Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report Page 73 CHAPTER 3 Funding Tribal Transit Programs INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the various federal and state grant programs that support tribal transit planning, operations, and services. It begins with the 33 federal programs summarized in Table 3-1. Nearly half, or 42 percent, of these programs are sponsored by the US Department of Transportation which supports transit in both rural and urban environ- ments; for the general population and for the special requirements of people with disabilities or people who are elderly, low income, or unemployed. While tribal transit programs and services are eligible activities for all of the grant programs, the Tribal Transit Program— Section 5311(c)—is designated specifically for tribal governments. The remaining 18 federal programs are sponsored by the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and Labor. They encompass the array of special needs transportation services in health, social services, vocational rehabilitation, economic development, and education. Most (55 percent) are sponsored by the US Department of Health and Human Services. This chapter concludes with descriptions of the administrative processes and complexities associated with grants issued by the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the states. As illustrated in Table 3-1, there are a variety of federal funding sources. However, there are specific local match requirements that vary within a grant for capital projects, operating projects, and project administration. The federal share is usually higher for capital projects that are geared toward providing access for bicycles to transit facilities, installing equipment for transporting bicycles on transit vehicles, for vehicle-related equipment to comply with the Americans with Dis- abilities Act (ADA), or vehicle-related equipment for complying with the Clean Air Act. While there is a range of federal and state grants, many tribes have difficulty obtaining sufficient local match to apply for these funds. Also, many tribes have high indirect cost rates which are an issue in approval of some grant agreements.

Funding Tribal Transit Programs Chapter 3 Page 74 Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report

Chapter 3 Funding Tribal Transit Programs Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report Page 75 STATE FUNDING SOURCES Many states support tribal transit programs and services by providing state funding. The goals, specific requirements, and eligibility vary by state, but they illustrate the support for tribal transit planning at the state level. Some examples of state funding sources include Arizona, California, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington. The State of California provides funds through the Transportation Development Act which is derived from general sales tax and sales tax on diesel fuel collected statewide. This source of funding was developed to encourage regional coordinated public transportation. The State of Washington has a consolidated grant program that con- solidates its state and federal grant awards under one administrative process. The program consolidates FTA Sections 5310, 5311, 5316, and 5317 grants; State Rural Mobility competitive grants; and State Para- transit and Special Needs competitive grants. INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO LOCAL FUNDING A successful transit operation requires a constant and reliable stream of funds to cover its operating and capital costs and contingencies. Many government grants require a local match, which may be as much as 50 percent of the initial award. If the grant is processed through the state, depending on local criteria, the match requirement may be higher or the award may be less than if processed directly through a federal agency. Determinations on the timing, duration, and size of the award are at the discretion of the granting agency. Many grant programs operate on a reimbursement basis, requiring the local transit agency to cover all costs until the reimbursement is received. These critical factors, controlled by others, necessitate the casting of a wide net over a diverse stream of funding resources to counterbalance the uncertainties of the government granting process. Successful tribes have found innovative ways to obtain funding to use as the local match to obtain government grants. One innovative way that tribes can get local match is by coordination of transportation programs. This helps leverage funds from human service agencies and other transportation providers to use local and non-FTA federal funds to match FTA funds. The FTA regional office or state that oversees the grant determines acceptable in-kind match. Local match could include the value of salary/labor, materials, equipment, and office/meeting space related

