0220-04533-0005TRANSMITTAL

TO DATE COUNCIL FILE NO.

The CouncilMAR 26 2013

FROM COUNCIL DISTRICT

The Mayor

Measure R Local Return Programming

Forwarded for your consideration.See Report from the City Administrative Officer attached.

-Jbr:~MAYOR

MAS:DHH:06130053t

CAO 649-d

REPORT FROM

OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

Date: March 15, 2013 CAO File No. 0220-04533-0005Council File No.Council District: Citywide

To:

From:

The Mayor .

MiguelA. Santana,CityAdministrativeOffice~ (J.. /:I.--.Report from the General Manager of the Department of Transportation, datedNovember 14,2012; Referred for Report on December 18, 2012

Reference:

Subject: MEASURE R LOCAL RETURN PROGRAMMING

SUMMARY

Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the policy recommendations provided to you bythe General Manager of the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding the futureallocation of Measure R Local Return Funds. The recommendations were provided in order toprovide a framework for future decision making related to the City budget. This will also allowthe City to discuss and generate a consensus around priorities so that long-term financialforecasts can be constructed as required to support the needs of Measure R eligible projects(such as the Streetcar and the Pavement Preservation Program).

The DOT report recommends that the Mayor and Council prioritize funding needs for MeasureR and that those priorities be reviewed and discussed annually and when significant deviationsoccur in revenue or expenditures. In addition, DOT recommends that any required reductionsin Measure R programming occur in a manner representative of the established priorities. Toinform the priority setting process, DOT has projected $2.1 billion in revenue through thestatutory end of Measure R and has provided a spreadsheet illustrating estimated futureallocations. .

1. Transit Capital Funding (Also known as the Three Percent Local Match) - $317 milllon2. Bicycle Funding - 5 percent of annual Local Return Receipts per Mayor/Council policy3. Pedestrian Funding - 5 percent of annual Local Return Receipts per Mayor/Council

policy4. Front Funding for Signal Synchronization5. Highway Funding (Also known as the Pavement Preservation Program) to maintain or

improve the existing Pavement Condition Index (PCI) - Pavement Preservationgenerally includes slurry sealing, road resurfacing and reconstruction.

Programming Prioritization

DOT recommends the following Programming Priorities:

CAO File No. PAGE0220-04533-0005 2

DOT's proposal also recommends the issuance of revenue bonds supported by Measure R toprovide additional funds for the City Pavement Preservation Program. DOT assumes thatMetro would be issuing the bonds on behalf of the City.

The report agrees with our Office's assertion that a new funding source (in addition to MeasureR) is required in order to make significant progress in improving the overall condition of ourstreets. In addition, DOT recognizes that there is an existing need to identify funds to allow theCity to simply maintain the street system at the current unsatisfactory condition. DOTproposes that bond proceeds be utilized as a short-term solution to keep the street systemfrom deteriorating and possibly make minor improvements while the City works to identify amore long-term, sustainable solution to making significant improvement in the City streetsystem.

DOT estimates that $259 million in bond proceeds will be available to combine with $54.5million in cash for a total of$313.5<million between FY 2014 and FY 2018. On February 15,2012, one of the City's Financial Advisors, the Public Resources Advisory Group (PRAG),estimated that if Metro issued debt for the City that it could generate $227 million in bondproceeds while committing the City to $14 million in annual debt servicsror-3U-years. Thereare various assumptions used in developing these estimates which will change according tomarket forces at the time of issuance. Assuming that a minimum of $200 million in bondproceeds could be generated, DOT's proposal could generate $50 million a year for each ofthe next four years allowing the City time to identify a new funding source without reducing thecondition of the street system. We agree, in concept, with the proposed strategy and stronglyurge that the Mayor and Council make a concrete commitment to work quickly to identify ordevelop a new funding source that will allow the City to make significant improvement to thestreet system.

Other Measure R Activities

We agree with DOT's recommendation to consider establishing Measure R ProgrammingPriorities. However, DOT's recommended priorities do not clearly address all the activitiescurrently approved by the Mayor and Council for funding from Measure R. At a minimum, itwould also be appropriate to clearly communicate priorities for these activities as well. Theyinclude:

• A capital program for road repair (other than pavement preservation) such as guardrailrepair, retaining walls, tunnel ventilation, berm repair, bulkhead construction, sinkholerepair, sidewalk improvements and seismic bridge strengthening;

• Sidewalk access ramps - up to $4 million per year consistent with a legal settlement• Median island maintenance;• Transportation Planning - General Plan, Transportation Element Updates; and,• Administrative staffing required to support Measure R programs. Currently, this is

limited to 10 percent of annual Local Return receipts per Mayor/Council policy.

