02 11 15 Agenda Package

BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT AGENDA Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the Pla...

0 downloads 230 Views 9MB Size
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

AGENDA

Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the Planning and Operations Committees AC Transit General Offices 2nd Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612

Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Closed Session: 4:00 p.m. (Items 9A-9D)

Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS H. E. CHRISTIAN PEEPLES, PRESIDENT (AT-LARGE) ELSA ORTIZ, VICE PRESIDENT (WARD 3) JOE WALLACE (WARD 1) GREG HARPER (WARD 2) MARK WILLIAMS (WARD 4) JEFF DAVIS (WARD 5) JOEL YOUNG (AT-LARGE) BOARD OFFICERS DAVID J. ARMIJO, GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY STANDING COMMITTEES MEETING DAYS* nd Planning Committee 2 Wednesday nd Operations Committee 2 Wednesday th External Affairs Committee 4 Wednesday th Finance and Audit Committee 4 Wednesday * All Standing Committees are held in conjunction with the regular Board of Directors meeting, To access live and archived audio of Board of Directors and Standing Committee meetings as well as agendas, staff reports, and the schedule of future meetings please visit www.actransit.org and click on “Board Meetings”. Dial (510) 891-7200 to access agendas by telephone. For questions, contact the District Secretary’s Office at (510) 891-7201. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

February 11, 2015 1

Page 1 of 7

MEETING PROCEDURES Public Comment: Members of the public wishing to present comments should complete a Speaker’s Form and submit it to the District Secretary. For subjects not listed on this agenda, the public will be invited to speak under the "PUBLIC COMMENTS" section of the agenda. For specific agenda item(s), speakers will be invited to address the Board/Standing Committee(s) at the time the item is being considered. All speakers are allowed two (2) minutes to present comments. Individuals wishing to present more detailed information are encouraged to submit comments in writing. Written comments are included in the record for meeting(s), and as such, are available for public inspection and may be posted to the District’s website. Electronic Devices: All electronic devices (cell phones, pagers and similar-sounding devices) shall be placed on mute, vibrate or silent mode during Board and Committee meetings pursuant to District Ordinance No. 12. Time of Meetings: Times included on this agenda for commencement of Standing Committee meetings are estimates only. Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole. Order of Agenda Items: The Board or Standing Committee(s) may discuss any item listed on this agenda and in any order. Agenda Planning: The Agenda Planning portion of the agenda is designed to assist the Board and staff in the preparation of future Board and Committee agendas. Each item requested shall have the concurrence of at least two Directors in order to place a proposed agenda item on a future agenda. LIVE AUDIO STREAMING OF BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Live audio streaming and an archive of previously recorded meetings is available on the District’s website at www.actransit.org. For technological reasons, recordings of meetings held outside of the Board Room cannot be streamed to the web. AVAILABILITY OF AGENDA RELATED MATERIALS Written agenda related materials for all open session regular meetings are available to the public 72 hours prior to the meeting or at the time the materials are distributed to a majority of the Board. Written materials presented at a meeting by staff or a member of the Board will be available to the public at that time, or after the meeting if supplied by an outside party. Agenda related materials are available on the District’s website or by contacting the District Secretary’s Office. ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC MEETINGS Meetings of the Board of Directors are accessible to individuals in wheelchairs. The Board Room is equipped with Assistive Listening Devices for individuals with a hearing impairment. Written materials in appropriate alternative formats, disability-related modification/accommodations must be made three business days in advance of the meeting or hearing to help ensure availability. Subject to availability, sign language and foreign language interpreters will be provided upon request with 72-hour notice. Please direct requests for disability related modification or accommodation and/or interpreter services to Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, 94612 or call (510) 891-7201. AC Transit’s General Offices are generally served by bus lines 1, 11, 12, 51A, 72, 72M. The nearest accessible bus th service is provided at the intersection of Broadway and 17 Street in Oakland. The nearest accessible BART station th is the 19 Street Station in Oakland. District Ordinance No. 13 prohibits bringing non-service animals to District facilities unless specifically authorized by federal or state law. To accommodate individuals with severe allergies and environmental illnesses, meeting participants should refrain from wearing scented products to the meeting.

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

February 11, 2015 2

Page 2 of 7

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING – H. E. Christian Peeples, President Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. 1.

Staff Contact or Presenter

ROLL CALL

2. PRESENTATIONS 2A. Recognition of Director Harper for service as the 2013-2014 President of the Board of Directors. 2B. Update on Federal legislative activities. (Verbal)

3.

PUBLIC COMMENT

4.

CONSENT CALENDAR

President Peeples

Steve Palmer Van Scoyoc Associates

Any person may directly address the Board at this time on any items of interest to the public that is within the subject matter and jurisdiction of the Board. Speakers wishing to address a specific agenda item will be invited to address the Board at the time the item is being considered. Two (2) minutes are allowed for each item.

Items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and may be enacted by one motion/one vote. If discussion is desired, an item may be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered individually.

4A. Consider approving Board of Directors and Standing Committee minutes of January 14, 2015. (without exhibits)

Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

4B. Consider approving Board of Directors and Standing Committee minutes of January 28, 2015. (without exhibits)

Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

4C. Consider approving Board of Directors minutes of January 28, 2015. (Special Meeting)

Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

4D. Consider authoring the General Manager to travel to the Alternative Clean Transportation Expo 2015, May 4-7, 2015 in Dallas, Texas (Report 15-068).

David Armijo

5.

REGULAR CALENDAR

5A. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-012 approving amendment 15A-17, which deletes Amendment 13-A-16 from the AC Transit Employees’ Retirement Plan the plan in its entirety (Report 15-011a).

Denise Standridge 891-4833

5B. Consider approving contract award to Platinum Advisors for state lobbying services (Report 14-268a).

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

February 11, 2015 3

Page 3 of 7

5C. Receive update on the recruitment of representatives for the Retirement Board and provide direction to staff as to next steps in the process (Report 14-245a). 6.

Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

BOARD WORKSHOP

6A. Report on Alameda County Measure BB revenues and the District’s preliminary equipment, facility, and service enhancement plans (Report 15-041).

James Pachan 891-7215

6B. Update on the Short Range Transit Plan operating and capital budget projections (Report 14-033c).

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole)

Speakers will be invited to address a Committee at the time an item on the agenda is being considered or under Public Comment for items not on the agenda. Immediately following the Standing Committee Meetings, the Board meeting will reconvene at which time the Board may take action on any of the following Committee agenda items.

ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY. A.

PLANNING COMMITTEE – Greg Harper, Chairperson Held immediately following the Board Meeting recess.

Staff Contact or Presenter(s)

Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) Consent Items: A-1. Consider recommending receipt of Quarterly Report on the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project (Report 15-042).

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

A-2. Consider recommending receipt of the Quarterly Report on the Transbay Transit Center Project (Report 15-043).

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

A-3. Consider recommending receipt of Quarterly Report on the District’s involvement in external planning processes (Report 15-044).

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

A-4. Consider recommending that the General Manager be authorized to extend the West Bay Builders construction contract completion date to December 31, 2015 for the Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability (CDRS) Project (Report 12-297f).

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

Briefing/Action Items: A-5. Consider recommending receipt of report on coordination efforts with the City of Oakland to plan detour service for the Oakland Running Festival [Requested by Director Peeples 3/26/14; revised 12/31/14] (Report 15-050).

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

February 11, 2015 4

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

Page 4 of 7

A-6. Consider recommending receipt of report on the Major Corridors Study (Report 15-053).

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

A-7. Consider recommending receipt of report on potential funding for District projects and programs through the State’s Cap and Trade Program (Report 15-065).

James Pachan 891-7215

B.

OPERATIONS COMMITTEE – Joe Wallace, Chairperson Held immediately following the Planning Committee meeting.

Staff Contact or Presenter(s)

Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) Consent Items: B-1. Consider recommending receipt of the Quarterly Operations Performance Report for AC Transit fixed route services (Report 15-046).

James Pachan 891-7215

B-2. Consider recommending that the General Manager be authorized to exercise a two-year contract option with Claremont EAP for the District’s Employee Assistance Program (Report 15-039).

Tom Prescott 891-7221

B-3. Consider recommending authorization to release a solicitation for Workers’ Compensation Third Party Administrator Services, Managed Care Program, Claims Reporting/Intake System, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration reporting services (Report 15-064).

Tom Prescott 891-7221

Briefing/Action Items: B-4. Consider recommending receipt of report on set asides for small business participation spanning the past two years [Requested by Director Ortiz – 10/22/14] (Report 15-047).

Phillip McCants 891-5443

B-5. Consider recommending receipt of an update on the Federal Transit Administration Triennial Audit (Report 15-013).

Alan Parello 891-7203

B-6. Consider recommending that the General Manager be authorized to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services for the Paratransit Coordinator’s Office for the East Bay Paratransit Consortium (Report 15-066).

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

B-7. Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 15-004 authorizing the destruction of designated records maintained by the District Secretary’s Office (Report 15-028).

Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

February 11, 2015 5

Page 5 of 7

B-8. Consider recommending approval of amendments to Board Policy 163 – Public Hearing Process for the Board of Directors [Requested by Director Peeples] (Report 15-051). RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING H. E. Christian Peeples, President 7.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

The District Secretary will report on the recommendations made by the Committees, including those items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda. If discussion or comment is desired, any person may request that an item be considered individually.

A. PLANNING COMMITTEE: A-1. Consider receiving the Quarterly Report on the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project (Report 15-042). A-2. Consider receiving the Quarterly Report on the Transbay Transit Center Project (Report 15-043). A-3. Consider receiving the Quarterly Report on the District’s involvement in external planning processes (Report 15-044). A-4. Consider authorizing the General Manager to extend the West Bay Builders construction contract completion date to December 31, 2015 for the Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability (CDRS) Project (Report 12-297f). A-5. Consider receiving report on coordination efforts with the City of Oakland to plan detour service for the Oakland Running Festival [Requested by Director Peeples 3/26/14; revised 12/31/14] (Report 15050). A-6. Consider receiving report on the Major Corridors Study (Report 15053). A-7. Consider receiving report on potential funding for District projects and programs through the State’s Cap and Trade Program (Report 15-065). B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE: B-1. Consider receiving the Quarterly Operations Performance Report for AC Transit fixed route services (Report 15-046). B-2. Consider authorizing the General Manager to exercise a two-year contract option with Claremont EAP for the District’s Employee Assistance Program (Report 15-039). B-3. Consider authorizing the release a solicitation for Workers’ Compensation Third Party Administrator Services, Managed Care Program, Claims Reporting/Intake System, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration reporting services (Report 15-064). B-4. Consider receiving report on set asides for small business participation spanning the past two years [Requested by Director Ortiz – 10/22/14] (Report 15-047). B-5. Consider receiving an update on the Federal Transit Administration Triennial Audit (Report 15-013). Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

February 11, 2015 6

Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

Staff Contact or Presenter(s) Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

Aida Asuncion 891-4979 Aida Asuncion 891-4979 Aida Asuncion 891-4979 Aida Asuncion 891-4979

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

Aida Asuncion 891-4979 James Pachan 891-7215

James Pachan 891-7215 Tom Prescott 891-7221 Tom Prescott 891-7221

Phillip McCants 891-5443 Alan Parello 891-7203

Page 6 of 7

B-6. Consider authorizing the General Manager to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services for the Paratransit Coordinator’s Office for the East Bay Paratransit Consortium (Report 15-066). B-7. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-004 authorizing the destruction of designated records maintained by the District Secretary’s Office (Report 15-028). B-8. Consider approving amendments to Board Policy 163 – Public Hearing Process for the Board of Directors [Requested by Director Peeples] (Report 15-051). 8.

CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA

9.

CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

Linda Nemeroff 891-7284 Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

The Board is requested to authorize as recommended from the committee meetings above. Denise Standridge

The items for consideration are listed below and will be reported on by the General Counsel as necessary at the end of the meeting.

9A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))

Scott v. AC Transit, ACSC Case No. RG14733686, Claim No. 13-4589

9B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Two Cases)

9C. Conference with Labor Negotiators

(Government Code Section 54957.6): Agency Designated Representative: David J. Armijo, General Manager Employee Organizations: ATU Local 192, AFSCME Local 3916, IBEW Local 1245, Unrepresented Employees

9D. Public Employee Performance Evaluation

(Government Code Section 54957) Title: General Manager, General Counsel, District Secretary

10.

AGENDA PLANNING

11.

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

12.

BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS

13.

ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting: February 25, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.

David Armijo

(Government Code Section 54954.2)

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

February 11, 2015 7

Page 7 of 7

This page intentionally blank 

8

PRESENTATIONS BOARD OF DIRECTORS February 11, 2015 Agenda Items 2A, 2B 2A. Recognition of Director Harper for service as the 2013-2014 President of the Board of Directors 2B. Update on Federal legislative activities. (Verbal)

9

This page intentionally blank 

10

BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSENT CALENDAR

February 11, 2015 Agenda Items 4A – 4D

11

This page intentionally blank 

12

BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

MINUTES Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the Planning and Operations Committees Public Hearing AC Transit General Offices 2nd Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Closed Session: 4:00 p.m. {Item Nos. 1ZA-1ZE} Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS GREG HARPER, PRESIDENT (WARD 2) JOE WALLACE, VICE PRESIDENT (WARD 1) ELSA ORTIZ (WARD 3) MARK WILLIAMS (WARD 4) JEFF DAVIS (WARD 5) JOEL YOUNG (AT-LARGE) H. E. CHRISTIAN PEEPLES (AT-LARGE) TELECONFERENCE: H. E. Christian Peeples, Director At-large Hostelling International 1009 11th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001 BOARD OFFICERS DAVID J. ARMIJO, GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015

13

Page 1 of 17

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- Greg Harper, President Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.

ACTION SUMMARY

The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Board of Directors held a regular meeting on Wednesday, January 14, 2015. Prior to the start of the meeting, General Counsel Denise Standridge confirmed that all requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Govt. Code Sections 54950, et seq.) and the provisions of Board Policy 100, Section 4.8 regarding teleconferenced meetings were met in order for Director Peeples to participate in the meeting and advised that all votes must be taken by roll call vote. [An affidavit verifying that the

teleconference location was accessible to persons with disabilities and that the revised agenda was posted at the teleconference location at least 72 hours prior to the start of the first meeting is attached as Exhibit A.] The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m. for the purpose of Closed Session. All Board members were present, with the exception of Directors Young and Peeples who were absent. The District Secretary announced that the Board would convene in Closed Session to discuss Items 12A-E as listed on the agenda. Closed Session concluded at 4:45 p.m. At 5:03 p.m., President Harper called the Board of Directors meeting to order. 1.

ROLLCALL Present: Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Wallace, Harper Absent: Young (Excused Absence)

2.

PUBLIC HEARING a) Hold Public Hearing to receive public comment on the following: • the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan; • new service on street segments not previously served in Oakland; and • the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the aforementioned service expansion and service on new streets. b) Consider approving one San Pablo Corridor service expansion option. c) Consider the adoption of Resolution No. 15-003 approving the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and new service on new streets in Oakland; authorize the filing of a Notice of Determination; and approving the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and service on new streets in

Alameda~Contra

Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 14

APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS

Page 2 of 17

Oakland (Report 14-267b).

[A summary of public comment (Attachment 6 to Staff Report 14-267b) was provided at the meeting for the Board's consideration. Written comments received prior to the meeting are incorporated into the file by reference.] President Harper welcomed everyone to the Public Hearing and introduced the members of the Board of Directors and the Board Officers. He then called on General Counsel Denise Standridge to outline the rules of order and procedures for public speakers. President Harper opened the Public Hearing at 5:20 p.m. The meeting was turned over to General Manager David Armijo for the staff presentation. Senior Transportation Planner Linda Morris presented the staff report. A total of 19 persons appeared to present testimony on the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan, new service on street segments not previously served in Oakland, and the San Pablo Corridor service expansion options. There were no comments received regarding the Initial Study/Negative Declaration. A summary of the comments received is provided in Exhibit B of the minutes. The public hearing closed at 6:01p.m. Director Peeples commented that he was glad the public was enthusiastic about some of the route proposals; however, what really counts is people riding the bus in order to keep the routes in service. Director Ortiz concurred. Directors Peeples and Wallace commented in support of running the 72R on weekends, noting that it would do more to alleviate overcrowding while giving riders along the corridor a higher quality of service. President Harper commented that by adding frequency to the 72 and 72M, crowding is alleviated. With regard to the suggestion from one of the speakers that service on Line 46 run straight up Golf Links Road and then around and back down Fontaine Street, Director of Service Development Robert del Rosario advised that it could be studied as part of a future service plan. General Manager David Armijo advised that at the time the Service Expansion Plan was being developed, the District's financial position was very different. He added that changes to line 72 have been a priority and he would like to see both options for line 72 implemented Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 15

Page 3 of 17

this year- one in March and the other later this year. President Harper asked what feedback the Accessibility Advisory Committee had to offer about the Line 72 options. Mr. del Rosario advised that that the committee was not consulted because the service proposals were not for new service, but rather an enhancement of existing service. He added that staff would continue to look at other long-term options as part of the Comprehensive Operations Analysis. Director Peeples commented that while the committee did not review the service options, Mayor Abelson (who serves on the committee) strongly supported a Rapid bus on the weekends. MOTION: PEEPLES/ORTIZ to approve the findings with respect to the Initial Study/Negative Declaration concerning the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and Service on New Streets in Oakland as set forth in Section 1 of Resolution No. 15-003. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:6: Peeples, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Wallace, Harper ABSENT:1: Young MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to approve the 72R San Pablo Avenue Corridor Service Option (Option 1). AYES:6: Peeples, Wallace, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Harper ABSENT:1: Young Staff was directed to review the other service modifications discussed at the meeting.

I

MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to adopt Resolution No. 15-003 approving the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and new service on new streets in Oakland; authorize the filing of a Notice of Determination; and approving the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan as amended to include the 72R San Pablo Avenue Corridor Service Option (Option 1) and service on new streets in Oakland (Report 14-267b).

I AYES:6: Peeples, Wallace, Ortiz, Davis, Williams, Harper ! ABSENT:1: Young ;

3.

' f

PUBLIC COMMENT

I•

Jane Kramer commented on transparency and accountability with regard to the rights of citizens, alleging 1) the last Budget report was accepted without explanation or discussion; 2) two Directors asked to change meeting dates according to their personal schedules; 3) the Board attempts to impose their thoughts over

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 16

Page 4 of 17

i •

[•

[•



General Counsel's judgment; and 4) Board sometimes micromanages administrative functions. Deborah Taylor thanked Director Ortiz for appointing her to the Accessibility Advisory Committee. She has served two previous terms and was impressed with the responsiveness of staff and the Board. Peggy Guernsey, Hayward, commented that she has been using paratransit but would like to ride the bus more often. There is a bus stop sign at Berry Avenue and Mission Boulevard that has been damaged and not fixed despite repeated requests to AC Transit. Drivers say they can't stop there without the sign and the stop is being passed up. Jerry Grace said he and a lot of other people will be very pleased with the changes on San Pablo Avenue and he thanked the Board. He hoped this will reduce overcrowding on buses. Howard Mills, West Oakland, would like Line 31 restored on weekends because it goes directly to MacArthur BART and a lot of people don't like taking Line 26 all the way to Emeryville. It also connects with Alameda on weekends. He also asked the Board to consider running the 1R to downtown Berkeley on weekends because it would eliminate the crowding on Line 1. Joyce Roy commented she would like Line NL to have 15 minute headways again because this would give riders an alternative to BART on 201h Street. She also said she was pleased to see the electric bus on display outside the building. Alberta Maged said she lives off Fruitvale in Oakland and more bus accessibility is needed in East Oakland. On behalf of ACCE she said the efforts to expand service were appreciated and that AC Transit should take a more activist role with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to obtain more funding. Rain lnnes-Dunn offered comments just after the public hearing asking that the Line LC buses in the evening be the small green Transbay buses because fewer people ride at night and the buses have air conditioning.

4.

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT The General Manager's report is incorporated into the minutes by reference as Exhibit C.

5.

BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS No comments were offered.

6.

CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: WILLIAMS/WALLACE to receive items 6A and 6B on the Consent Calendar as indicated. The motion carried by the following vote:

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 17

INFORMATION ONLY

RECEIVED

Page 5 of 17

AYES:6: Williams, Wallace, Ortiz, Davis, Peeples, Harper ABSENT:l: Young 6A. Consider approving Board of Directors and Standing Committee minutes of December 10, 2014. 6B. ! Consider receiving Retirement Board minutes of November 7, 2014 (Report 15-037). 6C. Consider approving the first amendment to the General Manager's employment agreement (Report 15-052).

POSTPONED TO A FUTURE MEETING

i Item 6C was pulled off the Consent Calendar by Director Ortiz to i express concern with the contract amendment in that it had been ! drafted by a Board member and entered into without Board approval ! outside of public view. She also felt that language in the contract ! misrepresented the Board's reasoning for giving a salary increase to

i the General Manager.

I! MOTION: ORTIZ/WALLACE to

postpone the approval of the contract amendment until it has been reviewed by the General Counsel and/or the Board's outside legal counsel and to remove the word "merit" from the contract. The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES:6: Ortiz, Wallace, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Harper ! ABSENT:l: Young

! 7.

REGULAR CALENDAR

7A. Consideration of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission lifeline Program (Report 14-285a).

INFORMATION ONLY

[A memorandum provided by Director Peeples dated January 9, 2015, is incorporated into the file by reference.] Acting Manager of Capital Planning and Grants Chris Andrichak presented the staff report. Members of the Board expressed concern with the increased role, financial responsibilities, and liability AC Transit would assume if it were to act in the capacity of a fiscal sponsor. There were also concerns raised regarding insurance coverage and the fact that the District would receive no reimbursement for its efforts. Due to these concerns, members of the Board agreed that that a policy be developed to guide decisions concerning the fiscal sponsorship of projects for public, private and non-profit entities. The policy should address all potential financial and legal liabilities, reimbursement for costs, and offer a careful assessment of how AC Transit might be Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 18

Page 6 of 17

impacted in the future. A policy needs to be developed before the Board will consider any applications for fiscal sponsorship. No action was taken. The item was presented for information only. 7B. Consider receiving report regarding the actuarial impact on future annual costs of proposed Amendment 15-A-17 to the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan; and direct the District Secretary to provide public access to its contents for a period of at least two weeks from January 15, 2015 through January 30, 2015 in order for the comments to be considered at the February 11, 2015 Board of Directors meeting (Report 15-011). !

RECEIVED REPORT/ DIRECTION GIVEN

i General Counsel Denise Standridge presented the staff report. MOTION: PEEPLES/ORTIZ to receive report regarding the actuarial impact on future annual costs of proposed Amendment 15-A-17 to the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan; and direct the District 1 Secretary to provide public access to its contents for a period of at least ! two weeks from January 15, 2015 through January 30, 2015 in order for the comments to be considered at the February 11, 2015 Board of Directors meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:G: Peeples, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Wallace, Harper , ABSENT:1: Young RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole) The Board meeting recessed to the Standing Committees at 7:14p.m.

ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY.

A.

\ PLANNING COMMITTEE- Mark Williams, Chairperson I The Planning Committee convened at 7:14 p.m. All Committee i members were present except Director Young who was absent.

ACTION

SUMMARY

I

I Public Comment (for items not on the agenda)

i There was no public comment offered.

I Consent Items:

RECOMMEND

i MOTION: ORTIZ/PEEPLES to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda

! recommending adoption.

ADOPTION

The motion carried by the following vote:

I AYES:G: Ortiz, Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Davis, Williams I ABSENT:l: Young Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 19

Page 7 of 17

A-1.

Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 15-007 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications and funding agreements with the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CaiOES) for allocations of Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA) Funds for FY 2014-15 for the Transbay Transit Center (Report 15-031). Briefing/Action Items:

A-2.

Consider recommending that the General Manager be authorized to amend the design consultant services contract for the Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability Project between the District and Kim ley-Horn and Associates (Report 12-297e).

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Traffic Engineer Wil Buller presented the staff report. MOTION: ORTIZ/PEEPLES to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:6: Ortiz, Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Davis, Williams ABSENT:l: Young A-3.

Consider recommending receipt of report on the analysis and feasibility of operating double deck buses, and authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Alexander Dennis for an inservice demonstration of one double-deck bus [Requested by Director Peeples- 4/9/14] (Report 15-004).

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Manager of Technical Services Stuart Hoffman presented the staff report. Public Comment: Joyce Roy expressed enthusiastic support for the double-deck bus demonstration because it would increase capacity on Transbay. She added that it might not be the appropriate bus on a winding residential street. MOTION: HARPER/PEEPLES to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:S: Harper, Peeples, Ortiz, Davis, Williams ABSENT:l: Young ABSTAIN:l: Wallace

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 20

Page 8 of 17

A-4.

Consider recommending acceptance of future passenger surveys sponsored and conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as the passenger survey for the District as required i under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Requested by Director Peeples- 6/24/09 and Director Davis- 5/22/13] (Report 15-005).

RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE

i

Planning Data Administrator Howard Der presented the staff report. He advised that the District had the option of adding specific questions to the survey at an additional cost.

i

i Director

Davis renewed his request to survey non-passengers to find out why they don't ride the bus.

I

MOTION: WALLACE/ORTIZ to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending acceptance of future passenger surveys sponsored and conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as the passenger survey for the District. The motion carried by the following vote:

i

AYES:G: Wallace, Ortiz, Harper, Davis, Peeples, Williams ABSENT:l: Young A-5.

Consider recommending receipt of report regarding the Fall 2014 1 public outreach activities related to the Comprehensive Operations ! Analysis (Report 15-024). i

RECOMMEND RECEIPT

Transportation Planner Stephen Newhouse presented the staff report. Director Peeples commented that there needed to be better communication with elected officials for the next round of public 1outreach. j

i President Harper commented that staff needs to find a way to survey and engage non-riders in the process. MOTION: ORTIZ/PEEPLES to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:G: Ortiz, Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Davis, Williams ABSENT:l: Young A-6.

i Consider recommending receipt of an update on the Short Range i Transit

I 033c).

Plan operating and capital budget projections (Report 14-

PULLED OFF THE AGENDA

! Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 21

Page 9 of 17

The item was pulled off the agenda. The Planning Committee adjourned at 7:36p.m.

B.

i OPERATIONS COMMITTEE- Joe Wallace, Chairperson

! The

Operations Committee convened at 7:36 p.m. All Committee

ACTION SUMMARY

! members were present except Director Young who was absent.

ii Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) 1

There was no public comment offered.

I Director Williams left the dais at 7:41 p.m. B-1.

I Briefing/Action Items: '

i Consider recommending receipt of report regarding modifications to

I classification specifications approved by the General Manager in 2014

RECOMMEND RECEIPT

i (Report 15-008).

I Senior Human Resources Administrator Llew Keller presented the staff ! report. Director Ortiz inquired about various classifications outlined in the report and the process to amend, create and abolish classification specifications. She also asked about funding for new classifications in 1 the budget.

!

i Public Comment: •

Eric Darby, ATU Local 192, commented that the classification specification changes to the position of Parts Clerk had not been discussed with the union. [Mr. Keller responded that the changes

had been discussed with union.] •

Yvonne Williams, President of ATU Local 192, commented that the District had created a new AFSCME position, Grade 6 classification specification for Temporary Trainer that could not be found on the District's website. As a result, the District has asked ATU members, without the knowledge or approval of ATU, to sign a document that cuts their pay. [Acting Chief Administrative Services Officer Tom

Prescott advised that a complaint was filed by trainers represented by AFSCME because of an uptick in the work involved to train new operators. To address the issue, line instructors were brought in to help and were making more money than the existing trainers which created another problem for AFSCME. To address it, the District recruited for extra qualified trainers. General Manager David Armijo advised that he would meet with the union and update the Board at the next meeting.]

Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 22

Page 10 of 17

MOTION: PEEPLES/HARPER to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: . AYES:S: Peeples, Harper, Ortiz (with concerns), Davis, Wallace

I ABSENT:2: Young, Williams (out of seat) B-2.

Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 15-002 approving new classification specifications for Network Security Engineer and Network/Server Administrator (Report 15-025).

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

I Senior Human Resources Administrator Llew Keller presented the staff I report. MOTION: PEEPLES/ORTIZ to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: : AYES:S: Peeples, Ortiz, Harper, Davis, Wallace

! ABSENT:2: Young, Williams (out of seat) I

Director Williams returned to the dais at 7:52p.m. B-3.

Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 15-009 approving amendments to Board Policy 222 - Alcohol and Substance Abuse ! Policy (Report 14-301a} [Continued from the December 10, 2014

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

! Operations Committee meeting.] !

Human Resources Administrator Uta Jamerson presented the staff report. Director Ortiz commented that she was glad the committee had ; postponed the item until staff could meet and confer with the unions in order to make the modifications.

I I

MOTION: PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:6: Peeples, Williams, Harper, Ortiz, Davis, Wallace ABSENT:l: Young B-4.

I

! Consider recommending receipt of report on the state of the District's

! bus fleet for fixed route services (Report 15-006}.

RECOMMEND RECEIPT

II Director Peeples left the meeting at 7:56 p.m. and returned to the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015

23

Page 11 of 17

meeting at 7:57p.m. Director of Maintenance Salvador Llamas presented the staff report. MOTION: PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:6: Peeples, Williams, Harper, Ortiz, Davis, Wallace ABSENT:l: Young B-5.

Consider recommending authorization to issue a solicitation for oncall project management/construction management services in support of capital project implementation (Report 15-030).

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Senior Project Manager Craig Michels presented the staff report. MOTION: PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:6: Ortiz, Williams, Harper, Davis, Peeples, Wallace ABSENT:l: Young B-6.

Consider recommending receipt of the PeopleSoft Alternatives Analysis Report (Report 15-026).

RECOMMEND RECEIPT

[Attachment 2 to Staff Report 15-026 was provided at the meeting for the Committee's information and is incorporated into the file by reference.] Acting Chief Information Services Officer Tom O'Neill presented the staff report. President Harper commented on misrepresentations to the Board over 1 the effectiveness of the PeopleSoft system and concerns about underutilization. He requested an analysis of what was done right and r wrong, where we are now, and a roadmap forward based on that ! analysis. He also wanted to know what functions are available in PeopleSoft that are not available elsewhere, and asked staff to I 1 concentrate on cloud-based systems.

i

I

I Mr. O'Neill

advised that he continues to seek out promising cloudapplications that may fit the District's needs. He assured the j Board that PeopleSoft was working very well in both Finance and ! Human Resources. He added that the April 2014 Government Finance ! Officers Association audit of the system suggested improvements, such

i based

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 24

Page 12 of 17

as upgrades and training, all of which staff were pursuing.

Director Ortiz requested that staff re-evaluate the market in three years. Director Peeples agreed that staff needs to keep an eye on the market and get out of hosted PeopleSoft as soon as possible. He said he was in favor of the upgrade because it might draw in new users of the system.

I

I Director

Davis commented that issues related to the implementation ! and day-to-day use of the PeopleSoft system were the responsibility of ! staff and the Board should focus on the big picture.

i

I MOTION:

ORTIZ/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar The motion carried by the following

i Addenda recommending receipt.

I vote:

i

I AYES:S: Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Wallace

i NOES:l: Harper

I ABSENT:l: Young B-7.

Consider recommending adoption of Board Policy 190 - Access to ! Public Records- Requests and Fees (Report 15-012).

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

1

l j General Counsel Denise Standridge presented the staff report.

!

! Director Peeples proposed that the last sentence of Section 4.C.l. be ! removed from the policy.

I MOTION:

PEEPLES/HARPER to forward to the Consent Calendar recommending adoption as amended to remove the last I sentence of Section 4.C.l. from the policy. The motion carried by the I following vote:

i Addenda I

i AYES:G: Peeples, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Wallace

! ABSENT:l: Young

I

I The Operations Committee adjourned at 8:22 p.m. RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- Greg Harper, President The Board of Directors meeting reconvened at 8:22 p.m. All Board members were present except Director Young who was absent. 8.

! REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

I District Secretary Linda Nemeroff reported that all of the items from

I I 1

ACTION SUMMARY

REPORT GIVEN

! the Planning and Operations Committee meetings had been referred

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 25

Page 13 of 17

to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt, approval, or adoption as indicated, with the exception of Item A-6, which was pulled off the agenda, and Item B-7, which was forwarded to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending adoption of the policy as amended to remove the last sentence in Section 4C.1.

9.

CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA MOTION: WILLIAMS/WALLACE to receive, approve or adopt the items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda as indicated on the agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:

RECEIVED, APPROVED OR ADOPTED AS INDICATED

AYES:6: Williams, Wallace, Ortiz, Davis, Peeples, Harper ABSENT:l: Young The items brought before the Board were as follows: A. A-1.

A-2.

A-3.

A-4.

A-5.

B. B-1.

B-2.

PLANNING COMMITTEE: Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-007 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications and funding agreements with the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services {CaiOES) for allocations of Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA) Funds for FY 2014-15 for the Transbay Transit Center (Report 15-031). Consider authorizing the General Manager to amend the design consultant services contract for the Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability Project between the District and Kimley-Horn and Associates (Report 12-297e). Consider receiving report on the analysis and feasibility of operating double deck buses, and authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Alexander Dennis for an in-service demonstration of one double-deck bus [Requested by Director Peeples - 4/9/14] (Report 15-004). Consider accepting future passenger surveys sponsored and conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as the passenger survey for the District as required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Requested by Director Peeples- 6/24/09 and Director Davis5/22/13] (Report 15-005). Consider receiving report regarding the Fall 2014 public outreach activities related to the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (Report 15024). OPERATIONS COMMITTEE: Consider receiving report regarding modifications to classification specifications approved by the General Manager in 2014 (Report 15008). Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-002 approving new classification specifications for Network Security Engineer and

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 26

Page 14 of 17

Network/Server Administrator (Report 15-025). Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-009 approving amendments to Board Policy 222 - Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy (Report 14· 301a) [Continued from the December 10, 2014 Operations Committee meeting.] Consider receiving report on the state of the District's bus fleet for fixed route services (Report 15-006). Consider authorizing the issuance of a solicitation for on-call project management/construction management services in support of capital project implementation (Report 15-030). Consider receiving the PeopleSoft Alternatives Analysis Report (Report 15-026). Consider recommending adoption of Board Policy 190 · Access to Public Records- Requests and Fees (Report 15-012).

B-3.

B-4. B-5.

B-6. B-7.

10.

REPORT FROM THE BOARD PRESIDENT Report on District accomplishments in 2013 and 2014. 1

i

INFORMATION ONLY

President Harper said he enjoyed serving as president the past two years, noting the following accomplishments: improved bus service, new buses, increased reserves, more than 250 new operators hired, Line 51 improvements, Bus Rapid Transit, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise participation improved to 22%, as well as positive fare policy changes.

l

! INFORMATION ONLY. ! 11.

! SELECTION OF PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD

I REPORT FROM THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE

i Consider report from the Nominating Committee and election of 2015

I Board President and Vice President.

President Harper turned the meeting over to Director Wallace who reported that the Nominating Committee unanimously recommended Director Peeples to serve as President and Director Ortiz to ·Serve as Vice President and motioned same.

I No other nominations were offered.

REPORT GIVEN APPROVED THE SELECTION OF DIRECTOR ORTIZ AS VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR PEEPLES AS PRESIDENT FOR 2015

I MOTION: WALLACE/WILLIAMS to select Director Peeples to ·serve as President and Director Ortiz to serve as Vice President for 2015. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:6: Wallace, Williams, Harper, Ortiz, Davis, Peeples ABSENT:1: Young Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 27

Page 15 of 17

12. I CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT i General Counsel Denise Standridge reported out on the following:

REPORT GIVEN

I MOTION:

ORTIZ/WALLACE to approve settlement in the amount of I $592,000 in the matter of Alice Wang v. AC Transit, Claim No. 12-3397, i ACSC No. RG14717517. The motion carried by the following vote: j

i AYES:S: Ortiz, Wallace, Williams, Davis, Harper I! ABSENT:2: Peeples, Young I No other reports were given. i

12A.! Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation ! (Government Code Section S4956.9 (a))

I Alice Wang v. ACTransit, Claim No. 12-3397, ACSC No. RG14717517 I Jeffery Robbert v. AC Transit, Claim No. 11-3837, ACSC No. RG12653591

!

128~ Conference with Legal Counsel- Potential Litigation

I (Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Three Cases) \

12C.j Conference with Labor Negotiators

! (Government Code Section 54957.6): ! Agency Designated Representative: David J. Armijo, General Manager 'j

Employee Organizations: ATU Local 192, AFSCME Local 3916, IBEW Local 1245,

! Unrepresented Employees

12D.I Conference with Labor Negotiators- Board Officers

I (Government Code Section 54957.6): I Agency Designated Representative: Greg Harper, Board President f

Title: General Manager

I

12E.! Public Employee Performance Evaluation \ (Government Code Section 54957) \ Title: General Manager, General Counsel, District Secretary

! 13.

AGENDA PLANNING Referred to External Affairs Director Harper requested a report on how the District reaches out to l non-riders for their opinions about AC Transit's service (President Peeples concu~red)

I

Referred to Future Board Meeting President Peeples requested that Jason Lee from MUNI make a followup presentation on the data collected and conclusions drawn from MUNI's proof-of-payment study. {Vice President Ortiz concurred)

Alameda~Contra

Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015 28

Page 16 of 17

I I i President Peeples requested a presentation on fare consolid ation in I I the Bay Area. (Vice President Ortiz concurred ) J

14.

I ADJOURNMENT 1

There being no further business to come before the Board of Directors, the

i the meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. The next meeting of I Board of Directors is scheduled for Wednesday, January 28, 2014. Respectfully submitted,

Linda A. Nemeroff District Secretary

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 14, 2015

29

Page 17 of 17

This page intentionally blank 

30

BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

MINUTES · Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the External Affairs and Finance and Audit Committees AC Transit General Offices 2"d Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Closed Session: 4:00 p.m. (Items 8A-8D) Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS H. E. CHRISTIAN PEEPLES, PRESIDENT (AT-LARGE) ELSA ORTIZ, VICE PRESIDENT (WARD 3) JOE WALLACE (WARD 1} GREG HARPER (WARD 2} MARK WILLIAMS (WARD 4) JEFF DAVIS (WARD 5) JOEL YOUNG (AT-LARGE) BOARD OFFICERS DAVID J. ARMIJO, GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist r ict

January 28, 2015

31

Page 1 of 11

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- H. E. Christian Peeples, President Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.

ACTION SUMMARY

I The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Board of Directors held a I regular meeting on Wednesday, January 28, 2015. !

! The

meeting was called to order at 4:16 p.m. for the purpose of Closed Session. All Board members were present with the exception ! of President Peeples and Director Williams who arrived at 4:19 p.m. ! The General Counsel announced that the Board would convene in Closed Session to discuss Items SA-D as listed on the agenda. Closed ! Session concluded at 4:45 p.m.

i i

I I At 5:03 p.m., President Peeples called the Board of Directors meeting I to order. 1.

Ii ROLL CALL ! Present: Wallace, Harper, Williams, Davis, Young, Ortiz, Peeples

I Absent: 2.

I PUBLIC COMMENT

I. I I

I •

;

\. 3.

None

Jane Kramer commented on transparency and accountability with regard to Board policy and procedure. She thought it violated State and Federal law to omit the 10 day response clause from Board Policy 190. Secondly, she agreed that utilizing the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's {MTC) rider survey would be cheaper, but urged the Board to request that MTC do a Districtwide, indepth household study. Joyce Roy commented on the 60-foot electric bus on display in front of the building. She said she hoped the Board would make fiscally responsible and fact based decisions regarding the purchase of zero emission buses. Howard Mills requested more Clipper vendors in West Oakland, noting it would help make Clipper more readily available since a lot of people can't get to locations outside of West Oakland. Jerry Grace pointed out a mistake he found in the Clipper location brochure and said he had expected more vendors in Fremont.

I CONSENT CALENDAR ! MOTION: ORTIZ/WILLIAMS to approve the Consent Calendar as ! presented. The motion carried by the following vote:

APPROVED OR RECEIVED AS INDICATED

j

i AYES:7: Ortiz, Williams, Wallace, Harper, Davis, Young, Peeples '

3A.I Consider

approving Accessibility Advisory Committee minutes of I November 11, 2014 (Report 15-001).

I Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015 32

Page 2 of 11

38. Consider receiving Retirement Board minutes of December 15, 2014 (Report 15-015). 4.

REGULAR CALENDAR

4A. Consider approving amendments to Board Policy 364- Revenue and Grant Policies regarding pass-through funding arrangements (Report 14-285b).

CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING

Acting Manager of Capital Planning and Grants Chris Andrichak presented the staff report. Director Ortiz commented that the draft policy proposed by staff was too broad and required more thought in order to develop a policy that would protect AC Transit's interests. She also asked for a clearer understanding of the 10% fee that would be withheld by the District to offset administrative burdens. She reiterated her prior request that staff check with the Federal Transit Administration to see what would be acceptable to them. She asked if a legal analysis had been performed with respect to potential liabilities and insurance issues. She also said that the policy needed to address pass through requests from cities, counties and non-profits. General Counsel Denise Standridge advised that while a full legal analysis had not been done, she had investigated the insurance issue and felt it was workable as long as there were limited liability provisions in the pass through I contracts. President Peeples expressed that he did not want a policy that would not allow the pass through of FTA funds because of the potential loss of funding for the region. He added that because AC Transit is an operating agency, not a construction agency, he would like to see the possibility of part of the administrative fee being given to the Alameda County Transportation Commission or the Contra Costa Transportation , Authority for their project management and compliance efforts. The item was continued to the next meeting for further review of the draft policy. 48. Consider approving the first amendment to the General Manager's employment agreement (Report 15-052a).

APPROVED

[A copy of the contract amendment hereinafter referenced as Staff Report 15-052a was provided at the meeting far the Board's consideration.] There was no presentation of the staff report.

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015 33

Page 3 of 11

MOTION: YOUNG/WALLACE to approve the first amendment to the General Manager's employment agreement. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Young, Wallace, Harper, Williams, Davis, Ortiz, Peeples 4C. Discussion and/or announcement of Standing Committee Chair assignments and Liaison Committee assignments. (Verbal)

APPOINTMENTS ANNOUNCED

President Peeples distributed a copy of his internal/external liaison ! committee appointments and standing committee chair assignments, ' which are incorporated into the minutes by reference as Exhibit A. S.

BOARD WORKSHOP

SA. Consider receiving an update on the planning process for the next generation of Clipper (Report 15-016}.

I Acting Chief Information Services Officer Tom 1

RECEIVED

O'Neill presented the

staff report.

Director Davis asked what impact regional fare coordination would have on the District's fare policy. Mr. O'Neill advised that the proposed regional partnership would not impose a fare structure on , any agency. He added that a regional coordination subcommittee is looking for ways to synchronize fares across the region, and staff would bring the subcommittee's recommendations to the Board for approval.

i

Director Harper had hoped Clipper would have distant readability to give off-boarding and destination data for route planning. He added that large employers and event planners say they would pay for transit to get people to jobs and events and this would require very fast, i distant readability. Mr. O'Neill responded that off-boarding data will be available, and custom products are envisioned for employers and event planners.

i

Director Wallace asked if all transit agencies in the area are onboard with Clipper. Mr. O'Neill said there is an expense and technical challenge to add agencies to the current Clipper network, but all agencies are participating in the C2 planning process and would like to 'i join the network.

l !

Public Comment: Jerry Grace thought other agencies in the area would eventually get Clipper cards. He also thought it would be hard for low income riders to get credit cards to use for Clipper. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015 34

Page 4 of 11

MOTION: WILLIAMS/WALLACE to receive the update on the planning process for the next generation of Clipper. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Williams, Wallace, Harper, Davis, Young, Ortiz, Peeples

RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole) The Board meeting recessed to the Standing Committees at 6:02 p.m.

ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY.

A.

i EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE- Elsa Ortiz, Chairperson

I The External Affairs Committee convened at 6:02 p.m. All Committee 1

ACTION SUMMARY

members were present.

i Public Comment (for items not on the agenda)

i There was no public comment offered.

I Briefing/Action Items: A-1. \ Consider recommending receipt of the Monthly Legislative Report

I and approval of legislative positions (Report 15-018).