Funding Tribal Transit Programs Chapter 3 Page 76 Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report to the delivery of transit services. Local match contributions may also be in the form of cash received through donations or in-kind services. Unlike a county or state, a tribe may not be able to implement a property tax, but a tribe could charge a lodging fee to hotels or lodging facilities that they own. This lodging fee could be used to fund transit services, especially in cases when transit serves these facilities. Several of these innovative approaches are described in this section. Funding innovations undertaken by tribal governments may be characterized as: • Internal Sources – These are funds allocated by the tribal govern- ment through its general fund or its business enterprises to sup- port the transit operation. The funds may serve as local match to a government grant or, in some cases, may attract funds from other sources. • Partnership Sources – These are funds contributed by local, regional, county, or state stakeholders with an interest in ensuring the tribal transit operation succeeds. • Grant Matching Sources – These are funds drawn from one grant source to match or supplement, where permissible, funds from another grant source. A description of each practice is provided here. Internal Sources Internal fund sources are those derived directly from the tribal gov- ernment to support its transit operation. They typically represent funds appropriated from its general fund and/or from one or several of the for-profit business enterprises owned and controlled by the tribe. • In 2007, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) in Montana opened Quick Silver—a full-service gas station, luncheon- ette, and laundry facility. The revenues from the tribal business are used to match government grants that support the CSKT transit service. The CSKT is also planning a maintenance facility where the maintenance on all tribal-owned vehicles (200 vehicles) will be done. The staff of the maintenance facility will do oil changes on all these vehicles. Money generated from this facility will be used as local match to obtain grants.

Chapter 3 Funding Tribal Transit Programs Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report Page 77 • In Washington State, tribal government funds from the Squaxin Island Tribe are used as 50 percent match to government oper- ating grants in support of its transit operation. • The Winnebago Tribe in Nebraska bills its casino enterprise $2.00 monthly for each trip taken by a casino employee on its tribal transit system. The monthly casino payments cover some of the cost to operate the system. • The Seminole Nation in Oklahoma receives Section 5310 oper- ating grants and matches these grants with over $79,000 from tribal general funds. • The Leech Lake Gaming Division (local casino) of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Tribe provides transportation that is solely financed through tribal gaming revenues. The Leech Lake Gaming Transportation provides transit service for the residents of Leech Lake, employees, and guests going to and from their casinos. • Standing Rock Transportation (SRT) is operated by the local tribally chartered college—Sitting Bull College—since 1989. Sitting Bull College and Standing Rock Tribe both provide local matching funds for operating SRT. SRT has also begun providing auto- mobile service and tire sales to increase revenue. This is a unique combination of a for-profit and a not-for-profit business model. Partnership Sources Funding partnerships are defined as agencies and organizations outside of the tribal transit organization that support or partially subsidize the tribal transit operation. Their financial contributions are in proportion to their use of the service, and the terms are usually memorialized in a service agreement contract. These entities typically have a stake in the enterprise; wanting it to supplement their own transportation programs or provide essential rides and mobility for their program clientele. • Menominee Regional Public Transit (MRTP) is operated by the Menominee Indian Tribe in Wisconsin. Financial support for the service represents a synergistic partnership of agencies located on and off the reservation. The funding partnerships have enabled MRTP to diversify its ridership base and extend its operation off the reservation. According to the Menominee Director of Transit Services, Shawn Klemens, “establishing our partnerships was a win-win, as contract dollars that were negotiated for the partner- ships were essentially used to apply for additional grants to support the service designed. We also created a transportation

