certifications and
assurances necessary to obtain financial assistance provided by the California State
Transportation Agency (CalSTA) under the Cap and Trade Program.
19 of 39
RESOLUTION NO. SJRRC-R-15/16Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional
Rail Commission Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Submit and
Execute Any and All Certifications and Assurances Necessary to Obtain Financial
Assistance Provided by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) Under
the Cap and Trade Program.
WHEREAS, the California State Transportation Agency will administer the Transit
and Intercity Rail Capital and Low Carbon Transit Operations Programs to eligible
grantees for transportation improvement and greenhouse gas reduction projects, and
WHEREAS, The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is an eligible
grantee for Cap and Trade funding;
WHEREAS, the California State Transportation Agency requires a resolution from
the governing board in order to receive the funds and that SJRRC will abide by the terms
that go with this grant;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVLED by the Board of Directors of the San
Joaquin Regional Rail Commission that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to
execute the certifications and assurances necessary for obtaining financial assistance
provided by the California State Transportation Agency following all required rules and
terms.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission this 5th, day of
February 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL
RAIL COMMISSION
STACEY MORTENSEN
Executive Director
BOB JOHNSON, Chair
20 of 39
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
Meeting of February 5th, 2016
STAFF REPORT
Item 4.8
ACTION
Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin
Regional Rail Commission Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to
Sign and Submit the State Transit Assistance Application to Claim Alameda
County Transportation Commission Apportionment for the ACE Service in the
Amount of $450,000 for the Fiscal Years 2014/2015 and 2015/16
Background:
The State Transit Assistance (STA) provides funding for allocation to local transit
agencies to fund a portion of the operations and capital costs associated with local
mass transportation programs.
The funds claimed are from Alameda County Transportation Commission’s STA
apportionment for Operating.
Total 2014/2015 MTC STA available Funds
Estimated 2015/16 MTC STA available Funds
$292,998
$157,002
Fiscal Impact:
There is no change to the approved Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Operating Budget.
Recommendation:
Approve a Resolution of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing and
Directing the Executive Director to Sign and Submit the State Transit Assistance
Application to Claim Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Apportionment for
the Altamont Corridor Express Service in the Amount of $450,000 for the Fiscal Years
2014/2015 and 2015/16.
21 of 39
RESOLUTION NO. SJRRC-R-15/16
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SAN
JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SIGN AND SUBMIT THE STATE TRANSIT
ASSISTANCE APPLICATION TO CLAIM ALAMEDA COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPORTIONMENT FOR THE ACE
SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $450,000 FOR THE FISCAL YEARS
2014/2015 and 2015/16
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission is the owner operator of
the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Service; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission is an eligible claimant of
State Transit Assistance funds apportioned to Alameda County Transportation
Commission and administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; and
WHEREAS, the approved San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Budgets
incorporate the State Transit Assistance funds in the approved FY 2015/2016 operating
budget; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners for the
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission hereby authorize the Executive Director to sign
the State Transit Assistance Application to claim Alameda County Transportation
Commission’s Apportionment for the ACE Service in the Amount of $450,000 for the
Fiscal Years 2014/2015 and 2015/16
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Commissioners this 5th day of
February 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:
ATTEST:
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL
RAIL COMMISSION
STACEY MORTENSEN
Executive Director
BOB JOHNSON, Chair
22 of 39
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
Meeting of February 5, 2016
Staff Report
Item 5
ACTION
Discuss and Approve an SJRRC Position on the SJCOG Staff Recommendation for the 2016/17
and 2017/18 Local Transportation Fund Allocations to SJRRC
Background:
The Rail Commission has been seeking an equitable share of LTF revenues based upon the
LTF program statutory priorities and the size of the Rail Commission transit program since
2003. The Rail Commission’s assertions about the inequities of the historic allocations are
detailed in the attached, past staff reports.
While much of the resistance of local agencies who currently make use of this LTF funding
centers around whether the Bay Area counties involved in the ACE service pay their fair
share of service costs, the Rail Commission’s original request corresponds with dissolving
ACE Authority and retaining the control of the ACE service within San Joaquin County to
protect the MK investment.
The subsequent ACE Cooperative Services Agreement (CSA) in 2003 was negotiated with
Alameda and Santa Clara Counties by RRC and SJCOG through an independent facilitator,
who helped outline the future cost sharing according to this new ownership structure.
Santa Clara County needed financial certainty focused mainly on an indexed annual
operating contribution and would forgo any decision-making authority. At the time Alameda
County needed short term certainty until their new sales tax program went into effect which
allows them to make full contributions for both operations and capital, so they asked for a
limited decision-making role. San Joaquin County was the primary sponsor for the ACE
