07 29 15 Agenda Package

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

4 downloads 164 Views 14MB Size
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

AGENDA

Special Meetings of the Board of Directors and the External Affairs, Finance and Audit, and Operations Committees AC Transit General Offices 2nd Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Closed Session: 3:30 p.m. (Items 8A – 8F)

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) Teleconference: Director Greg Harper, Ward 2 The Concert Hotel, De Lairessestraat 11 Amsterdam, 1071 NR, Netherlands BOARD OFFICERS KATHLEEN KELLY, INTERIM GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY 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.

1

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 regular meeting 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.

2

SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING – H. E. Christian Peeples, President Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.

1.

ROLL CALL

2.

PRESENTATION American Public Transportation Association 2015 Bus Safety Merit Award - Recognizing Exceptional Achievement in Bus Safety.

3.

PUBLIC COMMENT

4.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Staff Contact or Presenter

James Pachan 891-7215

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 July 8, 2015.

Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

4B. Consider authorizing Director Williams to attend the Congressional Black Caucus 45th Annual Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C. on September 16-20, 2015 (Report 15-200).

Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

4C. Consider receiving Accessibility Advisory Committee minutes of June 9, 2015 (Report 15-167).

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

4D. Consider receiving Retirement Board minutes of June 11, 2015 (Report 15-168).

Hugo Wildmann 891-4889

5.

REGULAR CALENDAR

5A. Consider approving contract award to York Risk Services Group for Workers’ Compensation Third Party Administrator Services, Workers’ Compensation Managed Care, OSHA Reporting and Claims System (Report 15-064a). RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole)

Thomas Prescott 891-7221

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.

3

A.

SPECIAL EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Mark Williams, Chairperson Held immediately following the Board Meeting recess.

A-1.

Public Comment (for items not on the agenda)

Staff Contact or Presenter(s)

Briefing/Action Items: A-2.

Consider recommending receipt of the monthly legislative report and approval of legislative positions (Report 15-165).

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

A-3.

Consider recommending receipt of report regarding proposed amendments to the District’s Conflict-of-Interest Code (Report 15-032).

Linda Nemeroff 891-7284

A-4.

Consider recommending whether or not to support the City of Emeryville’s Citywide Property and Business Improvement District Assessment and authorize the Interim General Manager, or her designee, to execute and submit the official ballots on behalf of AC Transit (Report 15-201).

Denise Standridge 891-4833

B.

SPECIAL FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE Jeff Davis, Chairperson Held immediately following the External Affairs Committee meeting.

Staff Contact or Presenter(s)

B-1.

Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) Consent Items:

B-2.

Consider recommending receipt of the Monthly Report on Investments for the month of May 2015 (Report 15-166).

James Pachan 891-7215

Briefing/Action Items: B-3.

Consider recommending approval of amendments to Board Policy 316 – Capital Projects Policy (Report 15-076).

James Pachan 891-7215

B-4.

Consider recommending receipt of report on Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) [Requested by Director Davis – 10/22/14] (Report 15121).

James Pachan 891-7215

B-5.

Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 15-035 providing notice of the scheduled adoption of an Appropriations Limit for FY 2015-16 and repeal Resolution No. 15-026 (Report 15-144a).

James Pachan 891-4752

4

B-6.

Consider recommending that the Interim General Manager, or her designee, be authorized to submit project requests to the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and the Western Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) for the update of the PlanBayArea Regional Transportation Plan, to ACTC for the update of the Countywide Transportation Plan, and to WCCTAC for preliminary investigation of an augment to Measure J (Report 15-196).

C.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Joe Wallace, Chairperson Held immediately following the Finance & Audit Committee meeting.

C-1.

Public Comment (for items not on the agenda)

James Pachan 891-7215

Staff Contact or Presenter(s)

Briefing/Action Items: C-2.

Consider recommending authorization to release a solicitation for a construction contract in support of the Operations Control Center Relocation Project (Report 15-199). RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING H. E. Christian Peeples, President

6.

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. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: A-2. Consider receiving the monthly legislative report and approval of legislative positions (Report 15-165). A-3. Consider receiving report regarding proposed amendments to the District’s Conflict-of-Interest Code (Report 15-032). A-4. Consider whether or not to support the City of Emeryville’s Citywide Property and Business Improvement District Assessment and authorize the Interim General Manager, or her designee, to execute and submit the official ballots on behalf of AC Transit (Report 15-201). B. FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE: B-2. Consider receiving the Monthly Report on Investments for the month of May 2015 (Report 15-166). B-3. Consider approving amendments to Board Policy 316 – Capital Projects Policy (Report 15-076). B-4. Consider receiving report on Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) [Requested by Director Davis – 10/22/14] (Report 15-121). B-5. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-035 providing notice of the scheduled adoption of an Appropriations Limit for FY 2015-16 and repeal Resolution No. 15-026 (Report 15-144a).

5

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

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

Aida Asuncion 891-4979 Linda Nemeroff 891-7284 Denise Standridge 891-4833

James Pachan 891-7215 James Pachan 891-7215 James Pachan 891-7215 James Pachan 891-4752

B-6.

Consider authorizing the Interim General Manager, or her designee, to submit project requests to the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and the Western Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) for the update of the PlanBayArea Regional Transportation Plan, to ACTC for the update of the Countywide Transportation Plan, and to WCCTAC for preliminary investigation of an augment to Measure J (Report 15-196).

C. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE: C-2. Consider authorizing the release a solicitation for a construction contract in support of the Operations Control Center Relocation Project (Report 15-199). 7.

CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA

8.

CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT

James Pachan 891-7215

Aida Asuncion 891-4979

The Board is requested to authorize as recommended from the committee meetings above. The items for consideration are listed below and will be reported on by the General Counsel as necessary at the end of the meeting.

8A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))

Graves v. AC Transit, ACSC Case No. RG15763403, Claim No. 11-15-0362 McClendon v. AC Transit, ACSC Case No. RG13687863, Claim No. 12-2226

8B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Two Cases)

8C. Conference with Labor Negotiators

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

8D. Public Employee Employment

(Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title: General Manager

8E. Conference with Labor Negotiators

(Government Code Section 54957.6): Negotiators: H.E. Christian Peeples, Board President and Gregg Moser of Krauthamer & Associates Unrepresented Employees: General Manager

8F. Public Employee Performance Evaluation

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

6

Denise Standridge 891-4833

9.

AGENDA PLANNING

10.

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

11.

BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS

12.

ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting: August 19, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.

Kathleen Kelly 891-4793

(Government Code Section 54954.2)

7

This page intentionally blank 

8

PRESENTATION

July 29, 2015 American Public Transportation Association 2015 Bus Safety Merit Award - Recognizing Exceptional Achievement in Bus Safety

9

This page intentionally blank 

10

7/23/2015

APTA 2015 Bus Safety Merit Award Recognizing Exceptional Achievement  in Bus Safety 

Organizational Goals     

Attract and Retain a High Quality Workforce Create a Safety Culture Provide Quality and Reliable Service Effective Communication, Messaging and  Marketing  Utilize Financial Resources Efficiently and  Effectively So… how do we get there?

11

1

7/23/2015

Accident Reduction Committee  Inter‐disciplinary/Inter‐departmental  Commits to safety  Contributes to reducing accidents  Seeks input from all employees  Produces Operator and Rider Education  Analyzes data  Develops and implements best practices 

Employee Awareness Monthly Safety Posters to emphasize safety  precautions and measures for Transportation and  Maintenance employees Monthly Safety Posters to emphasize safety precautions and measures for  Transportation and Maintenance employees.

12

2

7/23/2015

Passenger Awareness Regular posting of a series of car cards offering  safety tips to passengers Monthly Safety Posters to emphasize safety precautions and measures for  Transportation and Maintenance employees.

Training Continual reinforcement and reinstruction via the  Performance Audit Program where a Training  Instructor rides along with Operators and provides  constructive feedback. Monthly Safety Posters to emphasize safety precautions and measures for  Transportation and Maintenance employees.

13

3

7/23/2015

Operator Education   Training Videos  Demonstrative  Actual revenue service

 Completely Accessible  MYACT available  Uploaded to Gillie Room monitors  District staff in TED and Division Managers use to train  and reinforce safety and defensive driving

Technical  Implementation of bus technical modifications to  warn of buses turning, improve rear door safety, and  enhance video monitoring

14

4

7/23/2015

Passenger Safety Communication  

Enhanced safety communication with topical on‐board  announcements  secure personal belongings and bags during holiday  shopping season  be careful stepping onto and off the bus during rainy  season  be aware of your surroundings  And many similar other safety messages

Operator Safety Communication  Installed large electronic LED signs to display safety  messages at each division next to the yard exit gate;  messages are changed approximately once per week

15

5

7/23/2015

Safety Infractions  Communication and training is the primary focus of the  accident reduction program; however, adverse action  can be required to address safety infractions.  Progressive discipline focused on changing behavior  Minor Violation – Counseling  Moderate Violation ‐ Adverse Entry and One‐Day Suspension  Serious Violation ‐ Adverse Entry and Five‐Day Suspension  Major Violation ‐ Proposed Termination

Analytics  Accident Data        

Collisions Passengers Bus types/series Locations Top ten lists (operators, series, types of accidents)  Preventable vs Non‐preventable (patterns) Proper following distance Technical Enhancements o o o

Turn Warning System Yellow marking areas of hazards (doors) Additional bus mounted camera (curb‐side, rear mounted,  forward facing)

16

6

Pre‐ARC Trends  Accident Trend Before October 2012 Note: Prior to April 2012, Accident data and KPI was not split between Passenger Falls and Vehicle Collisions.

17

7

Post ARC – Decreasing Trends  Accident Trend After September 2012

18

8

Continuing Downward Trends  Comparing 2014 (Jan‐May) to 2015 (Jan‐May)

Largest  passenger fall  decrease ever:   39%

Largest collision  decrease ever:   50%

19

9

7/23/2015

APTA Award Celebrations  c The District held a series of joint celebration events  to recognize employees whose efforts contributed to  the award.   Events were held at all District properties, including  its three Operating divisions, CMF, General Office,  Training and Education Center and OCC. There was a consistently large turnout and key  management officials attended each event.

APTA Award Celebrations  c

10 20

1

7/23/2015

APTA Award Celebrations  c

APTA Award Celebrations  c

11 21

2

This page intentionally blank 

22

BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSENT CALENDAR

July 29 2015 Agenda Items 4A – 4D

23

This page intentionally blank 

24

T//AA/S/T

BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

MINUTES Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the Planning and Operations Committees AC Transit General Offices 2"d Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 5:00p.m. Closed Session: 1:30 p.m. (Items 9A-9F) 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) TELECONFERENCE: Joel Young, Director At-Large 730 E 3rd Street Long Beach, California 90802 BOARD OFFICERS KATHLEEN KELLY, INTERIM GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015 25

Page 1 of 14

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- H. E. Christian Peeples, President Wednesday, July 8, 201S at S:OO p.m.

ACTION SUMMARY

i The Alameda-Contra

I

Costa Transit District Board of Directors held a regular meeting on Wednesday, July 8, 201S.

!

i Prior to the start of the meeting, General Counsel Denise Standridge

i 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 I Director Young to participate in the meeting and advised that all votes must be taken by roll call vote. [An affidavit verifying that the

i

[ teleconference location was accessible to persons with disabilities and l that the agenda was posted at the teleconference location at least 72 I I hours prior to the start of the first meeting is attached as Exhibit A.]

I I The

meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. for the purpose of J Closed Session. All Board members were present with the exception [ of Director Davis who was absent. The District Secretary announced [ that the Board would convene in Closed Session to discuss Items 9A-F i as listed on the agenda. Closed Session concluded at 3:45 p.m.

I The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m. with President Peeples I presiding.

l 1.

! ROLL CALL

I Present: Wallace, Harper, Williams, Young, Ortiz, Peeples I Absent: Davis (Excused Absence) 2.

I PRESENTATION I Recap of AC Transit's

participation in the Golden State Warriors

! celebration event.

INFORMATION ONLY

!

I Planning

I

Data Administrator Howard Der presented a slideshow depicting AC Transit's participation in the Warrior's parade.

I

I The item was presented for information only. 3.

j PUBLIC COMMENT

!• '

David Vartanoff commented on the service expansion plan and the proposal to split Lines 1 and .lR due to bunching, which would essentially cease express service north of downtown Oakland. In his opinion, the reason the routes don't run right because of management's failure to supervise and patrol operations, which is not a reason to modify routes.

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015 26

Page 2 of 14

Jane Kramer commented on transparency and accountability with regard to the Enterprise Database and Applications presentation given at the previous meeting. She noted that vague and/or skipped real time arrival times cause long rider waits at bus stops, which could be eliminated through the use ofthis technology.

4.

APPROVED

CONSENT CALENDAR

MOTION: WALLACE/WILLIAMS to approve the consent calendar as presented. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:G: Wallace, Williams, Harper, Young, Ortiz, Peeples ABSENT: 1: Davis 4A. Consider approving Board of Directors and Standing Committee minutes of June 24, 2015.

5.

REGULAR CALENDAR

SA. Consider authorizing the Interim General Manager, or her designee, to negotiate and execute a Letter of Intent with Hines for an airspace easement for the project located at 525 Harrison Street in San Francisco for the preservation of a possible Bay Bridge contra flow lane exit ramp and provide further direction if necessary (Report 141 219b).

Ii {Staff Report 14-219b

APPROVEDW/ MODIFICATIONS

was provided at the meeting for the Board's

! consideration.] '

! Interim

General Manager Kathleen Kelly advised that she was not I prepared to have the Board authorize her to negotiate and execute a !letter of intent, but rather wanted to give the Board an update and I seek direction to act as the lead agency and continue negotiations. She i called upon Real Estate Manager Lois Rawlings to update the Board on J current discussions.

! Ms. Rawlings reported that Hines planned to request a continuance of ! the item regarding the project on the July 161h San Francisco Planning ! Commission agenda in order to potentially re-engineer the building.

! She added that staff would

attend the meeting and if a continuance ' was not granted, staff would like to enter a protest at the meeting. However, if the item were continued to August 13th, staff and the District's outside engineering firm expect to meet with Hines to ensure that the Caltrans stipulations for the needs of the easement would be met with their re-engineering.

I f

Ms. Kelly reiterated that staff needed direction to act as the lead

I agency and continue negotiations with Hines and have the ability to file Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015 27

Page 3 of 14

a protest if necessary. She further addressed questions regarding the contra flow lane options and their impacts to the design of the building. She also provided assurances that staff would come back to the Board if it were required to purchase the easement and would identify funding for it at that time. Senior Transportation Planner Linda Morris addressed questions regarding the contracted engineering firm's (ARUP) involvement with Caltrans, noting that the firm is not working with Caltrans at this juncture. Director Harper complimented staff for their efforts. MOTION: ORTIZ/HARPER to authorize the Interim General Manager to act as the lead agency and continue negotiations with Hines and Caltrans for an airspace easement for the project located at 525 Harrison Street in San Francisco for the preservation of a possible Bay Bridge contra flow lane exit ramp, and authorize staff to file a protest at the July Planning Commission meeting if the matter is not continued. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:6: Ortiz, Harper, Wallace, Williams, Young, Peeples ABSENT: 1: Davis 5B. Consider authorizing the Interim General Manager to negotiate and , execute an agreement with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) f to provide bus bridge service in response scheduled closure of the I West Oakland BART station and the Transbay Tube (Report 15-089a}.

APPROVED

I Senior Transportation

I

Planner Linda Morris presented the staff report and addressed questions from the Board regarding staging and efforts to coordinate supervision.

Bob Franklin, Manager of Customer Access and Accessibility for BART, thanked AC Trans,it for assisting BART with this effort.

! Public Comment:

i' Yvonne Williams commented that everyone is very pleased that union i labor is being used to coordinate this service and thanked the Interim I General Manager for meeting with the union about the coordination i effort.

!

MOTION: ORTIZ/WILLIAMS to authorize the Interim General Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District {BART) to provide bus bridge service in response scheduled closure of the West Oakland BART station and the Transbay Tube. The motion carried by the following vote:

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015 28

Page 4 of 14

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

SC. Consider approving contract award for Project Management/

APPROVED

Construction Management services to AECOM for the D-3 (Richmond Division) Rehabilitation Project (Report 14-107c).

[A copy of GM Memo No. 09-086a was provided at the meeting for additional information at the request of Director Harper.] Senior Project Manager Michael Hass and Interim Contract Services Manager Phillip McCants presented the staff report. Director Harper asked if the contract was terminable in case there was no need for it. Mr. McCants advised that the contract contained language to that effect. Director Harper began to give details regarding his communications with the Mayor of the City of Richmond and Chevron regarding a possible swap of the Division 3 property in Richmond for a piece of property owned by Chevron on a fair market value basis. General Counsel Denise Standridge interrupted as the discussion taking place ! was not on the agenda. President Peeples agreed, and requested that [ the matter be placed on the agenda at a future meeting for a report ! from staff and further discussion of Director Harper's suggestion. He I added that he did not feel it was appropriate for anyone to be i negotiating on the District's behalf without Board direction.

I

i Director

Wallace was concerned and troubled by the lack of

I communication regarding Director Harper's activities in Ward 1.

I Public Comment: I Yvonne

Williams, President of ATU Local 192, expressed surprise and [ confusion because she did not believe the Board's policies or ! procedures allowed any one individual to negotiate and have meetings I without direction or input from the rest of the Board. She added that I this type of activity needed to be reigned-in, and that ATU would want ! an environmental study due to health and safety concerns.

i

MOTION: ORTIZ/WILLIAMS to approve contract award for Project Management/Construction Management services to AECOM for the D3 (Richmond Division) Rehabilitation Project. The motion carried by the following vote: j AYES:S: Ortiz, Williams, Wallace, Young, Peeples

ii NOES:l: Harper

[ ABSENT:1: Davis

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 201S 29

Page 5 of 14

RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole) The Board meeting recessed to the Standing Committees at 5:45 p.m. ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY. A.

! PLANNING COMMITTEE- Greg Harper, Chairperson ! The Planning Committee convened at 5:45 p.m. All Committee

i members were present with the exception of Director Davis. A-1.

i

I

ACTION SUMMARY

!

! Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) ! There was no publiccomment offered. i

I Briefing/Action Items: A-2.

!

Consider recommending approval of amendments to Board Policy 512 Environmental Evaluations of Transit District Projects, to bring the l policy into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act [ (Report 15-133). 1

1-

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

!

i Attorney James Arcellana presented the staff report. 1

i Chair

Harper asked if it was prudent to have a Board Policy covering \ regulations that were already set forth in California Law and would be amended regularly. General Counsel Denise Standridge advised that I the policy served as a roadmap for staff rather than consulting the i Legal Department or a CEQA expert.

i i

I President

Peeples added that some pieces of the policy such as [ timelines were at the discretion of each agency.

'

I MOTION:

ORTIZ/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar [ Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following i vote:

II AYES:6: Ortiz, Williams, Wallace, Young, Peeples, Harper

l ABSENT:l: Davis

A-3.

I Consider recommending receipt of a status report on District owned \ real property (Requested by Director Harper - 1/28/15) (Report 15[ 135).

RECOMMEND RECEIPT

I \Interim Real Estate Manager Lois Rawlings presented the staff report.

I I Members

of the Committee inquired about various parcels and were [ pleased that the properties were being managed. Ms. Rawlings [ advised that she would return to the Committee by the end of summer [ to report on the outcome of various appraisals and cost estimates now underway.

i

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015 30

Page 6 of 14

President Peeples asked how the 661h Avenue property would be used for BRT. Ms. Rawlings advised that one of the suites would be used as a field office. MOTION: PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:6: Peeples, Williams, Wallace, Ortiz, Young, Harper ABSENT: 1:Davis A-4.

RECOMMEND RECEIPT/ APPROVALW/ MODIFICATIONS

Consider recommending receipt of report on the results of the Double Decker Pilot Program, and approve a recommendation to purchase double decker buses to replace the Motor Coach Industries (MCI) buses scheduled to retire in 2017 (Report 15-004a).

[An article entitled "London's Double-Decker Buses Go Electric" was provided for the Committee's information by Director Harper.] , Senior Transportation Planner Linda Morris presented the staff report, noting that staff had amended the recommended action to: 1) receive the report; and 2) direct staff to take the necessary steps to procure double-deckers as a partial replacement of the MCI buses scheduled to retire in 2017.

i

i Ms. Morris addressed questions on issues raised in the report with [ respect to passenger safety, availability of parts and supplies, and how I service issues would be resolved.

I Director Wallace commented that he would not support the purchase

i of double-decker buses due to additional risk exposure.

I Public Comment: Joyce Roy commented that scheduling may be an issue because it takes people time to get up the stairs but felt that that buses would 1 be ideal for Transbay and that people would prefer them to BART. · • David Vartanoff commented that anytime an agency changes buses or models of buses, there will be additional maintenance costs associated with spare parts, tools and training not common to the , I rest ofthe fleet. I j •

I

MOTION: PEEPLES/HARPER to forward to the Consent Calendar , Addenda recommending receipt of the report and direction to staff to I i take the necessary steps to procure double-decker buses as a partial ! replacement of the MCI buses scheduled to retire in 2017. The motion ! carried by the following vote: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015 31

Page 7 of 14

I AYES:S: Peeples, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Young ii NOES:l: Wallace

I ABSENT:l: Davis

i Consider recommending that a public hearing be set on September 2,

A-5.

! 2015 at 5:00 p.m. regarding the continuation of the Line 46L service

I to Grass Valley (Report 14-229a).

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

I [A map of the 46L proposal was provided at the meeting for the

i Committee's consideration.] I j

There was no presentation of the staff report.

I

l MOTION: ORTIZ/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar ! Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following

i vote:

I i AYES:6: Ortiz, Williams, Wallace, Young, Peeples, Harper I! ABSENT:l: Davis A-6.

I Consider recommending that a public hearing be set on September 2, ' 2015

at 5:00 p.m. regarding the continuation of the extra late night I service pilot beyond December 6, 2015 (Report 14-222a). i 1

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

I There was no presentation of the staff report. I Public Comment: I David Vartanoff offered his strong support for continuing late night bus

i service.

I MOTION:

ORTIZ/WALLACE to forward to the Consent Calendar I Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following

I vote: !

I AYES:6: Ortiz, Wallace, Williams, Young, Peeples, Harper

i ABSENT:1: Davis A-7.

i Consider

recommending that the Interim General Manager be I authorized to enter into a an agreement with the City of Berkeley for I a new capital program that will incorporate two transit boarding ! islands on Hearst Avenue as part of the Hearst Avenue Complete I Street Project, and authorize th.e transfer of $141,274 from the I current surplus in the Intra-Vehicle Text Message Sign Program to i fund this project (Report 15-132).

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

I Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015 32

Page 8 of 14

Transportation Planner Stephen Newhouse presented the staff report. President Peeples was concerned this would set a precedent, and cities might think AC Transit could fund other projects. He said AC Transit must be clear that this is a one-time demonstration project and wouldn't be done again. Vice President Ortiz inquired why the City of Berkeley had not funded it in their streetscape plan. Interim General Manager Kathleen Kelly advised that it had been a matter of timing and once there is a successful pilot project, AC Transit would ask cities to fund boarding islands in their streetscape planning. MOTION: PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:G: Peeples, Williams, Wallace, Ortiz, Young, Harper ABSENT:1: Davis The Planning Committee adjourned at 6:32 p.m. B.

B-1.

I OPERATIONS COMMITTEE- Joe Wallace, Chairperson I The Operations Committee convened at 6:32 p.m. All Committee I members were present with the exception of Director Davis.

ACTION SUMMARY

!

I Public Comment (for items not on the agenda)

i There was no public comment offered.

I Briefing/Action Items: B-2.

Consider recommending receipt of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE} Semi-Annual Payment Report for the Period of October 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 (Report 15-111).

RECOMMEND RECEIPT

! Contracts

Compliance Administrator Phillip McCants presented the i staff report, noting that DBE participation for the reporting period was I actually 18%, not the reported 17% reflected in the staff report.

i

l MOTION: PEEPLES/ORTIZ to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda i recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES:G: Peeples, Ortiz, Harper, Williams, Young, Wallace ABSENT:1: Davis

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015 33

Page 9 of 14

B-3.

Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 15-027 approving new classification specifications of Associate Management Analyst and Digital Communications Specialist, and the revised and upgraded classification specification of Contracts Compliance Administrator (Report 15-151).

RECOMMEND APPROVALW/ MODIFICATIONS

Human Resources Manager Elisabeth West presented the staff report. Phillip McCants and Michele Joseph gave an overview of each classification's value within their respective departments. Director Williams asked why the Associate Management Analyst classification was categorized as both "AFSCME/Unrepresented", to which Ms. West replied that depending on the actual position, it may be either one. Director Williams requested that since the position currently under consideration is AFSCME, the classification specification should specify AFSCME at this time. Vice President Ortiz concurred saying that as it stood it was too vague to approve. Interim General Manager Kathleen Kelly noted that she was comfortable with the change. Public Comment: Lisa Harlow, AFSCME Council 57 Business Agent, thanked the Committee for designating the Associate Management Analyst position as AFSCME. Based on her experience, she felt the District needed a policy to determine how positions would be classified. She added that the union intends to be very vigilant in this regard. Vicki Riggin, AFSCME President, echoed the previous speaker, and also voiced concern about the District's absence of policy for determining what is and is not AFSCME work. MOTION: ORTIZ/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending adoption of Resolution 15-027 amended to reflect the Associate Management Analyst classification as an AFSCME position. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Ortiz, Williams, Harper, Young, Peeples, Wallace ABSENT:l: Davis The Operations Committee adjourned at 6:51 p.m. 1 RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ! H. E. Christian Peeples, President i The Board of Directors meeting reconvened at 6:51 p.m. All Board I members were present.

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015 34

ACTION SUMMARY

Page 10 of 14

6.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES District Secretary Linda Nemeroff reported that all of the items from the Planning and Operations Committee meetings were referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt, approval or adoption as presented, including:

REPORT GIVEN

Item A-4: which was referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda for receipt of the report and direction to staff to take the necessary steps to procure double-decker buses as a partial replacement of the Motor Coach Industries (MCI) buses scheduled to retire in 2017; and Item B-3: which was referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending adoption of Resolution 15-027 amended to reflect the Associate Management Analyst classification as an AFSCME position.

7.

CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA MOTION: ORTIZ/WILLIAMS to receive, approve or adopt the items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda as indicated. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:6: Ortiz, Williams, Wallace, Harper, Young, Peeples NOES:1: Wallace (Item A-4 only) ABSENT:1: Davis

A. A-2.

A-3. A-4.

A-5.

A-6.

A-7.

RECEIVED, APPROVED OR ADOPTEDW/ DIRECTION GIVEN AS INDICATED

The items brought before the Board were as follows: PLANNING COMMITTEE: Consider approving amendments to Board Policy 512 - Environmental Evaluations of Transit District Projects, to bring the policy into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Report 15133). Consider receiving a status report on District owned real property [Requested by Director Harper- 1/28/15] (Report 15-135). Consider receiving report on the results of the Double Decker Pilot Program, and approve a recommendation to purchase double decker buses to replace the Motor Coach Industries (MCI) buses scheduled to retire in 2017 (Report 15-004a). Consider setting a public hearing on September 2, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. regarding the continuation of the line 46L service to Grass Valley (Report 14-229a). Consider setting a public hearing on September 2, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. regarding the continuation of the extra late night service pilot beyond December 6, 2015 (Report 14-222a). Consider authorizing the Interim General Manager to enter into a an agreement with the City of Berkeley for a new capital program that will incorporate two transit boarding islands on Hearst Avenue as part of the Hearst Avenue Complete Street Project, and authorize the transfer

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015

35

Page 11 of 14

of $141,274 from the current surplus in the Intra-Vehicle Text Message Sign Program to fund this project (Report 15-132). B.

OPERATIONS COMMITTEE:

B-2.

Consider receiving the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) SemiAnnual Payment Report for the Period of October 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 (Report 15-111}. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-027 approving new classification specifications of Associate Management Analyst and Digital Communications Specialist, and the revised and upgraded classification specification of Contracts Compliance Administrator (Report 15-151).

B-3.

8.

REGULAR CALENDAR, CONTINUED

8A.

Consider approving sponsorship of advertising for the Prevention International No Cervical Cancer (PINCC) 7th Annual Walk for Women in Africa on September 19, 2015, and authorize the use of the District logo (Requested by Director Williams- 6/24/15) (Report 15-172).

APPROVED

District Secretary Linda Nemeroff presented the staff report. Vice President Ortiz asked if the donation of advertising was based on the availability of space and whether there were any limitations on how much money could be spent on administrative costs. General Counsel Denise Standridge advised that the policy did not contain provisions to address these issues. President Peeples advised that because PINCC is a small charity, it is not rated by national groups that report the amount of donations 1 ; received against the amount of the charity's administrative costs. He added that staff did some due diligence in finding out that PINCC spends about 14% on administration, but this is not a requirement of the policy.

i Director Young commented that while he would support the item, I Board members who bring such proposals to the Board should make them cost neutral to the District. Lauren Early of PINCC advised that because of AC Transit's support, over $15,000 was raised each time the District sponsored advertising and that support would be appreciated again this year.

I

i MOTION: WILLIAMS/PEEPLES to approve sponsorship of advertising for i the Prevention International No Cervical Cancer (PINCC} 7th Annual

i Walk for Women

in Africa on September 19, 2015, and authorize the I use of the District logo. The motion carried by the following vote: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015 36

Page 12 of 14

AYES:6: Williams, Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Young, Ortiz ABSENT:1: Davis 9.

i CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT There was nothing to report out of Closed Session.

9A.

NO REPORT GIVEN

Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))

I McClendon v. AC Transit, ACSC Case No. RG13687863, Claim No. 12-2226 !

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: Interim General Manager ' Employee Organizations: ATU Local 192, AFSCME Local 3916, IBEW Local 1245, Unrepresented Employees

I 9D.

Public Employee Employment (Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title: General Manager

9E.

i Conference with Labor Negotiators

i (Government Code Section 54957.6):

Negotiators: H.E. Christian Peeples, Board President and Gregg Moser of Krauthamer & Associates Unrepresented Employee: General Manager

9F.

Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957) Title: Interim General Manager, General Counsel, District Secretary

10. ! AGENDA PLANNING t

Referred to Future Board of Directors Meeting

Director Wallace requested a report on the meetings and communications between 1) AC Transit, including present and former General Managers, and City of Richmond staff, city manager and Chevron from the past year; and 2} individual Board members and City of Richmond elected officials, city manager, and Chevron for the past j year. He also requested a meeting of the Board to take place to find ! out why he was not kept in the loop and why others were in his ward doing things that were not disclosed to the Board. (Director Williams, concurred)

i i I

11.

I GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT

The General Manager's report is incorporated into the file by reference ! as Staff Report 15-205. 1

AlamedavContra Costa Transit District

July 8, 2015

37

INFORMATION ONLY

Page 13 of 14

I

12. I BOARD/STAFF COMM ENTS J

1

I 13.

Members of the Board commented on meetings and events attended since the last meeting.

Director Young left the meeting at 7:07 p.m.

I I

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board of Directors, the meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. The next meeting of the ! I Board of Directors is scheduled for Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 5:00 I

I p.m.

I

Respectfully submitted,

()0~ Linda A. Nemeroff District Secretary

A lameda-Contra Costa Tra nsit District

July 8, 2015

38

Page 14 of 14

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-200 July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

SUBJECT:

Travel Authorization

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider authorizing Director Williams to attend the Congressional Black Caucus 45th Annual Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C. on September 16-20, 2015. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In accordance with Board Policy 180A, this report requests approval of out-of-state travel for Director Williams to attend the Congressional Black Caucus 45th Annual Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C., September 16-20, 2015, in order to attend sessions on issues affecting the transportation industry. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated cost of the trip is $2,878.25 and includes registration, airfare, lodging, per diem and ground transportation as follows: Conference Fee Airfare Lodging (5 nights@ $320.85/night) Per Diem (6 days@ $71/day IRS rate) Ground Transportation (6 days @ $30/day) Total

$80.00 $588.00 $1,604.25* $426.00** $180.00 $2,878.25

*Includes tax. **Per Diem rate reduced far: 1) first and last day of travel; and 2) conference provided meals included in the registration fee.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Pursuant to Board Policy 180A, all out-of-state travel for Directors and Officers to attend a conference or a meeting related to District business 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.

39

Report No. 15-200 Page 2 of 2 The Annual Legislative Conference is the premier conference on the challenges and opportunities facing black America. While the conference is not exclusively transit-related, it includes some transit-related sessions which are highlighted in Attachment 1. Upon return from the trip, pursuant to Board Policy 180A, Directors are to provide a brief oral or written summary of their activities and/or information learned during the trip not later than the next Board meeting. In accordance with Policy 180A, the Board is requested to authorize out-of-state travel to the 2015 Congressional Black Caucus 45'h Annual Legislative Conference for Director Williams. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The conference offers professional development and educational opportunities of value to members of the Board. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: There are no alternatives to the course of action recommended in this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy 180A - Travel and Meeting Expense Reimbursements for Directors and Board Officers. ATTACHMENTS: 1: CBCF 45'h Annual Legislative Conference Preliminary Schedule of Sessions

Department Head Approval: Prepared

by:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary Doreen Mathews, Executive Administrative Assistant

40

SR 15-200 Attachment 1

Schedule Wednesday, September 16, 2015 Time 8:00AM- 7:00PM 9:00AM- 5:30PM 10:00AM10:30AM ll:OOAM5:00PM !2:00PM5:00PM 8:00PM10:30PM

Event Registration I Ticketing Open Education Series

wee wee

Press Conference- Permanence Beta Sign Up

wee

Sessions

wee

CPAR Future Focus

wee

Place

CBC Spouses 19th Annual Celebration of Leadership in the Harmon Fine Arts Center

Thursday, September 17, 2015 Time 7:00AM10:30AM 8:00AM9:00AM 8:00AM7:00PM 9:00AM11:30AM 10:00AM12:00PM !2:00PM7:00PM 12:30PMl:OOPM !2:30PM2:00PM 12:30PM2:00P !2:30PM5:00PM 2:00PM4:00PM

Event Community Breakfast & Health Fair(IO)

Place Central Union Mission- 65 MassAve-NW

New Attendee Welcome(IO)

wee

Registration I Ticketing Open

wee

National Town Hall Meeting

wee

Sessions

wee

Exhibit Showcase Grand Opening

wee

Corporate Lounge Opening(IO)-Tentative-

wee

General Session Luncheon

wee

The Instant Apprentice Power Lunch(LC)

wee

Sessions

wee

A Town Hall Meeting for Emerging Leaders

wee

41

Time 2:00PM3:00PM

Event

Place

CBC Spouses Essay Contest and Issue Forum

Banneker High School

Leadership Reception (IO) Honoring Rep G.K. Butterfield -Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus

TBD

Jazz Concert(LC)

wee

Gospel Extravaganza(LC)

United House of Prayer

8:00PM12:00AM

Sojourner Truth Women's Leadership Reception(IO)

Women's Museum of the Arts-1250 New York AveNW

9:00PM1:00AM

The Black Party

TBD

6:00PMll:OOPM 8:00PM10:30PM 8:00PM10:30PM

Friday, September 18, 2015 Time 8:00AM5:00PM 8:00AM6:00PM 9:00AM!1:50AM 9:00AM!1:50AM 9:00AM6:00PM 5:00PM7:00PM 6:30PM8:30PM

Event

Place

Sessions

wee

Registration I Ticketing Open

wee

Sojourner Truth Legacy Project Forum

wee

Black Elected Officials Roundtable(IO)-Tentative-

wee

Exhibit Showcase

wee

CBCF's Chair's Reception (IO) Honoring Rep. Chaka FattahChair of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation CBCF Alumni Association Networking Reception(IO)Tentative-

Marriott Marquis Hotel TBD

Saturday, September 19, 2015 Time 7:00AM- 4:00PM 7:30AM-IO:OOAM 8:00AM-1:00PM I 0:30AM- 5:00PM

Event Registration I Ticketing Open Prayer Breakfast* Exhibit Showcase Sessions

42

Place

wee wee wee wee

Time 5:00PM- 6:00PM 6:00PM- 9:30PM

Event Pre-Dinner Reception (10) Phoenix Awards Dinner*

Place

wee wee

Sunday, September 20, 2015 Time 11:30AM2:30PM

Event Place Donald M. Payne Memorial Fellowship Cruise Odyssey-600 Water Street(10) sw

Copyright@ 2015 Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. Inc. I ALC hotline: 202.263.5711 [email protected]

43

I

This page intentionally blank 

44

Report No: Meeting Date:

T,..;w'IVS/T

15-167 July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager

SUBJECT:

Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes of June 9, 2015

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receiving the Accessibility Advisory Committee minutes of June 9, 2015. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Minutes for June 9, 2015 were approved by the Accessibility Advisory Committee on July 14, 2015. Major topics included : BRT bus procurement update and Discussion and approval of ADA Resolution. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The Accessibility Advisory Committee was established by the Board of Directors in 1991 to review, comment and advise the Board of Directors and District staff regarding the implementation and enhancement of planning programs and services for seniors and people with disabilities. The committee consists of 14 members with two members being appointed by each of the seven elected members of the District's Board of Directors. Committee members are appointed to a one-year term . ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report is being provided to inform the Board of the activities of the Accessibility Advisory Committee. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: This report does not recommend an action.

45

Report No. 15-167 Page 2 of 2

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: GM Memo No. 12-073, dated March 28, 2012, Accessibility Advisory Committee Bylaws GM Memo No. 10-221, dated October 13, 2010, Adopted Resolution No. 10-047 Repealing all Prior Resolutions Concerning the Establishment of the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) and Board Policy No. 504.

ATTACHMENTS 1. AAC Minutes for June 9, 2015

Department Head Approval: Reviewed by:

Prepared by:

Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Construction & Engineering Officer Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Mallory Nestor-Brush, Accessible Services Manager Kim Ridgeway, Accessible Services Specialist Tammy Kyllo, Administrative Coordinator

46

Staff Report 15-167 Attachment 1

AAC Minutes

June 9, 2015 REGULAR MEETING OF THE AC TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AAC) JUNE 9,2015

The meeting came to order at I :0 I p.m. 1. Roll Call and Introduction of Guests AAC members present: Shirley Cressey Janet Abelson PamFadem Steve Fort Don Queen Jim Gonsalves (arrived at 1:16) James Robson Will Scott Marina Villena AAC members absent: Scott Blanks (excused) Yuli Jacobson (excused) Hale Zukas (excused)

Saleem Gilmore (excused) Lisamaria Martinez

Staff:

Mallory Nestor-Brush, Accessible Services Manager Kim Ridgeway, Accessible Services Specialist Tammy Kyllo, Administrative Coordinator Stuart Hoffman, Technical Services Manager Mitra Moheb, Senior Project Manager Victoria Wake, Marketing and Communications Kimberly McCarl, Marketing and Communications Claudia Burgos, Legislative Affairs & Community Relations

Guests:

Miguel Martinez, BRT Consultant for Community Outreach Mary Fowler Bernita Thomas

2. Order of Agenda The order of the agenda was approved. 3. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Scott/Robson approved the May 12, 2015 AAC meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES - 6: Abelson, Fadem, Fort, Queen, Robson, Scott, ABSTENTIONS- 3: Cressey, Gonsalves, Villena ABSENT- 5: Blanks, Gilmore, Jacobson, Martinez, Zukas 4. Bus Procurement Update Stuart Hoffman, Technical Services Manager, reviewed the progress for the purchase of the BRT Buses. Two proposals were received and are under review by procurement. Procurement should make a decision on the

Page 1 of3 47

award sometime In July 2015. Stuart confirmed that there will be three doors on the curb side, two doors on the street side and two wheelchair securement locations. No fare payment equipment will be on the bus. Fares will be paid on the platform. Stuart brought in a new redesigned Aries Slim Flip Seat for the AAC to test. The new flip seats could be on the future bus purchases and increase turning radius for individuals in wheelchairs. The thin seat will save a total of 7 inches, 2.5 per ADA space and would increase the aisle width by 5 inches. Also, the prototype has a higher back than current flip seats for additional comfort. The handle to lower the seat is easier to use the seat folds up slowly when not in use. The Committee requested that Mr. Hoffman return when procurement has completed its final BRT design to review the interior layout before going to the Board for contract award. Mitra Moheb, BRT Senior Project Manager, introduced the new BRT Community Outreach Consultant, Miguel Martinez. 5. Follow-up with 25 1h ADA Anniversary Victoria Wake, Marketing and Communications Manager, introduced Kimberly McCarl, Marketing Administrator, who is in charge of the 25th Anniversary of the ADA celebration. Kimberly will be working with Marketing, Public Affairs and Accessible Services staff to create a time line and event planning. The team will finalize its plans for the campaign and will follow up with the Committee at the July 141h meeting. 6. Discussion and Approval of the ADA Resolution for Board of Directors The ADA Resolution will go to the Board for approval on June 24,2015. The Board will use the resolution to forward to cities to engage stakeholders and other officials. The Committee reviewed and made changes to the final draft with the following motion:

MOTION: Fort/Scott approved the ADA Resolution for the June 24, 2015 Board of Directors Meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: A YES - 6: Abelson, Cressey, Fadem, Fort, Gonsalves, Queen, Robson, Scott, Villena ABSTENTIONS - 0: ABSENT- 5: Blanks, Gilmore, Jacobson, Martinez, Zukas 7. Draft Staff Report Reasonable Modification

Mallory Nestor-Brush, Accessible Services Manager, updated the Committee on the Implementation of Reasonable Modification!Accommodation Final Rule. The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a Final Rule on March 13,2015, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The rule calls for public transportation agency's providing fixed route and ADA complementary paratransit to develop a process to consider requests for reasonable modification/accommodation to their policies, practices and procedures to ensure program accessibility. Staff will implement, among other things, the following by the July 13, 2015 deadline: • Create a new code, under the ADA tab, in the Customer Service Relations Database for reasonable modification/accommodation • Modify the AC Transit web site to more clearly direct individuals to information regarding Title VI and reasonable modification/accommodation procedures, forms and contact information • Identify a Reasonable Modification Coordinator by name, contact information, e-mail and physical address • Print, post and make available all information, including an appeals process, in accessible formats • Modify the current Title VI car card, per the FTA requirements, and include reasonable modification/accommodation information. • Develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Operations Control Center (OCC) and the AC Page 2 of3 48

• • •

Transit Call Center staff to address rider inquiries Develop Training Materials and train designated staff (OCC, Call Center, Transportation Management) regarding both Title VI and reasonable modification/accommodation Work with OCC to collect data on requests for reasonable modification! accommodation and produce summary reports quarterly. Issue a bulletin to all bus operators. Note: this bulletin would reiterate what the operators are currently trained to do, which is, if any individual or situation encountered exceeds or violates the District's policies and procedures, they are to contact OCC for further instruction.

8. Chair's Report None. 9. Board Liaison Report None. 10. Review of Lift/Ramp Road Call Report The report for the period of April19- May 23, 2015, showed 24lift/ramp road calls. Of these 24 road calls, eight were chargeable or mechanical. Committee members are concerned with the problem identified as "Road Hazard". Staff will inquire to what "Road Hazard" consists of. 11. Service Review Advisory Committee (SRAC) Report None. 12. Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) PAPCO Report None. 13. Public Comments None. 14. Member Communications and Announcements None. 15. Staff Communications and Announcements Mallory Nestor Brush, Accessible Services Manager, announced the following: • • • •

Senate Bill SB413 is being reviewed. This bill makes it mandatory for passengers to vacate priority seating when there is a request. Refusal to comply could result in fines. The Paratransit Broker's office will be moving June 26, 2015 from 1722 Broadway to 1750 Broadway, Oakland. The Open house for the new Broker's Office will be July 29th and will also include a Celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the ADA AC Transit will be participating in three 4th of July Parades in Alameda, Piedmont and Fremont.

16. Set Next Agenda & Meeting Date The next AAC Meeting will be held Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA. Agenda item includes Follow-up on the 25th Anniversary of ADA marketing plan. 17. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:31 p.m.

Page 3 of3 49

This page intentionally blank 

50

Staff Report 15-168

Approved Minutes Meeting of the AC TRANSIT RETIREMENT BOARD June 11, 2015

ROLLCALL

Chair Jeffrey Lewis called the meeting to order at 9:05 AM Members Present: Sue Lee, Davis Riemer, Joyce Willis, Vice Chair Yvonne Williams, and Chair Jeffrey Lewis Absent at Roll Call: None Members Absent: None Also Present: Hugo Wildmann, Retirement System Manager; Adelle Foley, Retirement System Administrator; Russell Richeda, Legal Counsel; (the following individuals were at part of the meeting); H.E. Christian Peeples, District Board President and Liaison; Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager, James Pachen, Interim Chief Financial Officer, Donald, Eckert, Director of Management and Budget, AC Transit; Bob McCrory, Tim Doyle Cheiron; Carolyn Smith NEPC; and Robert Griffin, Williams, Adley. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: WILLIAMS/RIEMER to adopt the Consent Calendar (5-0-0-0)

Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent:

Members Lee, Riemer, Willis, Vice Chair Williams, and Chair Lewis -- 5 None None None

APPROVED A. Approval of Minutes for May 15,2015 APPROVED B. Approval ofFinancials for April2015 APPROVED

51

AC Transit Retirement Board June II, 2015 C. Approval of Invoices in the Amount of $49,032.43 APPROVED D. Approval of Retirements for July 2015

l. Rajinder Dhaliwal 2. Carol (Mori) West

#40358 #70702

APPROVED The Board congratulated retiree Sheila Windham for 35 years of service; and retirees Burnell Ayers, Dolores Pouncy, and Inez Strane-Mosley for 30 years of service. REGULAR CALENDAR

E. Approval of Retirements for May-July 2015 With conditions, if any: I. Broderick Crawford

2. Henry Arrington 3. Velda Chick 4. James Murchison

#31234 (July 2015) Mr. Crawford will receive service credit through June 2015 if he is compensated in June, if not, he will receive service credit through his last day compensated which was in 2003. #844 (July 2015)-Term Vested--Completion of Benefit option by the end of June 2015, #62171 (July 2015)-Term Vested Benefit will depend upon research on Plan provision on Break in Service. #99005 (June 2015)-Term Vested-Potential retroactive benefits.

MOTION: LEE/WILLIAMS to pay Mr. Murchison benefits effective June 2015 and to research the issue of retroactive benefits. (5-0-0-0)

5. Teresa de Ia Puente

Pre-Retirement Death Benefit (May 20 15) Payment pending determination of method of payment outside a bank in the US.

The Board discussed possible methods of delivering pension benefits to recipients who leave abroad and do not have a bank in the US, and who is responsible for the extra cost of registered mail or a wire transfer to ensure that the payment reaches the recipient. MOTION: RIEMER/WILLIAMS to require the payee to bear the additional cost to deliver a pension benefit to a recipient living outside the United States, who requests special handling. (4-1-0-0) Chair Lewis voted "no" because he believes that the Plan should bear the cost of ensuring safe delivery of a benefit payment.

2 52

AC Transit Retirement Board June II, 2015

MOTION: WILLIAMS/RIEMER to approve the retirements listed above effective in May-July 2015 with the conditions as stated. (5-0-0-0)

The Board asked staff to report back on their finding regarding the question of Break in Service (V. Chick) and retroactive benefits for Term Vested retirees (Murchison). Member Riemer recommended that the redraft of the Plan address any ambiguities uncovered in processing the July 2015 Term Vested retirements and that this information be included in the Summary Plan Document. The Board congratulated retiree Rajinder Dhaliwal for 30 years of service. (Several Agenda Items were taken out of order to accommodate outside presenters and allow non-Board members to join in the discussion of selected items.) (Bob McCrory and Tim Doyle, Cheiron; Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager, James Pachen, Interim Chief Financial Officer and Donald Eckert, Director of Management and Budget, AC Transit, joined the discussion of Agenda Item F.) F. 2015 Actuarial Valuation and Experience Study Hugo introduced this Agenda item by reminding the Board that the actuarial valuation process is typically completed in several parts. The actuaries present preliminary figures, the Board and the District ask questions and the actuaries return with answers, and updated figures. This year the process includes the periodic experience study and incorporates changes in the mortality tables. Tim referred to Cheiron's preliminary actuarial valuation results and mortality analysis. The first table showed little overall change during the year. He noted that the inactive funded ratio rises as the population matures. Tim told the Board that the Society of Actuaries had developed new mortality tables, because they found that mortality was improving more than expected. In addition, these tables will be adjusted annually to reflect further improvements. Bob said the changes in mortality will be monitored every year. Bob turned to the Preliminary Mortality Analysis, including tables of current and proposed mortality assumptions. When the changes in the mortality tables were incorporated in the valuation analysis the contribution increased by $6.2 million to $46.1 million, and the total cost rose by 4.65% to 34.8% of liability payroll. In response to a question regarding other potential changes in assumptions, Bob told the Board that they could reduce the assumed return below the current 7.25% to bring it more in line with NEPC's 5-7 year projections but he did not believe this was a necessity.

3 53

AC Transit Retirement Board Junel!,2015

Member Riemer expressed concern regarding the fact that the contribution would be almost 35% of payroll, and the possible impact on the District. He asked how this percentage compares with other pension plans. Kathleen Kelly noted that the impact of the new mortality tables was not unanticipated as Hugo and the District had been communicating on this issue. Jim Pachen had included an increase of $5 million in the District's pension contribution in the District's preliminary budget. Bob agreed to take a look at other pension plans. He added that the Board could consider changes to the funding policy, including layered amortization and direct rate smoothing. This could eliminate the Actuarial Value of Assets process. He told the Board that he would bring possible changes in assumptions to the July meeting, along with the full analysis and the completed Experience Study. Hugo saw no compelling reason to make the amortization or smoothing changes at this time, in light of the major mortality table change this year. Member Reimer saw an advantage to making further changes in assumptions, and asked Bob to bring the issue back to the Board after completion of the 2015 Actuarial Valuation process. The Board also asked Bob to look into the prevalence of written funding policies among pension plans. (Bob McCrory and Tim Doyle, Cheiron, and Robert Griffin, Williams, Adley joined the discussion of Agenda Item H.) H. GASB 67/68 Analysis Tim referred to Cheiron's GASB 67/68 Report. The new GASB Statements replaced GASB 25 and 27. Hugo remarked that incorporating GASB 67/68 into the December 31,2013 and 2014 Financial Statements required considerable work. GASB 67 requires more uniform Plan financials, while GASB 68 affects the sponsor's financials and will result in more volatile expenses. Tim explained the Total Pension Liability tables projected at discount rates of 6.25%, 7.25% and 8.25%. He also noted the Required Supplementary Information, which will eventually include I 0 years of data, the schedules that will appear in the Plan financials, and the schedule provided to the District. These include revisions to the labels, e.g., "outflows" and "inflows" replace "losses" and "gains." This approach divorces accounting and funding. Director Peeples expressed his concern regarding the response of the media, politicians and the public to the increased volatility of expenses under GASB 68. He stressed the need to develop a strategy to respond to the press. Bob agreed that these numbers could attract the attention of the press (Robert Griffin, Williams Adley, joined the discussion of Agenda Item G.) G. Draft 2015 Financials

4 54

AC Transit Retirement Board June 11,2015 Hugo told the Board that the Financials were almost complete. They will be sent to the District Auditors, and must be submitted to the State Controller by June 30, 2015. The data will be submitted by the deadline, and the actual report will come back to the Board at the July meeting. Robert Griffin referred to the Draft Statements, which implemented GASB 67. He does not expect any real changes in the final report. Chair Lewis called a recess at 11:07 AM The meeting reconvened at ll: 15 AM (Denise Standridge, AC Transit General Counsel, ATU Counsel Shawn Groff and former ATU Officer James Gardner joined the discussion of Agenda ItemS.) S. Pension Benefit Calculation for Former Union Officer James Gardner T. Pension Benefit Calculations for Various Former Union Officers Hugo remarked that this issue has been on the Board Agenda for a long time, with little progress achieved from 2010 to 2014. He referred to his memorandum entitled "Gardner and Similarly-Situated Former ATU Officers." The material in the Board Package included a summary, an outline of the outstanding issues, details on individuals, and memoranda from Counsel Richeda and ATU Local 192 Counsel Shawn Groff written earlier this year. The issues include treatment of past ATU officers compared to current and future officers, treatment of payouts, and auto allowances. Hugo stressed that the data was intended to frame the discussion, not to provide definitive results. Counsel Richeda told the Board that a portion of the discussion might be held in Closed Session because of the possibility of litigation. He identified the three main issues as cash-outs of accumulated vacation, and sick leave, and auto allowances. He pointed out that the Retirement Plan includes earnings of Union Officers on leave at ATU, but does not specify how to calculate their benefits. The Plan excludes vacation and sick leave payouts as well as benefits such as auto allowance from pensionable earnings. The exception is two weeks of casual vacation paid out to members of ATU. Counsel Richeda recalled that the Board had agreed to count two weeks of cashed-out vacation pay in calculating the pensions of current and future ATU Officers, in line with the rule regarding casual vacation. They also agreed to count sick leave rolled over to deferred compensation, following the formula used for all ACT employees, and to exclude auto allowance. Counsel Richeda recommended treating past ATU officers in the same way. ATU Counsel Shawn Groff disagreed, citing past practice, and the fact that past Officers did not know how their earnings would be treated. ACT General Counsel Denise Standridge recommended treating all ATU Officers the same and hoped that a compromise could be reached.