In addition, on March 6, 2013, the Council approved providing funding for the operation of theDowntown Streetcar from Measure R. The net operating costs are currently estimated at $6million in the first year. Therefore, it would also be appropriate to include this project in the

CAO FHeNo. PAGE0220-04533-0005 3

discussion of relative Measure R programming priorities. Though we are recommendingestablishing Programming Priorities at this time, the Council and Mayor will always have theoption to reviseJbem in the future as conditionsc;b~Dge~-~~-~~' ,m'" ,,"

,_ •• "_ ••••• ,, .... ~ •• _, __ .c._ .. '._~~ • "~"'_<C .••• , ~,,'T. • . c ••• .c••• ,.,," , __,' __, " 'C, __ .. _. ',' " ". '_"0' ., •• ""~" _ .... , ····c '" __', , ••.• , _., , ' .. ' '_' .. :. ,',,_ ... _ .•.. _ '.', ,_ ... , ,.,.. • ••

We also agree with DOT that when the Measure R fund faces budgetary constraints,reductions should occur in the lowest priorities first. However, in lieu of DOT'srecommendation, we recommend that the Mayor and Council consider the followingProgramming Priorities:

1. Debt Service - If debt is issued in the future, then debt service would be included asthe highest priority. It is legally required that debt service be the top funding priority;

2. Streetcar Operations (if needed) - This will be legally required of the City if full fundingfor construction of this project is identified. Transit systems of this nature do not operatesimply from farebox revenues and require a subsidy. Operation of the Streetcar will benecessary to keep legal commitments to taxpayers, bond holders and the Federalgovernment (if grant funds are awarded);

3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding, including sidewalk access ramp construction - TheCity Council and Mayor have made it clear that these are top priorities. As additionalemphasis, these were among the first priorities established by the City Council andMayor. These are important to ensure the equal access (and safety) of all transportationusers to the transportation system. Current Council policy is for five percent of annualLocal Return revenue to be allocated for the Bicycle Program and another five percentto be allocated for the Pedestrian Program. In addition, in a legal settlement, the Cityagreed to fund up to $4 million a year for sidewalk access ramp construction from eitherMeasure R or Gas Tax Funds;

4. Pavement Preservation Program (Road resurfacing, reconstruction, slurry sealing, cracksealing and pothole repair) - The Mayor and Council have clearly indicated that this is atop Citywide priority. This is critical to allow the City to maintain the existing streetsystem and to avoid budgeting for the failure of the street system. This could be given alower priority within Measure R once a new funding source is identified to providesustainable improvement in the street system;

5. Administrative costs required to support Measure R programs - Ensuring that MeasureR receives sufficient administrative support must be a top priority of the City so that theinterests of the voters and taxpayers are achieved. However, there is no need for this tobe a large allocation of funding. Currently, administrative staffing consists of fiveemployees (both direct and indirect cost).Council policy limits administrative costs to 10percent of annual Local Return receipts;

6. A capital program for road repair (other than pavement preservation) such as guardrailrepair, retaining walls, tunnel ventilation, berm repair, bulkhead construction, sinkholerepair, sidewalk improvements and seismic bridge strengthening. - This is critical toensure the safety of our roadways and manage City liability. This is in addition to thePavement Preservation Program and to the $3 billion quoted by the Bureau of StreetService to improve our roadways. Gas Tax funds are also available to assist with thiseffort but Measure R funds are more flexible. Gas Tax funds are expected to graduallydecline over time. However, Measure R funds sunset in 2039. Both local fundingsources should be routinely considered for this purpose;

CAO File No. PAGE0220-04533-0005 4

7. Transit Capital Funding (Also known as the Three Percent Local Match) - The City hassome flexibility in how (and if) this is provided, Provision of these funds would ensurethat we remain a solid partner with Metro in the construction of transit projects within theCity. This was among the first Measure R priorities established by the Mayor andCouncil. DOT reports that the target is $317 million;

8. Median island maintenance - This was approved by the Council for Measure R fundingfor 2012-13. While this is a relatively small amount, this is not construction and doesnot carry the weight of legal obligations that the Streetcar COUld.Consistent with thepurpose of Measure R, we recommended, and the Council approved, a policy to limitthe amount of ongoing maintenance from Measure R;

9. Transportation Planning - While this is important, it does not have the public safety orlegal implications represented by other priorities. This could also be funded fromProposition C; and,

10.Front funding for signal synchronization construction - This is nearing completion. DOTreports that at the time the DOT report was written, this was at an early stage and, thus,warranted consideration as a higher priority. This could also be funded from PropositionC orthe ATSAC Trust Fund.

Future Allocations

Measure R is a half-cent sales tax reserved for transportation uses. DOT estimates thatMeasure R will generate $2.1 billion in Local Return receipts for the City of Los Angeles. Thisestimate is based upon a revenue forecast prepared by the Los Angeles County Metro. Thisestimate runs through 2039 when Measure R expires.