service, dating back into the late 1980’s and had a need to shepherd the service and protect
the local Measure K investment.
Regardless of this flexibility in governance, the Rail Commission has proceeded in a very
conservative manner and only added 2 trains in 18 years. While other transit agencies have
had to deal with severe cuts recently, it has often been due to more aggressive growth in
good times. So when other local agencies try to oppose the LTF allocation and make a case
the Rail Commission should be cutting service, an apples and apples comparison should be
made regarding historical service increases vs. possible service cuts.
The attached Staff Report from the Rail Commission’s February 2015 meeting (Attachment
5.b.) summarizes the more intensified effort that began in 2013 to resolve the LTF issue. The
temporary solution implemented by SJCOG that is noted at the end of the staff report is only
good through June 30th 2016.
23 of 39
SJCOG is required to release the new 2016/17 allocation amounts to all recipients at the
February Board meeting. Consistent with the needs identified in the SJCOG process of
budget and cash flow review, Rail Commission staff have again requested the additional
$3.3M. SJCOG’s own Counsel, Independent Counsel and a Third Party Reviewer have all
confirmed that the Rail Commission’s LTF request is valid and compliant with the LTF
program.
Attachment 5.c. includes the recent SJCOG staff report to the SJCOG Board on the SJRRC
LTF issue. One note of clarification in the staff report is that SJRRC has been requesting this
new allocation amount since 2013, not just since last year. Based upon his attendance at the
SJCOG Technical Committee, Rail Commission Chair Bob Johnson asked that this matter be
deferred from full SJCOG Board discussion until the Rail Commission could discuss and take
a position on the new, 2-year temporary Rail Commission allocation proposed by SJCOG
staff, at the February Rail Commission meeting. Chair Johnson attended the SJCOG Board
meeting to thank the members for deferring the item. The General Manager from SJRTD
expressed opposition to either the temporary, limited allocation to the Rail Commission or the
full allocation that had been requested.
Recommendation:
Approve an SJRRC Position on the SJCOG Staff Recommendation for the 2016/17 and 2017/18
Local Transportation Fund Allocations to SJRRC
24 of 39
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
Meeting of February 6, 2015
5.B
STAFF REPORT
Item 7
INFO/ACTION
Update on Request to SJCOG for Increased LTF Allocation
Background:
At the September 2013 Rail Commission meeting, the Board directed staff to work with
SJCOG to achieve an increased LTF allocation more consistent with the statutory
priorities of this state funding program, targeting the 2015/16 Fiscal Year. The current
allocation of less than $700,000 for the Rail Commission has historically been based
upon typical planning allocations, rather than operation of rail service. For example, in
2014, other agencies who operate transit systems in the County receive:
SJRTD
Lodi
Manteca
Tracy
$13.88M
$2.1M
$2.33M
$2.8M
In the 16 months since the September 2013 Rail Commission Board directive, Rail
Commission staff worked with COG staff to provide numerous pro-forma budgets, cash
flow analysis, justification of costs and an assessment of all available revenue options.
COG staff vetted this information fully and came to the conclusion to support a Rail
Commission funding request of $4M (an increase of $3.3M) request for the LTF funding.
The January 22nd staff report to the SJCOG Board is attached.
Pursuant to the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Purposes and Priorities PUC section
- 99234.9, and in accordance with California Government Code, Title 3, Division 3,
Chapter 2, Article 11 – Transportation Fund, as amended by Chapter 209, Statutes of
1993 (AB 1188), passenger rail operators are given priority over certain other uses of
LTF, i.e., other transit services and local street repair expenditures.
The ACE service has experienced double digit, year-over-year growth for the past 3 ½
years, providing much more access to high wage employment in the Bay Area for many
of our region’s residents. Additionally, the significant and increasing capture of
passenger miles generates federal formula funding for the region (used primarily by the
regional bus program) and is one of the major initiatives to contribute the region’s need
to reduce overall vehicle miles travelled.
The ACE service was an important project in the original Measure K program and
became a showcase project in the Measure K renewal which polled extremely well with
voters. At only 4 daily round trips, the ACE service is extremely conservative by
industry standards and the Rail Commission’s cautious approach of adding a train
approximately every 8 years, allows all of the funding partners a predictability for
25 of 39
funding needs. The continued ridership growth, even as other systems flatten out or
decrease, is a testament to the need for this alternative in our region to the congested
highway travel and to the successful business model for managing the service.
However, SJRTD, who would suffer the largest revenue reduction in FY 15/16 with an
increased allocation to the Rail Commission (Reducing $1.9M down to $11.98M),
launched an aggressive campaign to protest the Rail Commission request. Through the
social services networks and meetings, flyers were distributed that threatened cuts to
lifeline services for transit dependent riders, including the senior and disabled
communities. These community members came out in force at the SJCOG Board
meeting and made compelling remarks about the importance of the bus service to their
independence and ability to travel.
While this item was for discussion and information only, SJCOG Boardmembers
expressed great reservation about impacting bus services for the people in attendance.
Rail Commission staff requested that COG staff independently verify the potential
impact to the SJRTD services, similar to the in depth analysis of the Rail Commission
funding request. At the SJCOG Board meeting, it was unclear if any other cost
reduction strategies had been considered by SJRTD, other than the cuts to lifeline
services.
As a temporary, compromise solution, COG staff has proposed the following:

February 2015 – SJCOG will process an amendment to the overall FY 14-15 LTF
Revenue Estimate increasing it by $1,715,020

SJCOG will increase SJRRC from $653,529 to $1,300,000. Assuming SJRRC
does not need these funds in FY 14-15, they will carryover as previous year
unclaimed funds available in FY 15-16

SJCOG intends to set the FY 15-16 revenue estimate at the amended FY 14-15
level of $25,600,000

SJCOG will apportion $1,300,000 to SJRRC in FY 15-16

In order to reduce SJRRC expenses in FY 15-16, the March 1, 2016 Measure K
debt service payment will be reprogrammed to a future date TBD reducing the
request by $1,900,000
This solution leaves approximately $170,000 unfunded (of the $4M request) and the
Rail Commission will be responsible for managing the shortfall through additional cost
controls. The SJRTD allocation would remain at, or slightly above the 14/15 estimate.
COG staff proposes that the long-term solution will be identified in the upcoming
Regional Transit Systems Plan update expected later this summer.
26 of 39
5.C.
January 2016
Board
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT:
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
Funding and Policy Recommendations for
FY 2016/17 & FY 2017/18
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Fund a fair share of legitimate and eligible expenses not to exceed $1.8 million from LTF
using the original 2006 policy limit as the basis
2. Recognize SJRRC’s regional benefit to the Manteca and Tracy Urbanized Areas with a 15%
portion of Manteca and Tracy’s Federal Transit Administration 5307 Funds transferred to
SJRRC (annually for two years).
3. Program CMAQ to fund $450,000 annually (for two fiscal years), to SJRRC from any
combination, including but not limited to, cost savings, de-obligated projects, and future
year apportionments.
4. Program RSTP to fund $450,000 annually (for two fiscal years) to SJRRC from any
combination, including but not limited to, cost savings, de-obligated projects, and future
year apportionments.
5. Recommend SJRRC use the provisions of the Cooperative Services Agreement to seek
additional funding from Alameda and Santa Clara Counties
6. Recommend SJRRC provide SJCOG with a fiscally constrained Short Range Transit Plan
prior to submitting future funding requests
7. Recommend all transit claimants to provide SJCOG with a fiscally constrained Short
Range Transit Plan prior to submitting future funding requests
8. Consider adopting a policy limiting the use of LTF for local streets and roads
Implementation of recommendations 1-4 would leave SJRRC with approximately $760,000
unfunded from their $4,000,000.
ISSUE:
Last year the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) informed SJCOG their Local
Transportation Fund (LTF) claim for FY 2015-16 would be $4,000,000, up from their FY 2014-15
apportionment of ~$670,000 in order to meet increased budget demands including a doubling of
UPRR trackage rights, increased insurance requirements and maintenance operations. The
Transportation Development Act, of which the LTF is a component, dictates the process for
prioritizing the use and amounts of LTF. Commuter Rail is provided a higher priority than other
uses of LTF, therefore, the other claimants (the county, cities and San Joaquin Regional Transit
District (SJRTD) receive less LTF when SJRRC receives more.
27 of 39
The SJCOG Board took several steps to address SJRRC’s FY 2015-16 request and minimize the
impacts on the other claimants. The Board specifically noted these steps were for only one year for
SJCOG staff to undertake a Regional Transit Systems Plan that would analyze transit funding
countywide and make recommendations to more efficiently use available resources. Further, the
staff report noted even with the Regional Transit Systems Plan, the SJRRC must likely request
more LTF than in previous years. SJCOG staff has not completed the Regional Transit Systems
Plan; however, the analysis to date provides information that may be helpful for FY 2016-17.
As previously reported to the SJCOG Board, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission is
requesting $4,000,000, an increase of $3.2 Million from the 14/15 year allocation. The discussion
surrounding this request engendered several questions that this report will address.
WHAT DO OTHER REGIONAL AGENCIES DO?
Bay Area – The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the TDA administrator. MTC’s
prime responsibility is to coordinate with the nine bay area counties, solicit from each county the
LTF revenue estimate for each program the revenue pursuant to the TDA. The statutes are more
specific regarding use of funds in some bay area counties. Several counties in the MTC region had
a 1970 population over 500,000; therefore, transit is the only option for use of LTF (after the
“off-the-top” expenses are taken). The Bay Area has two commuter rail systems (not including SF
Muni and VTA light rail):