5 55

AC Transit Retirement Board June11,2015 Past ATU Officer James Gardner raised the question of the nature of the estimate provided to a retirement applicant at the retirement interview. The Board discussed the reasons why that estimate might change. Counsel Groff proposed a settlement. W. CLOSED SESSION (on Agenda Item T) X. (RESUME OPEN SESSION) I) Report and/or Action on Closed Session Items Counsel Richeda reported: that the Board unanimously by motion agreed to settle the "Gardner" matters with respect to I 0 past union Officers along the following lines: I) Each affected individual would receive up to four weeks of accumulated vacation that was paid out to that individual; 2) Each affected individual's earnings would include sick leave that could have been contributed to a defined contribution plan pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement; 3) Auto Allowance would not be included in the calculation of retirement benefits going forward. With respect to past retirement benefits paid to any of the I 0 individuals who were paid, if auto allowance was included in the calculation of pension benefits, the Retirement Board would not seek to recoup the overpayments attributable to the auto allowance. If auto allowance was paid, but not included in the pension calculation, the pension would be recalculated from retirement through June 2015 to include auto allowance and the individual would be paid that difference retroactively without interest. This settlement is subject to the preparation and execution of signed, written settlement agreements that includes global releases in favor of all parties. Chair Lewis noted that the Board reserves the right not to reduce the pension of any past union Officer in whole or in part going forward based on this settlement. Shawn Groff stressed that the settlement addresses only the question of the items raised in the settlement. This agreement will follow agreement on the numbers. Shawn agreed to work with Hugo to resolve the numbers. (Carolyn Smith ofNEPC joined the discussion of Agenda items I through K, N and 0.)

I.

Asset Allocation and Investment Manager Update Hugo referred to three Preliminary Asset Allocation Sheets, dated 6/8/2015. He noted that he had revised the sheets in the interest of clarity, particularly the impact of

6 56

AC Transit Retirement Board June II, 2015 ADRs. He told the Board that he believed that the balancing should be based on the actual assets invested with the managers, not the total excluding the ADRs that they hold. This will maintain the division among the managers at 1/3 large cap value, 1/3 large cap growth and 1/3 large cap index fund. • • •

Sheet #I included movement of$1.7 Million to Park Square from BlackRock. Sheet #2 also includes rebalancing domestic equity, moving funds from small cap to large cap to adhere to the targets. Sheet #3 adds rebalancing funds withdrawn from Global Asset Allocation (GAA) managers.

Hugo told the Board that $1.7 million would be moved to Park Square, and most of the domestic equity rebalance would be completed before his vacation. However, Hugo no longer expected that all of the assets would be moved out of Global Asset Allocation by the end of June, as originally anticipated. Park Square would not be ready to receive additional funds until later this year, with the rest of the calls expected 12-18 months in the future, and the Board must deal with the question of Investec. After Hugo's return, the funds would be placed in stocks and bonds, pending the completion of the investment in private debt. This will put the percentage in equities at 52%, slightly over the 51% target, but Carolyn noted that this is within the sum of the ranges for equities. MOTION: WILLIAMS/LEE pending further funding request from private debt managers, the funds moved from Global Assets will be placed with current equities and fixed income managers. 5-0-0-0

K. Additional Investec Information L. Emerging Market Debt Manager Search Hugo recalled that the Board had selected Investec to manage 5% ($28 million) of pension plan assets in their blended emerging markets debt strategy. At the April meeting he reported that in reviewing the investment before sending the funds to Investec, he had noticed that the fund was quite small and that AC Transit was a large percentage of the Fund, and outside of AC Transit, it was almost exclusively funded with Investec Funds. The Board posed a number of questions to Investec and they responded. Hugo referred to Investec's email dated June 4, which agreed to try to help us to contain any loss if the fund was dissolved. He mentioned that it really was of very little value to the Plan. Carolyn noted that Investec agreed to continue to honor the reduced fee. The Board discussed an email from Investec (Doug Doucette, Client Director) to Hugo which outlined the anticipated amount that will be funded in the product we are considering investing in. Investec anticipates approximately an additional $70 million will be funded once paperwork is completed with various investors who have

7 57

AC Transit Retirement Board June 11, 2015 expressed their desire to place money in this fund. With the AC Transit investment, this should bring the fund size to roughly $165 million. MOTION: RIEMER/WILLIAMS to invest 5% of Pension Plan assets in Investec's blended emerging markets debt strategy. 4-1-0-0 Member Lee voted no because she believes that the Investec fund is risky because it is too small.

J. Investment Policy Hugo referred to the Draft Investment Policy, which had been updated based on the updated allocation targets. Board Members raised additional questions and made addition suggestions, including changes in wording and establishing an overall minimum and maximum for equities. MOTION: RIEMER/WILLIAMS to adopt the changes indicated in the Draft Investment Policy, and to discuss other changes at a subsequent meeting. 5-0-0-0

M. UNITE HERE and UBS Chair Lewis referred to the email to Hugo from UBS dated June 5, 2015, regarding UNITE HERE'S assertion that UBS has not responded directly to UNITE HERE regarding their efforts to organize the workers at the Los Angeles DoubleTree Hotel. UBS attached a letter dated June 3, 2015 to UNITE HERE stressing that it does not operate the hotel in question. Michael Penechi of UNITE HERE a union of needle trades, industrial and textile employees, and hotel and restaurant employees had addressed the Board on the labor dispute, and UBS' investment performance. At its May meeting the Board had directed Hugo and Counsel Richeda to draft a letter to UBS conveying the Board's concern regarding the lack of communication. The letter was drafted, but Hugo pointed out that the circumstances had changed, and UBS is scheduled for a Real Estate Review by the Board in July. Member Williams told the Board that despite UBS' response, she believes that a letter should be sent to UBS because of the tone of their email. Counsel Richeda agreed to revise his original letter, for review by Chair Lewis and Vice Chair Williams. N. NEPC Work Plan The Fixed Income Review of Loomis Sayles scheduled for July will be postponed until a later meeting. 0. Calendar for 20 15 There were no changes to the Board Meeting calendar.

8 58

AC Transit Retirement Board June II, 2015 P. PEPRA Update Director Peeples told the Board that there was no new legislation, and the notice of appeal had been withdrawn. The Department of Labor has not agreed to open up the flow of grant money. Hugo said that he will continue to provide new employees general information regarding AC Transit's defined benefit plan. He added that he and Counsel Richeda had met with the District's General Counsel and the new outside Retirement Counsel, Charles Sakai, regarding a plan amendment. Q. Tax Determination Letter Update

Hugo reported that after additional material is sent to Tax Counsel, Ice Miller, Interim General Manager, Kathleen Kelly, will sign the paperwork submitting the Tax Determination Update. R. Plan Redraft Project Update Hugo told the Board that he and Counsel Richeda are gathering the relevant documents. U. Hearing Officer Update Hugo hopes to have the names of potential Hearing Officers for the July meeting. V. Retirement System Manager Report: I. Fiduciary Insurance Policy The policy has been renewed. 2. Press Policy The Board does not have a policy. Hugo currently fields these calls. 3. Pension Issues in the News Former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and former San Diego City Councilman Carl deMaio have proposed a new ballot measure to alter pensions of California's public employees. V. (CLOSED SESSION) I) Matters Relating to Personnel: Disability Applicants' and Disability Retirees' Medical Records (Government Code Section 54957; 65 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 412 (1982) a. Aubrey Johnson- Total and Permanent Disability b. Arsenia Legaspi- Total and Permanent Disability c. Ray Dunhams- Total and Permanent Disability d. Terence Chrisman- Total and Permanent Disability e. Kelvyn Johnson- Occupational Disability f. Michael Jefferson- Total and Permanent Disability g. Adrienne Garrett-Cleveland- Total and Permanent Disability h. Lua Lanell -Occupational Disability 1. Bridjit Toles- Total and Permanent Disability

9 59

AC Transit Retirement Board June11,2015 j.

Elaine Batchan - Occupational Disability

Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957) Title: Retirement System Manager W. (RESUME OPEN SESSION) 2) Report and/or Action on Closed Session Items Counsel Richeda reported a. V)l)a

Aubrey Johnson- Total and Permanent Disability

The Board unanimously denied Mr. Johnson's application for a Total and Permanent Disability Retirement without prejudice to his Service Retirement effective June 2014 approved in April 2014. STAFF COMMENTS

None RETIREMENT BOARD COMMENTS

None ATTORNEYS' REPORT

None ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 2:00PM.

10 60

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR

July 29, 2015 Agenda Item 5A

61

This page intentionally blank 

62

Report No:

T~NS/T

Meeting Date:

15-064a July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager

SUBJECT:

Workers' Compensation Contract Renewal

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider approving contract award to York Risk Services Group for Workers' Compensation Third Party Administrator Services, Workers' Compensation Managed Care, OSHA Reporting and Claims System. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The District's contract with its third pa.r ty administrator for workers' compensation expires on October 31, 2015. On February 11, 2015, the Board authorized staff to initiate a request for proposal for a new contract for these services. Three qualified proposals were received . The evaluation panel consisted of five people, including three District staff members and two (2) external subject matter experts. After careful evaluation of the technical proposal and the inperson presentations, the panel recommended award of the contract to York Risk Services Group the highest. The District negotiated with York Risk Management Services and came to an agreement on terms of services and pricing for the stated services. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

Total cost for the new contract is estimated at $9,719,358 over five years. Payments will be made on a monthly basis, with the first year costs totaling $1,450,930. The current cost of claims administration is $1,255,543, but this does not include OSHA Reporting and the Claims System, which are added features under the new contract. It is also important to note that the current price was negotiated five years ago and the costs for these services have significantly increased. Staff compared the cost to other providers and found the price of the new contract to be fair and reasonable.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

Workers' Compensation is a state mandated benefit for injured workers. Effective March 1, 1993, the District received a Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure for its Workers' Compensation claims from the State of California Department of Industrial Relations. This certificate permits the District to contract its Workers' Compensation claims administration to a Third Party Administrator ("TPA"). On September 22, 2010, Contract No. 2010-1137 for TPA services was awarded to XChanging, which was subsequently acquired by Sedgwick. This contract will expire

63

Report No. 15-064a Page 2 of 4 on October 31, 2015. On February 11, 2015, the Board authorized staff to initiate a request for proposal (RFP) for a new TPA. The services sought in RFP 2015-1335 included: • •

Third party administration of workers' compensation claims; Third party administration of the managed care program for workers' compensation;

• •

OSHA reporting; and Claims management system.

Currently these services are provided by different vendors. This unbundled approach has worked in the past but as workflows continue to be more reliant on effective enterprise systems, staff recognized the need to move to a bundled approach whereby all services are tied to one enterprise system. This will allow for efficient processing of requests and sharing of data, which results in accurate and timely reporting. This will enhance the quality of service provided to the District's employees. Three qualified firms submitted proposals based on the solicited RFP and York Risk Services Group was ranked highest by the evaluation panel. York's proposal met, and in many instances exceeded, the requirements set forth in the solicitation. York's proposal represents the overall best value to the District. The Best Value method takes into consideration price and other key factors in the evaluation and selection process to minimize impacts and enhance the long-term performance. To determine Best Value, the proposal's total cost is divided by its total score (or maximum points) to yield a cost per quality-point identifier. The proposal that scores the lowest cost per qualitypoint is identified as the Best Value proposer in line to enter into negotiations with the District for a potential contract award. York's proposal not only met the District's requirements, but also demonstrated strong oversight of the programs under their administration through superior claims management systems capabilities, integrated approach to claims management and stringent auditing standards demonstrated. Below are the scores for the proposers. Please note that the lowest price per point score represents the overall Best Value proposal, taking into consideration pricing and other factors that staff believes will provide sustained long-term performance throughout the life of the contract period. Proposer York Risk Group Sedgwick, Inc

JT2

Score 51.0486 71.1133 82.9419

Costs for the new contract have both fixed and variable cost elements. Fixed Costs Claims Administration, OSHA reporting, and claims management systems are the fixed costs elements. The chart below shows the annual cost for these services and the annual incremental increase. In addition, there is a one-time implementation fee of $61,630.00.

64

Report No. 15-064a Page 3 of 4

York's June 17, 2015 Revised Annual Cost Fees Base Cost $1,450,930 Year 1 $1,450,930 Year 2 $1,479,949 Year3 $1,509,548 Year4 $1,539,738 YearS

Project Increase N/A 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%

Total $1,450,930 $1,479,949 $1,509,548 $1,539,738 $1,570,533

Variable Costs The TPA services for the managed care program for workers' compensation is variable and is dependent on actual utilization. The managed care program encompasses various services including Bill Review, Utilization Review, Nurse Case Management and Pharmacy Benefits Management. There are other ancillary services, in which the District receives a bulk discount, such as diagnostics and durable medical equipment. The vendor is paid only if services are utilized, and the payments are dependent on the volume of claims and the medical treatment required. The District relied on its consultants, David Donn Consulting Inc. (DOC), to perform the analysis on projected cost of the Managed Care Services. The analysis is a performance test of the proposer's overall savings capabilities based on the District's historical utilization data and then applied to the negotiated fee schedule. The five year cost of managed care services is estimated to be approximately $2,107,030. Total Cost The total cost for the five year contract is estimated to be approximately $9,719,081. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Bundling the TPA services together provides efficiencies and cost savings, which translates to better service for the District. It also reduces redundant and manual processes, which are time consuming. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: An alternative would be to award the contract to one of the other two firms or to resolicit for the TPA services; however, re-solicitation would require an extension of the current contract to ensure there is a TPA in place for the workers' compensation program. In addition this approach will result in lost time and additional resources to be allocated to the evaluation process. The District would also have to forgo any of the efficiencies that will be gained as a result of bundling services. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Staff Report 15-064

65

Report No. 15-064a Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS:

None

Department Head Approval:

Thomas Prescott, Acting Chief Administrative Services Officer

Reviewed by:

Kathleen Kelley, Interim General Manager Denise Standridge, General Counsel James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Jon Medwin, Director of Procurement and Materials Due Le, Human Resources Manager

Prepared by:

66

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

July 29, 2015 Agenda Items A-2 – A-4

67

This page intentionally blank 

68

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-165 July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

External Affairs Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager

SUBJECT:

Monthly Legislative Report

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider recommending receipt of the Monthly Legislative Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The short-term extension of MAP-21, a highway and transit spending authorization, will sunset at the end of the month. On July 23, 2015, the Senate began consideration of a six-year authorization of the highway bill known as the "DRIVE Act" (Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act; S.1647). They will work through the weekend with the hope of approving a bill to send to the House of Representatives before they adjourn for the summer recess on July 31, 2015. Earlier this month, the House approved a short-term extension of MAP-21 (H.R. 3038) until December 18, 2015. Last month, Governor Brown announced that he intends to call two special sessions- the first to stabilize the Medi-Cal system and the second on road and highway funding. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Federal Legislation Update

The short-term extension of MAP-21, a highway and transit spending authorization, will sunset at the end of the month. On July 23, 2015, the Senate began consideration of a six-year authorization of the highway bill known as the "DRIVE Act" (Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act; S.1647). They will work through the weekend with the hope of approving a bill to send to the House of Representatives before they adjourn for the summer recess on July 31, 2015. Earlier this month, the House approved a short-term extension of MAP-21 (H.R. 3038) until December 18, 2015. Among several provisions, the "DRIVE Act" will restore more than $387 million to the Bus and Bus Facilities Program to bring the total program level back up to $815 million by Fiscal Year 2021. This increase includes the reinstatement of a bus discretionary program totaling $190 69

Report No. 15-165 Page 2 of 3 million per year to address the capital investment needs of transit systems across the country. Ultimately, the bill will increase the overall authorization for public transportation programs from $10.862 billion in Fiscal Year 2015 to $11.797 billion and reach $13.26 billion in Fiscal Year 2021. On June 25, the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved a Fiscal Year 2016 appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. Several amendments were offered to increase spending on the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Discretionary (TIGER) grant program and New Starts, but none were adopted. The bill includes $17.78 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Transportation, $17 million below the last year level and $3.9 billion below the President's request. The House of Representatives already approved a version of the bill (H.R. 2577) earlier this year. State Legislation Update Last month, Governor Brown announced that he intends to call two special sessions- the first to stabilize the Medi-Cal system and the second on road and highway funding. The Governor's proclamation will propose that the Legislature enact permanent and sustainable funding to maintain and repair the state's transportation and critical infrastructure, improve the state's key trade corridors, and complement local infrastructure efforts. The official proclamation should be offered shortly, and the Legislature will need to organize committees and set the timing for the Special Session. There are no staff recommendations at this time. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report is provided to inform the Board of monthly legislative activities and to seek its approval to support or oppose legislation affecting AC Transit. This provides clear direction to legislators and other bodies of AC Transit's positions.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: This report provides an update of monthly legislative activities. AC Transit could opt to defer from legislative positions and operate without making its positions known, leaving the District vulnerable to unfavorable legislation.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Staff Report 15-165: 2015 Federal and State Legislative Advocacy Programs ATTACHMENTS: 1: Federal Legislative Report from VanScoyoc Associates 2. State Legislative Report from Platinum Advisors 3. State Legislative Bill Matrix 70

Report No. 15-165 Page 3 of 3

4. FY 2015 Federal Advocacy Program 5. FY 2015 State Advocacy Program

Executive Staff Approval: Reviewed by: Prepared by:

Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Construction and Engineering Officer Beverly Greene, Director of Legislative Affairs & Community Relations Estee Sepulveda, External Affairs Representative

71

This page intentionally blank 

72

SR 15-165 Attachment 1

VANSCOYOC A

S

S

0

C

I

A

T

H

8

Transportation Update July 6, 2015

Steve11 0. Palmer, Vice Preside11t Da11 Neuma1111, Director David Hai11es, Ma11ager

This Week Congress returns to legislative session this week for four weeks prior to the August recess.

Heari11g: Tra11sportatio11 Tecf111ology. On Tuesday, July 7, the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will hold a hearing to discuss innovative technologies that improve the safety and efficiency of the nation's transportation system. Witnesses will include representatives of Volvo, Amazon, BNSF Railway, and the Port of Long Beach. More information can be found here.

Last Week The House and Senate were both in recess last week for the July 4'h holiday. Executive Branch

Fi11al Rule: Waters of tile U11ited States. On July 2, the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers published the final "Waters of the United States" rule in the Federal Register. The final rule, which broadens the federal government's jurisdiction over local bodies of water, has been strongly opposed by industry groups. The rule will go into effect 60 days after its publication. Government Accountabilitv Office

Report: DOT's TRANServe Debit Card Program. On June 29, the Government Accountability Office issued a report on the TRANServe debit card program, through which DOT administers transit benefits to public and private sector employees. The report examined steps DOT has taken to ensure that TRANServe debit cards are not used to make purchases unrelated to transit. The report did not make any recommendations. ###

73

This page intentionally blank 

74

SR 15-165 Attachment 2

July 10, 2015 TO:

Director Chris Peeples, President, and Members of the Board Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager Beverly Greene, Director of Legislative Affairs & Community Relations

FR:

Steve Wallauch Platinum Advisors

RE:

BUDGET UPDATE

July 17th marks not only the start of Sumer Recess, but it is also the deadline for policy committees. The next week will be a jumble of simultaneous hearings as committees rush to meet the deadline. It will then be somewhat silent for the next month. It won't be completely boring with ongoing negotiations on transportation and healthcare funding, and negotiations on appropriating the remaining cap & trade funding, to keep abreast of.

Transportation Special Session: The proclamation calling for a special session on transportation infrastructure focuses solely infrastructure maintenance needs of state highways and local streets and roads, as well as trade corridor improvements. A handful of bills have been introduced in both houses, which includes the reintroduction of measures that failed in the regular session and a few spot bills that will likely be vehicles for any agreement. While there were initial rumors of moving an agreement to the Governor before the start of summer recess, that appears unlikely. Attached is a chart outlining all of the transportation special session bills introduced so far. Currently none of the special session bills, nor the outlines provided by the caucuses, addresses the funding needs of transit. CTA has called on its members to push legislators to include transit funding. The proposals under discussion include the unlikely, such as increasing the sales tax in diesel fuel in order to pump up STA revenues, to the possible such as increasing the amount of cap & trade revenue dedicated to transit operations and transit capital. While it has been difficult to overcome the focus on street and highway maintenance, negotiation continue to try and craft a plan that addresses the needs of all modes of transportation.

Kick-Off Hearing: On July 2, the Senate's special session committee on transportation, called the Senate Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure Development, held its initial hearing on addressing the state's transportation funding needs. The Assembly's special session 1

75

committee held a similar hearing on July s'h. Nothing earthshattering was revealed about how to address the dire future of maintaining the state's transportation infrastructure. The Senate Committee heard panel presentations on identifying state and local needs, and a discussion of funding options. CaiSTA Secretary Brian Kelly initiated to decision followed by presentations from CSAC, and the League of Cities, as well as comments from the LAO and the chairman of the Road Usage Charge Technical Advisors Committee, Jim Madaffer. The same bad news was repeated in the Assembly the following Monday.

Allin: Senate and Assembly Democrats have a proposal, and the Senate Republicans have unveiled a proposal. Now the Assembly Republican Caucus unveiled its own transportation funding proposal. The one common denominator in these proposals is halting the use of weight fees to pay for transportation bond debt. Other than that the Republicans propose no new fees or tax increases, and the Democrats backfill any loss to the general fund. The only proposal that is in print is the Senate Democrats plan as contained in SB 16 and SBX 1. Furthermore, the only plan that outlines how the funds would be allocated is also limited to SB 16 and SBX 1. Below is a chart comparing the various proposals as they have been described in press releases, and in one case actual legislation.

Assembly Democrats

Assembly Republicans

Truck Weight Fees

Returns weight fees that are being diverted to the general fund to pay for bond debt to the SHA. ($1 billion)

Loan Repayment

Provide $200 million per year to repay over $900 million in loans made to the general fund from various transportation accounts. However, this number does not include recent budget action to include in the Wall of Debt repayment of preProp 42 loans, which adds another $879 million in outstanding debt. No proposal

Returns weight fees that are being diverted to the general fund to pay for bond debt to the SHA. ($1 billion) No proposal included.

Excise Tax

Senate Democrats (SB 16/SBX 1) Phases in over five years the return of weight fees to the SHA. ($1 billion)

Returns weight fees that are being diverted to the general fund to pay for bond debt to the SHA. ($1 billion)

Repay all outstanding loans with equal payments over three years.

Use Prop 2 Rainey Funds to repay, over time, all post and preProp 42 loans ($1.8 billion) and repay weight fee revenue diverted to the general fund that was used for purposes other than debt payments ($1.3 billion)

10 cent increase on

No Proposal

'o

No Proposal

Senate Republicans

2

76

gasoline, and 12 cent increase on diesel fuel. Vehicle Registration Fees

Estimated $50 annual increase in registration fee. ($1.8 billion annually) No Proposal

No Proposal

Cap & Trade Revenue

No Proposal

Divert 40% of cap & trade auction revenue to road maintenance projects. ($1+ billion annually)

General Fund

Use $1 billion of the vehicle fee revenue to backfill the general fund for the loss of weight fee revenue.

Annually appropriate $1 billion in general fund revenue to transportation.

Vehicle License Fee

No Proposal

Dedicate $200 million per year of state infrastructure funds to transportation.

$35 per vehicle and a $100 fee on alternative fueled vehicles. Increases the VLF by .07% each year for 5 years to bring the VLF up to 1% by July 1, 2019. No Proposal

Use the increase in the VLF to backfill the general fund for the loss of weight fee revenue.

No Proposal

Propose to amend the Constitution to guarantee all VLF revenue above .65% shall be used for transportation purposes. (SCA 7) Dedicate $1.9 billion annually in cap & trade auction revenue to transportation projects, and specifically prohibit the use of auction revenue for high speed rail. No Proposal

3

77

Other Proposals

None

Implement the LAO's findings that 3,500 positions within Caltrans could be eliminated. ($500 million annually)

None

None

Current bill sunsets in 5 years unless reauthorized

Not Specified

Eliminate all vacant position within state government and direct 25% of the saving to transportation. ($685 million annually) Sunset Date

Total Added Revenue

Sunset at some pointmost likely in 5 years.

$3 billion

Not Specified

$4.385 billion

$3.46 billion

$5.3 billion

4

78

ADVISORS

July 10, 2015 Transportation Special Session Legislation

Bills ABXll (Alejo D) Transportation funding.

Subject

Status

ABX 1 is the reintroduction of AB 227, which was held in the Assembly Budget Committee due to the impact the bill would have on the general fund . ABX 1 includes the following provisions:



Halt the use of truck weight fees for debt service payments,



Require all loans made to the general fund from transportation accounts to be repaid by December 31, 2018, Halt the diversion of "Non-Article 19" funds to transportation debt service,

• •

ClientPosition

ASSEMBLY PRINT

Specify that all swap excise tax revenue would be allocated 44% to the STIP, 12% to the SHOPP, and 44% to cities and counties for local streets and roads.

While ABX 1 halts the transfer of weight fees o the general fund, it does not provided a backfill to the general fund . l4BX12 (Perea D)

ABX 2 is the reintroduction of AB 1265, which ASSEMBLY PRINT wa s held on the Assembly Appropriations ~ransportat ion Committee's Suspense File. This bill would projects: repeal the sunset date on the CTC's authority comprehensive o approve public-private partnership projects. development lease Current law authorizes a regional agreements. ransportation agency to seek approval from he CTC to enter into public-private partnership to build toll facilities. ABX 2 would repeal the existing January 1, 2017 sunset date 5

79

on this authority. ABX 3 is a spot bill that contains legislative intent language to enact a permanent and ~ransportation sustainable source of funding to repair state funding. and local roadways.