While short-term forecasting of sales tax can be relatively useful for budgeting purposes, long-term forecasting of sales tax carries significantly more risk. While sales taxes can be expectedto generally trend upward with overall price inflation, sales tax receipts can be significantlyimpacted by economic conditions. Overall economic conditions are difficult to accuratelyproject, especially over a longer term (Le. 2013 to 2039). Therefore, we believe that the DOTprojection of Measure R Local Return receipts for the City of Los Angeles has significantdownside risk. However, conceptually, that downside risk can be managed by establishingclear City priorities for the expenditure of Measure R funds as recommended by both DOT andthis Office.

Additional Comments

The City has historically not established Programming Priorities at this level for special fundingsources. However, we support DOT's recommendation that the Mayor and Council do so.Priorities would assist this Office and DOT in making future recommendations on budgetaryappropriations. In addition, they will provide important information to support any potentialMeasure R forecasts required for financial reasons. For example, a Measure R forecast will benecessary to illustrate that the City has a plan for operation of the recently approvedDowntown Streetcar. The Downtown Streetcar project intends to seek Federal assistancewhich will require a 20 year funding plan for operation of the Streetcar. In addition, bonds forconstruction of the Streetcar will be issued consistent with a recently approved Community

CAO File No. PAGE0220-04533-0005 5

Facilities District in Downtown and a 30 year funding plan for operation of the Streetcar will berequired. DOT's report also introduces the concept of requesting that Metro issue bonds onbehalf of the City, payable from the City's Measure R Local Return receipts. We would expectthat such an issuance would also require a long-term forecast. Once the Mayor and Councildecide on Programming Priorities, a new long-term forecast can be prepared by DOT and/orthis Office to assist with these types of activities.

DOT's report also recommends that the Mayor and Council approve specific fundingallocations of Measure R funds that transcends multiple budget years. However, with oneexception (the Three Percent Local Match of $317 million), the actual amounts required foreach category from Measure R will change from year to year and a specified funding allocationwill be inherently inaccurate. Therefore, we recommend that specific allocations not beapproved at this time but that sufficient instructions be given in establishing the ProgrammingPriorities to allow accurate calculation of required costs each year.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Mayor and Council:

1. Establish Measure R Local Return Programming Priorities in priority order as follows:a. Debt Service - If debt is issued, this is legally required to be the top priority;b. Streetcar operations (if needed);c. Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding (Council policy is five percent each) and

sidewalk access ramp construction (consistent with the legal settlement);d. Pavement Preservation Program - Road resurfacing, reconstruction, slurry

sealing, crack sealing and pothole repair;e. Administrative costs required to support Measure R programs - Currently, five

employees (both direct and indirect costs). Currently, Council Policy limitsadministrative costs to 10 percent of annual Local Return receipts;

f. A capital program for road repair (other than pavement preservation) such as, butnot limited to, guardrail repair, retaining walls, tunnel ventilation, berm repair,bulkhead construction, sinkhole repair, sidewalk improvements and seismicbridge strengthening;

g. Transit Capital Funding (Also known as the Three Percent Local Match) - $317million;

h. Median island maintenance;i. Transportation planning; and,j. Front funding for signal synchronization construction;

2. Direct the Department of Transportation and the City Administrative Officer to identifyappropriations required to fulfill the Priorities each year and to provide funding within theMeasure R Local Return Fund consistent with the established Priorities with shortfalls inrevenue resulting in reductions to the lowest priority appropriations first; and,

CAO File No. PAGE0220-04533-0005 6

3. Instruct, and authorize, the Department of Transportation and the City AdministrativeOfficer to prepare and present long-term forecasts of the Measure R Local Return Fundthat are consistent with the established Programming Priorities for submission to theFederal Government and to potential bondholders.

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT

There is no Fiscal Impact from the recommendations in this report.

MAS:DHH:06130053

CITY OF LOS ANGELESINTER~DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

FORM GEN. 160 (Rev. 6-80)

Date:

From: Jaime de la Vega, General Manager. --""" __Department of Transportation

November 14,2012

To: Honorable Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor

Attention: Borja Leon, Deputy Mayor for TransportationMonique Earl, Deputy ayor for Budget & Finance

Subject: MEASURE R LOCAL RETURN PROGRAMMING

SUMMARY

This report provides policy recommendations for how the City of Los Angeles shouldprogram Measure R 15% Local Return funds over a multi-year period.

RECOMMENDATION

1.. APPROVE this report, including the fund allocations by program and project asindicated in Attachment 1.

2. DIRECT LADOT, with the assistance of the CAO, annually to recommendappropriations of Measure R 15% Local Return funds consistent with theprogramming in this report and any subsequent City Council policies in eachfiscal year's proposed budget. '.

3. DIRECT LADOT to report back and recommend programming changes to theMayor and City Council if any significant changes to projected or actual revenuesand/or expenditures occur.

The Honorable Antonio R. Villaraigosa - 2- November 14, 2012

BACKGROUND

In November 2008, voters in the County of Los Angeles approved Measure R, a 30-yearhalf-cent transportation sales tax. Measure R is collected by the Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and certain funds are allocated on aformula basis.