BART is funded primarily through Federal grants, its own sales and property tax and
operating revenues (fares and parking). They also receive some State Transit Assistance.
Caltrain – Owned and operated by the Peninsula Joint Powers Board, the members of
which are San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) and the City and County of San Francisco through the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). Caltrain is the only transit system
in the Bay Area without a permanent, dedicated source of funding; however, the JPB
partners contribute funding to the system. Net operating and administrative costs are
apportioned on the basis of mutually agreed contribution rates, updated annually.
Sacramento – SACOG is the TDA administrator for the Sacramento region. Their process is
similar to MTC’s. The Auditor-Controllers from each SACOG county provides SACOG with the
LTF revenue estimate, the “off-the-top” expenses are taken and the remainder is available for
transit and streets and roads expenses except for Sacramento County, City and Rancho Cordova.
One hundred percent (100%) of the Cities of Sacramento and Rancho Cordova goes to Sacramento
Regional Transit District and Paratransit. The County of Sacramento contributes 94.6% of its LTF
to SACRT and Paratransit. SACRT is the owner-operator of not only bus transit but the light rail
system. Budgetary decisions related to the division of LTF between bus and rail is made
internally.
The Capitol Corridor intercity service begins in the SACOG region and travels through eight
counties to the Bay Area. The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) is a partnership
among the Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Alameda and Santa
Clara counties, represented by Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, Sacramento
28 of 39
Regional Transit District, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, Solano Transportation Authority, and the Yolo County Transportation
District. The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) provides day-to-day
management support to the CCJPA. There is no direct apportionment of LTF to the Capitols.
Southern California – The commuter rail service is provided by the Southern California Regional
Rail Authority (SCRRA), operators of Metrolink. The SCRRA is a joint powers authority made up
of the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and
Ventura counties. Metrolink serves Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura,
and North San Diego counties. Each individual county is responsible for funding its share of the
Metrolink operations. Riverside and San Bernadino apportion all of their “west side” population
LTF to bus transit and rail. They have negotiated a bus transit/rail split of LTF that carries over
from year to year. Ventura County Transportation Commission historically contributed $400,000
of LTF to Metrolink “off the top”, however, in recent years, their contribution needed to increase.
A new base of $1,000,000 was established. In order to increase the total, the rail apportionment
increases by receiving 1/3 of any annual LTF revenue increase. Orange and Los Angeles Counties
both have dedicated sales tax for rail operations. Orange County Transportation Commission
apportions $133.5 million of a total revenue pot of $140 million to Orange County Transit District
and Paratransit. The remainder was apportioned to other Orange County cities.
Conclusion – There does not appear to be a model represented by other regional agencies or
systems on which to copy.
WHAT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES CAN BE TAPPED?

In the short term, SJCOG staff suggests capturing a relatively small percentage of FTA
5307 allocations from the Tracy and Manteca Urbanized Areas (UZA), additional CMAQ
and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) dollars. Tracy and Manteca’s
contribution of FTA 5307 funding recognizes the benefit commuter rail service has in their
respective communities. For illustrative purposes, a 15% share of each UZAs most recent
FY 15-16 apportionment would result in approximately $600,000 for ACE service. It is
anticipated that apportionments in FY 16-17 and FY 17-18 will be similar in magnitude.
See Exhibit A for a more thorough discussion. There are two other UZAs in San Joaquin
County with FTA 5307 allocations: Stockton and Lodi. The Stockton 5307 funds are
already being split between San Joaquin Regional Transit District and SJRRC. The Lodi
5307 funds are not being considered because ACE does not serve that UZA.