RECOMMEND RECEIPT

I Director of Legislative Affairs and Community Relations Beverly Greene I presented the staff report.

I MOTION:

WILLIAMS/WALLACE to forward to the Consent Calendar The motion carried by I the following vote:

! Addenda recommending receipt of the report. i

J

A-2.

AYES:7: Williams, Wallace, Harper, Davis, Young, Peeples, Ortiz

I Consider recommending approval to sell full bus wraps on up to five i percent of the District's revenue fleet (Report 14'048). j

CONTINUED TO A FUTURE MEETING

i Director of Marketing and Communications Michele Joseph presented I the staff report.

I President Peeples

commented that he was opposed to full bus wraps \ because he felt it devalued passengers in favor of advertising to people ! on the street. He added that he has received complaints from I passengers about not being able to see out and from sheriffs about the ! safety issues of not being able to see inside the bus. i

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015 35

PageS of 11

Discussion ensued regarding the effect of wraps on passengers' ability to see their stop, liability and safety issues, whether vendors could specify certain routes, the applicability of the District's advertising policy, anticipated revenue, and 30% versus total coverage of windows. Director Harper suggested that staff survey passengers for their opinions about full bus wraps, how they affect the rider experience and whether being able to see out of or inside of the bus matters in terms of the additional service that could be provided through the revenue generated by full bus wraps. He also suggested that staff talk to the sheriffs to get their opinion of whether full bus wraps create valid security concerns from a law enforcement standpoint. He added that staff should be able to do some independent research with Titan to determine how much transmission is appropriate in terms of covering windows. Public Comment: Jerry Grace said he doesn't like wraps because passengers might miss their stop. Jane Kramer said these arguments are beside point if there were a sign in the bus that displays the next stop.

MOTION: HARPER/WilLIAMS to continue the item and direct staff to study issues such as passenger acceptability, passenger safety, and passenger orientation on the route. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:?: Harper, Williams, Wallace, Davis, Young, Williams, Ortiz A-3.

Consider recommending authorization to release a solicitation for revenue-yielding advertising on District vehicles (Report 14-049).

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Director of Marketing and Communications Michele Joseph presented the staff report. MOTION: YOUNG/WilLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:?: Young, Williams, Wallace, Harper, Davis, Peeples, Ortiz The External Affairs Committee adjourned at 6:34p.m. B.

! FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITIEE- Jeff Davis, Chairperson

! The Finance and Audit Committee convened at 6:34 p.m. All

ACTION SUMMARY

I Committee members were present. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015

36

Page 6 of 11

Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) There was no public comment offered. Consent Items: MOTION: WILLIAMS/WALLACE to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt or approval as indicated. The motion carried by the following vote:

RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR RECEIPT AS INDICATED

AYES:6: Williams, Wallace, Ortiz, Young, Peeples, Davis ABSENT:1: Harper (out of seat) B-1.

Consider recommending receipt of the Monthly Report Investments for the month of November, 2014 (Report 15-019)-

on

B-2.

Consider recommending approval to dispose of retired buses through sale or by means most advantageous to the District (Report 15-038).

B-3.

Consider recommending that the General Manager or his designee be authorized to file and execute applications and funding agreements with the California Energy Commission for the Medium- and HeavyDuty Advanced Vehicle Technology Demonstration grant program (Report 15-040). Briefing/Action Items:

B-4.

Consider recommending receipt of the FY 2014-15 Mid-year Budget Review and adoption of Resolution No. 15-005 amending the FY 2014i 15 Annual Operating and Capital Budget (Report 15-029).

RECOMMEND RECEIPT/ ADOPTION

Budget Manager Hernan Vargas presented an overview of the recommended amendments to the Operating Budget and Acting Manager of Capital Planning and Grants Chris Andrichak presented the 1 amendments to the Capital Budget.

I Director Ortiz commented on the inclusion of Measure BB funds in the projected revenue figures, noting her feeling that it might be premature to calculate the receipt of any Measure BB revenues into the budget. Interim Chief Financial Officer Jim Pachan advised that the l money will start being collected in April and funds are expected before the end of the fiscal year. With regard to the mid-year position requests, Director Ortiz wanted to know if the Board had approved the classification specifications for the positions, to which Mr. Pachan advised that all classifications had been approved.

I

MOTION: YOUNG/HARPER to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt of the report and adoption of ! Resolution No. 15-005. The motion carried by the following vote: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015 37

Page 7 of 11

AYES:7: Young, Harper, Wallace, Ortiz, Williams, Peeples, Davis B-5.

Consider recommending receipt of staff's proposed FY 2015-16 budgeting framework (Report 15-033}.

RECOMMEND RECEIPT

I Budget Manager Hernan Vargas presented the staff report. Discussion ensued regarding the process to establish the District's goals and strategic priorities. Members of the Committee felt that the Board should first weigh in on the goals and priorities before staff developed ! the budget. MOTION: ORTIZ/PEEPLES to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Ortiz, Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Williams, Young, Davis B-6.

I Consider recommending approval of amendments to Board Policy 312 -Budget Policy {Report 15-020}.

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Budget Manager Hernan Vargas presented the staff report. MOTION: HARPER/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following ! vote: AYES:7: Harper, Williams, Wallace, Ortiz, Young, Peeples, Davis B-7.

Consider recommending receipt of report on fare utilization trends and financial results associated with the implementation of the new I fare policy on July 1, 2014 (Report 15-021}.

RECOMMEND RECEIPT

I

I Treasury Manager Sue Lee presented the staff report. Members of the Committee responded favorably to the report, noting there was better fare data available despite a high incidence of unclassified fare data.

, Public Comment: ! i • David Lyons commented that the elimination of transfers has not been good for low income riders, noting that the majority of the increase in fare revenue was coming from cash-paying riders. He further commented on the low usage of Clipper among local riders and that the day pass only benefits about 8% of the ridership. He also pointed out that use of the Youth Clipper pass was declining when it should be going up. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015

38

Page 8 of 11

Jerry Grace asked questions concerning information contained in the staff report. MOTION: HARPER/PEEPLES to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Harper, Peeples, Wallace, Ortiz, Williams, Young, Davis

B-8.

I

Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 15-001 approving 1 amendments to Board Policy 354 - Procurement Protest Procedures ' and repeal Resolution No. 07-049 (Report 15-023).

1

CONTINUED TO A FUTURE MEETING

Contracts Compliance Administrator Phillip McCants presented the staff report. Director Ortiz asked for clarification of the language in Section I.C. of 1 the policy with regard to a "highly publicized matter". Mr. McCants i advised that the language was taken directly from the Federal Transit Administration circular. Staff is to review and revise the language. With regard to Section 4 (Standing to Protest), members of the Committee found the language unacceptable in that it appeared to be unfair to say that the second-low bidder was the only bidder that had standing to file a protest. Staff is to review and revise the language. Lastly, Director Ortiz requested that Section IX clarify that four affirmative votes of the Board are required to render a decision on appeal. MOTION: WALLACE/PEEPLES to continue the item until the next meeting in order for staff to incorporate the amendments to the protest filing fees ($50 for certified small businesses and $200 for all other protests) as well as the other changes outlined during the Committee meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Wallace, Peeples, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Young, Davis The Finance and Audit Committee adjourned at 7:28p.m. RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING H. E. Christian Peeples, President The Board of Directors meeting reconvened at 7:28 p.m. members were present

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 201S 39

ACTION SUMMARY All Board

Page 9 of 11

6.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES District Secretary Linda Nemeroff reported that all of the items from the External Affairs and Finance and Audit Committee meetings had been referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt, approval or adoption as presented with the following exceptions:

REPORT GIVEN

Item A-2 was retained in the External Affairs Committee and continued in order for staff to study and report back on the issues raised by the committee; and Item B-8 was retained in the Finance and Audit Committee in order for staff to incorporate the amendments recommended by the Committee into the policy.

7.

CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA MOTION: WALLACE/WILLIAMS to receive, approve or adopt the items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda as indicated. The motion carried by the following vote:

APPROVED OR, RECEIVED AS INDICATED

AYES:7: Wallace, Williams, Harper, Davis, Young, Ortiz, Peeples

A. A-1. A-3.

The items brought before the Board were as follows: EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Consider receiving the Monthly Legislative Report and approve legislative positions (Report 15-018). Consider authorizing the release of a solicitation for revenue-yielding advertising on District vehicles (Report 14-049).

B. B-1.

FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE: Consider receiving the Monthly Report on Investments for the month of November, 2014 (Report 15-019). B-2. Consider approving the disposal of retired buses through sale or by means most advantageous to the District (Report 15-038). B-3. Consider authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications and funding agreements with the California Energy Commission for the Medium- and Heavy-Duty Advanced Vehicle Technology Demonstration grant program (Report 15-040). B-4. Consider receiving the FY 2014-15 Mid-year Budget Review and adoption of Resolution No. 15-005 amending the FY 2014-15 Annual Operating and Capital Budget (Report 15-029). B-5. Consider receiving staff's proposed FY 2015-16 budgeting framework (Report 15-033). B-6. ' Consider approving amendments to Board Policy 312- Budget Policy (Report 15-020). B-7. Consider receiving report on fare utilization trends and financial results associated with the implementation of the new fare policy on July 1, , 2014 (Report 15-021). Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015 40

Page 10 of 11

8.

NO REPORT GIVEN

CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT There was nothing to report out of closed session.

SA. Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation (Gove rnment Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Two Cases)

8B.

Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6): Agency Designated Representative: David J. Armijo, General Manager Employee Organizations: ATU Local 192, AFSCME Local 3916, IBEW Local 1245, Unrepresented Employees

8C. I Conference with Labor Negotiators - Board Officers 1

(Governm ent Code Section 54957.6): Agency Designated Representative: H. E. Christian Peeples, Board President 1 Title: General Manager

SD.

I

i Public Employee Performance Evaluation I

(Government Code Section 54957) Title: General Manager, General Counsel, District Secretary

I I GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT I

9.

INFORMATION ONLY

I There General Manager's report is attached as Exhibit B and is incorporated int o the minutes by reference.

10.

11.

I BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS j Members of the Board commented on meetings and events attended

I

1since the last meeting.

i

I AGENDA PLANNING

I i

I

I

I

1

I 1 1

12.

I

Referred to Operations Director Harper requested a report from the District's real estate manager on the status and plans for properties owned by the District. (Pres ident Peeples concurred) President Peeples requested that staff develop a policy concerning ecigarettes. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board of Directors, the meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m. The next meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for Wednesday, February 11, 2015.

I !I

Respectfully submitted,

CYmMX~1]1Junda A::Nemeroff,

Dis~Secretary

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015

41

Page 11 of 11

This page intentionally blank 

42

BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

MINUTES Special Meeting of the Board of Directors AB 1234 Ethics Training (No business will be conducted at this meeting) AC Transit General Offices 10th Floor Conference Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 Wednesday, January 28, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS H. E. CHRISTIAN PEEPLES, PRESIDENT (AT-LARGE) ELSA ORTIZ, VICE PRESIDENT (WARD 3) JOE WALLACE (WARD 1) GREG HARPER (WARD 2) MARK WILLIAMS (WARD 4) JEFF DAVIS (WARD 5) JOEL YOUNG (AT-LARGE)

BOARD OFFICERS DAVID J. ARMIJO, GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY

Alameda-Cont ra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015

43

Page 1 of 3

SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- H. E. Christian Peeples, President Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.

Staff Contact or Presenter

i The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Board of Directors held a

I special meeting on Wednesday, January 28, 2015.

i I At 1:04 p.m., President Peeples called the Board of Directors meeting to order. 1.

ROLLCALL Present: Harper (arrived at 1:07 p.m.}, Wallace, Williams, Davis, i Young, Ortiz, Peeples i Absent: None Board Officers in Attendance: General Manager David Armijo General Counsel Denise Standridge I District Secretary Linda Nemeroff

I Prior to the start of the training, District Secretary Linda Nemeroff I requested an exception to the Board rules requiring that the meeting I be recorded because it was a special meeting for training purposes

I! only and was not a business meeting.

MOTION: ORTIZ/WALLACE to grant an exception to Board Policy 100, Section 6.21 waiving the recording of the meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: ' AYES:6: Ortiz, Wallace, Williams, Davis, Young, Peeples ABSENT:1: Harper

2.

NO ACTION WAS TAKEN

AB 1234 Ethics Training (2 hours). Attorneys Jayne Williams and Richard Pio Roda of Meyers Nave I conducted the state mandated AB 1234 Ethics Training and covered I the following topic areas: f

! • • • •

Personal financial gain by public servants; Laws relating to claiming perquisites of office; Government transparency laws; and Fair political practices laws.

Members of the Board of Directors and Board Officers attended the ! three-hour training; each received a certificate of completion.

I Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015 44

Page 2 of3

Public Comment: I Jane Kramer asked clarifying questions regarding t he content ! presented during the training. I j

I ADJOURNMENT I The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted,

u~~r~JDQ6--> Linda A. Wmeroff District Secretary

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

January 28, 2015

45

Page 3 of 3

This page intentionally blank 

46

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-068 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM: SUBJECT:

David J. Armijo, General Manager Travel Authorization for Alternative Clean Transportation Expo 2015

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider authorizing the General Manager to travel to the Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo 2015, May 4-7, 2015 in Dallas, Texas. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Board Policy 180A, this report requests approval of out-of-state travel for the General Manager to attend and speak at the Alternative Clean Transportation Expo. The General Manager has been invited to speak about AC Transit's hydrogen buses during the "Sector Spotlight" session on Passenger Transport Fleets on Wednesday, May 6, 2015. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

The General Manager's registration fee for the conference will be taken care of by the EXPO organizers as well as his hotel fee for the night of the speaking engagement. The approximate estimated cost ofthis trip is presented in the table below. .

Exp~11se Item

Airfare Lodging (1 night at 189.00 per night) Per Diem (1 day at $71.00 per day) Ground Transportation (2 days at $15 per day) Registration Fee Total Estimated Cost:

Cost $300.00 $189.00 $71.00 $30.00 $0.00 $590.00

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

In accordance with Board Policy 180A, all out-of-state travel for Directors and Officers to attend a conference or a meeting related to District business and at District expense, shall be approved by action of the Board of Directors prior to incurring expenses. This travel authorization has been prepared in accordance with Board Policy 180A. The 2015 Alternative Clean Transportation will be held on Monday, May 4, 2015 through Thursday, May 7, 2015 in Dallas, Texas. Discussions will highlight transit agency fleets and

47

Report No. 15-068 Page 2 of 2 agency selection processes of advanced vehicle technologies to meet their specific needs and keep people moving. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

The Alternative Clean Transportation EXPO serves as a forum for transportation industry officials to gain knowledge about all alternative fuel types-providing a one-stop shop for fleets to learn how to reduce costs and emissions. The EXPO and conference provide networking opportunities for public transportation officials and allows attendees to learn from peers in fleet-focused educational sessions. The impact on the District for sending the General Manager to participate and fulfil his invitation to speak would be entirely positive and beneficial. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:

The only alternative available is to deny the request, however this prevents the General Manager from speaking about AC Transit's hydrogen buses and gaining the educational, networking and professional opportunities provided at the conference. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

Board Policy 180a-Travel Meeting and Miscellaneous Expense Reimbursements for Directors and Board Officers. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2015 Alternative Clean Transportation Preliminary Agenda

Department Head Approval:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

Prepared by:

Maryam Paracha, Executive Coordinator

48

AGENDA I Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

SR 15- 068 ATTACH 1

May 4-7, 201 5 Dallas, TX

REGISTER (HTTP:/ /WWW.ACTEXPO .COM/REGISTER) Q

AGENDA Participate in four days of fleet-focused educational sessions.

MONDAY, MAY 4

TUESDAY, MAY 5

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6

Con'e-ence V/elccme &

Execut•Je Round· able G'oba!Energva1dthe

Open ng RcrrHI'~s

AM

L1

rthCct Cr.cs 7)11,,1 '~ '*''• hi• t

THURSDAY, MAY 7

fl.'crrhAr;·ertca•J C/cJ11

J~ r or·~·,r

Tr,m~portut on fAarkel~

Keynote Address

ACTTJiks

Natv\lorlung Break

Nctv.'Orking Break '

Luncheon& Keynote Address r,

Networkrng Break BrcakoutScss :::n 1

Ncl\'vorking Brc-' k

PM -

GoneraiA.t Fuel& Cleon Tech Sessions Clean Transportllion Workshope & Fonrns

-

Netw!J
Click to enlarge Q (http://www.actexpo.com/images/pageimages/ACT2015ScheduleAtAGiance.png)

ACT Expo 2015 agenda presented in partnership with:

http://www.actexpo.com/agenda

49

1128/2015

AGENDA I Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

Page 2 of25

U.S. Department of Energy

E

Electric Drive Transportation Association

~N GV Global

lhtto://www.novolobal.coml

MONDAY, MAY 4 MONDAY (5/4)

TUESDAY (5/5)

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY (5/7)

(5/6) 1:00 p.m.5:00p.m.

The PERC Lead the Way with Propane Autogas Summit will provide attendees the chance to hear from fleet managers who are seeing the benefits of propane autogas every day. Attending the summit will give

WORKSHOPS&FORUMS PERC Lead the Way

http://www.actexpo.com/agenda

50

1128/2015

AGENDA I Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

Page 3 of25

attendees a better sense of what clean, affordable propane autogas brings to the table, and why it's already gaining momentum with fleets around the country. There is no extra cost to attend for ACT Expo attendees. This summit is organized by the Propane Education &Research Council. (http://www.propanecouncil.org)

with Propane Autogas Summit Presented by

rA, PROPANE

LWJCOONru 1:00 p.m.5:00p.m.

iallltfrt!SliUU•tiJIIJICil.or~he Women in ACT Summit will showcase female

Women in ACT

eaders and companies that are shaping the future of clean transportatton. Hear from women and organizations that are laying a solid foundation for women's access to leadership positions in the Presented by transportation industry. Panelists will discuss the ways women lead differently, the bottom-line benefits from GLAOSTEIN. NEANDROSS promoting greater diversity in corporate leadership, and .............. & ASSOCIATES how to grow and maintain visibility in a male-dominated industry. Panels include: "Creating a Culture for (http://www.gladstein.org) Success: Companies that Lead' and "Civic and Political Leaders: Values, Vision, and Voice. · The summit is free to anyone attending ACT Expo and will take place on Monday.afternoon. The workshop is presented by ~~-eforum to explore WORKSHOPS &FORUMS on Fretght Efftctency's NACFE Trucking (NACFE) work encouraging the use of advanced technologies to improve fuel economy for Class-8 Efficiency: Making tractor trailers. The session will share results of several Your Fuel Go Farther Trucking Efficiency confidence reports, in addition to discussing the release of NACFE's Annual Fleet Fuel Study. Small group discussions will uncover the Presented by benefits and challenges of adopting various • technologies, including 6x2 axfes, idle-reduction ( ) devices, electronic engine settings, and automated ~"Roo~ transmissions. There is no extra cost to attend for ACT full-conference attendees. The workshop is (http.//www.carbonwarroom.co desented by NACFE (http://nacfe.org) and the Carbon War Room. (http://www.carbonwarroom. com)

gna

1:00 p.m.5:00p.m.

.

1:00 p.m.5:00p.m.

,o

Preview the full Trucking Efficiency program at

(http://nacfe.org) WORKSHOPS &FORUMS

NGV Global Technical Forum Presented by

(t1NGV Global (http://www .gladstein.org) 5:00p.m.7:00p.m.

PERC Kick-Off Reception

http://www.actexpo.com/agenda

51

l/28/2015

AGENDA I Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

Page 4 of25

Sponsored by

rA, PROPANE

lW JCOiiNm (http://www. propanecouncil.org)

TUESDAY, MAY 5 MONDAY {5/4)

TUESDAY {5/5)

WEDN ESDAY

THURSDAY (5/7)

(5LQ) 9:00a.m. 9:30a.m.

GENERAL SESSION

Conference Welcome &Opening Remarks

9:30a.m.11 :15 a.m.

11 :15 a.m.12:00 noon 12:00 noon12:45 p.m. 12:45 p.m.1:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m.1:30 p.m.

Recent declines in the global price of oil has raised the potential of lower price spreads between traditional petroleum-based fuels and alternatives such as propane autogas, electricity, natural gas, and others. However, despite this recent and likely short-lived oil price volatility, there are still plenty of reasons to continue investing in advanced vehicle technologies and leading fleets continue to do so now more than ever. Alternative fuels and efficiency technologies still provide a significant cost savings over petroleum fueleven at today's lower petroleum prices-and new and pending legislation will further increase the cost of "business as usual.· This session will shine a spotlight on key leaders driving innovation in the clean transportation industry regardless of the changing market. Each of these pioneers will present individually on the new alternative fuel and advanced technologies that are rapidly changing the face of industry. These TED Talk-style presentations will touch on the development of each presenting company's strategy to reduce fuel costs, maximize efficiency, and mitigate the impact of the nation's on-road fleet in light of the dropping price of traditional fueis.

GENERAL SESSION

ACT Talks

I

Networking Break

I I

GENERAL SESSION

Luncheon

GENERAL SESSION

Keynote Introduction

I

http://www.actexpo.com/agenda

Gregg Roden (../featuredspeakers #roden), Senior Vice President of Productivity Sustainability, Frito-Lay

52

1128/2015

AGENDA I Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

North America

GENERAL SESSION

Keynote Address

Frito-Lay North America executive Gregg Roden will share why the $13 billion convenient foods division of PepsiCo has set the goal of becoming the most fuelefficient fleet in the country. Frito-Lay's fleet has already eliminated more than 500,000 gallons of diesel fuel each year through its use of nearly 300 electric delivery trucks, 200+ compressed natural gas (CNG) trucks, 650 hybrid sales cars, a growing fleet of propane autogas and biodiesel vehicles, and expanding alternative fueling and charging station infrastructure. As a core member of President Obama's National Clean Fleets Partnership, Frito-Lay is committed to further reducing their vehicles' diesel and gas use. In addition to alternative fuels, FLNA is also exploring smart road technologies, GPS integration, and cell connectivity. The company's goal is to achieve a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2017 through its sales and delivery fleet vehicles.

Gregg Roden

1:30 p.m. 2:00p.m.

I

Page 5 of25

Networking Break

~:00 p.r"ff.- Breakout Session ##1 2:00p.m.3:30p.m.

BREAKOUT SESSION 1.1

2:00p.m. 3:30p.m.

BREAKOUT SESSION 1.2

2:00p.m.3:30p.m.

Reflective of a revitalized economy, alternative fuel projects and vehicle deployments in the public sector continue to expand as municipal fleets across the country incorporate clean fuels and technologies for a wide variety of applications. Light-duty vehicles, medium- and heavy-duty work trucks, sanitation vehicles, and transit buses make up the diverse public sector fleet, and each vehicle type can benefit from a variety of alternative fuel and advanced technology options. Whether it be achieving city and county sustainability goals or bringing down fuel and maintenance costs to meet strict budgets, experienced representatives from the public sector will elaborate on key decision factors that helped successfully deploy ltt§liv~l.13flfJE!!ervice vehicles face unique challenges in their start-stop operations. Fuel costs and efficient planning are crucial considerations as routes and destinations can change on a daily basis. Hear from package delivery services, neighborhood utilities, and local distributors as they share their strategies to minimize fuel consumption and optimize productivity. With each operation having clean fuels and technologies that benefit the specific vocation and environment of their fleet, this panel will showcase a range of AFVs that h~ve proven successful in reducing costs and emissions while meeting tough operational demands. Heavy-duty OEMs and representatives from the public sector, NGOs, and industry associations will join forces in this moderated discussion to give an update on the heavy-duty trucking industry's evolution and the future of advanced technologies in this sector. Key stakeholders will place a heavy focus on the current state of natural gas technologies for the on-highway market, as well as EPA's upcoming Phase 2 regulations for GHG emissions and fuel economy and what this

Spotlight on Public Sector Fleets

Spotlight on Neighborhood Delivery &Service Vehicles

BREAKOUT SESSION 1.3

.Driving the HeavyDuty Trucking Industry: Regulations, Efficiency, &

http://www.actexpo.com/agenda

53

1128/2015

AGENDA I Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

means for fleet operators across the country. Additional discussion will include a look at radical efficiency technologies being developed and tested for nextgeneration deployments, including Future Truck design, autonomous and assisted driving platforms, and platooning pilot programs. The implementation of these advanced technologies in the near-term will further tfffBf~l!fs[WercJ;rmffi!E~8¥9fF.~qrlrftaW!ri't'tJ&and 'flfWcflf(gg~ fff~ FR:~Y8Yrfi&FH~ ffi!W-'ctean technology vehicles, leading industry stakeholders have taken it upon themselves to develop refueling networks and act as the driving force of the market. After removing this decisive barrier and taking the risk of infrastructure development off of the end-user, the number of natural gas, propane autogas, hydrogen, biofuel, and electric vehicles is expected to increase, thereby providing market certainty for additional infrastructure expansion. Gain valuable insights from those leading the development of clean fuel corridors as they share their 'start to finish ' experience, including rea/life implementation challenges, revenue stream stabilization, and the policies that made these alternative fuel networks possible.

Advanced Technologies

2:00p.m. 3:30p.m.

3:30p.m.4:00p.m.

Page 6 of25

BREAKOUT SESSION 1.4

Clean Fuel Corridors

I Networking Break

4:00 p.i-'1. - Breakout Session H~ 4:00p.m.5:30p.m.

4:00p.m.5:30p.m.

4:00p.m.5:30p.m.

Over-the-road fleets looking to save on fuel costs while increasing fleet performance continue to turn to alternative fuels and advanced technologies to improve the environment and their bottom line. Because each fuel type has its own benefits and tradeoffs to be considered, representatives from leading companies in the food and beverage industries will discuss which clean fuel or technology makes sense for their operations and the analysis that went into this selection. Key considerations will include necessary fleet planning and economic modeling to show proof of concept and ensure a successful advanced technology project. Typically characterized by long periods of idling and · return-to-base operations, heavy-duty refuse and construction trucks make ideal applications to transition from conventional diesel to alternative fuel vehicles. Satisfying corporate or municipal environmental initiatives, quieter operations, and reduced emissions are only a few of the many benefits seen in this high-fuel use, high-demand sector. This panel of seasoned fleet operators will discuss their experiences, lessons learned, and considerations for deployment in other fleets, in addition to the driver training and infrastructure needed to securely expand Wl~fl.flflft?.is here! Drop-in biofuels, renewable methane, biopropane, and wind- and solar-generated hydrogen and electricity are all contributing to the rea/tty of truly zero-emission vehicles. Technology and fuel solution providers are rapidly developing systems to capture the

BREAKOUT SESSION 2.1

Spotlight on Food & Beverage Fleets

BREAKOUT SESSION 2.2

: Spotlight on Waste . Disposal & Construction Fleets

BREAKOUT SESSION 2.3

Renewables: The Final Frontier

http://www .actexpo. com/agenda

54

1128/2015

AGENDA / Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

4:00p.m. 5:30p.m.

5:30p.m. 7:00p.m.

Page 7 of25

energy from renewable sources and turn it into the cleanest, domestically produced fuels on the market. This session will highlight key companies and projects that are making the seemingly futuristic leap to these next generation fuels, including a discussion on the implementation challenges, the regulations and policies encouraging this revolution, and the economic environment that will be required for this trend to take Wtf9:·so much adversity in the market today, strategic partnerships are critical to successful AFV and clean vehicle technology deployments. Advanced research and analysis, human and financial capital, and legislation and incentive programs must all be aligned to lay the proper foundation for these rapidly developing markets that have never before existed. This session will offer an in-depth understanding of some of the existing synergies between leading fleets, industry players, policy makers, public agencies, and trade associations that have paved the way for groundbreaking projects and deployments.

BREAKOUT SESSION 2.4

Partnerships & Policies Driving Vehicle Deployments

I

Expo Hall Grand Opening Reception

WEDNESDAY, MAY i MONDAY {5/4)

TUESDAY (5/5)

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY (5/7)

(5/ 6) 7:30a.m. 8:30a.m.

Continental Breakfast in the Expo Hall Sponsored by

.

~

ET~ ............ .

~ . Y~~~~ut ·

(http://www .etenv .com) 8:30a.m.10:00 a.m.

Executive leadership teams tasked with long-term strategic planning and execution are increasingly wondering about the recent drop in crude oil pricing and the potential impact on the clean transportation market. This session will address the pressing questions that fleet operators across the country need to answer. Why and how are leading fleets continuing to push forward? Wha t implications does this have on the industry's growth? How is this affecting purchasing behavior? What does the future market look like? Participants on

GENERAL SESSION

Executive Roundtable: Global Energy and the North American Clean

http://www.actexpo.com/agenda

55

1128/2015

AGENDA I Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

this session come from companies where alternative fuels are not a core part of their business, so their continued investment in these technologies remains an indication of clean transportation's staying power and a good sign for the industry as a whole. Despite potential changes in near-term fuel cost savings, the transportation industry knows far too well that historically unstable petroleum prices can climb just as sharply as they drop. Alternative fuels provide the longterm price stability that fleets desire when setting their operating budgets and multi-year contracts. Additionally, clean vehicle technology's place advancing regional air quality, global climate change initiatives, and corporate sustainability goals remains clear. Join us for this panel with leading transportation executives to get their exclusive perspectives and motivations for continuing to stay committed to the advancement of alternative fuels and efficiency technologies.

Transportation Market

10:00 a.m.10:30 a.m.

10:30 a.m. 11 :00 a.m.

GENERAL SESSION

Keynote Address

I

I

Page 8 of25

Networking Break

11:00 a.f"'.- Breakout Session H3 11 :00 a.m. 12:30 p.m.

11 :00 a.m. 12:30 p.m.

11 :00 a.m. 12:30 p.m.

Transportation fleets are constantly investing in cleaner vehicles and technologies that improve the transit experience for riders as well as the environment of the communities in which they operate. This is due in part to the operators' commitment to reducing their impact on air quality but is also the result of the successful policies and funding opportunities available to clean up this high-profile, customer-facing sector. Often characterized by high fuel use and with frequent stops along a defined and repetitive route, the operational profile of these vehicles is often very conducive to the successful deployment of advanced technologies as alternative fuels and efficiency improvement technologies can provide significant cost savings over the life of a vehicle. During this session, attendees will learn from airport, taxi, school bus, and transit agency fleets about the selection process of advanced vehicle lffl{!JnEJ~6f IERifM~ti~!I §&~0§/Dff~zfffijfIM!¥iay ~fJ@IJ~;fflfJ'1fj(l§ducts we use every day are transported. Because there is no single clean technology that will act as a silver bullet for all operations, analysis of one particular fleet may result in a different clean fuel strategy when compared to another. These longmileage trucks must diligently plan their operations based on the paid miles, routes and logistics, refueling accessibility, grant funding opportunities, and maintenance costs, among many other factors. During this session, fleet managers will discuss the decisionmaking process that determined which technologies and efficiency measures offer the greatest advantage for their unique operations and the key steps that ha~·e f!JI!8'(fflg th~!f8l_q fffiiti§'fftffltfi~jor GEMs have committed to developing alternative fuel technology for light-duty vehicles, there are still major challenges to

BREAKOUT SESSION 3.1

Spotlight on Passenger Transport Fleets

BREAKOUT SESSION 3.2

Spotlight on Goods Movement & LongHaul Trucking

I

BREAKOUT SESSION 3.3

A Product for Every

http://www.actexpo.com/agenda

56

1128/2015

AGENDA I Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

accelerating market adoption of these cars and trucks. Key industry stakeholders are stepping up to find solutions to these barriers and make these vehicles more attractive to both fleets and the masses. This session's panelists will share how they are instilling confidence in consumers and developing strategies to encourage the purchase of more light·duty AFVs. Approaches may include the development of alternative fueling infrastructure, partnerships to fast-track deployment, and funding programs and policies to reduce the up front cost, incentivizing more customers to adopt these technologies.

Vocation &Budget: Making the Case for Light-Duty AFVs

12:30 p.m.2:30p.m.

Networking in the Expo Hall

2:30p.m. 5:30p.m.

WORKSHOPS & FORUMS

(http://electricdrive.org)

This two part workshop will provide an overview of both the current burgeoning EV market as well as the future of electric drive. The format will encompass both a mixture of individual speakers and panel discussions on current efforts to advance the use of electric and hydrogen vehicles, as well as case studies on leading fleet deployment success stories. Specific topics will include discussion on EV and hydrogen product availability for all weight classes, national charging and fueling infrastructure development, the latest in battery technologies, and best practices for vehicle integration into existing fleets. There is no extra cost to attend for ACT Expo full-conference attendees. This workshop is presented by the Electric Drive Transportation

WORKSHOPS & FORUMS

~M~!Ji~B~~'BUl/Wd(fi/HytJ!fd!ArtregrfA~oughout

EDTA Accelerating Electric Drive Phase 1 Presented by

2:30p.m.5:30p.m.

North America are leading the way to drive investment in alternative fuel transportation options both within their own fleet operations as well as within the fleet operations of those customers located within their service territory. In this two-part workshop, these internal and external activities will be examined. The first session will highlight the benefits utilities can see by implementing alternative fuel technologies in their own service fleets, which will both reduce fuel costs and emissions, and help to establish a more robust regional fueling infrastructure network. Next, we'lllook at how utilities can assist in the development of their regional alternative fuel market and work with fleets and partners in their service territories to deploy additional vehicles and infrastructure. Topics will cover utility-led outreach and education programs, specific service tariffs, policy initiatives and incentive programs, and fleet case studies from leading utilities and their fi.§ft! tiM 'tiffimT. fMdA~If~~PffWbi#M/Wie.

Utilities Advancing AFVs Presented by

gna

GLADSTEIN, NEANDROSS ............... & ASSOCIATES

(http://www.gladstein.org)

2:30p.m. 5:30p.m.

Page 9 of25

WORKSHOPS &FORUMS

*fUE · ,:

Trucking Efficiency Summit

http://www.actexpo.com/agenda

t~wn

I'Yeef:i@flffi~~lffito Y

UJIJlJJ/i.~~~rmwaUB.Fanels

will include specific focus on advanced technology providers and fleet case studies where both fuel use and associated emissions are reduced as a result of efficiency technology implementation into heavy-duty truck operations. There is no extra cost to attend for ACT Expo full-conference attendees. The workshop is presented by NACFE (http://nacfe.org) and the Carbon War Room. (http://www. carbonwarroom. com)

57

l/28/2015

AGENDA I Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

I

Page 10 of25

Preview the full Trucking Efficiency program at

Presented by

ACT Expo

5:30p.m.7:30p.m.

I

~

·h

»

~JDJontarroom.com

(http://www.actexpo.com/pdfs/ACTE2015/ACTE2

(http://nacfe.org)

THURSDAY, MAY 7 MONDAY (5/4)

TUESDAY (5/5)

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY (5/7)

(5/6) 7:30a.m.8:30a.m.

Continental Breakfast in the Expo Hall Sponsored by

ET~ (http://www .etenv .com) 8:30a.m.12:30 p.m.

WORKSHOPS & FORUMS

Natural Gas Project Development Workshop Presented by

gna

GlADSTEIN,

NEANDROSS ............... & ASSOCIATES

(http://www.gladstein.org) 8:30a.m.12:30 p.m.

WORKSHOPS &FORUMS

BSR Future of Fuels

This special half-day workshop will provide fleet managers with an in-depth understanding of the natural gas project development process from fleet analysis to deployment. Specific topics will include discussion on grant funding and unconventional financing opportunities, equipment selection, extreme weather operations, garage modifications and vehicle maintenance, employee training, as well as an overview of the fuel procurement process and fueling station development. This hands-on workshop will give attendees the chance to ask the hard questions and learn from both equipment providers and experienced fleets who have been there before. There is no extra cost to attend for ACT Expo full-conference attendees.

~-~J!jiJI/IIJI/~7!~~nonstrengthening the sustainability efforts of more than 250 of the world's most influential companies. Through their Transportation & Logistics Initiative, BSR works with companies and stakeholders across the supply chain to address sustainability expectations and integrate ethical, social, and environmental practices into the global logistics value chain. Join Future of Fuels Forum speakers from major fleet operators, fuel producers, vehicle manufacturers, scientists, civil society, and governments to discuss opportunities to incorporate environmental and socially responsible

Presented by

(http://www .bsr .org)

http://www.actexpo.com/agenda

58

1128/2015

AGENDA I Alternative Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo

Page 11 of25

I

8:30a.m.10:00 a.m.

WORKSHOPS &FORUMS

EDTA Member Meeting Presented by

EP (httg:LLelectricdrive.org)

10:00 a.m.10:30 a.m.

I

10:30 a.m.12:30 p.m.

Networking Break This two part workshop will provide an overview of both the current burgeoning EV market as well as the future of electric drive. The format will encompass both a mixture of individual speakers and panel discussions on current efforts to advance the use of electric and hydrogen vehicles, as well as case studies on leading fleet deployment success stories. Specific topics will include discussion on EV and hydrogen product availability for all weight classes, national charging and fueling infrastructure development, the latest in battery technologies, and best practices for vehicle integration into existing fleets. There is no extra cost to attend for ACT Expo full-conference attendees. This workshop is presented by the Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA)0 (http://electricdrive 0org)

WORKSHOPS &FORUMS

EDTA Accelerating Electric Drive Phase 2 Presented by

(httg://electricdrive.org)

12:30 p.m.3:00p.m. 1:30 p.m. 5:00p.m.

I I

Networking in the Expo Hall Off-Site Tours

http://www oactexpo com/agenda 0

59

1/28/2015

This page intentionally blank 

60

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR

February 11, 2015 Agenda Items 5A – 5C

61

This page intentionally blank 

62

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-011a February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel

SUBJECT:

Approval of Amendment 15-A-17

ACTION ITEM RECOMMEN OED ACTION(S): Consider the adoption of Resolution No. 15-012, approving amendment 15-A-17, which deletes Amendment 13-A-16 from the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan in its entirety. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On June 25, 2014, the Board adopted Resolution 14-031, confirming the inclusion of employees hired July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014 in the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan (Tier 1} and repealing resolutions 12-030 and 13-006. This required compliance with Board Policy 170 and Government Code 7507. The final requirement of Board Policy 170 is Board approval of the amendment. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There are no f iscal impacts.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: On February 27, 2013, the Board adopted PEPRA via Plan Amendment 13-A-16. Subsequently, in June 2014, the Board adopted Resolution 14-031, confirming the inclusion of employees hired July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014 in the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan (Tier 1} and repealing resolutions 12-030 and 13-006. These actions essentially returned the Plan back to the term s existing before Amendment 13-A-16, the PEPRA amendment. Because this resulted in another plan amendment, the provisions of Board Policy 170 had to be followed as did the provisions of Government Code §7507. After the adoption of Resolution 14-031, the District's retirement counsel drafted a new Plan amendment to implement the actions taken by the Board. The draft amendment was provided to the Retirement System Manager and Counsel for the Retirement Board, who were satisfied with the amendment. The District forwarded the amendment to ATU, AFSCME and IBEW for review and comment. Representatives of all three bargaining units expressed their agreement with the amendment. The Retirement Board' s counsel and the Retirement System Manager were notified that all parties were in agreement with the proposed plan amendment . It was placed on the Retirement Board' s November 7, 2014 agenda and approved. The proposed plan amendment 63

Report No. 15-0lla Page 2 of 2 was then sent to Buck Consultants for the actuarial review required by California Government Code §7507. The actuarial study concluded that the amendment had no effect on the Plan's unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities or Annual Required Contributions. Pursuant to the Code, the study was made public at the January 14, 2015 Board meeting. The District has not received any comments from the public regarding this amendment. The final step in the process, as outlined in Board Policy 170, is to have the Board approve the amendment. It is therefore recommended that the Board adopt Resolution No. 15-012, approving amendment 15-A-17, which deletes Amendment 13-A-16 from the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan in its entirety. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

The advantage of adopting this resolution is that it brings the plan into compliance with the law. There is no disadvantage of adopting this resolution. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:

The alternative is to leave the plan as is. This is not recommended because that would make the plan inconsistent with the law in effect during the period in question. Although there has been a court ruling in the case pertaining to the applicability of PEPRA to transit agencies, this amendment covers the period during which transit agencies were exempt from the PEPRA provisions. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

1. 2. 3.

Resolution 12-030 Resolution 13-006 (includes Plan Amendment 13-A-16) Resolution 14-031

ATTACHMENTS: 1:

Resolution No. 15-012, Adopting Amendment 15-A-17 to the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan

Executive Staff Approval:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel

Reviewed by:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel

Prepared by:

64

Att. 1 to SR No. 15-011a

ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 15-012 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT 15-A-17 TO THE AC TRANSIT EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN WHEREAS, on May 23, 2012, the AC Transit Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 12-030, approving a Tier Two pension plan for unrepresented employees and Board Officers whose contracts provided for participation in Tier Two, effective July 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2012, Governor Brown signed into law the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), which became effective January 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2013, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 13-006, approving Amendment 13-A-16 to the AC Transit District Employees' Retirement Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendment became effective January 1, 2013 for each represented employee who first became a participant on or after January 1, 2013 and July 1, 2012 for each unrepresented employee who first became a participant on or after July 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2013, the Board of Directors confirmed the content of Resolution No. 13-006, as it pertained to unrepresented employees; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2013, Government Code §7522.02 was amended to exempt public transit employees from PEPRA until January 1,2015, or until the federal district court issued a decision, whichever was sooner; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2014, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 14-031 confirming the inclusion of employees hired July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014 in the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan (Tier 1) and repealed Resolution Nos. 12-030 and 13-006. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows: Section 1. Adopts Resolution No. 15-012, approving Amendment 15-A-17 (attached) to the AC Transit's Employees' Retirement Plan. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by Section 2. four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this

11th

day of February 2015.

H.E. Christian Peeples, President

Resolution No. 15-012

Page 1 af2 65

Att. 1 to SR No. 15-0lla

Attest:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary I, Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 11th day of February 201S, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

Approved as to Form and Content:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel

Resolution No. 15-012

Page2of2 66

Att. To Resolution 15-012

AMENDMENT 15-A-17 AC TRANSIT EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN

Effective January 1, 2013, the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended as follows:

Article XIII, titled "Public Employees' Pension Reform Act," (as added to the Plan by Amendment 13-A-16) is deleted in its entirety. The Plan is to be operated and administered as if Article XIII had never been adopted.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth above on this 11th day of February 2015.

By:----------Name: ________________________ Title: -----------------------

602324702v3 67

This page intentionally blank 

68

~I

Report No: Meeting Date:

TI?91VS/T

14-268a February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Consider recommending approval of a contract award for state advocacy services

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider awarding a contract to Platinum Advisors for state lobbying services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: State lobbying services will ensure representation at the state level to support AC Transit's legislative priorities and assistance in obtaining state funding for projects and programs. Platinum Advisors will provide access to timely information and to Legislative, Gubernatorial and state agency staff. This is a qualifications-based procurement. Staff solicited eighty-three (83) firms. One (1) firm responded to the solicitation and was evaluated by a 3-person panel comprising representatives from AC Transit's Legislative Affairs & Community Relations Department, AC Transit's Capital Planning and Grants Department, and AC Transit's General Manager's staff. The panel found the recommended awardee to be the most qualified . The primary factors influencing the panel's determination of most qualified include experience in successfully advocating on behalf of public transit agencies, lobbying team experience with the California Legislature, the Governor's Office and the California State Transportation Agency, along with a history of assistance with delivering grants for public transit agency projects and programs. The final contract is a firm-fixed price contract valued at $475,000 with a period of performance from contract award for five (5) years . BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated annual amount ofthis contract at $95,000 is included in the FY14-15 budget.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: AC Transit contracts for legislative advocacy services to provide assistance in obtaining state support on behalf of the District. These services have directly resulted in productive working relation ships with the California Legislature, several state agencies and the Governor' s Office. Advocacy services are critical for obtaining funding for the District' s projects and programs.

69

Report No. 14-268a Page 2 of 3 The procurement used for the lobbying contract was qualifications-based. The procurement proceeded according to the timeline in Table 1; the results of the solicitation are in Table 2. Action Board authorization to issue solicitation

Original Solicitation issued Pre-bid conference Solicitation closed Evaluation completed Table 1. Procurement Timeline.

