A-02
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Capital Costs
Right of Way and Intersection Improvements
Automated shuttles are capable of operating in mixed traffic but tend to operate slowly as they are programmed to react conservatively to potential conflicts. The use of exclusive right of way will improve service speed and quality.
The multipurpose trail currently extends from the transit center to College Drive. This project will likely require the extension of paved, dedicated pathway of approximately 1,100 feet from S. College Street to the end of the route on the Allan Hancock College campus. A range of $700K to $1.1M per mile has been used as an estimate for this construction.
Additionally, new curb cuts on College Drive will be required to provide shuttles access to the multipurpose path. An estimated cost range of $25K to $50K has been assumed.
College Road Intersection Control
The College Road crossing will pose a challenge to automated shuttles due to the number of lanes, the presence of a median, and lack of consistent breaks in traffic to allow the vehicle to cross. Further analysis will be required to determine the ideal intersection design. At a minimum, a new four-way stop will be required (estimated at $5K for new signs, stop bars, and installation). Should the intersection require a traffic signal, a cost estimate of $250K has been assumed.
Station and Wayfinding Improvements
The Santa Maria Transit Center can serve as the stop on one end; however a second stop will need to be constructed at Allan Hancock College. Infrastructure for this stop could range from signage to a high-quality covered station (assumed to cost $100K). To operate in a demand-responsive mode, riders will require some mechanism for summoning vehicles.
This could be done through an app provided by the vehicle vendor (free) or a kiosk at the Allan Hancock College stop (assumed to cost $10K).
Vehicle Storage and Charging Facility
Vehicles will require a charger near the route where they can be charged intermittently during the day and stored and charged overnight when not in use. This memo assumes that the Santa Maria Transit Center can serve this purpose either with a plug-in charger ($10K) or wireless charging ($125K). The advantage of wireless charging would be the ability for vehicles to position themselves to charge while waiting for passengers at the Santa Maria Transit Center, extending the daily range of the vehicle(s). Additional analysis will need to be conducted to determine the exact power demand for the route.
hdrinc.com
A-03
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Vehicles
The current generation of AV shuttles contain space for 8-15 passengers. Based on an assumed 20-minute round trip, a single vehicle could serve approximately 24-45 passengers per hour in each direction. Rightsizing the fleet based on demand is a key consideration. This memo assumes that one or two vehicles will be required, at an approximate cost of $400K each. Vendors sometimes lease vehicles at a cost of approximately $15K to $20K per month. Length of deployment alters the cost/benefit of purchasing vs. leasing vehicles.
Communications
As an additional form of situational awareness, AV shuttles require highly accurate position data to place themselves within their pre-programmed maps. Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) base stations will be required along the route to help vehicles overcome minor signal deficiencies resulting from tall buildings and nearby topography. Given the length of the route, one base station is assumed at a cost of $20 to $30K.
Vehicle Commissioning
AV shuttles require the collection of high-definition mapping of the route as well as other one-time costs from the vendor associated with initiating service. This cost is estimated at $30K for the first vehicle and an additional $10K per vehicle after that. In addition to the commissioning performed by the vendor, both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) have approval processes for the operation of AV shuttles. NHTSA must grant new shuttle operations a low-speed exemption from certain federal regulations pertaining to vehicles, while the California DMV has established an application process for companies seeking to test or deploy AV technology with or without a driver on board.
Professional Services
Professional services to deploy an AV shuttle system may include such items as project management, public outreach and communications, engineering and detailed design, permitting and environmental approvals, vendor evaluation and selection, and construction oversight. These costs are estimated at 20% to 30% of all capital costs (less the cost of vehicles).
Summary of Capital Costs
COMPONENT CAPITAL COST (LOW) CAPITAL COST (HIGH)
Multi-Use Path $150,000 $230,000
Intersection Improvements $25,000 $50,000
College Road Intersection Control $5,000 $250,000
Station and Wayfinding $10,000 $110,000
Installation of EV Charger $10,000 $120,000
Vehicle Purchase Cost $400,000 $800,000
GNSS Base Station $20,000 $30,000
Vehicle Commissioning $30,000 $40,000
Professional Services $50,000 $250,000
Total Capital Costs $700,000 $1,880,000
hdrinc.com
A-04
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Operating Costs
There are two primary service models for AV shuttle companies:
• The sale of AVs directly to customers to operate themselves • The provision of a fully turn-key service in which the vendor partners with a transit operations company to take on responsibility for all aspects of their operation
This section assumes the former in presenting each line item, followed by a brief discussion of the potential cost for turn-key service.
Vehicle Operation and Insurance
At a minimum, staff time will be required to perform light cleaning and conduct a visual inspection of the shuttle to ensure that there are not any objects (leaves, cobwebs, etc.) that may affect the shuttle from operating optimally. Some AV shuttle deployments have also assumed an operator on board the shuttle to act as a liaison with passengers of the new service. The estimated cost range for staff time is $40K to $240K per year per vehicle based on the extent of operator involvement. Additionally, the insurance cost is assumed at $15K per year per vehicle.
Maintenance
Manufacturers of microshuttle vehicles typically offer a maintenance plan to buyers or lessees at a monthly cost.
This includes the repair or replacement of all hardware components and systems on the vehicle including the battery, cameras, LIDARs, motors, tires, etc. The assumed cost for this is $30K per year per vehicle.
Software Licensing
In many cases, manufactures of AV microshuttles require that the purchaser of the shuttles pay for a software license.
This license covers the current software that is initially deployed with the shuttle and any future enhancements or upgrades to the software on the shuttle. The estimated cost for this is $20K per year per vehicle.
Remote Monitoring
AV shuttle vendors typically remotely monitor the diagnostics and location of the shuttle at all times. The monitoring of the diagnostics of the shuttle would include the temperature inside of the vehicle, state of life of the battery, signal strength of the Wi-Fi and GPS antennae and the overall health of other components & systems. Additionally, AV shuttles include a safety button that allows for a passenger to hit in case of an emergency. This allows for the monitoring team to have voice and visual access to the vehicle to determine the nature of the emergency. The estimated cost for remote monitoring is assumed to be $20K per year per vehicle.
Vehicle Charging
The microshuttles are charged using either a traditional SAE Level 1 or Level 2 AC charger. Using a Level 1 AC charger, the microshuttle can be charge from a 10% state of charge (almost depleted) to a 90% state of charge (almost full) within 8 to 10 hours. Using a level 2 AC charger, the microshuttle can charge from a 10% state of charge to a 90% state of charge within 4 hours. An annual charging cost of $5K per year per vehicle is assumed. hdrinc.com
A-05
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) | Zero Emissions Bus Feasibility Study Turn-Key Operation
As noted, AV shuttle vendors often partner with transit operators to offer turn-key service. The estimated cost for this is approximately $450K per year per vehicle. While this is more expensive than purchasing shuttles and self-operating them, it offers the benefits of quick deployment, lower risk for the agency, and the ability to overcome institutional and workforce technology barriers. Given the scale and duration of this project, leasing a vehicle is likely the most cost- effective option for the John Hancock College shuttle service.
Summary of Operating Costs
COMPONENT ANNUAL COST (LOW) ANNUAL COST (HIGH)
Vehicle Operation and Insurance $55,000 $510,000
Maintenance $30,000 $60,000
Software Licensing $20,000 $40,000
Remote Monitoring $20,000 $40,000
Vehicle Charging $5,000 $10,000
Total Annual Operating Costs $130,000 per year $660,000 per year hdrinc.com
Appendix B
B-01
Solar and BESS Model
Input Assumptions
Load Profile
• Bus charging load based on output of ZERO+ model
“Full Build-out” of 25 buses
• Anticipated bus charging load considered only, no
building loads or other site loads are modeled
• Bus charging load for weekdays and weekends is
consistent over project lifetime, with no diurnal or
seasonal variability, and no annual load escalation
Utility
• PG&E’s Business Electric Vehicles 2 (NEM 2) was
modeled (Tariff Code BEV-2-NEM2)
• 550 kW Subscription Block Size
• 0 kWh NEM Consumption prior to true up
• Secondary connection
• No Energy Surcharge Exemption
• 500 kW grid export limit
• No annual escalation was modeled
Solar PV
• Only the Phase 1 canopy was modeled
• Solar PV capacity and hourly energy production
generated by Helioscope based on site coordinates
• No annual degradation was modeled
• Installed cost: $3/WAC
• O&M cost: $10/kWAC per yr
• 10% ITC
BESS
• Generic” 4-hour Li-ion BESS cost and performance
assumptions were modeled
• 90% Round-trip Efficiency (DC)
• 95% Conversion Efficiency (each way)
• 10 year DC System Calendar Life
• 15 year Conversion System Calendar Life
• 2,000 Cycle through-put life until replacement of DC
system required
• Usable capacity is equivalent to nameplate capacity
until replacement (oversizing assumed)
• DC System Installed cost: $408/kWh
• DC System Replacement cost: $159/kWh
• Conversion System Installed cost: $156/kW
• Conversion System Replacement cost: $73/kW
• O&M cost: $4.4/kW per yr
• SGIP for Large Storage, Step 3, No ITC ($300/kWh,
max $5,000,000, Credit is taxable, marginal tax rate
21%)
Project Economics
• Nominal Discount Rate: 8%
• Expected Inflation Rate: 2%
• Project Lifetime: 25 years
hdrinc.com
City of Santa Maria
State of The Industry Analysis
For Zero Emission Bus Rollout Plan
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 2
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 17, 2018 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) fleet regulation. The ICT requires that all public transit agencies convert to a 100 percent zero-emission bus (ZEB) fleet by 2040. This regulation is aimed at tackling the issues associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their contribution to climate change.
The City of Santa Maria (City) has long been an early adopter of environmentally conscious policies , often pursuing technologies that support and are in line with these adopted goals. ZE B technology is at the forefront of advancements in transportation and are assumed to have the greatest outcome in reducing GHG related emissions.
Current approved options for ZEBs under the ICT reg ulation include battery electric buses (BEB) or (hydrogen) fuel cell buses (FCEB); each type with their respective strengths and challenges.
A one -for-one replacement of existing diesel buses with ZEBs would seem the most obvious transition plan.
However, given Federal Transit Administration (FTA) asset disposition rules, uncertainties with the burgeoning ZEB industry, the limited range capabilities of today’s ZEBs and other operational challenges; it is recommended for the City to meet the ICT regulation by commencing fleet expansion using ZEB technology and then retire the existing diesel fleet into a contingency fleet. Early adoption of ZEBs, in advance of ICT regulation deadlines, will also help the City throughout the process by virtue of qualifying for ICT offered “bonus credits.” Conventional wisdom is that transit facility infrastructure will need to be figured out in advance of any ZEB purchase and delivery. Given construction costs, the time to secure related funding, the potential for construction delays, transit agencies will need to start much earlier than January 1, 2026 in order to meet an initial ICT deadline. The City is currently working with an on -call Architect & Engineering firm to develop transit facility upgrade plans that consider ZEB vehicles, c harging infrastructure requirements, and fleet expansion needs. Further, the City is in communication with energy ( utility) suppliers to take advantage of their no -cost electric infrastructure upgrade programs.
While brand continuity is important in any product or service delivery, highlighting the latest innovations can also create a larger market appeal. A branding scheme will highlight ZEB technology ( e.g., “Zero-Emission Bus” in large font), which could help further motivate and entice choice riders and those on the fringe of such decisions, potentially growing transit ridership.
Reflectively, because ZEB propulsion technology is still widely considered to be in development and not at full maturity, this plan remains a living document and will evolve and mature alongside developing ZEB technology and the various supplement plans necessary to carry out the transition . Rather than prescribing a narrow path, this report represents a concerted effort to create the broadest opportunity for success to meet the ICT regulation.
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 3
2 CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2 3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 4 Background - California Air Resource Board ICT Regulation ................................................................. 6
4.1 Other Vehicle Types ...................................................................................................................... 7 5 Required Rollout Plan ........................................................................................................................... 7 6 Joint Zero-Emission Bus Groups ............................................................................................................ 8 7 Early Credits Toward Achieving ICT Fleet Regulations .......................................................................... 9 8 Implementation Goals, Process and Further Strategies ..................................................................... 10
8.1 Diesel vs. ZEB............................................................................................................................... 10
8.2 Transition Plan- Existing Fleet ..................................................................................................... 10
8.3 Fleet Expansion ........................................................................................................................... 12
8.3.1 FTA - Spare Ratio ................................................................................................................. 12
8.4 Mitigating Risk – “An Insurance Policy” ...................................................................................... 13
8.4.1 FTA - Contingency Fleet ...................................................................................................... 14
8.5 Mid-Life Bus Rehabilitation of Existing Diesel Fleet .................................................................... 14 9 Battery and Fuel Cell Electric buses .................................................................................................... 15
9.1 (Hydrogen) Fuel Cell Electric Bus (FCEB) ..................................................................................... 15
9.2 Battery Electric Bus (BEB) ........................................................................................................... 15
9.3 Electric vs. Hydrogen Fuel Cell .................................................................................................... 16 10 Marketing, Branding and Livery Opportunity ................................................................................. 16 11 Deployment of ZEBs in Disadvantaged Communities ..................................................................... 17 12 Facility Upgrade and ZEB Readiness ............................................................................................... 18
12.1 Transit Operations & Maintenance ............................................................................................ 18
12.2 Downtown Transit Center - Opportunity Charging ..................................................................... 19
12.2.1 Overhead, Inductive and Plug-In Charging ......................................................................... 19
12.3 Charging Levels and Capabilities ................................................................................................. 20 13 S
takeholders ................................................................................................................................... 21
13.1 Operations & Maintenance Contractor ...................................................................................... 21
13.2 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) ...................................................................................................... 21
13.3 Monterey Bay Community Power ............................................................................................... 22
13.4 State of California’s Department of Goods and Services (DGS) .................................................. 22
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 4
13.5 Electric Chargers Vendors ........................................................................................................... 23
13.6 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) .......................................................................................... 23
13.7 3rd Party Off-site Fuel Vendors .................................................................................................... 24
13.8 Santa Barbara Council of Governments (SBCAG) ....................................................................... 24
13.9 other area Transit Agencies ........................................................................................................ 24 14 Deployment and Training ............................................................................................................... 25 15 Costs and Potential Funding Sources .............................................................................................. 25 The transition to ZEB’s will likely not be an inexpensive one, initially. Although the City is seeking to take advantage of no-cost and affordable programs, like any other transformative project, there are initial and potentially ongoing costs. Even beyond any potential infrastructure costs, ZEB’s are more expensive than traditional diesel buses. ................................................................................................. 25
15.1 Operational and Life-time Costs ................................................................................................. 25
15.2 Incentive and Financial Assistance Programs ............................................................................. 27
15.3 Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) .............................. 27
15.4 Volkswagen Settlement (VW) ..................................................................................................... 27
15.5 Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) ........ 28
15.6 Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) .......................................................................................................... 28
15.7 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) ...................................................................... 29
15.8 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)...................................................................... 29
15.9 Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) .............................................................................................. 30
15.10 Air Pollution Control District (APCD) ........................................................................................... 30
15.11 CA Assembly Bill (AB) 617 ........................................................................................................... 30
15.12 USDOT Funding Opportunities .................................................................................................... 30
15.13 FY19 BUILD (formally known as TIGER) ....................................................................................... 30
15.14 Fund Balance ................................................................................................................................ 31 16 Procurement ................................................................................................................................... 31
16.1 Purchase vs. Lease ...................................................................................................................... 31 17 Alternative Zero Emission Mobility Program Credits ...................................................................... 32
17.1.1 City’s Active Transportation Plan ........................................................................................ 33 18 Impacts, Considerations and Conclusion ........................................................................................ 33
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 5
3 INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Maria (City) is located in the Central Coast region of California, halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. As the largest city in Santa Barbara, Santa Maria is home to governmental, medical, economic, and educational hub for other cities in the in norther Santa Barbara County. The City has a population of roughly 109,217 (Source: 20120 Census) with an estimated additional population of 20,000 residents in its public transit service area.