CMAQ is currently distributed on a competitive basis, however, the SJCOG Board could
direct that $450,000 of CMAQ (annually for two fiscal years) be allocated towards SJRRC.
In the last competitive grant cycle, approximately one quarter of the funds went toward
local road improvements (traffic signals, roundabouts, intersection improvements) and
three-quarters of the funds went toward public transit vehicle acquisitions (rail cars, clean
fuel/electric bus vehicles, school buses), clean fuel vehicles (street sweepers, solid waste
haulers, and sewer trucks), and bus rapid transit street improvements.
29 of 39
SJCOG recommends funding this allocation amount through any combination of CMAQ
options, including but not limited to the following: de-obligated CMAQ projects, CMAQ
cost savings from completed projects, CMAQ apportionments higher than projected
estimates, or funding from future year apportionments. The remainder of the CMAQ
would continue to be awarded on a competitive basis.
SJCOG staff anticipates cost savings and de-obligated projects may account for the
majority, if not all, of the $450,000 annually. To date, SJCOG is aware of possible deobligations that would return $800,000 to the program and there is $35,000 in cost
savings already this fiscal year. Therefore, SJCOG staff does not foresee any impact to
future-year apportionments and future competitive call for projects.

RSTP funds are currently distributed on a formula basis to cities, San Joaquin County, and
SJCOG (Regional Share Program). SJCOG Board could direct $450,000 of RSTP be
allocated towards SJRRC (annually for two fiscal years). Similar to what is articulated in
the above-mentioned CMAQ program, staff recommends fulfilling this allocation amount
through any combination of RSTP funding options. Those could include de-obligated
RSTP projects, cost savings from RSTP projects, RSTP apportionments higher than
projected estimates, and future year RSTP apportionments.
As with the case of CMAQ, SJCOG staff anticipates RSTP project savings and
de-obligations returned to SJCOG will address the need of $450,000 on an annual basis.
Over the past several years, the history of project cost savings on roadway rehabilitation
projects is $1 million a year due to the competitive bid environment, resulting in projects
coming below engineer’s estimates. Today’s bid environment continues to favor this same
climate and SJCOG anticipates being able to have this like amount of savings return to the
program in this fiscal year.
 The legislative intent of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) was to provide a
dedicated source of funding for transit operations and capital. In counties with less than
500,000 population in 1970, local streets and roads apportionments could be made
following an annual unmet needs process and a finding there were no unmet transit needs
reasonable to meet. Subsequently, TDA statutes have been amended precluding cities with
populations over 100,000 from using LTF for streets and roads purposes. The likelihood of
any city, aside from Stockton, reaching 100,000 before 2024 is small. However, the
SJCOG Board could adopt policies to voluntarily restrict the use of LTF. Local streets and
roads claims countywide totaled $5.7 million in FY 14-15.
ARE ALAMEDA AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE?
The short answer is both counties are paying what they committed to in the original ACE
formation JPA, which is, a share of ACE operating and administrative services expenses based
upon boarding’s and deboarding’s in each county. This doesn’t include reimbursement for all
SJRRC expenses. The two counties also contributed to certain capital expenses such as trackage
rights and improvements, stations and platforms, parking facilities and shuttle service with an
30 of 39
unknown value, however, certainly in the millions of dollars. These expenditures are not reflected
in SJRRC financial statements, though they are a beneficial contribution to the ACE service.
Under the Cooperative Services Agreement (CSA), the successor document to the Joint Powers
Agreement in 2003, VTA and CMA agreed to funding a share of the operating costs (as defined)
for baseline service, i.e., three trains a day. While there are a number of provisions in the CSA that
would allow SJRRC to either request increases from VTA and CMA or reopen the agreement, this
hasn’t been done. The CSA, effective July 1, 2003, was to expire in ten years. The CSA became
an annual agreement after the 10 year period expired.
Contributions from VTA and CMA for ACE operations are based upon their respective
contributions established in the FY 2002/03 ACE budget, adjusted annually by the CPI.
In FY 2002/03 the contributions were: SJRRC - $1,552,889 CMA - $1,663,809 VTA $2,329,333.
More recently, the support contributions for operations is reflected below:
SJRRC/ACE Operating Budget
FY
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
San
Joaquin
$4,993,632
$4,44 4,120
$5,21 9,398
$6,59 0,302
$6,40 6,398
Alameda
$2,266,518
$2,799,261
$3,037,559
$2,846,288
$3,157,485
Santa
Clara
$2,971,196
$3,765,857
$3,271,192
$3,35 0,155
$3,38 1,527
Prop 1A
Fares
Misc
Total
$0 $702,464 $15,153,810
$4,220,000
$6,000,000
$0 $228,790 $17,238,028
$6,500,000 $150,000 $298,117 $18,476,266
$7,000,000 $150,000 $437,300 $20,374,045
$8,000,000 $150,000 $616,520 $21,711,930
The table shows Alameda and Santa Clara continue to fund at the baseline (three trains) level while
SJRRC’s contribution has increased with the addition of the fourth train. This table also does not
reflect over $1 million annually for SJRRC operations and administration funded by Measure K.
SJRRC Capital Budget
FY
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
San Joaquin Alameda Santa Clara Prop 1A
$37,491,049
$27,757,790
$25,797,351
$17,003,443
$17,400,661
FTA 5309
FRA
FEMA
$4,087,000
$0 $4,500,000 $9,500,000 $300,000 $1,605,778
$5,696,019 $628,472 $10,196,852 $2,380,785
$0 $100,000
$2,029,436 $1,073,407 $6,544,436 $1,583,807 $1,997,882 $300,000
$450,000 $510,043 $9,929,564 $867,050
$0
$0
$3,113,355
$0 $9,860,481
$0
$0
$0
Caltrans Intercity
Cap & Trade Total Discretionary
Minor Cap
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
$15,905,778
$12,677,637
$10,426,125
$10,796,614
$10,560,481
Total
$57,483,827
$46,759,918
$39,326,319
$28,760,100
$31,074,497
On the capital side, Alameda has been a consistent capital contributor, however, Santa Clara has
contributed little local funding. Approximately $1.6 million of the $2.1 million from Santa Clara
is actually FTA 5307 funding from San Francisco and Contra Costa apportionments.
WHY ARE ALAMEDA AND SANTA CLARA NOT BEING ASKED TO SHARE IN THESE
COSTS?
31 of 39
The Cooperative Services Agreement executed in 2003 set forth the terms of the partnership
between SJRRC, Alameda and Santa Clara. Critical to the CSA is the agreement by the SJRRC
there would be no request of LTF from either Santa Clara or Alameda counties. Other key
provisions include:

While acknowledging SJRRC’s substantial initial service investment, VTA and CMA have
no obligation to equalize SJRRC’s previous and future contributions to the ACE Service.

SJRRC was required to return the excess contributions of CMA and VTA from the prior
years, with the exception of $333,333 and $333,334 respectively the two agencies
contributed to establish a $1,000,000 self-insurance retention reserve. The reserve would
be retained until all claims against the ACE Service as operated under the original ACE
JPA had been settled or the statues of limitations for filing claims had expired.

SJRRC bears all costs for the ACE Service above the Baseline ACE Service Contributions
by VTA and CMA.

The parties agree to work in good faith to provide funding for the ACE Service when
financial conditions allow. Each Party’s contribution shall be determined by and approved
by its Governing Board
 If a party does not provide their full contribution, they shall not accrue any
contribution deficits
 If a Party does not provide their full contribution, the Governing Board of
that Party shall adopt a resolution stating the reason why the full
contribution is not being made and submit the resolution to SJRRC
 SJRRC shall not apply for TDA funds generated in Santa Clara County, or
the non-discretionary grant funds apportioned to the San Jose Urbanized
area (e.g. the current FTA 5307 Formula and 5309 Guideway Programs),
unless otherwise agreed to by VTA
 SJRRC shall not apply for TDA funds generated in Alameda County, with
the exception of Section 99314.

If industry-wide changes affect the service costs above the normal CPI adjustment, SJRRC
shall identify these categories for consideration on a case-by-case basis for VTA and CMA
in the Service Plan review and contribution approval process.