The City of Los Angeles directly receives two types of formula funding from MTA. First,the city receives transit operating assistance through MTA's formula allocationprocedure (FAP). Second, the city receives a portion of the Measure R 15% LocalReturn funding collected by MTA based on a population formula. In FY 2011-2012, thecity's new Local Return revenue is expected to be $35 million based on the city'sadopted budget. This report only addresses the Local Return portion of the city'sMeasure R revenue.

Historically, the City of Los Angeles has not made long-term programmingcommitments. Instead, funding levels have been approved annually. While 10-yearrevenue projections for some funds (e.g. Proposition A and Proposition C) wereroutinely made, these did not reflect official Mayor and City Council policy for futureyears.

PROPOSED POLICIES

LADOT recommends that the Mayor and City Council begin long-term transportationprogramming, starting with Measure R (Attachment 1). This is sound planning andfiscal policy and provides a framework for future decision making and budgets. This isespecially important because the capital program involves multi-year projects.

O. Overview - A total of $2.1 billion is projected to be available over the life of MeasureR (FY 2010 - FY 2039). The following table and chart represent the proposedprioritization of programs and projects, i.e. if the city experiences revenue shortfalls,lower priority programs shall be reduced before higher priority programs. Theproposed policy represents a multi modal commitment to transportation investments,with an emphasis on "greener" transportation programs (26.1 % of total funds and47.6% of the programmed funds), i.e. transit capital, bicycle, and pedestrianimprovements.

In addition, $951 million in future revenue is reflected as "reserve" and is available tothe Mayor and City Council in FY 2019 and beyond, or may be accelerated throughdebt instruments.

The Honorable Antonio R. Villaraigosa - 3-

Modal Programm ing $ Millions PercentTransitBicyclePedestrianHighwayOtherReserveEnding Balance (FY 2039)

321.4103.6109.4456 ..7141.1954.00.587

November 14, 2012

15.4%5.0%5.2%

21.9%6.8%

45.7%0.0%

Total 2,086.7

Memo: Green TransportationPercent of Total ProgrammingPercent of Committed Funds Only

534.3

Note: Figures may not total due to rounding

Measure R Local Return ProgrammingFY 2010-2039, $ millions

Transit321.415%

Reserve954.046%

Bicycle103.65%

Highway456.722%

Other141.17%

25.6%47.2%

Pedestrian109.45%

The Honorable Antonio R. Villaraigosa - 4- November 14, 2012

1. Transit Capital Funding - This report recommends that the Mayor and City Councilprogram significant funding toward the construction of Measure R transit projectsidentified in the Measure R ordinance and MTA's 2009 Long Range TransportationPlan (LRTP). The recommended funding level represents 3% of the constructioncosts of the portions of MTA subway, light rail, and busway lines within the city limits.The following projects (presented in order of the LRTP schedule) either are entirelyor partially in the City of Los Angeles, with city's share of the 3% local matchidentified per MTA (11/10/11).

$ Millions

line Total Cost AmountExposition Phase 2Crenshaw-LAXVan Nuys BuswayRegional ConnectorWestside ExtensionGreen Line-LAX1-405 Corridor

1,511.161,749.00

170.101,366.106,015.00

330.002,468.00

3% Match City Share28.8331.74

5.1040.98

115.319.90

74.04

45.3352.47

5.1040.98

180.459.90

74.04

64%60%

100%100%

64%100%100%

Total 317.28

Note: Figures may not total due to rounding

Note that the city has no legal obligation to provide this funding however it would beconsistent with the funding assumptions in the Measure R ordinance approved byvoters in 2008. It also would be consistent with the city's past practice of voluntarilycontributing city funding (from the city's Proposition C Local Return funds) to pastMTA transit projects, i.e. Red Line, Purple Line, Eastside Extension, and ExpositionPhase 1. Finally, the projects are consistent with city policies, including the officialsupport for Measure R from both the Mayor and City Council, and will providesubstantial benefits to the city's residents, workers, and visitors.

This report assumes that the city and MTA will formalize a funding agreement in thefuture before any funds are transferred. Although approval of this report would makea policy and programming commitment, the Mayor and City Council should reservethe right to modify the timing of payments based on city needs. This has been thepast practice for city funding of MTA transit projects.

If the city did not agree to provide funding, each project would have a 3% fundinggap. This would delay project implementation, require MTA to identify alternativefunds, and/or result in scope reductions to the project definition.

The Honorable Antonio R. Villaraigosa - 5- November 14, 2012

Due to timing issues, funds programmed in a certain fiscal year may not be spent inthe same year. It is important that these funds be carried over in reserve so thatfuture programming commitments can be met.

2. Bicycle Funding - This report maintains the current Mayor and City Council policyof setting aside 10% of new Measure R 15% Local Return receipts for bicycles andpedestrians and recommends clarifying that 5% (half of the 10%) should be setaside specifically for bicycles. Specific expenditures will be identified and approvedby City Council annually through the city budget process, beginning in FY 2012-2013.