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) is the local fixed-route public transit system for the City, operating directly out of the City’s Public Works Department. As of J anuary 2021, SMRT operates 12 fixed routes, in a hub- and-spoke model, within the 34 square miles of the City limits and adjoining unincorporated communities of Tanglewood and Orcutt. SMRT operates Monday through Friday approximately from 6 am to 8:30 pm and Saturday and Sunday from 8 am to 6 pm.
SMRT ridership demographics reflect a broad cross section of the public. These including Seniors, Persons with Disabilities , Socially or Economic Transit Dependent, K -12 Students, College Students, Working Professionals, Visitors and other Choice Riders . Trips are often taken for employment, medical, educational, commercial and social engagements, making the City’s publi c transit system a vital lifeline service for many in the community.
SMRT is subject to several organizational authorities and their respective policies. The City Council is the legislative authority which sets the policies under which the City’s programs operate. The City Council has the power to adopt ordinances , resolutions, plans, establish policies, approve programs, establish fees, appropriate funds, adopt budgets and approve contracts.
Further, like other public transit systems, SMRT is state and federally subsidized. The US Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the State of California’s Transit Development Act (TDA) contribute funding to the City’s transit program. SMRT is therefore subject to the rules , regulations and policies of these stakeholders as well. The transit program must therefore reconcile local, regional, state and federal rules when implementing its program.
Another major stakeholder of the City’s t ransit system are the people it serves. The public has direct access to participating in the improvements and management of SMRT services. By direction of the City Council, the Mass Transit Committee (MTC) provides t hem input on matters related to transit. The committee is an advisory body comprised of citizen volunteers. Their purpose is to gather input and represent the general public on matters of setting priorities and to provide feedback during the planning processes. MTC advisory body includes representation from: Senior, Disabled, Technical, University, Student and At-Large community members.
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 6
4 BACKGROUND - CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCE BOARD ICT REGULATION On December 17, 2018 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) fleet rule. The ICT regulation requires that all public transit agencies operating in the State of California convert to a 100 percent zero-emission bus (ZEB) fleet by 2040, with intermittent deadlines in between. This regulation is aimed at tackling the issues associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and its contribution to climate change; transportation being a significant contributor to GHG emissions. “Conversion to a Zero-Emission Bus” means converting from a conventional internal combustion engine bus to a zero -emission bus as defined in section 2023(b)( 54) of the regulation. "Zero -Emission Bus” or “ZEB” means a bus with zero tailpipe emissions. Accordingly, diesel, clean diesel, compress natural gas, propane or any other fossil fuel and nonrenewable fuel type, including hybrids, do not qualify as a zero- emission bus because of their tail pipe emissions and therefore do not meet the ICT regulation.
The requirements for the transition from fossil fueled buses to ZEB’s differ for large and small transit agencies. Larger transit agencies have more imminent deadlines for complying with ICT regulations. Per the rule, commencing on or before January 1, 2024, no less than 25% of large transit agencies vehicle procurements will need to be ZEB technology , with similar and more aggressive percentage purchase requirements thereafter (see table below).
The ZEB purchase requirements for small transit agencies – such as in the case for San Luis Obispo – go into effect soon after. In the case of small transit agencies, on or before January 1, 2026 no less than 25% of the San Luis Obispo transit fleet procurements will need to be ZEB technology. Similarly, incremental conversion of the transit fleet will also need to continue thereafter (see table below).
By 2029, both small and large transit agency procurements will need to be 100% ZEB technology to meet the 2040 ICT deadline. More information about the ICT regulation can be found under: Innovative Clean Transit regulations, Title 13, Article 4.3, California Code of Regulations.
Given the definition for zero -emission vehicles , current approved options for ZEBs under the ICT regulation include battery electric bus or (hydrogen ) fuel cell electric buses. Therefore, the only approved path in vehicle procurement types, towards meeting the ICT regulation, include procuring one of these two options. A greater explanation about the each of these two types of vehicles is provided under Section 10: Battery And Fuel Cell Buses section of this report.
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 7
4.1 OTHER VEHICLE TYPES
At this time, the ICT regulation is specifically focus on the transition of traditional heavy-duty transit buses, ranging in 30 to 45 feet in length. However, p urchases of “ other vehicles types” such as cutaways, over-the-road coaches, double-deckers, or articulated buses are still subject to the zero - emission bus purchase requirements as specified in section 2023.1(a) but at a later date. However, if on or after January 1, 2026, if one of these other type vehicles has also passed the bus testing procedure and obtained a Bus Testing Report (referred to as Altoona testing)) for a given weight class, vehicles in the City’s transit fleet of those types will also have to transition to ZEB technology.
Given that technologies for these other vehicle types is still pending, this report will focus on transitioning conventional heavy-duty vehicles to approved ZEB solutions and in time to meet the most pertinent ICT regulation deadline. Nevertheless, the crux of this plan can still be used for the eventual transition of these other vehicle types once that technology has matured. 5 REQUIRED ROLLOUT PLAN
As part of the ICT regulation, a Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan is required of every transit agency. A small transit agency must submit a Zero -Emission Bus Rollout Plan (Rollout Plan) , which meets specific requirements, to their Executive Officer for approval/adoption by July 1, 2023.
Rollout Plans must include all the following components per the ICT regulation:
1. A goal of full transition to zero-emission buses by 2040 with careful planning that avoids early retirement of conventional internal combustion engine buses;
2. Identification of the types of zero -emission bus technologies a transit agency is planning to deploy, such as battery electric or fuel cell electric bus;
3. A schedule for construction of facilities and infrastructure modifications or upgrades, including charging, fueling, and maintenance facilities, to deploy and maintain zero-emission buses. This schedule must specify the general location of each facility, type of infrastructure, service capacity of infrastructure, and a timeline for construction;
4. A schedule for zero-emission and conventional internal combustion engine bus purchases and lease options. This schedule for bus purchases must identify the bus types, fuel types, and number of buses;
5. A description on how a transit agency plans to deploy zero -emission buses in disadvantaged communities as listed in the latest version of CalEnviroScreen (https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen)
6. A training plan and schedule for zero -emission bus operators and maintenance and repair staff; and
7. Identification of potential funding sources.
Transit agencies that are collectively complying by forming a Joint Zero-Emission Bus Group, as set forth in section 2023.2, may submit one joint Rollout Plan in lieu of an individual transit agency. This approach will be elaborated upon further in Section 6: Joint Zero Emission Bus Groups, section of this plan.
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 8
6 JOINT ZERO-EMISSION BUS GROUPS
An additional option for Transit agencies complying with the Roll Out Plan part of the ICT group includes creating a Joint ZEB Group. Two or more transit agencies may choose to form a Joint Zero -Emission Bus Group (Joint Group) to comply with the requirements of section 2023.1 collectively. All participating transit agencies must be located within either:
• The same service area of a Metropolitan Planning Organization or Regional Transportation Planning Organization;
• Same Air Basin;
• The same Air Quality Management District,
• Air Pollution Control District,
• Air Resources District; or,
• All participating transit agencies plan to share infrastructure.
6.1 Procedure to form a Joint Group
A group of transit agencies forming a Joint Group must provide the Executive Officer a notice at least one year before the Joint Group takes effect. The notice must include all of the following information:
1. A list of all participating transit agencies;
2. A statement of intent to form th e Joint Group from a responsible official for each participating transit agency;
3. The proposed start year and if known the end date of the Joint Group;
4. A description on which criteria specified in section 2023.2(a) are met to form a Joint Group.
The Executive Officer can approve the joint agreement if,
1. At least one of the criteria set forth in section 2023.2(a) has been met, and
2. The notice required by section 2023.2(b)(1) has been provided.
3. The Executive Officer will assign a Joint Group Number to the group to be used by each participating transit agency for the purpose of annual reporting as specified in section 2023.8. (c) Joint Group Compliance Requirements.
Once formed, members of a Joint Group may collectively submit one joint Rollout Plan in lieu of individual transit agency Rollout Plans, along with the approval from each transit agency’s governing body as set forth in section 2023.1(d)(3). Subject to section 2023.3(c), members of a Joint Group must collectively purchase and operate at l east the same total number of zero -emission buses annually as each transit agency would be required to purchase and operate individually as set forth in section 2023.1(a).
A Joint Group that is requesting a deferral from zero-emission bus purchase requirements as described in section 2023.4 must explain why the compliance requirements cannot be met by each member of the Joint Group. If a Joint Group fails to comply with the zero-emission bus requirements set forth in section 2023.1 in a given year, each transit agency will be evaluated for compliance individually. If the largest transit agency in a Joint Group is a large transit agency, this transit agency must have the required
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 9
minimum number of zero-emission buses as a percentage of its total new bus purchases in that calendar year as set forth in section 2023.1(a).
In case of a change in membership, all participating transit agencies, including the new or departing transit agency, must collectively submit a request to change membership to the Executive Officer explaining the change and its expected effective date. The member change request must be signed by the responsible official of each participating transit agency, including the new or departing transit agency, and must be submitted to the Executive Officer along with the governing body approval of each participating transit agency, for such a change. All transit agencies participating in a Joint Group must individually meet the reporting and record-keeping requirements of sections 2023.8 and 2023.9.
This option of participating in a Joint Zero Emission Bus Group could offer the City strategic benefits.
Notably, if one transit agency in such a group is more ready to deploy ZEB vehicles than the other(s), the entire group benefits regardless of which agency makes the advancement. This could also help transit agencies when regional funds are limited, and it becomes difficult to fund more than one agency that wants to deploy the more expensive ZEB solutions. This way, funding support does not create winning or losing agencies. Given the criteria and requirements for determining qualifying participating agencies for forming such a group, it could be beneficial for SMRT to develop and exercise a Joint ZEB Group with other area transit agencies such as: SLO RTA, Santa Maria Transit, Monterey Salinas Transit and perhaps others associated with the City, as set forth by the approved criteria for a joint group. 7 EARLY CREDITS TOWARD ACHIEVING ICT FLEET REGULATIONS
Another strategy towards meeting ICT fleet regulation is by starting the transition to ZEBs early. Transit agencies with purchases made in advance of the requirement dates will be credited towards their percentage requirements for ZEBs. A transit agency will also earn Zero-Emission Bus Bonus Credits (Bonus Credits) for each early acquisition of a zero-emission bus as determined based on the following criteria:
1. Each fuel cell electric bus that was in the fleet as of January 1, 2018 receives two Bonus Credits;
2. Each fuel cell electric bus placed in service between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2022 receives one Bonus Credit;
3. Each battery electric bus that was in the fleet as of January 1, 2018 receives one Bonus Credit;
4. Each electric trolleybus placed in service between January 1, 2018, and D ecember 31, 2019, receives one-tenth of a Bonus Credit that will expire by December 31, 2024.
Unless as specified in section 2023.3(a)(4), transit agencies that have Bonus Credits can use them in any subsequent year until December 31, 2028 to meet the required minimum number of zero-emission buses as set forth in section 2023.1(a)(4). Each Bonus Credit may only be used once to meet the zero-emission bus purchase requirements set forth in section 2023.1(a)(4). All Bonus Credits will expire on December 31, 2028, which is when the one hundred percent zero -emission bus purchase requirement begins. A Bonus Credit cannot be transferred to another transit agency but may be used by transit agencies participating in a Joint Group to comply with zero-emission bus purchase requirements collectively as set forth in section 2023.2(c)(2).
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 10
8 IMPLEMENTATION GOALS, PROCESS AND FURTHER STRATEGIES
The City has long been an early adopter of environmentally conscious policies. Often, pursuing technologies that are in line with these adopted goals. ZEB technology is considered to be at the forefront in advancements in transportation technology and are assumed to have the greatest outcome in reducing GHG related emissions.
Transitioning the City’s public transit fleet to zero emission technology is in line with the City’s adopted 2019 Major City Goals, particularly with regard to Climate Action and Sustainable Transportation. Further, the City’s adopted 2017 -22 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) also calls for advancements in transit technology that support sustainable transportation goals.
Outside the City, these efforts are also supported by various emission reduction strategies such as those outlined in the SLOCOG Regional Transportation Plan and the SLO County APCD’s Clean Air Plan. The City’s plan for a ZEB transition supplements and is harmonious with these other plans.
Given that both state and local government support the transition of the City’s fleet to ZEB technology, this report is self-evident of a genuine and mutual desire to, at a minimum, meet – if not exceed - ICT fleet regulations. Recognizably however, because ZEB propulsion technology is still widely considered to be in development and not at full maturity, this plan remains a living document and should be allowed to evolve and mature alongside burgeoning ZEB technology.
The process and strategies presented in this report for transitioning of the City’s Transit fleet to ZEB’s provides a look at both State and Federal requirements, as well as the provisions made by each of these legislative group to which could support a path towards meetings the ICT regulation. Rather than prescribing a narrow course, this plan represents an effort to create the broadest opportunity for success.
