Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund STIF Plans for Formula Funds Report … Committee Meeting... · 2020. 1. 22. · Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund . STIF Plans for

Page 1 of 32

Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund STIF Plans for Formula Funds

Report from the PTAC STIF Plan Review Subcommittee to PTAC

January 18, 2019

Executive Summary The following is a recommendation from the Public Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC) Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) Plan Review Subcommittee to PTAC. This report is being submitted to PTAC, in accordance with OAR 732-042-0025, in order to inform its recommendation to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) about whether to approve or reject all or a portion of a Qualified Entity’s (QE) submitted STIF Plan for Formula funding. The PTAC STIF Plan Review Subcommittee recommends that PTAC make the following recommendation to the OTC:

• Accept ODOT’s rule interpretation that replacing a transit vehicle that has reached its useful life would improve, rather than maintain a service. Replacing vehicles that have reached useful life improves fleet condition and reliability, reduces maintenance and fuel expenses, provides fleet backup and flexibility, reduces out of service hours for assets, and provides a safer and improved passenger experience.

• Approve 16 STIF Plans, in their entirety, as submitted by Baker County, The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Coos County, The Coquille Indian Tribe, Grant County Transportation District, Harney County, Hood River County Transportation District, Josephine County, Morrow County, Salem Area Mass Transit District, Tillamook County Transportation District, Umatilla County, Union County, Wallowa County, Wasco County, and Yamhill County.

• Approve Tri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon’s (TriMet) STIF Plan, with the exception of Project 4, which proposes to expend up to 50 percent of the $1,695,100 budget to maintain existing transit services for seniors and disabled persons in the event that other State funding declines in the upcoming biennium.

• Approve Curry County’s STIF Plan, excluding Project 10, which proposes to expend 30 percent of the $36,000 project budget to maintain existing ongoing administrative expenses.

Report Organization 1. PTAC STIF Plan Subcommittee Review Process 2. PTAC STIF Plan Subcommittee Review Recommendations 3. Statewide Summary Tables: A series of four tables that summarize submitted STIF Plans at the

statewide level a. Expenditures, whether each Plan is consistent with requirements, and PTAC STIF Plan

Review Subcommittee Recommendation to PTAC b. Project benefits and outcomes c. Capital investment outcomes d. Expenditures allocated by program criteria

4. Qualified Entity Summary Tables: Same series of four tables for each QE and related Public Transportation Service Providers, as applicable

Page 2 of 32

PTAC STIF Plan Subcommittee Review Process The PTAC STIF Plan Review Subcommittee (Subcommittee) met twice via teleconference to get oriented to the Subcommittee’s purpose and role in the STIF Plan decision-making process, to review conflict of interest guidelines, the outline of report contents, instructions for completing plan review, and to receive an overview of ODOT staff’s completeness review. The Subcommittee received the report and access to STIF Plans from ODOT on December 21, 2018 and met on January 10, 2019 to discuss their review and formulate their recommendation to PTAC. The Subcommittee’s charter is attached as Appendix A. Prior to the Subcommittee’s review, ODOT assessed each of the 19 submitted Plans for completeness and consistency with application directions, and to identify potential conditions that could cause the OTC to reject all or a portion of a STIF Plan. The review considered statutory requirements, Oregon Administrative Rules 732 Divisions 40 and 42, and the OTC-approved STIF Plan Rejection Considerations. Since receipt of the STIF Plans on November 1, 2018, ODOT has conducted three completeness reviews and notified QEs of the results of each review. Completeness review results included detailed descriptions of completeness issues and potential revisions. ODOT also identified potential issues that could result in OTC STIF Plan rejection. Following the completeness review notifications, one QE withdrew its STIF Plan from consideration and will submit for review during the second STIF Plan review cycle on deadline for submittal May 1, 2019. Qualified Entities had up to three opportunities to revise and re-submit their STIF Plans to address issues identified during the ODOT completeness reviews. Seventeen QEs revised and re-submitted at least once during the review period. This process resulted in the ODOT determination that all 18 STIF Plans are complete. Copies of the completed STIF Plans and attachments are located here: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/Pages/STIF-Plan-Submissions.aspx.

PTAC STIF Plan Review Subcommittee Recommendations 1. Rule Interpretation—Concur that replacing transit vehicles that have met useful life

improves transit service and that STIF Plans including such projects should be approved As part of the review process, ODOT made a rule interpretation that a project that proposes to replace a transit vehicle because it is at or near the end of its useful life and no longer in a state of good repair is an improvement project (rather than a maintenance project). ODOT’s reasoning is that replacing a transit vehicle improves the fleet reliability, provides a safer ride, and is more cost-effective than continuing to operate a vehicle that is no longer in a state of good repair.

The Subcommittee concurred with this interpretation for the reasons identified above and unanimously voted to forward their recommendation and concurrence to PTAC.

2. STIF Plans—Recommend approval of 16 STIF Plans as submitted by the following Qualified Entities • Baker County • Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla

Indian Reservation • Coos County • Coquille Indian Tribe • Grant County Transportation District • Harney County • Hood River County Transportation

District

• Josephine County • Morrow County • Salem Area Mass Transit District • Tillamook County Transportation

District • Umatilla County • Union County • Wallowa County • Wasco County

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20Committee%20Meeting%20Documents/STIF-Plan-rejection-considerations.pdf

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/Pages/STIF-Plan-Submissions.aspx

Page 3 of 32

• Yamhill County The Subcommittee considered whether to recommend rejection of two STIF Plans because the QEs (Baker County and Salem Area Mass Transit District) failed to allocate 1 percent for student transit services in Fiscal Year 2019. (See rejection consideration 5 from the OTC-approved STIF Plan Rejection Considerations.) The Subcommittee determined that the potential mitigation approved by the OTC was applicable because it is not Practicable, as defined by OAR 732-040-0005, to provide student transit services for grades 9 through 12 in the QE’s area of responsibility in Fiscal Year 2019. The Subcommittee further noted that both QE’s STIF Plans propose to expend more than 1 percent per year cumulatively over the plan period. The Subcommittee considered the following additional details when developing their recommendation:

• Baker County plans to implement a free bus pass program for high school students beginning September 2019. The County stated, and the Subcommittee agreed, it isn’t practicable to implement this program from the time it receives funding in May to before the end of the school year. Student transit allocations for FY 2020 and FY 2021 are 2.14 percent and 1.43 percent, respectively.