Date September 24, 2014 October 31, 2014 No pre-bid conference used in this solicitation December 22, 2014 January 28, 2014

Value

Metric Number of firm solicited

Number of firms that responded Number of firms determined to be responsive Number of firms evaluated Table 2. Solicitation Results.

83 1 1 1

As a qualifications-based procurement, staff convened an evaluation panel compnsmg representatives of AC Transit. The panel evaluated proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation and shown in Table 3. Evaluation Criteria

Weighting

Firm's qualifications, experience, specific approach Past performance, experience, references Cost Total Table 3. Proposal Evaluation Critena

35 35 30 100

The panel's evaluation is shown in Table 4. They found that the recommended awardee's submissions demonstrated a superior technical approach as shown by a well-experienced and proven advocacy team at a fair price. Criteria Evaluation (Weighted) Firm's qualifications, experience, specific approach Past performance, experience, references

Cost Total Table 4. Evaluation Result.

Platinum Advisors

490

490 450 1,430

70

Report No. 14-268a Page 3 of 3 The recommended contract is a firm-fixed price with a total value of $475,000 and a period of performance from contract award for sixty (60) months. There are no options for this contract.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The advantages of acquiring the services of a state advocacy firm are that the District's priorities will have higher visibility with a firm based in the state's capital and a higher probability of securing support. If the District does not have an effective state advocate to communicate with the Legislature, state agencies and the Governor's Office, AC Transit's priorities and state funding opportunities may not receive consideration or visibility.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: AC Transit could opt to defer from contracting with a Sacramento based state advocate, and risk not having access to timely information or to key Legislative, Gubernatorial or State Agency representatives which might be pivotal to the District regarding grants or legislation.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy 350, Section VI, Item A Staff Report 14-268: Consider Recommending Approval to Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for State Advocacy Services

ATTACHMENTS: None

Department Head Approval: Reviewed by: Prepared by:

Aida R. Asuncion, Acting Chief Planning, Engineering & Construction Officer Denise Standridge, General Counsel James Pachan, Acting Chief Financial Officer Beverly Greene, Director of Legislative Affairs & Community Relations

71

This page intentionally blank 

72

Report No: Meeting Date:

14-245a February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF

REPORT

TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

SUBJECT:

Recruitment of Representatives for the AC Transit Retirement Board

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Receive update on the recruitment of representatives for the Retirement Board and provide direction as to next steps in the process. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The terms of one non-ATU employee representative and two public member representatives on the Retirement Board will expire on March 31, 2015. As a result of recruitment efforts, one (1) letter of interest was received from a non-ATU employee (the current appointee). In addition, nine (9) complete applications were received from members of the public interested in serving on the Retirement Board, which includes the two current appointees. The Board is asked to receive this update on the recruitment and provide direction as to the next steps in the process. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no budgetary impact associated with this report.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

On October 22, 2014, the Board of Directors authorized the recruitment of one non-ATU representative and two public member representatives to the AC Transit Retirement Board. The terms of the current appointees will expire on March 31, 2015. The recruitment for the three vacancies commenced in late December with a deadline of noon on February 4, 2015 to submit letters of interest/applications. For the non-ATU representative position, a notice outlining the duties of the Retirement Board, desirable qualifications, and application were published on the Board's intranet page and posted at the various divisions and the General Offices. The notice and application were also distributed via email to all District employees. For the two public member representatives, the recruitment notices and application were distributed to the general public (via eNews), local community colleges and universities. This information was also posted on the District's website. As a result of recruitment efforts, one (1) letter of interest were received from a non-ATU employee and nine (9) complete applications were received from members of the public

73

Report No. 14-245a Page 2 of 2 interested in serving on the Retirement Board. The non-ATU and Public Member applicants are outlined as follows:

Non-ATU Applicants:

Public Member Applicants

• Sue Lee (existing member- UN REP)

• • • • • • • • •

Ralph Goldsticker Cathy Jackson-Gent Dollene C. Jones Jeffrey Lewis (existing member) Melissa C. Mayhew Gohn Marie McFadden Mark Anthony Porter Davis Riemer (existing member) Igor A. Tregub

Application materials for the aforementioned applicants were distributed to the Board in advance of the February 11, 2015 Board meeting. Staff is seeking direction from the Board as to how it would like to proceed with the next steps in the appointment process. A decision on the Board's appointments to the Retirement Board must be made by resolution no later than the March 25, 2015 Board meeting. The selected individuals will serve a two-year term commencing on April1, 2015 through March 31, 2017.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: There were no other alternatives investigated as the non-ATU representative and two public member representatives serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Ordinance No. 10 establishing the process for making appointments to the AC Transit Retirement Board. Staff Report 14-245: Authorize the recruitment of two Public Members and one Non-ATU Member to the AC Transit Retirement Board.

ATTACHMENTS: None

Reviewed by: Prepared by:

David J. Armijo, General Manager Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

74

WORKSHOP

February 11, 2015 Agenda Items 6A, 6B 6A. Report on Alameda County Measure BB revenues and the District’s preliminary equipment, facility, and service enhancement plans (Report 15-041). 6B. Update on the Short Range Transit Plan operating and capital budget projections (Report 14-033c).

75

This page intentionally blank 

76

Report No: Meeting Date:

T.AWNS/T

15-041 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Alameda County Measure BB Revenues and Plans

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receiving a report on Alameda County Measure BB revenues and preliminary equipment, facility, and service enhancement plans. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Alameda County voters passed Measure BB on November 4, 2014, with approximately 70 percent voting in favor. Measure BB extends the current Alameda County Measure B 1/2 cent sales tax increment through 2045, and adds an additional 1/2 cent. AC Transit is the largest beneficiary of Measure BB and will receive nearly 25 percent of the funds generated, estimated at an additional $29.6 million per year in operating funds starting in FY 2016. Staff has developed a high-level plan for service increases along with the required capital improvements to support them . Starting in FY 2016 but not fully realized until FY 2017, the plan will use approximately 85 percent of anticipated Measure BB income to augment service. The Measure BB revenue will allow for approximately 256,000 additional (platform) operating hours or 230,400 actual (revenu e) service hours per yea r. This will represent nearly a 14 percent increase over the current level of roughly 1,700,000 revenue hours per year, to a total of nea rly 1,930,400 revenue hours, which is the level of service provided in FY 2009 and the highest level in the past 10 years. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact as this is an informational report, although the report discusses a funding program and proposed service plans with direct fisca l impacts for the District.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Measure BB Summary Alameda County voters passed M easure BB on November 4, 2014, with approximately 70 percent voting in favor. M easure BB extends the current Alameda County Measure B 1/2 cent sales tax increment through 2045, and adds an add itional 1/2 cent. The Alam eda County

77

Report No. 15-041 Page 2 of 4 Transportation Commission (ACTC) estimates that this measure will generate about $8 billion over its 30-year period for transportation improvements throughout the county. The Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) that is part of the measure details how the funds generated will be spent. Collections for the additional 1/2 cent start April 1, 2015 and ACTC estimates that distribution of the increased amounts will start in July-August of 2015. AC Transit is the largest beneficiary of Measure BB and will receive nearly 25 percentof the funds generated. Approximately 23 percent of the funds are allocated directly to the District by formula for operating (18.8%) and paratransit (4.5%) assistance, and $35 million programmed for specific capital projects. ACTC estimates the direct formula funding at 112 percent of the existing Measure B funding level. For FY 2014, AC Transit received $24.3 million from Measure B, which is approximately 7 percent of the operating budget funding. For FY 2016, Measure BB is estimated to add another $29.6 million which will bring the combined Measure B/BB share of the operating budget funding to near 15 percent. There are capital funds identified for AC Transit sponsored or related (Alameda to Fruitvale BART Rapid Bus) projects under the Rapid Bus Projects category, and also discretionary operating and capital project funding the District can apply for. ACTC originally developed the TEP for the unsuccessful November 2012 ballot measure and left the majority of it unchanged for the November 2014 ballot. In the interim, the District's projects have advanced and priorities have changed (i.e. Grand/MacArthur BRT). The District is also starting a major corridors study which will prioritize future rapid bus and BRT improvements. ACTC has the ability to make modifications to the TEP, and staff will work with ACTC to effect the appropriate changes. The capital projects and discretionary categories and amounts, as listed in the TEP and approved by ACTC, are shown below ($ amounts in millions).

Rapid • • • •

Bus Projects: East 141h/lnternational BRT ($10) Grand/MacArthur BRT ($9) Alameda to Fruitvale BART Rapid Bus ($6) College/Broadway Corridor Transit Priority ($10)

Affordable Transit for Seniors and People with Disabilities: • Coordination and Service Grants ($77) Transit Operations, Maintenance, and Safety Programs: • Innovative Grant Funds, including successful student transportation programs ($175) Major Transit Corridor Enhancements and Rail Connections: • Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvements ($120) • Union City lntermodal Station ($75) • Oakland Broadway Corridor Transit ($10)

78

Report No. 15-041 Page 3 of 4

Affordable Transit Program for Students and Youth: • Affordable Student Transit Pass Program ($15) • Community Development/Transit Oriented Development - Improved Transit Access ($300) Distribution of the capital funds depend on ACTC's Comprehensive Investment Program (CIP), which is in process and planned to be complete by June 2015. Through the CIP process ACTC will program 2-year blocks of funding for projects that are ready to go in their various phases. The programming will be based on projects already approved through the countywide plans that have been developed.

Proposed Plan As discussed in the Short Range Transit Plan Update Staff Report (SR 14-033c), with the passage of Measure BB staff developed a new high-level operating plan/budget that proposes to increase service. Starting in FY 2016 but not fully realized until FY 2017, the plan will use approximately 85 percent of anticipated Measure BB income to augment service. The Measure BB revenue will allow for approximately 256,000 additional (platform) operating hours per year. This increase will translate into 230,400 actual (revenue) service hours per year, or just over 631 revenue hours per day. The 230,400 new revenue hours will represent nearly a 14 percent increase over the current level of roughly 1,700,000 revenue hours per year. This will increase AC Transit's total revenue hours to nearly 1,930,400, which is the level of service provided in FY 2009 - the highest level of service in the last ten years and the level of service prior to significant service cuts in FY 2011. Assuming other sources of operating revenue are stable, Measure BB funding will allow a significant growth in District service over the next couple years. Staff expects that this new service will be financially sustainable assuming that Measure BB sales tax funds increase at a moderate rate. Service increases are proposed to begin next year (FY 2016) at a lower level, due to equipment availability and division capacity limitations. Staff expects to have additional buses and Richmond Division 3 operational by FY 2017. The increased operational funding will also allow the District to contribute larger amounts to the capital budget for necessary improvements and rehabilitation. As discussed in the FY 2015 mid-year budget adjustment, the construction funding for D3 will be completed with District funds. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Core Capacity Challenge Grant Program (CCCGP) -which includes AC Transit- requires an enhanced 30 percent local match amount, which will require increased District funding also. Measure BB funds- particularly FY 2016 funds - will also be used to augment operating reserves held in case of financial difficulties. Attachment 1 shows a high-level proposed 5-year analysis for how the District can use the additional Measure BB funds with existing or expected other revenues. The details of what/when/how the service increases are done are of course not yet known, and depend on

79

Report No. 15-041 Page 4 of 4 the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) process, staff recommendations, and Board of Directors approval. The number of expansion vehicles is a rough estimate and also depends in part upon the service enhancement details.

Capital Projects 1

Two of the projects identified in Measure BB - the East 14 h/lnternational BRT (aka East Bay BRT) and the College/Broadway Corridor Transit Priority (aka Line 51 Corridor) projects - are already funded and underway. For the BRT project, ACTC has a capital funding commitment to the District of $24.6 million remaining after the full funding plan for the BRT project was worked out. Staff has had preliminary discussions with ACTC about putting Measure BB funds in the BRT project to free up bridge toll and/or federal funds (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds) that the District can then use for other capital purposes. This will allow ACTC to reduce its remaining commitment to the District in a mutually beneficial way. For the College/Broadway funding, staff is looking at the possibility of applying some of the funding to the next corridor-type project the District might undertake in Alameda County. Capital funds from Measure BB contemplated in both cases are included in the analysis in Attachment 1.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: There are no advantages or disadvantages to accepting this informational report.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: There are no alternatives as this is an information report. Alternatives for Board action will be considered in a follow-up staff report.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: SR 14-033c - Update on the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Operating and Capital Budget Projections

ATTACHMENTS: 1: 5-Year Analysis

Department Head Approval:

James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer

Reviewed by:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Hernan Vargas, Budget Manager Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Claudia Burgos, Senior Adviser to the General Manager Chris Andrichak, Acting Manager, Capital Planning & Grants

Prepared by:

80

SR 15-041 Attachment 1

5-Vear Projection with Measure BB

Base Operating Surplus Measure BB Additional Operating Revenue

30,3581 112,000

Additional Service Hours Service Enhancement Operating Costs

IPossible Reserve Contribution Adjusted Surplus /(Deficit)

31.42o

I

32,0491

158,000

32,69o 1

33,017

(total 270,000 hrs)

(8,825)1

(21,994)1

(22,671)1

(23,37ol 1

(24,094)

(4,000)

(2,500)

(1,000)

(6,000)

-

28,328

14,726

13,418

8,999

9,335

35,860

24,631

35,910

637

15,540

700

2,000

8,000

3,000

Capital Planned (TCP) Capital Funding' Measure BB Capital Funds

Capital Needs -Additional Service

25

Additional Vehicles (estimated)

-

Additional Vehicles (estimated) Division 3 Re-Opening Construction Need

(13,360)

(total40 incl. 15 from FY2015}

(11,888)

-

-

-

-

Capital Needs - Regular

(44,600)

(23,400)

(51,300)

(910)

(22,200)

Other Facilities

(3,000)

(3,000)

(3,000)

(4,000)

(2,500)

Other Capital

(2,500) {700)

(2,500)

(2,500)

(2,500)

(2,500)

-

-

{3,000)

-

(27,600)

(14,157)

Revenue Vehicle Replacement

Corridor Projects Capital Surplus/(Deficit)

1) Includes future expected FTAfunds from the MTC TCP process.

81

(12,890)

(6,773)

(11,660)

This page intentionally blank 

82

-AI

Report No: Meeting Date:

TI'?91VS/T

14-033c February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Update on the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)-Operating and Capital Budget Projections

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receiving an update on the SRTP operating and capital budget projections. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report transmits revised SRTP operating and capital budget projection chapters for the Board's review and comment. These chapters, particularly the operating budget, have been revised to incorporate funding from Alameda County Measure BB. Staff plans to bring a complete draft of the SRTP in March 2015, which will include a summary of the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) process and guiding principles. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There are no budgetary/fiscal impacts associated with this report.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: This is the fourth in a series of updates to the Board on the preparation and submission of the SRTP. The SRTP is a financial, regulatory, and planning document mandated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Federal Transit Admini stration (FTA). Each of the seven major transit agencies in the Bay Area is currently preparing an SRTP, per MTC's direction. The SRTP is also an opportunity for the District to consider its policies and service, particularly in conjunction with Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) and the upcoming Major Corridors study {MCS). These three planning projects constitute the Plan ACT program. Together with the upcoming review of Board Policy 550- Service Development- Plan ACT constitutes a wide-ranging effort to review and renew AC Tran sit's service and infrastructure. Operating Plan The operating budget projection, known in the SRTP as the Operating Plan is a core component of the SRTP. See Attachment One for the budget and narrative. The SRTP Operating Plan serves

83

Report No. 14-033c Page 2 of 4 as an outline of the District's operating budget-full details on the budget will be provided in the mid-year budget review. The SRTP is designed in part to assure MTC and FTA that AC Transit will have adequate funds to support the service we intend to provide. This chapter outlines expected funding, while the COA will describe the service we plan to operate. Therefore, a summary of the service must be included in the SRTP. Staff also plans to provide the Board with a more detailed analysis of projected Measure BB spending next month. Service Increases: The passage of Measure BB required staff to revise previous operating budget projections which did not include BB funds. The new operating plan/budget in the SRTP proposes, starting in FY 16-17, to use approximately 85% of anticipated Measure BB income to augment service. Measure BB revenue is projected to gradually increase from nearly $30 million in FY 15-16 to $39.4 million in FY 24-25, the end of the SRTP period. These projections do not include potential revenue from the State's Cap and Trade program, or increases from other sources. The BB revenue would pay for some 256,000 additional (platform) operating hours per year. This increase would translate into 230,000 actual (revenue) service hours per year, or just over 665 revenue hours per day. 230,000 new revenue hours would represent a nearly 14% increase over the current level of roughly 1,700,000 revenue hours per year. This would increase AC Transit's total revenue hours to nearly 1,930,000, which is the level of service provided in 200809-the highest level of service in the last ten years and the level of service prior to significant service cuts in 2010-11. Assuming other sources of operating revenue are stable, Measure BB funding will allow a significant, but moderate, growth in District service. Staff expects that this new service will be financially sustainable over the ten year SRTP period, assuming that Measure BB sales tax funds increase at a moderate rate. The SRTP operating plan must be based on reasonable assumptions of anticipated costs and revenue, including farebox revenue. Service increases are proposed to begin next year (FY 15-16) at a lower level, due to a lack of available buses and division capacity. Staff expects to have additional buses-and D3 as a storage/maintenance site-available in FY 16-17 (see the discussion of the capital budget). Other Uses for BB funds: In the interim, Measure BB funds would be used in part as matching funds for capital grants. Funds not used for service in future years would also be applied to this purpose. This will improve AC Transit's ability to compete for grant funding. Measure BB funds-particularly FY 15-16 funds--would also be used to augment operating reserves held in case of financial difficulties. Within three years, it should be possible to reach the maximum level stated in the Reserves Policy (Board Policy 360) or 20% of the operating budget.

84

Report No. 14-033c Page 3 of 4 Capital Improvement Program The SRTP must also address the capital stock (equipment and facilities), which is necessary to provide the District's transit service.

The proposed capital budget and supporting narrative is included as Attachment Two. The capital budget includes seven main categories: • Vehicle replacement-Replacement of existing buses and non-revenue vehicles • Vehicle expansion-Additional buses to provide additional service • Facilities rehabilitation and expansion-D3 reopening and new facilities • Technology-New electronic systems for buses and facilities • Corridor improvements-Additional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects, contraflow lanes, other roadway improvements • Transit Centers-Transbay Transit Center capital commitment, transit centers at BART stations • Greenhouse Gas Reduction Initiatives-Efficient District operations and alternate fuels The full projected capital need, including all categories, is $1.4 billion over 10 years. Like the operating budget, the capital program (if fully funded) would represent a significant but moderate expansion of district facilities. The Richmond Division will be reopened adding 20 percent to bus storage capacity. It should be noted that all vehicle replacement buses after 2020 (and 25% of those buses before 2020) would be hybrid buses, except for zero emission vehicles. The budget does not assume that AC Transit would operate any potential new modes, such as streetcars, in our service area. Under current funding programs, the District can reasonably anticipate receiving approximately $700 million for capital projects from all sources. This funding-50% of the capital budget-is listed as "committed. "There is an additional over $600 million set of funding sources which AC Transit will have to compete for-these funds are listed as "discretionary." The discretionary funds include revenue from an anticipated bridge toll increase (known as "Regional Measure 3"), a regional gas tax proposed to the ABAG/MTC Plan Bay Area, and from MTC's "Other Anticipated but Undetermined Revenues." Chart One of Attachment Two shows when committed and discretionary funds would likely be available. The SRTP capital improvement plan represents a working framework with the outer limits of the District's capital needs, rather than a detailed line item budget. The plan anticipates expanding the bus fleet by 104 buses. It anticipates an additional BRT project, subject to further analysis in the Major Corridors Study. The budget anticipates the relocation of Emeryville Division 2-a long held but to date infeasible goal of both AC Transit and the City of Emeryville. However, it is important to include projects which are somewhat speculative because projects must be listed in the SRTP to be eligible for funding in MTC's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 85

Report No. 14-033c Page 4 of 4

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Not Applicable-this report does not recommend any action or expenditure.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The SRTP is required by MTC and the Federal Transit Administration, so there is no alternative to preparing it. Staff could take alternate proposals to drafting the operating and capital budget chapters of the SRTP such as a more vetted capital plan. However, such proposals could limit the District when MTC references the final SRTP for use in the RTP or when allocating funds.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Report 14-033b, July 9, 2014, Update on the Development of the Short Range Transit Plan Report 14-033a, May 9, 2014, Report on the Development of the Short Range Transit Plan Report 14-033, February 12, 2014, Discussion Concerning the Short Range Transit Plan

ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Draft SRTP Draft SRTP Draft SRTP Draft SRTP

Chapter 5- System and Service Evaluation Chapter 6- Operations Plan and Budget Chapter 7- Capital Improvement Program Chapter 7- Capital Improvement Program Tables

Department Head Approval:

Reviewed Prepared

by: by:

Aida R. Asuncion, Acting Chief Planning, Engineering and Construction Officer James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Chris Andrichak, Acting Capital Planning and Grants Manager Hernan Vargas, Budget Manager Jim Cunradi, Transportation Planning Manager Ben Stupka, Senior Capital Planning and Grants Analyst Nathan Landau, Senior Transportation Planner

86

SR 14-033c Attachment 1

CHAPTER 5-SYSTEM AND SERVICE EVALUATION Earlier sections of the SRTP have provided a description of AC Transit as an agency, our operation, and our goals. This is the evaluative chapter of the SRTP. The MTC Guidelines for the SRTP focus our analysis on effectiveness---how many passengers are we carrying, and on efficiency-what does it cost to do so. After this chapter, the SRTP goes on to plan for the future-our operating plan, our operating budget, our capital budget, etc. This chapter draws on the Key Performance Indicators (the KPis) outlined in the previous chapter as the basis for its evaluation. The outward-facing KPis, which focus on passenger service measures and system-wide impacts, are used in this chapter. It also uses service standards from Board Policy 550. This chapter also includes a review of planning and evaluation processes that AC Transit participates in, such as the Title VI program development process. Key Performance Indicators used in this chapter: • • •

On Time Performance Ridership level Fare Revenue

Policy 550 Service Standards Used in this Chapter:' • Frequency of Service by service type • Span of Service by service type • Distance to bus stops Transit Sustainability Policy Standards used in this Chapter • Cost per Revenue Hour • Cost per Passenger On time performance, ridership, frequency, and span of service are reviewed on a line by line level. Percentage of service operated, revenue service percentage, fare revenue, cost per revenue hour, and cost per passenger are reviewed on a system-wide level. Distance to bus stops is evaluated in terms of the percentage of the population with access to a bus stop.

1

AC Transit plans to review Board Policy 550 in 2015,as a project implementing this SRTP. Policy 550 was initially approved in

1994, and last updated in 2007. This review could lead to changes in service standards and/or the route classification system.

87

Service Types under Policy 550. As noted above, AC Transit operates several different types of bus service. Service effectiveness is evaluated by type. Service types are defined in part operationally, such as for trunk and rapid routes, and Transbay (express) routes. Several service types are defined by the land use characteristics of their corridors-urban Crosstowns, suburban Crosstowns, and very low density routes. *Trunk Routes-The main routes that operate-primarily in a north-south direction-- along major streets in high ridership areas, the "backbone" or "spine" routes of the AC Transit system *Rapid Routes-Routes that operate along trunk corridors with elongated stop spacing and transit signal priority for greater speed *Urban Crosstown Routes-The secondary routes in the higher density (generally over 10,000 people per square mile) that connect to the trunk routes and form a four direction system *Suburban Crosstown Routes-Connectors and feeders similar to urban Crosstown routes in lower density (5,000-10,000 people per square mile) portions of the district *Very Low Density Routes-Routes that operate in areas with population densities below 5,000 people per square mile. *Transbay Routes-Routes that cross one or more of the San Francisco Bay bridges, operating between the East Bay and San Francisco or other West Bay destinations. When the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line begins to operate, generally with in-roadway stations on a dedicated right-of-way, it will represent an additional service type. Community Flex Routes which provide service to an area rather than a delineated route are another service type which is not currently used, although proposed for a pilot project. As noted above, this classification of service types will be reviewed and potentially modified as part of the review of Board Policy 550. A.

EVALUATION OF SERVICE

The indicators listed on Page 1 measure three different areas---effectiveness, service availability and quality, and efficiency. Ridership is the key measure of service effectiveness. Since AC Transit's purpose is to transport people, that is measured by the number of people who ride the buses. The metric used is passengers per revenue hour (revenue hours are hours that the bus is actually operating on its route and collecting passengers)

Service availability evaluates the bus service which passengers should be able to use. Is there a bus stop within reasonable walking distance? What hours does the bus run, what is it "span of service"? How frequently does the bus operate? Does the bus meet its schedule-what is its "on time performance?"

Efficiency considers the resources AC Transit uses to provide service.

2

88

Effectiveness 1. Ridership Service Availability and Quality 1. Distance to Bus Stops 2. Span of Service 3. Frequency 4. On Time Performance Efficiency 2. Cost Per Revenue Hour 3. Cost per Passenger Mile Effectiveness-Ridership System-wide Ridership is generally considered the single most important measure of a transit agency's performance. Transit agencies exist to carry passengers, ridership statistics measure to what degree we are doing so. Policy 550 sets standards for the minimum level of ridership each type of AC Transit service should have. These standards are designed to assure that bus service provided is effective- used by an adequate number of riders. Different types of service are expected to carry different number of riders-trunks, major corridor lines, and rapids should carry the most. Urban crosstowns operating in denser areas are expected to carry more passengers than suburban crosstowns, which operate in lower density areas. The standard used to measure ridership is "passengers per revenue hour." This is the average number of passengers who get on a bus over an hour when the bus actually in operation-which is known as revenue service. Looking at these service types as a whole, almost all of them meet or exceed their ridership target. Rapids had the highest ridership per hour, followed by trunks and major corridors, urban Crosstowns, and suburban Crosstowns. The urban Crosstowns fail to meet their standard, on weekends only. This may be in part due to the fact that many urban Crosstowns operate on reduced frequencies on weekends, due to financial constraints. In general, higher frequency service demonstrates more passengers per revenue hour. Very low density routes have no set standards under Policy 550 because they function purely as coverage routes. In 2012, the District conducted an exercise with South County to eliminate routes that carry less than 10 passengers per hour. In addition, the COA is investigating the potential to convert very low density routes to Flex Service. Similar low density service provided by other agencies such as County Connection, LAVTA, SoiTrans, TriDelta and WestCat carry between 14 and 18 passengers per hour.

3 89

Table 5.1 -Ridership and Ridership Standards by Type of Service (by passengers per revenue hour) Service Type Trunks & Major Corridors Rapids Urban Crosstowns Suburban Crosstowns Very Low Density Transbay

Weekday Service Standard 40

Weekday Service Actual (2013) 46.5

Weekend Service Standard 35

Weekend Service Actual (2013) 38.6

40 30

49.3 33.3

35 25

20

21.6

15

No standard set 25 per trip

NA 31 per trip

No standard set Most Transbay not operated

46.2 24.3 Saturday 22.1 Sunday 19.6 Saturdays 15.7 Sundays NA NA

Ridership by line Ridership can vary considerably even within a service type. The trunk and major corridor and the rapid lines average 46.5 passengers per revenue hour on weekdays. However on any given line, performance can vary wildly and average ridership can fall anywhere between 27 and 75 passengers per revenue hour. Most of the lines which fail to meet the ridership standard are "major corridors" rather than trunk routes, and have less frequent service than trunks. Shaded routes are below this productivity standard.

4 90

Table 5.2-Routes Ranked by Productivity within Service Types, 2013

Part 1· Trunk, Major Corridor and Rapid Routes Part 2 ·Urban Crosstown Routes Part 3- Suburban Crosstown Routes Part 4- Transbay Productivity Table 5.2- Routes Ranked by Productivity within Service Types, 2013 Part 1, Trunk, Major Corridor and Rapid Routes

Type

Route

51B 51A

Trunk Trunk

40 1

Trunk Trunk

57 73

Trunk Major Corridor

18 72M

Trunk Trunk

97

Major Corridor

72 88

Trunk Major Corridor

99 210 1R

Major Corridor Major Corridor Rapid

72R

Rapid

Route Description

College-University BroadwayAlameda Foothill, Oakland InternationalTelegraph local 40'h-MacArthur 73rd Ave.Hegenberger Albany-Montclair San PabloMacdonald Hesperian- Union City San Pablo SacramentoMarket Mission Fremont Blvd. InternationalTelegraph Rapid San Pablo Rapid

Weekday Passengers

Revenue Hours

per weekday

Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour

10,532 10,587

140.4 192.5

75.0 55.0

10,558 12,005

198.8 238.6

53.1 50.3

7,543 3,096

157.5 66.9

47.9 46.3

8,293 4,233

191.6 108.4

43.3 39.0

4,550

122.1

37.1

4,534 2,745

124.3 78.5

36.5 35.0

2,786 1,743 10,964

102.1 68.2 198.9

27.3 25.5 55.1

6,998

165.8

42.2

Ridership on Urban Crosstown Routes Among urban Crosstown routes, 13 meet the weekday ridership standard, while 11 do not. Of the routes that do not meet the standard, 5 routes are within 2 boarding per hour of meeting the standard. The routes meeting the standard generally operate more frequently, in areas with more transit-supportive land uses. Of the routes meeting the standard, eight of 13 operate every 20 minutes or more frequently in the peak period. By contrast, of the routes failing the standard, only two have 20 minute service or better. The routes meeting the standard-11 of 13 routes-generally operate in the higher density core cities of the district, especially Berkeley, Oakland, and Alameda. Only six of the lllower ridership routes operate in those cities, and generally in lower density areas within them. Shaded routes fall below the standard.

5 91

Table 5.2- Routes Ranked by Productivity within Service Types, 2013 Part 2, Urban Crosstown Routes Route

52 54 39 76 62 20 14 46 22 49 26 12 21 45 11 70 31 58L 74 32 25 37 47 48

Type

Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown

uc Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown

uc

Route

Weekday

Revenue

Description

Passengers

Hours

Passengers I

per weekday 51.0

Revenue Hour 58.1

UC BerkeleyAlbany Village 35'h Ave.Redwood Rd. Fruitvale-Skyline Del Norte-Hilltop via N. Richmond West OaklandFruitvale DowntownAlameda-Fru"itvale DowntownFruitvale BART Coliseum BARTOakland Zoo Winton-Tennyson loop Ashby-Dwight loop EmeryvilleLakeshore Oakland-Berkeley via Grand, MLK Oakland AirportDimond Dist. Sobrante ParkEastmont Piedmont-Dimond via Oakland Ave. San Pablo DamAppian AlamedaEmeryville Downtown OakMacarthur Marina BayEISobrante Hayward-Castro Vly.-Bayfair loop North BerkeleyEl Cerrito loop WhitmanSanta Clara loop Fruitvale BARTMaxwell Park Bayfair-Castro Vly.

2,966

Weekday

2,561

44.2

58.0

642 2,629

13.9 61.6

46.1 42.7

3,526

83.0

42.5

3,084

75.2

41.0'

3,470

94.1

36.9

491

13.4

36.8

2,452

69.0

35.5

2,273

66.4

34.2

2,636

79.7

33.1

2,490

76.4

32.6

1,975

60.9

32.4

2,314

78.6

29.5

1,654

56.5

29.3

1,261

43.1

29.3

1,841

65.3

28.2

1,107

39.2

28.2

1,189

46.4

25.6

768

33.3

23.0

886

'39.4

22.5

501

28.9

17.3

134

7.9

17.1 .

440

28.7

15.3

6 92

Ridership on Suburban Crosstown Routes Suburban crosstown routes are concentrated in Central Alameda County, with some additional routes in the Berkeley Hills. Among the dozen suburban crosstown routes, 7 met the ridership standard, while 5 did not. Four of the routes not meeting the standard are within 2 boarding per hour of meeting the standard. The suburban routes fell within a relatively narrow range of ridership. The most productive route-line 65 in the Berkeley Hills-had roughly twice as many passengers per hour as the least productive, line 94 in Hayward. The suburban crosstowns clearly had lower ridership than the urban crosstown routes. Only one suburban crosstown route-line 65-- would have met the urban crosstown productivity standard.

Table 5.2-Routes Ranked by Productivity within Service Types, 2013 Part 3, Suburban Crosstowns Weekday Passengers

Route

Type

Route Description

65

Sub urban

EuclidGrizzly Peak San LeandroUnion L Spruce St., Berkeley Hayward BARTKelly Park Bayfair-San

l.o

85 67 95 93 7

Sub urban Cro sstown Sub urban Cro sstown Sub urban Crosstown Suburban Crosstown Subur~a~

Revenue Hours per weekday

Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour

921

29.6

31.1

876

30.6

28.7

322

12.5

25.7

420

15.4

27.2

751

30.7

24.5

743

30.9

24.1

I

The Arlington

Crosstown

7 93

Ridership on Transbay Routes Under Policy 550, Transbay routes are evaluated by a different standard than East Bay routes. Most Transbay routes are relatively long in both distance and time. They also often require "deadhead" trips not carrying passengers from San Francisco to the East Bay. So that these common characteristics do not overwhelm the comparative analysis, Transbay routes are evaluated by the number of passengers they carry on each trip. Most Transbay routes, unlike most other AC Transit routes, operate only during weekday commute hours, often only in the main commute direction (i.e .. into San Francisco in the morning).

Three

Transbay routes-lines F from Berkeley and Emeryville, NL from the Grand/Macarthur corridor, and 0 from Alameda-operate all day, 7 days per week. Many passengers on these routes-especially the F and the NL-ride within the East Bay rather than to San Francisco. The Transbay ridership standard is 25 passengers per trip. Eighteen Transbay routes meet this standard, 7 do not. Of those routes not meeting the standard, two are within 2 boardings per hour of meeting the standard. In general, ridership on Transbay buses has been increasing in the wake of BART crowding and the BART strike. Now some Transbay lines have passengers standing. Policy 550, recognizing the length of Transbay trips, calls for a seat for each Transbay passenger, but AC Transit does not currently have capacity to meet this requirement. As part of the TransBay Core Capacity Study, further analysis will be conducted to determine why Transbay routes are less or more productive. In addition, a comprehensive analysis will be conducted of the number of TransBay stops, the stop spacing and relative route distance on local streets verses distance on freeways.

8

94

Table 5.2-Routes Ranked by Productivity within Service Types, 2013 Part 4, Transbay Productivity by Line, 2013 Route

Type

u

Commute

F L

All day Commute Commute Commute

58 FS

Commute

H G

Commute

NL

All Day

v

Commute

Route FremontStanford

Weekday

Weekday Trips 11

531

Passengers per Trip 48.3

3,344 697 477 293

78 19

13 8

42.9 36.7 36.7 36.6

697

19

35.9

597 345

17 10

35.1 34.5

Macarthur Blvd. Oak.-SF

3,193

93

34.3

0""'""" Hills-

761

23

33.1

360

11

32.7

293 228 1,981

9 7 63

32.6 32.6 31.5

751 642

21 21

34.3 30.6

527

19

27.7

El Shattuck/ Uni i Sacramento St.-EmeryvilleSF I iF El i

""

SF NX4

Commute

Castro ValleySF

NX

JiXl 0 p

ox

All Day Commute Commute

Di Santa Clara St. Alameda-SF i Harbor Bay/ E. AI•

w

rnm•

9 95

Service availability and quality Service availability and quality is the key to how passengers judge transit, and can strongly affect their decision whether or not to ride. This overall attribute has several elements:

1. 2. 3.

Span of Service-What hours of the day is the bus running? This may vary between weekdays and weekends. Frequency-How often does the bus come? This is likely to vary between weekdays and weekends. On Time Performance-Does the bus operate on time and meet its schedule?

Staff is developing information on another key transit characteristic-distance from the passenger's origin and destination to bus stops. This information will be included in future versions of the SRTP. Board Policy 550 sets for the two items, on time performance is part of the District's Key Performance Indicators system.

1. Span of Service/Hours of Operation A bus route is only useful to a passenger if it is operates at the time when the passenger needs it. Therefore, Policy 550 sets standards for the hour routes should be operating: Trunks and Major Corridors: Rapids: Urban Crosstowns: Suburban Crosstowns: Very Low Density Routes:

19 to 14 to 14 to 14 to 14 to

24 hours per day, 16 hours per day, 16 hours per day, 16 hours per day, 16 hours per day,

for example 5 a.m. to at least midnight for example 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m. for example 5 a.m. to at least 7 p.m. for example 7 a.m. to at least 9 p.m. for example, 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m.

Rapid routes have a shorter span requirement under the assumption that they will generally be operating on the same street as other service which will be available for longer hours. Since most Transbay lines only operate in the commute period, they are effectively exempt from standards for hours of operation. Most AC Transit lines meet or exceed their minimum requirement for span of service. Of 70 lines covered by the standard, only 9 fail to meet it. AC Transit's standard for trunk line span of service is similar to other agencies, such as San Francisco MTA (Muni), Metro in Los Angeles and VTA. However, some systems, such as Muni and LA Metro operate more extensive all night or "owl" service.

10 96

2.

Frequency

Frequent service is fundamental to attracting and retaining passengers. Most passengers are unwilling to accept long waits for the bus.

The transit industry in recent years has placed renewed focus on

providing frequent service. Policy 550 sets these target frequencies for various service types during peak hours: Trunks and Major Corridors

Every 15-20 minutes

Rapids

Every 10-14 minutes

Urban Crosstowns

Every 15-20 minutes

Suburban Crosstowns

Every 21-30 minutes

Very Low Density Routes

Every 31-60 minutes

Transbay

Every 21-30 minutes

Almost 60% (36) of East Bay routes meet or exceed the frequency standard, while 26 routes do not. Trunks and major corridor routes generally meet the frequency standard. A number of urban and suburban Crosstown routes, especially in West Contra Costa County and Central Alameda County, fail the standard. The Transit Sustainability Project has determined that improving frequency, especially on routes than run less than once every half hour, is important for service quality. In addition to the frequency standards, Policy 550 (in Attachment One) sets goals for greater frequency for most service types. The types with higher goals are: Trunks and Major Corridors

Every 10-14 minutes

Urban Crosstowns

Every 15-20 minutes

Suburban Crosstowns

Every 15-20 minutes

Very Low Density Routes

Every 21-30 minutes

Transbay

Every 15 minutes or greater during peak hours

3.

On-Time Performance, Weekdays, May, 2014

On time operation of buses is critical for passengers. Passengers need to be able to rely on a bus to deliver them on time to work, school, medical appointments, and other activities. AC Transit sets a standard that at least 72% of the trips on a line should arrive on time. On time is defined as between one minute early and five minutes late. System-wide, 69.8% of weekday trips were on time as of July 2013. Lines which operate in lower density suburban areas were most likely to meet the on time performance standard.

11 97

As a service type, trunk/major corridor, and rapid lines are the most likely to be late-none met the 72% standard. These lines often operate on congested streets, and serve the most passengers. Because they serve the most passengers, the impact of late buses on passengers is magnified.

Routes which failed to meet the standard are shaded.

On Time Performance, Part 1-Trunks/Major Corridors, Rapids

12 98

On Time Performance Table, Part 2-Urban Crosstowns

78.5%

71

22

Urban Crosstown

75.8%

37

Urban Crosstown

75.5%

45

n Crosstown

75.4%

Urban Crosstown

74.9%

Urban Crosstown

74.8%

n Crosstown

73.6%

46 Oakland Zoo

12 47 31

Oakland Oak.-

72.3%

25

13 99

On Time Performance Table, Part 3-Suburban Crosstowns and Very Low Density Routes

86

Winton-Tennyson,

60

Suburban Crosstown

79.5%

Suburban Crosstown

78.9%

65

Hayward BARTCal State East A Street-Hayward Industrial-Ten Euclid-Grizzly Peak,

Suburban Crosstown

77.1%

7

The Arlington, Berkeley-

Suburban Crosstown

75.5%

i Very Low Density

80.1%

Very Low Density

76.0%

Very Low Density

73.3%

83

275 232 239

Union City BART-Lido Fa ire via Thornton Paseo r Blvd. Fremont BART-Warm via Grimmer

14 100

Efficiency The last section evaluated service effectiveness, seeking to answer the question of how well AC Transit is doing at a providing service. The evaluation of efficiency in this section seeks to answer the question of how well the District is doing at minimizing the cost of providing that service. Increasing the efficiency of AC Transit operations would allow AC Transit to provide more service, or to provide the same service at a lower cost. MTC is working with regional transit agencies to improve transit operating efficiency. Plan Bay Areaapproved by MTC and ABAG-seeks to increase the transit share of travel in the region. More transit service can be funded if operating costs are lower. This was a central point of the Transit Sustainability Project. The TSP required the Bay Area's major transit operators to commit to cost reductions, or at least slowing of the rate of cost growth. These reductions are to be achieved by Fiscal Year 2016-17. AC Transit has focused on three cost metrics as targets for reduction under the TSP-Cost per unlinked trip, cost per passenger mile, and cost per revenue hour. The operating costs listed below cover fixed route service, excluding the cost of operating paratransit service. Cost Per Revenue Hour Cost per revenue hour (hour when the bus is actually operating) is a fundamental measure of AC Transit operations, driving other costs. Earlier in the 2000s, AC Transit's per hour costs had been increasing faster than the Consumer Price Index-the rate of inflation-but this is no longer the case. Cost Per Revenue Hour 2013-14

2016-17 projected

Increase

$182.97

$190.87

4.3% (within acceptable TSP cost range)

Cost per Unlinked Trip Cost per unlinked trip is derived from the cost per revenue hour, and the number of passenger trips taken in that hour. An "unlinked" trip is a single trip on a vehicle, regardless of whether the passenger transfers to another bus. A journey from origin to destination could include one, two, or occasionally more unlinked trips. By attracting more passengers to the system, AC Transit hopes to drive down the cost per unlinked trip. Cost per unlinked trip 2013-14

2016-17 projected

Decrease

$5.57

$5.45

-2.2%

Cost per Passenger Mile Cost per unlinked trip shows the cost of each trip, but trips vary--some are longer than others. Cost per passenger mile introduces the element of distance to the analysis of efficiency. Longer trips, 15 101

unsurprisingly, require more resources--primarily bus operating time--than shorter ones. The change in cost per passenger mile closely mirrors the cost per unlinked trip. This is because the average length of a passenger trip on AC Transit (3.25 miles) is not expected to change significantly over the life of the SRTP. Cost per Passenger Mile 2013-14

2016-17 projected

Decrease

$1.71

$1.67

-2.3%

AC Transit's cost per revenue hour is higher than most Bay Area bus operators, but lower than Muni or

VTA. Our cost per unlinked trip is relatively low, lower than most major operators except Muni, because of high ridership on AC Transit buses.

16 102

A.

COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANS (CBTPs) AC Transit has participated in MTC's Community Based Transportation Planning Program (CBTP) in both Alameda and Contra Costa County.

The CBTPs are designed to help low income

communities articulate their transportation needs, to serve as a basis for future planning and funding. The plans initially focused on transit needs, then expanded to include pedestrian and bicycle needs as well. The two counties are now taking different approaches to the Plans which have been developed.

1. Alameda County Between 2004 and 2009, five CBTPs have been prepared for the Alameda County portion of AC Transit's service area. In order from north to south they covered the following areas: •

South and West Berkeley



West Oakland



Central and East Oakland



City of Alameda



Central Alameda County-focusing on Ashland, Cherryland, and South Hayward

The agency then known as the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) oversaw the development of these Plans. That agency, now known as the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), now intends to consolidate and update all of these plans and integrate the result into the Countywide Transportation Plan in 2015/2016. The original plans were done separately from each other and varied widely in approach, analysis, and recommendations. 2.

Contra Costa County

In AC Transit's Contra Costa service area, a CBTP was prepared in 2004 for the Richmond area. It covered northwestern neighborhoods in the city of Richmond (including Parchester Village), as well as Old Town San Pablo. This plan remains in effect and there are no plans to update it.

17 103

B.

PARATRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDED As a fixed route transit provider, AC Transit is required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to fund paratransit service. Paratransit provides shared point to point transportation for people who cannot use fixed route service. People must live within % mile of a fixed route to receive paratransit service. The great bulk of residents in the AC Transit district meet this criterion, although some people living in upper hill areas fall outside of it. Service is provided during the same hours and days of the week as it is on adjacent fixed route service. Most rides are provided within the AC Transit district, but paratransit rides to other parts of the Bay Area may be provided as direct or connecting service. AC Transit provides paratransit service through East Bay Paratransit, which is jointly managed by AC Transit and BART. Under the consortium's agreement, AC Transit pays 69% of costs. This figure is estimated to be $24.9 million in the current Fiscal Year 2014-15. This figure is projected to increase to $29 million by Fiscal Year 2018-19. In Fiscal Year 2012-13, East Bay Paratransit provided 716,681 rides. This figure is slightly over 1% of the rides taken on fixed route service. The total cost (not the AC Transit cost) of these paratransit rides was $34,015,000. The cost per ride was $47.46. Ridership was down from approximately 754,000 in 2011-12, which represented the highest level ever. AC Transit provides training to assist passengers who can use fixed route transit rather than paratransit to do so. This provides more travel flexibility for the passenger and cost savings for the District.

C.

TITLE VI REPORT AC Transit is required to assess its service performance on minority and non-minority transit routes. The analysis was conducted in Spring 2014 using data from Fall 2011, 2012 and 2013. Staff assessed performance of each route according to definitions in Board Policy 550 and methods described in the FTA Circular. Differences found for the Minority and non-Minority transit routes in average load factor, maximum load factor, headway, on-time performance, service accessibility, vehicle assignment, and distribution of transit amenities did not find any discriminatory practice.

18 104

D. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE OUTREACH In preparation for updating Title VI compliance related Board Policies, AC Transit conducted a series of public outreach activities in May and June 2014 before a Public Hearing. The public outreach activities were not required by the Title VI program, but they were provided to ensure populations protected by Title VI and Environmental Justice executive orders have a full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the development and review of the proposed Board Policy updates. The most recent round of outreach activities included four community forums, one held in each of the planning areas of the District, advertising on buses, information packets, and advertisements in both traditional and social media outlets. In addition, staff directly contacted 160 community-based organizations and made presentations to 22 of them, and spoke directly about the proposals with more than 575 individuals. Five of the presentations were provided in Spanish. In addition, the materials were translated into Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and Tagalog. On June 11, 2014, AC Transit held public hearing to receive public comment on revisions to Board Policies 163, 501 and 551 to meet Federal Transit Administration requirements related to Title VI (Civil Rights Act) compliance. The Board subsequently adopted a revised Title VI policy and program. E.

TRIENNIAL REPORT ISSUES There are no triennial report issues which require changes in service.

19 105

SR 14-033c Attachment 2 SRTP Operations Plan and Budget-Chapter 6 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that funding will be available to support planned transit service. This chapter, together with Chapter 7, (Capital Improvement Program) is the key implementation chapters of the SRTP. They lay out what the District hopes to achieve in the next 10 years. Alameda County voters, with a 'yes' vote over 70%, approved Measure BB in November, 2014. Measure BB is an increase in the county's transportation sales tax, which makes substantial additional revenues available to AC Transit for service. Other sources-such as the state's new Cap and Trade funding programs-are expected to contribute additional, much smaller, amounts of operating revenue. The SRTP lays out a broad, high level, 10-year "road map" for the use of existing and additional funds. Specific annual expenditures will be reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors in the annual budget. The District is engaged in several planning activities, outlined below, which could generate new service plans that may require additional revenue.

Staff is formulating a "Comprehensive

Operating Analysis" (COA) which will review and restructure service throughout the district, based on the earlier MTC-initiated COA and on Board service development Policy 550. KEY ASSUMPTIONS



Measure BB will provide about $30 million per year in additional operating funds for Alameda County



Measure BB will support approximately 256,000 platform hours per year, or a nearly 14% increase in service



About 85% of anticipated Measure BB funding will be used for service expansion, with the remainder used to augment the District's operating reserves and to make contributions to capital projects.



AC Transit will continue to seek funds to improve service in the Contra Costa County portion of the district (Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, North Richmond, Kensington)

1 106

SR 14-033c Attachment 2 OPERATIONS PLAN Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COAl As noted above, the COA is intended to be a comprehensive, district-wide analysis of service. Staff plans to present a service proposal which provides improved frequencies, more understandable routes, and routes which can operate more reliably. The COA represents an extension and refrnement of MTC's Transit Sustainability Project. MTC managed the "Inner East Bay COA" which developed proposed service changes for BART and AC Transit within the AC Transit District.

The public outreach process for the COA will begin in the spring, with a

proposal to the Board anticipated in May/June. Improved frequency makes riding the bus easier and more attractive, and will therefore generate increased ridership. During the fiscal crisis of 2009-10, a number of routes which run in a circle ("loop routes") were created. These routes have not been popular with passengers, and one goal of the COA is to reduce the number of these routes, if not eliminate them entirely. To the extent that is financially and operational feasible to direct bus service to shorter, less congested roadways, this will help improve the reliability of service. Potential restructuring of service in the city of Alameda, known as the Alameda Transit Plan, is part ofthis effort.

1. Transit Service Issues a. Service Cuts The SRTP must address the question of service cuts. Current plans do not assume that any service cuts will be a financial necessity. However specific routes may be reduced, eliminated, or increased as part of service restructuring plans with the goal of increasing ridership overall. b. Title VI No service changes are required now to address Title VI concerns. Major service changes will be reviewed under the District's Title VI policy, which the Board of Directors adopted in October, 2014.

2

107

SR 14-033c Attachment 2 2. Existing Transit Service-Revenue Hours In Fiscal Year 2013-14, AC Transit operated 1,685,688 hours of revenue service. This is AC Transit's baseline service level. Measure BB will allow the addition of some 230, 000 new revenue hours, an increase of nearly 14%. AC Transit will then operate some

1,930,000 revenue hours annually. That was the level of service provided in 2008-09, the highest level of service in a decade, and the service level before the 2009-10 cuts. In terms of comparative service intensity, AC Transit provides 1.19 revenue hours per resident of the district. Santa Clara County VTA provides .77 hours (bus and light rail) and Muni operates 3.95 hours per resident (one of the highest levels in the US). AC Transit operates local, trunk, rapid, and express (Trans bay service), each of which will be affected differently by upcoming changes. Existing service is described in Chapter 2 and analyzed in Chapter 5. The COA is expected to increase the level of local and trunk service. The COA is not anticipated to propose changes in Transbay service, although changes may emerge from the Transbay Core Capacity Study (see below). A majority of the existing lR Rapid line-the International Boulevard/East 14'h segment-is being converted to Bus Rapid Transit. 3. Potential Changes to Transit Service beyond the COA. AC Transit's four planning areas are as follows:

West Contra Costa (Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito North Richmond, Kensington); Northern Alameda County (Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont, Alameda); Central Alameda County (San Leandro, Hayward, Ashland, Cherryland, Castro Valley) Southern Alameda County (Fremont and Newark).

During fiscal year 2014-15, AC Transit is reviewing the bulk of its service, through a variety of planning projects. This includes local service throughout the district, Fremont/Newark service, trunk and major corridors throughout the district, and Transbay service. The Service Improvement Plan will provide small increases in bus service this fiscal year (FY 14-15). These will increase revenue service hours by over 1%.

3 108

SR 14-033c Attachment 2 A. Service Improvement Plan The approved 2014-15 budget includes about $2 million in additional operating funds to improve service. In December, 2014 there was an increase of peak hour frequency on line 97 (Hesperian) from every 20 minutes to every 1S minutes and line 99 (East 14'h/Mission) from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes. In January, 2015, the Board approved operation of line 72R (the San Pablo Rapid) on weekends-up to now the line has only operated on weekdays. Weekend service is scheduled to begin in March. B. Flex Service AC Transit is planning to implement "flex" service in low density parts of the district. Ridership is generally low in these areas, such as Fremont and Newark, where low population densities make it difficult to operate efficiently. Under the flex proposal for Fremont and Newark, fixed route service would be limited to a few major, frequent routes. Other service would operate from these trunk lines and BART stations to any bus stop within a specified flex zone. This model has been implemented by other transit agencies, notably the Regional Transit District in Denver. The Board of Directors has approved a pilot flex route to begin operating in summer 2015 as proof of concept. Ten buses have been purchased and delivered in fiscal year 2014-1S. The first use of these buses will be in the area currently served by Route 27S beginning in August 2014.

C. Bus Rapid Transit Unlike the previous items, the BRT is a defined project which is being implemented. The East Bay Bus Rapid Transit line is a $178 million MTC Resolution 3434 (regional transit expansion) project. It will provide high speed, high capacity transit service between Downtown Oakland (Broadway & 19'h) and San Leandro BART. The BRT will operate every 5 minutes along its 10 mile route, using dedicated bus lanes over most of that distance. The District is now preparing a plan to restructure intersecting and overlapping service for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. There will be 34 stations, which will be similar in design to small light rail stations. The BRT is scheduled to begin revenue service in 2017.

4 109

SR 14-033c Attachment 2 D. Major Corridors Study The Major Corridors Study (discussed further in the Capital Budget chapter) is primarily an analysis of appropriate capital improvements for each corridor where a major bus line operates. It may, however, lead to service changes in the SRTP time period. For example, corridors recommended for less intensive improvements, such as those funded by MTC's Transit Performance Initiative project rather than Bus Rapid Transit-scale projects, would be most likely to see corresponding service improvements.

E. San Francisco Bay Area Core Capacity Transit Study AC Transit is working with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), BART, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA), Caltrain and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)-Muni--to prepare the San Francisco Bay Area Core Capacity Transit Study.

This study is intended to develop a regional

strategy to address short-, medium- and long-term transit capacity challenges confronting the major high-capacity corridors serving downtown San Francisco, including the Transbay Corridor. The region has been awarded a $1 million United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) TIGER 6 Planning Grant for this study. Combined with the local funding, this will be a $2 million study.

F. Other Agencies' Transit Planning Efforts Other agencies located within the AC Transit district are also engaged in transit planning efforts. These could lead, although this is by no means certain, to additional service by either AC Transit and/or other agencies during the SRTP period. Key Studies in this category include: 1. West Contra Costa County High Capacity Transit Study (WCCHCTS). This study,

being led by the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) and BART, is designed to evaluate transit solutions which could provide high capacity transit augmentations in the 1-80 corridor. This study is multimodal and could result in recommendations for either bus or rail projects. 2. Contra Costa County Express Bus Study-this study is being managed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). It will update a 2002 study of 5 110

SR 14-033c Attachment 2 express bus service in both the AC Transit service area and other parts of Contra Costa County. The study will make recommendations for improvements in express bus service, which could become part of a Contra Costa County transportation sales tax measure in 2016. 3.

Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Transit Study (EBOTS)-this study, which will be completed in a few months, is designed to recommend transit improvements for the West Oakland-Emeryville-West Berkeley corridor. The study is being managed by the city of Emeryville on behalf of the three cities in the corridor.

4.

Late Night Transportation Working Group - This study is sponsored by the City and County of San Francisco and explores solutions to improve late night service to and from San Francisco, including service to the East Bay along the Transbay Corridor. Recommendations from this study could include additional bus service between the AC Transit service area and San Francisco at times when BART is not operating. This study is scheduled for completion in mid-201S.

6 111

SR 14-033c Attachment 2

Financial Plan Background This section of the SRTP outlines AC Transit' s overall operating budget assumptions and expectations for the next ten years. It is designed to show that AC Transit will have sufficient revenue to operate the level of service planned. The section begins with the key revenue and cost assumptions for the upcoming decade. It then moves to a brief description of the District' s general financial outlook. It then discusses the key tradeoffs for using the increased revenue expected from BB and other sources, and recommends an approach. The passage of Measure BB, is anticipated to yield about $30 million per year in increased revenue beginning in FY1516 (see table below) . With these funds, staff is proposing a service improvement strategy (the COA) which will bring bus service to the highest level in over a decade. The strategy is also designed to improve on time performance. There are also other indicators of a much stronger economic recovery in the East Bay, suggesting that current operating revenues may be reaching levels not seen since before the Great Recession. The overall fiscal context for the SRTP financial projections for operating expenses is framed by MTC's Transit Sustainability Project (TSP). The TSP requires that the 7 largest transit agencies in the Bay Area submit and update strategic plans to MTC. The plans show the agencies will reduce cost metrics, such as cost per passenger, to an agreed upon level by FY 2017-18. In March 2014, the AC Transit Board approved an update to the 5-year projected TSP operating expense budget through FY 2017-18. This updated projection is the basis of the current SRTP operating budget forecast. AC TRANSIT SRTP DRAFT

Year1

YearZ

Year3

Year4

YearS

Year6

Yea r7

YearS

Year9

Year 10

(In $000's), Nominal Dollars

FY1S16

FY1617

FY1718

FY1819

FY1920

FY2021

FY2122

FY2223

FY2324

FY242S

Total Operating Revenues

358,801

365,057

372,547

385,074

384,243

393,150

406,790

41S,191

426,031

440,003

Total Operating Costs

348,006

357,257

367,507

379,395

383,831

395,471

405,592

418,821

429,480

442,822

10,795

7,800

5,040

5,679

412

New Measure 88 additional revenue•

29,577

29,932

30,291

30,654

Operati ng Surplus I (Deficit) - After Measure 88

40,372

37,732

35,331

4,000 27,547

4,000 12,960

4,000 9,920

8,825 40,372

20,772 37,732

21,411 35,331

IOperating Surplus I (Deficit)· Before Measure 88

Reserve Contribution District Capital Contribution Ne w Service Enhacement Ope ratin g Cost s (ne t of addtl fare box) Subtotal a dditional costs

(2,321)

1,198

(3,630)

(3,449)

(2,819) 1

31,023

33,842

35,027

36,428

37,885

39,400

36,333

31,435

31,521

36,225

32,798

34,436

36,581

4,000 10,218

4,000 4,635

7,967

11,938

7,656

8,407

9,528

22,115 36,333

22,800 31,435

23,554 31,521

24,287 36,225

25,142 32,798

26,029 34,436

27,053 36,581

Note: Alameda CTC developed a five-year projection for Measure BB revenue. Because this is a ten-year document, AC Transit staff estimated revenues for the final five years.

7 112

SR 14-033c Attachment 2

Financial Assumptions for the Ten Year Financial Plan Revenues •

Baseline or existing revenues (as of 2014) are estimated to grow at a faster pace in the initial part of the projection period. This is due to the improved economic performance in the San Francisco Bay Area economy and in the East Bay between late FY13-14 and FY14-15.



There will be biennial fare increases scheduled similar to the originally Board-adopted long-term fare policy but adjusted to better reflect projected Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation trends for the San Francisco Bay Area for the upcoming years.



Other operating revenues like those received for Contracted services and other miscellaneous revenues would experience relatively minor growth.



Sales Taxes-based subsidies (other than STA), such as the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Measure BB and AB1107, would experience higher growth in the initial years ofthe SRTP than projected by MTC. They provide confirmation to the AC Transit FY14-15 Adopted Budget revenues expected for this category.



Property Taxes-based subsidies, in particular the main Property Tax account (excluding Measure VV), will also experience slightly higher growth in the first few years of the SRTP long term forecast timeline.



State Transit Assistance (STA) subsidies will experience a gradual decline due to the reduced demand for diesel fuel. STA funds come from a tax on diesel fuel sold in California. In late FY1314, MTC reported a rescission in funds accruing to the District. This was due to a faster than expected drop in diesel fuel volume consumption statewide combined with lower than expected diesel prices.



Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit related revenues grow at an average 3%, trending towards faster growth rates towards the end of the projection



There will be no federal operating assistance revenue during the period other than that associated with the ADA program



The MTC Lifeline program will continue, with funding provided every three years.

8 113

SR 14-033c Attachment 2

Operating Expenses •

Operating expenses are based on existing level of operations and enhanced services funded by Measure BB.



Salaries and wages are projected to increase at a rate commensurate with San Francisco Bay Area inflation and a wage structure based on existing labor agreements.



Fringe benefits would grow at a net rate 2% higher than projected in the original Transit Sustainability Project Strategic Plan (a change reflected in the recently updated TSP) due to the lower projected contributions towards healthcare by the unions.

Healthcare

costs are now projected to grow at a rate that is two percentage points higher than originally projected. •

Savings on fuel and related costs are driven by projected reductions in the long term price of diesel fuel, as indicated by market futures.



The cost of consumption of bus parts, building repair materials and other office supplies is projected to decline as the average age of the fleet declines.



The SRTP reflects greater savings than previously in insurance premiums, liability and casualty costs. These are due to general safety improvements at the facilities.



Finally, the SRTP projection also includes a revised estimate for the added operating costs associated with the implementation of BRT starting in FY1718, as well as the reopening of the District's Richmond Bus Division.

The SRTP and Other Budget Documents The SR differs from previous projections in that it includes updates reflecting trends and results confirmed during the second half of FY 2013-14. These updates also affect the SRTP's financial forecast for the period beyond FY 2017-18, a 5 year period not included in the MTC TSP forecast. Also, since the TSP does not include a projection for revenues, the present draft SRTP long term forecast presents for the first time a detailed update of all revenue sources for the ten year forecast period included in this financial plan.

9

114

SR 14-033c Attachment 2 Ten Year Operating Financial Outlook The long term financial outlook is significantly better now than what was envisioned in past years .1 The District's existing operating revenue sources are projected to grow at an initially strong rate of 2.3% up to FY 2016-17, then moderately, and then again in a more conservative manner in the outer years. Because of its initial high growth rate, revenues would stay higher than operating costs during six of the next 10 years.

ACTransit SRTP Draft Projections -Ten Year projection with new Measure BB New Service Addition, No additiona l Reserve, No additional Capital Contribution $41,000 $38,000 $35,000 $32,000 $29,000 $26,000

..

$23,000

0 0

$20,000

b

i

$17,000

"' =$14, 000

-

$11,000

SRTP ()per Surplus after new Meas BB, new service addition, no addtl r eserve, no add tl cap contrib

$8,000 $5,000 $2,000 ${1,000) ${4, 000) ${7,000)

1

These projections are based on economic statistics and forecasts from the United States Congressional Budget Office in their forecast for the US economy until year 2024, Plan Bay Area from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and from economic foreca sters· Beacon Economics for the 3 year term up to 2016 for the California and East Bay economies.

10 115

SR 14-033c Attachment 2 In addition to Measure BB, this projection assumes the continuation-at current revenue levels- of Measure VV, an important parcel tax Measure in Special District 1 (the entire district excluding Fremont and Newark). Renewing this measure requires a two-thirds affirmative vote from the public. The long term financial forecast includes the effect of estimated biennial fare adjustments under the adopted fare policy, which would maintain the inflation-adjusted revenues in place for existing fare media. The projection also assumes projected ridership growth. Because service will be increased, ridership growth is projected to be greater than this level, and will reduce the District's cost per passenger trip.

However, estimated ridership

growth is limited in the initial project years due to capacity constraints until the Richmond Bus Division opens and the District expands its fleet. The forecasted operating surplus is projected to peak in Fiscal Year 2015/16, then gradually decline. The long term financial forecast includes the potential impact of a projected slowing of the regional economic growth in FY 2019-20.

The factors below reflect the projected growth trend for the District's operating revenues during the SRTP time period compared to other benchmark variables. o

o

o

Staff's projection for revenues is somewhat higher than MTC's most updated forecast. The reason is that MTC's forecast uses a much lower baseline starting point due to its reliance on lower economic expectations for the current FY2014-15. By comparison, Staff's baseline reflects the most current information. For that reason too, Staff's revenue projection starts accelerating earlier than the forecast provided by MTC. Staff projects that revenues will grow at a rate that is slightly lower than the average for past years for the District. This is a conservative assumption considering the higher growth rates after the Great Recession. However, Staff's projections show revenues growing at a slightly higher rate than both regional economic growth in Plan Bay Area, the US and inflation. This reflects the improved performance of the regional economy since Plan Bay Area was finalized and the better economic performance of the San Francisco Bay Area compared to the rest of the nation. Inflation is projected to grow at a very subdued pace.

The budget projection assumes a continuation of current trends and existing legislation and ongoing labor contracts. It also assumes the continuation of the positive effect of cost improvement initiatives in areas such as insurance/liability and safety expenses, and lower costs in bus parts consumption due to a reduction in the age and maintenance cost ofthe fleet. Among notable new items, total operating costs will increase for the delivery of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service and for the higher net cost of operating a reopened Richmond Division. The costs of reopening D-3 are mitigated somewhat by about $1 million annual savings in deadhead costs.

11 116

SR 14-033c Attachment 2 Revenue growth has been strong in the last two years. Based on preliminary pre-audited figures, the District has received greater funding than previously budgeted from sales tax sources in FY 2013-14. These include the Transportation Development Act {TDA) and AB 1107 funds. Given the strong property market in the Bay Area, AC Transit's property tax revenues are also expected to increase more than originally expected in the short term. Finally, farebox revenues are expected to increase with higher ridership. These sources of funding contribute quite importantly to the earlier years' improved forecast for the District's operations. The long term financial plan indicates the District's operating budget should remain sustainable and balanced, given the planned level of service. Operating expenses include additional known costs associated with major initiatives like the implementation of BRT service. Another major cost is the planned reopening of an operating division in Richmond {Division 3) to provide service both within and beyond Contra Costa County.

Tradeoffs in allocating forecast operating surpluses There are three potential and, to some extent, mutually exclusive strategies for the operating surpluses forecast described above:

1. Capital Projects: Fund the District's contributions to the cost of our capital projects- estimated to require an average of $10 million per year; 2. Reserves: Continue funding increases in the District's operating reserves. The District has currently $40 million in operating reserves or approximately 11.5% of the operating budget. Current policy recommends but does not mandate a maximum 20% of the operating expense budget. Reaching this maximum would set an annual maximum target level of $12 million under current policy and given current economic and operating factors. That level of reserve contributions would reach the maximum in 3-4 years. 3.

Service: Increase annual revenue service hours.

The long term financial plan operating surplus presented in this chapter is not adequate to fully fund all of these expenses at the same time. This is particularly true in the out years of the long term projection, when an economic slowdown is projected. The surplus could be used to partially fund one or more areas. The Board of Directors will need to set a policy on the allocation of operating surpluses outside of the development of the SRTP. The Board will need to consider how to allocate this projected stream of operating surpluses in the context of both the COA and the SRTP. Allocations could vary on an annual, semiannual or quarterly basis depending on the District's needs, the status of the local, regional, state and national economy, potential natural disasters, and available new revenues. 12 117

SR 14-033c Attachment 2

Recommendation for Allocating Forecast Operating Surpluses As an initial proposal for consideration, AC Transit staff recommends the following allocation of surplus funds: 1. Service-AC Transit would add 270,000 platform hours annually; 2. Reserves-The District would add to reserves until reserves are at 15% of the annual operating budget 3. Capital Projects-The District would use remaining funds for capital projects

o

Service Adding service would be a benefit for our passengers and would increase ridership. Another rationale for the proposed scenario is the fact that the District needs to achieve the cost reduction targets mandated by the MTC TSP. By increasing ridership and controlling costs, we expect to achieve a reduction in the cost per passenger that will meet TSP goals.

o

Reserves: The scenario presented here would prioritize increasing the operating reserve to 15% of the operating expense budget and not the maximum 20% as recommended but not mandated in the policy. A 15% share of the operating expense budget would be approximately $52 million or $12 million more than the current level. This could be accomplished by dedicating $2 million, $5 million and $5 million from the forecasted operating surpluses projected for FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, respectively. An operating reserve at this level would also be in compliance with the best practice set forth by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), as it would represent approximately two months of operating expenses.

o

Capital Projects to 2016-17: In this allocation scenario, the next element would be dedicating the remaining balance of the forecasted operating surplus up through FY 2016-17 to fulfill the requirement to fund the District contribution to capital projects. This would continue to renew the District's infrastructure. It would also help achieve a state of good repair and help assure adequate performance of critical facilities and equipment. It could also generate operating budget savings by reducing maintenance and continuous repair costs.

o

Capital Projects in the Out Years: Continue prioritizing reinvestment and renewal of the capital assets infrastructure in the out years by allocating the projected operating surpluses to fund the District's capital projects program as needed.

13 118

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 CHAPTER 7- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1.0 Introduction to the AC Transit CIP

This chapter presents AC Transit's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is a ten-year snapshot of AC Transit's capital needs and potential capital funding sources. The purpose of the CIP is to provide an overview of the capital projects that are needed to meet AC Transit's goals of maintaining a state of good repair and providing an efficient and financially sustainable service. The CIP is not financially constrained so it should not be considered a capital budget. Instead, it should be seen as overview of projected needs against reasonable funding forecasts. AC Transit maintains the flexibility to prioritize certain aspects of the CIP based on timing, funding, impact on overall agency goals, and capacity for project delivery. While the District has identified capital funding that it could reasonably access over the next ten years, there is still a significant shortfall between projected need and available funding. Additional funding at the federal, state, and local level will be needed to fully fund AC Transit's capital program. One of the key components of the CIP is identifying its interaction with the Operating Budget. The most direct relationship between the CIP and the Operating Plan is the capital contribution from the operating budget. Each year AC Transit contributes funding from the operating budget for capital projects, to fulfill local match requirements of grant funds and for projects that do not qualify for grant funds. Capital contribution has averaged $9 million over the last four years (FY 2012 - FY 2015). Further, service enhancements or cost efficiencies identified in the Operating Budget would need to be supported by associated capital investments. A clear example of this is an Operating Budget that calls for the expansion of service would require a capital investment in expansion transit vehicles. The Operating Budget in this SRTP calls for additional services funded by the operating surplus generated by Measure BB. This additional service will require additional vehicles and a facilities expansion, along with other capital needs that will require an average annual capital contribution of $17 million from a variety of sources 1.1 Overview of Capital Needs and Financial Outlook AC Transit used the financial assumptions in Plan Bay Area: Final Financial Assumptions document to guide the capital funding projections in the SRTP. As in Plan Bay Area, the SRTP also defines Committed funding and Discretionary funding. Committed funding is funding already allocated or programmed to AC Transit, funding identified in an agreement or resolution, or funding that can be reasonably assumed to be available to AC Transit. Discretionary funding is more speculative as it may require voter approval, legislative action or is part of a highly competitive discretionary program. AC Transit uses Plan Bay Area as a source for discretionary revenues and therefore this estimate includes a new regional bridge toll; a regional gas tax; and other anticipated, but unidentified revenues. Section 8 will further describe the sources and methodology for the funding assumptions.

1

119

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 AC Transit has identified $1.5 billion in capital project needs over the ten-year SRTP time period (FY 2015 - FY 24). Of the $1.5 billion there is $669 million in committed funding and $592 million in discretionary funding. Assuming that the District only receives committed funding there is an $893million (57%) shortfall against the full CIP. Assuming the District receives all committed and discretionary funding listed there is still a $301 million (19%) shortfall. This further highlights the need for new funding sources at the federal, state, and local levels. Table 1- CIP Project Need and Capital Financial Outlook (Attachment 4} 1.2 CIP Chapter Overview The remainder of the cost section of the CIP chapter is organized around AC Transit's major capital program categories: Fleet, Facilities, Corridors, Customer Service, and Information Services and Communications. Each of those sections will discuss existing conditions of that program, pertinent agency policies and/or plans governing the implementation of the program, and the recommended CIP projects and associated cost projection for the program. The final section of the chapter will discuss the financial assumptions and provide an overview of all the capital funding sources.

2. Fleet (includes revenue, non-revenue. and paratransit vehicles) AC Transit has a fleet of 586 revenue vehicles (buses) that is broken up into 354 40' vehicles, 90 30' vehicles, 86 60' vehicles, 46 45' vehicles, and 10 van-size "cutaways" (see Table 2 for more details). AC Transit maintains a spare ratio of 19.75% of its maximum service peak vehicle need of 471 revenue vehicles. Table 2- Revenue Fleet Overview (Attachment 4} AC Transit has a fleet of 154 non-revenue vehicles (everything other than buses) that is broken up into 48 full-size cars, 30 pieces of support equipment (i.e. forklifts and yard tugs), 19 SUVs, 36 trucks, and 21 vans (see Table 3 for more details). Two of the full-size cars are hybrids. Table 3- Non-Revenue Fleet Overview (Attachment 4} The current average revenue fleet age is 7.2 years, compared to the target average age of less than 6.0 years. The target average age is based on an optimal average age that is half the useful life of the buses in the fleet; the federal standard useful life of 12-years for urban transit buses and 14-years for overthe-road commuter buses. Achieving the target average age is accomplished by maintaining the replacement schedule based on the useful life. Deviations from that target occur due to late or missed procurements, or extended periods of time from order to manufacture based on supplier backlog. Table 4 shows the revenue vehicle replacement plan over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 202324). The current average age of the non-revenue fleet is 11.5 years. It is AC Transit's goal for non-revenue vehicles is similar to buses in that it is based on the useful life of the vehicles. The target average age for the fleet can vary a bit more with non-revenue vehicles, as the types and mix of vehicles can vary based 2 120

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 on District needs. Table 4 also shows the non-revenue vehicle replacement plan over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 2023-24). The Comprehensive Operations Analysis and the resultant service planning and SRTP Service Plan show a need for an expansion of the fleet by 47 vehicles over the period 2015-2024. Table 5 shows the vehicle expansions over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 2023-24). It includes a larger potential envelope of vehicle expansions which will not necessarily be implemented. Table 4- Vehicle Replacement Cost (Attachment 4} Table 5- Vehicle Expansion Cost (Attachment 4} The vehicle replacement plan shown in Table 4 is based on the simple assumption of replacing vehicles at the end of their mandated useful life. AC Transit regularly evaluates the fleet mix and needs of current and planned service, and makes required changes in fleet replacement projects. 3. Facilities (includes maintenance and fueling facilities. administration building, and other operational facilities)

3.1 Existing Conditions AC Transit has six operating and administrative facilities in regular use and seven transit centers that are utilized in regular service. AC Transit is also currently in the process of rehabilitating another operating facility (D3) for regular use: • • • • •

Three open operating facilities (D2, D4, D6) One maintenance facility (CMF) One Administrative facility (GO) One training facility (TEC) Seven transit centers (Transbay Terminal, Ardenwood, Richmond Parkway, Eastmont, Contra Costa College, San Leandro BART Terminal, Uptown Transit Center)

Table 6 (Attachment 4} details the size, location, age, and other characteristics of the facilities. Most of AC Transit's major operating facilities were built in the 1980s and have reached the point of needing major rehabilitation, including replacement of major subsystems. Facilities State of Good Repair- Most of AC Transit's operating and maintenance facilities are 25-30 years old and are in need of significant rehabilitation and replacement of systems. Isolated projects to replace the most aged components such as roofs and yard paving/concrete have been completed in recent years, and a systematic rehabilitation schedule to address obsolete and aged components is being developed through the State of Good Repair Asset Management Project. D3 - AC Transit is beginning the process of reopening the Richmond D3 facility. The District is nearing capacity at its current facilities so reopening D3 is necessary to allow for proposed service expansion. The current schedule has the facility fully reopening for service in 2016. At the same time, the City of Richmond has expressed interest in having AC Transit move the facility so they can develop it for other

3 121

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 residential and commercial uses, given its proximity to the Richmond BART lntermodal Station. They are in the process of identifying other suitable sites for AC Transit to occupy. With a suitable alternate location and sensible financial and operational terms, AC Transit could relocate the facility. If an arrangement is worked out in the near term, AC Transit would likely reduce the rehabilitation scope to the minimum needed for short term operations until a replacement facility is developed. New Paratransit Facility- AC Transit, through the East Bay Paratransit Consortium, operates demandresponsive paratransit service for eligible passengers in its operating area. The service uses three contractors who operate their own facilities, and pass the cost of maintaining those facilities along to AC Transit through the contract costs. AC Transit could acquire or construct its own facility which the operators could use reducing contract costs, or could restart AC Transit provided paratransit service with its own facility. Additional Bus Facility - The re-opening of D3 will provide capacity for several years of service expansion, but AC Transit must continue looking towards future conditions and the possible need for another facility. Table 7- Facilities Rehabilitation/Expansion Cost (Attachment 4} 4. Technology (includes all Information Technology and communications infrastructure projects (e.g. CAD/AVLII AC Transit is in the middle of major technology upgrades, and must continue to plan for replacement and upgrade of these systems. They have a relatively short useful life and there are efficiencies and opportunities that new technologies can bring. Major systems upgrades in progress include: •

Computer Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Location/Radio System (CAD/AVL/Radio)



PeopleSoft financial tracking system



Hast us Integrated Operations (HIOPS) bus scheduling system

The CAD/AVL/Radio project is AC Transit's largest and most costly system and provides schedule adherence information for the operator, real-time vehicle location and schedule adherence information for the controllers, and automatic data collection of the date, time, and location of many onboard events such as door openings, wheelchair ramp/lift use, and dwell times at service stops. The system provides an effective means for operators and controllers to share information on the current status of service, and is expected to improve on time performance. The current project is budgeted at over $39 million and is expected to complete in 2018. A related project will relocate the Operations Controls Center from D2 to CMF to better serve the upcoming BRT line and reduce evacuation scenarios that might affect it. Table 8- Technology Cost (Attachment 4} 5. Corridors (includes BRT, Line 51, and other improvements to the service on the routes (e.g. terminal upgrades like CCCTCII

4 122

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 AC Transit pursues corridor enhancement projects to improve efficiency and reliability of its service. The major corridors are particularly important, given that they carry almost half of AC Transit's ridership. Corridor enhancements include a range of treatments, including physical improvements like bus bulbs and queue-jump lanes to traffic signal modifications for bus priority. 'Rapid Bus' improvements package the physical and signal enhancements with service redesign of specific line that reduces of the number of stops to speed travel time and often includes special branding. At the high end of corridor enhancements is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which the District is implementing on East 14'h/lnternational Boulevard between Downtown Oakland and San Leandro. The East Bay BRT project includes all of the elements of the 'Rapid Bus' projects as well as level boarding with a specially modified bus fleet to accommodate it, raised platform center-median and side stations with enhanced lighting and security, off-board fare collection and vending, bus-only lanes, and further enhanced branding. The Line 51 Corridor project, currently in construction and planned for completion in the Spring of 2015, aims to improve performance along the 51A/B routes from Alameda through Oakland and into Berkeley. The East Bay BRT project, scheduled to open for service in late 2017, will be the region's first full BRT. AC Transit has also received funding from MTC's Transit Performance Initiative for signal and other improvements on line 97 from Hayward to Union City. Beyond these projects, AC Transit is currently working on a Major Corridors Study to identify the appropriate level of treatment for the District's top ten corridors and build local support for their implementation. Table 9- Corridor Enhancement Cost (Attachment 4}

6. Transit Centers/Park and Rides Transit centers are focal points of District service, often at route terminals and/or intermodal connections such as BART stations. They are served by multiple bus routes. While the District does not have a formal policy for the development of transit centers, they often arise from a natural combination of service design and connection and land use particulars. AC Transit's use and development of park-and-ride transit centers is guided by Board Policy 317 'District Operated Park And Ride Lot Pricing and Cost Recovery Policy'. In essence the policy states that park-andride facilities are not a part of the District's primary on-street pickup service design, any such facilities must have a thorough planning process, and must be supported by user (parking) fees. AC Transit is also a member of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA), an agency created to develop and operate the new Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco. AC Transit currently operates 28 Transbay lines to San Francisco, providing commute and some all-day service in an era when BART is at or above capacity. The TJPA created a temporary terminal near the site of the new Transbay Terminal for use by AC Transit and other operators during the construction period. The District is the major bus operations tenant of the temporary terminal and will be the main tenant when the new Terminal opens in late 2017. In 2008 the District signed a Lease and Use Agreement with the TJPA which includes a capital commitment of $57 million in 2011 dollars by 2050 and an operating commitment for the terminal. The District has contributed nearly $13 million of capital funding, and will program another

5

123

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 $22 million in FY 2016 and FY 2017. The remainder of the capital commitment will likely be funded by a passenger facility charge to be added to the standard rider fare, but the exact mechanism is still being developed. AC Transit and the TJPA currently receive RM2 funding to cover the operating costs of the Tempera ry Terminal. Costs will increase when the new Terminal opens, this may require significant additional funding starting in FY 2018. TJPA is currently working on updated operations cost estimates along with plans for increased grant funds. Table 10- Transit Centers/Park and Rides Cost (Attachment 4} The plan provides for the rehabilitation and maintenance of current transit and park-and-ride locations. Expansion projects in this category consists of a second District 2 park-and-ride facility based on the success of the Ardenwood facility in Fremont and a Downtown Oakland 'hub' transit center as Downtown revitalizes and grows in regional prominence. 7. GHG Reduction Initiatives As noted in Board Policy 550, AC Transit's greatest contribution to greenhouse gas reduction comes from shifting travelers from cars to buses. The District is also deeply involved in efforts to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions. AC Transit is the leading partner in the regional Zero-Emissions Bay Area (ZEBA) effort and a national leader in bringing fuel cell powered bus transit to commercial reality. The District has been operating buses powered by hydrogen fuel cells for nearly 14 years, with the current fleet of 12 fuel cell buses in their third year of operation. The buses run on many District routes and together have driven nearly 900,000 miles and carried over 3.2 million passengers. As part of this effort, the District has built two hydrogen fueling stations and converted one maintenance bay to handle the fuel cell buses, with a second maintenance bay conversion in progress. Both of the fueling stations feature on-site hydrogen generation to meet the California State SB 1505 renewable hydrogen generation requirements. At Division 2 the electrolyzer for generating hydrogen is partially powered by solar, and at Division 4 the whole facility including the electrolyzer is powered by a directed-biogas fed solid-oxide stationary fuel cell. The District has also installed solar power generation at two additional facilities in an effort to reduce both power costs and greenhouse gas emissions. The ZEBA effort was initially prompted by still-pending California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations that will likely require some level of zero-emission vehicles in public transit bus fleets. CARB plans to announce the updated regulations at the end of 2015. The District is currently developing a strategy to meet expected zero-emission regulations, and projects in this category will pursue that end. Most of the funding for these projects is expected to come from grant sources and agencies such as CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), or the Cap and Trade grant programs being developed. In the near term the District is investigating the expansion of its zero-emission bus fleet, and the replacement of key propulsion systems in the existing fuel cell bus fleet.

6 124

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 Emissions reductions through strategic facilities investments are also regularly considered, along with low- and zero-emissions vehicles for the District's non-revenue fleet. Table 11- GHG Reduction Initiatives Cost {Attachment 4)

8. Overview of Funding Sources The chapter now shifts from discussion of the District's spending needs to discussion of the funding sources which are available to pay for those needs. One of the key methodologies used to develop this funding source projection was MTC's recently approved Core Capacity Challenge Grant program (MTC Resolution No. 4130). This 15-year funding program for the three largest operators in the Bay Area, AC Transit, BART, and Muni, includes funding for fleet replacements, fleet expansions, and facilities upgrades. AC Transit's share of the Core Capacity program includes $1.138 billion for fleet replacements ($780 million), fleet expansions ($90 million), and facility rehabilitation and replacement ($268 million). The funding is split among several fund sources, including Federal Transit Administration Formula funds, Cap and Trade funds, AB 664 Bridge Toll funds, BATA project savings, and various local fund sources. AC Transit used the assumptions in this program as a baseline for all of those sources.

Committed Funding: Committed funding is funding already allocated or programmed to AC Transit, funding identified in an agreement or resolution, or funding that can be reasonably assumed to be available to AC Transit.

Federal Sources Federal Transit Administration Formula Funds- The main source of AC Transit's FTA funding is from the Section 5307 program. AC Transit is eligible to receive this funding within the San Francisco-Oakland urbanized area along with 10 other operators, including BART and the San Francisco MTA. The large needs of this group of operators generally outstrip available funding. To handle the funding distribution, the MTC manages the Transit Capital Priorities (TCP) process to determine funding priorities on a recurring basis. For this SRTP AC Transit used the FTA funds programmed in MTC's Core Capacity program to project available funds over the term of the SRTP. The Core Capacity program includes $481 million in FTA funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015- FY 2030) or $30 million/year. AC Transit assumed $38 million in FY2015 based on MTC programming recommendations. This leaves $443 million for the remaining 15 years of the Core Capacity program, or $29.53 million/year. This assumption is on par with amounts received by AC Transit over the past several years. Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Funds - Both of these fund sources originate from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Surface Transportation Program (STP) is generally considered flexible funding that can be used on a variety of transportation projects, including transit, bicycle, pedestrian, road, and highway projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding requires that projects reduce air pollution in areas that are

7 125

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 considered to be in non-attainment under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These funds are apportioned to the region and administered by MTC. AC Transit is eligible to receive funding from both of these federal programs through a variety of discretionary programs established by MTC and the Congestion Management Agencies for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. These programs include, but are not limited to, the OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) program, the Transit Performance Initiative (TPI) program, and the Freeway Performance Initiative program. Plan Bay Area assumes $186.3 million total from both these funding sources in Fiscal Year 2013 with a 3% escalation rate per annum throughout the life of Plan Bay Area. AC Transit estimates that it could receive this funding distributed through a variety of regional programs (e.g. TPI and OBAG) at a rate of $7 million bi-annually. This amount is on par with amounts received by AC Transit over the past several years.

State Sources Regional Transportation Improvement Program - The Regional Transportation Improvement Program identifies projects programmed to receive various state and federal funds, and acts as a proposal from MTC and the Congestion Management Agencies for Alameda and Contras Costa Counties to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for programming State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds. AC Transit anticipates $26 million in funds in the RTIP in the SRTP period for the East Bay BRT project. Infrastructure Bond Funds- In November 2006, the voters in the State approved Proposition 1B entitled the "Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006". Proposition 1B authorized the sale of $19.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund State and local transportation projects aimed at relieving congestion, improving movement of goods, improving air quality, and enhancing safety and security of the transportation system. AC Transit receives funding from two Prop 1B programs: the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) and the Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA). By the end of Fiscal Year 2014-15 AC Transit will have received approximately $100 million in PTMISEA funding and $15 million in TSSSDRA funding. Staff estimates that $43 million of that funding will be used for capital priorities within this SRTP; the bulk of which are existing projects that are carrying forward into this time period. Cap and Trade (Low Carbon Transit Operations Program)- The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is one of the main Cap and Trade funded programs that can be accessed by transit operators. Unlike the other programs, LCTOP funding will flow to transit operators and the region by formula. The funding must be used to support operating and capital projects that lead to greenhouse gas reductions with a priority to delivering those improvements to disadvantaged communities. AC Transit will receive $573,227 in FY 2015, and the draft state budget would approximately double this amount for FY 2016. How these funds would be used has not yet been determined.

Local Sources

8 126

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 AB 664- AB 664 is an increment of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay, San Mateo-Hayward, and Dumbarton Bridge tolls and is intended to fund transit capital projects that relieve congestion in the bridge corridors. MTC commits these funds to match federally-funded transit projects. MTC Resolution 4123 Transit Core Capacity includes $25 million in AB 664 funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015 - FY 2030) or $1.5 million/year for AC Transit Core Capacity projects. Regional Measure 2 -Approved by voters in March 2004, Regional Measure 2 (RM2) increased tolls on the state owned bay bridges. RM2 allocates additional bridge toll revenues for various transportation projects and operations within to reduce congestion or to make improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors. AC Transit anticipates $15 million in RM2 funds in the SRTP period to fund existing projects including the renovation of Richmond Parkway Transit Center, purchase of replacement buses for the Dumbarton Express Bus Service, and the East Bay BRT project. Transportation Fund for Clean Air- Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) funds have been developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. They are available through two main channels: the Regional Fund and the County Program Manager Fund. Eligible projects must result in the reduction of motor vehicle emissions within the Air District's jurisdiction. The Regional Fund receives about 60% of the TFCA revenues and is administered directly by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Program Manager Fund receives approximately 40% of the TFCA revenues and is administered in coordination with the Bay Area's nine county congestion management agencies (CMAs). The primary CMAs in the AC Transit service area in the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). Both of these fund sources are available through discretionary programs on an annual basis. Generally, $4 million is available from the regional program annually and approximately $1 million is available from the county program annually for transit projects. AC Transit believes it can secure a small portion of that funding for projects that enhance existing operations. Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) Project Savings- With the completion of the Regional Measure 1 highway and bridge projects and the opening of the New East Span of the Bay Bridge, BATA project savings are proposed to be directed to the Core Capacity Challenge Grant Program. Staff has determined that these transit projects are eligible bridge improvement projects because they will improve functioning or use of one or more of the state-owned bridges. As such, these project expenditures, in an amount of $250 million, are proposed to be added to BATA's long-range plan and budget. The Core Capacity program includes $83 million in FTA funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015 - FY 2030) or $30 million/year. AC Transit $83 million in BATA Project Savings for AC Transit over a 16 year period (FY 2015 - FY 2030) or $5.18 million/year. Alameda County Transportation Commission Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) - The Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) Program was approved by the voters in November 2010, the fee generates about $11 million per year by a $10 per year vehicle registration fee. The goal of the VRF program is to sustain the County's transportation network and reduce traffic congestion and vehicle related pollution. The program includes 25% for Transit for Congestion Relief, which seeks to make the

9

127

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 existing transit system more efficient and effective, and improve access to schools and jobs. AC Transit believes it can secure a small portion of that funding for projects that enhance existing operations. Measure BB Capital - ACTC's Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) includes $35 million for four Rapid Bus projects over 30 years (FY 2015 - FY 2045). This is a project specific program so AC Transit is assuming the use of funding for at least three of four projects within the SRTP timeframe. The TEP also includes $300 million for Community Development Investments that improve transit connections to jobs and schools, or $10 million/year. AC Transit assumes $1 million every two years in capital funding to mitigate impacts on transit of development. District Funding - AC Transit provides funding from its operating budget to support capital projects. From FY 2012- FY 2015 AC Transit provided an average of $9 million per year in capital funding. MTC Resolution 4123 -Transit Core Capacity includes a required contribution of $341 million in local funds from AC Transit over a 16 year period (FY 2015 - FY 2030) or $21 million/year.