The timeline for implementing these strategies are subject to many factors. Financial constraints being the largest of these. Deliverable timelines will often be tied to when funding can be secured. Regardless, some ideas presented in this report also aim to take advantage and leverage reduced and cost -free opportunities that will help the agency advance towards meeting the ICT regulation deadline.
8.1 DIESEL VS. ZEB
While there have been a number of documents produced in support of both the ecological and financial benefits of converting from a fossil fueled transit fleet to ZEB technology (i.e. See page 15 of the October 2000 CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf), the fact remains that the ICT regulation remains in effect despite any polemic views. Therefore, although germane to some, the absolute necessity for a transit system operating in the state of California to comply with ICT regulation remains intact, rendering such discussion irrelevant . Therefore, for purposes of this report, such differencing views on the ecological and financial benefits of pursuing ZEB technolog y will remain omitted. Rather, the report will focus on methods for complying with the State ICT regulations.
8.2 TRANSITION PLAN- EXISTING FLEET
The City Transit fleet is categorized as a “small transit agency” by both State and Federal definitions.
Within its roster, the City has a fleet of 17 revenue vehicles and two nonrevenue support vehicles (i.e.
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 11
maintenance truck and a Road Supervisor van). Of the 17 revenue vehicles, 14 of them are traditional heavy-duty low floor diesel bus, ranging 30 to 40 feet in length. The remaining three (3) revenue vehicles are classified as “other types” of transit vehicles by the ICT regulation ; one being a double-decker bus (diesel), a cut-away (gasoline) and trolley replica (gasoline) vehicle. See Section 4.1: Other Vehicle Types for more about how the ICT regulation applies to these “other types” of vehicles. Many of these vehicles were purchased with the assistance of Federal funds making them subject to federal disposition rules. See Fleet Roster table below.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides a minimum “useful life” policy for capital rolling stock (transit vehicles). Useful life of transit vehicles is defined in the FTA Circular 5010.1E and provisions that a transit vehicle purchased with Federal financial support should remain in service for no less than 12 years or 500,000 miles before being retired. If the asset is prematurely withdrawn from service, FTA must be immediately notified (See Section 4. O.3 “Disposition or Inappropriate Use Before the End of the Asset’s Useful Life”). Such early dispositions are usually accompanied by proportionate reimbursement of FTA funds. Therefore, any transition to ZEB technology should be done in compliance with FTA approved vehicle disposition timelines.
Fleet Roster:
Looking at the SMRT fleet roster, no less than twenty-two (22) heavy-duty vehicles qualify to be retired, now and in the next ten (10) years, under FTA’s disposition polices. Transition of at least some of these vehicles could commence in advance of January 1st, 2026 to meet the ICT regulation while simultaneously avoiding the concern of non -approved “early retirement of conventional internal combustion engine buses.”
Vehicle # Year VIN Number License Plate Length Make Model Fuel Type Engine Seating Accessible Date In Service Age Remaining YEARS Current Odometer Remaining MILES 4010-195 2010 15GGD2711A1176931 1237592 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 7/1/2010 12 -1 388,694.0 40,727 4011-160 2011 15GGD2174B1176472 1237599 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 11/1/2011 11 0 381,230.0 120,367 4011-168 2011 15GGD2716B1176473 1237598 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/15/2014 11 0 356,388.0 121,372 4014-174 2014 15GGD2715D1182526 1329052 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/15/2014 8 3 459,273.0 111,306 4014-165 2014 15GGD2711D1182524 1329050 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/16/2014 8 3 365,825.0 134,175 4014-167 2014 15GGD2713D1182525 1329056 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/17/2014 8 3 379,633.0 132,754 4014-180 2014 15GGD2710D1182529 1329058 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/18/2014 8 3 367,246.0 134,906 4014-176 2014 15GGD2717D1182527 1329054 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/19/2014 8 3 365,094.0 150,485 4014-168 2014 15GGD2717D1182530 1329056 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/20/2014 8 3 378,628.0 146,219 4014-160 2014 15GGD2719D1182528 1329055 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/21/2014 8 3 349,515.0 68,178 4014-194 2014 15GGD2719D1182531 1329057 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/22/2014 8 3 353,781.0 96,276 4014-161 2014 15GGD2718D1182522 1329049 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/23/2014 8 3 431,822.0 118,770 4014-162 2014 15GGD271XD1182523 1329048 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 2/24/2014 8 3 403,724.0 143,612 4017-198 2017 15GGD2717H1187281 1381063 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 3/15/2017 5 6 223,102.0 276,898 4017-199 2017 15GGD2719H1187282 1381062 40' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 38 Yes 3/15/2017 5 6 212,901.0 287,099 3518-179 2018 15GGB271953190540 1381080 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 32 Yes 4/15/2018 4 7 160,121.0 339,879 3518-178 2018 15GGB271233190539 1381079 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 32 Yes 4/15/2018 4 7 163,279.0 336,721 3018-186 2018 15GGE2716J3093254 1381077 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 28 Yes 4/16/2018 4 7 137,153.0 362,847 3518-184 2018 15GGB271033190541 1381078 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 32 Yes 4/17/2018 4 7 147,961.0 352,039 3020-177 2020 15GGE2714L3093921 1381101 30' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 28 Yes 8/1/2020 2 9 38,214.0 461,786 3521-203 2021 15GGB2711M3193551 1381106 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 32 Yes 12/25/2021 1 10 19,443.0 480,557 3521-202 2021 15GGB271XM3193550 1381105 35' GILLIG LOW FLOOR Diesel Cummins 32 Yes 12/25/2021 1 10 16,891.0 461,786 35-22-200e 2022 7JZTG13J0NL000574 TBD 35' Proterra LOW FLOOR Electric N/A 28 Yes TBD 0 11 459.0 499,541 35-22-201e 2022 7JZTG13J2NL000575 TBD 35' Porterra LOW FLOOR Electric N/A 28 Yes TBD 0 11 522.0 499,478
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 12
Even though, a one-for-one replacement of the diesel buses with ZEB’s would seem the apparently most logical transition plan, given a few uncertainties with the burgeoning ZEB industry and other existing operational challenges, a different approach is being recommended in the next section of this plan.
8.3 FLEET EXPANSION
At peak service level, SMRT operates twelve (12) routes using 1 4 of its 17 fixed-route vehicles. This appears to leave three (3) vehicles as spares (16% spare ratio). This however assumes that none of the three (3) are “down” for maintenance or repairs. But, given that the remaining three (3) vehicles are the nontraditional (other) vehicle types, these vehicles are not necessarily interchangeable (e.g. double - decker, cutaway and replica trolley) with the trad itional heavy -duty low floor buses being used on traditional routes. This, therefore, renders the SMRT fleet with essentially a 0% spare ratio. This is a major challenge for the transit agency in providing consistency and reliability of service wh en there are unexpected issues in the field and more than one vehicle needs to be replaced.
Compounding, SMRT ridership averages half a million rides annually and is expected to continue to grow steadily over the next few years. Peak trips are already at or exceeding vehicle capacity. The City’s adopted 2017-22 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) recommends expansion of the transit program to half hour bus service, versus the currently hourly bus service, to support the growing demand and alleviate peak ridership loads. To accomplish this more vehicles will be needed in service and as spares.
8.3.1 FTA - Spare Ratio
As a best practice, the Federal Transit Administration supports a 20% spare vehicle ratio (FTA Circular 9030.1C) to support ongoing/rotating maintenance programs and continuity of service when unexpected service delays or maintenance issues occur in the field. Spare ratio is defined as the total number of spare *Does not include Double Decker, Cutaway or Trolley
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 13
vehicles available for fixed-route service divided by the total number of fixed-route vehicles required for annual maximum service. Spare ratio is usually expressed as a percentage, e.g., 100 vehicles required for maximum fixed-route service and 20 spare vehicles is a 20 percent spare ratio.
The basis for determining a reasonable spare bus ratio takes local circumstances into account. FTA does not set a specific spare ratio for smaller transit operators but expects the number of spare buses to be reasonable, taking into account the number of vehicles and variety of vehic le types and sizes. Buses delivered for future expansion and buses that have been replaced, but are in the process of being disposed of, are not included in the calculation of spare ratio.
Recipients of buses recently procured may temporarily exceed their spare ratio thresholds. In those cases, recipients may seek a short -term deviation from the spare ratio requirements for small deviations.
Recipients should prepare a brief justification explaining the reason for the deviation, a date by which the fleet spare ratio will come into compliance with the general requirements, and the recipient’s plans to come into compliance. The deviation will generally be granted for no more than two (2) years and must be approved by the regional administrator either in writing or by approval of the Award (Page IV-30 FTA C 5010.1E). Recipients must promptly inform the Regional Office of any significant changes related to spare ratios, including plans for disposition or acquisition of vehicles and changes in vehicle needs.
Based on the 2017 -22 SRTP recommended service levels, in the next five (5) years SMRT could use in service no less than six (6) additional transit vehicles at peak service, bringing the total traditional heavy- duty transit vehicles in service to 20, plus three (3) other vehicle types. A 20% spare ratio (of 23 vehicles) would therefore justify an additional five (5) vehicles on stand -by to serve as spares and support ongoing/rotating maintenance programs and continuity of service when unexpected service delays or maintenance issues occur in the field. This brings the total fleet size to no less than 28, with 25 traditional heavy-duty buses and three other vehicle types, generalizing no expansion in these.
Expansion of the SMRT fleet with ZEBs would not only support SMRT’s service requirements but w ould help the City meet ICT r egulations. Therefore, the recommended path for SMRT to meet the ICT regulation is to commence fleet expansion using ZEB technology and then replace the existing diesel fleet on a one -for-one basis as financial support materializes. Granted, another alternative to retiring and disposition of diesel transit buses remains and could be advantageous, as described in the next section of this report.
8.4 MITIGATING RISK – “AN INSURANCE POLICY”
Though ZEB propulsion technology is already being deployed in various parts around the globe, it is also still widely considered to be in development. Particularly, vehicle battery technology is still evolving and has not yet reached maturity. The limited deployment of hydrogen fuel cell buses has also yield ed insufficient feedback on the technology’s maturity. A recognizable amount of challenges, questions and unknowns in deploying a ZEB fleet are still unaccounted for. For example; do ZEBs provide the same range as conventional diesel buses or will more ZEBs be needed to provide the same level of service because of range issues? What if your infrastructure (battery or hydrogen) goes out? Given the limited number of ZEB ready locations; where will ZEB fleets find alternative fueling opportunities , such as in the case of emergencies or unexpected outages ? One method for addressing these questions, and essentially “creating an insurance policy ” against such unknowns , is accomplished by “retiring” the existing diesel fleet to a contingency fleet as they reach the end of their FTA defined “useful-life.”
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 14
8.4.1 FTA - Contingency Fleet
FTA recognizes two types of vehicles —active and contingency. An active fleet i ncludes vehicles that are maintained and rotated on a regular schedule into service. A contingency fleet means an inactive vehicle reserved or retained for emergencies or other unforeseen and justified activities. A lthough still maintained, a contingency fleet, is not scheduled for revenue service outside of unique circumstances or activities. These activities could include the evacu ation of people during an emergency, use as crowd control or traffic barriers, loaners to other transit agencies during a justified need, temporary replacements for buses in the active fleet during major active fleet overhauls or bus maintenance activities and other activities that take a portion of the active fleet temporarily out of service.
Vehicles stockpiled in a contingency fleet in preparation for emergencies must have met their minimum useful life requirements and must be properly stored, maintained, and documented in a contingency plan.
FTA will also permit agencies to include vehicles that have met their minimum useful life in their contingency fleet if an agency is introducing zero emission vehicles into its fleet. These vehicles are not included in the calculation of spare ratio. Contingency plans are subject to review during triennial reviews and other FTA oversight reviews. Any vehicles not supported by a contingency plan will be considered part of the active fleet.
A transit agency should keep a record of information that demonstrates the need for the contingency fleet activation, the justification for activation and the period of activation. The contingency fleet plan should demonstrate that the bus has met its useful life by identifying the year the bus was placed in service, the year and mileage when removed from service and the useful life of the bus in years and miles. The plan should identify where the buses will be stored, how they will be protected and list the maintenance activities performed on the bus to ensure they maintain their contingency bus fleet status. A contingency fleet is separate from the spare fleet and is not included in the spare ratio.
Although the City remains committed to the pursuit of the latest clean transportation technology, and the contingent retired diesel fleet will see no use outside of justifiable applications as herein identified, the creation of a contingency fleet with the soon to be retired diesel buses - vehicle conditions permitting - remains advantageous to maintain until ZEB technology is further time tested and proven over a longer period. This would allow the City to employ ZEBs in the field with at least some confidence that there are substitute vehicles still available should expectations for the ZEBs deployment fall short.
8.5 MID-LIFE BUS REHABILITATION OF EXISTING DIESEL FLEET There are still significant challenges in implementing a plan where the existing diesel fleet with an impending end of useful -life and retirement date cont inues to operate as part of the transit agencies multi-year ZEB transition process. Namely, vehicles near or at their “end of useful -life” will experience less reliability issues in the field.
One solution to mitigate this would be to conduct a mid -life rehabilitation of those vehicles ready to be retired. A mid-life rehabilitation, or overhaul, of a transit vehicle generally repairs and/or replaces major components that are necessary to maintain a “road worthy” vehicle. Costs for a transit vehicle mid- life rehabilitation/overhaul tend to run at less than 1/3 of the purchase price of a completely new bus , depending on the condition of the vehicle.
If the rehabilitation/overhaul is done using F TA funds, as likely to be the case , FTA will require that the end of useful-life date of that vehicle be extended by an additional five years , before the vehicle can be
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 15
retired and disposed of. Since compliance with the ICT regulation is based on the proc urement of new ZEBs and allows for a ZEB transition process to take place over the course of the next ten (10) years (2029), extending the life of the existing fleet would not be in violation of any ICT regulation. 9 BATTERY AND FUEL CELL ELECTRIC BUSES
Given the definition for zero-emission vehicles current approved options for ZEBs, under the ICT regulation, include battery electric bus or hydrogen fuel cell electric buses. Therefore, the only approved path in vehicle procurement types, towards meeting the ICT regulation, include one of these two options.
9.1 (Hydrogen) Fuel Cell Electric Bus (FCEB)
Fuel Cell Electric Bus or “FCEB” means an electric bus that uses both a hydrogen fuel cell stack and a battery for propulsion. The fuel cell stack generates electricity on board to charge the battery that powers the on-board motor. It has no internal combustion engine in the powertrain. A fuel cell electric bus relies on its hydrogen tank and fuel cell stack onboard for its energy supply.