Funding Tribal Transit Programs Chapter 3 Page 78 Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report advisory committee which all stakeholders, not just partners, are invited to the table to discuss transportation issues.” MRTP uses Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) allocations as match to government transit grants. It also has transit service coordination agreements, on reservation, with the Title VI Elder Program and the College of the Menominee Nation. MRTP also provides school children transportation under contract with the Menominee School. Another important partner- ship is with the Menominee Health Clinic where non-emergency transportation, once performed by the clinic, is provided by MRTP. These trips have increased from 1,897 to 17,478 over time and now extend off-reservation to other health care facilities. MRPT has a service coordination agreement with Menominee County Human Services and is poised in 2011 to provide similar service to Langlade County to the north. The Langlade County payment— using state funds—will serve as local match to a Section 5311 grant. MRPT anticipates future service coordination agreements with Shawano County to the south and the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians Tribe to the west. An example of the combination of funds used to support the tribal transit operation is shown in Table 3-2: Example of MRPT Section 5311 Partnership Fund Sources. Table 3-2: Menominee Indian Tribe - Wisconsin Example of MRPT 5311 Partnership Fund Sources Partnership Source Amount Description Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin $407,072 Tribal government funds. Menominee Clinic Funds $138,996 Local clinic service coordination agreement funds. Menominee County $79,176 County service coordination agreement using state WS 85.21 funds allocated by the state and matched with county funds at 20 percent. State of Wisconsin / Menominee Aging Agency $22,500 State WS 85.215 funds do not require match and are designated only for Indian tribes in Wisconsin. They represent gaming revenue tribes pay to the State. The Statewide Tribal Council lobbied the legislature to set aside these funds just for tribal elderly transportation. Each tribe receives $22,500. MRPT negotiated a MOU with the Menominee Aging agency for this amount. The funds are used to match Section 5311 grants. Bureau of Indian Affairs $100,000 BIA funds used to match capital grants.

Chapter 3 Funding Tribal Transit Programs Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report Page 79 • Road Runner Transit is operated by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in Colorado. According to Peter Tregillus, Program Director of Community Action Programs, partnerships that assist in covering costs are expected by tribal government. Tregillus states, “The tribe funding is steady, but since it is a public transit [service,] the Tribe expects us not to be totally reliant on them, but to get financial support from other local stakeholders.” Through outreach to stakeholders and through advertising, support for the Road Runner service from La Plata County, for example, increased from $4,300 in 2002 to $42,189 in 2008. Funds from the nearby Town of Bayfield increased from $24,000 to $37,623 over the same period. With these partnership agreements, Road Runner passenger-trips doubled from 10,123 in 2006 to 20, 452 in 2008, as did its revenue service-hours from 2,104 to 4,523 respectively. An example of the combination of funds used to support the tribal transit operation is shown in Table 3-3: Example of Road Runner Partnership Fund Sources. Table 3-3: Southern Ute Tribe - Colorado Example of Road Runner Partnership Fund Sources Three-Year Data Partnership Source 2006 2007 2008 FTA Section 5311 76,000 131,880 153,228 Southern Ute Tribe 52,916 61,800 63,509 Town of Ignacio 1,600 1,800 3,000 Town of Bayfield 30,207 36,623 37,623 La Plata County 24,800 24,800 42,189 Advertising 3,311 2,400 2,400 Forest Lakes Metro District 0 0 1,500 FTA New Freedom 0 0 30,800 Total 190,840 261,310 336,257 Road Runner farebox revenue increased from $17,000 in 2006 to $24,500 in 2008. • The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) provide general public transit services on the reservation. This tribal transit has been successful in receiving local funding from a variety of sources. The Salish and Kootenai College—which has their own bus service for students to access classes and pro- grams—have since partnered with CSKT to provide most of

Funding Tribal Transit Programs Chapter 3 Page 80 Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report their transportation. CSKT was able to reach an agreement with the College to provide their transportation and be reimbursed for the trips provided. The Tribal Health Clinic also reimburses CSKT for trips. CSKT has an informal agreement with the Lake County Council on Aging to refer and help with rides. • In the case of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota, stakeholder organizations purchase tickets to give to their patrons and clientele for free transit trips on the tribe’s SR Transportation system. Twelve organizations regularly purchase the tickets. Some are faith-based; others are health care and social service agencies. The ticket program provides additional operating funds and fosters a sense of ownership and connection to the transit service. In October 2009, the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SD DOT) paired Standing Rock (SR) Transportation with a local non-tribal community (Mulbridge) to provide one deviated fixed route for now. The community is also interested in contracting with SR Transportation to provide rides to school for children, which is a completely new type of service for SR Transportation. • Cherokee Transit (CT) of the Eastern Band of Cherokee works with various local agencies and receives revenues through agency contracts such as the Vocational Opportunities of Cherokee, Inc. (VOC), the Senior Citizens Program, and occasionally from Tribal Childcare and Tsali Care Center. CT has instituted a token program where other departments/programs can purchase tokens good for one ride and give them out to their clients in need. One example is the IHS hospital that has had a hard time purchasing transportation due to contractual requirements, but IHS is able to purchase 100 tokens for $90 which can be kept at the nurses’ station and the emergency department for patients who do not have the money for a bus fare home. There are some innovative programs that are implemented by CT that allow clients to buy tickets/passes and access the services they need such as the Parent Pass Program and the Garnishment for Passes. Under the Parent Pass Program, children between the ages of 12 and 16 years can travel anywhere within the Qualla Boundary. Parents have to sign a release form and provide a list of destinations the transit department is allowed to transport their youth. The drivers can take them to those destinations. Some of these kids use the service to get to