ABX13 (Frazier D)

ASSEMBLY PRINT

ABX 4 is another spot bill that includes intent ASSEMBLY PRINT language to enact sustainable funding sources ~ransportation o improve the state's key trade corridors and funding. support local efforts to repair and improve local transportation infrastructure.

ABX14 (Frazier D)

SBX11 SBX 1 is reintroduction of SB 16, which SENATE T. & I. D. (Beall D) remains on the Senate Floor. ~ransportation funding. Like SB 16, SBX 1 is the Senate Democrat's ransportation funding proposal that would generate up to $3.6 billion annually over the next 5 years. The funds would primarily be used to fund state highway and local and street and road maintenance needs. This unding plan would remain in place through 1,he 2019-2020 fiscal year, unless it is extended by the Legislature. New revenues would be generated by increasing the excise tax on gasoline {10 cents) and diesel fuel {12 cents), a .35% increase in he Vehicles License Fee would be phased in, ~ehicle registration fees would increase by $35 and by $100 for alternatively fueled vehicles. In addition, SB 16 would phase out the use of ruck weight fees for bond debt service, thus returning these funds to transportation uses. SB 16 would dedicate 5% of the funds toward an incentive program to encourage new local ransportation sales tax programs- counties with an existing sales tax program are not eligible for these funds. The remaining funds are split between Caltrans maintenance projects and local street and road projects.

SBX12

SBX 2 is part of the Senate Republican

SENATE T. & I. D. 6

80

(Huff R) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Caucuses proposal to direct cap & trade auction revenue to transportation projects. It is estimated that this would direct $1.9 billion o transportation projects. SBX 2 would that all auction proceeds that are derived from including transportation fuels in he cap & trade program shall be appropriated by the Legislature for transportation infrastructure, including public streets and highways, but not high speed rail.

SBX13 sBX 3 would halt the use of existing bonds for SENATE T. & I. D. (Vidak R) construction of the high speed rail system, and Transportation redirect the use of unsold bonds to state and local transportation projects. The bill would bonds: highway, street, make the following changes: and road 0 projects. Use any outstanding bond proceeds to pay off the debt of those bonds. 0

SBX14 (Beall D) r-ransportation funding.

Use any unissued bonds for transportation projects whereby 50% is appropriated Caltrans for highway maintenance and new construction, and 50% to a new program in Caltrans to fund the repair and new construction of local streets and roads.

SBX 4 is spot bill that includes legislative intent SENATE THIRD language to establish a permanent and READING sustainable funding source to maintain and repair state highways, local roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure. SBX 4 has procedurally been moved to the ~hird Reading File without being heard in a policy committee.

SBX15 (Beall D)

SBX 5 is a spot bill with legislative intent language to establish a sustainable funding ~ransportation source to improve the state key trade corridors and support efforts by local funding. governments to repair and improve local

SENATE THIRD READING

7

81

ransportation infrastructure. SBX 5 has also been moved to the Senate frhird Reading File without a policy committee hearing.

8

82

SR 15-165 Attachment 3

July 9, 2015

Table 1 Board Action Positions Bills

Subject

Status

Client - Position

AB464 (Mullin D) Transactions and use taxes: maximum combined rate

Existing law caps the cumulative total amount of SENATE FLOOR locally imposed sales taxes at 2%. However, many counties, including Alameda, are currently at that limit. AB 464 would amend existing to adju st the cap up to 3%.

SUPPORT

lAB 516 (Mullin D) Vehicles: emporary license plates

lAB 516 would require the Department of Motor SENATE APPR !Vehicles to develop a temporary license plate system to enable vehicle dealers to install a ~emporary license plate on all new vehicle sales, or the sale of vehicles that currently do not have a license plate.

~UPPORT

!The purpose of the bill is to help the public and law enforcement to identify a vehicle used in a hit and run or other crime, as well as reduces the ability to evade toll payments. AB 857 (Perea D) California Clean !Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment !Technology Program .

Last year the legislature passed and the Governor SENATE E Q signed SB 1204, which placed in statute the California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program. This program essentially codifies CARS's existing programs aimed at funding projects that lead to he commercialization of zero emission trucks and buses. SB 1204 also directs until January 1, 2018, ·20% of the funds annually to truck projects.

Oppose

AB 857 would increa se the amount of funds dedicated to truck projects. From January 2018 o January 2023, AB 857 would require CARB to direct at least 50% or $100 million, whichever is greater, of cap &trade revenue dedicated to this program toward zero and near-zero heavy-duty ruck projects and low emission natural gas rucks. 1

83

AB 857 would significantly increase the truck setaside, which would limit CARB's ability to fund zero emission bus projects. ~B 1008 (Quirk D) Public utilities: sale of hydrogen ,o public as a 1 motor vehicle fuel.

Governor's Desk AB 1008 would amend existing law to add hydrogen sold for the purpose of being used as a ~ehicle fuel will not be regulated as a public utility.

~up port

Existing law currently exempts the sale of natural gas and electricity sold to power vehicles as a regulated as a public utility. AB 1008 would create parity in how hydrogen is regulated when used as a transportation fuel.

~B 1250

SENATET & H AB 1250 is sponsored by the CTA. The bill was recently amended to include a potential solution (Bloom D) Vehicles: buses: ~o the bus axle weight issue. In general, the gross axle weight amendments would phase in an unladen axle ~eight of 22,000 pounds for transit vehicles. While city and county associations are still reviewing this proposal, AB 1250 makes the allowing changes.



~UP PORT

Continue the exemption for all buses procured through a solicitation issued before January 1, 2016.



Vehicle procurements issued between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017 must have an unladen axle weight not to exceed 25,000 pounds.



Vehicle procurements issued between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 must have an unladen axle weight not to exceed 24,000 pounds.



Vehicle procurements issued between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 must have an unladen axle weight not to exceed 23,000 pounds.



Vehicle procurements issued on or after January 1, 2022, shall not exceed an unlade axle weight of 22,000 pounds. 2

84



Provisions were also added that allows a vehicle with a maximum weight that exceeds the weight limit of a bridge to operate on that bridge if a permit is obtained from the entity that owns the bridge.

The content of this bill is still subject to negotiations with local governments, so additional amendments are likely.

ACA4 ACA 4 would amend the Constitution to lower ft'.SSEMBlY REV & TAX SUPPORT (Frazier D) approval threshold to impose a special sales tax local government hat provides funding for local transportation project to 55%. local transportation projects are l'ransportation projects: special defined to include the funding needs for local ~axes: voter streets and roads, state highways and freeways, approval. and public transit systems. ACA 4 does not lower he voter threshold for parcel taxes. Recent amendments remove provision in SB 9 ft'.SSEMBlY NAT RES. SUPPORT ~ (Beall D) hat split the funds in the Transit Capital & Greenhouse Gas Intercity Rail Program between projects with a Reduction Fund: cost in excess of $100 million and projects with a ~ransit and ~ost less than $100 million. As currently drafted SB 9 makes the following beneficial changes to Intercity Rail Capital Program. he Transit Capital & Intercity Rail Program:



• •





Requires CaiSTA to consider the extent to which a project reduces GHG emissions in selecting projects for funding. Clarifies eligible applicants include bus, rail, and ferry operators. Requires CaiSTA, by July 1, 2016, to develop a five-year estimate of revenues of the program in annual increments and adopt an initial program of projects for those five years. Authorizes CaiSTA to enter into and execute a multiyear funding agreement with an eligible applicant for a multiyear project. Authorizes a lead applicant agency to apply to CTC for a letter of no prejudice in order to allow the lead applicant to expend their own funds for the project and be eligible for future reimbursement.

3

85

SB 391

(Huff R) ~ssault and battery: transit employees

SB413 (Wieckowski D)

Public transit: prohibited conduct.

SB 391 would enhance the penalties for assault or jSENATE PUBS. battery of a transit employee. Specifically SB 391 ~WO-YEAR BILL adds transit employee to the list of individuals, such as police officers, firefighters and medical personnel. The fines for assault or battery of a ransit employee would increase to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or up to 1 year in jail, or both. SB 413 is sponsored by the California Transit ~SSEMBLY DESK Association. This bill would add two more activities to the list of activities punishable by a ine or administrative penalty when on a transit vehicle or facility.

sUPPORT

jSUPPORT

SB 413 would make failure to comply with a warning related to loud or unreasonable noise subject to a penalty. The bill also removes the exemption of juveniles from the administrative penalties process.

The bill was amended to replace the failure to yield a seat reserved for an elderly or disabled rerson with language that would authorize an operator to adopt an ordinance to enforce failure to yield a seat as an infraction . . SB 508 (Beall D)

Transit operations: financial requirements

SB 508 is sponsored by CTA. This bill makes several changes to the fare box recovery ratio calculation and eligibility criteria for STA funds.

ASSEMBLY TRANS

SUPPORT

However, the bill was recently amended to delete the ability to exempt health and pension costs. SB 508 makes the following changes: • Deletes the fare box recovery requirement that agencies maintain the ratio they achieved in 1978-79. • Excludes the principal and interest payments on capital projects funded with certificates of participation. • Excludes from the operating cost definition the cost offuel, alternative fuel, power, insurance premiums, settlement payments, and state and federal mandates. • Clarifies that local funds used to meet the fare box ratio includes any non state or nonfederal grants. • Replaces the "pass I fail" nature of the 4

86

STA qualifying criteria, with a sliding scale. SB 508 also clarifies that a portion of local .ransportation funds can be used educational 1 programs promoting bicycling and pedestrian safety.

Table 2· Board Watch Positions Bills AB61 (Allen, Travis R) Shuttle services: loading and unloading of passengers.

Subject

Status

~B 61 would allow a local government to permit

private shuttle bus services to use public transit stops if an agreement is reached between the public transit operator and the private shuttle operator.

~SSEMBLY TRANS. frwo-Year Bill

Client- Position Watch

~ssemblyman Allen introduced this bill in response to demonstrations in San Francisco over he Google Buses, and other tech-buses; however, it is unclear if legislation is actually needed. Although the contents of AB 61 do not appear onerous or complicated, we recommend a wait and see approach, unless conditions in the East Bay dictate otherwise.

AB 1287 (Chiu D) Vehicles: parking violations: cameras SB 16 (Beall D) Transportation funding.

AB 1287 deletes the sunset date on special SENATE DESK provisions that allow the City & County of San Francisco to install forward facing video cameras on buses that are used to issue tickets for vehicles parked in bus only lanes. SB 16 is the Senate's proposed transportation SENATE FLOOR unding proposal, which would generate up to $3.6 billion annually over the next 5 years. The unds would primarily be used to fund state highway and local and street and road maintenance needs. This funding plan would remain in place through the 2019-2020 fiscal vear, unless it is extended by the Legislature.

~ATCH

~ATCH

New revenues would be generated by increasing he excise tax on gasoline {10 cents) and diesel uel (12 cents), a .35% increase in the Vehicles License Fee would be phased in, vehicle registration fees would increase by $35 and by $100 for alternatively fueled vehicles. In addition, ~B 16 would phase out the use of truck weight ees for bond debt service, thus returning these ~unds to transportation uses. 5

87

SB 16 would dedicate 5% of the funds toward an incentive program to encourage new local ransportation sales tax programs- counties with an existing sales tax program are eligible for these ~unds. The remaining funds are split between Caltrans maintenance projects and local street and road projects.

SB 254 (Allen D) State highways: relinquishment.

SB 254 was amended to include the legislature's ASSEMBLY TRANSP proposal to streamline the relinquishment process.

!watch

Existing law requires legislative approval to relinquish any state highway segment to local control. SB 254 would streamline this process by authorizing the California Transportation Commission to relinquish portions ofthe state highway system to a county or city without legislative action.

~pecifically, SB 254 would allow the CTC to relinquish any portion of the state highway once Caltrans has entered into an agreement with the recipient of the highway segment and has placed he highway in a "state of good repair."

SB 497 (Vidak R) Pupil .ransportation: data.

SB 497 would require the State Department of Education to collect the data below from each school district, charter school, county office of education, and regional occupation center that provides pupil transportation. This information would then be posted on the Department's website along with the statewide average cost per mile and cost per pupil.



• •

• • •

• •

~SSEMBLY FLOORConsent Calendar

f_Natch

Revenue received for transportation purposes, Number of buses, Ridership of all pupils, Ridership of pupils with an individualized education plan, Ridership of pupils eligible for free or reduced price meals, Number of miles driven, Approved costs, Cost per mile and cost per pupil 6

88

SR 15-165 Attachment 4

2015 Federal Advocac Pro ram Funding



FY 2014 Grant Opportunities- Secure federal funds for key capital projects and support funding for 2015 Project Priorities for: o East Bay BRT Improvements within the Small Starts Program and other programs o AC Transit's Intelligent Transportation and Communication System upgrades o Bus lifting equipment program o Rehabilitation of aging facilities o Zero Emission Bus Programs



Advocate for supplemental funding through the Federal Transit Administration to offset rising operating costs without jeopardizing total funding available for capital projects.



Support funding for the Transbay Terminal.



Support/seek additional funding for lifeline services including, but not limited to services for access to work, school or medical facilities.



Support efforts to rescind the planned across-the-board cuts to all federal programs, called "Sequestration," as enacted under the Budget Control Act of 2011 .

Transportation Authorization Principles



Support efforts to increase the gas tax or to increase other revenues to replenish and sustain long-term growth of the Highway Trust Fund/Mass Transit Account.



Support transportation authorization reform that emphasizes greater funding levels to urban mass transit systems, and oppose efforts to reduce spending on transit formula programs.



Support FTA and Congressional efforts to make State of Good Repair for transit bus systems a strategic priority.



Support broad funding eligibility for BRT projects in federal transit programs, including New Starts and Small Starts programs,

Page l1 89



Seek revisions to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) grandfather clause that supports the direct representation of transit properties on local transportation policy boards.



Support legislation through MAP-21 for safety requirements based on agency size

Other Advocacy •

Advocate for transit-supportive legislation that mitigates global warming and/or calls for environmental stewardship and related funding.



Support funding and coordination between Health and Human Service (HHS) agencies and other transportation agencies to provide services to HHS clients.



Support modal parity in the commute tax benefits.



Support legislation that relieves the fiscal burden of mandatory regulations.



Support legislation that encourages Single Payer health insurance.



Advocate for American with Disabilities Act improvements

P cl gc

12 90

SR 15-165 A tta chment 5

2015 State Advocacy Program Funding •

Support efforts to implement the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and future transportation authorizations that at least maintains funding level for mass transit projects and programs for bus operators in the Bay Area.



Support the development and implementation of an expenditure plan for AB 32 cap and trade revenue that provides an equitable investment in mass transit capital improvements, operations, and infill/transit oriented development.



Pursue and support funding for Zero Emission Bus Programs



Support efforts that create new sources of operating funds with equitable distribution to reflect urban transit needs.



Support efforts to sustain existing transit revenues.



Support efforts that would exempt public transit providers from state sales tax.



Support efforts to provide funding for lifeline services including , but not limited to, services for access to work, school or medical facilities.



Support local ability to increase fees and gas taxes to be used for local mass transit purposes.



Support legislation and programs that would provide funding to offset the costs of global warming initiatives, clean air and clean fuels and implementation of AC Transit's Climate Action Plan.



Support congestion pricing strategies and legislation that provide an equitable multimodal distribution of generated revenues.



Support legislative or administrative action to remove State barriers so that Medicaid transportation funds can be used for public transit services, including ADA paratransit services.



Support funding and coordination between Health and Human Service (HHS) agencies and other transportation agencies to provide services to HHS clients.

Page l 1 91

o

Support legislation and programs that would provide funding for employee benefits programs.

o

Support funding initiatives that relieve the fiscal burden of mandatory regulations.

Equipment and Operations o

Support legislation or administrative action that would direct Caltrans to establish and maintain HOV lanes on state highway routes and to improve existing HOV lane management to maximize throughput.

o

Support incentives to provide bus contra flow lanes on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to/from the Transbay Terminal.

o

Support legislation to exempt public transit vehicles from state and local truck route ordinances.

o

Support legislation or administrative action that would direct Caltrans to permit permanent use of freeway shoulders by public transit buses.

Transit Incentives o

Support legislation to provide incentives for employees and employers to use public transportation to commute to work, including tax credits for purchasing transit passes.

o

Support Clean Air Initiatives that encourage increased public transit use.

o

Support incentives that would give auto insurance credits to heavy transit users.

o

Support legislation to provide incentives for local governments and developers to incorporate transit passes into the cost of housing.

Environment and Transit Supportive Land Use

o

Support efforts that provide a new form of tax increment financing that promotes economic investment through transit oriented development, and requires the approval of all affected taxing entities.

o

Advocate for transit-supportive legislation that addresses climate change, healthy communities and environments.

l'agc

12 92



Foster transit supportive land use initiatives that require coordination with transit providers in the initial stages of local planning or project development that impacts transit, including density level decisions or transit oriented developments (TODs); and advocate for the required use of: o Transit streets agreements, and o Complete streets plans in which local transportation plans anticipate use of all modes.



Support legislation that requires reporting of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) annually through DMV renewal.

Policy Interests •

Support simple majority vote for local transportation ballot tax initiatives.



Support legislation to allow District to ban persons for specified offenses from entering district property.



Seek revisions to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) grandfather clause that supports direct representation of transit properties on local transportation policy boards.



Support legislation for STA formula reform that includes federal operating funding as eligible revenue.



Support efforts that maintain existing Workers' Compensation regulation.



Consider efforts to reform tort general damages

Page

13 93

This page intentionally blank 

94

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-032 July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

External Affairs Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

SUBJECT:

Conflict-of-Interest Code Biennial Review

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider receiving report on proposed amendments to the AC Transit Conflict-of-Interest Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Political Reform Act requires every local government agency to review its Conflict-ofInterest Code in even numbered years to determine if it is accurate or in need of amendment. As the code reviewing body for multi-county agencies, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) must be given notice of any amendments. Proposed amendments to the code include the designation of new positions and revisions to the titles of existing positions. Upon conclusion of a 45-day comment period on the proposed amendments, the draft code will be forwarded to the FPPC for review and approval. It is anticipated that the review will be completed in late 2015. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no impact on current or future budgets as a result of amending the District's Conflict-ofInterest Code.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

The Political Reform Act requires local government agencies to conduct a review of their Conflict-of-Interest Code every two years to determine if amendments are required . The FPPC is the code reviewing body for multi-county agencies and must be given notice of any amendments. AC Transit's Conflict of Interest Code was last amended by the FPPC in February of this year. The amendments adopted in February were drafted in 2012 and, because of the delay in getting those amendments approved, the District had to delay the 2014 Biennial Review and amendment until the process that started in 2012 was complete. As part of the amendment process, each executive staff member was asked to review the list of designated positions and disclosure categories for their department. Amendments to the code were based on Board actions to create new job classifications and modifications to existing 95

Report No. 15-032 Page 2 of 2 classifications that were made administratively, such as changes in the job title or job duties. The draft code (attached) proposes 33 amendments, which are consistent with the organizational changes made over the last few years. The proposed amendment has been reviewed and concurred with by both the Interim General Manager and the General Counsel. The next step in the review process is to notify all affected employees and the public that the District intends to amend its Conflict-of-Interest Code, which provides for a 45 day period to submit written comments regarding the proposed amendments. The comment period is anticipated to begin on July 31st and will run through September 15th. Any comments received will be forwarded to the FPPC along with the recommended amendments for review and approval by the Commission. There is no requirement to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed amendments unless one is requested. Any affected person may request one no later than 5:00p.m. on Monday, August 31st. All amendments will take effect 30 days after the FPPC approves them and will be brought back to the Board for ratification as amendments to Board Policy 116 (Conflict-of-Interest Code). It is anticipated this will occur in late 2015. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The advantage of conducting a thorough review of the District's Conflict-of-Interest Code every two years is to ensure accurate disclosure of material interests by agency officials who make or participate in making governmental decisions. Ultimately, this serves as a catalyst to ensure public trust in government. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Because AC Transit is a multi-county agency, the Board of Directors has no authority to approve or enact changes to the Conflict-of-Interest Code. The authority to amend the code rests solely with the Fair Political Practices Commission. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy 116- Conflict of Interest Code ATTACHMENTS: 1: Draft Amendment to Conflict-of-Interest Code

2:

Rationale for Proposed Amendments

Reviewed by: Prepared by:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Counsel Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

96

SR 15-032 Attachment 1

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CODE FOR THE ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

The Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000, et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict-of-interest codes.

The Fair

Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2 Cal. Code of Regs. Sec. 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict-of-interest code, which can be incorporated by reference in an agency's code. After public notice and hearing, the standard code may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference . This regulation and the attached Appendix, designating positions and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the conflict-of-interest code of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (District).

Individuals holding designated positions shall file their statements of economic interests with the District Secretary, who will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction . (Gov. Code Sec. 81008) All statements will be retained by the District.

*Positions designated in the Conflict of Interest Code may or may not be funded.

97

Page 1

Appendix A

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CODE

Designated positions shall disclose pursuant to the appropriate disclosure category as indicated in Appendix B. CATEGORY 1- Investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments, from, entities that provide services, products, or equipment of the type utilized by the District, including, but not limited to, public utilities, consultants, transportation companies, and manufacturers. CATEGORY 2- Investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments, from, entities that provide services, products, or equipment of the type utilized by the designated position's department or division. CATEGORY 3 -

All interests in real property located within a half mile from property owned by the District and any existing or proposed District route .

~CATEGORY 4- Investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income,

including loans, gifts, and travel payments, from, entities that filed a claim against the District during the previous two years, or have a claim pending against the District. CATEGORY 5 - Investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments from entities including nonprofit organizations that have appeared before the District in regards to District projects or District decisions such as fleet purchases or route changes during the previous two years.

[* Need to discuss with the FPPC a possible amendment to Category 4 to address issues related to the filer having knowledge that a claim has been filed .]

*Positions designated in the Conflict of Interest Code may or may not be funded.

98

Page 2

Appendix B

DESIGNATED POSITIONS* ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CODE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 87200 FILERS The following positions are not covered by the code because they must file under Government Code Section 87200 and, therefore, are listed for informational purposes only: • • • • •

General Manager Chief Financial Officer Treasury Manager Treasury Services Administrator Board of Directors Chief Operating Officer

An individual holding one of the above listed positions may contact the Fair Political Practices Commission for assistance or written advice regarding their filing obligations if they believe that their position has been categorized incorrectly. The Fair Political Practices Commission makes the final determination whether a position is covered by Government Code Section 87200.

ADVISORY COMMITTESS AMEND#

AMEND#

27

~,

POSITION Members of the Accessibility Advisory Committee Members of the Policy Steering Committee (BRT)

CATEGORY

POSITION

CATEGORY

1 1,3

1

Accessible Services Manager Accessible Services Specialist Accounting Manager Apprentice and Training Coordinator Assistant Di rector of Ma intenance Assistant Director of Transportation Assistant District Secretary Assistant General Counsel Assistant General Manager Attorney- All

B

.,. '\ .Y .,;-~:..·:.', !

2

1,3 2

1.3A.5 1,3,4,5 1,3 1,3,4,5 1,3,4,5 1,4 ';;

.~

'(..:, . .,

£

·'' 1,3 1

Budget Manager Buyer

I *Positions designated in the Conflict of Interest Code may or may not be funded. 99

Page 3

AMEND#

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33 8

9 10

c Ca12ital Planning and Grants Manager

1,3,5

Chief Administrative Services Officer Chief Human Resources Officer Chief Information Services Officer

M 1~3A~5

Chief Performance Officer

113A 15

Chief Planning and Develo~ment Officer Chief Planning1 Engineering and Construction Officer

113A15 1131415 113A15 1,3,4 1 4,1 1 1,3 1

Chief Technolog~ Officer Claims and Liability Administrator Contract Specialist Contracts Compliance Administrator Contracts Services Manager Controller Customer Services Manager D Director of Administrative Services Director of Bus Rapid Transit Director of Capital Projects Director of Environmental Technology Director of Information Technology Director of Labor Relations Director of Legislative Affairs and Communit~ Relations Director of Maintenance

11 12 13

Director of Management and Budget

14

Director of S~stems and Software Develo12ment Director of Transportation District Secretary E Electronic Systems Supervisor Enterprise Network Engineer Enterprise Software Engineer Environmental Engineer

15 16

Director of 012erations Su~~ort Director of Project Controls and S~stems Anal~sis Director of Service Development and Planning Director of Service Supervision

Egual Em12lo~ment O~~ortunit~ Program Administrator External Affairs Re12resentative F Facilities Maintenance Manager Finance Administrator

*Positions designated in the Conflict of Interest Code may or may not be funded. 100

1,4

1,3,4,5 1,3,4,5 1,3,4,5 1,3,4,5 1,3,4,5 1 1135 1,3,4,5 2 113A15 1 1,3,4,5 1,3,4,5 2 1,3,4,5 1,3 1 1 1 1,3 2 1135 1,3 1 Page 4

Finance Administrator '"'!

G

"'·

II,

::; '

l

'!'~

{

···-.

-

~

'

1 -~

_,,,,

1,3A,S 113A1 5

Genera l Counsel

17

,,

General Services Manager ,,, H Human Resources Administrator

,..

31

.,

-~.

"'

''.

-~





Human Resou rces M anager

I

1l

rl'

;5

'

1: Labor Relations Manager

....

'

~

'~-

,.,.

-

,-,, ;,

M

29 18 19 20

L

,

1 1d 1,3

Information Services Project Manager Information Services Support M anager Internal Audit Manager

as

,,

.. "'C

2 2

.

·1

..

1 ;,;

:\

~'

"'" '

.

'<'

'· :~.-

... :::

,,./'. ·-._,

.,

~

1,3 ~

Manager of Special Projects/Services Manager of S~stems Ana l ~sis Marketing Admini strator Marketing and Commun ications Director Marketing and Commu nity Relations Manager Media Affairs Manager Materials Superint endent

21

~

..

OPerations and Data Svstems Administrator

-~-.:rtf

p

;

23

,

·"-•

)",,-

..!

1.3.4

'[>,

-~:. ,''

<

~

1,3 2,3 2,3 1 1._1 1 1,3 11 3A15 1,3A 1

Plann ing Operat ions Admin istrator Principal Financial Analyst Procurement & M aterials Dire ctor Project Controls Administrator Project Engineer-Architect Project Manager Protective Services Manager Purchasing Manager

t

R

~··" 'i"

'"

,,.,-

s

-~-~-.