One advant age of FCEB’s is that FCEB s are typically regarded as having a mileage range equivalent to a diesel bus. Except for the difficulty in finding a hydrogen fueling station, operationally there tends to be no difference in how a transit system manages FCEB’s from diesel buses in route or in fueling processes. FCEB’s also tend to be less subjective to the impacts in temperature change; albeit typically not a concern in San Luis Obispo.
Some of the most noted drawbacks of FCEB’s is the relatively high vehicle and infrastructure capital costs, especially if the City should undertake construction of its own hydrogen fueling station. Despite any prior and ongoing efforts, hydrogen fueling opportunities are still very limited in availability and there are none at the time of this report in the County. The SLO County APCD has a current request for proposals (RFP) to install a hydrogen station for light -duty vehicles. OEM Cut sheets each type of ZEB can be found in Appendix B to this plan.
9.2 BATTERY ELECTRIC BUS (BEB)
Battery Electric Bus” means a bus that has an all-electric propulsion system and relies only on batteries to store electricity received from an external power source of the vehicle. It has no internal combustion engine in the powertrain for the vehicle.
BEB’s have quickly become the most widely produced ZEB solution by bus manufacturers. Almost all major transit vehicle manufacturers, along with new BEV specific manufactures, offer a BEB products in their line of vehicle options.
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 16
Some of the most noted drawbacks of BEB’s is there underperforming mileage range abilities. Transit agencies that have been early adopters of BEB’s have reported that their BEB’s are not achieving the travel range promoted by the BEB manufacturers. Regardless of the brand. The range deficiencies are being attributed to differe nces in manufacturer’s unladed weight tests in a controlled environment, differing from real world applications of BEB’s loaded with ancillary transit equipment, passengers, temperature variations, driver’s vehicle management capabilities and varying grade changes along routes. This is generally created and been referred to as “range anxiety.” In other words, the concern if a BEB could provide, at minimum, the same level of revenue service as a diesel bus would. OEM Cut sheets are provided as an Appendix B to this plan.
9.3 ELECTRIC VS. HYDROGEN FUEL CELL
Though BEB propulsion technology is still developing, it is widely considered to be more mature and viable of the two alternatives. Accordingly, BEBs are being considered by most transit agencies that do not have Hydrogen fueling infrastructure in place . Therefore, given the compatibility of BEB with the City’s current transit operations model , existing incentive programs specifically for BEB’s and the infrastructure cost of hydrogen versus electric, an electric powered transit fleet appears to be the most promising and economically feasible. Regardless, the City should maintain a healthy skepticism about the actual performance capabilities of BEB’s considering the existing reports from early adopters and known batter degradation issues, to be elaborated upon later.
However, if the City were not required to build and manage the fueling infrastructure for a hydrogen fueling station because it was to become available via a third-party vendor, a hydrogen fuel cell bus should still be considered as a possible alternative. See Section 12.9: THIRD PARTY OFF-SITE FUEL VENDORS for more information.
10 MARKETING, BRANDING AND LIVERY OPPORTUNITY
Transitioning to ZEB technology can also be
leveraged to create new opportunities to
capture market share and grow transit ridership.
The conventional wisdom about transit often
divides riders into two categories: “choice”
riders —people with automobile alternatives —
and “captive” riders — people who must use
transit because they don’t have alternatives
(Streets BLOG USA). Given that “choice riders”
riders are making conscious decisions whether
to use a personal automobile or not, it is important to und erstand and foster those decisions that drive them to public transit.
One reason often cited for choosing not do drive are the ecological benefits of riding public transit. A reason cited just as high as the financial benefits of riding public transit, according to some studies. Given that ZEB technology further enhances the ecological benefits of using public transit; the transition to ZEB Example of an All-Electric Branding Scheme
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 17
technology could be touted in the marketing, branding and livery of the vehicles to further emphasize this benefit.
While brand continuity is important in any product or
service delivery, highlighting the latest innovations can also create new and larger market appeal, potentially
growing transit ridership. A new system wide branding
scheme, complete “one-off’s,” a few vehicles, or even just one vehicle with slight modifications to existing transit branding schemes with call outs (e.g. “Zero Emissions” in large font ) highlighting the ZEB technology could help further motivate and entice ch oice riders and those on the fringe of such decisions.
11 DEPLOYMENT OF ZEBS IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Disadvantaged communities in California are specifically targeted for investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade program. CalEPA designated the top 25 percent of census tracts in CalEnviroSceen
3.0 as disadvantaged communities for the purpose of investing cap-and-trade proceeds in April 2017. “CalEnviroScreen” is the mapping tool developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) at the request of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to identify California’s most pollution-burdened and vulnerable communities based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria. Similarly, the ICT Rule requires a concerted effort and plan to deploy ZEB’s in disadvantaged communities.
However, according to Calenviroscreen, there are no disadvantaged communities in Santa Maria. There are however five pockets of low -income co mmunities which can be seen (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/communityinvestments.htm). The low- income da ta is based on Assembly Bill 1550. The low -income areas are considered “priority populations.” Though these populations should be prioritized, deployment of ZEBs need not exclusively service only these areas.
Routes that service intermittingly both prio rity and non- priority areas should still be considered. This Example of a ZEB Call Out
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 18
would work well for the City as all transit routes pulse in and out of some of the CalEnviroscreen identified AB 1550 communities.
12 FACILITY UPGRADE AND ZEB READINESS
Conventional wisdom is that the transit facility infrastructure part will need to be figured out in advance of any ZEB purchase and delivery. Given construction costs, the time to secure construction funding, the potential for delays, transit agencies will need to start much earlier than January 1, 2026 in order to meet the ICT deadline. Expenses and work incurred in upgrading a transit facility’s infrastructure do not satisfy the ICT regulation deadlines. Compliance with ICT is solely determined by the transition of the actual vehicles and not based on expenses incurred for facility readiness.
12.1 TRANSIT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
SMRT operates out of the City’s Transit Operations & Maintenance Facility located at 1303 Fairway Dr.
The 3-acre site is land locked and as such, any modernizations of the facility will largely be constrained to the existing area.
This City owned facility was originally constructed in the 1980’s. The site has largely gone unimproved since original construction. Th e current design includes employee parking lot for employee and visitors at the front of the facility, an approximately 5,900 sq. feet of administrative building and a 22,00 sq. feet two-bay maintenance garage in the middle of the grounds, and 34 bus parking stalls on the west and north of building facilities . A bus wash system was added few years later and stands adjacent on the northeast end of the property.
Two efforts are already underway to update the existing Transit Operations & Maintenance Facility and ready it for ZEBs. The City has committed funds to work with an on -call Architect & Engineering firm to develop facility upgrade plans that take into account ZEB technology, an expanded fleet and charging infrastructure requirements. This study is anticipated to be completed in early 2020. The final A&E design plan will become Appendix C to this report.
Further, the City is in talks with PG&E to take advantage of their “Electric Vehicle Readiness Program” which is a no cost electric infrastructure upgrade program for qualifying applicants. As part of the program, PG&E will develop a conceptual plan for upgrading transformers and running conduit and power to preidentified vehicle charging stations locations. More about the work with PG&E can be found in the Section 12.3: STAKEHOLDERS – PG&E section of this report. Implementation of this plan is anticipated to take place early or mid-2020. The produced PG&E conceptual plan will become Appendix D of this report.
Another resource for readying the City’s Tran sit Yard is to incorporate the help and services of ZEB Manufacturers. Some ZEB manufacturers , such as Proterra and BYD for example, are offering “free” assessment of a transit agencies yard with the proposal of helping the agency ready their yard for ZEB solutions. If a yard assessment and conceptualization by a ZEB OEMs is produced, it will also become an Appendix to this plan.
While the underway plans for facility infrastructure upgrades are specific to the main maintenance facility, depending if the City employs BEB’s ; plans for “opportunity charging” infrastructure (in route charging
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 19
stations) should also be considered. The types of opportunity charging systems will also be evaluated in the next section of this plan . If developed, opportunity charging plans will become an A ppendix to this plan.
12.2 DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER - OPPORTUNITY CHARGING
Although necessary charging time has been reduced as battery technology advances, buses may still need to charge more periodically than prior fueling schedules and even while in service. Removing a vehicle from service and replacing it with another is particularly difficult when there aren’t already any replacement spare vehicles available. Because the electric bus battery range is still in development and not quite the same as in a diesel bus, buses will need to be charged while in route. “Opportunity charging” is a way to supplement vehicle energy needs as it creates occasions for short additional charges (“top- off’s”) at a convenient place(s) along the route. Preferably these are installed already existing a layover locations to avoid inconveniencing passengers.
The City’s Downtown Transit Center is prime location for opportunity charging options . Making use of already existing route layovers, primarily created for passengers transfers at the Transit Center, buses could get as much as a ten- minute charge after every loop. Even on the rare occasions when a bus is running behind and the layover period is reduced, supplement charges throughout the day may help the limited BEB technology meet service needs without having to be swapped out any sooner than a diesel bus would have . Notably, opportunity charging makes use of high kilowatt chargers to create “fast charging” levels of reenergizing vehicle batteries.
12.2.1 Overhead, Inductive and Plug-In Charging
In order to provide for the broadest opportunity for success, proprietary charging systems should be avoided when possible. Rather, standardized universally adopted equipment should be preferred.
For plug- in options, SAE J1772 ( IEC Type 1), also known as a "J plug", is a North American standard for electrical connectors for electric vehicles maintained by the SAE International. "SAE Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice J1772, SAE Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler" covers the general physical, electrical, communication protocol, and performance requirements for the electric vehicle conductive charge system and coupler. The intent is to define a common electric vehicle conductive charging system architecture including operational requirements and the functional and dimensional requirements for the vehicle inlet and mating connector. Most, if not all electric bus OEM’s have switched to this model plug- in connector. This type of charging options is suitable most depot (transit yard) charging solutions. One the biggest benefits of this type of charging system is that it is the widest deployed and common solution.
For overhead pantograph charging solutions, SAE J1771CCS is currently the widest employed mode.
However, this model has not yet been universally recognized by all or even a majority of electric bus OEMs.
Depending on the electr ic bus OEM, this type of charging solution is be st used for in-route opportunity charging scenarios, such as at a transfer/transit center. One the biggest benefits of this type of charging system is that it the infrastructure is largely out of the way and does not necessarily create any travel barriers for passengers.
A final option for BEB charging solutions included inductive inground charging. This limited deployed solution charges a bus contactless using an inground inductive charger and is most suitable for
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 20
transfer/transit center opportunity charging. One the biggest benefits of this type of charging system is that it requires no additional actions form the driver other than parking the vehicle over the charger and initiating (pushing a button) to start the charging process.
12.3 CHARGING LEVELS AND CAPABILITIES
There is a plethora of electric vehicle charger unit manufacturers available in today’s market. Narrowing the field will namely come down to compatibility with the other organizations that City is working with for BEV’s solutions. See Section 12.7: Electric Chargers Vendors section of this report for more info on the recommended vendors.
EV Charging units will need to be installed at the bus Transit Operations & Maintenance Yard. This will require some careful planning to integrate the “refrigerator size” units in a way that does not negatively impact vehicle ingress, egress and parking availability at the facility. Such plans are necessary and in development by the on-call Architect & Engineering firm . See section 8.4.1 Operations & Maintenance Yard and section 9.2 PG&E for more information about the development of Yard upgrades.
EV Charging units come in both “slow” and “fast” charge options. The speed of the charge is dependent on their kilowatt (kW)capabilities. Slow charge units range from 30 to 60kWs. While Fast charge units range from 150kW to 600kW.
As a general rule, the lower the kW’s, the longer it takes to charge th e vehicle, but also inherently; less energy consumption is needed to do so. While the higher the kW’s, the faster the charging capabilities are, but inherently a much higher energy consumption is demanded. OEM manufactures suggest that with Slow charging units, it could take approximately six (6) hours to fully charge a BEV. While a fast charging unit is suggested to do it in about two (2) hours for most vehicles available in today’s market.
While the immediate re action maybe to only procure “fast” EV charging units, the higher energy consumption demands are problematic for almost all transit agencies , unless they have their own sub power station necessary to provide such high kilowatts of energy. Even with slow charge units, attempting to charge all the vehicles at the same time is problematic for the same reason. To address this , most EV charger OEMS offer software solutions for what they call “load balancing.” Load balancing software uses telemetric algorithms to prioritize vehicle charging so that not all vehicle are charged at the same levels simultaneously which would create an over demand on the grid.
Given that vehicles could take up to as much as six (6) hours to charge, this period will need be reflected in transit agencies service levels . At a minimum six hours of non -service time will need to exist. For example, a transit service that begins at 6am every morning will need bus service to end no later than 11 or 12pm in order to create the six (6) hours needed for vehicle charge times.
Therefore, the transit system will need to carefully work with their EV charging vendors for a mix of solutions to strike a balance between fast and slow charge capabilities.
Strategies to be include are:
• Not depleting vehicle batteries to 0% charge while in service so that the charging time does not require the OEM’s maximum charge time
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 21
• Continuously evaluating and adjusting the minimum out-in-field percentage charge with the manufacturers artificial 0% charge level
• Integrating mid-route opportunity charging for short “top-offs” • Staggered vehicle bus yard return times for staggered charging times and offsetting energy demands
• Ensuring that there are at least six (6) hours of no service every night • Have vehicles initially use a fast charge unit for a quick (high energy) charge before going over to the slow (low energy) charge units, potentially cutting charging time down 13 STAKEHOLDERS
Stake holders will play a significant part in the success of this transition plan. Even non-traditional stakeholders will play a vital role in the success of this transition plan.
13.1 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR
The City of Santa Maria contracts out the operations & maintenance of City’s public transit system to a third-party vendor. The current co ntract is with RATPDev (contractor). The contractor provides their services directly out of the City’s Transit Operations & Maintenance Yard under a lease program and which is included as part of the larger service contract.
The c ontractor employs administrative and maintenance staff along with dispatchers and drivers to deliver the transit services as prescribed by the City. The contractor is responsible for the proper maintenance and fueling of the City owned vehicles under a similar lease program. The contractor is also responsible for developing and implementing, with City participation, these resources in the most efficient manner possible. The contractor does however hold much of the operational knowledge for an efficient workflow process for intaking and dispatching vehicles throughout the day. Their participation in a redesign of the Transit Yard and employing ZEBs in the field would be advantageous.