3. Pedestrian Funding - This report maintains the current Mayor and City Councilpolicy of setting aside 10% of new Measure R 15% Local Return receipts forbicycles and pedestrians and recommends clarifying that 5% (half of the 10%)should be set aside specifically for bicycles. Specific expenditures will be identifiedand approved by City Council annually through the city budget process, beginning inFY 2012-2013.

4. Front Funding - This is city funding to meet cash flow needs for the signalsynchronization program (ATSAC). Funding was approved in the state 2006Proposition 1B and subsequent legislation however the state has not issued Prop 1Bbonds on the schedule necessary to meet the city's project schedules. It assumesthat the state will eventually issue bonds and that the city will be reimbursed,currently assumed in FY 2013.

5. Highway Funding - This report recommends that the Mayor and City Councilprogram sufficient Measure R funds to maintain a comparable funding level for streetresurfacing (pavement preservation) provided by the Bureau of Street Services forFY 2014 through FY 2018.

During this five year period, a total of $129 million in cash ($54 million) and debtservice ($75 million) is allocated for street resurfacin~. Issuing debt will generate anestimated $259.49 million in one-time bond revenue. Together with the cash, atotal of $313.5 million is available for street resurfacing between FY 2014 and FY2018.

This report assumes that five series of bonds will be issued FY 2014 through FY 2018, each with a 15year term, 5% interest rate, and $5 million annual debt service. The interest rate is conservative andthe calculations overstate interest costs intentionally. For reference, current 15-year municipal bondrate is 2.161% (bloomberg.com, 10/26/12). For example, achieving a 2.161 % interest rate wouldreduce annual debt service for each series by almost $1 million, or $5 million per year for all five bondseries together. Additional debt service payments continue FY 2019 through FY 2032.

The Honorable Antonio R. Villaraigosa - 6- November 14,2012

This strategy enables the Mayor and City Council to continue the same approximatelevel of street resurfacing activity as FY 2012 and recent prior years. It also fillsfunding gaps created by the expiration of state Proposition 1B and federal ARRA(stimulus) funds used for street resurfacing in recent years.

This strategy also provides the Mayor and City Council a five year window todetermine the desired level of street resurfacing and identify a sustainable source offunding in the future. Finally, the debt strategy depends on the MTA Board ofDirectors agreeing to issue Measure R bonds on behalf of local jurisdictions.

If the Mayor and City Council decide not to use a debt strategy, then the availablefunds for street resurfacing (Measure R 15% Local Return cash) - together with thetraditional gas tax, Proposition C, and street damage restoration fee funding - wouldresult in an approximately 20% reduction in funding.

There is insufficient Measure R 15% Local Return cash to fully backfill the loss ofProposition 1Band ARRA funds, even if no other program or project is funded withMeasure R.

Resurfacing Funding LevelsUsing Measure R Funds

Total funding levelsinclude continuinguse of gas tax,Proposition C &street damagerestoration fee forresurfacing

52.2

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

c:::::::JCashOnly 110.0 75.9 74.1 76.4 78.6 80.9_ Street Bond 110.0 122.8 116.0 113.3 110.5 107.8

- FY 2012 Baseline 94.9 94.9 94.9 94.9 94.9 94.9

77.2

2019

94.9

The Honorable Antonio R. Villaraigosa - 7- November 14, 2012

6. Other Funding

A. FY 2010 through FY 2013 reflects prior budget actions by the Mayor and CityCouncil. This report assumes that any currently unexpended funds will be usedfor the approved purposes or re-programmed at a later date by the Mayor andCity Council.

B. Related costs associated with non-reimbursed city staff direct costs are paid byMeasure R at $4.5 million in FY 2014, $2.5 million in FY 2015, and $3.0 millionthereafter.

C. All other costs funded through Measure R in FY 2013 and before are no longerfunded though there are un-programmed funds available in future years (seebelow).

7. Reserve/Future Programming (FY 2019-2039) - A total of $1.132 billion of theanticipated $2.087 billion in revenue is recommended for programming in this report.An additional $954 million is reflected as "reserve" and is available to the Mayor andCity Council for future programming beginning in FY 2019. A combination of debtand/or cash could be used to fund future policy priorities.

REVENUE RISK

There are two main revenue risks for the city's Measure R 15% Local Return funds.First, sales tax revenue is economically sensitive. Receipts in future years may behigher or lower than currently projected by MTA, which would impact the city's actualrevenue.

Second, the city's annual revenue is based on a population formula, i.e. the cityreceives a proportion of countywide revenue. Currently, the city has 39.2% of thecounty population. MTA uses the most recent population data from the CA Departmentof Finance. (For purposes of developing the attached schedule, this 39.2% figure isrounded down to 39%, which represents $10 million lower revenue over 30 years.)

Because the city receives a prorated share of countywide revenue, countywide revenuegrowth figures from MTA are used in the attached schedule for FY 2014 and beyond.The city's projected revenue is not dependent on actual sales tax growth within the citylimits.