In the event of a dramatic increase or decrease in the CPI, the Parties may mutually agree or
an arrangement for multi-year averaging to determine the appropriate adjustment to the
Baseline ACE Service Contribution.
Within the CSA there are opportunities for SJRRC to seek additional funding from the other
partners: trackage rights have increased, insurance has increased, and regulatory changes have
32 of 39
been invoked. In addition, a fourth train is in operation and more trains are identified in the
Regional Transportation Plan.
CURRENT SJRRC APPORTIONMENT POLICY
At its July 2005 meeting, the SJCOG Board adopted a policy providing the SJRRC with a base of
$666,866 which would inflate by 2.5% above the increase in the LTF revenue estimate annually
until reaching an annual cap of $1,600,000. However, this policy also dictates that in years where
the revenue estimate does not increase or decreases, SJRRC will share in the decrease with the
other claimants. Due to the recession, SJRRC is just now getting back to the original
apportionment levels in 2005.
IS SJCOG COMPLYING WITH THE TRANSPORATION DEVELOPMENT ACT WITH
REGARD TO SJRRC’S RAIL CLAIM
As previously presented to the Board, an opinion was sought from a law firm with no connection to
any of the claimants or SJCOG. SJCOG asked the third party firm to examine “Does the San
Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) have the discretion to deny or reduce the amount
allocated to the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) in response to SJRRC’s Local
Transportation Fund claim made under the Transportation Development Act?” The response was
from Miller, Owen & Trost was “No. The Transportation Development Act (TDA), as well as the
Caltrans TDA Guidebook and SJCOG’s adopted TDA Administrative Procedures, require SJCOG
to prioritize Local Transportation Funds to rail operator SJRRC above other TDA Article 4
claimants.”
The San Joaquin Regional Transit District provided their own opinion disagreeing with SJCOG’s.
SJCOG staff enlisted the assistance of our Sacramento advocate, Mark Watts, to do additional
research to get more perspective on this issue. Mr. Watts consulted with an attorney who was on
the Assembly Transportation committee staff in the early 90s and reviewed most TDA legislation
at that time. Mr. Watts provided him with Miller, Owen & Trost opinion.
In conclusion, he did not find any basis that is contrary to the Miller, Owen & Trost document, and
indicated that the Rail Commission request appears to be in line with TDA purpose.
COMMITTEE INPUT
At the time of this staff report, several committees had met and committee comments are
summarized below.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC):
Future Policy Implications: As it relates to the funding policy, TAC members expressed concern
for “precedent setting” and related impacts to policies beyond the two-year period.
Leveraging more contributions from other counties: TAC members stated SJRRC need to secure
more funding for ACE from Alameda and Santa Clara Counties’ to offset operating costs. SJRRC
staff responded that the staff report did not fully capture beneficial contribution to ACE service,
33 of 39
such as capital facility construction costs and parking lot costs borne by other counties for stations
mutually benefiting ACE and other transit services. SJRRC staff added that these are millions of
dollars “contributed” to ACE service that would not be captured in ACE budgets. SJRRC also
indicated that fares would be increased and existing funding agreements re-visited to reduce costs.
Loss of Federal Funds to Streets and Roads and Local Bus Transit: While TAC acknowledged
that “federal funding pots” were identified to reduce the impact to LTF, they expressed concern
that these sources were essential dollars for local streets and roads (CMAQ/RSTP) and future
transit needs (Manteca & Tracy FTA 5307). They felt it would be a financial loss to jurisdictions
to transfer those dollars to ACE. City of Tracy and City of Manteca emphasized that the reduction
of 5307 funds to their areas would impact future expansion plans they had budgeted.
Prioritizing funds: Lastly, several TAC members suggested an order of preference to use certain
funds first, if the $4 million figure fluctuated downward. Some members suggested that if SJRCC
is able to secure other funds from grants, fare increases, and/or contributions from the other
counties, LTF should reflect those savings first. Some TAC members representing public works
departments requested consideration that the FTA Transit and CMAQ funds be used as funding
resources prior to federal RSTP. Conversely, TAC members representing transit operators asked
that RSTP be used first of the federal funds to preserve CMAQ and FTA transit program capacity.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of these actions would provide SJRRC with all but approximately $760,000 of the total
of $4 million requested. In meetings with SJRRC staff, they agreed to fill that gap from other
sources.
Approval transferring 15% of Manteca and Tracy’s FTA 5307 funds will reduce each UZA by
$321,707 and $274,682 based upon FY 2015/16.
Approval of $1.8 million for SJRRC “off the top” will reduce the amount available for the other
claimants by $500,000 compared to the current year.
Reprogramming CMAQ and/or RSTP potentially reduces the amount available for the CMAQ
competitive process and the formula based RSTP program.
Consideration of adopting a policy limiting use of LTF for local streets and roads would, at the
extreme, shift approximately $5.5 million to transit.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION.