Early years of the

commitment (FY 2015 - FY 2016) are offset by $38 million in Prop 1B PTMISEA funds. This lowers the necessary commitment to $18 million/year. This SRTP includes an increase of District Funding to an average of $17 million/year. The increase may be partially supported by the recent passage of Measure BB. AC Transit assumes that other state and local funds will be available to help off-set this need. Table 12- Committed Funding Projections (Attachment 4}

Discretionary Funding: Discretionary funding is more speculative as it may require voter approval, legislative action or is part of a highly competitive discretionary program. AC Transit used Plan Bay Area as a source for discretionary revenues and therefore this estimate includes a new regional bridge toll; a regional gas tax; and other anticipated, but unidentified revenues-a residual funding category used by MTC

Federal Sources FTA New Starts Program - AC Transit is working through a Major Corridors plan that will identify strategies for improvements for the 10 largest corridors in the service area. Those improvements could be a minimal as transit signal priority and as large as new proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects. For the purposes of the SRTP, staff assumes that it will secure an additional $75 million Small Starts grant towards a future BRT project. Other US Department of Transportation (DOT) Discretionary Grants -There are several discretionary federal programs that are specific to the US DOT (i.e. FHWA and FTA) could support AC Transit projects. These include the TIGER program, the Elderly and Disabled, Alternative Fuel, Research and Development, and the Asset Management, and Safety Programs. Other Federal Grants - There a few federal programs outside of the US DOT that could support AC Transit projects, particularly advancements to the zero emission bus projects. AC Transit has included

10

128

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 some probable funding from the US DOE for possible enhancements to the zero emission bus projects. AC Transit has also included funding from FEMA and/or DHS to support safety and security projects.

State Sources Active Transportation Program - The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account {BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program. The purpose of ATP is to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation. AC Transit assumes that it can secure a modest amount of funding from this program to help support corridor projects, particularly complete street projects that are done in coordination with local jurisdiction. AC Transit may be able to draw on this program to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to transit centers and stops. Cap and Trade (Transit and Intercity Rail Capital. and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Programs) - The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program are both discretionary programs where AC Transit could compete for capital funding at the state-level. The focus of both of these programs is capital projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a priority focus on those reductions in disadvantaged communities. AC Transit is looking at these programs through MTC Resolution 4123 - Transit Core Capacity, which includes $207 million in Cap and Trade funds over a 16 year period {FY 2015 - FY 2030) or $13 million/year for AC Transit. Cap and Trade (Low Carbon Transportation) and California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Air Quality Improvement Program - The Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) is designed to support development and commercialization of advanced technologies that are necessary to meet California's air quality and climate goals. Because of the program's success, AQIP continues to expand. The Governor's FY 2014-15 proposed budget identifies $200 million from the State's share of auction proceeds under ARB's Cap-and-Trade program to be spent on Low Carbon Transportation projects that reduce GHG emissions primarily in disadvantaged communities. Because the Governor's goals for the investment of Cap-and-Trade. In Fiscal Year 2015 CARB staff combined the two funding sources (AQIP and Low Carbon Transportation Investments) into one funding plan. The key program of focus for AC Transit is the Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Pilot, which has $20 - $25 million available in FY 2015. AC Transit assumes it could receive $2 million from this program in FY 2015 and $1 million per year for the remainder of the SRTP. California Energy Commission (CEC)- The CEC's Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program has a $100 million Investment Plan in FY 2015. AC Transit would most likely be eligible for the $15 million Medium-and Heavy-Duty Advanced Vehicle Technology Demonstration Program, $15 million from the Electric Charging Infrastructure program, and $20 million from the Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure program. The latter two programs have more of a light-duty focus so AC Transit would need to examine how it could augment its non-revenue fleet to compete for those funds.

AC Transit

estimates it could receive $3 million every three years from this program based on prior awards from the program. 11

129

SR 14-033c Attachment 3 Local Sources

Additional Bridge Toll - $1 bridge toll increase assumed in Plan Bay Area (PBA). Expected to generate $2.7 billion over the life of PBA, FY 2013- FY 2040 (28 years) or $96 million/year. AC Transit received 6% of RM2. That assumption for RM3 would yield $5.8 million/year. Regional Gas Tax- PBA assumes $5.1 billion over a 22-year period starting in 2018, or $231 million/year. AC Transit assumes that it will be able to capture 5% of this revenue (-$11.59 million/year). Other Anticipated, but Undetermined Revenues- PBA assumes $14 billion over a 22-year period starting in 2018, or $636 million/year. AC Transit assumes that it will be able to capture 5% of this revenue (-$31 million/year). Table 13- Discretionary Funding Projections (Attachment 4}

12

130

SR 14-033c Attachment 4

Table 1· CIP Project Need and Financial Outlook Years 2015 131,670,000 CIP Need $ CIP Funding (Committed) 96,492,000 $ CIP Funding (Discretionary) 7,000,000 $

$ $ $

2016 98,637,998 $ 99,480,000 $ 19,000,000 $

2017 91,209,781 65,294,000 20,000,000

$ $ $

2018 139,263,704 $ 77,130,000 $ 60,000,000 $

2019 191,711,645 52,486,000 62,390,000

2020 251,191,246 79,710,000 98,390,000

$ $ $

$ $ $

2021 228,123,150 64,210,000 87,390,000

$ $ $

2022 136,483,878 59,710,000 102,390,000

$ $ $

2023 116,264,192 64,210,000 68,390,000

$ $ $

2024 126,388,803 66,710,000 67,390,000

Committed Shortfall Combined Shortall

---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CIP Program and Funding $300,000,000

-----

$250,000,000

$200,000,000

$150,000,000

.....

____ _

$100,000,000

$50,000,000

$2015

2016 ; --"~ --~·'!

2017 CIP Need

2018 -

2020

2019 -

CIP Funding (Discretionary)

131

2021

2022

- C I P Funding (Committed)

2023

2024

-

$ $ $

Total 1,510,944,397 725,432,000 592,340,000 ($785,512,397) ($193, 172,397)

%

48% 39% 52% 13%

Table 2: Revenue Fleet Overview Manufacturer Series MCI 6000 4050 Nabi VanHool 2000 VanHool 1000 MCI 6050 2100 VanHool 5000 VanHool 2150 VanHool 1200 VanHool 5100 VanHool 2190 VanHool VanHool- Fuel Cell Gillig Gillig New Flyer Gillig Gillig ElDorado

Bus# Range 6003 6040 4051 4090 2001 2057 1001 1110 6041 6079 2101 2110 5001 5051 2151 2165 1201 1227 5101 5139 2191 2199 4 16 1301 1365 6101 6116 2201 2223 1401 1468 6117 6154 3501 3510

FC

1300 6100 2200 1400 6100 3500

Year 2000 2002 2003 2003 2003 2006 2006 2006 2008 2009 2009 2010 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014

II of Vehicles 7 40 30 88 39 10 51 14 27 39 9 12 65 16 23 68 38 10 586

Length (Feet) 45 40 60 40 45 60 30 60 40 30 60 40 40 40 60 40 40 24

Seating capacity 57 35 47 32 57 47 25 47 . 35 25 47 30 37 36 52 37 36 14

Wheelchair capacity 47 29 43 28 47 43 21 43 31 21 43 26 29 29 46 29 29 12

Table 3: Non Revenue Fleet Overview

Pr!18r~

-_

.. ·-

Car

Truck

. ~----·---··.•

.

. O.ullriiit -· -. y

:-

46

Full Size Car Full Size Car (Hybrid)

2

Heavv Dutv Truck

9

Light Duty Truck

9

Mid Duty Truck

18

suv

Sport Utility Vehicle

19

Van

light Duty Van

16

Support Equipment

Mid DutvVan

s

Forklift

18

Scrubber

2

Sludge Removal

2

Trailer

3

s

Yard Tug

Total

154

132

Vehicle Type Over-the-Road Coach Urban Bus Articulated Bus Urban Bus Over-the-Road Coach Articulated Bus Urban Bus Articulated Bus Urban Bus Urban Bus Articulated Bus Urban Bus Urban Bus Urban Bus (Commuter) Articulated Bus Urban Bus Urban Bus (Commuter) Cutaway

Retirement Year 2016 2015 2015 2015 2017 2018 2018 2018 2020 2021 2021 2022 2025 2025 2025 2026 2026 2021

Age 15 13 12 12 12 9 9 9 7 6 6 5 2 2 2 1 1 1

AC Transit SRTP- Capital Improvement Plan Projected Needs

2015

2017

2016

2018

2019

2021

2020

2022

2024

2023

Total

Table 4: Vehicle Replacement Cost Type

Qty

Bus- 40' Urban Hybrids Bus- 40' Urban Diesel Bus- 40' Urban Diesel

Bus- 60' Articulated Diesel

Bus - 40' Commuter Diesel Bus - 40' Commuter Hybrid Bus- 30' Urban Diesel

Bus- 30' Urban Hybrid

Bus - 60' Articulated Diesel Bus - 60' Articulated Hybrid Bus- 60' Articulated Diesel

Bus- 60' Articulated Hybrid Bus- 40' Urban Hybrid Bus- 30' Urban Hybrid Bus - 60' Articulated Hybrid Cut-Away- Under 26' 5-Year Gasoline Non-revenue vehicles

Table 5· Vehicle Expansion Cost Bus- 40' Urban Diesel Bus- 40' Urban Diesel Bus- 40' Urban Diesel Bus- 60' Articulated Diesel Bus- 60' Articulated Diesel Bus- 40' Urban Hybrid

Vans- Paratransit

25 40 37 29 29 10 37 14 7 3 10 4 27 39 9 10 154 484

$ $

$ $

400,000 39,500,000

15 25 4 29 6 25 209 313

$

8,250,000

17,900,000 21,200,000

$ $

19,923,760 24,985,472

$ $

15,865,775 7,390,953

$ $ $ $ $ $

18,005,319 10,483,526 6,225,511 3,328,803 8,893,587 4,438,404

$

$ $

408,000 45,317,232

$ $

416,160 $ 23,672,888 $

$

13,966,128

$ $

424,483 51,799,633

$ $ $

8,250,000

-

$

$

13,966,128

$

$ $

30,628,453 10,473,466

$ $

450,465 41,552,384

$

$ $

441,632 21,370,480

$ $

459,474 459,474

$ $

468,664 468,664

$ $

2,271,902 26,371,403

$

$

916,375 432,973 1,349,348

20,928,848

28,643,305

$

5,541,531

5,541,531

$

-

$

-

$

25,203,638

$

25,203,638

$ $

11,974,763 11,974,763

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 992,069 $ 478,037 $ 1,470,106 $

17,900,000 21,200,000 19,923,760 24,985,472 15,865,775 7,390,953 18,005,319 10,483,526 6,225,511 3,328,803 8,893,587 4,438,404 20,928,848 30,628,453 10,473,466 1,908,444 4,379,888 226,960,209

$ $ $ $ $ $ 12,097,932 $

8,250,000 13,966,128 2,271,902 26,371,403 5,541,531 25,203,638 24,072,695 105,677,297

12,097,932

Table 6: Facilities Overview Name

Address

General Office (GO)

1600 Franklin 5t, Oakland, CA 94612 10626 E. 14th St, Oakland, CA 94603 1177 47th St, Emeryville, CA 94608

Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) D2- Emeryville Division D3- Richmond Division (closed) D4- East Oakland (Seminary) Division 66th Avenue (D4 Annex) 06- Hayward Division TEC- Training and Educational Center TT- Transbay Terminal (Temporary) Ardenwood Transit Center Richmond Parkway Transit Center Eastmont Transit Center San Leandro BART Transit Center ~ptown Transit Center Contra Costa College Transit Center

2016 MacDonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 1100 Seminary Ave, Oakland, CA 94621

905 66th Ave, Oakland, CA 94621 1758 Sabre St, Hayward, CA 94545

20234 Mack St, Hayward, CA 94545 First and Missions Sts, San Francisco, CA 94105 34867 Ardenwood Blvd, Fremont, CA 94555 Richmond Pkwy and Blume Dr, Richmond, CA 94806

Foothill Blvd and 73rd Ave, Oakland, CA 94605 1299 San leandro Blvd, San leandro, CA 94577 20th Stand Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612 Camous Dr, San Pablo, CA 94806

Property Owner AC Transit AC Transit AC Transit ACTransit ACTransit ACTransit AC Transit ACTransit

TJPA Cal trans Cal trans Eastmont Mall

BART Oakland

CCColle•e

https://actrans.sharepoint.com/actPEC/PianningandDevelopment/Staff Reports Plan and Dev/SRTP Capital Improvement Tables January 23, 2015

Year Built

1989 1984 1987 1989 1987 1982 1987 1987 2011 2009 1998 1997 1972 2007 1996

Age 25 30 27 25 27 32 27 27 3 5 16 17 42 7 18

Size (sqft) 100,000 517,000 392,000 266,000 579,500 453,000 833,500 29,000 156,000 144,000 136,000 30,800 48,500 7,000

33 000

Page lofl

133

ACTransit SRTP- Capital improvement Plan Projected Needs 2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

2020

2022

Total

2024

2023

Table 7• Facilities Rehabilitation/Expansion Cost 03 Reopening/Rehabilitation Other Facility SGR- GO/D2/D4/D6 Relocate Division 2 Relocate Division 3 New Paratransit Facility New Bus Facility (Expansion)

$ $

18,000,000 4,310,000

$

7,820,766

$

7,820,766

$

7,820,766 $

$

$

22,310,000

$ $

3,000,000 23,110,000

$

7,820,766

$ $ 500,000 $

500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

$

7,820,766

$

7,820,766

$

7,820,766 10,000,000

17,820,766

$ $

7,820,766 45,000,000

$ $ 57,820,766 $

25,000,000 20,000,000 97,820,766

$ $

7,820,766 45,000,000

$

5,000,000

$

$

7,820,766

$ $ $

10,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 57,820,766

$

$

7,820,766

$

$

45,000,000

$

$ $

20,000,000 72,820,766

$

$ $ $ 45,000,000 $ $ 20,000,000 $

$

72,820,766

7,820,766

$

18,000,000 74,696,891 100,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 80,000,000 422,696,891

Table 8· Technology Costs OCC Relocation (for CAD/AVL) Systems (CAD/AVL +other) 03 Technology refit Trans bay Terminal & BSF IT Equipment Hastus, DailyOps Upgrade Electronic Fare Media Usage Promotion Off Board Fare Payment

$

$ $

$

26,610,000

$

2,500,000

$

750,000 5,750,000

$

20,000,000

$

20,000,000

$

20,000,000

$

$

$

1,000,000

$

2,000,000

5,000,000

$

PeopleSoft Upgrade (post 9.2) Storage Area Network Replacement Mise upgrades (LAN, WAN, Firewall etc)

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000 $

5,000,000

$ $

4,000,000 2,000,000

$

2,000,000 $

5,000,000

$

6,000,000

$

750,000 750,000

$ $

20,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $

$ $

20,000,000 100,000,000

$ $

20,000,000 30,000,000

$

20,000,000

$ $

20,000,000 70,000,000 50,000,000 8,000,000

$

14,000,000

$

14,000,000

$

14,000,000

148,000,000

$

134,000,000

$

64,000,000

$

6,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 12,000,000

$ $

6,000,000 13,000,000

$ $

6,000,000 13,000,000

$

3,000,000 22,000,000

$

$

$

-

$

-

3,000,000 23,610,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 49,610,000

Table 9· Corridor Enhancements Cost Corridor Improvements Fixed Guideway Conversion (future BRT)

EB BRT Extension (SL to BF) Contra flow lane on Bay Bridge Alternative Transit Access {Alameda/Oakland)

$

20,000,000

$

5,000,000 25,000,000

6,000,000 $

6,000,000

$

6,000,000

$

$

20,000,000

$

5,000,000 30,000,000 $

$

6,000,000 $

$

$ $ 3,000,000 $

$

9,000,000

$

$

20,000,000

$

20,000,000

$ $ $ $ $

34,000,000

$

20,000,000

$

20,000,000

$

200,000,000 205,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 10,000,000 515,000,000

$

6,000,000

$

6,000,000

$

6,000,000

$

60,000,000

$ $

3,000,000 9,000,000

$

3,000,000 9,000,000

$ $

$

3,000,000 9,000,000

$

$

3,000,000 22,000,000

$

1,000,000 42,000,000 131,000,000

$

2,000,000

$ $

$

2,000,000

$ $

$

2,000,000

$

2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000

$

2,000,000

$

$ $ $

20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000

Table 10· Transit Centers/Park and Rides Cost $

lntermodal Transit Center Rehabs Downtown Oakland Transit Hub New Park and Ride in District 2 Transbay Capital Commitment

$

$

7,000,000 $ 13,000,000 $

7,000,000 13,000,000

$

$

7,000,000 13,000,000

$

$

$

Table 11· GHG Reduction Initiatives IGHG reduction initiatives !Alternate Fuel Enhancement Program

I I

$

$

2,000,000

$ $ 2,000,000 $

2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000

https://actrans.sharepoint.com/actPEC/PianningandDevelopment/Staff Reports Plan and Dev/SRTP capital Improvement Tables January 23, 2015

$

$

$ $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000

2,000,000 $ 8,000,000 10,000,000 $

134

2,000,000

$ $

2,000,000

$

2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000

2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000

Page 1 of 1

AC Transit SRTP- Capital Improvement Plan Projected Funding Table 12· Committed Funding Projections

2015

Funding Sources

2017

2016

Committed Funding

feder.ol

.





s

FTA Formula Funds

.

38,400,000

5TP/CMAQ

s

7,000,000

Federal TOTAL

$

45,400,000

state:--~-

.. •

<

..·-

__

Existing Prop 1B PTMISEA

s s s

New Prop 1B PTMISEA Prop 1B TSSSDRA

s s

RTIP Prop 1B Existing Prop 1B PTMI5EA FY 15 Budget

.

$

$

<

2,000,000

2,100,000

s s

14,160,000

·.-

29,530,000

29,530,000

·-

s s s



$

29,530,000

$

7,000,000

$

36,530,000

.. -.-.-_

·_.,

_---_

$

29,530,000

•••

$

$

-

$

$

-

-

$

$

-

$ $

$ $

-

2,100,000

$

12,000,000

2021

29,530,000

$

7,000,000

$

36,530,000

s

$ .. .

s s s

$

s

.

29,530,000

29,530,000 __

$

7,000,000

$

36,530,000

..

-

$

$

-

$

s

$

29,530,000

29,530,000

s

_.-·

29,530,000

7,000,000

$

36,530,000

29,530,000

$

s $

..---··--···,·-:

29,530,000 .

.

.

..._·

-

Plan Bay Area assumes $186.3 million in FY 2013, 3% escalation, for the entire region. AC Transit could receive this funding distributed 35,000,000 through a variety of regional programs {e.g. TPI and OBAG)

.,

-

$

-

s s

-

s

-

$

$

s s

s

s

s

-

$



-

$ 339,170,000

-

$

.

. -·

'

MTC Res. 4123- Transit Core Capacity includes $481 million in FTA funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015- FY 2030) or $30 million/year. AC Transit assumed $38 million in FY2015 based on MTC programming recommendations. This leaves $443 million for the remaining 15 years of the Core Capi~ity program, or $29.53 $ 304,170,000 million/year.

$

2,000,000

Source/Notes

--···

s

.• s s s

s s

Total

.•.-.

----·-·

s

$

2024

..

·

--

12,000,000

29,530,000

$

.... --•..

-_.·

$ $

$

2023

2022

.

-._.·_.·<·_·

-

21,000,000 2,100,000

·_ .

-_-·

29,530,000

$

2020

2019

2018

$ $

...

.

.

. ....

,

.

... ·...·._·.-

·_· -·._·•..

-

Includes $8 million for EB BRT and a $25 million payback from EB BRT 26,000,000 advancement. Programming corresponds with ACTC proposal. 14,160,000 Amount in FY 15 budget Remaining unprogrammed amounts, and unspent amounts from 2,000,000 completed projects

$

Remaining amount for allocation in FY 2015. Most likely available in 21,000,000 FY 2016 based on the probable timing of state bond sales. 6,300,000 Remaining amounts through FY 2017.

Cap & Trade

Low Carbon Transit Operations 5tateTOTAl

'ocaLJ · c

;\:_;-:~.··.:~:-', ;"•.-'

s

652,000

$

2,SOO,OOO

s

2,SOO,OOO

$

2,SOO,OOO

$

2,SOO,OOO

$

2,500,000

$

2,500,000

s

2,500,000

$

2,500,000

$

2,500,000

$

LCTOP is a formula program. MTC Res. 4130- Cap and Trade Framework includes $35 million over the life of Plan Bay Area (25 years, FY 2015- FY 2040) for ACTransit in the Transit Operating and 23,152,000 Efficiency Program.

$

18,912,000

$

25,600,000

$

4,600,000

$

14,500,000

$

2,500,000

$

14,500,000

$

2,500,000

$

4,500,000

$

2,500,000

$

2,500,000

$

92,612,000

·. • /: ·.. <·.,.-..-'

,.

;~.,y:

AB664

s

1,500,000

$

RM2

$

15,000,000

s

TFCA

$

500,000

$

BATA Project Savings ACTC - VRF Program

$ $

5,180,000

-

s s

s

Measure BB

';-·

:-;:,

1,500,000

'

$ $

5,180,000

-

;;

.

1,500,000

-

·---,-::

$ $

$

500,000

$

s s

5,180,000 1,000,000

s s

10,700,000

$

'>~O>j;.- ~

1,500,000

-

5,180,000

'·"-:/>;_, $ $

<.',::/;(~

1,500,000

-

$

s

s

500,000

s

s s

5,180,000 1,000,000

s s

3,000,000

$

1,500,000

-

5,180,000

$

-.T.

. --.

,....

1,500,000

$

--,,,,-._.,-::·E·?;~

s

1,500,000

-

$

s

500,000

s

s s

5,180,000 1,000,000

$

s

5,180,000

-

s

12,000,000

$ $

1,500,000

-

$

1,500,000

s s

S,180,000 1,000,000

$ $

$

5,180,000

11,000,000

.. ''',_ ...-.

..

,... ;

'·· ...

s

MTC Res. 4123- Transit Core Capacity includes $341 million in local funds over a 16 year period (FY 201S- FY 2030) or $21 million/year. Early years of the commitment (FY 2015- FY 2016) are offset by $38 million in Prop 1B PTM15EA funds. This lowers the necessary commitment to $18 million/year. ACTransit assumes that other 166,650,000 state and local funds will be available to help off-set this need.

District Funds

s

10,000,000

s

26,970,000

$

15,984,000

$

23,420,000

s

5,276,000

$

17,000,000

s

17,000,000

s

17,000,000

s

17,000,000

s

17,000,000

s

Local Total

$

32,180,000

$

44,350,000

$

24,164,000

$

33,100,000

$

13,456,000

$

35,680,000

$

25,180,000

$

25,680,000

$

25,180,000

$

34,680,000

$ 293,650,000

s

96,492,ooo

s

99,48o,ooo

s

65,294,ooo

s

n,13o,ooo

s

52,486,ooo

s

79,71o,ooo

s

64,21o,ooo

s

s9,71o,ooo

s

64,21o,ooo

s

66,71o,ooo

s

ITOTAL

"

Measure BB includes $35 million for four Rapid Bus projects over 30 years (FY 2015- FV 2045). This is a project specific program so AC Transit is assuming the use of funding for at least three of four projects within the SRTP timeframe. Measure BB also includes $300 million for Community Development Investments that improve transit connections to jobs and schools, or $10 million/year. AC 38,700,000 Transit assumes $1 million every two years in capital funding.

s

s

--:c:_o·~'·'·

s s

$

500,000

........

MTC Res. 4123- Transit Core Capacity includes $2S mlllion in AB 664 15,000,000 funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015- FY 2030) or $1.5 million/year. $12 million for BRTfrom Richmond Pwrc and Express Bus South, $3 15,000,000 million for Richmond PwrC Combined ACTC Program Manager and the Regional programs. Assumes funding in every other cycle to help support TFCA eligible projects (e.g. transit signal priority, alternative fuel vehicles and 2,500,000 infrastructure). MTC Res. 4123- Transit Core Capacity includes $83 million in BATA Project Savings over a 16 year period (FY 2015- FY 2030) or $S.18 51,800,000 million/year. 4,000,000 ACTC VRF FY 2014 Allocation Plan

$

$

s

2,000,000

:-·

·.'

n5,432,ooo

I Page 1 of 1

https://actrans.sharepoint.com/actPEC/PianningandDevelopmeot/Staff Reports Plan and Dev/SRTP Capital Improvement Tables January 23, 2015

135

Table 13· Discretionary Funding Projecfons I Discretionary Funding

Federal

.

AC Transit has included another Small Starts grant for a second BRT FTA New Starts Program

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

$

$

25,000,000

25,000,000

$

$

25,000,000

-

$

-

$

$

75,000,000 project. Includes Elderly and Disabled, Alternative Fuel, Rea search and Development, Asset Management, and Safety Programs. Assumes

$

FEMA/DH5 $ DOE $

Other US DOT Discretionary Other Federal Discretionary

3,000,000

$

-

$

13,000,000

-

$ $ $

1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000

$ $ $

-

$ $ $

1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $

-

.

State

$

3,000,000

$ $ $

1,000,000 1,000,000 30,000,000

$ $ $

.··.

..

$

13,000,000 $

$ $ 25,000,000 $

1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 40,000,000 $

-

$

3,000,000 $

-

$ $ $

1,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Possible security related grants. 1,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Possible alternative fuel related grants. 5,000,000 $ 120,000,000

35,000,000 two TIGER grants

-

$

$

Federal TOTAL

-

$

.

.

....



.

·.

.



-

-

.

...

·.·.···

-

·; .



··.···

·.

.

.

..···

. · ·.

..

.

.

·

.

·•

..·

....·. ; .

.·.· . .

Assumes $3 million/3-year cycle, State Program= $59 million/year,

-

$

ATP

-

$

$

-

3,000,000 $

-

$

$

-

3,000,000 $

-

$

$

3,000,000

-

$

9,000,000 MTC = $10 million/year; formerly TE, State SR2S, BTA

$

Cap and Trade MTC Res. 4123- Transit Core Capacity includes $207 million in Cap and Trade funds over a 16 year period {FY 2015- FY 2030) or $13 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital, and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Programs

million/year. Funding for this program would most likely come from

$

5,000,000

$

13,000,000

$

13,000,000

$

13,000,000 $

13,000,000

$

13,000,000

$

13,000,000

$

13,000,000

$

13,000,000

$

13,000,000

$ 122,000,000

the Transit and Intercity Rail competitive program. In Fiscal Year 2015 CARS staff combined the two funding sources (AQIP and Low Carbon Transportation Investments) into one funding plan. The key program of focus for AC Transit is the ZeroEmission Truck and Bus Pilot, which has $20- $25 million available in FY 2015. AC Transit assumes it could receive $2 million from this program in FY 2015 and $1 million per year for the remainder of the

low Carbon Transportation

$

2,000,000

$

1,000,000

$

1,000,000

$

1,000,000

$

1,000,000

$

1,000,000 $

1,000,000 $

1,000,000 $

1,000,000

$

1,000,000 $

11,000,000 5RTP. The CEC's Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program has a $100 million Investment Plan in FY 2014. AC Transit was eligible for $37 million/year of that program. AC Transit assumes it will receive $3 million every three years from this

State TOTAL

I.OC!Iv:> ...

-

$

CEC

-,

.~-~:•

• •o - ;

...

.-

$ ·; ;('_.';",',· .··,·

.....

,.,

7,000,000 .. ;

.

··.

-

$

$

14,000,000

·' ·• :: ·-··

$

$

··•.

:

-

3,000,000 $ 20,000,000 ;

.-

$

...

14,000,000

·.····•·

-

$ $

... ...

14,000,000 _

··· ·-

..

$

3,000,000

$

$

20,000,000

$

.............,.

•--.

-

14,000,000 $

. ...

-

$

14,000,000

:· ..',';

-

;·-·:

$

3,000,000

$

$

20,000,000

$

'•



.

-

·.

-

$

9,000,000 program.

14,000,000 $ 151,000,000

,.

.

......

-

.... ......,·

.-

: •,,

·•·

-

. ,..

........ >• .

. ,· .

..

$1 brld.ge toll increase assumed in Plan Bay Area (PBA). Expected to generate $2.7 billion over the life of PBA, Fy 2013- FY 2040 (28 years) or $96 million/year. AC Transit received 6% of RM2. That Additional Bridge Toll

$

5,800,000

$

$

5,800,000

5,800,000 $

5,800,000

$

5,800,000

$

5,800,000 $

34,800,000 assumption for RM3 would yield $5.8 million/year. Plan Bay Area assumes $5.1 billion over a 22-year period starting in 2018, or $231 million/year. AC Transit assumes that it will be able to

$

Regional Gas Tax

11,590,000

$

11,590,000

s

11,590,000

$

11,590,000 $

11,590,000

$

11,590,000

$

69,540,000 captur'e 5% of this revenue ("'$11.59 million/year). Plan Bay Area assumes $14 billion over a 22-year period starting in 2018, or $636 million/year. AC Transit assumes that it will be able to

Other Anticipated, but Undetermined Revenues

$

Local Total

$

TOTAL

$

7,000,000

$ $

19,000,000

$ $

20,000,000

31,000,000 $

31,000,000

$

31,000,000

$

31,000,000

s

31,000,000

48,390,000

$

31,000,000

s

31,000,000

s

$ 321,340,000

s

$

31,000,000 $

48,390,000

$

48,390,000

$

48,390,000

$

$

48,390,000

$

48,390,000

$

60,000,000

$

62,390,000

$

98,390,000

$

87,390,000

$ 102,390,000 $

68,390,000

$

67,390,000

217,000,000 capture 5% of this revenue {"'$31 million/year).

592,340,000

Page lof1

https://actrans.sharepoint.com/actPEC/PianningandDevelopment/Staff Reports Plan and Dev/SRTP Capital Improvement Tables January 23, 2015

136

PLANNING COMMITTEE

February 11, 2015 Agenda Items A-1 – A-7

137

This page intentionally blank 

138

~I

Report No: Meeting Date:

TI'?-9/VS/T

15-042 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Quarterly Report

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receiving the fourth quarter 2014 report on the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Significant progress was made throughout the BRT Project in the fourth quarter of 2014; two of the three construction packages moved forward to start construction in early 2015 and key advancements were made in the areas of Final Design (FD), which will allow the major roadway construction in the third quarter of 2015. The solicitation of Invitations for Bid (IFB) for Bid Package 1, Advance Utility Relocation and Bid Package 2, Parking Lots and Traffic Mitigation Projects, both advanced through the procurement cycle and were awarded in November 2014. Notice To Proceed (NTP) for Bid Package 1 wa s on December 19, 2014 and NTP for January 02, 2015 for Bid Package 2. The design of Bid Package 3, Major Roadway Infrastructure, reached the 95% threshold and was shared with our agency partners for Review in Mid-October 2014. The last of the three properties needed to begin construction on Bid Package 2 - Fruitvale Bypass, was acquired in November 2014. The Small Starts Grant Agreement (SSGA) was issued by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region IX, FTA Headquarters, and Offices of the Secretary and Maintenance and Budget (OST/OMB) in November, 2014. Staff developed an implementation plan to start in December 2014 for the fully executed Project Labor Agreement and Construction Careers Policy.

139

Report No. 15-042 Page 2 of 5 BUDGETARV/FISCALIMPACT: East Bay BRT Small Starts Project Funding- by phase and source

Environmental FTA Small Starts TPI-Incentive CMAQ Measure B RM2 AB664 5TIP 1-Bond PTMI5EA TFCA District Funds Total

Preliminary Engineering

Construction

Final Design

$1.4

$5.4

$13.8

$3.6 $1.7

$1.7 $0.3

$3.1

$54.4 $6.0 $5.5 $55.4 $7.1 $8.0 $3.5 $0.9

$1.5 $0.5 $0.3 $8.5

$7.4

Total $75.0 $6.0 $13.9 $57.4 $7.1 $9.5 $4.0 $0.9 $0.3 $174.2

$17.4

$140,9

$2.1 $0.3 $0.2 $2.6

$0.9 $0.2

$3.1 $0.5 $0.2

$1.1

$3.8

$141.9 $1.0

$178.0 $36.0

Other Related Project Funding- by phase and source FTA Bus

$0.1

Measure B

RM2

$0.0 Total

I I

Program Total! Program Expended!

$0.1

$0.0

$8.61 $8.61

$7A

$7.4

I

s2o.o $19.0_1

The total project budget remains unchanged at $178 million. The tables above show the project funding, and are organized into the Small Starts and Other Related Funding Project categories as requested previously by the FTA. The FTA issued the SSGA on November 8, 2014 during a ceremony held in Oakland. The approved SSGA gave the District the funding commitment to award Construction Bid Package 2 at the November 12, 2014 Board meeting. Staff is preserving $5 million in the program budget in the event the District has to finance the remaining $27.6 million before it is allocated by the FTA.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Project Scope- Quarterly Major Milestones Final Design

Major Roadway Infrastructure (Bid Package 3) - Design advanced from 65% in the fourth quarter with the submission of 95% plans to agency partners in mid-October. Comments were received in early December and revised 100% plans are expected in late January 2015. Real Estate Acquisition

BRT service operations require a layover facility for the north end of the corridor in the same way the San leandro Transit Center is the layover facility at the south end. The District's Real 140

Report No. 15-042 Page 3 of5 Estate Manager is currently in negotiations with representatives from Greyhound, Inc. to lease a large parking lot area from their Oakland bus station facility to serve as the northern layover facility for the BRT. The District is currently in negotiation to lease property from Greyhound, Inc. at the Oakland bus station facility to serve as the northern layover facility for the BRT. BRT Bus Procurement

A pre-proposal conference was held in October 2014, proposals will be due in March 2015 and contract award is expected in June 2015. Construction Careers Policy #327 and Project Labor Agreement

The PlA was revised according to the comments received and was approved by the AC Transit Board of Directors on October 8, 2014. Staff developed an implementation plan that will go into effect with construction Bid Packages 1 and 2. Integrated Artistic Enhancement Program

The lead Artist team developed final details for integrating the Artistic Enhancement into the 95% Bid Package 3 Design. The Team is responding to comments that will be part of the 100% design plans in late January 2015. Community Outreach Activities

BRT team concluded District merchant meetings, continued with merchant small group and individual meetings in Oakland's Eastlake/San Antonio and Fruitvale neighborhoods as well as participated in meetings with community organizations, housing groups, etc. Team facilitated meetings to review plans and resolve issues with property owners and their tenants at sites located adjacent to proposed BRT stations, where sewer laterals will be replaced, and where there may be driveway closures.

141

Report No. 15-042 Page 4 of 5

Project Schedule 2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Milestones

Final Oeslcn Roadway I Communica tions I Stations / landscape

Parkins lots & Fruitvale Bypass

--

Roadway I Communications I Sta tions I

Start-up and Te stlnr Cont lncency

Mdffil!ii!M Legend :

1. ROD (Record of Decision) represents the FTA final approval of the scope of the project and ends the environmental phase. 2. SSGA (Small Starts Grant Agreement) represents FTA's final agreement to provide the remaining Smalls Starts funding. 3. RSD (Revenue Start Date) the date the District plans to start passenger service. Project Budget

I .. ICC Descnpt1on

Isec Codes 10 20 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

65% Design ~ Costs Incurred Estimate (YOE$) thru Dec 2014

I

Guideway Stations Sitewor k & Special Conditions Systems ROW, Land, Existing Improvements Vehicles Professional Services Unallocated Contingency Finance Charges

142

4 .7 14.1 43 .5 3 6.5 1.6 2.5 55.9 10.3 5.0 174.2

0.0

1.1

33.7

34.8

I

Cost

R I . .

ervammg

4.7 14.1 43.5 36.5 0.5 2.5 22.2 10.3 5.0 139.3

Report No. 15-042 Page 5 of 5

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This is a status report and there is no Board action prompting the examination of advantages or disadvantages of a particular action.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: This report does not recommend any action and therefore no alternatives analysis.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: This report does not recommend any action and therefore no relevant board actions.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

Executive Staff Approval:

Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering & Construction Officer

Reviewed by:

Chris Andrichak, Acting Manager, Capital Planning & Grants Rama Pochiraju, Senior Project Manager

Prepared by:

David Wilkins, BRT Program Director

143

This page intentionally blank 

144

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-043 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Quarterly Report on the Transbay Transit Center Project

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider receiving Quarterly Report on the Transbay Transit Center (TTC) Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Construction work continues on the TTC project and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) will award contracts for the majority of the design packages before the end of the fiscal year. Steel erection has started in earnest and crews are working overtime to make up for earlier delays to get back on schedule for opening the TTC in October 2017. There is further delay on the Bus Storage Facility (BSF) design due to additional Caltrans comments and reviews on the environmental documents. This pushes the final design review to Summer 2015 and expected construction completion at the beginning of 2017. Meanwhile, the TJPA have hired consultants to start scoping the retail aspects of the TTC. The retail space in the final phase of the terminal will be larger than that of Grand Central Station in New York City. At the Transbay Temporary Terminal, staff continues to work with the City of San Francisco on the proposed Folsom Street Streetscape Plan to ensure minimal delay to transit. In February and early March, the District will conduct an in-service pilot with a double decker bus on loan from the manufacturer, Alexander Dennis. The bus will operate on five Transbay routes into the Temporary Terminal and staff will solicit feedback from passengers to determine if the District should pursue procuring these buses for a replacement Transbay fleet. The Metropolitan Transportation Committee (MTC) has commissioned Arup consultants to conduct the Bay Area Core Capacity Transit Study. The initial six-month segment of study will investigate solutions to the transit capacity constraints between the East Bay and San Francisco, with a large part of the study focusing on Transbay Bus service improvements, including the feasibility of a Bay Bridge Contra-flow Lane. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

The District anticipates providing approximately $23 million dollars in State Bond funds for a portion of its capital commitment to the project in FY 2015. That funding is anticipated to come

145

Report No. 15-043 Page 2 of 5 from the Prop 1B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Program Account (PTMISEA) ($20.9 million) and the Prop 1B Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA) ($2.1 million). In future reports, staff will provide updates on the ongoing capital budget discussion with TJPA staff, along with the proposed operations and maintenance costs for the Bus Storage Facility.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

New Transbay Transit Center Construction Schedule

The three zones of construction (eastern, central and western) are all at different stages of completion. The central zone is the most complete and crews erected the superstructure steel at the end of last year. This section provides the first complete vertical steel superstructure of the building and gives an early sense of the final scale of the building. The steel construction faced some delay a few months back; however crews are working overtime and weekend hours to try to mitigate those delays and get back on schedule. Meanwhile, work continues in the other two zones on the below grade structure. By the end of the fiscal year, the TJPA Board will award the remaining contracts for the terminal construction, from fireproofing to paint and sign age packages. Work continues on the bus ramps, which connect the 1-80 freeway with the TIC. Shimmick Construction started work in June 2014 and crews recently completed the supports for the bridge section of the ramp. The new ramps are scheduled for completion by fall 2016. Bus Storage Facility (BSF}

The BSF could provide parking for 49 buses to reduce mid-day deadheads to and from the terminal. It would also contain many facilities that will not be available on the main bus deck. These facilities include supervisor amenities, employee parking, a Gillie room for operators and maintenance equipment storage. Staff submitted comments on the 65% construction documents in October 2013. Currently, the consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group, is waiting for Caltrans approval on the Phase II Impact Assessment, which is part of the environmental review process as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Caltrans and TJPA staff continues to review comments on these documents, which has caused additional delay. Staff expects to review the 95% design in summer 2015. This further delay has pushed out the completion schedule to the beginning of 2017; however, this is still prior to the main terminal opening at the end of 2017. Staff will also work closely with TJPA staff over the next few months to determine the negotiating schedule for the lease with Caltrans and will report to the Board on any progress.

146

Report No. 15-043 Page 3 of 5

Retail Space There will be 110,000 square feet of retail space for Phase I of the TIC, and with an additional 60,000 square feet planned for Phase II the TIC will provide more retail space than Grand Central Station. At the end of last year, TJPA staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a master lessor or facility manager. The manager will be responsible for developing a successful and economically viable retail offer; programming events; setting rates; strategy and the facility management aspects of the space. TJPA staff expects to issue a Request for Proposals for a master lessor in March 2015 and plans to execute a master lease agreement in September 2015. Temporary Transbay Terminal

Folsom Street Streetscape Plan Staff continues to work with the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and City Planning staff on the new streetscape plan for Folsom Street- the primary access route to and from the Bay Bridge from the Temporary Terminal. Attachment 1 is a letter from City Planning staff to all affected transit agencies, which confirms their commitment to minimizing transit delay. As plans progress, SFMTA and City planning staff will include AC Transit in the review process.

Double Decker Bus Pilot To help alleviate capacity problems on Transbay service staff is investigating purchasing larger capacity vehicles for the final Motor Coach Industries (MCI) replacement. This is due to start the procurement process at the end of 2015. To this end, the District will test a double decker bus on local and Transbay service to see if it is a viable bus for future purchases. Alexander Dennis will loan AC Transit one double decker Enviro500 for six weeks to operate a pilot in revenue service in February 2015. Staff will test the bus and survey all internal stakeholders and the public reaction to the new bus. After the test, staff will compile a report to bring to the Board in spring. Staff is currently planning the pilot, and expects the bus to run in service on lines FS, L, NX, NXl, NX2, U and local 51B

MTC Core Capacity Study At the end of 2014, MTC commissioned Arup consultants to work on the Bay Area Core Capacity Transit Study. The initial six-month phase of the study seeks to identify solutions to the transit capacity constraints between downtown San Francisco and the East Bay. The District's Transbay bus service is a significant piece of this transit capacity. The initial task order for the study includes analyzing a contraflow ramp design for the Bay Bridge. This contraflow design is only possible with the collaboration of the 525 Harrison Street proposed developer, as it requires an elevated easement through two parcels on the south side of Harrison Street between the First and Essex Street ramps (one of which is 525 Harrison). In July 2014, President Harper wrote to the City of San Francisco Planning Department to express concerns that development of 525 Harrison should not preclude the construction of a ramp. Staff will update the Board with the study findings when they are available. 147

Report No. 15-043 Page 4 of 5

TIC Budget The U.S. Department of Transportation approved the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation (TIFIA) Loan amendment that TJPA sought in 2014. This amendment recognizes the formation of a Community Facilities District, which authorizes the TJPA to sell bonds and allows them to pursue bridge financing. As the TIFIA loan funds are not available until the end of this year, the bridge financing will relieve the TJPA cash flow problem until they receive TIFIA funds. Following the TIFIA amendment, the City introduced legislation to form a Mello Roos Community Facilities District (CFD). This is a tax on high-rise buildings within the District plan area. Property owners pay an annual tax upon building occupancy as a condition for greater density. Phase II of the project and elements of the park will receive 82.6% of project funds. This also allows for issuance of bonds to yield significant amounts of money. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the formation of the CFD in December 2014. Late last year there was media attention regarding the Phase II funding source from the proposed Transbay CFD tax. The issue centered on the developers in the new District who committed to a higher level of tax for their development in return for higher development height approvals. As property values have increased, the developers are facing a larger tax bill than previously anticipated and threatened to renege on their contracts and sue the City. In return, City staff and politicians worked to bring the developers back to the table on the original agreement. While this does not directly affect the Phase I bus deck construction, TJPA has earmarked funds from this source for any Phase I funding gap. If this funding source does not emerge, TJPA has a program of mitigations to keep within budget. Staff continues to monitor these events and will update the Board on any developments. Operating Reserve and Capital Budget Contribution The 2008 Lease and Use Agreement commits the District to providing $39 million in year-ofexpenditure dollars (YOE$) to the project by the November 2017 opening date, and $57 million in 2011 dollars to the project by 2050. The District anticipates meeting its commitment through a mix of lump sum payments in initial years and a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) in future years. In July 2014, the District applied for $20.9 million in PTMISEA funds for a portion of its capital contribution to the project. At the end of 2014, the District applied for $2.1 million in TSSDRA funds for the same purpose and expects approval from Caltrans in the spring. This will bring the District's contribution to the project to $35 million YOE$. The remaining YOE commitment would be $4 million by November 2017. Additionally, the agreement includes creation of an operating reserve to assist with funding the increased operations and maintenance costs in the new terminal. The District elected to not contribute in FY15 because the agreed upon operating reserve cap was met. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

This report does not recommend an action.