Chapter 3 Funding Tribal Transit Programs Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report Page 81 school, work, and for recreation purposes. The Garnishment for Passes is a program for enrolled members of the tribe that can use their casino profit (garnishment check) to buy passes. People who are court-ordered to enroll in Alcoholics Anonymous or treatment centers, who have court dates, or are looking for work usually use this program. In the last six months, the tribe has made $7,000 on this program alone. • Fort Peck Tribe has cooperative agreements with Fort Peck housing, the work program, community services, elder care program, and Roosevelt County Council on Aging as well as agreements with the Valley Transit program in Valley County. The tribal transit program also coordinates with St. Lutheran Home and the Poplar Swing Bed (formerly a nursing home) by providing trips for their residents and is reimbursed by these agencies for providing those trips. They also coordinate with the IHS and CHR vehicles by providing transportation locally. While these agencies have vehicles, they do not have wheelchair-accessible vehicles which are used by the tribal transit program to provide transportation for them. According to FPTS management, tribal matching dollars also come from the tribe’s general fund. • Resource extraction is also an innovative local funding source. If a tribe has a natural resource extraction, a portion of the revenues received from this can be used as local match to provide transportation for employees that work in this area. The transportation could also be expanded to provide transportation for general public transit services in that area. The future revenue from this resource extraction could support not only social and community services for the tribe, but also public transportation services. • In tourism-based areas where the land is owned by the tribe, a lodging tax can be implemented. This can be used as an important element of the local transit funding formula. A lodging tax can be considered a specialized sales tax placed only upon lodging bills. Taxation of this type has been used successfully in Park City, Utah; Sun Valley, Idaho; Telluride, Colorado; and Durango, Colorado. A lodging tax is imposed only on overnight visitors. Day visitors and residents do not contribute to this transit funding source. Funds raised from the lodging fee could be used toward general public transit services provided in the area.

Funding Tribal Transit Programs Chapter 3 Page 82 Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report Grant Matching Sources Tribes also use government grants that they and their partners are awarded as leverage for additional grants. • Concerned by the delay in receiving a Section 5311 (c) award for its rideshare program, the Stillaguamish Tribe in Washington used a portion of its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) allocation to cover the gap in funding. Through the execution of a BIA planning contract, the tribe received $410,000 to purchase nine rideshare vehicles The tribe then applied for and received an additional $220,000 through the BIA-IRR American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus program, which enabled the purchase of three additional vehicles. The eventual receipt of the 5311(c) funds will supplement the BIA grants. • Another noteworthy example of grant matching is The Ride—a rural bus service in Sitka, Alaska operated by the Sitka Tribe of Alaska (STA). The service is not administered by the tribe, but by an umbrella agency—Center for Community (CFC). Due to its status as a nonprofit, CFC receives Section 5311 grants which cover two-thirds of the cost to operate Sitka Transit. The remain- ing one-third is covered with BIA-IRR and Section 5311(c) grants received by STA, as a federally recognized tribe. Sitka Transit paratransit services are operated by the community senior center—Southeast Senior Services (SESS)—which is subsidized in part with Title III - Older American Act funds. As the admin- istering agency, CFC coordinates the funds and contracts the bus service to STA and the paratransit service to SESS. This unique collaboration of a nonprofit agency, the tribe, and the senior center has increased access to traditional and non-traditional grant sources. • Citylink is a free public bus service operated by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe in Idaho. It began modestly with one route on the reservation. Today the system serves the reservation and most of northern Idaho. Citylink ridership grew from 18,700 to 555,565 in five years. Its rapid expansion is the direct result of a funding partnership termed the “Coalition of the Willing,” involving several agencies. Shortly after receiving its first federal transit grant, the tribe collaborated with Kootenai County which also wanted to institute a public bus service. With the common objective of increasing rural and urban mobility throughout Northern Idaho, a coalition was formed representing the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Kootenai County, the Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Panhandle Area