AttachmentsAttachment 1 - Measure R 15% Local Return ScheduleAttachment 2 - Measure R 15% Local Return Reserve

I-ZW~::t

~

caNs::t

0> co.-cN

co r-e-cN

"''''-oN

<j"M...oN

<">NQ'"

"'-...o'"

... 0....oN

~c:;~~g~~t.:. cr:i <ri r.O.;:f ~ c:i to

NOOLOlO.q- 0:)(")..---<-..q-O)~ C

N-

«

000OQ;aJ~"",:..n

'" '".000om~~~~

o DO~~~M_"<!"-e--' '" '"

000o~~c:i~'I:""""'IO .....

f'-..(J)CD-.-mV"litL.n..oc»v;..ot-LO(",)-r"'M.-

D...t

LOOLONC"-.J'*s.ri..¢T"""CO~m('I') N('I')U)~m O>T""" III

a...t

D...t

oci

o...t

('t)(1l..q-vN*

~cO~~~~L{) L() t'-

U') oM 'N'LO en~ a:i ID ~"~lO V«lM'" U)

N(,,) (]"I or.n0) N ([I "('"".....

~~a'~aioo"¢v(")coa I,{) lO {\") 0cD I,!)~ 1.(')- N"

'" <"l

o

00>0"IN 0')

Oe,pcl-e-

<ll 0><DO..no'"0') eo1'-0>

~ro'a

'"

.... I'-N NNN"''''

on CD ...MOl'-r--:.<fct5N ....co

_0~N-

0'" 00 00 ~ 0 0 ,.,.'" e <0~C; 00 a It) l"- I"- 0 a "'''' e eN .nu-> u)~ N N .n .,.; 06 ~ Q

'" "'It)

"''''' '" 0 0 a a 00 co a a 0 IX> oc en...0 '" 0 'r "'It) '" '" · 0 0. 0. ~""': ~,.,. .,.; ..; NN N N <i in '" '::; ;n 0

'"co I'- ~ 00 0 0 <> v v a 0 0 "'0> '"C;

\~00 0"'''' v v · 0 0 0 "" co ~

'" c?lO ~r...rN N N ~ 6 .,.; ~cO 0

'" v v~:s::

£'. '" <II 00 00 a ;;; ;;; a 0 a M '" '"...co ~ 00 0'" '" · a 0. 0. "! CO ...,.,. III e0t.O ~N N N N 6 '" <'> '" <D Q

<Il -e-- V V~<D'" s a 00 00 00 <0 00 0 1'-1"- eC; ~ 0 00 "'to 'r e- · 00 1ll co <0 N

N Ql .,.; Lri~ NN N N MO N MM Q,.0 <tv",~

1ll '01' e a a 0 <D '" co a 1ll 1'-1"- '"...0 1::- 0 00 0. 0 · 0. 0 '" ",M eN .,.; ari~ '" N 0 .n <i NN Q

Ql N <t<tQ.

'""<t~

15c 0 0 II) '" '" io CO '" "'",M It) MO 0"'''' '"0 0 0. ~ ~ · co . ~ v NI'-W N '" a . It) '" M en

N .,.; 0 <i .,.; ~c:ici 0 ~~ 6-¢-..t QN 'r "'W

MN a a a £'.1ll 01110 N 1ll M N a In a'" 00 0C; "'! '" a «>1"- "'I"-M I"- M . 0 "'! "'0 ~~ 00

N '" .n .,.; N~ uj~M ..; ~ .,.; .,.; <> 0""': '" <D N'" 1'-"<1"

"';:: ,,~ ~ ~~ * *:~ ~~ on 1"-0> ~ "<I" '" ,.,.'" M0 ~ W ~~ ~~ N'" '" v ~ . ~~ II> It) '"'" "lJ ~ '" N~ M 0 ;;: ~<; t::~ g~ a ~'-':' ~~ ~Ql

~a

~~ ~a ~"lJ ~.c m 0 0 ~~ :~a \~.,~ ~~~':' ~~

'rOE I"- It) "'N '".... .

e ~ '" 0 00 .....N ''r 0 !:'iN ..;

III Nc::;

iV 0 '" .... co 00 ....0 "<I" a c- o 0 a a N on ~g It) M .... '" 0 OOMM 1ll a M 00'" co ..... '" 0

'0 '" 001"- .... '" M", 0. <> <D 0 '" '" '" I"- ~ ~ 0 <D co '" «>1"-(0 N a CD OI!){\IU) "<1" .... em oi-.::t IJ)" 6 LDaj .... .,.; N <:> ..; 0 .,.; ..; I"- VLIl '" cO""': 00 ~oo 0 0 NOci~ o\<'i ~I- '" '" "<I" I"- a a '" 1"-1"- 00 .... ..,'" II>

'" ........ '"LJ...