148

Report No. 15-043 Page 5 of 5

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: There are no alternatives provided with this report, as it is a briefing item.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Staff Report No. 14-203:

Quarterly Report on the Transbay Transit Center Project

ATTACHMENTS: None

Department Head Approval: Reviewed

by:

Prepared

by:

Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering and Construction Officer Ben Stupka, Senior Capital Planning Specialist Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Linda Morris, Senior Transportation Planner

149

This page intentionally blank 

150

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-044 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Quarterly Report on District Involvement in External Planning Processes

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receiving the Quarterly Report on the District's involvement in external planning processes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Late 2014 was marked by both the completion and initiation of important planning processes and studies . Two external planning processes important to AC Transit were completed in recent months. The Oakland City Council approved the Lake Merritt Station Area Specific Plan, which emphasized land use and community design, particularly in Chinatown. The City of El Cerrito approved the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan/Complete Streets Plan. San Pablo Avenue is increasingly emerging as a focus for planning by jurisdictions along the corridor. The Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Transit Study (EBOTS) is nearing completion-the Emeryville City Council was scheduled to hear the study on January 21. Other plans reached the important initial milestone of requesting proposals from planning consultants. After the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) was able to secure funding for the High Capacity Transit Study, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued. An RFP was also issued for the Contra Costa Express Bus Study, a countywide study which the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) will oversee. An RFP was also issued for the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary/fiscal impact associated with this report.

151

Report No. 15-044 Page 2 of 5

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: This report focuses on external planning processes which were either completed or initiated (with the issuance of an RFP) in late 2014. Staff has previously reported on most of these plans.

Plans Completed Lake Merritt Station Area Plan The Oakland City Council approved the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan. This Plan sets land use, transportation, and urban design policy for a roughly Y, mile radius around the Lake Merritt BART station. Chinatown was a particular focus of the plan and the community's concerns about it. The City has committed to study a number of the issues, particularly inclusionary requirements, community benefits from development and the possibility of converting one way streets to two way in future studies. The final Plan recognizes the importance of surface transit in this area, including the BRT corridor. It does not call for problematic changes to AC Transit's most important streets in the area-the 111h/121h and 7'h/81h couplets. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan/Complete Streets Plan Staff reported on this project in the previous quarterly External Planning report. Concerns were expressed regarding measures to increase bicycle traffic on San Pablo, particularly the implementation of sharrows. The City Council approved the Plan, as drafted, in September. El Cerrito city staff has pledged to work with AC Transit to ensure that transit travel times are maintained or improved through measures such as relocation of stops. Staff will also be working with El Cerrito in the major corridors planning process for San Pablo Avenue.

Plans Close to Completion Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Transit Study (EBOTS) The EBOTS study is nearing its conclusion, with the study scheduled for the Emeryville City Council on January 21. The study includes new short, medium, and long term transit recommendations. In the short term, there would be changes to AC Transit routes in the area and to the West Berkeley shuttle. In the medium term, a new "trunkline" bus route would operate from Jack London Square to West Oakland BART, north through Emeryville and West Berkeley to Gilman Street. This route largely replicates AC Transit's former Line 19, discontinued north of Emeryville in 2010 due to lack of ridership. In the long term, the plan calls for streetcars in Emeryville and West Oakland. The Oakland City Council recommended that streetcars be deleted from the plan. AC Transit staff remains concerned about the potential negative impact of the medium term and long term recommendations on AC Transit's network within and adjacent to the study area. Late Night Transportation Working Group In June 2014, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and the San Francisco Entertainment Commission formed a Late Night Transportation Working Group comprised of local transportation providers, representatives from nighttime and early morning businesses, nightlife advocates, labor unions with employees who work late nights or early mornings, and other stakeholders interested in late night transportation issues. 152

Report No. 15-044 Page 3 of 5 The working group is in the final stages of developing a late Night Integrated Transportation Plan to improve late night and early morning transportation options for San Francisco workers, residents, and visitors. In the coming months, working group staff will present a report to the Board of Supervisors that identifies short, medium, and long term strategies to improve late night and early morning transportation to and from businesses in San Francisco. As a late night service provider between San Francisco and the East Bay, AC Transit is an active member of the working group and provides input on service, safety, public information, and accessibility. With the parallel late night service pilot program underway, staff has advocated for continuation and expansion of the service through this working group. New Plans Initiated

San Francisco Bay Area Core Capacity Transit Study In the fall of 2014, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) awarded the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) a $1 million Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) planning grant to help initiate a study that addresses the core capacity needs of the Transbay and Muni Metro corridors. The study proposes to identify a package of investments for Plan Bay Area updates that expand transit capacity and improve reliability and connectivity to major core San Francisco job centers, especially along the Transbay Corridor. MTC is conducting this study in conjunction with AC Transit, BART, SFMTA, San Francisco County Transportation Authority and Water Emergency Transportation Authority. MTC has received pre-award spending approval from FTA and is ready to issue the initial study task order to ARUP- the selected project consultant. As part of the initial task order, ARUP will explore the Bay Bridge Contra-flow lane off-ramp alternatives for transbay buses in order to determine any physical conflicts with a potential development in San Francisco at the foot of the bridge. The remainder of the task order will focus on project scope refinement and initial project outreach.

Contra Costa Express Bus Study, CCTA Because Contra Costa County has a number of physically separated suburban communities, express and rapid buses could play a large role in its transit network. In recognition of this potential role, the Contra Costa transportation sales tax measure-Measure J-includes a specific funding line item for express bus service. This network was last analyzed in a CCTA study in 2001. Since that time, all parts of the county have grown in population, as have Napa and Solano Counties, which run express bus service into Contra Costa County to connect to other transit networks. The purpose of this study is to evaluate current express bus service and facilities, and formulate a plan for future service. If Contra Costa goes forward with a transportation sales tax measure in 2016 (more likely with Alameda County's passage of Measure BB), this study could formulate funding proposals for that measure. AC Transit is participating in this study as a Technical Advisory Committee member, along with the other Contra Costa County transit bus operators. The District's transbay service could be evaluated under this study for opportunities for expansion, and improved speed and reliability.

153

Report No. 15-044 Page 4 of 5

West County High Capacity Transit Study, WCCTAC and BART This study will focus on options for high capacity transit in West Contra Costa County north of the existing BART line. Options to be studied include an extension of BART, other rail technologies such as Diesel Multiple Units-self propelled, diesel powered railcars (which will be used on E-BART in Eastern Contra Costa County), express buses and rapid buses. The study's goal is to define capital improvements and services which could substantially increase capacity, with the hope of reducing congestion on 1-80. AC Transit, along with Westcat and BART, will be a member of a transit operators' subcommittee. BART is playing a major role in managing the study because WCCTAC has limited staff capacity. The budget for the study has been reduced to $1.0 million, which is being provided by WCCTAC, CCTA, BART, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Staff is interested in the effects this study will have on AC Transit's service in Richmond, particularly Lines 72, 72M and 72R. Downtown Oakland Specific Plan The Downtown Oakland Specific Plan addresses a gap in Oakland's planning framework. Area plans have now been adopted for the area east of downtown (Lake Merritt Station Area Plan), north of downtown (Broadway/Valdez Specific Plan) and west of downtown (West Oakland Specific Plan), but not for the Downtown core itself. In addition, the City rezoned the downtown several years ago-in the Central Business District rezoning-but did not provide a comprehensive planning work. The City is working with ACTC on the Circulation Study element of the Plan. AC Transit's route network converges on downtown Oakland; five major corridors and numerous additional routes serve the area. It is vital to the District that downtown streets function appropriately for transit. In addition, AC Transit also gains ridership from commercial and residential development in downtown Oakland. The likely elimination of vehicle Level of Service (LOS) as an impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) puts additional importance on planning documents as tools to protect and enhance transit operations. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

Advantages - External planning processes provide AC Transit with opportunities to influence decisions by cities, counties, and other agencies that affect transit and land use. AC Transit also learns about the programs, projects, and plans of cities and other agencies. The District has typically viewed it as positive when cities or other agencies ask staff to participate in their processes, and have sought to honor those requests. The disadvantage is that participation in external planning processes can be time-consuming with no guarantee of positive results for the District. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:

Because this report does not recommend an action, there is no alternatives analysis. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

Previous Quarterly Reports, most recently Staff Report 14-273

154

Report No. 15-044 Page 5 of 5 ATIACHMENTS:

1:

Planning Tracker, showing planning activities with external agencies

Department Head Approval:

Aida R. Asuncion, Acting Planning and Development Officer

Reviewed by:

Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Jim Cunradi, Long-range Planning Manager Nathan Landau, Senior Transportation Planner

Prepared by:

155

This page intentionally blank 

156

February External Planning Attachment Plan/Activity Name

Plan Sponsor

Status

PRIORITY PROCESSES Alameda Countywide Transit Plan Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC)

Existing Conditions Report being developed. ACTC has prepared draft Vision, Goals, and Performance Measures for Transit and Multi modal Arterials I Plans Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan CCTA responding to numerous Transportation public comments received. AC Authority (CCTA) Transit submitted list of potential projects for Plan. Plan may lead to sales tax measure in 2016 Downtown Oakland Specific Plan City of Oakland. RFP for consultants has been ACTCfor issued

Downtown Circulation Study Lake Merritt Station Area Plan

City of Oakland with BART and Laney College

Livable Corridors Plan

City of Richmond Consultants preparing Administrative Draft Plan

Telegraph Avenue Complete Streets City of Oakland Plan

California Environment Quality Act Reform--58 743 Implementation PLANNING PROCESSES Adagtation to Rising Tides

State Office of Planning & Research

BCDC

Approved by City Council

City developing revised Plan

Preliminary Discussion Draft Guideline has been published

Development

Plan Description

AC Transit's Areas of AC Transit Interest Involvement

Meeting Schedule

Prepare a countywide plan identifying a transit vision, goals, performance standard, priority network, and design with transit elements. Comprehensive transportation plan and project list for Contra Costa County, not fiscally constrained

All items of interest, but AC Transit's Major Corridors study is an integral part of the Countywide Transit Plan

ACTC Board

Assuring that AC Transit TAG member projects included, that plan increases emphasis on transit

No meetings currently scheduled

" ... To provide sound policy guidance on development linking land use, transportation, economic development

Assuring that streetscape and

Participation not yet defined

Meetings not yet scheduled

Member ofTAC, stakeholder, consulting on scope of work

reviewing Vision, Goals. Public workshops start February 21

sidewalk proposals are transit-supportive

Land use/area plan for radius around Lake Merritt BART, including Chinatown

Assuring that Plan policies recognize and support bus transit in that area

TAG member

No further meetings--Plan complete

Preparation of form-based zoning code for San Pablo Ave., Macdonald Ave., 23rd St. including "thoroughfare standards."

Assuring that thoroughfare standards and streetscape plans aaccomodate transit

Advisory Committee participant

No meetings currently scheduled

Plan for multimodal use of Telegraph Ave. in Central and North Oakland, focusing on bicycle improvements Development of state guidelines to implement changes in CEQA approved in SB 743

Assuring that Telegraph Stakeholder Ave. bus service maintains speed and reliability

Plan for adapting to rising sea levels

Assuring that revised Participant in CEQA guidelines require ACTC working measurement of impacts group on transit

Bus routes in impacted areas

Stakeholder

Meetings not currently scheduled

Comment period closed on November 21, 12014 No meetings currently scheduled

"bold print indicates updated information

Page 1 of 4 157

.....

February Plan/Activity Name

Plan Sponsor

Status

Plan Description

Albany General Plan

City of Albany

Plan elements are being prepared and presented to

New General Plan

Commissions, Community Facilities most recently

Ashland-Cherryland Business District Specific Plan

Alameda County Draft Specific Plan and (unincorporated Multi modal Access Plan area) released, calls for continued exploration of BRT

Coliseum City Specific Plan

City of Oakland

Contra Costa County Express Bus Contra Costa Transportation Study Authority (CCTA)

Land use regulations, public investment policies for area commercial districts

Land use plan for Oakland hearings on draft Plan, EIR, and Coliseum area with 131,000 seats; just over 14 rezoning in February; Zoning million square feet Update Subcommittee of Planning Committee meeting on commercial development and 6,370 residen~al units, Jannuary 21 approximately 15,000 parking spaces on the Coliseum site, will need to change if sports teams leave Consulting firms to be Update to plan for express bus service interviewed in late October throughout Contra Costa County Planning Commission to hold

AC Transit's Areas of Interest Issues not yet definedgenerally improving San Pablo & Solano as transit corridors

AC Transit Involvement Participation not yet defined

East 14th is a major TAG member corridor for AC Transit Transit-oriented development and urban desian AC Transit concerns are Stakeholder assuring maximum transit access and usage to area, assuring that existing bus routes are not impacted by development. Willingness of teams to stay in area unclear

Developing plan that is TACmember, with other bus feasible to operate, appropriately defined agencies

Meeting Schedule Planning Commission reviewing General Plan elements at their meetinas Meetings planned for winter, 2015

JanuaryFebruary meetings as

noted.

Public meetings not yet scheduled

with other agencies,

and can attract funding Short term-support and TAG Member expand existing bus service; long term-provide connectivity between AC local buses and Dumbarton corridor services

MTC has reallocated most of project fund to bus service and Caltrain electrification

Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Transit Study (EBOTS)

Transit improvement plan Developing plan that is TAG member City of Emeryville Final Report presented to integrated with, supports for service to and within Emeryville City Council on AC Transit service January 21, Berkeley City Counc corridor from West Oakland to West Berkeley il has previously approved,

Presentation to AC Transit Board in November

Fremont City Center Plan and Form Based Code

Fremont

Dumbarton rail project planning

Caltrain with MTC,VTA, ACTC

Project development suspended until financial situation clarified, project group continues to meet

Being developed by City, consultant, has held Council Workshop

Rail seNice plan and interim bus plan for Dumbarton corridor

Plan to make downtown Fremont livelier and most pedestrian-friendly, imolements General Plan

Maintaining streets for operations, increasing ridership to downtown Fremont

Stakeholder participating in stakeholders' committee

To Planning Commission & City Council in winter 2015

•bold print indicates updated information

Page 2 of4 158

February Plan/Activity Name

Plan Sponsor

Status

MLK!Peralta Streetscape Project

Oakland

AC Transit commented on plans in Streetscape improvement November, awaiting revised plans plan for Peralta Street, MLK, Grand and 40th St.

Parking Regulations Update

Oakland

West County High Capacity Transit Plan

1-880 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM)

San Leandro General Plan

South Shoreline Specific Plan

Plan Description

AC Transit's Areas of AC Transit Interest Involvement Roundabouts on Peralta. TAG member City has agreed not to install roundabouts on transit streets

Announced--No public activities to Update to Oakland Zoning Issues not yet defined-date Ordinance to modernice generally, reducing parking provisions excess parking reauirements WCCTAC/BART WCCTAC, agencies, will meet in Plan for transportation Improving transit operations in West February to review consultants facilities and congestion reduction in 1-80 corridor in County, assuring that West County. May lead to proposals do not lead to project(s) for 2016 sales increased auto travel tax measure MTC/Caltrans Plan being developed Will provide Corridor Ensuring that projects Management Concept, developed are useful to sucfh as signalizaton, AVL AC transit and that AC for buses, message signs, Transit is not required to in the 1-880 corridor fund ICM elements Issues not yet defined-New General Plan City of San Housing Element being East 14th St.and Leandro developed first Hesperian Blvd. are major corridors for AC City of Richmond Draft Specific Plan scheduled for release in February, EIR in April

Land use plan for South Shoreline area of Richmond around LBNL

Participation plan is not yet defined

Not yet scheduled

Key participant

Not yet scheduled

TAG member

Meetings to be scheduled

Participation Meetings not not yet defined currently scheduled beyond Housing

T"'""'

"Campus Bay"

Assuring that roadway Plan participant system and development pattern in area, likely to be greatly

development

changed, is transit-

supportive Assuring that AC Transit service to area is Shoreline Plan-to address considered as well as shuttles, assuring that gaps and local and AC Transit service regional transit to area considered Examination of Advocating for improvements to late regional funding to continue, improve and night transportation options in and out of San expand AC Transifs late night service to Francisco and from San

Meeting Schedule No meetings currently scheduled

Planning Commission and

City Council

review scheduled for IM~v-lunP

No meetings currently scheduled

South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan

City of Richmond Draft to be released in February Transportation complement to South

TAC member-participated in consultant selection panel

San Francisco Late Night Transportation Working Group

City and County Draft report to be released in of San February

Working Group Meet bi-monthly participant as a depending on primary transit milestones and

Francisco

Page 3 of4

provider

deliverables.

Final scheduled meeting on Feb 4

•bold print indicates updated information 159

February Plan/Activity Name

Plan Sponsor

San Francisco Bay Area Core Capacity Transit Study

MTCwith partnering

Status

Executed partner funding agreements and project transit agencies charters. Ready to initiate first task order

Plan Description

AC Transit's Areas of AC Transit Meeting Interest Involvement Schedule Improve commute transit Develop capital and Project partner Meet monthly at access into Downtown service improvements staff level with San Francisco

for Trans bay service

executive staff

into SF

and political stakeholder meetings as

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan/Complete Streets Plan

City of El Cerrito Approved by City Council

Improving multimodal access along San Pablo

Avenue in El Cerrito

Assuring that trunk line service on San Pablo Ave. in El Cerrito can continue to operate effectively and efficiently. Comment

Plan participant

No further meetings-Plan

complete

submitted

*bold print indicates updated information

Page 4 of4 160

Report No: Meeting Date:

12-297f February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction Sustainability (CDRS) Project Construction Contract Schedule Extension

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider authorizing the General Manager to extend the West Bay Builders (WBB) construction contract completion date to December 31, 2015. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Delays in receiving building permits and cooperative agreements with the City of Berkeley has moved the end of construction beyond the contractual completion date. To account for these delays and any further unanticipated issues that may arise, staff is recommending that the completion date be extended to December 31, 2015. In a recent discussion between the District's General Manager and the Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), MTC concluded that an extension to the project completion date would be acceptable and still meet the terms of the grant given the source of project delay. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this action at this time. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The District awarded a construction contract to WBB on June 11, 2014 with an expected completion date of February 17, 2015. However, a six month delay in receiving the required building permits and cooperative agreement with the City of Berkeley has moved the end date of construction beyond the current completion date. Though the City of Berkeley is now ready to advance into construction, Staff recommends adjusting the contract completion date to December 31, 2015, to account for these delays and to provide a buffer for any unanticipated issues that may arise. Based on current information staff expects construction to be completed by early summer, 2015. In a recent discussion between the District's General Manager and MTC's Executive Director, MTC agreed that an extension to the project schedule would be acceptable given the source of delay outside the control of AC Transit. An extended project completion schedule would not

161

Report No. 12-297f Page 2 of 2 affect project grant funding. Staff will continue to closely coordinate with MTC staff on the progress of the project and adjustments to the construction schedule. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

The advantage of extending the construction contract completion date is that it allows construction to continue without further delays. The disadvantage is the potential for additional costs associated with a longer contract period. Although there are no additional costs identified at this time. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:

As an alternative to extending the contract, the District could end the contract at the scheduled time. This would require the District to initiate a separate procurement process to complete construction of the project. A new procurement would result in months of project delay and would create additional project expenses. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

SR 14-156- Award a contract to West Bay Builders, Inc. for the Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability Project

ATIACHMENTS:

None.

Department Head Approval:

Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering & Construction Officer

Reviewed by:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Jon Medwin, Procurement and Materials Director

Prepared by:

Wil Buller, Traffic Engineer

162

i~~

~)': ~

T~NS/T

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-050 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Oakland Running Festival Coordination Effort

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receiving a report on staff's coordination effort with the City of Oakland to plan detour service for the Oakland Running Festival. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report is an update on coordination and planning effort for the Oakland Running Festival scheduled for March 22, 2015. This briefing includes staff's efforts to date and strategies to improve service and the passenger experience over the previous year by way of operational and public outreach adjustments and additions. The strategies are refinements to the p·revious detour plans since the routing of the marathon course has been f ixed for the past two years . BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: In previous years, the District has spent an estimated $17,000 in direct costs to implement the detour plan associated with the running festival, of which $3,500 was reimbursed by the event organizer for additional bus service and road supervision. The direct costs include: overtime for road supervision, additional operators for service and printing of materials. Without realizing the benefits of additional service, staff has opted to not operate more service this year. As a result, direct costs will decrease. Staff will continue to work with the City to get reimbursed for these additional costs.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: On March 22, 2015, the City of Oakland will host the annual Oakland Running Festival. As in previous years, the Running Festival includes three courses : a 26-mile marathon, 13-mile halfmarathon and a 5-kilometer run . Each course will have multiple events with all events occurring simultaneously. The marathon course encircles the city and the half marathon and 5 kilometer events encircle the Downtown/Lake Merritt area. All of the events start and end at Snow Park near Lake Merritt.

163

Report No. 15-050 Page 2 of 3 Operations Planning Similar to the past running festivals, District staff continues to collaborate with the City of Oakland, Corrigan Sport's Enterprises (the event organizer) and the Oakland Police Department (OPD). With the routing for the marathon unchanged for the past two years, the primary focus ofthis effort is to: •

• • •



Minimize the duration of the detours, which includes: o Having the City redirect slower runners to the sidewalk in order to open streets sooner. o Adjusting detours and improving enforcement based on previous observations of traffic patterns, illegally parked cars and collisions. o Placing some service on Supervisor's Order in order to respond to changes and incidents during the event. Improve customer service for displaced bus riders by providing the District's detour plan to OPD in advance since they receive numerous questions from bus riders Ensure roadways can accommodate temporary detour service. This includes tree trimming and temporary 'no parking' sign age. Identify ways to fill gaps of service identified from the previous year. last year, staff received complaints about the lack of transit access to Jack london Square. Staff is working with the City to identify potential routing detours where AC Transit could serve Jack London Square on a limited basis, while not interfering with the marathon course. The biggest challenge with providing effective detours for both the passengers and operators is the limited number of alternate roadways that are transit accessible. As a result, AC Transit uses the freeway network to get to key destinations but is limited to a select number of on-ramps and off-ramps that are not impacted by the marathon course. Accommodate the changes in weekend bus service associated with the March sign-up, including the introduction of the weekend 339 and 72R routes.

Public Outreach and information As staff continues to work with the City, staff also works to continually improve the District's public outreach and dissemination of information. Aside from the customer service messaging, electronic messaging, temporary at-stop signage, volunteer ambassadors and other forms of media that staff has produced and distributed in previous years, we have improved public outreach by: • •

Developing temporary head signs for buses on detour in order to provide more accurate destination information Produced mailers to churches in Oakland impacted by the detours.

Staff also understands the importance of removing information and signage from the public after the event is over. With nearly 900 signs to remove, the District's Pole Crew and Supervision will coordinate to develop the most efficient process for taking down signs to avoid confusion with the weekday commute. Signs are also clearly dated to state when buses are on detour to avoid rider confusion. 164

Report No. 15-050 Page 3 of 3

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

There are no advantages or disadvantages associated with this Briefing Item. However, staff's goal is to provide the best possible service given the conditions created by the running festival. This means maintaining service to key destinations and providing detour routes that are safe and effective for operations. The trade-offs for this effort are that service is limited, especially within the loop of the marathon course, it is delayed for most of the core of the service network, and it costs the District money to implement. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:

With the Oakland Running Festival in its sixth year of existence, staff has been able to try different detour strategies and determine what has been successful. For instance, staff acknowledges that traveling through the marathon loop is not effective and using the freeway network at least provides service to key destinations that is less delayed. Short of a significant overhaul of the marathon course, staff's detour plan will not have significant changes going forward but can be improved through the strategies identified above. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

1: SR 13-126 Oakland Running Festival/Marathon Service Impacts 2: GM Memo No. 12-017 Oakland Running Festival Service Update 3: GM Memo No. 11-188a Report on Fixed Route Bus Transit Service Impacts Associated with the 2011 Oakland Running Festival 4: GM Memo No. 11-188 Report on Fixed Route Bus Transit Service Impacts Associated with the 2011 Oakland Running Festival

ATTACHMENTS:

None Department Head Approval: Reviewed Prepared

by: by:

Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering and Construction Officer Joseph Robinson, Transportation Superintendent James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development William Wong, Assistant Transportation Superintendent

165

This page intentionally blank 

166

Report No:

TFVINS/T

Meeting Date:

15-053 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM :

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Major Corridors Study Update

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider receiving update report on the Major Corridors Study. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This report summarizes the progress on the Major Corridors Study. In September 2014, the Major Corridors Study was kicked off in coordination with the Alameda Countywide Transit Plan (CTP) led by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). The Major Corridors Study provides the basis for capital planning for the top nine corridors through year 2040. Evaluation of existing and future conditions is ongoing. Public outreach meetings scheduled in late February/M arch will introduce the Major Corridors Study to the public and solicit input on capital improvement needs and opportunities. The study's schedule allows final alternatives to be coordinated and included in the CTP. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report. AC Tran sit has committed to contributing $444,000 to the CTP in order to fund the Major Corrido rs Study. This was agreed to by the Board of Directors in May 2014 via a memorandum of understanding with ACTC.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE Background

In September 2014, AC Transit began conducting the Major Corridors Study in coordination with the Alameda County Transportation Commiss ion's (Alameda CTC) Countywide Transit Plan (CTP). The Major Corridors Study evaluates the top nine corridors, which carry over 50 percent of the District's total ridership . The study will provide the basis for the District's long-range capital planning for corridor investments. Summary This section summarizes the tasks in progress and next steps for the Major Corridors Study. The Major Corridors Study will develop short- and long-term investment strategies for major 167

Report No.15-053 Page 2 of 4 corridors. A map of the Major Corridors is provided in Attachment 1. The study will help shape AC Transit's capital improvement program for the next 25 years. Schedule The ACTC and its consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff, kicked off the study in September 2014. The consultant team is currently assessing the existing and future conditions as well as operational performance of the Major Corridors. Initial alternatives will be developed and evaluated in the first half of 2015, and final alternatives will be developed and evaluated in Summer/Fall 2015. The study's schedule is coordinated with the CTP so that the final alternatives will be evaluated and incorporated into the CTP and rolled up to the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan.

Benchmarking Visioning

Assessment: Alternative Analysis

Draft Report

Final Report

• Implementation Strategy Public Outreach Meetings

Q

Major Milestones

Figure 1: Major Corridors Study Schedule Coordination with Others The Major Corridors Study and CTP are developed simultaneously in a coordinated manner. The study is closely coordinated with Alameda CTC in conducting market analysis, modeling the network and setting goals and performance measures. The study will also coordinate with the West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) High Capacity Transit Study in developing alternatives for the San Pablo Corridor. In addition, if there are funding opportunities that arise in the next eighteen months, such as the next round of Transit Performance Investment dollars from MTC or the availability of Measure BB capital funds, the study is flexible enough to incorporate these opportunities into the final recommendations. Technical Analysis A Baseline Report will compile existing and future conditions as well as performance of each corridor. Within a quarter-mile of the corridor's population is projected to grow by 31 percent and employment is projected to grow by 38 percent from 2010 to 2040. This information exemplifies the significance of these corridors.

168

Report No.15-053 Page 3 of 4 A Market Analysis is also in progress; using The Transit Competitiveness Index (TCI) developed for MTC's Transit Sustainability Project. TCI will be used to determine which travel markets have a high potential for generating transit ridership and those which are currently undeserved. The information from this market analysis may identify additional corridors for potential investment (e.g., cross-town routes where service is limited today). Goals and Performance Measures for the Major Corridors Study are coordinated with the CTP. To the maximum practical extent possible, the Major Corridors Study and CTP will share the same goals and performance measures. Some goals and performance measures differ as the CTP and the Major Corridors Study have different focus. While the CTP focus is on transit networks, programs and policies, the Major Corridors Study focuses on capital improvements on specific corridors. The performance measures will be used to evaluate alternatives. Draft goals and performance measures proposed by the CTP and the Major Corridors Study are presented in Attachment 2. Public Outreach Outreach for the Major Corridors Study will be integrated into the Alameda CTC-sponsored meetings. An independent District-sponsored public meeting will also be held in West Contra Costa County, which is outside of the purview of the CTP. Five public outreach meetings will be organized within the District in late February and March. The purpose of the meetings is to introduce the Major Corridors Study and receive input on needs and capital improvement opportunities. The meetings will begin with a short presentation that introduces the public to various transportation planning efforts, including the Major Corridors Study. The remainder of time will be an open house format where participants will interact with staff. The public outreach events will be held at the following locations:

Saturday February 21, 9:00AM -1:00PM Hayward City Hall (777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541) Tuesday February 24, 4:00 PM -8:00 PM Fruitvale San Antonio Senior Center (3301 E. 12th Street, Oakland, CA 94601) Saturday March 7, 9:00AM -1:00PM St. Mary's Center (925 Brockhurst Street, Oakland, CA 94608) Sunday March 22, 1:00PM- 5:00PM Fremont Public Library (2400 Stevenson Road, Fremont, CA 94538) Time, Location TBD West Contra Costa County

169

Report No.15-053 Page 4 of 4 Next Steps In addition to the public outreach activities, staff and consultants will begin developing evaluation methodology and criteria as well as identify an initial set of capital investment alternatives. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

The advantage of aligning the Major Corridors Study's goals and performance measures with the CTP is to better position the District to compete for funds within Alameda County as recommended projects will be aligned better with the Alameda Countywide Transit and Transportation Plans. The disadvantage of aligning goals and performance measures with the CTP is that some goals are not significantly relevant to the Major Corridors Study. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:

There are no alternatives associated with this briefing report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

SR 14-024 SR 14-119

Major Corridors Study Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the Alameda County Transportation Commission to perform work for the Major Corridors Study

ATTACHMENTS: 1: Map of Major Corridors 2: Draft Vision and Goals

Executive Staff Approval:

Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering, and Construction Officer

Reviewed by:

Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Jim Cunradi, Transportation Planning Manager

Prepared by:

Mika Miyasato, Senior Transportation Planner

170

Report No. 15-053 Attachment 1 M ap of M ajor Corridors

r - - - - -- -- - - -

I' I

San Pabb\1acdooard Comilor

-

72, 12M, 72R -

Shalb:tJPark Cooidor

18

I I

TelegliiJh CorriOOf

1, 1R BraodwayJAiameda ComifoJ

-

51A, 518 -

Mac:ArluCoomr

57, 58l, NL -

Footldl Corridor (()

-

lriemalionai£115t 1411 Conidor

1,1R Hespefian Cooidor

-

97 -

East 14Miissioo Corriclc.-

99

- - ---

0

2

171

Performance-Based Evaluation Framework Vision

Countywide Transit Plan Goals

0

2

0~

I'D

;:::r

... ...

VI

Q) ~

VI

·-r,,

-

-

- .. .._.,.

-. ~.·~ ~-

:::::J

are

"~'

0..

Q)

<

!!!: 0 :::::J Q)

:::::J

n

0..

Q)

G)

I'D

0

... "C ~

0.1

VI

0

"C

Create an efficient and effective transit network that enhances the economy, improves quality of life and the environment

Increase Effectiveness

0

VI

I'D 0..

(JQ

0

Q)

iii n

cy

0

3 3

0

:::::J

< VI

Improve access to work, education, services, & recreation

::r 0.1 ~

tl)

0..

:E

;::;: ::r ::r

... I'D

3: Q)

-· 0

~

n 0

~ ~

Achieve State of Good Repair

a: 0

...c

:::0

~

tl)

VI

"0

0..

~

0 .... ,..... ..... 0.1 z

l> ,..... (")

::::r

3

Cl)

0

.... V1 I

:::::J 0 ,..... U"1 N w

172

I

Report No:

T/?9NSIT

Meeting Date:

15-065 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Potential Funding Through the State Cap and Trade Program

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider receiving a report on potential funding for District projects and programs through the State's Cap and Trade program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Fiscal Year 2014-15 State Budget appropriated $832 million in statewide Cap and Trade funding. SB 862 established a long-term funding framework and programmatic categories for Cap and Trade funding. There are four funding programs within the programmatic categories that offer potential funding for District projects and programs: 1) Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities, 2) Low Carbon Transit Operations, 3) Transit and Intercity Rail Capital, and 4) Low Carbon Transportation . Each one of the programs is being managed by separate state agencies under separate guidelines and schedules . Staff will return to the Board with requests for authorization to submit applications for the various programs over the next few months. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the programs, amounts of funding available, schedules, and possible District projects. BUDGETARY/FISCALIMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact as this is an informational report, although the report discu sses a funding program with direct fiscal impacts for the District.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

The Fiscal Year 2014-15 State Budget appropriated $832 million in statewide Cap and Trade funding. SB 862 established a long-term funding framework and programmatic categories for Cap and Trade funding. The programmatic categories are detailed in Attachment 1. There are four funding programs within the programmatic categories that offer potential funding for District projects and programs: 1) Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities, 2) Low Carbon Transit Operations, 3) Transit and Intercity Rail Capital, and 4) Low Carbon Transportation. Cap and Trade will be an ongoing state funding program that will vary in size

173

Report No. 15-065 Page 2 ofS based on Cap and Trade auction revenues in a given fiscal year. The Fiscal Year 2015-16 Governor's Budget proposed $1 billion in Cap and Trade expenditures.

Disadvantaged Communities One of key priorities of the Cap and Trade program is investment in disadvantaged communities. SB 535 requires that the state invest at least 10 percent of the auction proceeds within disadvantaged communities and at least 25 percent of the auction proceeds on projects and programs that benefit disadvantaged communities. CaiEPA has defined disadvantaged communities as the top 25 percent of census tracts that receive the highest scores in the CaiEnviroScreen 2.0 modeling tool. Attachment 2 shows the disadvantaged communities in the District's service area. Each of the programs has a different threshold percentage of funds that benefit disadvantaged communities.

Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) The LCTOP was created to provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. This will be an ongoing program that will receive 5 percent of all Cap and Trade funds on an annual basis. There is $25 million available statewide for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and the program will be administered as an annual formula program, rather than a competitive program. The funding distribution is done through the State Transit Assistance formula. The District expects to receive $573,227 in Fiscal Year 2014-15, or 2.3 percent of the overall program. Initial projections for the Fiscal Year 2015-16 program show $50 million available statewide, which means the District could receive approximately $1.15 million. There is a population-share component to this program that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) administers. District staff is working with MTC to ensure that the District receives funding through this segment of the program. Caltrans published program guidelines on December 19, 2014. According to the guidelines, 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 (as defined by CaiEPA), at least 50 percent of total funds received shall be expended on projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities. Caltrans created a two-part allocation process for Fiscal Year 2014-15. For agencies requesting 25 percent of their funding by April 2015 and 75 percent by June 2015, applications were due February 2, 2015. For agencies that request 100 percent by June 2015, applications are due April 15, 2015. District staff intends to return to the Board with a request to authorize an application for LCTOP funds at the February 28, 2015 meeting. Staff is still considering several possibilities for FY 2015 funding, including construction funding for the re-opening of the Richmond Division (D3) or planned bus fleet expansion projects. Both capital and operating needs are being considered for future funding rounds.

174

Report No. 15-065 Page 3 of 5

Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) The TIRCP was created to fund capital improvements and operational investments that will modernize California's transit systems and intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by reducing vehicle miles traveled. TIRCP will be an ongoing program that will receive 10 percent of all Cap and Trade funds on an annual basis. There is $25 million available statewide for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and the program will be administered as a competitive statewide call for projects. At least 25 percent of total funds received shall be expended on projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities. Caltrans published draft guidelines on December 3, 2014 and planned to adopt final guidelines on February 6, 2015. The guidelines had a clear focus on rail projects, but bus rapid transit and other bus transit investments to increase ridership and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are eligible projects. One of the key issues the District and regional partners sought to address in comments to Caltrans was to make it clear that bus operators are an eligible applicant for these funds. A formal call for projects was planned for release in early February and applications are due to Caltrans on April 10, 2015. District staff intends to return to the Board with a request to authorize an application for TIRCP funds at the March 25, 2015 meeting. Staff is still considering several possibilities for FY 2015 funding, including the re-opening of the Richmond Division (D3), bus expansion, expansion of the zero emission bus fleet, or enhancements to the East Bay BRT, Line 97 or Line 51 projects.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) The AHSC was created to fund projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by creating more compact, infill development patterns, integrating affordable housing, encouraging active transportation and mass transit usage, and protecting agricultural land from sprawl development. AHSC will be an ongoing program that will receive 20 percent of all Cap and Trade funds on an annual basis. There is $130 million available statewide for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and the program will be administered as a competitive statewide call for projects, with 50 percent of the program to be used for affordable housing and 50 percent to be spent in disadvantaged communities. The Strategic Growth Council (SGC) adopted final guidelines on January 20, 2015. The guidelines are quite complex and have two types of projects: 1) Transit Oriented Development (TOD), and 2) Integrated Connectivity Project (ICP). TOD projects will receive 40 percent of the funding and must be served by Qualifying High Quality Transit. ICP projects will receive 30 percent of the funding and cannot be served by Qualifying High Quality Transit. The remaining 30 percent of funding will be flexed between the categories based on project scores, and need to meet the affordable housing and disadvantaged community policy goals. Qualifying High Quality Transit

175

Report No. 15-065 Page 4 of5 is defined as a service that has a peak period headway of 15 minutes or less and meets other rapid transit features (e.g., transit priority signals, rapid service model). TOD projects are required to have two elements: 1) Affordable Housing or Housing-Related Infrastructure, and 2) Transportation-Related Infrastructure. ICP projects are also required to have two elements: 1) Affordable Housing, Housing-Related Infrastructure, TransportationRelated Infrastructure, and 2) any of the elements in the first category or a programmatic element like Active Transportation Programs, Transit Ridership Programs, or Criteria Air Pollutant Reduction Programs. Eligible project sponsors include government entities and developers. Coordination with jurisdictions that are sponsoring affordable housing projects in disadvantaged communities in the District's service area is a key for success in this program. District staff will reach out to all jurisdictions in the service area to determine if there is a possible partnership on an AHSC application. A formal call for projects is planned for release on January 30, 2015 Due to the complexity of the program, the SGC plans to hold statewide workshops for potential project sponsors to review the guidelines. The Oakland workshop is planned for February 11, 2015. The program requires that potential applicants submit a concept proposal to the SGC by February 19, 2015. If the concept proposal is approved, SGC will ask the applicant to submit a full application by April 15, 2015. Due to the timing and complexity of the program and the need to attend the workshop on February 11, 2015, District staff will report verbally on any potential concept proposals along with this report. If the concept proposal is accepted, staff will return to the Board with a request to authorize a full application for AHSC funds at the March 25, 2015 meeting.

Low Carbon Transportation Program The Low Carbon Transportation Program was created to accelerate the transition to low carbon freight and passenger transportation, with a priority for disadvantaged communities. LCTP will not necessarily be an ongoing program. There is $200 million available statewide for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and the program will be administered through competitive statewide calls for projects, with 25 percent of the funding to be spent in disadvantaged communities. Because the goals of this program are consistent with the established objectives of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP), and because of the past success of the AQIP program structure, CARB staff combined the two funding sources (AQIP and Low Carbon Transportation Investments) into one funding plan for Fiscal Year 2014-15. In June 2014, CARB adopted its final guidelines for the Fiscal Year 2014-15 AQIP and Low Carbon Transportation program. The key programs for the District in Fiscal Year 201415 are the Light-Duty Pilot Projects in Disadvantaged Communities, Heavy Duty Vehicle Investment Program, and the Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Pilots. The Light-Duty Pilot Projects in Disadvantaged Communities provides $3 million for rebates to government fleets in disadvantaged communities to purchase or lease a battery ($10,000 rebate), fuel cell ($15,000 rebate), or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle ($5,250 rebate). The Heavy Duty Vehicle Investment Program proposes $10- $15 million to fund a first-come, first-served

176

Report No. 15-065 Page 5 of 5 voucher program to assist in the purchase of zero-emission and hybrid heavy duty vehicles. The Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Pilots program proposes $20 - $25 million to fund the implementation of zero-emission fleets within disadvantaged communities. CARB plans to release at least the Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Pilot program call for projects in the next couple months. District staff will return to the Board with a request to authorize an application for one or all of these programs at the appropriate time.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: There are no advantages or disadvantages to accepting this informational report.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: There are no alternatives as this is an information report. Alternatives for Board action will be considered in a follow-up staff report.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: There are no prior relevant Board actions/policies. Department Head Approval:

James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer

Reviewed by: Prepared by:

Chris Andrichak, Acting Manager, Capital Planning & Grants Ben Stupka, Senior Capital Planning Specialist

ATTACHMENTS: 1: Cap and Trade Programmatic Categories

2: Disadvantaged Communities in the District Service Area

177

This page intentionally blank 

178

SR 15-065 Attachment 1

Cap and Trade Programmatic Categories Program

State Department

2014-15 Funding ($ millions)

%of Ongoing Funding

Low Carbon Transit Operations Program

Caltrans

$25

5%

Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program

Caltrans

$25

10%

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program

Strategic Growth Council

$130

20%

Low Carbon Transportation Program

Air Resources Board

$200

n/a

$250

25%

$75

n/a

$20

n/a

$15

n/a

$25

n/a

$42

n/a

$25

n/a

High Speed Rail Energy Efficiency Upgrades/Weatherization

High Speed Rail Authority Department of Community Services and Development

Energy Efficiency for Public Buildings

Energy Commission

Agricultural Energy and Operational Efficiency

Department of Food and Agriculture Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

Wetlands and Watershed Restoration Fire Prevention and Urban Forestry Projects Waste Diversion

Cal Recycle Total

$832

Shaded rows ore the key Cap and Trade programs d1scussed m the staff report.

179

SR 15-065 Attachment 2

Oakland

,/'- \

(/

"\

\

-~"'/

r

l

\

II

Disadvamaged Commumy

~~

Half-rie looe

-

Malor Roads.

\~

180

SR 15-065 Attachment 2

d

)

) /

\

II

Disadvantaged Con'cnunity

~~

HaH-mi!e Zone

-

Major Roads. I -

)

/

'\...