Chapter 3 Funding Tribal Transit Programs Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report Page 83 Council, and the Idaho Department of Transportation. The part- nership pools and leverages the Section 5307, 5310, and 5311 grants that each agency receives—achieving a higher use of the grants than if they were retained separately by each agency. The “Coalition of the Willing” partnership continues to this day, but the Coeur d’Alene Tribe is now seeking a higher level of participation from the local towns, cities, and agencies that benefit but do not pay for the service. According to Tribal Chairman Chief Allan, “I believe there are other ways to fund our public trans- portation needs, some of which may involve adding or increasing the contributions of city and county governments, North Idaho College, the local chambers of commerce, and Kootenai Medical Center.” An example of the combination of funds currently supporting the tribal bus service is shown in Table 3-4: Example of Citylink Partnership Fund Sources. As noted, a greater diversity of agency and community funds will be required in the future. Table 3-4: Coeur d’Alene Tribe - Idaho Example of Citylink Partnership Fund Sources One-Year Data (FY2007) Funding Amount Partnership Source FTA Section 5311 $235,301 Idaho Department of Transportation FTA Section 5311 $108,635 Tribal match FTA Section 5307 $96,699 Kootenai County (transfer of its Section 5307 to Section 5311) Tribal Match $8,407 Tribal match to Section 5307 ($96,699) which was transferred to Section 5311 FTA Section 5307 $555,036 Section 5307 Kootenai County funds FTA Section 5307 $399,380 Tribal match FTA Section 5309 $558,113 FTA grant for bus maintenance garage Tribal Match $111,623 Tribal match to Section 5309 funds FTA Section 5311(c) $225,000 FTA Tribal Transit Grant Total $2,298,194 Source: Grant Management Office of the Coeur d’Alene. Tribal transit is certainly an important community resource. Tribal transit financing has evolved over time due to the successful practices described herein and also due to the growing recognition that tribal transit services have become and are becoming essential and necessary Tribal Transit a Community Resource

Funding Tribal Transit Programs Chapter 3 Page 84 Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report community resources. This is illustrated by Citylink which began with local tribal funds; grew with federal, state, and county partnerships; and now—due to its success as a regional carrier—is acknowledged as a transportation lifeline and subsidized by a growing number of local and regional beneficiaries. Leveraging their services as essential community resources has also heightened the marketing and funding sophistication of the Menominee Regional Public Transit and Road Runner Transit systems. FUNDING DIFFICULTIES AND CHALLENGES Access to Funds The previous section of this chapter has described the wide variety of funding sources available to tribes. In practice, the majority of these programs are rarely used and most tribes make use of only a few funding sources for their transit program. Tribes may receive funds through several of these programs, but the funding is often limited to transportation services specifically for that progam and not used as part of an integrated approach to funding and operating transit service. The review of funding programs available to tribes compared with the funding sources being used by tribal transit programs indicates that there are many opportunities for tribes to access additional sources of funding for transit. There are many reasons these funds are not used to fund transit. Many of those are related to issues of coordination of services, even within tribal governments. Sustainability Sustainability of transit service is a critical issue and often directly related to funding sources and levels. Tribes have had to curtail service because of a reduction in funding. For example, Road Runner Transit in Colorado started a new service from Ignacio to Aztec, New Mexico using the FTA tribal transit program. When funding was lost, the service was discontinued and then resumed when additional funding was obtained. Passengers rely on service that is dependable. When a transit service is started, discontinued, and then resumed, passengers may seek other options because the service is not perceived as dependable or sustainable. Continuity