1. Fund a fair share of legitimate and eligible expenses not to exceed $1.8 million from LTF
using the original 2006 policy limit as the basis, inflated for 10 years of time.
2. Recognize SJRRC’s regional benefit to the Manteca and Tracy Urbanized Areas with a 15%
portion of Manteca and Tracy’s Federal Transit Administration 5307 Funds transferred to
SJRRC (annually for two years)
34 of 39
3. Program CMAQ to fund $450,000 annually (for two fiscal years), to SJRRC from any
combination, including but not limited to, cost savings, de-obligated projects, and future
year apportionments.
4. Program RSTP to fund $450,000 annually (for two fiscal years) to SJRRC from any
combination, including but not limited to, cost savings, de-obligated projects, and future
year apportionments.
5. Recommend SJRRC use the provisions of the Cooperative Services Agreement to seek
additional funding from Alameda and Santa Clara Counties
6. Recommend SJRRC provides SJCOG with a fiscally constrained Short Range Transit Plan
prior to submitting future funding requests
7. In order to be able to produce a credible Regional Transit Systems Plan, recommend all
transit claimants provide SJCOG with a fiscally constrained Short Range Transit Plan
within the next 18 months.
8. Consider adopting a policy limiting the use of LTF for local streets and roads
35 of 39
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
Meeting of February 5, 2016
STAFF REPORT
Item 6
ACTION
Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional
Rail Commission Adopting the SJRRC 2016 Federal Legislative Priorities and
Authorizing Submission to the SJCOG One Voice Program
Background:
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission’s 2015 adopted federal legislative priorities
were as follows:
As part of the Altamont Corridor Capital Improvement Program the Stockon Track
Extension ($22M: $11M federal request; $11M secured match) was included in the
One Voice Program. This project builds a section of dedicated passenger track in
downtown Stockton to allow passenger trains to load and off-load passengers without
blocking the freight mainline or arterial streets. Due to the multimodal benefits for
trains, cars, pedestrians and bicyclists, the project fits well under the Federal Tiger
Grant Program.
Funding for the Project includes:
State Prop. 1A
Prop 1B CTSGP
CMAQ
TIGER
Total
- $ 5.3M
- $ 3.3M
- $ 2.4M
- $11.0M Request
- $22.0M
The Rail Commission’s 2014 and 2015 submittal was recommended by the DOT technical
reviewers to the project selection leadership team (consisting of modal Secretaries and
other political appointees), putting the project within the top 15% of the national submittals.
However, the project was not selected for funding.
Federal DOT technical staff have encouraged the Rail Commission to resubmit the
application for 2016.
Recommendation:
Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional
Rail Commission Adopting the SJRRC 2016 Federal Legislative Priorities and
Authorizing Submission to the SJCOG One Voice Program.
36 of 39
RESOLUTION NO. RRC-R-15/16
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
ADOPTING THE 2016 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION TO THE SJCOG ONE VOICE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission has been engaged in
advocacy efforts to secure funding for the improvement and expansion of passenger rail
service affecting San Joaquin County; and
WHEREAS, these projects will provide transportation alternatives to address
population, congestion, air quality and other environmental issues facing the region; and
WHEREAS, it is prudent for the Rail Commission to prioritize projects for submission
in federal funding programs; and
WHEREAS, the Rail Commission is in partnership with the California High Speed
Rail Authority and the Federal Railway Administration for the development of higher speed
passenger rail service in the Altamont Corridor and the Merced to Sacramento Corridor,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rail Commission has prioritized the
following 2016 Federal Legislative Project:
Altamont Corridor Capital Improvement Program:
• Stockton Track Extension ($22M: $11M federal request; $11M secured match)
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission this 5th day of
February, 2016 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
THE SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL
COMMISSION
STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary
BOB JOHNSON, Chair
37 of 39
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
Meeting of February 5
, 2016
Staff Report
Item 7
ACTION
Election of Officers
Background:
The Rail Commission Bylaws outline the annual process for electing the Chair and Vice-Chair
for the Governing Board. Through consensus, it was determined that the month of February
would be most appropriate, given that SJCOG appointments to the Rail Commission, when
necessary, would have been made in January.
There are currently no limitations on how long any Commissioner can serve as Chair or Vice
Chair and no prescribed rotational process. Commissioners have typically served in these
roles as their time permits for representing the agency throughout the state, and/or because
their particular expertise was relevant to the major work program initiatives at the time.
Recommendation:
Elect a Chair and Vice Chair for the Rail Commission Governing Board
38 of 39
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
Meeting of February 5, 2016
STAFF REPORT
Item 8
Update on Amtrak Agreement Negotiations for the San Joaquins
INFORMATION
A staff presentation will be made at the meeting regarding the current status of the
Amtrak negotiations for the FY 15/16 San Joaquins.
39 of 39