....<:

"if< -;;?';f!. '*~ ~*' cf..?f.. "if< *?ft "if< "if< ~ '*- "if< *-<!.. "if< ~! "if< "if< "#."$. "if< ~cF.cf!."$. ~~~* "if<LJ... G>0 e .., 0 <t: ~ N a It) on '" a 0 -e- .... co N IX) '" ~z <D N 0> .... 0 0 0 0 <D .... a a . ....~ '" 0 0 .... .... 0 N ..; 0 .,.; 0 0 0 0 <i 0 <i 0 a .,.; ~ 0 <i 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 00 0 '" ...;

c.. '" '<t

'"....'" '" I"- co .... ~ '"0

Z

N

0'> oa~'"CI

'"

CD ....~'"CI

'"

N ~~'"o'"

iiiof-

r-, r-, O co '" ~ 0'> ...."'- If) "<t CD '" If) ...

o? m <ei .,.: :0: 6 <IiN 0 0 Ii) If) cc<'l ~ ~ "" m ~ CI

N

Ii) "! Q) '" ~ 'if. N 0 0 '" Nr-: -i ~ N 00 .... CD N ~ '" '<I; 'OJ"

'" m 0> 00 Ii) 6 ~ 6 '" N"". ~ N <'i co 00 co

'<l: "" ~ m ": -e- 'if. ..,. cc 0 N N0) 10 0 ~ .,; 0 '" '" II> Ii)

CD N <> .. co 6 .,; 6 .,; oj

"'. M. N <'i t- ... t-

o Ii) t- t- 'OJ" N 'if. r-, O) o cD wr-: 10 oj 10 .,.: .,; '" N -e-- '" "': t-

;;;- ~ '" 0'> ... t-, 6 <.ci 6 cD <.ci"'- ~ O? r-, ... t-

o 'OJ" 0 "'<t co "t ~ ;;; :0: '" U; ;0r-: r-: m 00 r-: '" N '"CD ~ "" cc ... <> 6 ,..; 6 ..t -i"!. "'. ~ .,.: r- ... r-,

o '<l: '" 0 CD 'if. 0 t- o CD CDr-: IX> 00 a 6 d Ii) 0') ~ '"N_ ~ a co .. '" ~ 6 6 .... ;:::"'. ~ ..t t- ....

0 N Ii) ~ r-. "': ~ <'l '" 0 II> Ii)

<'i ai r-: ~ N ... 0'> co r-, O') DO coCD -r--' Ii) ..... CD 0 6 r-: 6 00 cO.... ~ ~ ..t CD CD <0

0 N co '" a -e- ~ o» It) 0 '<I' "<t6 o-i <ei <ri <.ci .,.; t- m 0 0') , ..,

'"N ~ 0 CD cD N 0 .,.; 6 .,; cD.... ~ ~ ..t CD CD CD

It) "! "! ~ '" '<I' "#. '" m a N '"r-: r-, <0 m .,; '" = '" '" , "': t-t- ~ CD Ii) CD N N 6 .., o?o. 0_~ .,.: CD cD CD

Ii) 0'> Ii) '" CD DO "#. m N '" '" Nr-: N 10 r-: N .,; <0 '" co '" , '" If).., e-- .... If) II> 0 0 m 6 g 60. 0_ ~ .,.; \0 CD

"! ~ t- "<t .., .., 'if. CD "<t 0 Q 0.... <'i ..t cci 10 ...,; 0'> ° m '" , '" 0>.... 00 CD .,. In 0 6 cD 6 ...: r-:'" '" .... "' co '" If)

t-, O> CD ;;; N -e N '" 0'> a .., M ID It) CDm -e "'<t t- oo '" N<O ... r-, m '" 0 ....10 m on "' .,.; ;;; ~o" .,; r-: cO r-: ..t cDr-, If) M ~ co '<,;t."<j- '" 00 r-, N ~ co

'" '" co It) It) '" CI '" ~ '"<D '" oD N N ",- N'" co

'"or:OJ:::Jeor:1iiIIImc.

I-Zw::!!:I:o

~

0'""INo

N

aaM

a~a"I

a.,f

a.,f'

01<0~N

o'"

00'" 0>r--: '"ClM'

oa

~aaM

0000..oN

oaM

1'-«>~'"o'"

aa..;"I

aoM

0000tON

<0'"~ '"o'"

aaui"I

aa...;0000trlN '"~,

'"10'<1"

'"o'"0>

~I

aaui"I

aa...;

coa a0>00Lria.ric-.i

OJ

'"M

'<1"'"NoN

oa..;N

aa...;00a a..0..0

"''''~NoN

a~'"N

"I "I

...;aa...;

"I e-~N o

N

0)0)

N'aa

~aaM

a a0'"LON '"rn

N

10~,"I

oa..;"I

oaM

00a",IDN

'"="INI.ONOUJ1"--(0')(00(")u) ~ .q: u:i .

NI'-l'-<'>

OCOMI.'QIOOMOOLOM<Ol'--coNomOI.ON0:) ·o'OOci~NOO~

ot-'""''<t~~a)N..,'"........