• Salem Area Mass Transit District proposes to buy buses and hire new employees to prepare for service operations that will benefit students beginning in FY 2020. Student transit allocations for FY 2020 and FY 2021 are 2.44 percent and 2.24 percent, respectively.

3. Recommend approval of Curry County STIF Plan, except Project 10 Curry County Project 10, Marketing and Administration, proposes to expend 30 percent of the $36,000 project budget to maintain existing ongoing administrative expenses to “administer grants, create grant reimbursement requests, pay for legal advertising and reimburse County for audit expenses.”

The Subcommittee determined that 30 percent of project 10 proposes to use STIF funds to maintain services that are currently paid for by Curry County, and none of the potential mitigations are applicable. For more information about this potential rejection consideration, see rejection consideration 9 and related potential mitigation in the OTC approved STIF Plan Rejection Considerations.

4. Recommend approval of TriMet STIF Plan, except Project 4 TriMet Project 4, TriMet Human Services Transportation Program, proposes to expend up to 50 percent of the $1,695,100 budget to maintain existing transit services for seniors and disabled persons to replace declining state funding. The Governor’s Recommended Budget (GRB) does not include an estimated $10 million in General Fund revenues. There may be a reduction in State Special Transportation Funds if the 2019-2021 Legislatively Adopted Budget is consistent with the GRB. The potential reduction may be 40-50 percent less than TriMet’s $8.6 million estimated Special Transportation Fund allocation.

Similar to the Curry County findings, the Subcommittee determined that this project proposes to use STIF funding to maintain transit services currently funded by State Special Transportation funding and none of the potential mitigations are applicable. See rejection consideration 9 in the OTC approved STIF Plan Rejection Considerations.






Page 4 of 32

Statewide Summary Tables and PTAC Subcommittee Recommendation to PTAC Table 1. Statewide Formula Expenditure and Consistency Summary

STIF Funds Other Funds Total 2019-21 Expenditures

Funds to be Expended in Future Plan PTAC STIF Plan Review Subcommittee Recommendation Votes Recusals

Dissenting Opinions

Baker County 519,400$ 350,000$ 869,400$ -$ Possibly

Plan fails to allocate 1% in FY19 to student transit, but it may be impracticable to do so

Approve STIF Plan because it isn't practicable to feasibly and efficiently implement the student bus pass fare program for students in grades 9-12 in Fiscal Year 2019 due to the timing of funding being disbursed in May and the school year ending in June. In addition, the overall percentage allocated to student transit over the STIF Plan period (2.14% in FY20 and 1.43% in FY 21) exceeds the minimum requirement of 1% annually. Yes: 7 None

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 198,594$ 1,074,659$ 1,273,253$ -$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None

Coos County 1,626,999$ -$ 1,626,999$ 146,001$ Yes Approve STIF PlanYes: 6Abstention: 1 Selena Kelly-Irvin None

Coquille Indian Tribe 316,089$ -$ 316,089$ -$ Yes Approve STIF PlanYes: 6Abstention: 1 Selena Kelly-Irvin None

Curry County 596,700$ -$ 596,700$ -$ No

Project #10: Proposes to expend 30% ($12,000) maintain existing administrative expenses and annual audit

Approve STIF Plan except for Project #10, because it proposes to expend 30% of the budget to maintain transit grant administration and audit services that are currently paid by the Qualified Entity, consistent with OTC rejection consideration #9. Yes: 7 None

Grant County Transportation District 250,000$ 62,500$ 312,500$ -$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None Harney County 250,000$ 1,537,230$ 1,787,230$ -$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None Hood River Transportation District 1,353,208$ 1,250,000$ 2,603,208$ -$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None Josephine County 2,560,507$ 2,939,852$ 5,500,359$ 170,693$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None Morrow County 1,431,200$ 208,500$ 1,639,700$ 130,000$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None

Salem Area Mass Transit District 17,671,371$ -$ 17,671,371$ 3,119,529$ Possibly


Approve STIF Plan because it isn't practicable to feasibly and efficiently implement the reduced student fares program and expand transit service in Fiscal Year 2019 due to the timing of funding being disbersed in May and the school year ending in June. In addition, the overall percentage allocated to student transit over the STIF Plan period (2.34% in FY20 and 2.24% in FY 21) exceeds the minimum requirement of 1% annually. Yes: 7 None

Tillamook County Transportation District 959,400$ 1,831,914$ 2,791,314$ -$ Yes Approve STIF PlanYes: 6Abstention: 1 Jeff Hazen None

Tri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 125,714,950$ 23,090,191$ 148,805,141$ 178,007$ Possibly

Project #4 proposes to spend 50% ($847,500) to maintain service to seniors and persons with disabilities if the 2019-2021 STF budget is reduced.

Approve STIF Plan, except for Project #4, because it proposes to expend up to 50% of the funds to maintain existing ADA and Seniors and Persons Disability transportation if State Special Transportation Funds are reduced in the 2019-2021 legislatively adopted budget, consistent with OTC rejection consideration #9.

Yes: 6Abstention: 1 Dwight Brashear None

Umatilla County 1,883,901$ 2,612,641$ 4,496,542$ -$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None Union County 1,002,300$ 712,181$ 1,714,481$ -$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None Wallowa County 325,000$ 103,190$ 428,190$ 83,139$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None Wasco County 1,228,782$ 465,602$ 1,694,384$ -$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None Yamhill County 3,810,576$ 3,170,084$ 6,980,660$ 50,000$ Yes Approve STIF Plan Yes: 7 None

Totals 161,698,978$ 39,408,544$ 201,107,521$ 3,877,369$

Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program Summary

Qualified Entity Name

Fiscal Year 2019-21 Expenditure Budget Is plan consistent with statute, OARs, guidance, and OTC considerations?

If No, describe inconsistencies that may be basis for rejection of Plan.