;c·' -~ :'.!''~.

-

Real Estate Manager ~-

~~·

.

:\

·l"'

1,3A,S -~.,..

~:·rr

,.

,.,_

-~·: --

i}·

2

Safety Administrator

I

1,3 2 1 1,3 1 1 1

"
)

:.

Planning Dat a Administrator Planning Data Analyst

32 22

l.

1 2._1 2

Maintenance Superintendent Maintenance Technical Superviso r MaRageF, Ga~ital PlaRRiRg, begislatiaR aREl GFaRts M anager of Safety and Environmental Engineering MaRageF af S~eeial PFajeets

0

'

*Positions designated in the Conflict of Interest Code may or may not be funded .

101

Page 5

24

Senior Advisor Senior Capital Planning Specialist Senior Claims Representative Senior Buyer Senior Grants Administrator Senior Human Resources Administrator Senior Maintenance Supervisor Senior PeopleSoft Engineer Senior Project Manager Senior Transportation Planner

25

26

30

Service Planning Manager T Technical Services Manager Telecommunications Administrator Traffic and Schedules Administrator Traffic and Schedules Manager Traffic Engineer Transit Schedules Manager Training/Education Manager Transportation Planner Transportation Planning Manager Transportation Superintendents

1,3,5 1,3,5 1,3,4 1 1,3,5 2 1 1 1,3,5 1,3,5 1,3A,5 2,5 1 2,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 2 2,3,5 1,3,5 2~

CONSULTANTS/NEW POSITIONS*

* Consultants/new positions shall be included in the list of designated positions and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code, subject to the following limitation: The General Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant or new position, although a "designated position," is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus, is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section. Such determination shall include a description of the consultant's or new position's duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The General Manager's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict-of-interest code (Gov. Code Sec. 81008).

*Positions designated in the Conflict of Interest Code may or may not be funded . 102

Page 6

SR 15-032 Attachment 2

2015 BIENNIAL REVIEW- RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AMEND REF#

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 13

14

,.

DESCRIPTION

The classification specification for Manager of Capital Planning, Legislation and Grants was renamed Capital Planning and Grants Manager in 2014; See amendment #18 (Reference Staff Report 15008) The classification specification for Chief Administrative Services Officer was adopted on July 9, 2014, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 14-190). The classification specification for Chief Information Services Officer was adopted on July 9, 2014, as of a result of a reorganization {Staff Report 14-190). The classification specification for Chief Performance Officer was adopted on February 13, 2013, as of a result of a reorganization {Staff Report 13-063). The classification specification for Chief Planning and Development Officer was adopted on February 13, 2013, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 13-063). The classification specification for Chief Planning, Construction and Engineering Officer was adopted on July 9, 2014, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 14-190). The classification specification for Chief Technology Officer was revised and revived on February 13, 2013, as a result of a reorganization {Staff Report 13-063). The classification specification for Contract Services Manager Officer was adopted on July 9, 2014, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 14-190). The classification specification for Director of Labor Relations was adopted on July 9, 2014, as of a result of a reorganization {Staff Report 14-190). The classification specification for Director of Legislative Affairs and Community Relations was adopted on February 13, 2013, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 13-063). The classification specification for Director of Management and Budget was adopted on July 9, 2014, as of a result of a reorganization {Staff Report 14-190). The classification specification for Director of Operations Support was adopted on February 13, 2013 (Staff Report 13-058). The classification specification for Director of Project Control and Systems Analysis was adopted on February 13, 2013, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 13-063). The classification specification for Director of Systems and Software Development was adopted on July 9, 2014, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 14-190). Revised June 29, 2015 103

15

16

17

18

19 20

21

22 23

24 25 26

27 28

29 30 31 32

The classification specification for Equal Employment Opportunity Program Administrator was adopted on February 13, 2013, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 13-058). Add External Affairs Representative. This position was unbudgeted for years and removed from the code. Position has been reinstated and is now funded. The classification specification for General Services Manager was adopted on February 13, 2013, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 13-058). Remove Manager of Capital Planning, Legislation and Grants because it was renamed Capital Planning and Grants Manager; See amendment #1 (Reference Staff Report 15-008) Remove Manager of Special Projects because it was renamed Project Manager; See amendment #23 (Reference Staff Report 15-008) The classification specification for Manager of Systems Analysis was adopted on July 9, 2014, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 14-190). The classification specification for Operations and Data Systems Administrator was adopted on July 9, 2014, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 14-190). The classification specification for Project Controls Administrator was adopted on February 27, 2013 (Staff Report 13-072). The classification specification for Manager of Special Projects was renamed Project Manager, See amendment #19 (Reference Staff Report 15-008) The classification specification for Senior Advisor was adopted on July 9, 2014, as of a result of a reorganization (Staff Report 14-190). The classification specification for Service Planning Manager was adopted on October 9, 2013 (Staff Report 13-267). The classification specification for Telecommunications Administrator was adopted on February 27, 2013 (Staff Report 13072). The classification specification for Assistant Director of Maintenance was adopted on September 10, 2014 (Staff Report 14-249). Add Labor Manager. This is a vacant position; however, the classification specification was amended in 2014 and it should be included as a designated position (Staff Report 15-008). Added appropriate disclosure category based on duties of the position. Added appropriate disclosure category based on duties of the position. Added appropriate disclosure category based on duties of the position. Added appropriate disclosure category based on duties of the position. Revised June 29, 2015 104

33

Added appropriate disclosure category based on duties of the position.

Revised June 29, 2015 105

This page intentionally blank 

106

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-201 July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

External Affairs Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Denise Standridge, General Counsel

SUBJECT:

City of Emeryville Official Assessment Ballot

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider whether or not to support the City of Emeryville's Citywide Property and Business Improvement District Assessment and authorize the Interim General Manager, or her designee, to execute and submit the official ballots on behalf of AC Transit. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Emeryville sent five ballots to AC Transit to vote on the Citywide Property and Business Improvement District Assessment levied for the support of shuttle bus services (Emery Go-Round). The ballots were sent based upon AC Transit's ownership of three parcels in the City of Emeryville, within one-quarter mile of an Emery Go-Round stop. However, AC Transit has two other parcels that were listed on the assessment roll for which ballots were received . The City of Emeryville will hold a public hearing on August 4, 2015, by which time all ballots must be submitted. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

While there is no budgetary impact associated with the ballots being cast, if the assessments are levied, AC Transit will be assessed $20,752.92. The District will then have to spend the time to argue it is exempt from the assessment.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

The City of Emeryville is seeking to extend the Citywide Property and Business Improvement District (PBID) assessment, the primary funding source for the Emery Go-Round shuttle. The assessment is scheduled to end at the end of the 2015-2016 fiscal year. Ballots, along with a notice of public hearing and a fact sheet were sent to property owners in the City of Emeryville setting forth the maximum assessment rate for that particular parcel to be levied for a period of fifteen (15) years with five percent (5%) annual increases. According to the City of Emeryville's assessment roll, AC Transit owns five parcels in the City of Emeryville one located on Doyle Drive, two on 4ih St., and two located on Adeline St. The parcels located on 4ih Street are a part of Division 2. The proposed annual assessments for the two Adeline and two 4ih St. parcels are each $0.00, but for the Doyle Drive parcel, the assessment is $20,792.92. The amount of the assessment is based on a report provided by Emeryville's assessment engineer. 107

Report No. 15-201 Page 2 of 2 This proposed PBID assessment is subject to a Proposition 218 ballot by mail process and all ballots must be submitted by the time of the public hearing, August 4, 2015 at 7:16 p.m. The City Council will consider approving and imposing the annual PBID assessment if there is no majority protest. According to Proposition 218, ballots are weighted according to the proposed assessment to be paid by each parcel. The ballot received for the Doyle Drive parcel with the $20,792.92 assessment, will be the only ballot weighted because the other ballots received were for parcels with zero assessment. If there is no majority protest, it is likely that the City Council will approve the PBID ballots and impose the assessment. From prior experience of receiving delinquency notices on the one assessed parcel, it can be expected that the City of Emeryville will continue to impose the assessment on AC Transit. It is then up to the District to argue that it is exempt from special assessments as a local public agency. Staff requests that the Board provide direction on whether or not to support the City of Emeryville's Citywide Property and Business Improvement District Assessment and authorize the Interim General Manager, or her designee, to execute and submit the official ballots on behalf of AC Transit pursuant to said direction. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The advantage of this report is that the District can submit a ballot for each parcel. There is no disadvantage to submitting ballots. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The alternative to submitting the ballots is to not submit them and let the rest of the electorate decide if the assessments will be imposed. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None ATTACHMENTS: 1: City of Emeryville Official Ballots for parcels 049-1024-005-01, 049-1180-001-00, 049-1024005-02, 049-1178-003-00, and 049-1179-001-00 2: Relevant pages of City of Emeryville Citywide Property and Business Improvement District Fiscal Year 2015/16 Assessment Roll

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:

108

u Jl

11111111111111111111

1111111 IIIII 111111111111111 1111111111 11111111

Weight

Att. 1 to SR 15-201

City of Emeryville Official Ballot

Type

2075292

303 - 15-02

Citywide Property and Business Improvement District The City of Emeryville proposes to levy an assessment on properties within the City's boundaries. The assessment will generate a p01tion of the revenue required for the Emeryville Transportation Management Authority to operate the Emery Go-Round shuttle service. In order to calculate the assessment for parcels within the PBID, property and vehicle trip data have been evaluated and the method of assessment detailed in the Engineer's Report and summarized in the enclosed Notice has been applied with Special Benefit Points assigned to each parcel. The Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point is $171.52 and is proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on the 2015/16 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment for Assessor's Parcel Number 049 -1180-001-00 is $20,752.92. The following variables were used in dete1mining the assesSIT)ent on this parcel: Land Use Classification: General Office Property Characteristics: 146,085 Building Square Feet Service Days: 5-Days

O

Yes

O

No

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Supp01t the Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point of $171.52, proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on 2015/16 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment is $20,752.92 for APN 049-1180-001-00. Oppose the Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point of $171.52, proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on 2015/16 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment is $20,752.92 for APN 049-1180-001-00.

MARK YOUR BALLOT LIKE THIS: • Your ballot must be marked, signed and received by the close of the Public Hearing on August 4, 2015 or it will not be counted. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS DETACH HERE BEFORE ENCLOSING BALLOT PORTION IN ENVELOPE-- DO NOT DISCARD THIS PORTION

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - California that I am entitled to complete and submit this ballot. . ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

Parcel Number 049 -1180-001-00

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

THIS ADDRESS SHOWS IN THE WINDOW OF THE RETURN ENVELOPE :

Emeryville PBID Ballot Proceeding c/o TrueBallot, Inc. P.O. Box 28055 Oakland, CA 94604-9933

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

. ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT 1600 FRANKLIN ST OAKLAND, CA 94612-2806

87 109

u .II

p 01

11111111111111111111

City of Emeryville Official Ballot

Type IIIII! 11111111

Weight

0

303->S-02

Citywide Property and Business Improvement District The City of Emeryville proposes to levy an assessment on properties within the City's boundaries. The assessment will generate a portion of the revenue required for the Emeryville Transportation Management Authority to operate the Emery Go-Round shuttle service. In order to calculate the assessment for parcels within the PBID, property and vehicle trip data have been evaluated and the method of assessment detailed in the Engineer's Report and summarized in the enclosed Notice has been applied with Special Benefit Points assigned to each parcel. The Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point is $171.52 and is proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on the 2015116 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment for Assessor's Parcel Number 049 -I 024-005-0 I is $0.00. Th!l follo\.Yjng.}'_ariables w_«r~ used in determinJDg the a~ses~ll)~nt on~this parcel:. Land Use Classification: None Property Characteristics: n/a Service Days: 7-Days

0

Yes

ONo

·lmllllll~llllll~lrllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Support the Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point of$171.52, proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on 20 15116 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment is $0.00 for APN 049-1024-005-01. Oppose the Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point of $171.52, proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on 2015116 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment is $0.00 for APN 049-1024-005-01.

MARK YOUR BALLOT LIKE THIS:



Your ballot must be marked, signed and received by the close of the Public Hearing on August 4, 2015 or it will not be counted. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS

------------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DETACH HERE BEFORE ENCLOSING BALLOT PORTION IN ENVELOPE-- DO NOT DISCARD THIS PORTION

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - California that I am entitled to complete and submit this ballot. . ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

Parcel Number 049-1024-005-01

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll THIS ADDRESS SHOWS IN THE WINDOW OF THE RETURN ENVELOPE:

Emeryville PBID Ballot Proceeding c/o TrueBallot, Inc. P.O. Box 28055 Oakland, CA 94604-9933

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 . ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT 1600 FRANKLIN ST OAKLAND, CA 94612-2806

85 110

01

11111111111111111111

City of Emeryville Official Ballot

Type 111111111111111

Weight

0

303-15-02

Citywide Property and Business Improvement District The City of Emeryville proposes to levy an assessment on properties within the City's boundaries. The assessment will generate a portion of the revenue required for the Eme1yville Transportation Management Authority to operate the Emery Go-Round shuttle service. In order to calculate the assessment for parcels within the PBID, property and vehicle trip data have been evaluated and the method of assessment detailed in the Engineer's Report and summarized in the enclosed Notice has been applied with Special Benefit Points assigned to each parcel. The Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point is $171.52 and is proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on the 2015116 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment for Assessor's Parcel Number 049 -I 024-005-02 is $0.00. The following variables were used in determining the assessment on this parcel: Land Use Classification: None Property Characteristics: n/a Service Days: 7-Days

DYes

D

No

· 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Support the Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point of $171 .52, proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on 2015/16 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment is $0.00 for APN 049 -1024-005-02. Oppose the Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point of $171 .52, proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on 2015/16 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment is $0.00 for APN 049 -1024-005-02.

MARK YOUR BALLOT LIKE THIS: • Your ballot must be marked, signed and received by the close of the Public Hearing on August 4, 2015 or it will not be counted. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS DETACH HERE BEFORE ENCLOSING BALLOT PORTION IN ENVELOPE-- DO NOT DISCARD THIS PORTION

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - California that I am entitled to complete and submit this ballot. . ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

Parcel Number 049 -1 024-005-02

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll THIS ADDRESS SHOWS IN THE WINDOW OF THE RETURN ENVELOPE:

Emeryville PBID Ballot Proceeding c/o TrueBaUot, Inc. P.O. Box 28055 Oakland, CA 94604-9933

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 . ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT 1600 FRANKLIN ST OAKLAND, CA 94612-2806

86 111

01

p 01

111111111111 111 1111

City of Emeryville Official Ballot

Type

1111111m1111 Weight

3 03 -15-02

Citywide Property and Business Improvement District The City of Emeryvi lle proposes to levy an assessment on properties within the City's boundaries. The assessment wi II generate a portion of the revenue required for the Emeryvi lle Transportation Management Authority to operate the Emery Go-Round shuttle service. In order to calculate the assessment for parcels within the PBID, property and vehicle trip data have been evaluated and the method of assessment detailed in the Engineer's Report and summarized in the enc losed Notice has been appJied with Special Benefit Points assigned to each parcel. The Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point is $17 1.52 and is proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on the 2015/16 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment for Assessor's Parce l Number 049 -1178-003-00 is $0.00. The following variables were used in determining the assessment on this parcel: Land Use Classification: X 07/03/20 IS 12:03:56 Property Characteristics: n/a Service Days: 5-Days

0

Yes

0

No

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Support the Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point of $ 171.52, proposed to be levied for a period of 15 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on 2015/16 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment is $0.00 for APN 049 -117 8-003-00. Oppose the Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point of $171.52, proposed to be levied for a period of IS years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on 20 15/16 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment is $0.00 for APN 049 -11 78-003-00.

MARK YOUR BALLOT LIKE THIS: • Your ballot must be marked, signed and received by the close of the Public Hearing on August 4, 2015 or it will not be counted. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS DETACH HERE BEFORE ENCLOSING BALLOT PORTION IN ENVELOPE -- DO NOT DISCARD THIS PORTION

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - California that I am entitled to complete and submit this ballot. . ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

Parcel Number 049 -I 178-003-00

1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

THIS ADDRESS SHOWS IN THE WINDOW OF THE RETURN ENVELOPE:

Emeryville PBID Ballot Proceeding c/o TrueBallot, Inc. P.O. Box 28055

llll\11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111 . ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

OakJand, CA 94604-9933

1600 FRANKLIN ST OAKLAND. CA 94612

88 112

01

p 01

1111111 111111111 1111

City of Emeryville Official Ballot

Type

111111111111111

Weight

303-15-02

Citywide Property and Business Improvement District

The City of Emeryville proposes to levy an assessment on properties within the City's boundaries. The assessment wi II generate a portion of the revenue required for the Emeryvil le Transportation Management Authority to operate the Emery Go-Round shuttle service. In order to calculate the assessment for parcels within the PBID, property and vehicle trip data have been evaluated and the method of assessment detailed in the Engineer's Report and summarized in the enclosed Notice has been applied with Special Benefit Points assigned to each parcel. The Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point is $17 I .52 and is proposed to be levied for a period of I 5 years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on the 20 I 5/16 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment for AssessotJs Parcel Number 049 -1179-001-00 is $0.00. The following variables were used in determining the assessment on this parcel: Land Use Classification: X 07/03/20 15 12:03:57 Property Characteristics: n/a Service Days: 5-Days

111111111111111111111 lllll lllllllllllllllllllllll

0

Yes

Support the Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point of $ 171.S2, proposed to be levied for a period of IS years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on 2015116 Special Benefit Point assignments, the proposed annual assessment is $0.00 for APN 049 -1179-001-00.

O

No

Oppose the Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per Specia l Benefit Point of $ 171.S2, proposed to be levied for a period of IS years with five percent (5%) annual increases. Based on 2015/16 Special Benefit Point assignments, t~e proposed annual assessment is $0.00 for APN 049 -1179-001-00.

MARK YOUR BALLOT LIKE THIS:



Your ballot must be marked, signed and received by the close of the Public Hearing on August 4, 2015 or it will not be counted. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS DETACH HERE BEFORE ENCLOSING BALLOT PORTION IN ENVELOPE-- DO NOT DISCARD THIS PORTION

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am entitled to complete and submit this ballot. . ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

Parcel Number 049 -1179-001-00

1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

THIS ADDRESS SHOWS IN THE WINDOW OF THE RETURN ENVELOPE:

Emeryville PBID Ballot Proceeding c/o TrueBa\\ot, lnc. P.O. Box 28055 Oakland, CA 94604-9933

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 • ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT 1600 FRANKLIN

ST

OAKLAND, CA 94612

89 113

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEDURE CITY OF EMERYVILLE CITYWIDE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This notice informs you, as the record owner of property within the proposed City of Emeryville Citywide Property and Business Improvement District (the "PBID"), that the City of Emeryville will be conducting a Public Hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of Californ ia and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act. The Public Hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at the City of Emeryvi lle Council Chambers, 1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, California on: August 4, 2015, at 7:16p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard . All interested persons are invited to attend and express opinions on the matter of the proposed PBID. RIGHT TO SUBMIT ASSESSMENT BALLOT Property Owners of record who desire to submit an assessment ballot must mail or personally deliver a completed assessment ballot, provided, however, all assessment ballots must be received by the City Clerk prior to the close of the Public Hearing to be counted. An assessment ballot and return envelope are enclosed with this Notice. All assessment ballots must be received by the City Clerk before the conclusion of the Public Hearing shown above. The mailing address is: Emeryville PBID Ballot Proceeding c/o TrueBallot, Inc. P.O. Box 28055 Oakland, CA 94604-9933 ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Boundaries of the District: The boundaries of the PBID include all property within the City of Emeryville; however, only the parcels within the City of Emeryville that are also within a one-quarter mile walking distance to an Emery GoRound shuttle stop are subject to the initial assessment. A copy of the Assessment Diagram for the PBID is included in \ne Management District Plan, a copy of which is available at the office of the City Clerk or online at www.ci.emeryville.ca.us. Total Proposed Fiscal Year 201 5/16 Maximum Assessment for the PBID: $3,409,869.45. Your Proposed Maximum Assessment for Fiscal Year 2015/16: The proposed maximum Fiscal Year 2015/16 assessment for your property is shown on the enclosed assessment ballot. Duration of Proposed Assessment: The proposed assessment for the PBID will be levied for a period of fifteen years beginning with Fiscal Year 2015/16 and will continue through Fiscal Year 2029/30. Cost of Living Inflator: The proposed maximum allowable assessment for the PBID and maximum allowable assessment rate per Special Benefit Point are subject to an increase of no more than five percent annually over the maximum allowable assessment for the PBID and maximum allowable assessment rate per Special Benefit Point for the previous fiscal year. Reasons for the Proposed Assessment: The proposed assessment will generate a portion of the revenue required for the Emeryville Transportation Management Authority to operate the Emery Go-Round shuttle service. Basis of Proposed Assessment: The method of apportionment of the proposed assessment is based upon the proportionate special benefit received from the services and conferred upon the property within the PBID over-andabove the general benefit conferred upon the public at large. All assessable parcels within the proposed PBID receive special and direct benefit from the services provided. Only parcels that receive direct special benefit are assessed, and each parcel is assessed in proportion to the estimated benefit received. 10880734.1

114

CITY OF EMERYVILLE CITYWIDE PROPERTY AND BUSIN ESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FACT SHEET BACKGROUND The Emery Go-Round shuttle (EGR) is considered to be one of the most successful shuttle services in the Bay Area . With ridership at almost 1.7 million, the EGR has been funded to date first by contributions of a small group of businesses and, for the last 14 years, a property and business improvement district assessment. The City of Emeryville has initiated proceedings to establish a new Citywide Property and Business Improvement District (the "PB ID") to continue to fund the majority of the revenue required to operate the EGR. The proceedings for the proposed PBID are being taken under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code, and Title 3, Chapter 9, Article 1 of the City of Emeryville Municipal Code. The ballot process is as required under Proposition 218 and Sections 53739 and 53750 and following of the Government Code .

A copy of the Management District Plan, including an Engineer's Report, which describes in detail the improvements and services provided by the proposed PBID, the nature of the special benefits conferred on property within the proposed PBID , and the method of assessment, is available online at www.ci.emervville.ca .us and is on file with the City Clerk. The proposed PBID will have a 15-year life beginning with the levy for Fiscal Year 2015/16, and ending with Fiscal Year 2029/30. After 15 years, the approval process must be repeated for the PBID to continue.

REPLACING THE CURRENT PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT If approved by property owners, the proposed PBID will replace the existing property and business improvement district, which was authorized to levy assessments through Fiscal Year 2015/16. If the proposed PBID is not approved by property owners, the existing property and business improvement district will levy a final parcel assessment for Fiscal Year 2015/16.

DISCREPANCIES The sources used to determine the assessment on each property were deemed to be reliable. However, if you have reason to believe that any of the variables used in determining your assessment, which are shown on your assessment ballot. are incorrect, please fill out the bottom of this sheet and mail or deliver it to the City Clerk's office (City of Emeryville, 1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608) as soon as possible. You may also fax it to the City at (510)-596-3724.

Information provided will be used to update the assessment data prior to placing the assessments on the tax roll , but will not affect the ballot proceedings. APN (as shown on ballot): - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -Owner name: _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Owner telephone number: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ Reason for discrepancy or comments : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --

115

This page intentionally blank 

116

City of Emeryville Citywide Property a nd Business Improvement Olstrict Fiscal Year2015/16 Assessment Roll

...-------- ---Q ...1C1i610&51Ni6

------~

0.-~.00

.,..,_

A£i&iiCU ldtc&:iAHTY CEVELQPiiiEHT

II'ONtU. WIWAN & VICTOIIIIA

KAUNIN IICVHE'n4 M & IE.RNST£»1

_...I.

-........ .....,

~SUSAN& D.Y ao£ff'EitA

~VfWCi.tcwi#ORm

oQI)[S$UIT

&311 ESSU:ST o&XItESSU $1 1052 Glt:OST

~Oo\'JII)W oi.I(A11«YNMTR$

0 . -lOIO
e.A.OHA~l&Jli.A!OtS'TEJNESTEU...l'

. . .,Ga)Ot)o.OO

AICifltE.OG~& Ol.IM PHuP fO£ItOOY:) OSCAA 1 & JIJ'NTA ntS Lf.!:mUAR MAO( 00A£Y l&. ~AlYSON P .t.LMOfCS Y'JII.fRED It

0.-toiOoOU.OO

......._.. ...1010(),... a.-10100tt-OO oe-~t.oo

•lQUSUif .QnUSO'T anu.suaT .QZ1[UCXST
11101'l4:SO&D ....soH I ""-

. . .W.O.OIO.OO

Olt•l010-Gt4o00 0 . -'WIIO.otS.OO a.-.-..ol6-CO 011·1010411.00

"""*"'

10ilidhtif

........,.......... """""-M

ClJIIUtANt.Mit'ti(TR Q.JVtAH Mt.RY KTit (AIONSUSANE

tOS
M·1GeiQ.OZ)oOO

Ct..RAANKA~Ul't&CUIIRAHWRtKTRETAI.. !oEI'CESUTE Pflf:R , ~Y .r.t.CQUEUI'E TRS

Olt -1~&.00

eoNAaN UIGI & CfU.,\,

SAUMST

UANCSHM> H

00-1011~1&.00

PARKER lOUSE E TR aA.'T)4 OtJit$tW.I $ & Kt.RWti'Uit k

4»>SN..EMST 4lHAOE:U/IEST AJlltAOlUNlST

a.-~1

............ Qolf.Qt..OIS.OO Olt -"1011.016-00 Oc:t·l011o017.ot OO·tOI'-'11..01

O.·lOI'I.Ott-00 0 . ·1011-otO
Olt·Q1.ozz.
a. .• ,.ozs,oo OO-lc:et4:4o00 0.-tOIJI.Q&OO

---

oe-•~ oe.....o:7..oo

CH..MEJI-S CKMIVO-S

""' ""'""' ......... HOWf.U.

NAIIIETT! W& PEAL .A.UA MTJt

....-...