000"1m",Lrio("')

o~

M-r-OCO'!:"'""Ov001"---",,"""0)(")0)0

cri...t..oo..oo;-iNM "¢:: t--

aoM

r- 0«0)NOa

'$.'#-,*"$.~;f'.;f!*-"$.'#.'$.*Q)T"""OOOO(o~DOT'"" .oddciooociooc::i~

'$106

~oz '<tN'"

oo~

....Nc:i

oo.,;'"

...'"c:i

ooc:i'"oC!...N

oC!...N

oocO...aoN...oo..;...'"

I-ZUJ::!:J:U

~

mooN M

~

00 ....N M·

<:>

'".... '"N Mo

'"WinNM

<:>

'""''¢NM

<:>N

'<tMNM~

M NNM°N

N_N M

<:>N

~ <:>NM<:>N

....u, CLL.. <I>o ~3~

'"0:z

r--r"'-OCOOv-ID_(Y)u)""'(oO~IO"""~""cr)cD-q:..-:ou)NOO!J1lO--qo 00(i)'~,,-vo>'f""' 0

N

N....u-i

'"u-iN

It)

NN

C\I("')C)O~~~<.C! ...... r-..'-T"""o"':aico..q-""::J"Ct>coO_LOLOC'?Cco Lr)- U')- N""

M '"

",roo0 ....'"00)0

<Xl

NNIn'"..t<l'00

N NMM':oct)co co

"'<O~"'0 ....

[:;i:ige- aN"'('0,1-

:2 so0-so~"I

0"I~-~

...I-Zw::i!::I:(J

~l-e(

aocri

"'OO"I'"=-N

oa<ri~

'<t<'><ri'

oocri

COl'-N'"o

N

aa<ri '"~<ri'

L()aujl

aa<ri

aacri

(!)'""I M

~aacri

aaO'J

N

'".,.:aacri

'" N"1MoN

0>:. aa<ri

aacri

aIi)

,....:

"I-N'"o

N

so"l,'<t

ao6

aocri

~oNM=-"Io0:'"

r-O(!)O>NOo

OCOMMl()OCt')OOLO"'<Of'-..w{'.Jo~QL.OC'i~~ciOOO;:::Ncid

01'-<'1"''<t~. m N

1Il<'>'I!":.~.... ~

o'"oj

(") ooo"('"""ovOOf'-"('"""Cf)MQ'JOo::i-q:uiciLrio)~C'\I(") 'q';::: r-

N 1.0 C'\I a '"t-C01«)O(,,)..0 r---:. ~ tri .

NI'-l'-M

aacri

~';fl.;f!.~';f.*.*"'#-#;#?ft.~O>~OOooco ......oo ......ocioodo'ooocio~

'$.'$.i:F.<F.(F.'$.";;?';;?o"'¢,......NOI.{)L()U}

O~~6Nl()OM

";!.";fl<fl.00 .....cicici

"*,'ffl.'$.N<O<'Id.q:o

,!oz 1'-<0 '"'"

.... 0>It>(!)cOcO"IN

MM00dc:i"IN

'" '""INcriaiN N

=-oNoo

...It>.:;

'"....:;

"IM.:;

CMo

'"<.0o

ooai'"oC!...'"

~...u.Eiiic2-'"ucru~C)c'Scw

ATTACHMENT 2

Measure R 15% Local Return Reserve

Reserve 2011 Source

4.84 FY 2011 Adopted Budget0.40 C.F. 10-0600-8490.25 C.F. 10-0600-8492.00 C.F. 10-0600-S491.01 C.F. 10-0600-S491.00 C.F. 10-0600-S499.50

2.67 FY 2011 Adopted Budget

2.67

2.67 FY 2011 Adopted Budget1.75 FY 2011 Adopted Budget0.77 C.F. 10-0600-S495.20

0.58 C.F.10-0600-S490.95 C.F.10-0600-S491.95 C.F.10-0600-8491.30 C.F.10-0600-S490.80 C.F.10-0600-S490.15 C.F.10-0600-S495.72

2.00 FY 2011 Adopted Budget0.33 C.F. 10-0600-S490.70 C.F. 10-0600-S493.03

Transit ProgramMeasure R 3% Local MatchExpo Light Rail Station (Flower and 23rd Street)Expo Light Rail Station (Pico Boulevard)Wilshire Boulevard Mixed Flow Lane ContingencyIntersection Improvements (Bus Stop Security Lighting)Downtown Los Angeles Street Car Project

Bicycle ProgramBicycle Plan Implementation

Pedestrian ProgramPedestrian Capital ProjectsSidewalk Access RampsIntersection Improvements (Stamped Crosswalks)

Highway ProgramARRA - Transit Priority SystemARRA - Railroad Grade Panel ProjectATSAC Harbor Gateway 2 Project ShortfallSAFETEA LU Program ShortfallSan Fernando Mission Road Widening Match FundingTraffic Signal at Lincoln and Palms

OtherBridge ProgramAnnual Sign ReplacementWestern Property Purchase and Improvements