PTAC Subcommittee Recommendation to PTAC

Page 5 of 32

Table 2. Statewide Measureable Project Benefits and Outcomes

Qualified Entity Name Revenue Miles Revenue Hours Rides

# of People within 1/2 Mile of Transit Stop

# of Low Income Households within 1/2 Mile of Transit Stop

# of New Stops Shared with Other Providers

# of Rides Provided to Students in Grades 9-12

# of Students in Grades 9-12 Attending a School Served by Transit

# of Students in Grades 9-12 Served by Demand Response

# of Students in Grades 9-12 with Free or Reduced Fares

Baker County 40,932 2,889 7,302 26,800 8,170 1 - 1,350 450 900 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 116,000 2,730 13,000 33,204 4,848 1 - 3,196 - - Coos County 75,538 5,712 56,348 17,788 6,324 2 - 916 1,232 - Coquille Indian Tribe 450 2,800 340 1,332 638 - 660 - 26 - Curry County 153,098 7,063 20,375 121,455 23,635 2 218 316 1,164 498 Grant County Transportation District 65,000 4,680 26,925 3,876 783 - 8,000 - - - Harney County 209,600 41,928 136,968 9,400 5,000 8 - 732 976 488 Hood River Transportation District 296,760 23,922 75,252 26,052 4,123 4 5,080 946 10 500 Josephine County 952,507 54,787 379,988 277,500 45,186 1 78,290 12,000 367 - Morrow County - - - - - - - 1,911 1,274 637 Salem Area Mass Transit District 2,250,779 151,121 1,545,509 1,642,670 279,215 22 - 50,667 600 - Tillamook County Transportation District 620,700 22,800 43,100 87,800 34,060 9 - - 1,067 - Tri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 200,637,207 429,659 29,823,790 1,861,462 486,908 68 8,979 30,955 1,500 5,553 Umatilla County 244,354 21,569 81,356 81,484 20,013 31 - 4,896 400 850 Union County 625,847 18,380 197,392 106,071 26,061 - - 5,358 2,800 1,400 Wallowa County 80,912 9,152 11,728 11,291 5,131 - - 825 825 - Wasco County 160,580 10,309 23,940 65,750 10,930 16 3,050 - - - Yamhill County 628,395 42,008 398,300 482,623 75,740 4 - 28,257 8,147 -

Totals 207,158,659 851,509 32,841,613 4,856,558 1,036,765 169 104,277 142,325 20,838 10,826

Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes

Page 6 of 32

Table 3. Statewide Capital Investment Outcomes

# of Gas or Diesel Vehicles # of CNG Vehicles # of Electric Vehicles

# of Other Alternative Fuel Vehicels

# of Replacement Vehicles

# of Expansion Vehicles Total Vehicles

# of Facilities Constructed/Expanded

# of Units of Equipment Equipment and Facilities Description

Baker County 4 - - - 1 3 4 1 3 Bus Passenger Shelters, Renovate Admin Building Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 5 - - - - 5 5 - - Coos County 2 - - 2 4 - 4 - 5 Signal & Communications Equipment - Miscellaneous Coquille Indian Tribe - - - - - - - - - Curry County - - - - - - - - - Grant County Transportation District - - - - - - - - -

Harney County 2 - - - 2 - 2 1 30 Bicycle Equipment, Bus Route Signing, Construct Bus Storage Facility

Hood River Transportation District 1 - - 5 3 3 6 - - Josephine County 5 - 2 - 2 5 7 - - Morrow County - - - - - - - - 10 ADP Hardware Salem Area Mass Transit District 6 - - - 2 4 6 - - Tillamook County Transportation District 12 - - - 9 3 12 - -

Tri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 48 8 32 1 10 79 89 37 883

ADP Hardware, ADP Software, Bus Passenger Shelters, Bus Route Signing, Construct Busway, Construct Fueling Facility, Miscellaneous Bus Support Equipment, Renovate Admin Building, Bus Passenger Shelters - Engineering & Design

Umatilla County 2 - - - - 2 2 1 - Renovate Admin Building

Union County 5 - - - 3 2 5 - 35 Bus Passenger Shelters, Bus Surveillance / Security Equipment

Wallowa County 1 - - - 1 - 1 - -

Wasco County 2 - - - - 2 2 2 269 ADP Software, Bicycle Equipment, Bus Passenger Shelters, Construct Bus Storage Facility

Yamhill County 17 - - - 14 3 17 - 218 Bus Passenger Shelters, Bus Route Signing, Bus Surveillance / Security Equipment

Totals 112 8 34 8 51 111 162 42 1,453


Vehicle Assets Other Assets

Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

Page 7 of 32

Table 4. Statewide Expenditures Allocated by Program Criteria

Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget

Baker County 154,400$ 30% 298,300$ 57% 46,000$ 9% -$ 0% -$ 0% 12,000$ 2% 8,700$ 2% No

Plan fails to allocate 1% in FY19 to student transit,

but it may be impracticable to do

soConfederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 15,110$ 8% 30,221$ 15% -$ 0% -$ 0% 59,578$ 30% 74,891$ 38% 49,649$ 25% Yes N/ACoos County 451,826$ 28% 249,274$ 15% -$ 0% -$ 0% 749,960$ 46% 150,862$ 9% 25,077$ 2% Yes N/ACoquille Indian Tribe 130,465$ 41% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% 107,163$ 34% -$ 0% 78,461$ 25% Yes N/ACurry County 395,861$ 66% 59,145$ 10% -$ 0% -$ 0% 135,505$ 23% -$ 0% 6,189$ 1% Yes N/AGrant County Transportation District 250,000$ 100% 250,000$ 100% 250,000$ 100% -$ 0% 45,000$ 18% -$ 0% 5,650$ 2% Yes N/AHarney County 52,900$ 21% 22,840$ 9% 16,100$ 6% -$ 0% 79,780$ 32% 34,090$ 14% 44,290$ 18% Yes N/AHood River Transportation District 448,783$ 33% 435,533$ 32% 50,000$ 4% -$ 0% 125,260$ 9% 67,060$ 5% 107,321$ 8% Yes N/AJosephine County 1,122,803$ 44% 758,400$ 30% -$ 0% -$ 0% 155,403$ 6% 94,000$ 4% 422,701$ 17% Yes N/AMorrow County -$ 0% 788,703$ 55% -$ 0% -$ 0% 269,225$ 19% 353,225$ 25% 20,047$ 1% Yes N/A

Salem Area Mass Transit District 15,113,597$ 86% 406,889$ 2% -$ 0% -$ 0% 1,450,961$ 8% 243,999$ 1% 356,855$ 2% No