Moraga

I

181



This page intentionally blank 

182

OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

February 11, 2015 Agenda Items B-1 – B-8

183

This page intentionally blank 

184

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-046 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Quarterly Operations Performance Report

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider receiving Quarterly Operations Performance Report for AC Transit fixed route services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Quarterly Operations Performance Report for the 2nd Quarter of FY 14/15 provides information on programs within the department designed to improve the performance, reliability, cleanliness, and safety of our bus service. The weekday ridership for the 2nd Quarter averaged 182,319 passengers, which is about 1.2 percent lower than weekday ridership for the same period last year; however, the ridership last fiscal year was enhanced due to labor issues at BART. The quarterly on-time performance averaged 66.8 percent for the quarter and was severely impacted by protest marches that required detouring of our buses to ensure the safety of our operators, passengers, and equipment. The OTP was also impacted by heavy rains during the quarter. Miles between Chargeable Road Calls (MBCRC) averaged 5,855 for the quarter and exceeded the District goal during the entire period. The Bus Cleanliness Rating continued at an upward trend, rising to a rating of 7.85 for the quarter. The Vehicle Collisions averaged 4.54 accidents per 100,000 miles. The Passenger Falls accident averaged 3.61 accidents per 100,000 miles. The number of customer complaints showed a 51

significant downward trend from the 1 to 2nd Quarter, reducing by a total of 253 complaints in the five major complaint categories. In lieu of the Semi-Annual Report on the Customer Service Call Center staff report, Customer Call Center is included in this report. The American Customer Call Abandon Rate averaged 3. 77 percent of the quarter. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no current direct fiscal impacts related to the Quarterly Operations Performance Report.

185

Report No. 15-046 Page 2 of 9

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The Quarterly Operations Performance Report provides information on programs within th e department designed to improve the performance, reliability, cleanliness, and safety of our bus service . To continually recognize our outstanding emp loyees who are an important part of achieving the division goa ls, the following is a list of employees who were recognized as Employees of the Month during the quarter: Transportation Division 2 Division 4

October Larry Rogers Lee Carnegie

Division 6

Anthony Bell

Jan Runnells Baldev Gill

Maintenance Division 2 Division 4

October Charles Wong Anna Pea rl

November Don Lemons Kevin Ashford

December Jose Guillen Manny Amaral

Division 6 CMF

Abhinath Chand Elias Partee

Jacob Collins Benjamin Tutana

Sam Tesfamariam

RIDERSHIP-

November Priscilla Street

December Gloria Colocho Lena James Jesse De Ia Cruz

Dale Hazelwood Brewer

The ridership remained strong during the 2nd quarter for FY 14/15 due to the

improved reliability of our bus service. The weekday ridership for the 2nd Quarter averaged 182,319 passengers, which was 1.22 percent lower than 2nd Quarter of last year; however, the ridership last fiscal year was enhanced due to passengers transferring from BART to AC Transit during the BART labor disputes. The ridership in December 2014 was about 1.2 percent higher than the previous December 2013 ridership.

RIDERSHIP - Average Daily Passengers System-Wide Weekday 220,000

--Linear (Ridership)

- . - Ridership

200,000

"'~80,000 c:

5: ~160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000

...

M

~

Ql

E E

...Q.

M

J:

,.,...

i: 0

,.,...

>

0

z

....:.

M

Ql

0

...c. "
~

...

...

Cll .....

'" ::E

"
,;.

"
:I Ill

186

...

~

~ 0..

c(

... "
> '" ::E

...c. "
~

.:!

~

~

....:0 ~

:I c(

...Q. "
Cll Ill

... "
i: 0

...v

v

z

0

> 0

~ u

Cll

Report No. 15-046 Page 3 of 9 MILES BETWEEN ROAD CALLS- The miles between chargeable road calls remained constant with

an average of 5,855 during the 2nd Quarter as compared to 5,876 during the 1st Quarter. The miles between chargeable road calls exceeded the goal during the entire period. The improvement in miles between road calls over the past two years is due to improved maintenance practices and to the performance of the new Gillig and New Flyer buses.

System-Wide Chargeable Miles Between Road Calls

- -linear (Systemwide)

---Systemwide

7,000

6,000 ~~~~~

5,000 "' 4,000

~

:E

[ru

3,000

@]

2,000 1,000 0

...c

N

.!l!

N

!

"'

~

... N

N

> "' ~

~

~

...Q.

N

~

...> ...c ...

...

~

~

N

1'1'1

1'1'1

.. ~

0

z

.!l!

1'1'1

..>

1'1'1

~

~

...Q. ...> ...c 1'1'1

1'1'1

Ql

0

II)

z

~

...."'

... ~

~

"'

~

...> ; 3 ~

"'

~

....

...Q. ~

~

...> ~

0

z

ON-TIME PERFORMANCE- The on-time performance declined from a 68.2 percent average in the

1st Quarter to a 66.75 percent average in the 2nd Quarter of current Fiscal Year. The on-time performance was severely impacted during the period by protest marches that disrupted our regular service. During most of the quarter, the District was required to detour our buses during protest s to ensure the safety of our bus operators and passengers, and to protect our equipment from damage or vandalism. The District implemented service enhancements and improved running time for operators for the fall sign up; however, the benefits from these improvements were impacted by the service disruptions. The OTP Taskforce is continuing to review problem areas to allow supervisors to monitor and take corrective actions to improve ontime performance.

187

Report No. 15-046 Page 4 of 9

Sytem-wide On-Time Performance --Linear (Systemwide Average)

-e- Systemwide Average 75% 70%

• 0

E6s%

00

i7

"

0 60%

SS% SO%

...C: N

~

...L

N

"' ::!:

... N

>

"' ::!:

N

~

~

...'

N

Q.

~

...> ...C:

N

z0

M

~

M

'Z

"' ::!:

...

M

>

"' ::!:

M

~

~

...0. ...

M

Cll VI

M

> 0

z

..,... C:

~

..,... L "' ::!:

.., 1 "' ::!:

.., ~

~

.....,0. ~

..,...

>

0

z

SERVICE OPERATED PERCENTAGE- The percentage of service operated remained consistent at 99.81 during the 2nd Quarter as compared to an average of 99.77 percent during the 1st Quarter.

The service operated performance indicator exceeded the District's goal for the entire period. The overall trend of this key performance indicator has been positive over the past several months, with all months achieving the 99.5 percent goal. The percentage of service operated was not monitored prior to April 2012, so the graph below only shows 21 months of data. System-Wide Percentage of Service Operated

-e- Systemwide Average --Linear (Systemwide Average) 100.0% 99.5% 99.0% 98.5% Cll

98.0%

v

-~

97.5%

Cll V>

97.0% 96.5% 96.0% 95.5% 95.0%

...> N

"' ::!:

...0. ...> N

~

N

0

z

...> M

"' ::!:

...

..,...

z

z0

11'1

> 0

>

OPERATOR UNAVAILABILITY- The total unavailability of operators improved to 24.38 during the 2nd Quarter from 25.68 during the 1st Quarter. The absenteeism rate continues to be high due to

provisions within the collective bargaining agreement. Operations staff will continue enforcement of the attendance policies to minimize disruptions in service to our customers.

188

Report No. 15-046 Page 5 of9

System-Wide Total Operator Unavailability Rate ;;;-+-Systemwide Average 307o

--Linear (Systemwide Average)

25% Q)

~ 20%

~

:.0 15% .!2 ·~

...

c 10% :::>

5% 0% N

";'

c

~

...L

...

N

N

N

";'

>

... :::.;,:

~

"'

...Q.

N

J!

...

M

z

~

N

> 0

...c

...L

...

:::.;,:

"'

M

"'

M

M

>

";'

:::.;,:

~

...Q.

...

"'

z

M

Q)

M

> 0

...c
~

...L
"'

:::.;,:


1 "'

~ ~

...Q.
J!

' 0

z

ACCIDENT RATE- The collisions and passenger falls increased slightly during the latest quarter after trending down for several months. The passenger fall rate increased to 3.61 per 100,000 miles during the

2nd

Quarter from 3.14 accidents per 100,000 miles during the 1st Quarter. The

vehicle collisions accident rate per 100,000 miles increased to 4.54 during the

2nd

Quarter from an

average of 4.06 during the 1st Quarter. The Accident Reduction Task Force has evaluated the accidents during the period and has initiated new campaigns to focus on the highest accident types in an effort to continue the trend for accident reduction.

System-Wide Passenger Falls Accident Rate - e - Systemwide Average

- L i near (Systemwide Average)

6.0 5.0

4.0 Q)

1ii 3.0

a::

2.0 1 .0 0.0

...>

N

"'

:::.;,:

...Q.

N

J!

... N

~ z

...L M

1'0

:::.;,:

... M

> :::.;,: "'

189

... M

~ z

...>
z0

Report No. 15-046 Page 6 of9

System-Wide Vehicle Collision Accident Rate __.,_ Systemwide Average

- L inear (Systemwide Average)

7.0 6.0 5.0

2l

!l.

4.0

3.0 2.0

1.0 0.0

...C: N

~

N

'Z

"' ::!:

...> N

"' ::!:

N

~

~

...Q.

...:.

N

N

J:

z

0

"'...c ~

...~ "' "' ::!:

"'....> "' ::!:

"'~

~

"'....Q.

"'...:.

VI

z

Ql

.,... :.

0

z0

BUS CLEANLINESS INSPECTION RATE- The Bus Cleanliness Inspection rate increased to 7.85 during the 2nd Quarter from an average of 7.52 during the 1st Quarter. The division efforts to expand the daily cleaning of buses at the fuel island and efforts to improve the mileage driven preventive maintenance cleaning programs have moved the cleanliness of the fleet closer to the 8.0 goal. System-Wide Bus Cleanliness Inspection Rating- Monthly 9

8 7

~----~----r-----.---~.----,-----.----~-----r-----r-----r----.---~

t---t---i===jt===t~~~~~~==~==~~-=~~~~

Ql

-e

6



5

VI

"' 4 a: ~ g 3

...

2

1

~

:.0

z

CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS- The majority of complaints received by the District are categorized under Schedule Adherence, Pass ups, Unsafe Operation, Operator Discourtesy, and Equipment Infrastructure. There was a decrease in customer complaints for all of these categories, except "Operator Discourtesey/Conduct", during the past quarter. The three complaint categories with the highest reduction in complaints between the 1st and 2"d Quarters were : 1) "Unsafe Operations" with a decrease of 89 complaints; 2) "Pass Ups" with a decrease of 71 complaints; and 3) and "Equipment/Infrastructure/System" with a decrease of 66 complaints. The remaining categories of customer complaints remained relatively stable during the 2nd quarter.

190

Report No. 15-046 Page 7 of 9 Staff will continue to focus on further improvements for our service to continue to show improvement in these performance indicators.

~ Sc hed ule

Adherence (Late/No Show I Early)

System-Wide Customer Complaints by Complaint Categories 3SO

..."'c::

·;;;

Q.

2SO

E 0 u

200

...

1SO

..... 0

/

300

4r'


~

E

:I

z

_,.A ~

100

.......

,..

/

..-4

,)~

"""

/'

~ Pa ss

~

~

.........

/

Ups

_...,.. ~ O pe rator

~

Discourt esy/

Conduct

....4 ...- :::;::(

~ ..... so ........ 0

.......

- - '"

..........

L "-.

.,..,...

v

~

...c

...

~

...c

~

"'

~

~

<

z

~ Unsafe

Operations

~

~ ~ Equipment/lnfrastructu ~ re/System

> 0

:I

~

~

...Oo ~

~

>

~

OPERATOR LOG-ON RATE- The operator log-on rate averaged 88.23 percent during the 2nd

Quarter as compared to 89.56 during the

1 st

Quarter. The District experienced technical problems

with the current transmission towers and CAD/AVL systems during the period. The District is continuing efforts to improve the operator log-on rate; however, the current Computer Aided Dispatch

I

Automatic Vehicle Location (CAD/AVL) system has exceeded its useful life and has

impacted this performance indicator. Staff will continue to work with operators to log on properly since improvement in the operator log-on rate increases the accuracy of NextBus and will provide customers with improved real time information on bus arrivals. The management staff will continue its efforts toward achieving the 95 percent target.

System-Wide Log On Rate ~ Syste mwide

Average

--Linear (Systemwide Average)

100%

...c

.,~

r

90% 80%

Q,

70% 60% SO% 40%

I

...c

N

~

... N

~

"'

~

... N

>

"'

~

N

'7

:;

....

CUSTOMER CALL CENTER-

...Q. ...> ...mc ...m

m

~

~

N

N

~

~

0

z

~

"'

...> "'

'7 ~

.

I

I

m

...mQ.

...m

"'

z

>

0

...c ~

~

I

...

...

"'

~

~

~

~

'

~

>

"'

~

'7 ~

...Q. ~

...

~

z

~

>

0

Under contract, American Customer Care continues to handle

customer service feedback and trip planning calls from customers seven days a week.

Call

volume, at 20,339, dropped by 18 percent over the prior quarter, and was 20 percent lower

191

Report No. 15-046 Page 8 of9 than the similar quarter in 2013. This trend will likely continue as customers use more internet and mobile phone applications for travel and trip planning, which constitute over 80 percent of the calls. The call center continues to meet or exceed standards established for responsiveness, including call length and answer time, and has excelled at maintaining a low, industry-standard, abandoned rate. American Customer Care continues to work closely with District staff on these performance standards, as well as overall call quality, which is monitored on a continuous basis.

-~~L~Jl\J"-.•I~ 'HI ::.;::; .~'
!>! oec:·14

Calls Accepted

7,525

6,134

6,680

Calls Answered

7,225

5,892

6,463

3.7

3.4

75%

75%

3.9 79%

Avg. Call Time (Minutes) Calls Answered w/in 20 seconds Calls Answered w/in 180 seconds

97%

97%

97%

Calls Abandoned Total Call Minutes

4.0%

4.0%

3.3%

26,889

19,721

25,194

27.0

27.6

15.0

Average Speed of Answer (seconds)

CAL~o1mlauno~ '

f Hi ·H'·t?lt>·'! i

Trip Planning Travel Information Complaints/Comments Other No Answer

1 oct:~i.4

30.0% 52.0% 9.0% 2.8% 6.2%

192

N~v-14 J ; Dec·1t1 I

31.0% 54.0% 6.9% 5.0% 3.1%

30.0% 53.3% 7.9% 6.2% 2.6%

Report No. 15-046 Page 9 of9

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: This report does not recommend an action.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None

ATTACHMENTS: None

Department Head Approval:

James D. Pachan, Chief Operating Officer

Reviewed by:

James D. Pachan, Chief Operating Officer

Prepared by:

Blossom Albuquerque, Management Analyst

193

This page intentionally blank 

194

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-039 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Claremont EAP Contract Option

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider authorizing the General Manager to exercise the two-year option in the Contract with Claremont Employee Assistant Program (EAP). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Claremont EAP provides a variety of services for employees and their family members. These services include in person or video conference counseling, legal, financial and tax consultation, community and dependent care referrals. In addition to clinical counseling, the EAP has a Trauma Response Counseling Program that has been very effective for employees who have been assaulted or traumatized while at work. District management staff also has access to several brown bag seminars around important topics such as communication skills, stress, or time management. These seminars are designed to energize and educate employees while providing a fun and engaging learning environment. The EAP has performed well under the initial period of its contract with the District and exercising the two year option is advisable. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

The total contract amount of $768,300.00 was awarded for a 5 year period. Exercising the twoyear option would cost approximately $155,000 per year for a total of $310,000.00. The contract amount is fixed and is not tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPJ).

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

The District's Claremont EAP contract is for the period of March 1, 2012 through February 28, 2017. The total contract duration, including the exercise of a two (2) year option period, shall not exceed five (5) years ending February 28, 2017. The contract covers an administrative monthly flat fee ($7600.00) trauma fee ($100.00 per employee visit) and counseling fee ($85.00 per employee visit). The monthly fees are estimated to be $12,805 per month, annually amounting to $153,660. EAP provides short-term confidential counseling sessions and provider referrals to assist employees with stress, marriage and family issues, chemical dependency, financial, legal, dependent care, and other life issues. The EAP also includes a Trauma Response Program that 195

Report No. 15-039 Page 2 of 2 provides immediate debriefing, assessment and short-term counseling to employees who have been assaulted and or traumatized while at work. The licensed professionals at Claremont EAP have performed well working with the District's diverse population and have been able to assist employees with a variety of issues, especially in time of crisis. The Claremont EAP management team has been very responsive to the needs of the District. They provide the District with quarterly utilization reports, participate in the Benefits Department Open Enrollment events, and provide informative communication materials for distribution. Overall, the District is very satisfied with the services provided by the Claremont EAP and believes that the cost is fair and reasonable. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

Advantages: The Claremont EAP help employees and their family resolve personal issues before they become more serious and difficult to manage. The dedicated counselors and providers are familiar with the District's culture, policies and procedures. Furthermore, the Trauma Response Program is a necessary program to assist employees, particularly the District's Bus Operators, in their recovery after being assaulted and or traumatized while at work. Disadvantages: Absent the extension of the Claremont EAP contract will cause disruption for District employees who are currently in treatment. ALTERNATIVES ANAL VSIS: The alternative to exercising the option on this contract would be to re-solicit EAP services. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None ATTACHMENTS: None

Executive Staff Approval:

Thomas Prescott, Acting Chief Administrative Service Officer

Reviewed by:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Rachel Lightburn, Sr. Human Resources Administrator

Prepared by:

196

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-064 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Workers' Compensation Third Party Administrator Request for Proposal

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider authorizing the release of a solicitation for Workers' Compensation Third Party Administrator services, Managed Care Program, Claims Reporting /Intake system, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reporting services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District's contract with the Third Party Administrator ("TPA") for the Workers' Compensation program expires in October 2015. The District uses the Third Party Administrator to handle the administration of workers' compensation cases, utilizing industry "best practices" to control costs while ensuring meeting all required legal requirements. The Request for Proposal (RFP) will solicit prospective vendors to administer the District's self-insured Workers' Compensation Program. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: Total cost of current contract with the TPA over a five (5) year period is $5,955,987. This contract will expire October 31, 2015. The current TPA contract provides claims administration services only. Staff anticipates the cost of the new contract will be higher than the existing contract due to the added services in this bundled RFP. Overall cost to the program should be negligible because services all except OSHA Reporting are currently performed by different vendors. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The District has been a permissibly self-insured employer for workers' compensation since March 1, 1993. As a permissibly self-insured employer, the District is allowed to contract the Workers' Compensation claims administration to a TPA. Contract 2010-1137 was awarded to XChanging, which subsequently was acquired by Sedgwick. Sedgwick Claims Management has been administering and managing Workers' Compensation claims for the District since October 1, 2011. Sedgwick's contract is schedu led to expire October 31, 2015. The RFP will invite State licensed TPAs to submit a formal bid proposal to service and administer the District's self-insured Workers' Compensation program. In addition to Claims 197

Report No. 15-064 Page 2 of 2 Administration, other key services include Managed Care Services, Claims Reporting/Intake and Soliciting one Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Reporting Services. proposal for these related services will create efficiency and reduce redundant processes and systems. Below are descriptions of the services to be added to the new contract. Managed Care Services

Medical cost containment services to reduce the overall cost of workers' compensation liability through the use of Medical Bill Review, Utilization Review, Case Management (Nurse Case Managers), Pharmacy Benefit Management and other ancillary services. Claims Reporting/Intake

This will allow injuries to be reported via the Internet and have pertinent information be disseminated to designated users, using one system. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Reporting Services

Combined with the claims reporting, this service will assist in meeting OSHA compliance and reporting requirements for recordable injuries. It is anticipated that the solicitation of the RFP will be early March 2015 with a deadline for all proposals be received 45 days from the date of release to the industry. This will allow adequate time for a handover if another vendor is selected. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

The RFP will give the District the ability to qualify and select a TPA for the District's self-insured workers' compensation program. Absent the solicitation for Workers' Compensation TPA services, there would not be a TPA in place by the end of the current contract that expires October 31, 2015. The District does not currently have capacity to self-administer workers' compensation claims. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:

There is no practical alternative to the course of action recommended in this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

None ATTACHMENTS:

None Executive Staff Approval:

Thomas Prescott, Interim Chief Administrative Services Officer

Reviewed by:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Kelley R. Easter-Grant, Human Resources Administrator

Prepared by:

198

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-047 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Small Business Set-Asides

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider receiving the report on set-asides for small business participation as outlined in Board Policy 326, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Policy, Section V, Paragraph 2 spanning the past two years. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The District has a Race/Gender-Neutral Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Program which mandates that all DBE efforts towards meeting the District's overall 8% DBE goal must be undertaken via race/gender- neutral means, i.e. no per-contract DBE goals. Accordingly, in September 2013 staff had initiated the amendment of Board Policy 326 to include guidelines for race/gender-neutral measures, which included parameters for setting aside some contracts exclusively for small business enterprises. This report illustrates some of the District's race/gender-neutral methods for achieving DBE and Small Business Enterprise (SBE) participation, including the use of small business set-asides. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

In September 2013, staff received approval from the Board of Directors to amend Board Policy 326, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Policy, to incorporate a Small Business element and establish parameters for implementing race/gender-neutral means to achieve the District's overall 8% DBE goal. One of the two methods used to satisfy the District's DBE goal was to setaside certain procurements that were more likely to generate strong SBE interests based on work scope exclusively for small businesses pursuant to 49 CFR Part 26.

The initial dollar

threshold established for SBE set-asides was set at $100,000. This strategy has been fashioned after the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District's (BART) and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's (SFMTA) DBE - Small Business Program elements which also utilize

199

Report No. 15-047 Page 2 of 3 small business set-asides, albeit at dollar thresholds more commensurate with their respective operating budgets and contracting environments. The benefit of setting aside contracts for small businesses is that it levels the playing field; enabling small businesses, including DBEs, to compete for District projects that otherwise have a greater probability to be awarded to a large business, and since many of the small businesses that have worked on District projects reside within AC Transit's Ward boundaries, set asides also help circulate capital on a local scale, contributing to the growth of the local economy. The table below shows the number of SBE set-asides by agency since 2013. Agency

*AC Transit

BART

No. of SBE Set-Asides 2 6 *Board Polley 326 Established SBE Set-As1de Threshold

SFMTA 2 1n September, 2013

It is worth noting that the SBE Set-Aside process is but one aspect of the District's overall Small Business Program and came to fruition at the same time as the District's SBE goal-setting process for its contracts and although the former has had a modicum of success to date, the latter has resulted in unprecedented SBE and DBE participation on District contracts. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

An advantage to having an SBE set-aside component to the District's Small Business Element is that it further increases the opportunities for SBEs, along with DBEs and SLBEs, to be awarded District contracts provided that the established dollar threshold is not surpassed and the work scope is germane to categories where ample small business enterprises exist. A current disadvantage is that most District contracts that may otherwise generate copious small business responses have been in excess of the set-aside threshold. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

Staff is exploring the prospect of amending BP 326 to reasonably and responsibly increase the SBE set-aside threshold and would like to apprise the Board of its findings at a future date. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

Board Policy 326- Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Policy ATTACHMENTS:

1. Excerpt- Board Policy 326, Section V, Paragraph 2 2. Excerpt- BART Small Business Program, SBE Set-Aside Thresholds 3. Excerpt- 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 26.39

200

Report No. 15-047 Page 3 of 3

Approved by:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

Reviewed by:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel

Prepared by:

PhillipS. McCants, Contracts Compliance Administrator

201

This page intentionally blank 

202

SR 15-047 Attachment 1

V. SMALL BUSINESS ELEMENT

In order to aid its DBE utilization efforts, the District will establish race, gender and localneutral, per-contract SBE utilization goals on federally funded projects when practicable. The goal shall be established based on demonstrable evidence of the availability of ready, willing and able SBEs relative to all businesses ready, willing and able to participate on DOT-assisted contracts and expressed as a percentage of the anticipated value of the contract. The District will evaluate each procurement for SBE prime and subcontracting opportunities. A determination will be made of the availability of small businesses. The District will require all bidders to provide a list of the SBE subcontractors to be utilized to meet the SBE goal and will require good faith efforts documentation for bidders not meeting the SBE subcontract goal prior to award of contract. The District will require the successful prime contractor to provide quarterly reports of payments to SBE subcontractors. The District will set-aside selected federally funded procurements with anticipated dollar values up to $100,000 for small business participation only. Small business set-asides shall not be implemented where the availability of small businesses is not abundant relative to the applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS} Code.

Source: Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District Board Policy 326, Disadvantage Business Enterprise

203

SR 15-047

Attachment 2

D. Identifying SB Set-aside Contracts The DBE Liaison Officer will identify contracts that qualify for SB set-asides in conjunction with the sponsoring department. Contracts are eligible for inclusion in the SB set-aside program if the engineers estimate, or any other applicable estimate made by District staff determines that the contract values will not exceed:

I. $2 million for construction contracts 2. $3 million for professional services contracts 3. $3 million for procurement contracts

Source: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, DBE Program, Appendix H.

204

SR 15-047 ATTACH 3

§ 26.39 Fostering Small Business Participation. (a) Your DBE program must include an element to structure contracting requirements to facilitate competition by small business concerns. taking all reasonable steps to eliminate obstacles to their participation, including unnecessary and unjustified bundling of contract requirements that may preclude small business participation in procurements as prime contractors or subcontractors.

(b) This element must be submitted to the appropriate DOT operating administration for approval as a part of your DBE program by February 28. 2012. As part of this program element you may include. but are not limited to. the following strategies: (1) Establishing a race-neutral small business set-aside for prime contracts under a stated amount.

205

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-013 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

2014 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Triennial Review Report

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider receiving a report regarding the fiscal year 2014 FTA Triennial Review Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The FTA Triennial Review, covering the period of July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014, is complete. The review covered 17 topical areas. There were no deficiencies identified by the FTA in 13 ofthese areas. Triennial Review findings were in 4 areas and are summarized below: •

Technical - Untimely closeout and inactivity of some grants. contained milestone dates that had slipped and not been updated.

Also, some grants



Americans with Disabilities Act- Certain elements of the District' s no-show policy were found to be unreasonable.



Procurement- A procurement of bus fareboxes did not contain all of the required FTA clauses. Also, contract files did not contain documentation of a responsibility of determination .



Drug and Alcohol - The District's Drug and Alcohol policy needed to be updated to reflect all current FTA required elements.

BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

The FTA conducts Triennial Reviews of all U.S. transit properties receiving federal funds. The Triennial Review is a comprehensive evaluation of District compliance with FTA requirements governing the use of federal funds. The review covers three fiscal years of activity and is also an assessment of AC Transit grant management practices and program implementation . Once the review is completed, FTA produces a final report identifying areas of deficiency; recommendations for improvement; and required District actions and timelines for 206

Report No. 15-013 Page 2 of 2 implementation. The District has taken the following actions to address findings made in the report: Technical- The Grants Department worked with FTA on a plan to close out the inactive grants identified. Also, a recovery plan for delayed projects along with a procedure showing quarterly progress was provided to FTA. These deficiencies are now closed. Americans with Disabilities Act - A written response was sent to the FTA describing the reason(s) for the current District no-show policy. It is under consideration for acceptance by the regional office. Procurement - Purchasing revised procedures so that all FTA-required third party clauses are included in future procurements and contractor responsibility determinations are conducted prior to contract award. These deficiencies are now closed. Drug and Alcohol - The District policy was modified to include all current FTA required elements and this deficiency has now been satisfactorily closed. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages disadvantages. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

This report does not recommend an action. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

There are no prior relevant Board actions/policies associated with this report. ATTACHMENTS:

1:

FTA Triennial 2014 Final Report

Department Head Approval:

Alan Parella, Manager of Internal Audit

Reviewed by:

James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer

Prepared by:

Alan Parella, Manager of Internal Audit

207

or

SR 15-013

Attachment 1

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration

REGION IX Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands

Honorable Greg Harper President ofthe Board of Directors Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, California 94612

201 Mission Street Suile 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105·1839

415-744-3133 415-744-2726 (fax)

NOV 0 5 2014 Re: FY 2014 Final Triennial Review Report

Dear Mr. Harper: The enclosed final report documents the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Triennial Review of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), in Oakland, CA. This review is required by Chapter 53 ofTitle 49, United States Code, Section 5307. Although not an audit, the Triellllial Review is the FTA's assessment of AC Transit's compliance with Federal requirements, determined by examining a sample of gmnt management and program implementation practices. As such, the Triennial Review is not intended as, nor does it constitute a comprehensive and final review of compliance with grant requirements. The Triellllial Review focused on AC Transit's compliance in 17 areas. No deficiencies were fuund with the FTA requirements inl3 areas. Deficiencies were found in four areas: Technical Capacity, Americans with Disabilities Act, Procurement, and Drug and Alcohol Testing Program. AC Transit had no repeat deficiencies fi·om the 2011 Triellllial Review. As part of this year's Trietmial Review of AC Transit, FTA incorporated an Enhanced Review Module (ERM) in the Technical Capacity area. The pmpose of an ERMis to conduct a more comprehensive review of underlying or contributing issues identified during the pre-assessment stage of the Tl'ietmial Review. Deficiencies resulting from this ERM are contained within the Technical Capacity section of the report that follows. Subsequent to the site visit, AC Transit submitted sufficient documentation to address the deficiencies in the Technical Capacity and Procurement areas. These deficiencies are now closed. We greatly appreciate your continued commitment to making public transportation America's mode of choice. Thank you for your personal contribution, cooperation, and assistance during this Triennial Review since we realize that the review has involved effort, time and platming. If you need any technical assistance or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Roxana Hernandez at (415) 744-2658 or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely,

Enclosure cc: David Armijo, AC Transit

d!it[~ 208

FINAL REPORT

FY2014 TRIENNIAL REVIEW of the

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Oakland, CA Recipient ID: 1632

Performed for

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION REGION IX

Prepared by:

Milligan & Company, LLC

Scoping Meeting Date: May 14,2014 Site Visit Dates: September 15-16, 2014 Final Report Date: November 20, 2014

209

Table of Contents I.

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1

II.

Review Background and Process .............................................................................: ............... 2 1.

Background ........................................................................................................................... 2

2.

Process ................................................................................................................................. 2

3.

Metrics ................................................................................................................................. 2

Ill.

Grantee Description ................................................................................................................ 4

IV.

Results of the Review ..............................................................................................:............... 7

1.

Financial Management and Financial Capacity ......................................................................... 7

2.

Tech nica I Capacity ................................................................................................................. 7 Enhanced Review Module ...................................................................................................... 7

3.

M ainte na nee ......................................................................................................................... 8

4.

Americans with Disabilities Act ...............................................................................:............... 9

5.

Title VI .................................................................................................................................. 9

6.

Procure men! ....................................................................................................................... 10

7.

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise ....................................................................................... 10

8.

Leg aI ................................................................................................................................... 10

9.

Satisfactory Continuing Control ..............................................................................:............. 11

10.

Planning/Program of Projects ............................................................................................... 11

11.

Public Comment on Fare Increases and Major Service Reductions .......................................... 11

12.

Half Fare ............................................................................................................................. 11

13.

Charter Bus ......................................................................................................................... 12

14.

School Bus .......................................................................................................................... 12

15.

Safety and Security .............................................................................................................. 12

16.

Drug Free Workplace and Drug and Alcohol Program ............................................................. 12

17.

Equal Employment Opportunity ........................................................................................... 13

V.

Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................. 14

I.

Attendees ................................................................................................................:............. 16

II.

Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 17

210

I.

Executive Summary

This report documents the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Triennial Review of Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) of Oakland, CA. The review was performed by Milligan & Company, LLC. During the site visit, administrative and statutory requirements were discussed and documents were reviewed. AC Transit's facilities were toured to provide an overview of activities related to FTA-funded projects. The Triennial Review focused on AC Transit's compliance in 17 areas. Deticiencies were found in the areas listed below. Review Area Technical Capacity

Code 79 98

Deficiencies Description Inactive grants Excessive delays in project implementation

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

316

Insufficient no-show policy

Procurement

129 344

Drug-Free Workplace/ Drug and Alcohol Program

28

No FTA clauses Responsibility Determination Deficiencies Drug and alcohol policy lacking required elements

As part of this year's Triennial Review of AC Transit, FTA incorporated an Enhanced Review Module (ERM) in the Technical Capacity area. The purpose of an ERM is to conduct a more comprehensive· review of underlying or contributing issues identified during the pre-assessment stage of ,the Triennial Review. Deficiencies resulting from this ERM are contained within the Technical Capacity section of the report that follows. Subsequent to the site visit, AC Transit submitted sufficient documentation to address the deficiencies in the Technical Capacity and Procurement areas. These deficiencies are now closed.

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

liPage

211

II.

Review Background and Process

1.

Background

The United States Code, Chapter 53 of Title 49, requires the FTA of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to perform reviews and evaluations of Urbanized Area Formula Grant activities at least every three years. This requirement is contained in 49 U.S.C. 5307(1)(2). This review was performed in accordance with FTA procedures (published in FTA Order 9010.1B, April 5, 1993). At least once every three years, the Secretary shall review and evaluate completely the performance of a grantee in carrying out its program, specifically referring to compliance with statutory and administrative requirements. The Triennial Review includes a review of the grantee's compliance in 17 areas. The basic requirements for each of these areas are summarized in Section IV. This report presents the findings from the Triennial Review of AC Transit. The review concentrated on procedures and practices employed during the past three years; however, coverage was extended to earlier periods as needed to assess the policies in place and the management of grants. The specific documents reviewed are referenced in this report and are available at FTA's Regional Office or at the grantee's office.

2.

Process

The Triennial Review process includes a pre-review assessment, a review scoping meeting with the FTA regional office, and an on-site visit to the grantee's location. The review scoping meeting was conducted with the Region IX Office on May 14, 2014. Necessary files retained by the regional office were sent to the reviewer electronically. A review package was sent to AC Transit advising it of the site visit and indicating information that would be needed and issues that would be discussed. The site visit to AC Transit occurred on September 15-16,2014. The onsite portion of the review began with an entrance conference, at which the purpose of the Triennial Review and the review process were discussed. The remaining time was spent discussing administrative and statutory requirements and reviewing documents. A tour of AC Transit's facilities was conducted to provide an overview of activities related to FTA-funded projects. A sample of maintenance records for FTA-funded vehicles and equipment was also examined during the site visit. Upon completion of the review, a summary of preliminary findings was provided to AC Transit at an exit conference. The individuals participating in the review are listed in Section VI of this report.

3.

Metrics

The metrics used to evaluate whether a grantee is meeting the requirements for each of the areas reviewed are: •

Not Deficient: An area is considered not deficient if, during the review, no findings were noted with the grantee's implementation of the requirements.

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

2IPage

212



Deficient: An area is considered deficient if any of the requirements within the area reviewed were not met.



Not Avolicable: An area can be deemed not applicable if, after an initial assessment, the grantee does not conduct activities for which the requirements of the respective area would be applicable.

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

3IPage

213

III.

Grantee Description

Organization Transit service in Oakland, California and the western portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties is provided by AC Transit, a special purpose district created by the California State Legislature. AC Transit directly operates and maintains portions of its fixed-route service and contracts with MY Transportation to provide Dumbarton Express service. ADA complementary paratransit service is provided cooperatively with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) under a Joint Powers Agreement through East Bay Paratransit (EBP), which contracts for service with area providers. AC Transit serves most of the East Bay west of East Bay hills and offers service to the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco, Foster City, San Mateo, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Milpitas. The service area encompasses two districts: District I includes portions of western Contra Costa and Alameda counties, including the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, Richmond, San Leandro, San Pablo and the other major unincorporated areas of Ashland, Castro Valley, El Sobrante, Kensington, North Richmond and San Lorenzo. District 2 includes the cities of Fremont and Newark. The population of AC Transit's service area is approximately I ,425,000 persons. Services AC Transit operates two main types of service: East Bay service and Transbay/Express service. East Bay service is provided with 79 local routes including several commuter routes and destination-based community routes. Transbay service consists of 30 routes that connect various points in the East Bay to San Francisco and the San Mateo peninsula. Service is provided seven days per week. Six local routes operate 24 hours per day. East Bay ADA complementary paratransit is available in the same service area and with the same operating hours as AC Transit and BART.

Effective July I, 2014, the basic adult fare for bus service is $2.10 for local service and $4.20 for Transbay service. A reduced fare of$1.05 (local) and $2.10 (Transbay) is offered at all times to elderly (65 years or older), persons with disabilities, and persons with a Medicare card. AC Transit's bus fleet consists of 576 vehicles, including 354 standard 40-foot models, 86 60foot articulated models, 46 45-foot commuter coaches and 90 30-foot feeder buses. AC Transit operates from three divisions: Emeryville, East Oakland, and Hayward; as well as its central maintenance facility in East Oakland. AC Transit's administrative offices are at 1600 Franklin Street in downtown Oakland. Other facilities include the Training and Education Center in Hayward and five Transit Centers at Richmond Parkway, Eastmont Mall, Uptown, Contra Costa College and Ardenwood.

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

4JPage

214

Grant Activity Below is a list of AC Transit's open grants at the time of the review.

Grant Number

Grant Amount

Year Executed

Description

CA-03-0684-02

$970,874

2011

Bus & Bus-Related Equipment

CA-03-0798-03

$22,410,000

20Jl

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor Project

CA-04-0023-03

$1,442,100

2010

BRT & Emeryville Transit Center

CA-04-0 189-0 I

$6,677,074

2012

Fiscal Year (FY) 2010/1 I State of Good Repair (SGR)

CA-04-0263-00

$7,500,000

2014

SGR Farebox Replacement

CA-37-XJ87-00

$8,361

2014

Lifeline Job Access Reverse Commute (JAR) Funds- FY12

CA-57-0079-00

$200,000

2012

Intra-Vehicle Text Message Signs

CA-57-0111-00

$240,000

2014

Mobility Management Marketing

CA-58-0005-00

$4,000,000

2010

Demonstration- Hydrogen Refueling Stat.ion

CA-77-0003-00

$6,400,000

2010

Photovoltaic Installation

CA-88-000 1-00

$6,000,000

2011

FY2010 Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TJGGER) Grant

CA-90-Y410-00

$20,378,168

2006

FY2006 Formula Grant Application

CA-90-Y526-00

$39,023,504

2007

FY2007 Formula Grant Application

CA-90-Y613-00

$19,913,211

2008

FY2008 Formula Grant Application

CA-90-Y690-00

$34,141,647

2009

FY2009 Formula Grant Application

CA-90-2058-00

$16,863,872

2014

FY20 13 Formula Grant Application

CA-90-2153-00

$55,290,594

2014

FY20 14 Formula Grant Application

CA-95-X021-00

$10,515,624

2014

Line 51 Corridor Project

CA-95-X253-00

$1,802,676

2014

Spectrum Ridership

CA-95-X335-00

$1,225,539

2014

San Leandro BART Transit Center & East Bay BRT

Completed Projects Since the last Triennial Review, AC Transit has completed the following projects: o Replacement of the General Office Building heating ventilation and air conditioning system; o Construction of the Emeryville hydrogen fuel cell bus fueling station; o A computer aided dispatch/automated vehicle location (CAD/AVL) system replacement study; o Replacement of the Division 2 fire alarm panel; and o Installation ofthe Phase I solar panel at the Central Maintenance Facility.

51 Page

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

215

Projects Underway The following projects are underway: • East Bay Bus Rapid Transit; • Seminary Division hydrogen fuel cell bus fueling station construction; • Phase II solar panel installation at Division 2; • State of good repair farebox system replacement; • State of good repair elevator rehabilitation district-wide; • State of good repair general office building fayade rehab; • State of good repair Asset Management System; • Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction Project; • CADI AVL!Radio system replacement; and • Purchase of l 06 buses. Future Projects AC Transit is planning to implement ihe following projects: • Bus purchases (up to 223 buses); • Reopening and rehabilitation of Division 3 facility; and • Various smaller facility rehabilitation projects.

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

6JPage

216

IV.

Results ofthe Review

1.

Financial Management and Financial Capacity

Basic Requirement: The grantee must demonstrate the ability to match and manage FTA grant funds, cover cost increases and operating deficits, cover maintenance and operational costs for FTA funded facilities and equipment, as well as conduct and respond to applicable audits. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Financial Management and Financial Capacity.

2.

Technical Capacity

Basic Requirement: The grantee must be able to implement FTA funded projects in accordance with the grant application, Master Agreement, and all applicable laws and regulations, using sound management practices. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, deficiencies resulting from the ERM conducted were found with the FTA requirements for Technical Capacity.

Enhanced Review Module Inactive grants/untimely closeouts (79) During the initial assessment of AC Transit's FTA-funded grants, five grants had been inactive for one year or longer. At the time of the site visit, two grants remained inactive.

No funds had been drawn on grant CA-03-0684 since August 2012. The funds in this grant were to be used for construction-related activities for AC Transit's BRT project. The BRT project is ongoing and funds drawn from more recent grants have been used to support it. It is recommended that AC Transit spend the balance of funds remaining in this grant before spending funds from newer grants. No funds had been drawn on grant CA-90-Y526 since September 2011. The funds in this grant were to be used for roof replacement on one of AC Transit's facilities. The roof replacement has been completed, but nearly $300,000 remains unspent. It is recommended that AC Transit submit a budget revision to the FTA, which will allow it to spend the balance of funds and close the grant. Excessive delays in project implementation (98) During the site visit, four grants (CA-57-0079, CA-77-0003, CA-90-Y613, and CA-90-Y690) were identified as having milestone dates that had slipped, but had not been updated. Each of these grants had milestone dates that indicated that the grant would be closed prior to the site visit. However, each grant remained open at the time of the site visit and not all funds had been expended.

?I Page

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

217

Grant CA-57-0079 funded New Freedom projects. According to AC Transit staff, the grant budget was larger than the scope of the project warranted. The unspent funds will be deobligated and the grant will be closed by December 31, 2014. Grant CA-77-0003 funded the installation of solar panels at two AC Transit facilities. One facility is complete; the second site will be completed within the next month. It is estimated that $150,000 originally designated for force account work will not be spent. These funds will be deobligated and the grant will be closed. Grant CA-90-Y613 funds a hydrogen fueling facility, which is nearly complete. Punch list items are being completed by the contractor and testing of the fueling facility is underway. The balance of funds in this grant will cover retention payments to the contractor during the various stages of testing and acceptance of the facility by AC Transit. The grant will be closed by December 31, 2014. Grant CA-90-Y690 funds the installation of mobile data terminal units on AC Transit buses and the construction of the hydrogen fueling facility also funded by CA-90-Y613. The balance of funds in this grant will cover retention payments to the contractor during the various stages of testing and acceptance of the facility by AC Transit. The grant will be closed by December 31, 2014. Subsequent to the site visit and in response to the deficiency inactive grants/untimely closeouts (79), AC Transit worked with the FTA regional oftice to revise grant budgets so that funds can be expended and drawn down or deobligated and the grants closed. In response to the deficiency excessive delays in project implementation (98), AC Transit also submitted to the FTA regional office a recovery plan for the delayed projects, along with procedures for reporting on progress against the schedule quarterly in the MPRs. The recovery plan provided the FTA with such information as: the current status of each activity line item (ALI) within the grant; a narrative description of problems encountered in project implementation; a detailed discussion of budget and schedule changes; revised estimated completion dates for original estimated completion dates not met; and a detailed explanation of why scheduled milestones or completion dates were not met. Based upon the submitted corrective actions, these deficiencies are now closed.

3.

Maintenance

Basic Requirement: Grantees and subrecipients must keep federally funded vehicles, equipment and facilities in good operating condition. Grantees and subrecipients must keep ADA accessibility features on all vehicles, equipment and facilities in good operating order. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Maintenance.

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

BIPage

218

4.

Americans with Disabilities Act

Basic Requirement: Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) provide that no entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of transportation service. The law sets forth specific requirements for vehicle and facility accessibility and the provision of service, including complementary paratransit service. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, a deficiency was found with the USDOT requirements for ADA. Insufficient no-show policy (3 I 6) AC Transit's written no-show policy does not take into account frequency of travel prior to suspension. Further, the policy has a basic penalty for no-shows and late cancellations of a 30day suspension of service after six no-shows or late cancellations in a calendar quarter. The policy goes on to state that a continued pattern of no-shows or late cancellations after an original suspension has ended could result in suspension for longer periods. This policy does not meet the reasonableness requirement of 49 CFR 37.125(h).

Corrective Actions and Schedules: • For the deficiency, insufficient no-show policy (3I6) perform the following: o By December 19, 2014, submit to the FTA Region IX Civil Rights Officer documentation that AC Transit has immediately ceased all suspensions of paratransit service under the current no-show and late cancellation suspension policy and reinstated service to persons for whom service have been suspended under this policy. o

5.