What is more , the contractor’s d rivers can have a considerable impact on ZEB vehicle performance .
Achieving suggested OEM ZEB ranges will depend on how a driver manages the vehicle and their driving style. Some suggest that the variance can be by as much as 20%. The Contractor will have to retrain and work closely with their drivers to help achieve ranges closer to OEM proposed mileage ranges.
13.2 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC (PG&E)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has developed and adopted a new, five-year programs aimed at accelerating widespread electric vehicle (EV) adoption. The new program will increase fast charging options for consumers as well as electric charging infrastructure for non -light-duty fleet vehicles. Under the Electric Vehicle Charge Network program, PG&E will pay for and build the infrastructure from the electric grid to the charging equipment, complementing state and privately funded initiatives.
Additionally, PG&E will offer a significant rebate towards the purchase of fast chargers for customers based in those areas.
The city is already in discussions with PG&E to learn more about this infrastructure upgrade and readiness program. PG&E is evaluating the City’s request to ascertain if it is viable project. Entering into a contract
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 22
with PG&E would be required if the City desired to moved forward with their program. A determination for PG&E to enter into a contract with the City will be made in part based on advancements towards vehicle electrification readiness. Adding urgency to the Transit Yard Upgrade study. Regardless, any transit yard modernizations should also be done in conjunction with PG&E’s as the area’s utility provider.
If and when produced, the PG&E conceptual plan will become an Appendix to this report.
13.3 MONTEREY BAY COMMUNITY POWER
Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) is a Community Choice Energy agency established by local communities to source carbon-free electricity for Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo and now Santa Barbara counties while retaining PG&E’s traditional role delivering power and maintaining electric infrastructure. As a locally controlled not -for-profit, MBCP is not taxpayer funded and supports Tri-County economic vitality by providing cleaner energy at a lower cost, supporting low -income rate payers, and funding local renewable energy projects.
On December 5, 20 20 the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) Policy Board unanimously approved the inclusion of the cities of Santa Maria as new members to the list of municipalities served by MBCP, one of California’s most innovative and fastest growing Community Choice Energy (CCE) agencies.
Community Choice Energy has long been a key strategy for Santa Maria to meet their climate goals. The plan is for the City to purchase renewable and mitigated cost electricity from MBCP. This could help in the deployment of BEB’s.
13.4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES (DGS) The State of California’s Department of Goods and Services (DGS) has just completed an extensive Request for Proposals for ZEBs. All public transit agencies will be able to participate from this RFP. Given that this streamlines the acquisition process, helps ensure a vetted product and secures competitive pricing, this will be the likeliest source from which ZEBs are selected for purchase.
The CA DGS contract is likely to provide multiple vehicle options for purchase from today’s leading ZEB manufacturers. While the City remains agnostic to brands and allows for an open, fair and competitive purchasing processes, early indications show that qualifying participating ZEB manufacturers possibly include: BYD, Gillig, New Flyer and Proterra vehicles.
Pricing for these vehicles will be dependent on the State of California’s Department of Goods and Service contract. However, costs are assumed to vary from $7 00,000 to $800,000 per vehicle. Most vehicle procurements are expected to take anywhere from 14 to 18 months from the Notice to Proceed to until delivery of the vehicle. Granted, compliance with the ICT regulation is not based on having ZEBs in
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 23
operations before the agency’s deadline but rather that procurements after the deadline will need to conform to the ICT regulation schedule. See Section 14: Procurement for more information.
Given that these four (4) manufacturers are also largely shaping the industry and standardization of electric infrastructure, modernization of the Transit Yard would clearly benefit from being designed to accommodate any of these companies, or the similar, to achieving the broadest possibility of “future proofing” as possible. OEM Cut sheets for their various ZEB solutions is found in Appendix of this report.
13.5 ELECTRIC CHARGERS VENDORS
The industry has recently seen an explosion in electric vehicle charging solutions. Staff has evaluated 20 different potential vendors who offer electric vehicle solutions. However, PG&E has narrowed the field to vendors who are compatible with their electric vehicle infrastructure upgrade and readiness program.
While, again, the City remains agnostic to brands and allows for an open, fair and competitive purchasing processes, early indications show that qualifying participating electric vehicle charging solution manufacturers that are the most universally compatible with the with the aforementioned BEB OEMS include ABB, BTC , ChargePoint, and Siemens. Therefore, inclusion of electric vehicle chargers would benefit from being designed to accommodate any o f these companies’ products and solutions, or the similar, for the broadest possibility of “future proofing” the transit agency.
Cost per “typical” charging unit vary depending on the vendor. Early analyses of informal quotes suggest that prices could be anywhere from $45,000 per 60 -kilowatt charger to over $ 75,000 per 125-kilowatt charger. Actual costs will very. A list of other potential electric charger vendors is found in Appendix E of this report.
13.6 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is a major The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program (49 U.S.C. 5307) makes federal resources available to urbanized areas and to governors for transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation-related planning. An urbanized area is an incorporated area with a population of 50,000 or more that is designated as such by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Funding is made available to designated recipients that are public bodies with the legal authority to receive and dispense federal funds. Governors, responsible local officials and publicly owned operators of transit services shall designate a recipient to apply for, receive, and dispense funds for urbanized areas pursuant to 49USCA5307(a)(2). The governor or governor's designee acts as the designated recipient for urbanized areas between 50,000 and 200,000.
The federal share is not to exceed 80 percent of the net project cost for capital expenditures. The federal share may be 90 percent for the cost of vehicle- related equipment attributable to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act. The federal share may not exceed 50 percent of the net project cost of operating assistance.
The Federal Government, particularly the Depart of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides a minimum useful life policy for capital rolling stock, trolleys, ferries, and facilities as previously covered in Section 6.4 Transition Plan of Existing Fleet.
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 24
Further, the Federal Government also approves which vehicles are approved to be purchased with federal funds. Approved OEM’s must comply with a number safety and policy regulations. These include but are not limited to Altoona testing, Buy America and DBE requirements.
Even if any new vehicles are procured without the help of federal funding assistance, transit agencies will typically maintain these at federally funded facilities . Therefore, as a best practice, transit agencies typically adhered to all applicable federal policies, as the most stringent, to avoid any future findings and issues with FTA.
13.7 3RD PARTY OFF-SITE FUEL VENDORS
One largely absent fundamental amenity in pursuing FCEB’s is ability to purchase hydrogen fuel from 3 rd Party Off-Site Fuel Vendors. While there are a number of existing initiatives to expand Hydrogen fueling station options throughout the region, none have yet materialized. Therefore, unless the City’s Transit Maintenance Facility can take on the monumental task of cr eating an onsite fuel system, which is very unlikely because of facility size constraints, FCEB’s are not an immediate option. However, should a 3 rd Party Fuel Vendor provide the option for off-site fueling, like with diesel, FCEB’s become more desirable to BEB’s because of their better comparatively to diesel buses in range. See Section 10.1 Fuel Cell Bus for more information.
13.8 SANTA BARBARA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SBCAG)
SBCAG holds several designations that give it the authority to allocat e funding and plan for a variety of projects that affect the seven incorporated cities and the unincorporated areas of the County. As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO, the agency is responsible for all transportation planning and programming ac tivities required under federal law. This includes the development of long- range transportation plans and funding programs, and the selection and approval of transportation projects using federal funds. Further, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) SBCAG is responsible for conducting a comprehensive, coordinated transportation program; developing a long range inter- modal transportation plan, a 20-year planning document updated every four years; programming of state funds for transportation projects; and the administration and allocation of transportation development act funds required by state statutes.
Any advancements and deployment of ZEB’s should be cognoscente of SBCAG adopted goals and policies as to reduce potential for conflicts resulting in less than enthusiastic funding support…
13.9 OTHER AREA TRANSIT AGENCIES
The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) provides intercommunity public transportation.
RTA’s service area includes all of San Luis Obispo County and extends into Santa Barbara County to the south. RTA provides regional fixed -route service (RTA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit service (Runabout).
RTA is a JPA (Joint Powers Authority) in San Luis Obispo County that operates bus service connecting cities throughout San Luis Obispo County (and beyond), including Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo and more. RTA also oversees the administration of
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 25
South County Area Transit (SCAT) which operates in the Five Cities area of Shell Beach, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Oceano and Arroyo Grande.
RTA is also the likeliest of partners for forming a Joint Zero Emission Bus Group. Careful coordination with RTA could be advantageous for creating redundancy, interoperability, buying power and other strategic benefits, if and when possible. However, it should be noted that because of the geographical distances and great grade variations of RTA routes, uniformity of equipment might not be achievable with today’s ZEB solutions. Similarly , other area transit agencies would could offer the same or similar benefits for mutual support in ZEB transition process.
14 DEPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
While deploying a ZEB fleet is not entirely different from deploying a diesel fleet, there are some nuances that SMRT will need to overcome. For example, the management and maintenance of the fleet… • Maintenance training provided by the OEM
• New PPE equipment
• Staff to participate in webinars, conferences, local and national training courses , conduct many site visits, etc.
15 COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The transition to ZEB’s will likely not be an inexpensive one, initially. Although the City is seeking to take advantage of no-cost and affordable programs, like any other transformative project, there are initial and potentially ongoing costs. Even beyond any potential infrastructure costs, ZEB’s are more expensive than traditional diesel buses.
15.1 OPERATIONAL AND LIFE-TIME COSTS
All-electric buses can save transit agencies money in annual operating costs from reduced fuel and maintenance costs, while also providing more predictability in costs each year since electricity prices are relatively stable compared to fuel prices
One analysis found that an e lectric bus saves
nearly $2,000 a year in fuel and $4,400 a year in
reduced maintenance costs. These year to year
savings means that, in the long-run, electric buses
are often cheaper than their diesel counterparts.
While electric transit buses costs around
$300,000 more than diesel buses, lifetime fuel
and maint enance costs of diesel transit buses
savings of electric buses are around $ 300,000.
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 26
Figures 2 and 3, this means that the total lifecycle costs of electric buses are lower than those of diesel buses.
Based solely on sticker price, electric buses are more expensive than diesel buses. An electric transit bus costs around $700,000, while a diesel transit bus costs around $500,000. 25 An electric school bus costs around $230,000, while a diesel school bus costs around $110,000. 26 Although lower fuel and maintenance costs mean that electric buses save money over their lifetimes, the higher upfront cost still acts as a barrier to transit agencies and school districts that want to make the switch. Below are s everal options these agencies and districts may have that can help overcome the hurdle of the purchase price and begin to make the transition to electric buses. Many of the options presented below can be used in conjunction with one another to lower overal l costs. When this is possible, the financials will work out even better in favor of the electric bus operator.
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 27
15.2 INCENTIVE AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
15.3 HYBRID AND ZERO-EMISSION TRUCK AND BUS VOUCHER INCENTIVE PROJECT (HVIP) The California Air Resources Board (CARB), in partnership with CALSTART, launched the Hybrid and Zero- Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) and Low NOx Engine Incentives in 2009, to accelerate the purchase of cleaner, more-efficient trucks and buses in California. Any commercial vehicle user in California, including municipal fleets, smalls businesses, school districts and more. If you would like to participate, the vehicle you purchase must be domiciled and operate for at least 3 years in California after the voucher redemption date. Fleets must also submit activity reports for 3 years.
As of July 23, 2019, all funds available for HVIP for Fiscal Year 18 -19 have been requested, and a waitlist is in effect. Vouchers can still be requested, however they will not be reviewed or approved until more funds are available. Additional funds are anticipated to be available in January 2020. Updates will be posted here when available.
• First come first served
• Currently oversubscribed and has a wait list
• Applied for the by bus OEM vendor to offer discount on the purchase of the vehicle (https://www.californiahvip.org/
)
15.4 VOLKSWAGEN SETTLEMENT (VW)
The Volkswagen (VW) Environmental Mitigation Trust (Trust) provides about $ 130 million for California to mitigate th e excess nitrogen oxide (NO X) emissions caused by VW's use of illegal emissions testing defeat devices in certain VW diesel vehicles. The Trust is a component of partial settlements with VW • $130 Million statewide in Trust to invest in technologies that reduce harmful emissions • First come first served
• $180,000 for electric buses and $400,000 for Hydrogen buses • Does require the retirement of an older vehicle which is not compatible with the contingency and fleet expansion plan
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 28
• Funds could use as local match (cannot be stacked) with HVIP or other CARB funds
(https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/volkswagen-environmental-mitigation-trust- california/about)
15.5 CARL MOYER MEMORIAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ATTAINMENT PROGRAM (CARL MOYER
PROGRAM)
The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) provides grant funding for cleaner-than-required engines, equipment, and other sources of air pollution. The Carl Moyer Program is implemented as a partnership between CARB and California’s 35 local air districts. CARB works collaboratively with the air districts and other stakeholders to set Guidelines and ensure the Program reduces pollution and provides cleaner air for Californians. Local air districts administer Moyer Program grants and select projects to fund. Find out how you can apply and receive funding. • 94 million for compliant `fleets
• 80,000 depending on usage and emission of
• 15% of the cost share
• Can help with charging infrastructure
o 50% of any project but up to 60% if open to the public and 65% if there is solar or wind component or 75% if open to the public and solar or wind component (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/carl-moyer-memorial-air-quality-standards-attainment- program)
15.6 ASSEMBLY BILL 617 (AB 617)
In response to Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) established the Community Air Protection Program (CAPP or Program). The Program’s focus is to reduce exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. CARB staff has already begun working closely with local air districts, community groups, community members, environmental organizations, and regulated industries to develo p a new community -focused action framework for community air protection.
This first -of-its-kind statewide effort, established by AB 617, includes community air monitoring and community emissions reduction programs. In addition, the Legislature has appropriated funding to support early actions to address localized air pollution through targeted incentive funding to deploy cleaner technologies in these communities, as well as grants to support community participation in the AB 617 process. AB 617 also include s new requirements for accelerated retrofit of pollution controls on industrial sources, increased penalty fees, and greater transparency and availability of air quality and emissions data, which will help advance air pollution control efforts throughout t he State. This new authority provides an opportunity to continue to enhance our air quality planning efforts and better integrate community, regional, and State level programs to provide clean air for all Californians.
Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017)
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 29
15.7 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP)
The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is one of several programs that are part of the Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program established by the California Legislature in 2014 by Senate Bill 862. The LCTOP was created to provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. Approved projects in LCTOP will support new or expanded bus or rail services, expand intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance and other costs to operate those services or facilities, with each project reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For agencies whose service area includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50 percent of the tota l moneys received shall be expended on projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities. Senate Bill 862 continuously appropriates five percent of the annual auction proceeds in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Fund) for LCTOP, beginning in 2015-16.
This program will be administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in coordination with Air Resource Board (ARB) and the State Controller's Office (SCO). Caltrans is responsible to ensure that the statutory requirements of the prog ram are met in terms of project eligibility, greenhouse reduction, disadvantaged community benefit, and other requirements of the law. (
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/rail-and-mass-transportation/low-carbon-transit-operations-program- lctop)
15.8 TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL PROGRAM (TIRCP) The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) was created by Senate Bill (SB) 862 (Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014) and modified by 9 (Chapter 710, Statutes of 2015), to provide grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to fund transformative capital improvements that will modernize California’s intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems, and bus and ferry transit systems to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, vehicle miles traveled, and congestion. The legislation of these bills is established in Sections 75220 through 75225 of the Public Reso urces Codes (PRC). Assembly Bill 398 (Chapter 135) extended the Cap and Trade Program that supports the TIRCP from 2020 through 2030. SB 1 (Chapter 5) continues to provide a historic funding increase for transportation with funds directed to the TIRCP fr om the Public Transportation Account for new programming to achieve the following objectives:
• Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions;
• Expand and improve rail service to increase ridership; • Integrate the rail service of the state’s various rail operations, including integration with the high- speed rail system; and
• Improve safety
The California Department of Transportation, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), will be responsible for administering this program
(https://dot.ca.gov/programs/rail-and-mass-transportation/transit-and-intercity-rail-capital-program)
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 30
15.9 LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARDS (LCFS)
In 2009 the Board approved the LCFS regulation to reduce the carbon intensity (CI) of transportation fuel used in California by at least 10 percent by 2020 from a 2010 baseline. In 2011, the Board approved amendments to clarify, streamline, and enhance certain provisions of the regulation. In 2015, the Board re-a
dopted the LCFS to address procedural issues, which began implementation on January 1, 2016. In 2018, the Board approved amendments to the regulation, which includes strengthening and smoothing the CI benchmarks through 2030 in-lin
e with California’s 2030 GHG target enacted through SB32. The LCFS is one of the key AB 32 measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California but also has other significant benefits. It transforms and diversifies the fuel pool in California to reduce petroleum dependency and achieves air quality benefits, which are State priorities that preceded AB 32.
• N
eed to establish an account, register electric fuel consumption and report quarterly for credits
15.10 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT (APCD)
The APCD's grant program provides funding for eligible projects located in San Luis Obispo County that provide fuel or power to a covered source (for example: on -road, off-road, and agricultural equipment emission sources). Eligible project categories include:
• Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: New and expansion to existing non -residential EV charging stations.
• Alternative Fueling Station: New and expansion to existing hydrogen and na tural gas fueling stations.
• Transit bus modernization.
• Additional projects may be considered on a case-by-case basis
https://www.slocleanair.org/community/grants.php
15.11 CA ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 617
The Grant staff is seeking application approval for is provided by California AB 617 which established the Community Air Protection Program (CAPP). AB 617 provides a community -focused action framework to improve air quality and reduce exposure to air pollutants and toxic air contaminants in California communities most impacted by air pollution. This bill provides funding which the APCD allocates via competitive grants. Eligible project categories include infrastructure related projects such as design and engineering facilities for transit services.
15.12 USDOT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
• FY19 Bus and Bus Facilities
• Over $427 million for FY19
• 12 electric bus projects selected in FY18 program (approximately 10% of projects) • Notice of Funding likely released in Spring/Summer 2019
15.13 FY19 BUILD (FORMALLY KNOWN AS TIGER)
• 900 million available for FY19
• 50% Urban/50% Rural Split
• Notice of Funding Opportunity likely to be released Spring/Summer 2019
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 31
15.14 FUND BALANCE
The Transit Fund holds approximately $35 Million in Working Capital. These funds are necessary as part of a fiscally prudent operating reserve to help weather any volatility in revenues. Amounts in excess of the 20% reserve will be used as local “matching” funds - if not fund in whole - transit capital projects that are yet to have an identified federal or state assistance grant. 16 PROCUREMENT
There are over 200 public transit agencies in California operating more than 14,000 transit buses.
California local public transit agencies are currently utilizing various methods to procure public transit buses. During market research it was discovered that some transit agencies are issuing their own solicitations and others may not have the resources, so they rely on other sources such as Sta te Cooperative Purchasing contracts through entities including California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CALACT) and Washington State Department of Enterprise Services. Local public transit agencies do not have the authority to establish a sta tewide contract. FTA Rules allow states to establish contracts for the use of political subdivisions (including transit agencies). A statewide contract will support the efforts of greening California, leverage pricing, streamline the procurement process and reduce costs for local public transit agencies.
Due to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rules, bus contracts are extremely complex to develop, and various agencies have already proposed that the State of California’s Department of Goods & Services (DGS) provide expertise to assist in the procurement process. Although the State of California does not operate transit buses within its own fleet, DGS agreed to create a statewide contract for transit agency use. In accordance with the federal FAST Act, co ntracts will be available to transit agencies outside of California as well. With the assistance of subject matter experts from several transit agencies, DGS created an FTA compliant Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking proposals to establish contracts for sixteen (16) sizes and types of battery-electric and fuel cell powered buses.
The State of California’s Department of Goods and Services (DGS) has just completed an extensive Request for Proposals for ZEB vehicles which all public agencies can participate from. This streamlines the acquisition process, helps ensure a vetted product and secures competitive pricing. Given the City’s procurement policies and costs for ZEBs, action will need to be approved by City Council.
Final selection will be made by Group to the responsive and responsible Bidder with the highest score and meeting all administrative and technical requirements. Additional awards may be made if the Bidder’s proposal is within twenty percent (20%) of the proposal with the highest points total within a Group and the Bidder represents a different OEM than the highest scoring Bidder.
Given the highly technical requirements needed to meet the stringent FTA procurement policies, it is recommended that the City pursue its ZEB purchases from this contact. Section 3.24.060(E) of the City’s purchasing ordinance allows for direct purchasing when the purchase will be made cooperatively with one, or more, other uni ts of government. The awarded RFP is compliant with State and Federal purchasing requirements and piggyback purchases.
16.1 PURCHASE VS. LEASE
To further help transit agencies purchase electric buses, some suppliers are now offering financing
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 32
programs that en able them to lease the batteries. The cost of an electric bus is about $250,000 more than a diesel bus, with the majority of the cost difference being attributed to the cost of the batteries .
Removing the purchase of the batteries largely brings the initial capital cost of the BEB comparable to a Diesel bus at around $500,000. The batteries are then leased by the transit agency and captured as a operational cost.
This approach of leasing the batteries has both its strengths and weaknesses. For example, should capital funding for electric buses be limited, this option brings the price of the vehicle comparable to historic vehicle norms ($500k). Further, since battery technology is still in development, there is a great
Through this option the OEM manages the risk for the transit agency of making sure those batteries work optimally for the life of the lease, including mid-life replacement of the batteries 17 ALTERNATIVE ZERO EMISSION MOBILITY PROGRAM CREDITS
A transit agency may opt to use a Zero -Emission Mobility Program in lieu or in conjunction of making a zero-emission bus purchase to meet the required minimum number of zero -emission buses as set forth in section 2023.1(a)(4) if such program meets the following requirements:
1. The program provides zero-emission mobility services by using bicycles, scooters, or other zero - emission vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or less, or any combination of these;
2. The program must be either directly operated by the transit agency or operated by a con tractor to the transit agency;
3. The transit agency must be able to track and record zero-emission passenger miles for each zero- emission vehicle.
A transit agency must achieve the following zero -emission passenger miles per year to be eligible to receive each mobility credit:
1. A large transit agency must achieve at least 320,000 zero-emission passenger miles per year;
2. A small transit agency must achieve at least 180,000 zero-emission passenger miles per year.
3. (b) Procedure to opt-in and opt-out of a Zero-Emission Mobility Option.
To opt into a Zero -Emission Mobility Option, a transit agency must submit a request to opt -in to the Executive Officer with the following information to prove it is meeting the requirements set forth in section 2023.5(a):
1. A description of the types of vehicles, including their GVWR and types of propulsion systems;
2. Documentation to show who will operate these services; and
3. A description of the method of collecting accurate zero-emission passenger miles per vehicle.
4. (2) A transit agency may choose to opt out from the Zero -Emission Mobility Option at any time with the submittal of a request to opt-out to the Executive Officer with expected date of program termination.
5. (c) Calculation and issuance of mobility credits.
Provided the criteria set forth in section 2023.5(a) has been met and the information required by section 2023.5(b) has been submitted to the Executive Officer, a transit agency that opts into a Zero-Emission Bus
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 33
Mobility Option may receive one credit that is equivalent to operation of one zero -emission bus in the fleet based on the following calculations:
When a bicycle is used in a Zero -Emission Mobility Option, a multiplier of three (3) shall apply when quantifying zero - emission passenger miles from a bicycle.
The zero-emission mobility credit is calculated by dividing the total zero -emission passenger miles in each calendar year achieved by the Zero -Emission Mobility program by 320,000 passenger miles per year for a large transit agency or by 180,000 passenger miles per year for a small transit agency; For each calendar year, if a transit agency maintains at least the same zero -emission passenger miles as required in section 2023.5(a)(4) then the mobility credits will continue to count as zero-emission buses in the fleet. If the calculated number of mobility credits as set forth in section 2023.5(c)(1)(B) does not result to a whole number, the number must be rounded to the nearest integer to determine the number of credits.
Each calculated credit as set fo rth in section 2023.5(c)(1)(B) will be treated the same as operating one zero-emission bus in the fleet in a given calendar year. Each mobility credit earned annually by a transit agency may be counted the same as having a zero -emission bus by the transit agency in its fleet when calculating the required minimum number of zero -emission buses in the following year of achieving passenger miles as set forth in section 2023.1(a)(4).
Any transit agency that opts into the Zero -Emission Mobility Option must report annually to show the total zero-emission passenger miles achieved in the previous calendar year. A transit agency using the Zero-Emission Mobility Option must meet the reporting and record keeping requirements set forth in section 2023.9(c) for zero-emission passenger miles.
17.1.1 City’s Active Transportation Plan
City is currently undergoing the study process for an Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The ATP will closely consider public input on if and nature of any City sponsored alternative mobility programs. A study session will be held with City Council on October 1st. That will provide clarity on where council wants to go with bikeshare. The study session will tell us if and to what intensity we will be taking on bikeshare. 18 IMPACTS, CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Expanded Executive Officer approved exemptions -to ensure no service cuts or fare increases associated with regulation implementation. Significant upfront capital costs for bus purchases and infrastructure; operational savings. Healthy skepticism of ZEBs. We want to plan our service to serve our community. We don’t want to plan our service to serve our equipment
Direct quote from the ICT Regulation: “California transit agencies will be faced with higher operating costs during the early years of implementation of the proposed ICT regulation but will ultimately see reduced operational spending in later years as fuel savings and LCFS credit generation grow.”
State of the Industry Analysis - Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan – City of Santa Maria
Page | 34
1. Develop A&E plan to support PG&E, Forefront Solar arrays and an expanded fleet model
2. Create a Joint ZEB Group but with individual plans
3. Use CA DGS contract to procure ZEB buses
4. Go with BEB’s until hydrogen fuel stations becomes available
5. Expand Transit fleet with ZEB’s in advance of ITC rule deadlines for additional credits
6. Retire diesel buses to a Contingency Fleet as an insurance policy or rehab as necessary
7. Buy one bus of each manufacturer to get a sense of which work best to start
8. Choose a universal plugin charging system
9. Develop in route opportunity charging plans
10. Consider a development of other zero emission mobility options (i.e. bike share program)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA MARIA REGIONAL
TRANSIT INNOVATION CLEAN TRANSIT FLEET ZERO-
EMISSION TRANSITION PLAN IN COMPLIANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCE BOARD MANDATES.
WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article
4.3, Part 2023.1(d) Zero-Emissions Bus Rollout Plan Requirements requires that a transit agency Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan must be approved by its governing Board; and
WHEREAS, Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan sets forth the Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) plan which meets the following requirements:
A goal of full transition to zero-emission buses by 2040 with careful planning that avoids early retirement of conventional internal combustion engine buses;
Identification of the types of zero -emission bus
technologies SMRT is planning to deploy;
A schedule for zero -emission and conventional internal combustion engine bus purchases and lease options;
A schedule for conversion of conventional internal
combustion engine buses to zero-emission technologies;
A schedule for construction of facilities and infrastructure modifications or upgrades, including charging, fueling, and maintenance facilities, to deploy and maintain zero -
emission buses;
Explanation of how SMRT plans to deploy zero -emission buses in disadvantaged communities;
A training plan and schedule for zero -emission bus
operators and maintenance and repair staff; and
Identification of potential funding sources.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:
1. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to approve Santa Maria Regional Transit’s Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan as set forth in full.
2. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make m inor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so,
2 the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 16th day of May 2023.
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
City Manager
FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 16, 2023
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
Prepared by: Recreation and Park Director
SUBJECT: Grant Application to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Santa Maria Sports Complex
Description:
The City Council will consider approving a grant application for up to $6 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the Santa Maria Sports Complex.
Environmental Notice: Environmental review for this project was completed through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2007011082 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution approving a grant application to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Santa Maria Sports Complex Project.
BACKGROUND:
The intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Program is to provide grant funds to acquire land and develop facilities for publi c outdoor recreation purposes. The proposed funding request would consist of a grant request of up to $6 million to close the funding gap of previously received grant funds , as well as funding provided by the City and County of Santa Barbara . These funds would be used for the development of the Santa Maria Community Sports Park within a portion of the Blosser Southwest Specific Plan (approximately 19 acres located on the Southwest Corner of West Stowell Road and South Depot Street).
DISCUSSION:
The Recreation and Parks Department is working on the preparation and processing of the grant application, which is due June 1, 2023. An authorizing resolution is a required element of the application package to ensure that the jurisdiction is supportive of the application. The City may withdraw from the application process at any time prior to the expenditure of the funds.
Alternative
Consider a phased approach: If the project exceeds the current funding available, the City could consider breaking it down into phases that can be funded incrementally over time.