Plan fails to allocate 1% in FY19 to student transit,

but it may be impracticable to do

soTillamook County Transportation District 290,061$ 30% 290,061$ 30% 32,054$ 3% -$ 0% 121,972$ 13% 91,972$ 10% 133,281$ 14% Yes N/ATri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 24,095,451$ 19% 24,768,814$ 20% 16,165,738$ 13% 41,426,750$ 33% 5,276,349$ 4% 2,234,296$ 2% 11,693,197$ 9% Yes N/AUmatilla County 300,253$ 16% 315,024$ 17% 159,138$ 8% 1,274$ 0% 614,500$ 33% 379,684$ 20% 72,278$ 4% Yes N/AUnion County 602,043$ 60% 606,010$ 60% 71,900$ 7% -$ 0% 694,210$ 69% 713,025$ 71% 115,269$ 12% Yes N/AWallowa County 124,361$ 38% 124,361$ 38% 52,321$ 16% -$ 0% 88,518$ 27% 75,794$ 23% 8,081$ 2% Yes N/AWasco County 336,345$ 27% 647,519$ 53% -$ 0% -$ 0% 210,581$ 17% 6,250$ 1% 28,087$ 2% Yes N/AYamhill County 2,809,015$ 74% 2,907,576$ 76% 242,000$ 6% -$ 0% 822,676$ 22% 478,700$ 13% 1,570,100$ 41% Yes N/ATotals 46,693,275$ 29% 32,958,671$ 20% 17,085,250$ 11% 41,428,024$ 26% 11,006,641$ 7% 5,009,849$ 3% 14,745,231$ 9%

Does Plan Allocate 1% to Student

Transportation for Each Fiscal Year?

If no, does the rationale

demonstrate it is not practicable to

do so?

Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria


1. Increases frequency to areas with high % of Low-Income

Households

2. Expands routes/services to areas with high % of Low-Income

Households

3. Reduces fares in communities with high % of Low-Income

Households

4. Procures of Low or No Emission Buses for use in areas with population of 200,000 or

more

5. Improves frequency and reliability of service between

communities inside and outside of QE's service area.

6. Improves coordination between PTSPs to reduce fragmentation of service

7. Provides student transit for students in grades 9-12

Page 8 of 32

Qualified Entity Summary Tables Baker County

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.


Funds to be Expended in Future Plan Period

Baker County 519,400$ 350,000$ 869,400$ -$ No Possibly


Totals 519,400$ 350,000$ 869,400$ -$

Baker County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name

Fiscal Year 2019-21 Expenditure Budget

Do any projects propose to maintain

existing service?

If Yes, is the rationale consistent with OTC

supported mitigations?

If no, what % of STIF budget is proposed for

maintaining existing service?

Are projects consistent with statute, OARs, guidance, and OTC

considerations?

If No, describe inconsistencies that

may be basis for rejection of Plan.

PTSP Name Revenue Miles Revenue Hours Rides # of People within 1/2 Mile of Transit Stop







Baker County 40,932 2,889 7,302 26,800 8,170 1 - 1,350 450 900 Totals 40,932 2,889 7,302 26,800 8,170 1 - 1,350 450 900

Baker County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes

# of Tradtional Fuel Vehicles (Gas/Diesel) # of CNG Vehicles # of Electric Vehicles

# of Other Fuel Vehicels





Baker County 4 - - - 1 3 4 1 3 Bus Passenger Shelters, Renovate Admin Building

Totals 4 - - - 1 3 4 1 3

Baker County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Page 9 of 32

Table 8.

Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Baker County 154,400$ 30% 298,300$ 57% 46,000$ 9% -$ 0% -$ 0% 12,000$ 2% 8,700$ 2%Totals 154,400$ 30% 298,300$ 57% 46,000$ 9% -$ 0% -$ 0% 12,000$ 2% 8,700$ 2%

Baker County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households

4. Procures of Low or No Emission Buses for use in areas with

population of 200,000 or more





Page 10 of 32

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.



Kayak Public Transit 198,594$ 1,074,659$ 1,273,253$ -$ No Yes

Totals 198,594$ 1,074,659$ 1,273,253$ -$

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name


Do any projects propose to maintain existing

service?






considerations?

If No, describe inconsistencies that may be basis for rejection of

Plan.








Kayak Public Transit 116,000 2,730 13,000 33,204 4,848 1 - 3,196 - - Totals 116,000 2,730 13,000 33,204 4,848 1 - 3,196 - -

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Kayak Public Transit 5 - - - - 5 5 - - Totals 5 - - - - 5 5 - -

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Kayak Public Transit 15,110$ 8% 30,221$ 15% -$ 0% -$ 0% 59,578$ 30% 74,891$ 38% 49,649$ 25%Totals 15,110$ 8% 30,221$ 15% -$ 0% -$ 0% 59,578$ 30% 74,891$ 38% 49,649$ 25%

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 11 of 32

Coos County

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.



Coos County Area Transit Service District 1,626,999$ -$ 1,626,999$ 146,001$ No Yes

Totals 1,626,999$ -$ 1,626,999$ 146,001$

Coos County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Coos County Area Transit Se 75,538 5,712 56,348 17,788 6,324 2 - 916 1,232 - Totals 75,538 5,712 56,348 17,788 6,324 2 - 916 1,232 -

Coos County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Coos County Area Transit S 2 - - 2 4 - 4 - 5 Signal & Communications Equipment - Miscellaneous

Totals 2 - - 2 4 - 4 - 5

Coos County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Coos County Area Transit Service District 451,826$ 28% 249,274$ 15% -$ 0% -$ 0% 749,960$ 46% 150,862$ 9% 25,077$ 2%Totals 451,826$ 28% 249,274$ 15% -$ 0% -$ 0% 749,960$ 46% 150,862$ 9% 25,077$ 2%

Coos County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 12 of 32

Coquille Indian Tribe

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20.



Coquille Indian Tribe 316,089$ -$ 316,089$ -$ No Yes

Totals 316,089$ -$ 316,089$ -$

Coquille Indian Tribe - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Coquille Indian Tribe 450 2,800 340 1,332 638 - 660 - 26 - Totals 450 2,800 340 1,332 638 - 660 - 26 -

Coquille Indian Tribe - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Coquille Indian Tribe - - - - - - - - - Totals - - - - - - - - -

Coquille Indian Tribe - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Coquille Indian Tribe 130,465$ 41% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% 107,163$ 34% -$ 0% 78,461$ 25%Totals 130,465$ 41% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% 107,163$ 34% -$ 0% 78,461$ 25%

Coquille Indian Tribe - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 13 of 32

Curry County

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.



Curry County Public Transit Service District 596,700$ -$ 596,700$ -$ Yes No 6.0% No

Project #10: 30% of $36,000 proposes to

maintain existing annual audit and related

administrative expenses.