Chapter 3 Funding Tribal Transit Programs Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report Page 85 Continuity of service is related to three key factors: outside funding, local funding, and local policies. As funding levels change through grants such as the FTA tribal transit program, levels of service may fluctuate because of the changes. Local funding levels and local policies are directly related. A number of tribes stated that there was frequent turnover in tribal government and administration. As these changes take place, transit may be given a higher or lower priority. For transit programs that receive funding through the tribal govern- ment, this can have a significant effect on the level of service to be provided. During interviews, a number of tribes stated this had been an issue. They had lost funding when a new council was elected and transit was no longer the same priority. Transit programs that have been more successful in maintaining stable levels of funding were found to have two common charac- teristics. First, they worked with multiple sources of funding so that a loss in any one funding source did not overly impact the program. Transit programs which rely on only one or two sources of funding experience much more dramatic impacts when funding from any source is decreased. Second, the more successful transit programs work closely with tribal councils and administration. There is often a local leader who is directly involved in promoting the transit program and informing elected officials about the importance of the transit service. To sustain funding for part of their service, Cherokee Transit provided names of riders who would be impacted to the tribal council members. Staffing was found to be an issue related to funding and sustainability of the transit service. Staffing issues relate to qualifications and sufficient staffing levels. Staffing Finding an experienced transit manager has been a challenge for most tribal transit programs. In most cases, someone with no background has been hired to operated transit. Programs who have found some- one with expertise in grants, financial management, and personnel management have done well. Others have struggled because of lack of expertise. The need for training in transit management was expressed by a number of tribes. Lack of technical assistance for planning, management, and reporting has been a shortcoming based on feedback from tribes and FTA regional staff. Staffing levels are sometimes an issue. When programs are initiated, the duties may be assigned to someone as part of their job and not their

Funding Tribal Transit Programs Chapter 3 Page 86 Developing, Enhancing, and Sustaining Tribal Transit Services: Final Research Report only responsibility. Programs that have successfully implemented transit service in spite of various barriers, such as Oglala Sioux, have attributed that success to having a person who is dedicated to the transit program and not distracted by other responsibilities. Interviews with representatives of FTA confirm this. FTA staff recognize that if the transit program is only a portion of the manager’s responsibilities, the program will likely struggle and FTA will need to provide additional support. While it is not possible to establish a specific staffing level for each transit program, the responses to this research effort indicate that at least one person is needed who is dedicated and focused on the needs of the transit program. Administrative Processes and Complexity A request for grant funding commits the tribal organization to a series of legal, regulatory, and administrative requirements. For FTA grants, these requirements are described in four phases: Pre-Application, Application, Grant Reporting, and Grant Close Out. There are specific compliance requirements of the Tribal Transit Program [5311(c)]. Compliance and reporting have been an issue for a number of tribes. While some tribes have found no problem in working with the FTA reporting system, others have found this to be an obstacle. Tribal governments typically have the transit program and grant reporting functions separated in different departments. While the transit pro- gram may have expended the funds, the financial reporting is not completed and the funds are not drawn down from the FTA grant. This has hurt some tribes for subsequent funding requests as the FTA records indicate the previous grant funds have not been expended and reviewers have not funded the subsequent requests. At least one tribe decided to forgo a planning grant because of the low level of funding ($25,000) compared to the effort required for report- ing to FTA. Other funding programs such as the Indian Reservation Roads pro- gram and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program have similar specific reporting requirements.