2 Fiscal Considerations
The maximum grant request can be no more than $6 million. Matching funds are required for this grant, which the City has already acquired. In addition, leveraging other funding sources can make the project more competitive. The City is expected to finance the entire project and will utilize monies from Proposition 68 Grant funds, County of Santa Barbara Funds, and Park Development Funds. Options for re-payment from the State may occur every six months and/or as major portions of the project are completed.
Impact to the Community
Securing LWCF monies to build the Santa Maria Community Sports Park will improve outdoor recreational opportunities for the community and specifically meet the need for additional field space.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND FOR THE SANTA MARIA SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Congress under Public Law 88 -578 has authorized the establishment of a federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant -In-Aid program, providing matching funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring lands and developing facilities for public outdoor recreation purposes; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for administration of the program in the State, setting up necessary rules and procedures governing applications by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, the applicant certifies by resolution the approval of the application and the availability of eligible matching funds prior to submission of the application to the State.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby:
1. Approves the filing of an application for Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance for the proposed Santa Maria Sports Complex; and
2. Certifies that the applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Grant Administration Guide; and
3. Agrees to abide by 54 U.S.C. §200305(f)(3) which requires, “No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the National Secretary of the Interior, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitut ion of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location”; and
4. Certifies that said agency has matching funds from eligible source(s) and can finance 100 percent of the project, which up to half may be reimbursed; and
5. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and guidelines; and
6. Appoints the City Manager or his designee as agent of the applicant to conduct all negotiations and execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited
to, applications, contracts, amendments, payment requests, and compliance with all applicable current state and federal laws which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project; and
7. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria held on the 16th day of May 2023.
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
City Manager
FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 16, 2023
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
Prepared by: Director of Recreation and Parks
SUBJECT: Annexation and Assessment of Parcels into the City’s Landscape Maintenance Districts
Description:
The City Council will consider annexation and assessment of multiple businesses into the City’s Landscape Maintenance Districts.
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Adopt a Resolution annexing and authorizing the assessment of landscape maintenance fees to Starbucks at Home Motors in the Northeast Landscape Maintenance District.
2. Adopt a Resolution annexing and authorizing the assessment of landscape maintenance fees to Chavez residential units located in the Northwest Landscape Maintenance District.
3. Adopt a Resolution annexing and authorizing the assessment of landscape maintenance fees to Seaside Packaging Warehouse Project located in the Southwest Landscape Maintenance District.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Santa Maria has conditioned Starbucks at Home Motors (PD2021-0011 & U2021-0019); Chavez Residential Units (U2021-0010); and Seaside Packaging Warehouse (U2021-0002) for the ongoing maintenance of landscape facilities served by the Northwest, Northeast, and Southwest Landscape Maintenance Districts under the provision of the “Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972” for the purpose of levying and collecting assessments for perpetual landscape maintenance.
DISCUSSION:
At the Ci ty Council meeting of June 7, 2022, the City Council adopted a Resolution initiating the proceedings to establish and levy the 2022 -23 Landscape Maintenance
2 District Assessments for the ongoing maintenance of landscape facilities served by the Northwest, Northeast, and Southwest Landscape Maintenance District.
This item directs staff to add these assessments for Starbucks at Home Motors, Chavez Residential Units, and Seaside Packaging Warehouse to the Northeast, Northwest, and Southwest Landscape Maintenance Districts , respectively, on the County of Santa Barbara Property Tax Roll.
Fiscal Considerations
The annual costs of landscape maintenance are assessed against the benefited properties within said Districts. These assessments are reflective of the cost associated with the upkeep of public landscaping within these Districts.
Impact to the Community
These annexations and assessments provide for the maintenance of landscaping in perpetuity. The assessments generate a funding base to help finance the majority of the landscape maintenance costs within each of the respective districts named in this report, which in turn allows the City of Santa Maria to provide the highest level of service to residents.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MARIA, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING AND AUTHORIZING THE
ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FEES TO
STARBUCKS AT HOME MOTORS IN THE NORTHEAST LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
SECTION 22500, ET SEQ.)
WHEREAS, on May 2,1989, the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 by Resolution No. 89 -51, authorized the formation of the Northeast Landscape Maintenance District (“District”); and
WHEREAS, the cost to developers/owners of the new residential or commercial property occurring within said District are determined based on the costs of providing services and building sufficient reserves to meet future costs; and
WHEREAS, a Petition Requesting Annexation into the Northeast Landscape Maintenance District was signed by the owner(s) of the following Propert y and the associated Assessor’s Parcel Number is provided to identify the Property as follows:
Starbucks at Home Motors, PD2021-0011/U2021-0019 APN 128-120-003
WHEREAS, pursuant to law, the owner(s) waived the right to protest, reports, and to any notice and hearing to which s/he may be entitled; and
WHEREAS, the Petition operates as a ballot in favor of the annexation of the Property in said District; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting of June 7, 2022, the City Council adopted a Resolution initiating the proceedings to levy an assessment to the Property within the District; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria to annex the Property into the District and collect assessments according to the provisions of the Petition and District.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RE SOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria California, as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
2. The Petition requesting annexation and its associated vicinity map for annexation of the Property into the District is confirmed and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2 3. That the P roperty is ordered annexed and made part of the District according to the terms and conditions in the Petition and District.
4. It is hereby ordered that the Property be assessed as part of the District, with the assessment to be annually updated and adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index.
5. It is authorized and directed that all necessary steps are taken to complete the proceedings and collect the assessment.
6. The assessment for the 20 22-2023 Fiscal Year for the following Property shall be $675.42 for commercial per APN or tenant space:
Starbucks at Home Motors (PD2021-0011/U2021-0019) APN 128-120-003
7. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, held this 16th day of May 2023.
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A: Petition & Vicinity Map
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MARIA, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING AND AUTHORIZING THE
ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FEES TO CHAVEZ
RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
SECTION 22500, ET SEQ.)
WHEREAS, on December 20, 1988, the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 by Resolution No. 88-154, authorized the formation of the Northwest Landscape Maintenance District (“District”); and
WHEREAS, the cost to developers/owners of the new residential or commercial property occurring within said District are determined based on the costs of providing services and building sufficient reserves to meet future costs; and
WHEREAS, a Petition Requesting Annexation into the Northwest Landscape Maintenance District was signed by the owner (s) of the following Propert y and the associated Assessor’s Parcel Number is provided to identify the Property as follows:
Chavez Residential Units, U2021-0010 APN 123-035-005
WHEREAS, pursuant to law, the owner(s) waived the right to protest, reports, and to any notice and hearing to which s/he may be entitled; and
WHEREAS, the Petition operates as a ballo t in favor of the annexation of the Property in said District; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting of June 7, 2022, the City Council adopted a Resolution initiating the proceedings to levy an assessment to the Property within the District; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria to annex the Property into the District and collect assessments according to the provisions of the Petition and District.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria California, as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
2. The Petition requesting annexation and its associated vicinity map for annexation of the Property into the District is confirmed and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2 3. That the P roperty is ordered annexed and made part of the District according to the terms and conditions in the Petition and District.
4. It is hereby ordered that the Property be assessed as part of the District, with the assessment to be annually updated and adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index.
5. It is authorized and directed that all necessary steps are taken to complete the proceedings and collect the assessment.
6. The assessment for the 2022-2023 Fiscal Year for the following Properties shall be $158.46 for residential and $507.03 for commercial per APN or tenant space:
Chavez Residential Units, U2021-0010 APN 123-035-005
7. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th e City Council of the City of Santa Maria, held this 16th day of May 2023.
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
City Manager
Exhibit A: Petition & Vicinity Map
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MARIA, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING AND AUTHORIZING THE
ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FEES TO SEASIDE
PACKAGING WAREHOUSE PROJECT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
CODE SECTION 22500, ET SEQ.)
WHEREAS, on May 2, 1989, the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 by Resolution No. 89 -50, authorized the formation of the South west Landscape Maintenance District (“District”); and
WHEREAS, the developers/owners of the new residential or commercial property occurring within said District are based on the costs of providing services and building sufficient reserves to meet future costs; and
WHEREAS, a Petition Requesting Annexation into the Southwest Landscape Maintenance District w as signed by the owner (s) of the following Property and the associated Assessor’s Parcel Number provided to identify it as follows:
Seaside Packaging Warehouse (U2021-0002) APN 117-240-034
WHEREAS, pursuant to law, the owner(s) waived the right to protest reports, and to any notice and hearing to which s/he may be entitled; and
WHEREAS, the petition operates as a ballot in favor of the anne xation of the Property in said District; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting of June 7, 2022, the City Council adopted a Resolution initiating the proceedings to levy an assessment to the Property within the District; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria to annex the Property into the District and collect assessments according to the provisions of the Petition and District.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria California, as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
2. The Petition requesting annexation and its associated vicinity map for annexation of the Property into the Southwest Landscape Maintenance District is confirmed and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2 3. That the Property is ordered annexed and made part of the Southwest Landscape Maintenance District, according to the terms and conditions in the Petition and District.
4. It is hereby ordered that the Property be assessed as part of the District with the assessment to be annually updated and adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index.
5. It is authorized and directed that all necessary steps are taken to complete the proceedings and collect the assessment.
6. The assessment for the 2022-2023 Fiscal Year for the following Property shall be $507.03 for commercial per APN or tenant space:
Seaside Packaging Warehouse (U2021-0002) APN 117-240-034
7. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, held this 16th day of May 2023.
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A: Petition & Vicinity Map
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
City Manager
FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 16, 2023
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
Prepared by: Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Financial Report for the Third Quarter ending March 31, 2023
Description:
The City Council will receive the Third Quarter Financial Report summarizing the City’s financial status for the period ending March 31, 2023.
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file the Financial Report for the Third Quarter Ending March 31, 2023.
BACKGROUND:
Four times each year, City staff completes a comprehensive analysis of City finances, including projected fund balances, revenues to date, departmental expenditures, encumbrances, and potential adjustments. This financial report summarizes the third quarter financial analysis.
DISCUSSION:
The attached report provides an overview of the current economic outlook on the State and National levels; General Fund, including Measure U revenues, expenditures, projected fund balances; and activity in the three En terprise Funds. Though this information is not audited and does not contain all the usual year -end adjustments, accruals, or disclosures, the information does provide a general picture of the City’s activity and the developing financial trends.
Impact to the Community
The interim financial statement provides the community with an understanding of the financial activity of the City’s primary funds.
ATTACHMENT A - Quarterly Financial Report Third Quarter Ending March 31, 2023_2023-05-16
City of Santa Maria
Quarterly Financial Report
Third Quarter Ending March 31, 2023
Attachment A
May 16, 2023
OVERVIEW
The economy is slowing and recession concerns remain, as the strong labor market is cooling in the face of higher interest rates on loans. First quarter gross domestic product decelerated to a weak
1.1 percent as the housing market was hammered and businesses reduced inventorie s, following the 2.6 percent rate from October through December, and 3.2 percent clip from July through September.
The Federal Reserve has raised its key rates 10 times in 14 months, aimed at defeating high inflation. Inflation has slowed to 4.9 percent, well below the 9.1 percent rate of June 2022, which was close to a 40-year high.
The Fed is concerned that companies will seek to offset their higher labor costs by further raising prices and perpetuating high inflation.
The Labor Department says worker s' pay and benefits rose 1.2 percent in the first three months of this year, faster than the 1.1 percent rise in last year's final quarter. Paychecks grew 5.1 percent in the first quarter compared with a year ago, before adjusting for inflation. The Fed re gards wage increases above roughly 3.5 percent as too high for it to reach its 2 percent inflation target.
The surge in borrowing costs is expected to send the economy into a recession sometime this year. The housing market, which is especially vulnerable to higher loan rates, has been battered. Many banks have tightened their lending standards since three of the four largest U.S. bank failures in history occurred since March, making it even harder to borrow to buy a house or a car or to expand a business.
Nationally, the unemployment rate is at 3. 4 percent, the same as January’s half -century low of 3.4 percent. On an annual basis, 2021 and 2022 were the two best years for job creation on record – following historic job losses triggered by the pandemic. However, on a monthly basis, job openings fell in March to the lowest level in nearly two years.
Consumer spending – which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, remained resilient in the first three months of this year. A key question is whether, and by how much, consumer spending will weaken.
California’s tax revenues are falling short of expectations, partly because of the State’s highly progressive income tax that relies heavily on high-income taxpayers. Last year, the State budget had close to a $100 billion surplus – more than the budgets of most states. Now, the State faces a projected deficit of $22.5 billion, perhaps higher. The State has a projected $22.4 billion reserve fund, but the Governor has said he may choose to prioritize budget cuts instead of tapping reserves until tax collections are tallied.
California’s jobless rate was 4.4 percent in March (859,000 jobless), same as in February 2022. Santa Barbara County’s jobless rate was 4.5 percent in March (10,200 jobless), ab ove the year-ago estimate of 4.0. Santa Maria’s unemployment rate was 8.5 percent (4,400 jobless), slightly higher than the 7.8 percent a year ago.
The Santa Maria housing market remains strong, according to the Santa Maria Association of Realtors.
The sale to list price ratio was 99 percent as of April 23 rd, meaning sellers typically get the asking price.
The median selling price was $600,000 through April 23rd, compared to $625,000 a year earlier. Inventory remains constrained with fewer properties for sale now than a year ago, and homes are on average staying on the market for 37 days compared to 21 days a year ago.
Mayor
Alice Patino
Mayor Pro-Tem
Maribel Aguilera-Hernandez
Council
Mike Cordero
Carlos Escobedo
Gloria Soto
City Manager
Jason Stilwell
Report Prepared By
Mary Harvey
Director of Finance
206 East Cook Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
(805) 925-0951 Extension 2215
www.cityofsantamaria.org
Quarterly Financial Report - Third Quarter Ending March 31, 2023 Page 2 of 5
GENERAL FUND
General Fund Balance . The chart below shows,
with 75 percent of the year complete, revenues are
at 67.7 percent of projections while expenditures are
at 65 percent of appropriations.
The beginning fund balance is an estimate because
the City’s annual audit is not finalized. Revenues are
less than budget primarily because the majority of
property tax and property tax in -lieu amounts are
received semi-annually with the second installment
coming in the fourth quarter. A discussion of the
changes in each category follows in the “Major
Revenue Variance” section of this report.
The City adopted the 2022-23 Budget with the intent
of having to use approximately $2.7 million in one -
time Local Economic Augmentation Fund (LEAF) to
help balance the 2022-23 Budget.