Totals 596,700$ -$ 596,700$ -$

Curry County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Curry County Public Transit S 153,098 7,063 20,375 121,455 23,635 2 218 316 1,164 498 Totals 153,098 7,063 20,375 121,455 23,635 2 218 316 1,164 498

Curry County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Curry County Public Transi - - - - - - - - - Totals - - - - - - - - -

Curry County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Curry County Public Transit Service District 395,861$ 66% 59,145$ 10% -$ 0% -$ 0% 135,505$ 23% -$ 0% 6,189$ 1%Totals 395,861$ 66% 59,145$ 10% -$ 0% -$ 0% 135,505$ 23% -$ 0% 6,189$ 1%

Curry County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 14 of 32

Grant County Transportation District

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.



Grant County Transportation District 250,000$ 62,500$ 312,500$ -$ No Yes

Totals 250,000$ 62,500$ 312,500$ -$

Grant County Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Grant County Transportation District 65,000 4,680 26,925 3,876 783 - 8,000 - - - Totals 65,000 4,680 26,925 3,876 783 - 8,000 - - -

Grant County Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Grant County Transportatio - - - - - - - - - Totals - - - - - - - - -

Grant County Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Grant County Transportation District 250,000$ 100% 250,000$ 100% 250,000$ 100% -$ 0% 45,000$ 18% -$ 0% 5,650$ 2%Totals 250,000$ 100% 250,000$ 100% 250,000$ 100% -$ 0% 45,000$ 18% -$ 0% 5,650$ 2%

Grant County Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 15 of 32

Harney County

Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31.

Table 32.



Harney County 250,000$ 1,537,230$ 1,787,230$ -$ No Yes

Totals 250,000$ 1,537,230$ 1,787,230$ -$

Harney County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Harney County 209,600 41,928 136,968 9,400 5,000 8 - 732 976 488 Totals 209,600 41,928 136,968 9,400 5,000 8 - 732 976 488

Harney County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Harney County 2 - - - 2 - 2 1 30 Bicycle Equipment, Bus Route Signing, Construct Bus Storage Facility

Totals 2 - - - 2 - 2 1 30

Harney County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Harney County 52,900$ 21% 22,840$ 9% 16,100$ 6% -$ 0% 79,780$ 32% 34,090$ 14% 44,290$ 18%Totals 52,900$ 21% 22,840$ 9% 16,100$ 6% -$ 0% 79,780$ 32% 34,090$ 14% 44,290$ 18%

Harney County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 16 of 32

Hood River County Transportation District

Table 33.

Table 34.

Table 35.

Table 36.



Hood River County Transportation District 1,353,208$ 1,250,000$ 2,603,208$ -$ No Yes

Totals 1,353,208$ 1,250,000$ 2,603,208$ -$

Hood River Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Hood River County Transportation District 296,760 23,922 75,252 26,052 4,123 4 5,080 946 10 500 Totals 296,760 23,922 75,252 26,052 4,123 4 5,080 946 10 500

Hood River Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Hood River County Transpo 1 - - 5 3 3 6 - - Totals 1 - - 5 3 3 6 - -

Hood River Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Hood River County Transportation District 448,783$ 33% 435,533$ 32% 50,000$ 4% -$ 0% 125,260$ 9% 67,060$ 5% 107,321$ 8%Totals 448,783$ 33% 435,533$ 32% 50,000$ 4% -$ 0% 125,260$ 9% 67,060$ 5% 107,321$ 8%

Hood River Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 17 of 32

Josephine County

Table 37.

Table 38.

Table 39.

Table 40.



Josephine County 2,560,507$ 2,939,852$ 5,500,359$ 170,693$ No Yes

Totals 2,560,507$ 2,939,852$ 5,500,359$ 170,693$

Josephine County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Josephine County 952,507 54,787 379,988 277,500 45,186 1 78,290 12,000 367 - Totals 952,507 54,787 379,988 277,500 45,186 1 78,290 12,000 367 -

Josephine County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Josephine County 5 - 2 - 2 5 7 - - Totals 5 - 2 - 2 5 7 - -

Josephine County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Josephine County 1,122,803$ 44% 758,400$ 30% -$ 0% -$ 0% 155,403$ 6% 94,000$ 4% 422,701$ 17%Totals 1,122,803$ 44% 758,400$ 30% -$ 0% -$ 0% 155,403$ 6% 94,000$ 4% 422,701$ 17%

Josephine County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 18 of 32

Morrow County

Table 41.

Table 42.

Table 43.

Table 44.



Morrow County - The Loop Morrow County Transportation 1,431,200$ 208,500$ 1,639,700$ 130,000$ No Yes

Totals 1,431,200$ 208,500$ 1,639,700$ 130,000$

Morrow County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Morrow County - The Loop Morrow County - - - - - - - 1,911 1,274 637 Totals - - - - - - - 1,911 1,274 637

Morrow County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Morrow County - The Loop - - - - - - - - 10 ADP Hardware Totals - - - - - - - - 10

Morrow County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Morrow County - The Loop Morrow County Transportation -$ 0% 788,703$ 55% -$ 0% -$ 0% 269,225$ 19% 353,225$ 25% 20,047$ 1%Totals -$ 0% 788,703$ 55% -$ 0% -$ 0% 269,225$ 19% 353,225$ 25% 20,047$ 1%

Morrow County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 19 of 32

Salem Area Mass Transit District

Table 45.

Table 46.

Table 47.



City of Silverton 257,700$ -$ 257,700$ -$ No YesCity of Woodburn 1,090,000$ -$ 1,090,000$ -$ No Yes

Salem Area Mass Transit District 14,022,926$ -$ 14,022,926$ 3,119,529$ No Possibly


Salem Area Mass Transit District - Cherriots Regional 2,300,744$ -$ 2,300,744$ -$ No Yes

Totals 17,671,371$ -$ 17,671,371$ 3,119,529$

Salem Area Mass Transit District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



existing service?






considerations?

If No, describe inconsistencies that

may be basis for rejection of Plan.








City of Silverton 20,000 2,080 4,000 10,070 2,000 - - - 600 - City of Woodburn 153,000 9,804 57,600 100,000 16,000 4 - 4,476 - - Salem Area Mass Transit District 1,624,329 122,301 1,378,870 1,380,048 232,040 - - 39,375 - - Salem Area Mass Transit District - Cherriots Regional 453,450 16,936 105,039 152,552 29,175 18 - 6,816 - - Totals 2,250,779 151,121 1,545,509 1,642,670 279,215 22 - 50,667 600 -

Salem Area Mass Transit District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







City of Silverton - - - - - - - - - City of Woodburn 3 - - - 2 1 3 - - Salem Area Mass Transit District 3 - - - - 3 3 - -

#N/A - - - - - - - - - Totals 6 - - - 2 4 6 - -

Salem Area Mass Transit District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Page 20 of 32

Table 48.

Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget City of Silverton 244,815$ 95% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% 12,885$ 5% -$ 0%City of Woodburn 571,250$ 52% 256,250$ 24% -$ 0% -$ 0% 105,000$ 10% 105,000$ 10% 52,500$ 5%Salem Area Mass Transit District 13,611,571$ 97% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% 110,706$ 1% 300,649$ 2%Salem Area Mass Transit District - Cherriots Regional 685,961$ 30% 150,639$ 7% -$ 0% -$ 0% 1,345,961$ 59% 15,407$ 1% 3,706$ 0%Totals 15,113,597$ 86% 406,889$ 2% -$ 0% -$ 0% 1,450,961$ 8% 243,999$ 1% 356,855$ 2%

Salem Area Mass Transit District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 21 of 32

Tillamook County Transportation District

Table 49.

Table 50.

Table 51.

Table 52.



Tillamook County Transportation District 959,400$ 1,831,914$ 2,791,314$ -$ No Yes

Totals 959,400$ 1,831,914$ 2,791,314$ -$

Tillamook County Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Tillamook County Transportation District 620,700 22,800 43,100 87,800 34,060 9 - - 1,067 - Totals 620,700 22,800 43,100 87,800 34,060 9 - - 1,067 -

Tillamook County Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Tillamook County Transportation District 12 - - - 9 3 12 - - - Totals 12 - - - 9 3 12 - -

Tillamook County Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Tillamook County Transportation District 290,061$ 30% 290,061$ 30% 32,054$ 3% -$ 0% 121,972$ 13% 91,972$ 10% 133,281$ 14%Totals 290,061$ 30% 290,061$ 30% 32,054$ 3% -$ 0% 121,972$ 13% 91,972$ 10% 133,281$ 14%

Tillamook County Transportation District - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 22 of 32

Tri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon

Table 53.



Canby Area Transit 730,760$ 37,277$ 768,037$ -$ No Yes City of Portland 1,771,000$ 9,723,434$ 11,494,434$ -$ No Yes

Clackamas County 2,868,654$ 2,191,004$ 5,059,658$ -$ No No Projects #33 and #36 are missing vehicle replacement data.

Columbia County Rider 168,845$ 18,799$ 187,644$ -$ No Yes Multnomah County 2,861,736$ -$ 2,861,736$ -$ No Yes

Sandy Transit 338,874$ -$ 338,874$ -$ No No

Project #17 has incorrectly cited local plan and new tasks must be added to accurately reflect ALI for each type of equipment

South Clackamas Transportation District 402,288$ 120,000$ 522,288$ -$ No Yes South Metro Area Regional Transit 4,129,748$ 4,532,166$ 8,661,914$ -$ No Yes

Tri County Metroplolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) 108,848,060$ 5,406,000$ 114,254,060$ -$ Yes Possibly Possibly

Project #3 ALI and vehicle length are inconsistentProject #6 requires entry of additional tasks with accurate ALIs for each type of equipmentProject #4 proposes to use up 50% of budget ($847,500) to maintain operations services for seniors and disabled persons if the Special Transportation Fund portion of the Governor’s Recommended Budget for 2019-2021 is adopted as proposed. (Note: GRB budget reduces STF budget by $10 through elimination of General funding)

Washington County 3,594,985$ 1,061,511$ 4,656,496$ -$ No No

Project #46 Task 1 requires further clarification of funding sources for bus purchases.Project #49 requires revision of project description or outcomes measures and criteria.

Totals 125,714,950$ 23,090,191$ 148,805,141$ -$

Tri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



existing service?






considerations? If No, describe inconsistencies that may be basis for rejection of Plan.

Page 23 of 32

Table 54.

Table 55.







Canby Area Transit 2 - - - - 2 2 - - City of Portland - - - - - - - - - Clackamas County 15 - - - - 15 15 - - Columbia County Rider - - - - - - - - - Multnomah County 3 - - - - 3 3 - -

Sandy Transit - - - - - - - - 50 ADP Hardware, ADP Software, Bus Passenger Shelters, Bus Route Signing, Renovate Admin Building

South Clackamas Transportation District - - - - - - - - 155 Bus Passenger Shelters, Bus Surveillance / Security Equipment

South Metro Area Regional Transit - 8 3 - 10 1 11 1 1 Construct Fueling Facility, Miscellaneous Bus Support Equipment

Tri County Metroplolitan Transportation District of Oregon (T 24 - 26 - - 50 50 36 677

Bus Passenger Shelters, Bus Route Signing, Bus Surveillance / Security Equipment, Construct Busway, Construct Fueling Facility, Bus Passenger Shelters - Engineering & Design

Washington County 4 - 3 1 - 8 8 - - Totals 48 8 32 1 10 79 89 37 883

Tri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name









Canby Area Transit 58,437 3,900 16,384 38,417 13,139 - - - - - City of Portland 1,283,730 2,172 141,180 65,682 15,568 - - - - - Clackamas County 113,728 10,609 72,978 67,389 16,080 10 4,179 - - - Columbia County Rider 95,040 3,168 16,200 31,142 5,162 1 - 1,703 - - Multnomah County 306,327 14,925 152,933 426,943 141,600 24 - - - - Sandy Transit 31,788 2,184 16,000 29,057 5,084 - 200 - - - South Clackamas Transportation District 55,700 2,652 15,000 16,485 2,124 - 4,600 - - - South Metro Area Regional Transit 610,640 20,392 878,600 53,606 5,090 6 - 1,211 - - Tri County Metroplolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) 197,350,267 323,232 28,249,690 993,465 243,275 - - 28,041 - 2,053 Washington County 731,550 46,425 264,825 139,276 39,786 27 - - 1,500 3,500 Totals 200,637,207 429,659 29,823,790 1,861,462 486,908 68 8,979 30,955 1,500 5,553

Tri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes

Page 24 of 32

Table 56.

Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Canby Area Transit 216,404$ 30% 216,404$ 30% 29,868$ 4% -$ 0% 205,907$ 28% 32,311$ 4% 29,868$ 4%City of Portland 1,771,000$ 100% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0%Clackamas County 893,603$ 31% 1,646,431$ 57% -$ 0% -$ 0% 136,571$ 5% 120,751$ 4% 48,259$ 2%Columbia County Rider 84,423$ 50% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% 84,423$ 50% -$ 0% -$ 0%Multnomah County 692,457$ 24% 695,607$ 24% -$ 0% -$ 0% 736,732$ 26% 736,732$ 26% 210$ 0%Sandy Transit -$ 0% 75,205$ 22% -$ 0% -$ 0% 187,914$ 55% 37,053$ 11% 38,702$ 11%South Clackamas Transportation District 81,300$ 20% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% 214,759$ 53% 78,379$ 19% 27,850$ 7%South Metro Area Regional Transit 833,687$ 20% 556,887$ 13% 276,800$ 7% 660,000$ 16% 901,187$ 22% 745,570$ 18% 155,617$ 4%Tri County Metroplolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) 18,997,181$ 17% 21,527,181$ 20% 15,859,070$ 15% 40,697,200$ 37% 190,000$ 0% 190,000$ 0% 11,357,091$ 10%Washington County 525,397$ 15% 51,100$ 1% -$ 0% 69,550$ 2% 2,618,858$ 73% 293,500$ 8% 35,600$ 1%Totals 24,095,451$ 19% 24,768,814$ 20% 16,165,738$ 13% 41,426,750$ 33% 5,276,349$ 4% 2,234,296$ 2% 11,693,197$ 9%

Tri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households

4. Procures of Low or No Emission Buses for use in areas with population of 200,000 or

more





Page 25 of 32

Umatilla County

Table 57.

Table 58.

Table 59.



City of Hermiston 281,800$ -$ 281,800$ -$ No YesCity of Milton-Freewater 332,901$ 1,059,231$ 1,392,132$ -$ No YesCity of Pendleton 521,500$ 755,157$ 1,276,657$ -$ No YesKayak Public Transit 475,000$ 798,253$ 1,273,253$ -$ No YesUmatilla County 272,700$ -$ 272,700$ -$ No Yes

Totals 1,883,901$ 2,612,641$ 4,496,542$ -$

Umatilla County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








City of Hermiston 40,000 4,000 19,000 36,801 6,488 - - - - - City of Milton-Freewater 16,354 2,704 5,856 14,120 3,490 4 - - - - City of Pendleton 130,000 13,500 50,000 24,676 6,000 26 - 1,700 400 850 Kayak Public Transit 58,000 1,365 6,500 5,887 4,035 1 - 3,196 - - Umatilla County - - - - - - - - - - Totals 244,354 21,569 81,356 81,484 20,013 31 - 4,896 400 850

Umatilla County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







City of Hermiston - - - - - - - - - City of Milton-Freewater - - - - - - - 1 - Renovate Admin Building City of Pendleton - - - - - - - - - Kayak Public Transit 2 - - - - 2 2 - - Umatilla County - - - - - - - - - Totals 2 - - - - 2 2 1 -

Umatilla County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Page 26 of 32

Table 60.

Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget City of Hermiston -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% 281,800$ 100% -$ 0% -$ 0%City of Milton-Freewater 58,363$ 18% 38,959$ 12% 72,463$ 22% 1,274$ 0% 69,300$ 21% 64,149$ 19% 28,393$ 9%City of Pendleton 152,350$ 29% 151,525$ 29% 86,675$ 17% -$ 0% 52,725$ 10% 52,725$ 10% 25,500$ 5%Kayak Public Transit 35,000$ 7% 70,000$ 15% -$ 0% -$ 0% 142,500$ 30% 181,000$ 38% 4,750$ 1%Umatilla County 54,540$ 20% 54,540$ 20% -$ 0% -$ 0% 68,175$ 25% 81,810$ 30% 13,635$ 5%Totals 300,253$ 16% 315,024$ 17% 159,138$ 8% 1,274$ 0% 614,500$ 33% 379,684$ 20% 72,278$ 4%

Umatilla County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 27 of 32

Union County

Table 61.

Table 62.

Table 63.

Table 64.



Union County 1,002,300$ 712,181$ 1,714,481$ -$ No Yes

Totals 1,002,300$ 712,181$ 1,714,481$ -$

Union County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Union County 625,847 18,380 197,392 106,071 26,061 - - 5,358 2,800 1,400 Totals 625,847 18,380 197,392 106,071 26,061 - - 5,358 2,800 1,400

Union County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Union County 5 - - - 3 2 5 - 35 Bus Passenger Shelters, Bus Surveillance / Totals 5 - - - 3 2 5 - 35

Union County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Union County 602,043$ 60% 606,010$ 60% 71,900$ 7% -$ 0% 694,210$ 69% 713,025$ 71% 115,269$ 12%Totals 602,043$ 60% 606,010$ 60% 71,900$ 7% -$ 0% 694,210$ 69% 713,025$ 71% 115,269$ 12%

Union County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 28 of 32

Wallowa County

Table 65.

Table 66.

Table 67.

Table 68.



Wallowa County 325,000$ 103,190$ 428,190$ 83,139$ No Yes

Totals 325,000$ 103,190$ 428,190$ 83,139$

Wallowa County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Wallowa County 80,912 9,152 11,728 11,291 5,131 - - 825 825 - Totals 80,912 9,152 11,728 11,291 5,131 - - 825 825 -

Wallowa County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Wallowa County 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - - Totals 1 - - - 1 - 1 - -

Wallowa County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Wallowa County 124,361$ 38% 124,361$ 38% 52,321$ 16% -$ 0% 88,518$ 27% 75,794$ 23% 8,081$ 2%Totals 124,361$ 38% 124,361$ 38% 52,321$ 16% -$ 0% 88,518$ 27% 75,794$ 23% 8,081$ 2%

Wallowa County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 29 of 32

Wasco County

Table 69.

Table 70.

Table 71.

Table 72.



Mid-Columbia Economic Development District 1,228,782$ 465,602$ 1,694,384$ -$ No Yes

Totals 1,228,782$ 465,602$ 1,694,384$ -$

Wasco County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Mid-Columbia Economic Development District 160,580 10,309 23,940 65,750 10,930 16 3,050 - - - Totals 160,580 10,309 23,940 65,750 10,930 16 3,050 - - -

Wasco County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Mid-Columbia Economic Development Distri 2 - - - - 2 2 2 269 ADP Software, Bicycle Equipment, Bus Totals 2 - - - - 2 2 2 269

Wasco County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Mid-Columbia Economic Development District 336,345$ 27% 647,519$ 53% -$ 0% -$ 0% 210,581$ 17% 6,250$ 1% 28,087$ 2%Totals 336,345$ 27% 647,519$ 53% -$ 0% -$ 0% 210,581$ 17% 6,250$ 1% 28,087$ 2%

Wasco County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 30 of 32

Yamhill County

Table 73.