01SAOE:UtCU &311AC.IE:UN!.ST C)05 AOVJI'C S T

~EL.'Mn.

to.ta4liii:DST

WONO S€K G & 8UN!TT STAN..ET .AX1t ln. Lli..IC SIUC O«NQTRI.J5T

QI..IIEAT....,...E&'r\AE~l

ts4lRD:n CXIIUSUST 412USI.XIT 016ESSUST o&ll'OUSD$T 43:22ESSVtiT Cl2•IE$SUST .Ql'IEUUST QOO loCtilM S T COOAO!UI«ST ClOAOlUHlST C220 ACaJIC S T 4ZlOACn»E $T Q:oGAOfUICST

~ ....... ~sue:

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

~~J'nt

--- ................. ...---"""''""""' ---.. -----~

.em AOE:IJNE ST

~Wif'tMl'!:

,&

.... MUtll.. .w:tllt 1000.c:zM) STFIE£T IJ..C 8AI.~S & JASIIItKNSt

o..~.(IO

~~C&~K

GSO~NEST

. . .....o-1).(10

et'IM'EYOOfrMI.Dit&~ J

q'IO AQOJH! S T .VOACE.UNEST

O..lQI&.Ot:.OO

P'06l:YDEWofl

.QIO~&T

oe •tt740Zlo00 . . . . 1 7~

CIONT'IE.RCA~"& I.AM'f'nts

tO&ot.csTHST IOII.sTH&T oi$TH&TM l0C45TWST 4500INI "AII.O .wt 4501 SAN ,AltO AVl 4501 SAN PABlO AVE .t$12iAHPAII.OAVE lott47THST 4S50 SN1 PACK.O AVIE 4 700SAI\IP'-8U)AV! 4mt:OT 4501 SAN PA&I.O AYE 4$0 $MI PA81.0 AV( • n..sT

_.._...

0.· 1 17~ 04f•U7~1

oe-t1740V4:1 0.·117442'1-«1 0..·117..o:t-OCI 0.· 11 7~

oo-n7•· o:n..az

cc:H1'Wt CATHEJt1NE & LARRY ntS T~JCMofW&t
.. .,._..u.c ... CN.PUSW: ... CN.PUSW: f:81CNriiPUSU.C ... CAioP\ISW: EBICotWUSU.C

0.·1 1 7~

t•c;.u,pusu.c

Olt-tt17.oD7.ot

R & J IN\IESTW.:HTS W:

o.a, ••

,78-00).00

M·11J1.oCICW.OO 04·11 ~ M ·11~1.(10

O.:t·lleo.oot.OO M-t1eo.ocr:..oo Oti · 11. 1<0Dt..(IO

A1.AloEOt.~C:OSTA~ OIST'RJCT

HNtMANK,ClMifSTJ.«HT AAMSTROHO PREMER I"AAf'ERTY U.C ~QA CQNTAAC:OSTA "'-""SrT OtSTR1CT A~.ANEo-.CONTRAc:c:I$TA lRA/I:SIT asTRICT $PCQJ72.~ IE~ I.N1W)SO«XX.. '"TRlCT

o..ne:.ot~

UIEitY I.NAtC S0100l. DISTRICT

o.ct.nt.).01Q.O:)

JIE~MAAQARETK& l'[OC

0.-11Q.Ot~

AHSTJUH)s.us.t.H DTR6 tMGN.ISENNOR.A

Oft -11&).0134) . . .111.).015-00 a. ·11Go01-.o:) 00-11tlo017.00 M•HO.Oif.OO M·UD-01t«< 011·110«.'040 Ge·llD4%1.0)

'"""""""""........

04·11~ O&t-11~&4)

_

CA&.J«::U"N.O'lOU& a.u.EZOt.A 1RS CAl.HOI.H AI.OlOSL & W.UctA TRS 'NAH C tiAHtN & ~ M Qlt.EV T'RUST wttTE~ JUAl

........ w.ACHTR ~IIIC8Vn'M~a....R1

~ MJrrW.O " CIII8CIUONTGAANER tJoUitA CAATVt IW
•xn oon.EST


....,ST

Olt-11~

"""" ......... '

011-1 1~

c:oa.oH ""f'o ,0111 PARC£1.. MI


OIS·II~

a.wmN~SUU.C

12COsnHST 11tSSJRD$T 1Z2t$lRDST tz::oiSllltDST tllOSJRO ST IZ:ltSlROSTM 1202 $oiTH ST

CMt-1ll$oOOI.CO M·1)17.CO...ctt 04f·ll16<00\.02

\"tATUn'
S710 HCUJS S T S772P£l..AOENJST

..,~

~K(.No~E'THJ1'R .~£1t1C$TRETAL

loi07 ~[U.$T

Oct·llo.o:zi,O)

0.·110GJ0.00 Ge-1 100)~

...

0.-131f..CICI:).Ql 0... ·11t4o007~

04t-1)1a.ooJ.OS

M-1llto00&.00 M·tl~

OIIJ•Uit-oc:e.ol CMI·1lla.oct.o4

afVQ<~

MAGUAl: 0W£N $ & At.AE N SHW'CVtOOtl

S1'0t 141US s TAEET U.C 1407 JIIOW!U.ST"!ET ASSOCIAT£5 l.LC& SOMER KETAl.. VttC S TR & soe.tfR ICENIEn4 J TR ETAl.

=,...........,.... ~

5701 HOUJSSntEETUC 57'CI1 HOUJS STRUTU.C CfTY OF EMERYVIU.E

t~I'CM'EUST

S701110UJS.\T SlUP£.t.ADE.AUSTf101 S71f.PE:L.AOEAUSTI'NI HOWSST HOW$$T HOUJS ST $101 HOI..USST

LollfMIUM~IIitu"-

------m_.,m

....,-a,.........., ....,.~~

......... s.-.,... ·~-, >.><:

.....

~

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

~-.~

t.t7S

.....,_,~

2,oM7

,,..

~...,~

t . rn

...........

~-...~

1,17) 1,17S 1,17)

""""'"'...,............ ~_,~

~_,~ .....,_.,~

..............

l ,ttl

-----

'~" ..... .....

......s,..,~

........,_._,~ ,.....,._.,~

~. . . AMidHCW

l.712 S,)U

.......,._.,~

un

tl/iM.#_.,.......,.. ........

..........

__ -----tll,lli;l_.,~

~,.

.....,_.,~

~

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

,_

~~~

1 .1~

...

........,_,~

....,~

~,..

-

.....

....... ..............

--.... ~

1,172

··......-... ..,

Sio'IIW'....... ~

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

1, 17% 1,172

,_..,.,..,~

............. ........,...., .............. ......,...,.....,.. ~

------__·-·__ .... ....__

~.....,

1, 172

~

.......,.....,~

~-

.....,..... .......... ~

........ .... ............ ........ ........ ........ .... .... uo ........ 2AO

~1,1&3

~.....,

,.,.,

'""'

........ ....

uo

... ..,..

~_...~w

~

'·"' ....

.........,

~IIIMt~

~

.•

1,.,) 1,1... <1, 11•

~ ~ ~.-..

....... .... ............ ........ ........ .... .... ....,,..... .... ..... .... 2.60

,~,

....,_.,~

-. UIO

··-.....,_,.

~....,~

~...,



1.17S

~_.,~

~_...

""''Act"

._ ....

.., ·-........,,.

UM.t l " - " J.so-1

... '

~~

......,.-,.....w..cw

.....,....._,~

27. $Q 22.000

,_~ --

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

~

'·"" "·""

....

C'".tnMaiOil'iee

.......,

145,«)85

.....

...........

l,tr.

~_.,ft

..._.

~..,~

%.It:

~~~

""' '·"" ,...,

'·"'

......,_.,~

.

'·"" ,.., '·"" '·""

M.lltl...,~

......--__......,._.,~

~....,~

...

....,,....,~

1.1t:

.............. _

....,~~

_,

.....,...,~

.,.,_.,...

'·""

10,01Z

n ...:

-----

...,~

..'·.".." .,.

Ovdlotlldpo'OA

10. MO

--

..

:n .M ·~

,.., ..,, HiU!i

.... .... .... ,... .... .... '""' ,.... ... .... >.>0

...,., ...,., ...,., ._ ._ ...,., ...,., ._ ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., 1<><¥ 1<><¥ 1<><¥ 1<>-t 1<>-t

._ ...,., ._ ._ ...,.,

...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ._ ._ ...,., ...,., ._ ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., 77<>-t

711-

._ ._ ...,.,

...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ._ ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., 7...,., ._ >e>r ...,., 5<>-t ._ ...,., ...,., ..., ...,., ...,., ...,., ..., ...,., ..., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,., ...,.,

.... ........ .... ._ ,,. ,..... . ., ._ ...,., ......., ...,., .... ...,.,

.

11.11

7-f»t

..., ..., ...,., 7-o.r

...,.,

"""

....._

·- .., 41>

4,

4n 4, 4n 4n o.n 4n o.n 41>

............... ., ., ..,... ,, ., .., . .. ., .. ,, VXI

o.n 411

47> o.n

47> 4,

o.n

o.n 47>

41>

o.n o.n

...... ....

,, ,

41>

41"> o.n o.n o.n o.n

.... o.n

---.... ........... ..,. ,.

= U>

..,..,

...,... 0,71 0.71

.... ...... ........ ........... ,_, 0, 71

..

..,,

....,_, ........,, ....,, ,.,. ....,.,..... ,.,. U<

~"

.., ..,

:us

.... ............ ......, .... ........ 0,71

1,Ml.M

"'-" ...... ,...., >DA1 >DA1 >DA1

...... ,,.., >DA1 171-'2

.,.., .,.., 1lt.&l 111.a

......

111-'1 111-'1

'"·" 1'UI

7M .Ol 2:MA1 11 .... 1

...... >n.<7

•n.n t%U7 >22.<1

,,..., ,. ... 10.1:1 )1Ut

,._,,

'""'' "'.n t71.R

,,... 111.&2

111,12

>UA7 ,....,

,,>UA7 ...., ,...,,

nc.•1

41>

o.n o.n 0.71

47> o.n 4n

......, .... .., ....,, 4n

n7>

41>

..,

o.n

.., ......, 47> o.n 47> Q.OI

4n o.n 47> o.n

......, o.n o.n

....

o.n

0.01

........ ~"

0.71 0.71

0.71

, ...

,"·"' ... ..,. ,,....

..... ....,, ..., .... ... '"", ..., .......,

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

...,..., et.U

......,.

>S.«

7.0>

).111.11 1.M&.. . t .l«Ut

'·"'"" 20,7S2.t1

..... ·~·, ....,...,.,. ,,...,. ..... ...... ,..., ...... 11U1

,... ,...

7UO

......

:l> .-+

:-+ N

>.

.-+

l C.OIC.tt f.t7Ut 17.)7

(/)

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

0 =='='

.....

\.11 I

N 0

..... P~ 7eiSO

117

City of Emeryville Citywide Property and Business Improvement District Fisul Year 2015116 Assessment Roll

-

64..ot,.. UILOO 11TUHJCil:tU. o.tt-411 ..101.(0

..... JtlUCTH ll& 'Mf'HE W TRS

oet.oll~toloCO

M4~1C&~WntS

0..411 ..10fo40 0.-411.1'10<00

CCIACIN AlttLA 01 ,., 51%8 sa lHitU toa IIUf.Liil ~ OWNfJtS ASSOC&ATION INC aTY"' OCIMII.LE aTYOf' ............

Oft.ol1~111.01

---.-.--

,..,

..._,.....,~

HI'I.YOIST *YUUT•U

CATD.l.USlllllf.SII)IElr~INC

041411~

EAST MY MIDGf. ~AIL U.C

. . I
Od.ollt-006-00 04t.o11MIOS-OO

CATil.LUS Rf.SIC)Orm,t,l, ~INC EAST lAY 1NDCZ U.C

Ott.ol1t.ooe.oo Od.ot50-001.(0

M.OfSt.Q04.0Z Ott.oe51~

...........

""lirA. EASTMY~f!IETM.U.C

.M31DIEM'ST

.._.......,

,_IMP~ AYE

l70tSNIIPAILOAW: 10nJ7THST

Q'NC#~

IO:ZSW~kVO

3100 SM PAILD AV£ net: ,_.AC:EWeiT

Oolt..otS6411.CO

04t.ol54.o1400

lMOACWftEU.C

3910AOEUNE ST 3960ADEUtE ST .JMOAOfUfEST

.............. ...

OoiS.OfS.t.OOI~

......._ ..,..,.._

--uc: ....., _ --LLC ...... ...... .................. --uc: .............. --uc: -.. ... --uc: _..,._u.c ................ --u.e ...- ... ---u.c 04t~IS.OO

10M't'tA8A~AV[

MllAOEIJirEIT 1~ Y(A8A a,.ea AV( toto& TVteA ......lA A.V(

OoiS.otS441...00 OoiS.ot54417.00 Ott .Qf5441&.00

.IO$H fWJP'(RTIE$ u.c

OoiS~It-00

3110 ADEUtE U.C

-~IT

liMOACEtJtrEW:

lMOAC(UJE ST l'MO'ACIEU1'tEST• KI5 3MOAOIW.ST HIOACIEUNEST•tOf

........,_,...,

_,.. _....

)SIOAO£UtE ST lMO AOELJM: ST

liMOACI!IJNI!:U..C

..........meA$ CONOKJEGECACE L &~ ~ r«NCA &CANEPA 9RIANE

_

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

Oft-OfS64Z7.(0

Olf..ot$6.0)1-liO

:tMOAOE.U~ST

)MOADlU,_ ITU.' 07

~I«ClOitJ&a.YC:

MtOADf.Lit«.ST• no

~ACIEl.JN!LU;

)MOAOELJN:$T liiKIACEUf'EIT l!MOAC.IOJMST , . , ACEUfr€ $T

..__......,.

,_,AOOJtrC STQ>I

WOOG ..... T

---u.c -- --u.c ......,... ...............

~I':O~ & TUtNER..IAOCM..aJNEM

..,_ 04·10Z2.oo&o00 Oft·I0Uo00'14)

lttO~ST

QT'f&~TMii!ULI'

Oolt·1~

YOUSI.F MOtWoNAOO & NA$11:£04 8 & $1.A.£MAH IHoEO 1001 eM) S'D'££1' IJ..C

Olf.t0lJ.006,.00 Ooft . tC12')(107.00

<>.ElORA....,..

Oolt·10:J.OOI.O) Od.tQJ.loOIO.OO

F~LA~P'

N!!f>lo'MNf.TAt.&SI-IAO(~'f

IOGN OONEI.L! l

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

OC9·102).01t.OO OIS.t01).012.00 04t·10lJ.OiloOO 04t·10lJ.01400

f.'ICHo\O..Wll.L.JNr.ISnt8YPASS TRUST & ,_'tCHA.ELWElAL (;UIIII;IIItANHIEATHEJIItM

OQ.10:~

NKITARAS AfClREW nt A.LAYIEOiro CXIHTM CO:TA TRANSIT Cl~lR:ICT ALAMEOoi.COtlTP.A COSTA TRANSIT OIS~T AVN.OH SlHOflt I-OUSIN:JI,.P

0&9 -IOZ+COS-Ol Ooll) •tOZ~

Oolt·101olo00l~

Oolt·I0:4o001-00 Olt·1024-00t-00 oct ·1024-010.00

.........__.. ..,._, ......,._ MS·1C2SoOC2-40

Olt·IOJt.CIOJ.OO

Oolt·IOlloOO'SoCO

O.ct·I02f.Oio«t M·101'1-011-(10 Oott·1CX2'141NIO

Oott·~IJ.0:2

MS·t0:t-0160Ct Olf·~ISC)

eot.NON ~OF PN 7)8t 10 Tl«V IJ

AVAl.OH~~lP

AVNJ:/H $lHOR HOUsaN:o l.P

Od·IOM.oi7.(Q o.tt-te:f.Oit-00 o.tt-IO:t4t:~

... -00204Zl
04·1~

•un ADE.UNE s r 4toiADllneST •II::A&XUM.ST 4114ADEUNEST • 11tAOEUNE 5T • t1tACXUtCST

• t20AIXUPE$T ..,._.,

)tc»SANPAaOAV!

-'CEUNe.ST olDEUIEST ACIIJNI.&Tnco AOf.UP4:STnoCI SANPAIIf.OA\1£

SAN PABI.O AVE r.!1X1 1"'1.QAD$T 1oe5 4JitOIT 10134lRDST 1017<1JR0Sf lOlii 4.:R) ST .SOl

( L..Sfet ~CRIOC W & LAH T TRS

1o:J7~ST

................ lR

1035.-,aT

AV~ ~U.C

,............,..,. .................. "'

tOJJ..-osr

AIEYTA.UE 8 'n': ""'Al Gt.RIAl S f. HAYIEET IC £TAL CNlYOt .....,.W & A.SI-«.R .aACCUEUNE C:

CROSSINCH~A& P'A'I'ZOAST\AHR lNEA't '-"'~E.G S0400t. CCSnac:T OI(AY I.HF1W $OCOI. CI$1"AtCT KU,JCAJIIOWIIIDM&AL.IC::£H

-·-

1QJI.CW)$T C11tAD€UHE ST Clt$ADEUNE Sf 4 t ltAOEUfrES1' • 101 AOELifE ST 1~41$TST

•ISfSf tcea • t.STS1' 4M»SMIPA81.0AV£

OAI<$0Clii>C7t

IIAf«fS~NA'nONAl.

Ooef•IQ21o02t.0) Oft-IQM.CZI.OO Od·102$4lt.OO

3MO ACIEUt«. $T )tiOADDJtCIT G:OADEUfe ST 1017CPOST IC01 4:tQ ST •tCO

o..MNol MNf:'t X'"' & CURRAN 'THOWA$ F TR Q.IIUtN.Il'HOtMS' m f. CUAAAH ..w:t'l' K TR \'ONCH (U£H 1R IClfoW2ti u..c;,& DEU.A F TR$

...._,..,. ,....._ .... ..,._,. ......,._ Od ·~1S44

)MOAOilJJriEST.,.. ,.,~ ..T )III)ADQNST )MI)~$T. . . lMOACEI.INf.ST

•tCO~PAai.OAVE

TRUS.T &.SAVJNGS.A$SN

..-....mo
A

P04 HUUV &a.El NJ

8At.A MM&~PNtM.NCERP

• 11.1SAN,.AaOAvE • IJOSM1Po11.81.0AV! 105S4lii'DST 10!514JAOST 10.1 CRDST IOQ
toas..-osr

04 •IOH.OJl.CO

JOioW,.ICNM'AUTIClR

04-1~

$0HAL.eu.HI'S&~KJRS

t04741'0ST

Oolt·lcnf.Ol5.(JO Ool:t·10l7.o37.01 Oolt·10l74l7..o2 04t·1027.o:JWIO

SOtW..IIUHf S & ~ K TRS

IOG.(JROST

PMA.HEJtSHUC LOMGS CRUC STORES CAUFORMA II'C

4l01 SAN PAaO AVE "112"5 SAHP'Aat.OAVE

M·tOZ14JS.OO

an.,.,.,..,.,. .......

EMERYST

OIER't'ST

.......,.s.-.,.,..

----

~

t.lla

-...

107,....

.......... I(Q.Ito

~Mitft ..............

_........._,,_

c.-at~C.W

"""""-"~ w.-..

"'

__ _ ..____ ___ __ ·----,_.,....._,~

... ........ I,Oit

..........

.......,._.._.~ IJUtli,l,..,~

,_

,,.

........

..........

t/l6FMMf~

t,C'II

.._..,....,~

.... ,..., ....... .., ,_,., ..._......

......,..,.,~

1,.07

.....,...ty~ u..J,...,~

1, 11%

......,._,_.~

..........

.....,~~

~~

.... ..., '-"' .... ....

·= ..... ,_,,. 1.]71

----

.......,._..,ft..........U

·~,.

~-~~

·~"

........,._.._,~

~-~~

~·"

"'·'" ,_'·"' ,_,.

...

c;-.-.A.mM~CMce

1,100

~-~~ ......,~~~.~~~

...

,_.,.. ,,,

........,-~~~..~~

"""""'-..,~

~-.,~ ~.-#t~ ~~~

....,_,.

'·"" ,_,. 1,147

--__ --a.wu:-t,~

.........,.,.,~

.u.f.-ty~

1.1• 7

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

~..... Rr~

U><

....... .._

--...

""""

----------

'""

1,1£

--

Uti

......._..,.,.,._

..... ,,_,.

C...aiLIW.Nr~Cenl«

P'~Jfl~

118

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

J'.07

.... .... ........ .... OJX>

'-'"'

._ ._

,,

.... .... .... ..._.. ........ .... .... .... ............ .... ........ ........ ........ _

UIO

._

..,.. .... .... .... . .. .... .... .... .... , .... .... ........ ........ _

,...,

U74 t.ISl

t.Wiol-.iy~

1-<»f

7. 15

1,•12:

~.-.#tR~

'"'""

,._...

,_..,

IAaiol.,..,~

'"""

•2.90

UlO

U71

...__.._

._

_

J7,18

~"'

J.Uri.F...IyftniMnl~

OJX>

OJX>

... """

~-..,~·

OJX> OJX)

,.,,

l5.nl

lo'\M.F-.,~

',_,., """

.... .... .... .... .... .... ....

,

·--•.so:

llt.MI.-,~

,_.,., '"""

'',_,., """"""

'"

""""-#lllflift~

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

1,11

1.15

1.112 t, tn

......,__,~

........ .._

'·"'

5.:0

I.OU

~-.._.~

.....

, ,_.,.,

~

C..-'Oflc• C.... ()lie•

~-

u•

... .., ,,..

-

"-"""" "'-"""" ......,_..,ftauMftlll...

.... ....

,, ..,

2,1.U

....,_.,..,..,.,.-'rR~

""'

._

, ... ......

, ,.,.. ,_.,. ,,.

c...,._

....,.

,.

n ...s

w-

_

SlifHI I Au"

I , IS7

.......,_,~

--··-·-- ---·- .......... ........ ......... ·. ........... ....... ·,_·-,_ ·-,__ .... .... ........ ·,_ ·- ...... .... ,_ ........ ,_ .... .... ........ ,_ .... .... ........ ,_ ·...... ·.... .... ,_ .... ........ ,_ .... .... ........ ........ · ·-,_- ................. ..... .. ·........ ........ ·,_,_ .... ·........ ·-,_,_ ....... ........ ·........ ··-·,_- .. .... ·,_ .. ,_.... · ·-,_ ... ....... ····-·--- ........ ..... · ·-··-,_,_,_,_-- ... .... · ,_- . ............ ·.... ... ... ·,_ ......

·-............

I..INI.I"-•'S0-•1 .._.u"

,_,.

.,_._.,_

)Q)$MP/IIIII.RA~

aTYOf' ............... Q'NC#IEICJIMotU.E A::lol~ SAHPAaOAVEHUE LlC& CSP PROIETAI.. l$0,C &COfrrHE: Y flit$& MOAAISC& CAWEUAC WINRIELD& tMim U\IIHG TRUST & htCHOL.S GREG ETAl TIOf'1IW«::SC'n': fW'EAO ~~ &ROeEIUSOH MARY A 10JS40THSTNETLLC ETA.L.

04S.OfS1.(07.(0 04S ..oiSM07.CO

....

m....,m

«
,_Y04STIIZ HOWUT

Oft.oii.IU42 Ott.ollt-001.(0

L.Mto~U..a..t .........

ew» I'WilNf &f iS1$

,

,_.,.,

.._,.

'""" ,..,., 7.0.,

o.n

......._....

Speci.tll.....,..,...,b

..... '"""' ,..., , .... u•

-··

....,.. 1.50 ..,.

.... ....'-..'·''.". ............ ........ ...... ..... .... .... .... ........ ............ ........ .... l ,1t

...,

'-"' ...,

........ ........ '-"'

OAS

~··

J7,18

.... .....

.

..__ IHA IliA tiiA

....

,.

a&.Uf.l1

U ,IA.%7 Jtl,tn..a

........ ,..,. ...... ........ .,... 111,U

..

,.,

UT•• lt7.il' lUA

UIA

,,....,

11tA

1n..a IUA HIA

,,...

1HA 111A

,,....,

1n..a

11tA

,,..., ,, ...

'""*' ,,..., ,,...,

IU..O

tn.A

tUA

........ =· ...... ttUI

171.53:

,,...,

on..,

tn..a

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

.....

,~

--

19.07

uouo

'-"'

U2.tl

,.

'-"' .... .... ........ .... .... ....

.,.., =· on.sz mAO 171.SZ

=m..,

'-"'

U2.tl

.... ..... ,.,. '-"'

'"... ........ ._._

7. 1$

•.nut

,..,

11,61l,Q

....

.... ....'"" ,'-..." .,_,. IM,st

m.sz

,,... ,... ,... 171.A

......

1.J11...

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

FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE

July 29, 2015 Agenda Items B-2 – B-6

119

This page intentionally blank 

120

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-166 July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager

SUBJECT:

Monthly Report on Investments

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receiving the Monthly Report on Investments for May 2015. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As of May 31, 2015, the District had the following investments: Repurchase Agreement (REPO)

$15 million (Collateralized 102%)

Money Market Account

$102.1 million (Collateralized 110%)

Money Market Account

$1.76 million (small banks; FDIC insured)

BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There are no budgetary or fiscal impacts associated with this report.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: In compliance with Section 15.0 of Board Policy 336, Investment Policy, the Monthly Report on Investments for May 2015 is forwarded to the Board of Directors for review. The portfolio contained in the report is in compliance with Board Policy 336, and the District is able to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months. Return on the District's investments is small due to the market conditions and ultra conservative investment approach. Daily roll-over of REPO and collateralized money market accounts is done with preservation of principal foremost in mind. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages.

121

Report No. 15-166 Page 2 of 2

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: This report is being provided to inform the Board of activities of the Treasury Department.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy 336, Investment Policy

ATTACHMENTS: 1:

Monthly Report on Investments for May 2015.