By January 23, 2015, submit to the FTA Region IX Civil Rights Officer revised policies and public information materials for no-shows and suspensions, including templates for no-show notification, suspension and appeal letters relating to noshows, late cancellations, and suspensions.

Title VI

Basic Requirement: The grantee must ensure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participating in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance without regard to whether specific projects or services are federally funded. The grantee must ensure that federally supported transit services and related benefits are distributed in an equitable manner. Note: The 2014 Triennial Review covers a three-year period in which the FTA issued a revised circular for Title VI, which provided more information on how to comply and changed requirements for some grantees with populations over 200,000 persons. As of October I, 2012, grantees must comply with the requirements ofFTA C 4702.1B. The Triennial Review will look at compliance with the requirement ofFTA C 4702.1A for the period prior to October I, 2012, and compliance with the revised circular for activities after this date.

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

91Page

219

Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Title VI.

6.

Procurement

Basic Requirement: Grantees use their own procurement procedures that reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the process ensures competitive procurement and the procedures conform to applicable federal law, including 49 CFR Part 18 (specifically Section 18.36) and FTA Circular 4220.1F, "Third Party Contracting Guidance." Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Procurement. No FTA clauses (129) AC Transit's procurement contract for the purchase of bus fareboxes did not include all required FTA clauses. Responsibility determination deficiencies (344) AC Transit contract files did not contain documentation of a responsibility determination.

Subsequent to the site visit, AC Transit submitted to the FTA regional office revised procurement procedures that address the inclusion of all FTA required third party contract clauses and a detailed procedure for conducting and documenting contractor responsibility determinations prior to award of a contract. These deficiencies are now closed.

7.

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

Basic Requirement: The grantee must comply with 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Grantees also must create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the USDOT requirements for DBE.

8.

Legal

Basic Requirement: The grantee must be eligible and authorized under state and local law to request, receive, and dispense FTA funds and to execute and administer FTA funded projects. The authority to take actions and responsibility on behalf of the grantee must be properly delegated and executed. Grantees must comply with Restrictions on Lobbying requirements. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Legal.

10 I Page

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

220

9.

Satisfactory Continuing Control

Basic Requirement: The grantee must ensure that FTA-funded property will remain available to be used for its originally authorized purpose throughout its useful life until disposition. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Satisfactory Continuing Control.

10.

Planning/Program of Projects

Basic Requirement: The grantee must participate in the transportation planning process in accordance with FTA requirements, MAP-21, and the metropolitan and statewide planning regulations. Grantees must participate in a coordinated public transit-human services transportation planning process that identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes; provides strategies for meeting those local needs; and prioritizes transportation services for funding and implementation. Each recipient of a Section 5307 grant shall develop, publish, afford an opportunity for a public hearing on, and submit for approval, a POP. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Planning/POP.

11.

Public Comment on Fare Increases ami. Major Service Reductions

Basic Requirement: Section 5307 grantees are expected to have a written, locally developed process for soliciting and considering public comment before raising a fare or carrying out a major transportation service reduction. · Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Public Comment on Fare Increases and Major Service Reductions.

12.

Half Fare

Basic Requirement: For service supported with Section 5307 assistance, fares charged elderly persons, persons with disabilities or an individual presenting a Medicare card during off peak hours will not be more than one half the peak hour fares. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Half Fare.

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

111Page

221

13.

Charter Bus

Basic Requirement: Grantees are prohibited from using federally funded equipment and facilities to provide charter service if a registered private chatter operator expresses interest in providing the service. Grantees are allowed to operate community based charter services excepted under the regulations. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Charter Bus.

14.

School Bus

Basic Requirement: Grantees are prohibited from providing exclusive school bus service unless the service qualifies and is approved by the FTA Administrator under an allowable exemption. Federally funded equipment or facilities cannot be used to provide exclusive school bus service. School tripper service that operates and looks like all other regular service is allowed. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for School Bus.

15.

Safety and Security

Basic Requirement: As recipients of Section 5307 funds, grantees must annually certify that they are spending at least one percent of such funds for transit security projects or that such expenditures for security systems are not necessary. Finding: During this Trien_nial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Safety and Security.

16.

Drug Free Workplace and Drug and Alcohol Program

Basic Requirement: All grantees are required to maintain a drug-free workplace for all employees and to have an ongoing drug-free awareness program. Grantees receiving Section 5307, 5309 or 5311 funds that have safety-sensitive employees must have a drug and alcohol testing program in place for such employees. Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, a deficiency was found with the FTA requirements for Drug-Free Workplace and Drug and Alcohol Program. Drug and alcohol policy lacking required elements (28) AC Transit's Drug and Alcohol policy has not been updated since 2005 and does not contain all required elements.

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

121 Page

222

Corrective Action and Schedule: • For the deficiency, drug and alcohol policy lacking required elements (28) perform the following: o By January 23, 2015, submit to the FTA regional office an amended policy that has been adopted by the governing board and re-communicated to all affected employees.

17.

Equal Employment Opportunity

Basic Requirement: The grantee must ensure that no person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability be excluded from participating in, or denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination in employment under any project, program, or activity receiving federal financial assistance under the federal transit laws. (Note: EEOC's regulation only identifies/recognizes religion and not creed as one of the protected groups.) Finding: During this Triennial Review of AC Transit, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO).

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

13IPage

223

V.

Summary of Findings Review Area

1.

Financial Management and Financial Capacity

2.

Technical Capacity

Deficiency

Finding

Corrective Action

Response Date

Date Closed

ND D

79: Inactive grants/untimely

closeouts

Work with the FTA regional office to revise grant budgets so that funds can be expended and drawn down or deobligated and the grants

January 23, 2015

October 10,2014

January 23,2015

October 10, 2014

closed.

98: Excessive delay in project

implementation

Submit to the FTA regional office a recovery plan for the delayed projects and report on progress against the schedule quarterly in the MPRs. The recovery plan shall provide the FTA with such information as the current status of each activity line item (ALI) within

the grant, a narrative description of problems encountered in project implementation, a detailed discussion of budget and schedule changes, revised estimated completion dates when original estimated completion dates are not met, and a detailed explanation of why scheduled milestones or completion dates were not met. 3.

Maintenance

4.

ADA

ND D

316: Insufficient no-show policy

.

5.

Tit1eV1

6.

Procurement

Submit to the FfA Region IX Civil Rights Officer documentation that AC Transit has immediately ceased all suspensions ofparatransit service under the current no-show and late cancellation suspension policy and reinstated service to persons for whom service have been suspended under this policy.

December 19,2014

Submit to the FTA Region IX Civil Rights Officer revised policies and public information materials for noshows and suspensions, including templates for no-show notification, suspension and appeal letters relating to no-shows, late cancellations, and suspensions .

January 23, 2015

Submit to the FTA regional office revised procurement procedures that address the inclusion of all FTA required third party contract clauses.

January 23, 2015

ND

D

129: No FTA clauses

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

September 29,2014

141 Page

224

Review Area

Deficiency

Finding

7.

DBE

ND

8.

Legal

ND

9.

Satisfactory Continuing Control

ND

10. Planning! POP

ND

II. Public Comment on

ND

Corrective Action

Respons.e Date

Date Closed September 29,2014

344: Responsibility determination deficiencies

Submit to the FTA regional office a detailed procedure for conducting and documenting contractor responsibility determinations prior to award of a contract.

January 23,2015

28: Drug and alcohol policy lacking required elements

Submit to the FTA regional office an amended policy that has been adopted by the governing board and re-communicated to all affected employees.

January 23, 2015

Fare Increase and Major Service Reductions 12. Half Fare

ND

13. Charter Bus

ND

14. School Bus

ND

15. Safety and Security

ND

16. Drug-Free Workplace/ Drug and Alcohol Program

17. EEO

D

ND

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

lSI Page

225

I.

Attendees Name

Phone Number

Title/Organization

E-mail Address

ACTransit Alan Parella Chio Saechao Ralph Martini Chris Andrichak Jon Medwin Ben Stupka Claudia White James Pachan Fred Walls Kerry Jackson Salvador Llamas Dave Miller Rick Wrzesinski Lita Jamerson Sherri A. Stokes

Internal Audit Manager Internal Auditor Controller Grants Management Procurement & Materials Grants Management Grants Interim CFO I AC Transit Interim Materials Superintendent Protective Services Manager Director of Maintenance Maintenance Superintendent Facilities Maintenance Manager Substance Abuse Program Administrator GM- EEO Compliance Office

510-891-7203 SI0-891-7136 510-891-7144 510-891-4855 SI0-891-5474 5I0-89I-5471 SI0-891-4836 510-891-72I5 510-577-8835

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

SI0-891-4797 SI0-577-8803 510-577-8887 SI0-577-8810

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

5 I 0-89I -4808

[email protected]

5I0-89I-4848

[email protected]

4I5-744-31I3

[email protected]

4I5-744-0I 19

[email protected]

415-744-2658

[email protected]

4 I 5-744-2740

[email protected]

4 I0-404-7443 215-496-9100 585-738-I912

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

FTA Region IX Bernardo Bustamante Matthew Butner ~-------------

Roxana Hernandez Philoki Baros

Reviewers Jim Buckley Kristen Szwajkowski Charles Walker

Director, Office of Program Management and Oversight Transportation Program ~~~ialist

Transportation Program Specialist Transportation Program Specialist Milligan & Company, LLC Milligan & Company, LLC Milligan & Company, LLC

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

----

161 Page

226

II.

Appendices

No appendices included in this report.

17[Page

2014 Triennial Review- AC Transit

227

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-066 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Consultant Services for the East Bay Paratransit Consortium

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider authorizing the General Manager to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Consultant Services for the Paratransit Coordinator's Office (PCO) for the East Bay Paratransit Consortium (EBPC). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires all fixed route operators to provide "complementary paratransit service" to persons who are unable to use fixed route service due to a physical or cognitive disability. AC Transit and BART chose to meet this federal requirement by forming the East Bay Paratransit Consortium (EBPC) via a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to provide ADA mandated paratransit services in the agencies' overlapping service area . The Program Coordinator's Office (PCO) was created at the inception of the EBPC to serve as a neutral, central point of contact between AC Transit and BART, coordinate the activities of the paratransit program, prepare and analyze financial and detailed operating data, staff the Service Review Advisory Committee (SRAC) and oversee activities of the Paratransit Broker. The current contract with CGR Consultants will expire on June 30, 2015. The proposed RFP calls for a three (3) year fixed fee contract with two (2) one (1) year extensions. Although AC Transit holds the contract with the PCO, BART is a co-signator to the contract and supports the continuation of this critical function. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: Prior to July 1, 2010, AC Transit's responsibility for funding the PCO was 69 percent of the total cost. It was determined, and BART agreed, that both agencies derive equal benefit from the services performed by the PCO. The costs for the PCO are now a 50/50 split between the agencies.

228

Report No. 15-066 Page 2 of 3 The FY 14/15 total contracted cost is $290K of which AC Transit is responsible for 50% or $145K. With the refinement of the work required of the PCO, it is anticipated that the District's obligation will be less than this amount on an annual basis. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires all fixed route operators to provide "complementary paratransit service" to persons who are unable to use fixed route service due to a physical or cognitive disability. AC Transit and BART chose to meet this federal requirement by forming the East Bay Paratransit Consortium (EBPC) via a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to provide ADA mandated paratransit services in the agencies' overlapping service area. The Program Coordinator's Office (PCO) was created at the inception of the EBPC (1994) to serve as a neutral, central point of contact between AC Transit and BART. The office coordinates the activities of both agency's staff, prepares financial and detailed operating data and oversees activities of the Paratransit Broker. The PCO has provided significant benefit by acting as a central point of communication and oversight, and supporting the effective participation of both agencies. The PCO has provided a forum for the agencies' concerns and priorities, and has acted as single point of contact for consumers and other interested parties. A significant part of the PCO function is the tracking and analysis of a large amount of operational data relative to the requirements of the ADA and the terms of the Broker contract. The PCO provides the critical function of impartial, independent review for accuracy and the tracking of trends and indicators in the Broker's performance, service quality and budget. The PCO focuses exclusively on EBPC issues. The PCO function is well received by both internal and external auditors as an effective method of providing checks and balances to the EBPC. In the development of the RFP, the EBPC Program Managers took the opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the Broker and PCO activities due to the departure of the Broker's (Transdev, previously Veolia) General Manager of eighteen (18) years. As a result, the Broker's office will take over some of the more administrative functions previously provided by the PCO. The PCO responsibilities have been refined and down scaled. The Broker's staff will continue to perform work that is currently generated from their office, with a review performed by the PCO, and will absorb a limited amount of new tasks with existing staff. The RFP calls for the PCO to perform, among other activities, the following functions: • • • • •

Review and oversight of all financial and operating data from the Broker; Development of all Claims and Compliance reports; (Measure B, BB, Measure J and NTD reporting) Development of Agency Budgets and Budget Projections; Collection of all audit materials and data to insure consistency between the agencies; Development of an electronic and hard copy Data Retention Plan; and

229

Report No. 15-066 Page 3 of 3 •

Special Projects, as assigned by the Program Managers, for example, Emergency Planning and Measure BB Program Implementation

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The PCO provides a significant benefit to the agencies by: • acting as a central point of communication. • supporting the effective participation of both agencies. • providing a forum for the agencies' concerns and priorities. • acting as single point of contact for consumers and other interested parties. • focusing exclusively on EBPC issues. • providing checks and balances to the EBPC for both internal and external auditing There are no disadvantages to releasing the RFP.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: With BART's approval, either BART or AC Transit could bring this function in-house. However, over the years staff has analyzed the cost of in-house versus a contracted position and has found that the cost of the contracted position has always been more cost-effective. Largely due to the required skill level of the PCO and the fringe costs of each of the agencies. Additionally, the agencies would lose the benefit of an independent third party liaison to coordinate the functions ofthe EBPC.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None

ATTACHMENTS: 1: EBP Operations Report- December 2014- Sample Department Head Approval: Reviewed

by:

Prepared

by:

Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Construction & Engineering Officer Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Mallory Nestor-Brush, Accessible Services Manager

230

Staff Report 15-066 Attachment 1

East Bay Paratransit - - - - - 1722 Broadway Oakland, CA 94612 Operations Report '"··

December 2014

. ,;:',fJY 14~.1.5 First Half Report

",,

,;(j';i

''"'•'if,

Ridership, Productivity, Key Indicators

''

/'" ,,

"::::;::_,-,,'

/,l·';

,.

Ridership demand through December amounted to 363,702 ~'~~W~~~~f~ traiJ§~~H~d and is 2.9% over budget or about 10,000 more passengers (page 7). AD~i'R~!?§~rjgEjfs, or trips, for the first six months totaled 312,887 versus FY13/14 results of 300,692:;~~P~~]'il:n increase of 4% in trips from the same period last fiscal year. '··· · · Passengers transported per weekday averaged ..::.Lfo..::;; results averaged 879 over the first six mnnth·"•'·'c Productivity for the month was a low 1 that month. Year-to-date productivity performance was 88.7% in De·cernb•3r •••'If""~~' September overall on-time narfn•·~ of trips scheduled in December 3.9% in December, likely due to 172 in December and totc1led Complaints have been months of this fiscal year. were 0.15% of revenue pa~;ser dropped calls with five Non-rillaiO

The

ber and not atypical for productivity 1.51. On-time greater than 60 minutes late. Since than 90%. Total denials were 0.27% Rider fault no-shows inched up to the year is 3.2%. Missed trips were I year averaging 0.63% during the first six ,FY 13/14 averaged 0.54%. Commendations · 0.18% for the year, so far. Call center rat 6.9%. Accidents totaled 18 in December

,_, , budget by $542K or 3.1 %, primarily because of increased provider ,:·,i·over budget, due to higher demand, but decreasing fuel costs are · " damages have been high so this FY: $252,225.

Following results, AC Transit is about $628K over their budget of $23.6M for the year or 5.3% (page 9) and BART is 2.0% under their budget by $113K (page 10). Fuel costs for the first-half are found on page 20. Overall costs decreased from an average of $3.84 per gallon in 01 to $3.09 per gallon in 02. Liquidated damages are summarized on page 21 for both quarters.

1

Phone: (510) 287-5000 or Fax: (510) 287-5069 www .eastbayparatransit.org 231

FY 2014-15 EAST BAY PARATRANSIT

Performance Indicator Report- Systemwide (incl.

area of EBPC)

-$1

$424,822 $4,886 $0 $23,882 $6,000 $0 $0 $3,021,642 -$233,071 $2,788.571

IOr1e time audit erose out, prior contract SP Rate per TBHrs. Cost/Passenger Cost/ ADA Passenger(trip)

232

1.78 1.53

1.79 1.55

1.74 1.50

1.68 1.45

as a % of rides scheduled Fault N/S & Late Cancels NIS & Late Cancels as a % of rides Pick Ups {all no shows) Pick Ups as a% of rides scheduled Overall Overall as a % of rides

II 1 I

Driver Complaints Equipment I Vehicle Scheduling Other Provider w

Phone/Reservations Broker Dispatch Other

calls Standard = < 5% calls per hour in queue for reservation (min) lst•ndlard = < 2 minutes

1.1

233

234

235

This page intentionally blank 

236

Report No: Meeting Date:

TI'?9'NS/T

15-028 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

SUBJECT:

Destruction of Designated Records Maintained by the District Secretary's Office

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-004 authorizing the destruction of designated records maintained by the District Secretary's Office. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Public Utilities Code allows for the sale, destruction, or other disposition of any record, map, book, or paper in the possession of the District or any officer or employee upon a determination by the Board of Directors that it is of no further value to the District. The District Secretary's Office has determined that the records identified in this report have fulfilled their administrative, fiscal and/or legal function and requests authorization to have these records destroyed. BUDGETARY/FISCALIMPACT: There is no direct budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Public Utilities Code Section 25772 provides that whenever the Board by resolution determines that any record, map, book, or paper in the possession of the District or any officer or employee thereof is of no further value to the District, the Board may authorize its sale, destruction, or other disposition. The District Secretary's Office has determined that certain records are no longer of value to the District and requests authorization to have said records destroyed. Outlined below are the types of records, their date range and the statutory retention period for each: Record Type Board/Committee Agendas* (Paper)

Date Range 2009-2012

Retention Period Minimum of 2 years per Govt. Code § 34090 and Board Policy 100, Section 6.23.

237

Report No. 15-028 Page 2 of 2 Board/Committee Action Summaries (Electronic)

2009-2012

Minimum of 2 years per Govt. Code § 34090.

Board/Committee Audio Recordings

2009-2011

Minimum of 3 months if meeting minutes exist per Gov't. Code§ 34090.7. If not, minimum of 2 years per Gov't. Code § 34090. OR Minimum of 3 years per AC Transit Board Policy 100, Section 6.23.

Conflict-of-Interest Filings Board, District Employees, AAC (Paper/Electronic)

2003-2006

Minimum of 7 years per Gov't. Code§ 81009(e).

*Agendas appearing on the District's website will be retained in electronic format as posted until such time they are permanently removed from the website. A complete list of all records recommended for destruction is provided in Exhibit A to Resolution 15-004 attached. The General Counsel has reviewed the list of affected records and concurs with the request for destruction as they have fulfilled their administrative, fiscal and/or legal function.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: There is no advantage to retaining records after their administrative, fiscal and/or legal function has been fulfilled.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The alternative would be to retain the above records for a longer period of time, however, the retention periods outlined above are conservative and in accordance with government statutes and Board Policy.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy 100- Board of Directors Rules for Procedure DS Memo No. 12-014: Resolution No. 12-003 authorizing the Destruction of Designated Records Maintained by the District Secretary's Office

ATIACHMENTS: 1: Resolution No. 15-004 with Exhibit A

Reviewed by:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel

Prepared by:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

238

ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 15-004 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF DESIGNATED RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE DISTRICT SECRETARY WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code Section 25772 provides that whenever the Board by resolution determines that any record, map, book, or paper in the possession of the District or any officer or employee thereof is of no further value to the District, the Board may authorize its sale, destruction, or other disposition; and WHEREAS, The District Secretary's Office has a need to eliminate certain records that are no longer of value to the District and requests the approval of the Board of Directors to destroy said records; and WHEREAS, said request is in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in Board Policy 100, Section 6.21 (audio files), Government Code Section 34090 (agendas and action summaries); and Government Code Section 81009 (conflict-of-interest filings); and WHEREAS, the General Counsel's Office has reviewed and approved the request for the destruction of the records designated herein. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows:

Section 1. That the records identified in Exhibit A of this resolution are of no further value to the District. Section 2. Authorizes and orders the District Secretary to destroy the records designated in Exhibit A of this resolution that exceed the retention periods provided in Board Policy 100 and California Government Code Sections 34090 and 81009. Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 111h day of February 2015.

H. E. Christian Peeples, President

Resolution No. 15-004

Page 1 of2 239

Attest:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary I, Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of 1 the Board of Directors held on the 11 h day of February, 2015 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

Approved as to Form and Content:

Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel

Resolution No. 15-004

PageZofZ 240

Resolution No. 15-004 Exhibit A

DISTRICT RECORDS DESIGNATED FOR DESTRUCTION

Committee and Joint Meetings Inclusive

Board and Committee Agendas (Paper)

Resolution No. 15-004, Exhibit A 241

This page intentionally blank 

242

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-051 February 11, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

SUBJECT:

Board Policy 163 - Public Hearing Process for the Board of Directors

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTJON(S): Consider approving amendments to Board Policy 163 - Public Hearing Process for the Board of Directors.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Board Policy 163 is in need of amendment to consolidate the Board's existing public hearing processes into one complete policy. The proposed amendments address the matters that require two public hearings, when hearings should be held, public hearings held by staff, hearing procedures, and the continuance of a hearing. Staff recommends the approval of the proposed amendments.

BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary/fiscal impact associated with this report.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Board Policy 163 was adopted by the Board in January 1994 and sets forth the parameters for conducting public hearings. A recent review of the policy against similar language in Board Policy 100 (Board of Director Rules for Procedure) revealed inconsistencies between the two policies that needed to be rectified . Staff is proposing to consolidate the topic of public hearings into one policy and is proposing amendments to Board Policy 163 to accomplish this. The existing language in Board Policy 100 will be removed as part of a larger amendment to Board Policy 100 in March 2015. A summary of the major amendments to Board Policy 163 are as follows :

Section 11.- Public Hearings: This section of the policy was amended to incorporate language from Policy 100 which requires that two public hearings be held on significant matters unless waived by the Board. It also provides that whenever possible, public hearings should be held in conjunction with a regular Board meeting and addresses situations where the Board has directed staff to hold a public hearing. It further denotes a reference that fare and service changes are subject to Board Policy 551 with respect to a Title VI Equity Analysis for service and fare changes. 243

Report No. 15-051 Page 2 of 2 Section 111.4.- Other Notices This section was amended to conform to existing practices. Section IV.- Conduct of Public Hearings This section of the policy was amended to again incorporate language from Policy 100 regarding hearing procedures. Minor updates were made to conform the policy to the Board's current practices. This section was also updated to address hearings that are continued from one meeting to another as well as posting requirements. In addition, minor amendments were made to the outline and format of the policy to clean up its appearance and improve readability. Finally, a member of the Board had requested a review of Board Policy 163 with respect to environmental matters. That review was conducted and no amendments are recommended with respect to this issue as the policy makes the appropriate references to Board Policy 512 (Environmental Evaluations of Transit District Projects) which details in full the procedures for environmental matters. Policy 512 is currently under a full scale review by the District's outside environmental consultant. It is anticipated that amendments to this policy will be brought before the Board in the next 90 days for consideration. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The primary advantage of the proposed consolidation of the Board's public hearing policies is to have one accurate, up-to-date and consistent policy. There are no disadvantages associated with the recommendations outlined herein. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: There are no alternatives to the course of action recommended in this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy 100- Board of Directors Rules for Procedure Board Policy 163- Public Hearing Process for the Board of Directors ATTACHMENTS: 1: Board Policy 163

2:

Excerpt from Board Policy 100, Section 6.8 (Public Hearings)

Reviewed by:

David J. Armijo, General Manager Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Sally Goodman, Title VI Coordinator (Policy only)

Prepared by:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

244

Staff Report 15-051, Attachment 1

Policy No. 163

AC Transit BOARD POLICY

Category: Board & General Administrative Matters

PUBLIC HEARINGS PROCESS FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS I.

PURPOSE The public hearing process is one mechanism used by the Board of Directors and the District to solicit and receive public comments about decisions affecting residents and riders.:. of AC Transit District. In adopting this policy if-!l_is the intent of the Board of Directors to encourage the receipt of public comments so that information received may be considered as part of the decision making process. The provisions of this policy shall be in addition to procedures established in Section 6.8 of Board Policy No. 100, Rules for Procedure.

II. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings hearings shall be scheduled by the Board of Directors to consider the matters listed below identified in this section. In addition , the Board may, as it deems appropriate, schedule additional public hearings for the consideration of subjects not listed below. Unless waived by the Board. two publ ic hearings shall be scheduled on significant matters (fare increases. major service changes. environmental matters) and whenever possible, shall be held on the date of and in conjunction with a regularly scheduled Board meeting. However. the Board in its discretion may determine that a public hearing be conducted by staff absent of the Board. In those situations. staff shall adhere to the requirements outlined in this pol icy and the Board shall review all public comment received prior to rendering a decision on the subject matter of the hearing in accordance with Section IV.B of this policy. [Note: All fare and service changes are subject to Board Policy 551 , Section Ill. Title VI Service and Fare Equity Analysis.]

A. Fares Fares shall include any increase in charges and fees assessed for use of District public transit services including cash fares , ticket fares, pass fares, transfer fares, or amendments to eligibility criteria for fare categories. Reduced Decreased or promotional fare adjustments shall not be subject to public hearings. "Promotional fares" shall include modifications to fare structures which are established on a short-term basis for the specific purpose of promoting service and encouraging increased ridership.

B. Major Adjustments of Transit Service Major Adjustments of Transit Service include: 1.

___... -·{ Forma

...._ ___________ ___ ___ ___ ____________ _____

A new transit route; or

Page 1 of 6

Adopted: Amended: 245

1/94 3/98;8/14; 2/15

2.

New service on streets (excluding major arterial streets and streets designated as a truck route) not previously used by any route; or

3.

Any aggregate change of 10 percent or more of the number of transit revenue miles or hours system-wide; or

4.

Any aggregate change of 20 percent or more of the number of transit revenue miles or hours in one of the 4 planning areas of the District (West Contra Costa County, North Alameda County, Central Alameda County, South Alameda County); or

5.

Any aggregate change of 25 percent or more of the number of transit revenue vehicle hours or miles of a route computed on a daily basis for the day of the week for which the change is proposed.

6.

EXCEPTIONS: Exceptions to the major adjustments of transit service include: a.

A reassignment of route numbers resulting from combining existing routes, which results in the creation of a new route "number''

b.

Standard seasonal variations, unless the variation , as compared to operations during the previous season, falls within the definitions of major adjustments of transit service listed above

c.

Emergency service changes, including changes in routes or service frequencies which may be necessitated due to a disaster which severely impairs public health or safety, changes in access to public streets, or the ability of District equipment to travel on public streets. Emergency service changes may be implemented immediately without a public hearing provided that a finding identifying the circumstances under which the change is being taken is made by the General Manager and a subsequent public hearing is held if the change is to remain in effect longer than 180 days

d.

The restoration of service which had been eliminated within the past ten years due to budget constraints, provided the service runs on the same route as it had prior to its elimination, subject to minor deviations which do not exceed the major adjustment of transit service requirements above

e.

The introduction or discontinuance of short-term or temporary service which will be/has been in effect for less than twelve months

f.

Changes to service on a route with fewer than ten total trips in a typical service day

g.

Discontinuance of District-operated service that is replaced by a different mode or operator, providing a service with the same or better headways, fare, transfer options, span of service, and stops served

3..-~Environmental

lmpaot Revie•NsMatters

Page 2 of 6

Adopted : Amended: 246

1/94 3/98;8/14; 2/15

Environmental Impact Reviews , Reports or Negative Declarations required by the+-------California Environmental Quality Act, State Implementing Guidelines or Board Policy No. 512. D. Other Public Hearings

Other Public Hearings shall be conducted as may be required by federal or state laws or regulations, including but not limited to, public hearings required prior to t he submission of Federal Transit Administration F+A grant applications. (Note: District public hearings are not required for District grant applications when said grants are part of a regional grant application process and public hearings are coordinated and conducted by the Metropolitan Commission or other regional agency or operator.) Ill. ESTABLISHMENT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Board Authority to Set Public Hearings

In order to provide sufficient notice of upcoming hearings, the Board of Directors shall designate the time and place for public hearings at least 28 days in advance of the proposed hearing date, unless more notice is required by law. Unless otherwise required by law, the Board may provide for minor modifications to the 28-day advance notice requirements in those situations when a finding can be made that such modification will not diminish fulfilling the public notice procedures outlined below. B. Legal Publication of Notice

Once the Board has decided to hold set a public hearing , notice of the public hearing shall be prepared to include a general description of the public hearing subject matter and the date, time and location of the public hearing. Notices shall be published once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the District. Except as otherwise provided in subsection a-~of this section, the first publication shall occur not less than 14 days prior to the public hearing date. The second publication shall occur not less than 7 days prior to the public hearing but not less than 5 days after the first publication. C. Special Provisions Regarding Environmental Matters

In the case of public hearings relating to negative declarations or environmental impact reports, expanded legal notice or public review and comment periods may apply. In such situations, the General Counsel shall review and determine additional public comment and notification periods which may be required by State or Federal law or regulation or Board Policy No. 512. 4. Other Notices

Notices of public hearings shall be sent to city councils, boards of supervisors or school districts that oversee areas affected by the subject of the public hearing or other public agencies as determined by the General Manager. In addition to the above legal notices, the General Manager or the Board may direct distribution of additiona l notices to enhance public awareness of and engagement in the Page 3 of 6

Adopted: Amended: 247

1/94 3/98; 8/14 ; 2/15

proposed public hearing shall be distributed. These notices may include, but are not limited to: (a) Publications in newspapers oriented to specific groups or neighborhoods that may be affected by the subject of the public hearing; (b) Direct mail notices to neighborhoods that may be affected by the subject of the public hearing; (c) Informational signs and/or fliers placed on buses and/or bus stop poles on the affected routes as the situation may warrant; (d) Press releases to area newspapers in the affected areas; and/or (e) Display advertisements in local newspapers(s) in the affected areas. IV. CONDUCT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hearing Procedures

Unless the Board determines otherwise. pPublic hearings wrn-shall be conducted in conjunction with at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors , adjourned regular or at a special meeting if necessarv.of the Board of Directors. Proceedings shall generally include, but are not limited to. the following : 1. An aAnnouncement of the purpose of the hearing. 2. At the discretion of the Board President,Introduction of the Directors and other Officers and Staff of the District who are present (at the discretion of the Board President). 3. An introduction by the Board President, the General Manager, or the General Manager's designee, of the subject matter being considered at the public hearing. 4. An announcement by the General Counsel of the ground rules for the hearing. including: a.

The need for speakers forms to be completed by each speaker so that+-.... each individual may be recognized in an orderly manner:

,..... ___ __ __ _

b.

The time limit for speakers shall be limited to two (2) minutes for individuals and organizations. unless. at the discretion of the Board President or by determination of a majority of the Board, said time limit is extended or reduced . Whenever possible. a timer shall be used to indicate when a speaker's time is about to expire and has expired;

c.

Announcement that the District Secretary may call speakers in groups of three (3) to five (5) in order to expedite the orderly movement of speakers to the podium.

4.

Announcement that each speaker will only have one opportunity to speak on the subject of the hearing and shall not be recognized to speak again.

Page 4 of 6

Adopted: Amended: 248

1/94 3/98 ;8/ 14; 2/15

A recognized speaker may not assign any of his/her time to another individual; except with the permission of the Board President. d.

Limitations on signage. Individuals attending the meeting. regardless of+..... _ whether or not they address the Board, may not bring in signs that are attached to a holder of any kind (including but not limited to wood. metal. plastic. or rolled cardboard tubing) or which are of such heavy construction that may reasonably injure or harm others.

an+···--···{ ~~~~~

5. Receipt of public comments. (Comments are typically preceded by announcement that speaker forms should be completed by each speaker so that each individual may be recognized in an orderly manner. The allocation of time pe r speaker shall be pursuant to time limitations established under Board Policy No. 100, Ru les for Procedures.)

6. Prior to the initiation of a publ ic hearing or prior to the close of a publ ic hearing,+·--·--··{ Forma The Board may elect to continue the public hearing to another meeting to receive additional comments. The date. time and place of any contin ued hearing shall be included in the Motion for Continuance. As soon as practical after the Board 's action to continue the item. but no more than 24 hours after that action, a notice of continuance shall be posted in the District General Offices in a location which is freely accessible to the public.

l~~~~~

L__Following receipt of oral and/or written public comments, the public hearing shall._ ........ be closed and the decision rendered at that meeting or another meeting announced by the Board President. If the Board chooses not to take action immediately following the close of the public hearing, the Board President shall announce the time and date at which the Board will next consider the decision. How soon the Board makes its decision after the close of the public hearing is within the Board's discretion, unless a State or Federal law or regulation or Board policy requires a decision within a specific period of time. B. Absence of Board members at a Public Hearing

If any Boardmember(s) or a quorum of the Board is absent from any public hearing, the public hearing may proceed and copies of the District Secretary's summary of the hearing (when minutes of the meeting cannot be prepared and approved in time for the meeting when the public hearing item will be considered), approved minutes, or an audio recording of said hearing shall be provided to the absent Boardmember(s) prior to the vote on the decision(s) resulting from the public hearing. Each absent Boardmember shall state on the record that he/she reviewed the District Secretary's summary of the hearing, the approved minutes or listened to the audio tape prior to participating in the decision(s). C. Written Comments

In addition to oral comments, written comments will be accepted prior to the close of the public hearing. Copies of all written comments shall be provided, or read , to all Boardmembers prior to their decision on the matter, including any Boardmember(s) who were absent when the public hearing occurred.

Page 5 of 6

Adopted: Amended: 249

1/94 3/98;8/14: 2/15

D. Record of Hearing

As provided for in Section 6 A-&-20 of the Board Policy No . 100, Rules for Procedure, the minutes of the Board of Director's meeting shall constitute the record of the public hearing . Audio recordings of said public hearings shall be maintained in accordance with the above Board Policy . Court reporter services shall be provided at the direction of the Board of Directors or as requested by the District Secretary, General Manager, or General Counsel..

Adopted: Amended:

Page 6 of 6

250

1/94 3/98;8/14; 2/15

Staff Report lS-051, Attachment 2 All ordinances shall be published after passage once a week for two consecutive weeks. Ordinances shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of final passage except those ordinances (a) relating to elections, (b) specifically required by law to take immediate effect, (c) relating to taxation or (d) those adopted for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety. Passage of an ordinance shall be deemed to include authorization of the necessary expenses of publication. (Ref: PUC Sec. 24533, 24909, 24910, 24912, 24938; GC Sec. 6066; GC Sec. 3751 (5200)) PUBLIC HEARINGS. Upon the request of the Board of Directors SECTION 6.8 and as conferred or imposed by law, public hearings shall be conducted by the Board of Directors. Two public hearings shall be scheduled on significant matters (fare increases, major service changes, environmental documents) and whenever possible, shall be held on the date of and, if possible, in conjunction with one of the regularly scheduled meetings. The time of the public hearings shall be determined by the Board at the time of setting the public hearing. Notifications of such hearings and the manner of conducting them shall be in accordance with applicable state and federal laws and Board Policy No. 163. The preceding shall include, but may not be limited to: (a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

(h) (i)

(k)

The announcement of the purpose of the hearing; Introduction of the Directors and other Officers and Staff of the District by the Board President (at the discretion of the Board President); An introduction of the subject matter by the Board President, the General Manager or the General Manager's designee; Announcement that speakers forms should be completed by each speaker so that each individual may be recognized in an orderly manner; Announcement that speakers shall be limited to two (2) minutes for individuals and organizations, unless, at the discretion of the Board President, or by determination of a majority of the Board, said time limit may be extended or reduced. Whenever possible, a timing light shall be used to indicate when a speaker's time is about to expire and has expired. The District Secretary may call speakers in groups of three (3) to five (5) in order to expedite the orderly movement of speakers to the podium. Once an individual has spoken he/she shall not be recognized again. A recognized speaker may not assign any of his/her time to another individual, except with the permission of the Board President. Individuals attending the meeting, regardless of whether or not they address the Board, may not bring in signs that are attached to a holder of any kind (including but not limited to wood, metal, plastic, or rolled cardboard tubing) or which are of such heavy construction that may reasonably injure or harm others. Following the receipt of testimony, the public hearing shall be closed and the decision rendered at that meeting or another meeting announced by the Board President. The Board may elect to continue the public hearing to another meeting to receive additional comments. The date, time and place of any continued hearing shall be included in the Motion for Continuance. (Ref: Board Policy No. 163; see this Policy for more details on public hearings.)"

SECTION 6.9 PUBLIC COMMENTS. The Board of Directors shall accept public comments and testimony on specific agenda items as well as on matters not specifically appearing on the agenda. The agenda for regular meetings shall request that members of the public complete a speaker's form in order to expedite recognizing speakers at the appropriate time during the meeting. The completion of a speaker's form is not a prerequisite for addressing the Board of Directors. However, if a form is not filled out, the individual shall be requested to RULES FOR PROCEDURE- POLICY NO. 100

Adopted: 9/90 Amendments: 11/94. 2/95. 4/95. 11/96. 2/97. 4/97. 9/97. 1/98. 8/98. 4/99. 7/99. 9/99. 2/00. 3/00. 8/01. 2/02. 4/03. 12/03. 3/04. 6/04. 5/07. 7/07. 9/07. 3/08. 2/09. 5/09. 7/10.12/10. 2/11. 5/11. 8/11; 2/12; 5/12; 2/13; 11/14 Page 22 251

This page intentionally blank 

252

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

The District Secretary will report on the recommendations made by the Committees, including those items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda.

PLEASE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE SECTIONS OF THIS AGENDA PACKAGE FOR STAFF REPORTS

253

This page intentionally blank 

254

AGENDA PlANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING liSTS

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Monthly Legislative Report [Updates on State, Federal, Regional and Local Legislation, including Measure Band the APTA Reauthorization process for T-4]. Annual State/Federal Advocacy Program Pending Not Scheduled Status report on the Oral History Project. [Request from President Peeples to retain on long-term pending. Staff to continue efforts to locate funds, hire personnel utilizing grant funds, and contact local museums to determine if there is interest in taking on the project]. • Report on how the District reaches out to non-riders for their opinions about AC Transit's service. [Requested by Director Harper -1/14/15] Survey non-passengers to find out why they don't ride the bus. [Requested by Director Davis 1/14/15] Report authorizing the sale of full bus wraps on five percent of the District's revenue fleet [Retained in Committee 1/28/15 pending further study of issues such as passenger accessibility, safety, and passenger orientation on the route- Reference Report 14-048]

April Review and discussion of Director Harper's suggested formula for evaluating whether funds generated by Measure V V have been expended in Special District Two. [Requested by Director Davis - 12/10/14] May be referred to Board Retreat August • Development of a policy concerning ex parte communications and disclosures by Directors during the entire procurement process from issuance of an RFP, IFB, or RFQ through protest. It was suggested that staff review the California Public Utilities Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure pertaining to ex parte situations. [Requested by President Peeples- 9/5/12] September Report on the advisability of having the Internal Audit Department report directly to the Board. [Requested by President Peeples- 5/28/14] Referred to September Board Retreat Monthly • Report on Investments • Fiscal Policies (Review one per month) • Budget Update Bi-Monthly Budget Update

Agenda Planning February 11, 2015

Page1of4 255

AGENDA PlANNING/ STANDING COMMITIEE PENDING liSTS

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Finance and Audit Committee, Cont. Quarterly Reports (Nov. Feb, May, Aug) • Board/Officer Travel/Meeting Expense Employee Out-of-State Travel Surplus/Obsolete Materials • Contracts/Purchasing Activity Report Semi Annual Reports DBE/FTA Report and DBE Goal Update (May/Nov) Annual Reports • Appropriations Limit (June); Adoption (July) Audit Engagement Letter (June) Budget Calendar (Nov) Externally Funded Welfare to Work (Nov) • Parcel Tax Oversight Committee (Dec to Board) Year-End Audited Financial Statements (Nov) Pending Not Scheduled • Report on Other Post-Employment Benefits other than pensions (OPEB) and associated liability issues. [Requested by Director Davis- 10/22/14]

· .· ' OPERATiONS CdMMrtrt:E April • Report on the Heavy Duty Coach Mechanic Apprenticeship program [Requested by President Peeples - 9/24/14] • Resolution supporting continuation and expansion of the District's Fuel Cell Program, subject to funding availability. The resolution will be drafted by President Peeples [Requested by President Peeples- 6/11/14] • Report from the District's real estate manager on the status and plans for properties owned by the District. [Requested by Director Harper- 1/28/15] Development of a policy concerning e-cigarettes (recommend amendments to Board Policy 172). [Requested by President Peeples- 1/28/15] June • Implementation of a District-wide calendaring system to track contracts, license renewals, etc. [Requested by President Peeples- 4/25/12] September Discussion regarding suggestions for a Board Policy on exit interviews and to what extent those interviews, and the reporting thereof, should be different if the person who exited reports directly to a Board Officer. [Requested by President Peeples- 11/14/12] Referred to Board Retreat

Agenda Planning February 11, 2015

Page 2 of 4 256

AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITIEE PENDING LISTS

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Operations Committee, cont. Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug)

Operations Performance Report (includes report on the Call Center) Clipper Outreach efforts Pending Not Scheduled

Report on the closure of the print shop. Retained in Committee pending further study of the placement of Print Shop employees into other positions, the anticipated cost savings, capital investments and useful life of capital equipment, and to explore whether the Print Shop can in-source work from outside of AC Transit (Retained in Committee 8/15/12). Investigate the creation of a District store which would have hats, clothing and other items available or sale. [Requested by Director Williams -8/28/13] Creation of a video privacy policy specifically for all of the video associated with the BRT stations once operational. [Requested by President Peeples - 2/12/14. President Peeples to provide additional information to be included in the draft policy.] Investigate and report what other public agencies are doing as part of the ongoing conversation of the merit pay issue. [Requested by Director Ortiz- 7/9/14] Report on management training provided to AC Transit managers, including what is currently offered and what can be made available. [Requested by Director Williams- 9/24/14]



March

Report on the performance of Clear Channel in dealing with bus shelter maintenance including repair, cleaning and responding to customer complaints [Requested by President Peeples -10/22/14]. April

Report on AC Transit's attitude toward shuttles. [Requested by President Harper- 5/9/12] Referred



to Boord Retreat June



Report on the implications of a study by the California Transportation Commission on anticipated transportation needs in California and the implications to AC Transit. [Requested by President Peeples -11/16/11]

July





Report on the Brooklyn Basin Project (Oak to 9th Street in Oakland) and details of the negotiations with Signature Properties, including commitments made between the District and Signature Properties [Requested by President Peeples- 3/25/06] Update on the impacts of the Lake Merritt Park Master Plan on AC Transit service [Requested by President Peeples- 3/9/11; updated 12/31/14]

Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug)

• • •

Bus Rapid Transit Project Transbay Transit Center Project Update on District Involvement in External Planning Processes

Agenda Planning

Page 3 of 4

February 111 2015

257

AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Planning Committee, Cont. Annual Reports Update on CARB (June) Update on Service and Operations in Special District 2 Pending Not Scheduled • Update of the Designing with Transit document, which is to include the development of bus shelter design standards. [Requested by President Peeples -10/27/10] • Update on the status of the customer satisfaction survey. Matter was retained in committee on July 9, 2008 pending receipt of proposed survey. On 9/30/09 President Director Peeples requested the report include staff's analysis of surveys conducted in Europe, specifically surveys conducted in Helsinki Finland, to determine how surveys can be done cheaper, better and more often. [Requested by President Peeples- 5/28/08]

Follow-up presentation by MUNI staff on the data collected and conclusions drawn from MUNI's proof-of-payment study. [Requested by President Peeples- 1/14/15] Presentation on fare consolidation in the Bay Area. [Requested by President Peeples -1/14/15]

Agenda Planning February 11, 2015

Page 4 of 4

258