Table 74.

Table 75.

Table 76.



Yamhill County 3,810,576$ 3,170,084$ 6,980,660$ 50,000$ No Yes

Totals 3,810,576$ 3,170,084$ 6,980,660$ 50,000$

Yamhill County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Formula Program

PTSP Name



service?






considerations?


Plan.








Yamhill County 628,395 42,008 398,300 482,623 75,740 4 - 28,257 8,147 - Totals 628,395 42,008 398,300 482,623 75,740 4 - 28,257 8,147 -

Yamhill County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Measurable Project Benefits and Outcomes







Yamhill County 17 - - - 14 3 17 - 218 Bus Passenger Shelters, Bus Route Signing, Bus Surveillance / Security Equipment

Totals 17 - - - 14 3 17 - 218

Yamhill County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Capital Investment Outcomes

PTSP Name


Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Amount % of STIF budget Yamhill County 2,809,015$ 74% 2,907,576$ 76% 242,000$ 6% -$ 0% 822,676$ 22% 478,700$ 13% 1,570,100$ 41%Totals 2,809,015$ 2% 2,907,576$ 2% 242,000$ 0% -$ 0% 822,676$ 1% 478,700$ 0% 1,570,100$ 1%

Yamhill County - Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund - 2019-2021 Funding Allocated to Key Program Criteria

PTSP Name


Households


Households


Households







Page 31 of 32

APPENDIX A

Public Transportation Advisory Committee

Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Plan Review Subcommittee

Charter December 14, 2018

Mission The PTAC STIF Plan Review Subcommittee’s mission is to review and make a recommendation to PTAC on whether to recommend OTC approval of some or all of the STIF Plans submitted by Qualified Entities to receive STIF Formula Funds. This charter provides an overview of the PTAC STIF Plan Review Subcommittee role in this process. Membership PTAC STIF Plan Review Subcommittee consists of 7 members. Rotating positions are filled by both transportation provider organizations and affiliate groups. The subcommittee will be chaired by a PTAC member, but may include non-PTAC members as co-chair or as subcommittee participants. Terms of Participation • Subcommittee members are eligible to serve for two consecutive two-year terms. However, three of the initial

subcommittee members will be appointed to one-year terms so that members’ terms are staggered. • Subcommittee members are appointed by the PTAC Chair, in consultation with PTAC. • Subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in the business of the Subcommittee. A member may

be removed or replaced if they are unable to actively participate in the business of the committee. Responsibilities The Subcommittee shall be empowered to advise the PTAC on all matters related to the STIF Plans. The Committee shall collaborate with ODOT to facilitate communication of the Subcommittee’s recommendations to PTAC. Specific responsibilities include: • Review ODOT STIF Plan summary reports and STIF Plans, as necessary, to determine whether conditions exist that

would merit a recommendation that PTAC recommend rejection of all or a portion of the STIF Plan and the rationale for such a recommendation.

• Participate in PTAC STIF Plan Subcommittee review meetings, to be scheduled by ODOT. • Discuss individual findings as a group and reach consensus, if possible, on recommendation to PTAC. If consensus

cannot be reached, majority vote rules. The vote and any dissenting opinions will be included in the recommendation for each QE’s STIF Plan.

• Recommend to PTAC whether to approve or reject some or all of the STIF Plans, identifying reasons for potential rejection.

Process • The Subcommittee shall meet or teleconference to receive information about the Subcommittee’s charter and STIF

Plan review process and schedule. • The Subcommittee meetings are not public meetings but the PTAC meetings are public meetings. • Regional Transit Coordinators will attend the review meetings and respond to QE specific questions, if possible.

Page 32 of 32

• ODOT completeness reviewers and PTAC STIF Subcommittee members should be mindful of the roles and levels of authority throughout the Plan review process.

• The Subcommittee’s recommendation to PTAC will be a public document and subject to public review and comment, as part of PTAC public review process.

Decision Making • Subcommittee recommendations will be made by consensus, to the extent possible. When not possible,

recommendations will be made by majority rules with votes and dissenting opinions recorded and shared with PTAC.

• A quorum must be present (in-person, or through any other approved meeting format) to vote on issues referred to the PTAC. A quorum is a simple majority plus one of the voting Subcommittee members.

Conflicts of Interest • Committee members shall discharge their duties in good faith with the care a prudent person in a like position

would exercise under similar circumstances, and in a manner which the member reasonably believes to be in the best interests of public transit.

• Committee members will disclose conflicts of interest prior to participating in a vote and recuse themselves from voting as appropriate.

• Potential personal conflicts of interest identified by members will be resolved as allowed by state law. • Members will abstain from discussions and votes on their own QE’s STIF Plan as well as any STIF Plans of other QE’s

where the member’s QE has an interest in the outcome, such as a project that would benefit the member’s agency is included in another QE’s STIF Plan.

• OAR 731-001-0007(3) sets out two possible types of “conflict.” o The first type of conflict is if there is an “actual conflict of interest as defined in ORS 244.020(1).” OAR 731-001-

0007(3). ORS 244.020(1) defines “actual conflict” for the Public Ethics Law, excepting from the definition circumstances described in ORS 244.020(13): Any action in the person’s official capacity which would affect to the same degree a class consisting of all

inhabitants of the state, or a smaller class consisting of an industry, occupation or other group including one of which or in which the person, or the person’s relative or business with which the person or the person’s relative is associated, is a member or is engaged. The exception would apply when an action applies to the group to the same degree it applies to any individual associate.

o The second type of conflict is if the effect of the action “would be to the benefit or detriment of a beneficiary to whom the member owes a legally imposed duty to act in the best interests of and to whom the member owes the highest degree of loyalty.” OAR 731-001-0007(3). That “conflict” does not apply to generally applicable deliberations and actions that will be applied consistently to all Qualified Entities or all PTSPs.

• Specific to the STIF Plan Review Subcommittee: o Members must disclose any affiliation with a Qualified Entity or Public Transportation Service Provider o Members must recuse themselves from any vote specific to that QE’s or PTSP’s interests o Members will not advocate for their own Projects or Plans, or share new information about those Projects or

Plans not already included in STIF Plan materials o Final recommendations will note any recusals or abstentions