Department Head Approval:

James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer

Reviewed by:

Sue lee, Treasury Manager

Prepared by:

Beverly Abad-Fitzgerald, Treasury Administrator

122

ALAMEDA - CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT MONTHLY REPORT ON INVESTMENTS FOR THE GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2015

(/)

JJ ~

"'I """" ~

> -1

-1

:... 123

ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT MONTHLY REPORT ON INVESTMENTS

Table of Contents

Investment Summary

1

Investment Overview

2

Return on Investments

3

Detail of Portfolio

4

Repurchase Agreements

5

Government Securities (General Fund)

6

124

INVESTMENT SUMMARY FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS/OTHER FUND MAY 31,2015

TYPE MONEY MARKET - GENERAL FUND REPO'S TREASURY BILLS DISCOUNT NOTES AGENCY BONDS

Average Interest Rate% 0.248% 0.033% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%

TOTAL GENERAL FUND INVESTMENTS

TYPE MONEY MARKET - OTHER REPO'S DISCOUNT NOTES AGENCY BONDS

Average Interest Rate% 0.070% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%

TOTAL OTHER (PTMISEA/Bus Proc.) INVESTMENTS

Carrying Value

Par Value

Fair Value

%of Total

$47,957,367.69 $15,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$47,957,367.69 $15,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$47,957,367.69 $15,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

76.17% 23.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$62,957,367.69

$62,957,367.69

$62,957,367.69

100.00%

Carrying Value

Par Value

Fair Value

%of Total

$55,908,172.53 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$55,908,172.53 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$55,908,172.53 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$55,908,172.53

$55,908,172.53

$55,908,172.53

100.00%

Page 1

125

ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT INVESTMENT OVERVIEW FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS PROCUREMENT/OTHER FUND MAY 31,2015

2014 DESCRIPTION

YTD AVERAGE

2015

JUL

OCT

SEP

AUG

NOV

JAN

DEC

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

CURRENT MONTH AVERAGE INTEREST RATES Repurchase Agreements (current month) Money Marlcet Accounts (current month) Govt Securities held at month end Treasury Bills (purchased in current month) Discount Notes (purchased in current month) Agency Bonds (purchased in current month)

0.030%

0.030%

0.070%

0.070%

0.030% 0.070%

0.033% 0.070%

0.031% 0.070%

0.070%

0.029% 0.070%

0.030% 0.070%

0.030% 0.070%

0.031% 0.070%

0.027% 0.070%

0.120% 0.040% 0.113% 0.033%

0.090% 0.020% 0.109% 0.030%

0.100% 0.020% 0.109% 0.028%

0.120% 0.035% 0.110% 0.027%

0.100% 0.020% 0.108% 0.027%

0.100% 0.015% 0.108% 0.025%

0.102% 0.024% 0.110% 0.034%

DAYS

DAYS

DAYS

DAYS

DAYS

DAYS

DAYS

7

7

9

7

7

9

7

8

$15,000,000 $83,114,941

$15,000,000 $83,120,132

$15,000,000 $83,125,402

$15,000,000 $83,131,143

$15,000,000 $15,000,000 $103,846,867 $103,852,824

$15,000,000 103,859,244

$15,000,000 103,865,540

$16,818,182 $88,838,885

$98,109,517

$98,114,941

$98,120,132

$98,125,402

$98,131,143

$118,846,867 $118,852,824 $118,859,244 $118,865,540

$0

$105,656,867

$98,109,517

$98,114,941

$98,120,132

$98,125,402

$98,131,143

$118,846,867 $118,852,824 $118,859,244 $118,865,540

$0

$96,852,128

0.033% 0.070%

0.030%

0.020%

0.030%

0.030%

0.042%

0.070%

0.070%

0.070%

0.070%

0.070%

0.024% 0.070%

0.024% 0.070%

0.025% 0.070%

0.025% 0.070%

0.025% 0.070%

0.026% 0.070%

0.028%

0.110% 0.030% 0.112% 0.042%

0.090% 0.030% 0.110% 0.041%

0.100% 0.015% 0.110% 0.042%

0.090% 0.020% 0.110% 0.040%

0.100% 0.020% 0.111% 0.035%

DAYS

DAYS

DAYS

DAYS

9

10

8

7

$25,000,000 $73,097,085

$25,000,000 $73,102,837

$15,000,000 $83,109,517

$98,097,085

$98,102,837

$98,097,085

$98,102,837

0.030% 0.070%

AVERAGE INTEREST RATE Repurchase Agreements (12-month avg) Money Market Accounts (12-month avg) Go'lt Securities held at month end Treasury Bills (Portfolio) Discount Notes (Portfolio) Agency Bonds {Portfolio)

INVESTMENT BENCHMARKS Current Month Daily Fed Funds Average Current Month Daily 3 Month T Bill Rate Average Monthly Avg of Daily Fed Funds (12 month avg) Monthly Avg 3 Month T Bill Rate (12 month avg) AVERAGE MATURITY OF INVESTMENTS Repurchase Agreements Treasury Bills Discount Notes Agency Bonds

DAYS

DAYS

INVESTMENT§ AT CARRYING VALUE Repurchase Agreements Money Market Treasury Bills Discount Notes Agency Bonds

INVESTMENTS AT COST

Page2

126

ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RETURN ON INVESTMENTS FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS PROCUREMENT/OTHER FUND MAY 31,2015 2014

RETURN ON INVESTMENTS Repurchase Agreements Money MarKet

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

YTD

AUG

SEP

$736

$646 4.242

$288

$279

$379

$550

$388

$350

$383

$392

$429

4,662

4,837

4,682

4,838

4,838

5,006

6,070

5,875

6,071

0 0 $5061

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

$5388

$5 226

0 0 $5356

$6453

$6 267

$§ 500

4,645

Treasury Bills Discount Notes Bonds Total return on investments

2015

JUL

MAY

APR

JUN

TOTAL $4,820 $55,766 $0

0 0 $5381

0 0

0 0

0 0

$4 888

$4950

$5116

$681 4,700 $5 381

$583

$429

$354

$588

$375

$408

$350

4,305 $4888

4,521 $4950

4,707 $5 061

4.801

4,876

4,981

$421 6.079

0

$5 389

$5 226

$5356

6.045 $6453

5,917

$5116

$6 267

$§500

$0

$51,763,009 $28,225,806

$55,350,229 $29,032,258

$35,550,970 $27,666,667

$36,508,471 $16,935,484

$33,106,757 $17,500,000

$65,732,084

$19,838,710

$54,138,054 $16,935,484

$18,750,000

$67,586,641 $21 ,000,000

$80,234,202 $17,500,000

$59,851,400 $16 ,935 ,484

$54,596,504 $20 ,938 ,172

54.53%

52.45%

77.82%

46.39%

52.86%

30.18%

31.28%

30.87%

31.07%

21.81%

28.30%

38.35%

Interest received Accrued interest

Total return on investments

$233 4,883

$350

0 0 $0

$0 $0 $60 586 $4,772 $55,815 $60 587

PORTFOLIO INVESTED Average daily portfolio available for investment Average daily portfolio invested %of average daily portfolio invested

CARRYING VALUE GENERAL FUND PORTFOLIO Jul2014

Jan 2015 Feb M"

Ap• May Jv"

CARRYING VALUE BUS/OTHER PORTFOLIO

$55.807,524 $55,810,762 $55,814,440 $55,817,430 $55,820,106 $55,822,942 $62,943,691 $62,946,553 $62,949,985 $62,954,289 $62,957,368

""•

Sep Oct No. Dec

Jan 2014 Feb Ma•

Ap• May Jvo

Jul2014

Jan 2015 Feb M"

Ap• May Jvo

$42,289,561 $42,292,075 $42,295,077 $42,297,511 $42.300,026 $42,302,460 $35,187,452 $55,900,314 $55,902,839 $55,904,956 $55,908,173

Jul2012

""•

Sep Oct Nov Dec

Jan 2013 Feb Ma•

Ap• May Jvo

$73,128,770 $72,495,973 $72,500,284 $71,093,538 $63,356,709 $63,360,651 $60,749,907 $60,753,670 $62,905,320 $62,908,820 $62,909,030 $42,286,280

Jul2013

""'

Sep Oct Nov Dec

Jan 2014 Feb M"

Ap• May Jvo

Page 3

127

$42,603,947 $42,607,123 $42,610,779 $42,931,605 $42,935,324 $42,939,037 $42,940,095 $43,416,351 $45,493,510 $44,777,188 $45,220,228 $45,493,510

Jul2011

""•

Sep Oct Nov Dec

Jan 2012 Feb Ma•

Ap• May

Jul2012 Avg Sep Oct Nov Dec

Jan 2013 Feb M"

Ap• May Jvo

$34,705,371 $34,707,265 $34,709,158 $49,291,355 $49,293,816 $49,296,513 $49,299,100 $50,975,655 $48,916,111 $49,623,413 $49,184,941 $48,916,111

$35,460,813 $25,463,299 $25,464,942 $25,465,414 $40,467,036 $40,468,599 $40,837,954 $40,840,300 $40,843,075 $41,844,149 $42,597,995 $42,601,366 FY 11/12

FY 12/13

FY 13114

FY 14115

Avg Sep Oct Nov Dec

$45,496,647 $46,135,214 $46,136,641 $47,548,538 $47,550,347 $47,552,300 $50,167,447 $50,168,951 $50,171,126 $50.171,978 $50,177,068 $70,805,756

Jul2013

FY 11/12

FY 12/13

FY 13/14

FY 14115

Avg Sep Oct Nov Dec

$60,739,729

Jul2011 Avg Sep Oct Nov Oec

Jan 2012 Feb M"

Ap' May Jvo

$5,743,559 $5,743,605 $5,743,649 $5,743,695 $5,743,739 $5,743,817 $5,375,346 $5,375,389 $34,699,100 $32,551,967 $32,553,678 $34,703,831

ALAMEDA - CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT DETAIL OF PORTFOLIO FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS PROCUREMENT/OTHER FUND MAY 31, 2015 Purchased From

TYPE

Settlement Date

Maturity Date

Days to Maturity

Purchased Rate%

Maturity Rate%

Carrying Value

Par Value

Fair Value

MONEY MARKET GENERAL FUND: Wells Fargo Bank- SIMMA Money Market - Local Banks

0_070%

0.070%

46,199,728.69

46,199,728.69

46,199,728.69

0.425% 0.248%

0.425%

1,757,639,00

1,757,639.00

0.248%

47,957,367.69

47,957,367.69

1,757,639.00 47,957,367.69

0.030%

0.030%

15,000,000.00

15,000,000.00

15,000,000.00

TOTAL DISCOUNT NOTES

0.00

0.00

0.00

TOTAL BONOS

0.00

0.00

0.00

62,957,367.69

62,957,367.69

62,957,367.69

TOTAL MONEY MARKET GENERAL FUND REPO'S

Bank of Amenca

TREASURY BILLS:

TOTAL REPO

05/26/15

6

06/01/15

TOTAL TREASURY BILLS

AGENCY DISC NOTES:·

AGENCY BONDS:

I PORTFOLIO

- GENERAL FUND

MONEY MARKET OTHER: Wells Fargo Bank SECURED INSTITUTIONAL MONEY MARKET

Wells Fargo Bank- SIMMA Wells Fargo Bank- SIMMA Wells Fargo Bank- SJMMA

0.070% 0.070% 0.070%

0.070% 0.070% 0.070%

78.58 35,194,524.16 20,713,569.79 0.00

78.58 35,194,524.16 20,713,569.79 0.00

78.58 35,194,524.16 20,713,569.79 0.00

0.070%

0.070%

55,908,172.53

55,908,172.53

55,908,172.53

118,865,540.22

118,865,540.22

118,865,540.22

TREASURY BILLS: AGENCY DISC NOTES:

AGENCY BONOS:

IPORTFOLIO - OTHER (PTMISEA/Bus Procurement)

ITOTAL PORTFOLIO GENERAL FUND

COMPOSITION OF PORTFOLIO : Money Market

76.17% 23.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

Repurchase Agreements Treasury Bills Discount Notes Bonds

Page4

128

OTHER (PTMISEA/Bus Procurement)

100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE MONTH ENDED MAY 31,2015

SETTLEMENT DATE

MATURITY DATE

DAILY ""REPO"" INVESTMENT$

CURRENT # INTEREST OF DAYS RATE

INTEREST EARNED

INTEREST RECEIVED

CASH RECEIPT

AIR ACTIVITY

NET ACTIVITY

AVERAGE INVESTMENT AMT.INV • #OF DAYS/ DAYS IN MONTH: 31

BANK OF AMERICA

04/27/15

05/04/15

0.0400%

50.00

116.67

15,000,000.00

-66.67

-15,000,000.00

3,387,096.77

05/11/15

$15.000,000.00 $15,000,000.00

7

05/04/15

7

0.0400%

116.67

116.67

15,000,000.00

0.00

05/11/15

05/18/15

$15,000,000.00

7

0.0300%

87.50

87.50

15,000,000.00

0.00 0.00

0.00

3,387,096.77 3,387,096.77

05/18/15

05/26/15

$15,000,000.00

8

0.0300%

100.00

100.00

15,000,000.00

0.00

0.00

3,870,967.74

05/26/15

06/01/15

$15,000,000.00

6

0.0300%

75.00

0.00

15,000,000.00

0.00

15,000,000.00

2,903,225.81

7

0.0325%

$429.17

$420.84

$75,000,000.00

-$66.67

$0.00

$16,935,483.86

TOTAL

Page 5 129

ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT GENERAL FUND GOVERNMENT SECURITIES SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH ENDED

MAY 31,2015 CUSIP

AGENCY

SETILEMENT

MATURITY

DISCOUNT

PAR

DATE

DATE

RATE(%)

VALUE

NUMBER

DAYS

COST

~~

FAIR VALUE

MARKET RATE

HEU>

'M~~;~

CARRYING

INT.EARNED

VALUE

(%)

DURING

ouRJNG'

MONTH

MONTH

r

'CARRYING'' I VALUE

Treasury Bills Matured:

_l_

_l_ _l_ _l_

_l_

_I

I

I I I

_l_

I

_l_ _l_ _l_

_l_ _l_ _l_

_l_

I

Treasurv Bills Held at Month End:

I TOTAL TREASURY BILLS

I

_l_

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

_l_

0.~

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

o.oo 0.00

0i$C::OUnt Notes Matured:

Discount Note5 Held at Month End:

TOTAL DISCOUNT NOTES Agency Bond Matured

Agency Bond Held at Month End:

TOTAL BOND$

TOTAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES

I

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Government Securities 90 days and less

0.00

0.00

0,00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Government Securities over 90 days

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Total Government Securities- Aged

0.00

0.00

0.00

000

0.00

0.00

Variance

0.00

0.00

0.00

000

0.00

0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00

130

PageS

0.00

~I

....,~•I

Report No: Meeting Date:

T.I?-9#5/T

15-076 July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager

SUBJECT:

Amendment to Board Policy 316- Capital Projects Policy

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider review and approval of an amendment to Board Policy 316- Capital Projects Policy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In July 2014, the Board approved amendments to Board Policies 332 "Fixed Assets", and 356 {{Disposition of Surplus Equipment, Supplies and Other Tangible Personal Property of the District" to include a $5,000 threshold for capital projects. Board Policy 316 has not been amended to include the new $5,000 threshold and is currently inconsistent with the Federal Transit Authority and Government Finance Officers Association recommended capitalization thresholds found in Board Policies 332 and 356. Amending the {{capital project" definition for expenditures in Board Policy 316 from $1,000 or more to $5,000 or more will provide consistency with the capitalization limit contained in the other Board policies. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the proposed change in the capital project threshold.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

In July 2014, the Board approved amendments to updated Board Policies 332 {{ Fixed Assets" (Staff Report 14-137L and 356 "Disposition of Surplus Equipment, Supplies and Other Tangible Personal Property of the District" (Staff Report 14-139} to be in compliance with both Federal Transit Authority and Government Finance Officers Association recommended capitalization thresholds of $5,000 for capital projects. Board Policy 316 has not been amended to include the new $5,000 threshold and is currently inconsistent with the Federal capitalization threshold found in Board Policies 332 and 356. Amending the {{capital project" definition for expenditures in Board Policy 316 from $1,000 or more to $5,000 or more will provide consistency with the capitalization limit contained in Board Policies 332 "Fixed Asset Procedures" , and 356 " Disposition of Surplus Equipment, Supplies and Other Tangible Property of the District."

131

Report No. 15-076 Page 2 of 2 The recommended amendment to Board Policy 316- Capital Projects, would result in a uniform capitalization limit for all board policies.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The advantage of this change is the removal of any ambiguity in the amount of the District capital threshold. No disadvantages have been identified.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: No reasonable alternatives have been found.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: SR 14-137 Board Policy 332- Fixed Asset Procedures, July 23, 2014 SR 14-139 Board Policy 356- Disposition of Surplus Equipment, Supplies and Other Tangible Personal Property ofthe District

ATTACHMENTS: 1: Board Policy 316

Executive Staff Approval: Reviewed by: Prepared by:

James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer/ Chief Operating Officer Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Ralph W. Martini, Controller

132

SR 15-076 Att.l

AC Transit BOARD POLICY

Policy No. 316

Category: Financial Matters

CAPITAL PROJECTS POLICY I. Introduction The purpose of this Policy is to establish a process for approval of capital projects by AC Transit and submission of capital projects for review and approval by the General Manager (GM) and then by the Board. II. Definition For the purposes of this Policy, "Capital Project" means: A capital expenditure shall have a value of $1,000 $5 ,000 or more and a life expectancy of one year or more, except for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funded projects and Preventive Maintenance projects which require capitalization to the nearest $1 or greater. Ill. Capital project request 1. AC Transit Department Directors and Managers are required to submit an executive budget request for capital projects to the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The CFO shall review the sufficiency of funding available and the Chief Planning and Development Officer shall verify that the proposed change is consistent with the District's capital projects plan . Upon approval, the District and Grant-funded capital project budget request shall be submitted to the GM for review and authorization to submit all applicable budget requests (over $50,000) to the District Board for final approval. IV. Capital Project Approval Authority A. The District's General Manager shall submit to the AC Transit District Board at the time he/she submits the proposed budget, in accordance with Board Policy No. 312, a proposed capital budget that identifies all capital projects, Page 1 of 3

Adopted: Amended:

4/92 10/99, 10/01, 12/01.08/04, 06/05. 04/07 06/09. 2/11, 3/13 I

133

SR 15-076 Att.l

their scope and amount for the Board's approval. B. The District's General Manager shall have the authority to approve: 1. All AC Transit capital projects, previously approved by the Board, regardless d fund source and prior to initiation; and 2. All bond issuances for AC Transit capital projects, subject to previous Board approval or, when required voter approval C. Authority to approve changes in capital project scope, funding source or term. 1. The District Board may approve: a. Scope increases to capital projects that exceed fifteen percent (15%); and b. Changes in funding source allocations that exceed fifteen percent (15%). 2. The GM shall have the authority to approve: a. Scope increases to capital projects that do not exceed fifteen percent (15%); and b. Changes in fund source allocations that do not exceed fifteen percent (15%). D. The General Manager, in the preparation of the capital budget, shall evaluate all Capital and Preventive Maintenance projects based upon, but not limited to, the following criteria: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

The benefit to the District, including the affect on future operating costs and revenues ; The affect on service delivery; The consequences of not funding the Capital and Preventive Maintenance projects; The life of the asset; The total project cost and schedule for completion. The sources of funding . For each funding source, the capital projects proposal shall clearly indicate whether the source is an existing source, such as an active local tax from which revenues are currently collected, or a new source requiring District approval.

E. Only those operating, administrative, maintenance and interest expenses incurred prior to actual completion of the capital improvement shall be included in the capital budget. After completion of the capital improvement such cost shall be included in the operating budget of the District. Adopted: Amended:

Page 2 of 3

134

4/92 10/99, 10/01, 12/01. 08/04. 06/05, 04/07, 06/09, 2/11, 3/13

SR 15-076 Att.l

F. The components of the project capital plan are summarized and incorporated into the agency-wide capital projects budgeUplan. G. The General Manager shall provide to the District Board a semi-annual Capital Projects Report during the mid-year operating report; describing the status of ongoing capital projects, including District-funded, grant-funded and preventive maintenance capital projects along with quarterly financial statements and year-end projections. H. The General Manager may approve mid-cycle inclusion of grant-funded projects into the Capital budget without Board approval if the impact to the District funds is less than $50,000 provided there is prior Board approval for submitting the grant application and there are no substantive changes from the application.

Page 3 of 3

Adopted: Amended :

135

4/92 10/99, 10/01, 12/01, 08/04, 06/05,04/07,06/09,2/11.3/13

This page intentionally blank 

136

-AI

Report No:

T~NS/T

Meeting Date:

15-121 July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager

SUBJECT:

Other Post Employment Benefits

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider receiving report on Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This report provides an overview of the financial accountability of non-pension retirement benefits ("Other Post Employment Benefits," or OPEB's) offered by the District to its retirees. The District currently uses the Pay As You Go (PAYGO) method where the payment for premiums and benefits are provided with current revenues. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement No. 45 (GASB 45) which established standards for the measurement, recognition, and display of OPEB expense/expenditures and related liabilities (assets), note disclosures, and if applicable, Required Supplementary Information (RSI) in the financial reports of state and local government employers. The approach followed in GASB 45 is consistent with the approach adopted in GASB 27, Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Government Employers, with modifications to reflect differences between pension benefits and OPEB. The District was required to implement GASB 45 beginning in Fiscal Year 2007-08. The purpose of GASB 45 was the requirement of accrual-basis measurement and recognition of OPEB costs (expense) and the provision of information about actuarial accrued liabilities associated with OPEB and whether and to what extent the plan is being funded . Governmental Agencies are not required to fully fund the actuarial liability, but they are required to reflect the actuarial liability in the financial statements. The District is in compliance with GASB 45 and has recorded the liabilities associated with the future obligations of the benefit plans. This is the first briefing to the Board. Staff will be providing a more in-depth discussion, including alternatives, at the next Board Retreat in September 2015. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

This report is informational only. There is no budgetary or fiscal impact directly associated with this report.

137

Report No. 15-121 Page 2 of 5

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

Prior to GASB 45, virtually all government agencies financially recognized OPEB's under the payas-you-go (PAYGO) method or when the benefit was paid. For Government Agencies, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board issued Statement No. 45 (GASB 45) requiring governmental agencies to account for OPEB's using an accrual basis of accounting. From an accrual accounting perspective, the cost of OPEB, like the cost of pension benefits, generally should be associated with the periods in which the benefit is earned by the employee, rather than with the periods (often many years later) when benefits are paid or provided. The purpose of GASB 45 was to improve the relevance and usefulness of financial reporting by (a) recognizing the value of retiree benefits for the current year, {b) the accrual based measurement and recognition of the value of retiree benefits promised to active employees that were earned in current and previous years and (c) provide information as to whether and what extent the OPEB accrued actuarial liabilities are being funded. Trust and Non-Trust Plans The District receives actuarial reports of OPEB liabilities for bargaining unit employees that belong to a Trust (See Attachment 1) and for Unrepresented employees that are considered Non-Trust (See Attachment 2). GASB 45 reporting requirements for the District applies to both the Trust and Non-Trust. The ATU Retiree Health and Welfare Trust was formed in 1998 between the District and members of the ATU. The Trust later included members of IBEW and AFSCME. The Trust is funded by contributions by the District based on a dollar rate per hour that is negotiated between the District and each Union. The rate varies by bargaining unit and the asset value of the Trust. The purpose of the Trust is to assist eligible retirees of the District with the cost of medical care by reimbursing a portion of the retiree's medical premiums. For Unrepresented employees, with less than ten years of service, the District pays a prorated premium of the lowest cost medical plan available for the retiree only. The District pays the full premium of the lowest cost medical plan available for Unrepresented employees who have more than ten years of service. Financial Statement Impact GASB 45 impacts both the income statement and balance sheet of Governmental Agencies. The necessary information for recording the expenses and liabilities (assets) is from the annual actuarial reports. Many assumptions impact the actuarial reports' liability but healthcare costs and age of the workforce are the most influential. Income Statement: The District records an OPEB expense each year based on the Annual Required Contribution (ARC). The ARC includes the amortization {thirty years) of the unfunded liability and the normal costs (current year's costs). The following table shows the historical and FY 2015-16 projected expense and the District's contribution. 138

Report No. 15-121 Page 3 of 5

OPEB ARC and Contribution Trust & Non-Trust Ill

$12

r:::

= 0

$10

~

$8 $6

$4 $2 $0 FY08

FY09

FYlO

-

FYll

ARC -

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16 Est.

Contribution

Balance Sheet: The cumulative difference between the ARC and the contribution towards OPEB is referenced on the balance sheet as Net OPEB Obligation (NOO). At inception, most Governmental Agencies reported an NOO of zero. The following table shows the growth of the District's NOO, since the annual PAYGO contributions do not fully fund the ARC OPEB expense.

Net OPEB Obligation Trust & Non-Trust Ill

$25

r:::

0

:: $20 ~ $15

$10

$5

$0 FY08

FY09

FYll

FY12

$5

139

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16 Est.

Report No. 15-121 Page 4 of 5 Unfunded Actuarial Liability {UAL) : The UAL represents the actuarial liability offset by any assets in the Trust. The Non-Trust has no assets. It is the basis for the ARC and represents the liability the District will need to fund in the future/ assuming continuation of the Trust at current contribution levels.

Unfunded Actuarial Liability Trust & Non-Trust Ill

$180

c

.2 $160 ~ $140

$120

~

$100 $80 $60

/

--

~

~

~

$40 $20 $0 FV09

FV10

FV11

FV12

FV13

FV14

FV15

FV16 Esit.

What Others Are Doing? Two of the more popular responses to GASB 45 by Governmental Agencies is to continue with PAYGO or begin pre-funding the liability with an irrevocable trust/ similar to pension. The pros and cons of these approaches as well as other alternatives will be discussed at the next Board Retreat. PA YGO Approach:



The State of California has an NOO on the balance sheet of $19.5 billion. In January/ Governor Brown proposed a long-term plan to cut costs by shifting from PAYGO to prefunding and also evaluating benefits. (See Attachment 3)



The City of Oakland has an NOO on the balance sheet of $235 million and has made an effort to contribute a higher percentage of the ARC.



Tri Met (Oregon) has an NOO of $430.9 million.

Pre-Funding



of Trust Approach:

The Golden Gate Transit Authority implemented a trust in 2008 as well as set policy to fully fund their annual OPEB expense each year. They currently have an NOO of $0.