The chart below provides summary comparison
information on revenues, expenditures, and
transfers for the third quarter ending March 31,
2023, versus the third quarter ending March 31,
2022.
The significant drop in r evenues is primarily
because of a one -time, $10 million revenue loss
allocation allowable under the America n Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) received in 2021-22.
Measure U Fund: The following chart shows that
revenues received through March are at 80.1
percent of budget , or $20.6 million. E xpenditures
are 58.6 percent of budget or $ 5.5 million under
budget.
Most of the budget underrun, $ 5.5 million, is in the
Fire Department and is primarily due to $4.6 million
of budgeted capital projects and equipment
purchases of which only $ 460,000 has been
expended through the third quarter. Budgeted
capital projects include the design and construction
of a training center, the renovation design of the Fire administration building, and the purchase of a
second ladder truck that has been ordered . The
Police Department is under budget by $ 1.1 million
due to vacant positions and capital purchases,
including tasers and the body camera system yet to
be acquired. Community Development is under
budget by $285,000 because of Code Enforcement
vacancies. The Library is under budget by $211,500
because plans to resume Sunday operations have
been delayed until July 2023. Recreation & Parks
programs are under budget by $203,600, as a result
of vacancies in the Park Rangers division. The
budget in the City Manager’s Office is for the costs
associated with maintaining the City’s mass
notification system database. The Finance budget is
for the annual independent audit of Measure U
financial activity. Through March, 89 percent of
Measure U expenditures have been spent on Public
Safety, 6 percent on Youth Services, and 5 percent
on Quality of Life.
General Fund Budget 3rd Quarter Percent
Balance, Start of Year 10,071,920$ 10,071,920$
Revenues* 86,759,760 58,744,620 67.7%
Expenditures* 89,801,530 58,409,170 65.0%
Balance 7,030,150$ 10,407,370$
* Includes Transfers
General Fund 2022-23 2021-22 Over (Under)
Revenues:
Taxes 43,916,810$ 41,249,440$ 2,667,370$
Licenses & Permits 3,110,620 3,501,480 (390,860) Use of money 970,910 1,186,220 (215,310)
Inter-governmental 1,359,700 11,259,690 (9,899,990) Charges for services 4,381,140 5,189,880 (808,740) Other revenue 179,310 243,980 (64,670) Operating revenues 53,918,490 62,630,690 (8,712,200) Transfers-in 4,826,130 2,963,930 1,862,200
Total revenues 58,744,620$ 65,594,620$ (6,850,000)$
Expenditures:
Public Safety 32,744,150$ 30,237,400$ 2,506,750$
Recreation & Parks 7,875,570 6,966,280 909,290 General Government 9,069,520 8,307,740 761,780 Community Dev. 3,693,200 2,709,100 984,100
Public Works 2,702,830 2,322,130 380,700
Operating Expenses 56,085,270 50,542,650 5,542,620 Transfers-out 2,323,900 1,667,610 656,290
Total expenditures 58,409,170$ 52,210,260$ 6,198,910$ Year to Date Comparison to Prior Year
Measure U Fund Budget
Actual
3rd Quarter Percent
Beginning Fund Balance 17,407,947$ 17,407,947$
Revenue
Measure U Revenue 25,787,354$ 20,648,090$ 80.1%
Expenditures
Community Development 916,724 402,270 43.9% City Manager's Office 22,500 19,760 87.8% Finance 2,600 0.0% Library 1,065,960 588,020 55.2%
Recreation & Parks 3,358,817 2,315,500 68.9% Fire 15,363,935 7,896,500 51.4%
Police 12,614,692 8,330,720 66.0%
Total Expenditures 33,345,228 19,552,770 58.6%
Revenue over (under)
Expenditures (7,557,874)$ 1,095,320$
Ending Fund Balance 9,850,073$ 18,503,267$
Quarterly Financial Report - Third Quarter Ending March 31, 2023 Page 3 of 5 Major General Fund Revenue
Variances: The four major General
Fund revenue sources, as shown on
the chart to the right, account for
approximately 74 percent of total
General Fund revenues. Three of
the four key revenues are showing
increases with Sales Tax revenue
having the largest dollar and
percentage increase over last year.
There are numerous differences
between the individual revenues received during this year and prior years. Below gives a better picture of what is driving these revenue variances.
Key variances include:
Sales Tax. Receipts through the third quarter are approximately 8.1 percent or about $1.8 million higher compared to last fiscal year. Except for county and state pools, a ll industry groups are contributing to the year -over-year increase with restaurants and hotels showing the highest percentage growth and autos and transportation showing the largest dollar increase. Allocations from the county and state pools dipped slightly compared t o the previous year. These revenues are generated by out-of-state sales, including goods sold online, to customers within the state. Property Tax. The bulk of these payments is received from Santa Barbara County in December , January, April, and May of each year. Property taxes received to date are $ 850,200 or 6.9 percent greater than last fiscal year.
Hotel/Bed Tax. Through March, receipts are approximately $ 61,400 or 2.3 percent more than last fiscal year and ahead of estimates by about $419,800 or 13.3 percent. The increase in revenues is partially due to inflation prompting hoteliers to raise room rates, coupled with steady occupancy rates with the return of community events attracting visitors to the area . The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is estimated to generate only about five percent of General Fund revenues in 2022-23. Licenses, Permits, & Fees. Permit revenue is at 100.9 percent of the budget or a little over $3 .1 million but is about 11.2 percent less than in the third quarter of the previous year. Construction permit activity is busy and steady. During the third quarter, the City issued 111 permits for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), a decline from 152 issued for the same quarter last year. The City also issued permits for a new Taco Bell at 560 South Blosser Road (by the neighborhood Wal-Mart), a new medical office building at 501 East Chapel Street, and an expansion of an existing self-storage facility at 1265 West Betteravia Road.
Expenditures. For the third quarter, ended March 31, 2023, expenditures are 65 percent of budget. The below chart summarizes variances by department:
Key variances include:
Police. Under budget by
nearly $3 million or about 8.2
percent, mainly due to vacant
positions which have resulted in
salary (and benefits) savings of $2.9
million through March.
Recreation and Parks.
Under budget $1.1 million or 9.3
percent, due to vacant recreation
limited service and seasonal
positions many of which are expected to be hired in the fourth quarter and will continue to work General Fund Budget
22-23
YTD Actual
Percent
Expended
21-22
YTD Actual
Police 36,060,710$ 24,085,420$ 66.8% 20,893,570$
Fire 12,719,220 8,658,730 68.1% 9,343,830
Recreation & Parks 11,987,630 7,875,570 65.7% 6,966,280 Finance 4,425,710 2,726,450 61.6% 2,310,870 Community Dev. 6,570,820 3,693,200 56.2% 2,709,100 Public Works 4,345,200 2,702,830 62.2% 2,322,130 City Manager's Office 8,800,400 5,320,780 60.5% 5,114,100 City Attorney's Office 1,323,640 887,220 67.0% 757,720 Mayor & Council 196,220 135,070 68.8% 125,050 Sub-Total 86,429,550 56,085,270 64.9% 50,542,650 Transfers 3,371,980 2,323,900 68.9% 1,667,610 Total 89,801,530$ 58,409,170$ 65.0% 52,210,260$
General Fund Budget
Actual
Receipts
3rd Quarter
Percent
Received
Sales Tax 30,694,440$ 24,403,100$ 79.5% 22,565,380$ Property Tax 24,419,910 13,107,790 53.7% 12,257,560 Hotel/Bed Tax 3,152,580 2,784,210 88.3% 2,722,840 Licenses, Permits, & Fees 3,081,550 3,110,620 100.9% 3,501,480 Total Key Revenues 61,348,480 43,405,720 70.8% 41,047,260 All Other Revenues 25,411,280 15,338,900 60.4% 24,547,360 Total Revenues 86,759,760$ 58,744,620$ 67.7% 65,594,620$ Receipts -
Prior Year
3rd Quarter
Quarterly Financial Report - Third Quarter Ending March 31, 2023 Page 4 of 5 throughout the summer months. In addition, the Santa Maria Outdoor Recreation Experience (SMORE) program, with grant funding of $500,000, began in March and is contributing to the underrun. Community Development. Under budget 18.8 percent or approximately $1 .2 million because of vacancies in the Planning and Community Services divisions and the timing of expenditures for contractual services. The contract for the General Plan Update will continue throughout the year and may extend into the next fiscal year. In addition, the pending payment of the third-quarter invoice for contractual services with Santa Barbara County for Animal Control Services accounts for a portion of the budget underrun. The quarterly payments for animal control services are $215,135 totaling $850,540 for fiscal year 2022-23.
Public Works. Under budget by $ 556,000 or 12.8 percent and is attributable to vacancies in the Engineering and Facilities divisions.
City Manager’s Office. Under budget 14.5 percent or approximately $1.3 million, due to vacant positions mostly in the Information Technology division in the first half of the fiscal year . Four of the five vacant positions were filled during the third quarter. Contractual service agreements planned for the fourth quarter are contributing to the underrun.
Finance. Under budget 13.4 percent or $593,000, due to vacant positions, primarily in the first part of the year, in the Accounting and Budget functional areas . Recruitments during the past two quarters have been successful, dropping the number of vacancies from seven to two. Other General Fund Departments. The remaining General Fund departments are under budget by less than eight percent as a result of vacant positions and incomplete contract service agreements.
The City Attorney’s Office has the largest percentage of budget savings at 8 percent, and the Fire Department has the largest dollar budget savings at approximately $881,000.
The chart to the left
summarizes General Fund
costs by type and shows
that with the exception of
Materials and Supplies,
each type of operating cost
is within the budget. Staffing
is under budget by
approximately $ 6.7 million
or 10.8 percent due to
numerous vacancies
throughout operational
departments, with the majority occurring in the Police Department and during the first six months of the fiscal year. In recent months the labor market has eased and the City has been much more successful in hiring full-time personnel. Contracts & Services is under budget by 18.2 percent or about $2 million due to services yet to occur, including work on the General Plan Update project and the grant fund ed, Recreation and Parks SMORE program. Both of these are multi-year agreements and will continue in the next fiscal year. The timing of the third quarter payment of $215,135 toward the Animal Services contract is also contributing to the underrun. Materials and Supplies are over budget by 4.2 percent or $155,700 and is caused by increases in electricity, gas, and water costs (rates) , making it more expensive to operate and maintain City buildings and parks. Capital is under budget by 52 percent or $ 361,300 because planned purchases for equipment for the Fire Depa rtment have not yet occurred. The debt service expenditure includes $634,210 for the final annual payment from the Fire Department to the Solid Waste Collection Fund for the payoff of the CalPERS Side Fund, and $266,910, total semi-annual lease financing payments for the CAD/RMS system.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
The Statement of Revenues and Expenses for the third quarter ending March 31, 2023, for the three enterprise funds, are shown on the chart below.
Budget
22-23
YTD Actual
Percent
Expended
21-22
YTD Actual
Staffing 62,479,250$ 40,104,030$ 64.2% 36,720,600$
Contracts & Services 10,937,600 6,216,010 56.8% 4,072,230 Materials & Supplies 3,675,170 2,912,110 79.2% 2,465,020 Maintenance & Operations 7,723,340 5,792,800 75.0% 6,022,040 Capital Outlay 694,040 159,200 22.9% 342,610 Sub-Total 85,509,400 55,184,150 64.5% 49,622,500 Debt Service 920,150 901,120 97.9% 920,150 Transfers 3,371,980 2,323,900 68.9% 1,667,610 Total 89,801,530$ 58,409,170$ 65.0% 52,210,260$
Quarterly Financial Report - Third Quarter Ending March 31, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Water/Wastewater Fund.
Revenues exceeded
expenditures by $ 6.6 million,
which is about $ 2.8 million
more than last year. Revenues
increased 1.5 percent or
$600,260 compared to the
prior year due to higher
revenues generated through
increases in the City Council -
approved water rates and user
fees. Expenses are $ 2.2
million less than last year
primarily due to lower debt
service payment of $ 1.5 for
the 2021A Refunding Bonds
compared to the prior year's payment of $ 4.3 million for the 1997 Certificate of Participation (97 COPs) and 2012A Refunding Bonds. The 97 COPs and 2012A Refunding Bonds were refinanced in November 2021 with the issuance of 2021A Refunding Bonds. Th rough the third quarter, Water and Wastewater operational expenses are under budget by 11.3 percent as a result of personnel savings from vacant positions and the timing of payments of ongoing maintenance and contractual services agreements.
Solid Waste Fund. The Solid Waste Fund reports refuse collection and disposal activities. Through the third quarter, Solid Waste revenues exceeded expenditures by approximately $5.3 million as a result of operational costs being under budget by approximately $ 3.8 million or 11.4 percent, combined with relatively low capital expenditures made through March. However, approximately $ 7.1 million is encumbered for several capital projects, including $ 3.7 million towards development of the Inte grated Waste Management Facility at Los Flores and $2.4 million for the landfill collection gas system expansion project. Compared to the prior year, revenues increased by $6.4 million, and expenditures decreased by $4 million.
Transit Funds. The City operates the Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) and Breeze Transit systems, which are funded by a combination of Federal grants, State transportation funds, and user fares.
Fare revenue through the third quarter is approximately $424,370, which is about $61,000 less than fares earned through the third quarter of the prior year. This variance is attributed to a fewer number of bus passes purchased by local school districts this year as districts restored school bus service. In addition, in the prior year, there were one-time purchases of bus passes from Allan Hancock College (AHC) and other grant programs that allowed free AHC student bus rides.
Transit capital expenditures include $1. 7 million for the purchase of two electric replacement buses, $116,800 for bus stop improvements, and $94,300 towards transit fleet electrification infrastructure. The farebox ratio through March 31, 2023, is 8.1 percent based on fares received and operating expenses recorded to date.
Water/
Wastewater Solid Waste
Public
Transit
37,470,290$ 22,354,200$ 424,370$
Interest Income 672,970 274,080 125,210
Other Revenue 1,750,990 5,316,500 6,745,436
39,894,250 27,944,780 7,295,016
12,674,280 21,538,860 5,225,500
1,886,270 1,067,760 1,944,330
17,215,900
1,498,350
33,274,800 22,606,620 7,169,830
6,619,450$ 5,338,160$ 125,186$
State Water Payments
Total Expenses
Revenues/Expenses
Total Revenues
Revenues
Charges for Service
Expenses
Operating
Debt Service
Capital Expenditures