140

Report No. 15-121 Page 5 of 5 •

The Santa Clara County Transportation Authority implemented a trust in 2008 and since inception; they have over-funded their annual OPEB expense and currently have a NOO asset on the balance sheet of $20.7 million.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

The purpose of this report is to inform the Board of the financial accountability of Other Post Employment Benefits. The advantage to the current system is that it lessens the impact on the District's operating budget. The disadvantage to the current system is that it increases the District's future liability and results in future budgets being impacted by these OPEB obligations. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:

Alternatives are currently being evaluated by Staff and will be presented to the Board at the next Board Retreat in September. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:

None ATTACHMENTS: 1. GASB 45 Valuation Report of the Non-Trust Plan, July 1, 2014

2. GASB 45 Valuation Report ofthe Trust Plan, July 1, 2014 3. Calpension Article Highlighting New Accounting Rules to Spotlight Hidden Retirement Debt Department Head Approval: Prepared By: Reviewed By:

James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Donald Eckert, Director of Management and Budget Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel

141

This page intentionally blank 

142

SR15-121 ATT.1

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Non-Trust Plan

July 1, 2014 GASB 45 Valuation Report Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions

buckconsu ltants

143

xerox

Mr. Ralph Martini February 27, 2015 Page 2

~r ~..#

Brian J . Hlava, ASA, MAAA, FCA Director, Consulting Actuary

February 27, 2015

Buck Consultants, LLC. 500 Plaza Drive Secaucus, NJ 07096 [email protected] Tel 201.902.2962 Fax 201 .902.2883

Mr. Ralph Martini Controller Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612

RE: AC Transit District- GASB 45 FYE 6/30/2015 Results for the Non-Trust Plan Dear Mr. Martini: This letter presents the results of Buck Consultants' (Buck's) actuarial analysis of the current liability for the AC Transit District's (the District's) Non-Trust postretirement medical benefit program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. The goal of this analysis is to provide results for the District's financial reporting purposes under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 45 (GASB 45). Use of this report for any other purposes or by anyone other than AC Transit and its auditors may not be appropriate and may result in mistaken conclusions because of failure to understand applicable assumptions, methods, or inapplicability of the report for that purpose. Because of the risk of misinterpretation of actuarial results, you should ask Buck to review any statement you wish to make on the results contained in this report. Buck will not accept any liability for any such statement made without review by Buck. The attached pages should not be provided without a copy of this cover letter. The valuation was based on census and cost data supplied by the District and our understanding of the benefit provisions. The calculations rely upon the accuracy of this information. The results of our calculations are provided in the following exhibits: • •

Exhibit 1 shows the current liability and the development of the Annual Required Contribution Exhibit 2 shows the required schedules of previous results

General Results Exhibit 1 provides the Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) as of July 1, 2014 for active employees and retirees in the program. The AAL is defined as the actuarial present value of benefits attributed to employee service rendered to a particular date. The exhibit also shows the normal cost, which is the value of the benefit to be earned by the active employees for service during fiscal year 2015. A discount rate of 4.00% is used throughout this analysis corresponding to payas-you-go funding of benefits, e.g. payable out of general District funds. The 4.0% is a reduction from the 4.50% discount rate assumed in the last valuation, to reflect a lowered expectation of real return on money market type funds, based on recent experience of the financial markets. GASB 45 allows for use of a discount rate based on expected earnings of set aside assets for funded plans which generally results in a higher discount rate and a lower liability amounts for a pre-funded plan. GASB 45 provides disclosure requirements for Other Postemployment Benefit (OPEB) plans effective as early as plan years beginning after December 15, 2006. GASB Statement 45 requires the calcu lation of an Annual Required Contribution (ARC) consisting of the Normal Cost and a not greater than 30 year amortization of the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). There is no requirement for the AC Transit District to actually fund this amount. The UAAL is the Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) less any assets held for the plan.

144

xerox

Mr. Ralph Martini February 27, 2015 Page3

~ ~®

·~

Actuarial Assumptions and Methods Appendi x A outlines the actuarial assumptions and methods used in these calculations. The assumptions and methods are the same as those used in the July 1, 2013 valuation except current per-capita medical costs were used, the discount rate was decreased from 4.5% to 4.0%, to reflect reduced expectations for real return on short term money market type investments, and the mortality assumption was updated to the RP-2014 headcount 1 weighted blue collar base table and the MP-2014 improvement scale to reflect recent research published by the Society of Actuaries. Both of these changes increased the AAL measured in the valuation, with the discount rate increasing the AAL by about 8% and the updated mortality assumption increasing the AAL by about 11%. The impact on the normal cost was about 14% for the discount rate change and 13% for the update to the mortality assumption. The plan sponsor selected the economic assumptions used for the results in this report with our concurrence. We believe that these assumptions are reasonable for financial accounting purposes. The demographic assumptions used represent a reasonable estimate of the future demographic experience of plan participants . Given the assumptions selected, the results presented in this letter have been prepared in accordance with our understanding of the requirements of GASB 45. Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current measurements presented in this report due to such factors as the following: retiree group benefits program experience differing from that anticipated by the assumptions; changes in assumptions; increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the methodology used for these measurements (such as the end of an amortization period); and changes in retiree group benefits program provisions or applicable law. Retiree group benefits models necessarily rely on the use of approximations and estimates, and are sensitive to changes in these approximations and estimates. Small variations in these approximations and estimates may lead to significant changes in actuarial measurements. Because of limited scope, Buck performed no analysis of the potential range of such future differences. The results provided in this report reflect the relevant provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and associated Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (together known as Health Care Reform). Specifically, the valuation includes assumptions for the impact of the Excise Tax on High Cost Health Plans (aka Cadillac Tax) . The impact of the tax was 0.9% on AAL and 2.9% on normal cost. The liability amounts shown in Table 1 are normally made up of two components. The first is the value of the cash contributions that the District makes towards retiree coverage. The second is the value of any "rate cross subsidy" provided to retirees who enroll in the District's medical and dental plans. This "rate cross subsidy" occurs when the retiree rates are a blend of the active and retiree claim experience. In essence the active employees are subsidizing the retiree cost for this benefit plan. This subsidy is also a liability for the District under GASB 45 reporting requirements. We understand that early retiree (under age 65) premiums are not blended with the active rates. Premiums for retirees age 65 and over are also unblended. Therefore, there is no rate cross subsidy reflected in Table 1. However, results in Table 1 do reflect the value of any subsidy between covered retirees in reflecting different cost by age for Non-Represented retirees. As noted, the calculations here are not adjusted for the age of the covered participants for represented retirees. According to the Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOP) currently effective, in certain circumstances 2 measurement of retiree medical liabilities may be based on premiums without adjustment for age. However, the 1

The blue collar table was used for the union participants and the white collar table was used for nonrepresented participants. 2 See for example ASOP 6, Measuring Retiree Group Benefit Obligations, §3.4.5, which says "the actuary may use a single unadjusted premium rate applicable to both active employees and non-Medicare-eligible retirees if the actuary has determined that the insurer would offer the same premium rate if only non-Medicare-eligible retirees were covered."

145

xerox ~ ~® ~j

Mr. Ralph Martini February 27, 2015 Page 4

ASOP applicable for measurements on or after March 31 , 2015, provides significant new guidance around premium rates for pooled arrangements. In particular, it indicates that unaged premium rates only should be used in very limited circumstances.3 The results in these calculations do not reflect this guidance. We anticipate that when the plan's arrangement is evaluated in light of this new guidance, there is a possibility that we may conclude that age adjustments will be necessary for represented retirees in future valuations.

Substantive Plan Appendix B summarizes our understanding of the key plan provisions of the Non-Trust retiree medical program as of July 1, 2014. The eligibility requirements used in this valuation are different from the previous valuation due to a clarification from the District. For ATU employees, the requirement is age 55 with 8 years of service whereas in our previous valuation, it was age 55 with 10 years of service. For AFSCME employees, the requirement is age 55 with 10 years of service whereas in our previous valuation, it was age 50 with 10 years of service. For unrepresented employees, the requirement is age 50 with 5 years of service whereas in our previous valuation, it was age 50 with 10 years of service. These changes increased the AAL by about 6% and the normal cost by almost 19%.

Participant Data The valuation was based on census data provided by the District for purposes of this valuation. Although we did not audit the data, we did check it for reasonableness and compared it to the data from last year. For active employees, the data included date of birth, date of hire, sex and bargaining unit. For retirees, the data included information on date of birth, sex, coverage information , and bargaining unit. Appendix C summarizes the demographics of active employees and retirees separately.

Actuarial Certification The consulting actuary listed below is a member of the American Academy of Actuaries, and meets the Academy's Qualification Standards to issue this Statement of Actuarial Opinion. If you have any questions on this material, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely, R1u~k

r.nn!':lllt:::m t!': I I

r.

Brian J. Hlava, ASA, MAAA, FCA Director, Consulting Actuary

cc: David Kershner

3

ASOP 6, Measuring Retiree Group Benefits Obligations and Determining Retiree Group Benefits Program Periodic Costs or Actuarially Determined Contributions, §3.7.7.c

146

EXHIBIT 1 ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT July 1, 2014 GASB 45 Valuation Results Non-Trust Plan Discount Rate: 4.00% (A)- Summary of Postretirement Benefit Liabilities Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) at 7/1/2014 Active Employees Retirees Total

$21 ,490,838 30,909,184 $52,400,022

Assets at 7/1/2014

$0

Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) at 7/1/2014

$52,400,022

(B) - Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Amortization of UAL Normal Cost TOTAL ARC for Fiscal 2015

$2,913,749 1,497,483 $4,411,232

(C) - Balance Sheet Information Estimated Net OPEB Obligation (NOO)- 6/30/2014* Annual OPEB Cost (AOC) for FY 2015 ARC Adjustment to ARC Interest on NOO at beg . of year TOTAL AOC for FY 2015

$

3,204,268

$4,411,232 (185,303) 128,171 $4,354,100

Contributions Estimated pay-as-you -go costs Pre-funding

$1,838,000

0

TOTAL Contributions

$1,838,000

Estimated Net OPEB Obligation (NOO)- 6/30/2015* •ro be updated when actual contribution amounts become available.

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Non-Trust Plan July 1, 2014 Valuation Report 2/27/2015 ACCTD Non-Trust FY15 GASB45 Results

147

$5,720,368

xerox4t~

EXHIBIT 2 Non-Trust Plan

Development of Annual OPEB Cost (AOC) and Net OPEB Obligation (NOO)

a) NOO (beg. of fiscal year) b) ARC c) Interest on NOO (4.50%) d) ARC Adjustment e) AOC (b + c + d) f) Contribution (estimated) g) NOO (estimated end of fiscal year)

$

FY 2014 1,757,592 $ 3,491,993 102,447 (139,764) 3,454,676 2,008,000 3,204,268

FY 2015 3,204,268 4,411,232 128,171 (185,303) 4,354,100 1,838,000 5,720,368

FY 2015 AOC is estimated and will vary depending upon actual FY14 contribution.

Schedule of Contributions Fiscal Year Ended June Annual OPEB 30 Cost 1,396,000 2011 $ 2012 $ 1,551,000 2013 $ 2,505,592 2014 $ 3,454,676 2015* $ 4,354,100

Annual Amount Contributed 1,305,000 $ 1,590,000 $ 1,871,000 $ 2,008,000 $ 1,838,000 $

Percentage Contributed 93% 103% 75% 58% 42%

Net OPES Obligation $ 1,162,000 $ 1,123,000 $ 1,757,592 $ 3,204,268 $ 5,720,368

* FY15 amount based on estimated contributions.

Schedule of Funding Progress Unfunded Actuarial Value Actuarial Accrued Actuarial Accrued Actuarial Valuation Date of Assets Liability (AAL) Liability (UAAL) - $ 28,498,000 $ 28,498,000 7/1/2011** $ 7/1/2012** 31,930,000 $ 31,930,000 $ $ - $ 7/1/2013 41,192,743 $ 41,192,743 $ - $ 52,400,022 $ 52,400,022 7/1/2014 $

Funded Ratio 0% 0% 0% 0%

**Amounts as shown in Required Supplementary Information section of June 30, 2014 Consolidated Annual Financial Report for AC Transit. July 1, 2011 valuation was described in CAFR as Actuarial Valuation Date of June 30, 2012. July 1, 2012 valuation was described as Actuarial Valuation Date of June 30, 2013.

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Non-Trust Plan July 1, 2014 Valuation Report 2/27/2015 ACCTD Non-Trust FY15 GASB45 Results

148

®

APPENDIX A Valuation Assumptions Discount Rate - 4.00%. Actuarial Cost Method - Projected unit credit with benefits attributed on a level basis from date of hire until full eligibility.

Amortization Method - Level dollar, 30 year open period. Mortality Rates - RP-2014 headcount weighted Blue Collar Mortality Table with application of the MP2014 improvement scale on a fully generational basis is used for Union employees and retirees. RP2014 headcount weighted White Collar Mortality Table with application of the MP-2014 improvement scale on a fully generational basis is used for Unrepresented employees and retirees. Withdrawal Rates - Representative values are shown below Years of Service 0 1 2

Age Any

3 4 5-9 10+

Probability of Termination During Year ATU/IBEW 8.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.5%

Probability of Termination During Year AFSCME/N2n_-Ref)~~

12.0% 7.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 1.5%

New Entrants - None Assumed. Participation Assumption - Plan elections were based on reported information for current retirees. The following table shows the percentage of future union retirees assumed to elect coverage upon retirement.

~Mmrr;m 70%

80%

90%

lllfl!e@!EI.IQ~ 100%

For Non-Represented retirees, we assume that 85% will elect medical coverage and 95% will elect dental coverage.

Dependent Assumptions -

Dependent coverage for current retirees was based on reported information. For Non-Represented participants, 60% of future retirees who were assumed to elect coverage were also assumed to cover a spouse at retirement. The percentage assumed for future Represented retirees was 40%. Wives are assumed to be three (3) years younger than their husbands.

Administrative Costs -The cost of administering the benefits provided by the non-Trust program are assumed to be included in the premiums charged for various coverages.

1 149

xerox -~ ®

~~

Health Care Cost Trend - A flat 3% annual trend was applied to the Non-Represented dental cost and the vision cost. Medical and dental costs for Union retirees are assumed to stay at the current dollar level. The following medical trend schedule was applied to the Non-Represented health costs. Fiscal Year 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023+

Pre-65 9.5% 9.0% 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0%

Post-65 6.75% 6.50% 6.25% 6.00% 5.75% 5.50% 5.25% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%

Retirement Rates Retirement Age 50 51 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70+

Rate of Retirement ATU/IBEW -

11.7% 10.4% 9.1% 9.1% 7.8% 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 15.0% 15.0% 54.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 100.0%

2 150

Rate of Retirement AFSCME/Non-Rep 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 50.0% 26.3% 26.3% 26.3% 26.3% 100.0%

xerox Rates and Contributions -Monthly premium rates for the period 7/ 1/2014- 6/30/2015 are as follows: Age65 Under A e 65 and over $1,030.86 $377.48 Non-Represented Medical Non-Represented Dental 65.65 65.65 13.40 13.40 Vision Life 14.18 14.18 Based on information provided by the District, we understand that the Non-Represented retiree medical rates are insured and se lf-supporting. They are shown at the average age of the NonRepresented population. The Non-Represented Medical per capita costs above were age-adjusted to age 65 for use in our valuation programs. Those age-adjusted rates are $1,236 for under 65 and $333 for over 65.

Morbidity - The cost of health benefits for Non-Represented retirees is assumed to increase with age as follows: Age

Morbidity 0.0% 2.5% 2.6% 3.2% 3.4% 3.7% 3.2% 2.4% 1.8% 1.3% 0.0%

<40 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Age related morbidity costs are not explicitly reflected for represented retirees. Employer subsidized benefits provided to represented retirees under this plan and under the Trust Plan are limited to negotiated dollar amounts, with amounts in excess of the dollar amounts directly required as contributions from the represented retirees. There are separate premiums for union retirees, which we understand are not blended with active costs. We have assumed that those premiums are suitable for purpose of measuring retiree costs and thus any difference in cost due to changes in the age composition of the covered population would be passed along as contributions.

Excise Tax on High-Cost Employer Health Plans (aka Cadillac Tax)- We expect that the Cadillac Tax, which is effective in 2018, will increase the 7/1/2014 health liability by approximately 0.9% and the normal cost by 2.9%. The calculation reflects the value of the high cost plan excise tax only for the NonRepresented medical benefits. We assumed that the value of the tax will be passed back to the Plan in the form of higher premium rates or administrative costs. The tax is 40% of the excess of the projected cost of coverage over the statutory limits. We calculated the cost of coverage using the current premiums and projected those costs with the valuation trend assumption. The statutory limits are assumed to increase from 2018 to 2019 by 4.20% (CPI plus 1%) and by 3.20% (CPI) thereafter.

3 151

~ ~®

·~

xerox APPENDIXB PLAN PROVISIONS For ATU, IBEW, and AFSCME: Eligible for retiree benefits with the following subsidies at age 55 with 8 years of service for ATU and at age 55 with 10 years of service for AFSCME/IBEW. Medical benefits before age 65 (HMO) - the District does not subsidize directly; retiree pays full premium via direct retiree contributions and via use of subsidy provided under Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Trust Plan ("Trust Plan"). The value of the Trust Plan subsidy is not reflected in this valuation. Medical benefits after age 65 (HMO) - the District subsidizes a fixed $40 per month for single coverage and $80 per month for dual coverage directly from District assets . This amount is in addition to subsidy provided under the Trust Plan. The Trust Plan subsidy is not reflected in this valuation. Subsidy of $150 per month for spouse continues after death of retirees for ATU . There is no surviving spouse subsidy for retirees in other unions. Subsidy is not available to spouse of employee who dies in active service after meeting eligibility requirements. Dental benefits- the District subsidizes a fixed $20 per month for single coverage only. No subsidized coverage available to surviving spouse Vision benefits - the District subsidizes the full cost (currently $13.40 per month) for single coverage only. No subsidized coverage available to surviving spouse. Life insurance benefits - the District subsidizes $14.18 per month for retiree only. We have not been provided with information regarding the face amount of life insurance actually provided . We have assumed that the $14.18 per month reflects the cost of the retiree coverage and that the $14.18 amount was set based on retiree experience. Actual costs may increase as the population ages, even if that amount is currently appropriate. However, we do not feel this difference would have a material impact on the valuation, as the measured life insurance liability represents only 9% of the overall Actuarial Accrued Liability. For Non-Represented Participants: Eligible for retiree benefits with the following subsidies at age 50 with 5 years of service. Medical benefits before age 65 (HMO) - the District subsidizes a percentage of the lowest offered premium (currently $1,030.86 per month) for retiree based on the schedule below. Spouse also eligible for lowest offered premium, but spouse must contribute $1 oo per month (assumed to be fixed at current level). Medical benefits after age 65 (HMO) - the District subsidizes a percentage of the lowest offered premium (currently $377.48 per month) for retiree based on the schedule below. Spouse also eligible for lowest offered premium, but spouse must contribute $100 per month (assumed to be fixed at current level). Benefit Schedule Years of Service Percentag~ 5 50% 60% 6 7 70% 8 80% 90% 9 100% 10+

4 152

~

-

~ ~®

~~

xerox As the data did not include years of service for retirees, we conservatively assumed that all unrepresented retirees were not required to contribute for medical benefits. Subsidized spouse medical benefit coverage continues after the death of the retiree if the spouse continues to make the requisite $100 per month contribution . The spouse of an employee who dies in active service is not eligible for subsidized coverage. Dental benefits - the District subsidizes $65.65 per month for single coverage. No additional subsidy is assumed for dependent coverage. Vision benefits - the District Subsidizes $13.40 per month for single coverage. subsidy is assumed for dependent coverage.

No additional

Life insurance benefits - the District subsidizes $14.18 per month for sing le coverage. No additional subsidy is assumed for dependent coverage.

5 153

~f ~~

APPENDIXD GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) - The actuarial present value of benefits attributed to employee service rendered to a particular date.

Active Plan Participant - Any active employee who has rendered service during the credited service period and is expected to receive benefits, including benefits to or for any beneficiaries and covered dependents, under the postretirement benefit plan.

Actuarial Present Value - The value, as of a specified date, of a future benefit cost or a series of benefit costs, with each amount adjusted to reflect (a) the time value of money (through discounts for interest and (b) the probability of payment (for example, by means of decrements for events such as death, disability, withdrawal or retirement) between the specified date and the expected date of payment. Amortization - Systematic reduction of the principal portion (only) of an asset or liability. Annual Required Contribution - Consists of the normal cost and a portion of the total unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) . The normal cost and UAAL are derived from the actuarial present value of benefits, the actuarial cost method, and the plan assets. Discount Rate - The interest rate used in developing present values to reflect the time value of money. Health Care Cost Trend Rate - An assumption about the annual rate(s) of change in the cost of health care benefits currently provided by the postretirement benefit plan, due to factors other than changes in the composition of the plan population by age and dependency status, for each year from the measurement date until the end of the period in which benefits are expected to be paid. The Health Care Cost Trend Rate implicitly considers estimates of health care inflation, changes in health care utilization or delivery patterns, technological advances, and changes in the health status of plan participants. Differing types of service, such as hospital care and dental care, may have different trends .

Normal Cost - The portion of the present value of future benefits attributed to employee service during a period.

Substantive Plan - The terms of a postretirement benefit plan as understood by an employer that provides postretirement benefits and the employees who render services in exchange for those benefits. The substantive plan is the basis for the accounting for that exchange transaction. In some situations an employer's cost-sharing policy, as evidenced by past practice or by communication of intended changes to a plan's cost-sharing provisions, or a past practice of regular increases in certain monetary benefits may indicate that the substantive plan differs from the extant written plan.

6 154

SR15- 121 ATT.2

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Trust Plan July 1, 2014 GASB 43 and 45 Valuation Report Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions

xerox •~

buckconsultants 155

®

xerox

-~ r ~.....

Brian Hlava, ASA, MAAA, FCA Director, Consulting Actuary Buck Consultants, LLC. 500 Plaza Drive Secaucus, NJ 07096 [email protected] Tel 201.902.2962 Fax 201 .902.2883

February 27, 2015

Mr. Ralph Martini Controller Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 RE : AC Transit District- GASB 45 FVE 6/30/2015 Results for the Trust Plan Dear Mr. Martini: This letter presents the result of Buck Consultants' (Buck's) actuarial analysis of the current liability for the AC Transit District's (the District's) Trust postretirement medical benefit program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. The goal of this analysis is to provide results for the District's financial reporting purposes under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 45 (GASB 45). This valuation also presents information for the financial reporting of the Trust Plan under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 43 (GASB 43). Use of this report for any other purposes or by anyone other than AC Transit and its auditors may not be appropriate and may result in mistaken conclusions because of failure to understand applicable assumptions, methods, or inapplicability of the report for that purpose. Because of the risk of misinterpretation of actuarial results, you should ask Buck to review any statement you wish to make on the results contained in this report. Buck will not accept any liability for any such statement made without review by Buck. The attached pages should not be provided without a copy of this cover letter.

The valuation was based on asset, census and cost data supplied by the District and our understanding of the benefit provisions. The information is provided in the following exhibits: • •

Exhibit 1 shows the current liability and the development of the Annual Required Contribution Exhibit 2 shows the required schedules of previous results

General Results Exhibit 1 provides the Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) as of July 1, 2014 for active employees and retirees in the program. The AAL is defined as the actuarial present value of benefits attributed to employee service rendered to a particular date. The exhibit also shows the normal cost, which is the value of the benefit to be earned by the active employees for service during fiscal year 2015. A discount rate of 4.00% is used throughout this analysis. This is a reduction from the 4.50% discount rate assumed in the last valuation, to reflect a lowered expectation of real return on money market type funds, based on recent experience of the financial markets. The 4.00% discount rate is the same rate that is being used for the Non-Trust plan for this fiscal year, as the benefits for both plans are now generally expected to be paid out of District funds rather than out of set aside plan assets. Previous valuations had used an even higher discount rate than the 4.50% assumed last valuation, with the earlier valuations assuming that the Plan was partially funded. However, as part of our last valuation, analysis of

156

xerox

Mr. Ralph Martini February 27, 2015 Page 3

~ ~®

·~

the assets and comparisons of recent contributions to expected cash benefit costs showed that the Plan is no longer significantly prefunded. GASB 45 allows for use of a discount rate based on expected earnings of set aside assets in a trust fund which is generally a higher discount rate than would be expected to be earned on general District funds. The use of a rate expected for trust fund assets generally results in lower liability amounts for a pre-funded plan. GASB 45 provides disclosure requirements for Other Postemployment Benefit (OPEB) plans effective as early as plan years beginning after December 15, 2006. GASB Statement 45 requires the calculation of an Annual Required Contribution (ARC) consisting of the Normal Cost and a not greater than 30 year amortization of the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). There is no requirement for the AC Transit District to actually fund this amount. The UAAL is the Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) less any assets held for the plan.

Actuarial Assumptions and Methods Appendix A outlines the actuarial assumptions and methods used in these calculations. The assumptions and methods are the same as those used in the July 1, 2013 valuation except the discount rate was decreased from 4.5% to 4.0% to reflect reduced expectations for real return on short term money market type investments and the mortality was updated to the RP-2014 headcount weighted blue collar base table and the MP-2014 improvement scale to reflect recent research published by the Society of Actuaries. Both of these changes increased the AAL measured in the valuation, with the discount rate increasing the AAL by about 6% and the updated mortality assumption increasing the AAL by about 2%. The impact on the normal cost was about 11% for the discount rate change and 1% for the update to the mortality assumption. The plan sponsor selected the economic assumptions used for the results in this report with our concurrence. We believe that these assumptions are reasonable for financial accounting purposes. The demographic assumptions used represent a reasonable estimate of future demographic experience of the plan participants. Given the assumptions selected, the results presented in this letter have been prepared in accordance with our understanding of the requirements of GASB 43 and 45. Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current measurements presented in this report due to such factors as the following: retiree group benefits program experience differing from that anticipated by the assumptions; changes in assumptions; increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the methodology used for these measurements (such as the end of an amortization period); and changes in retiree group benefits program provisions or applicable law. Retiree group benefits models necessarily rely on the use of approximations and estimates, and are sensitive to changes in these approximations and estimates. Small variations in these approximations and estimates may lead to significant changes in actuarial measurements. Because of limited scope, Buck performed no analysis of the potential range of such future differences. The provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and associated Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (together known as Health Care Reform) were considered but deemed to not significantly impact the results. For example, since it is assumed that the amounts subsidized by the County would not increase in the future, the Excise Tax on High Cost Health Plans (aka Cadillac Tax) would have no impact. The liability amounts shown in Table 1 are normally made up of two components. The first is the value of the cash contributions that the District makes towards retiree coverage. The second is the value of any "rate cross subsidy" provided to retirees who enroll in the District's medical and dental plans. This "rate cross subsidy" occurs when the retiree rates are a blend of the active and retiree claim experience. In essence the active employees are subsidizing the retiree cost for this benefit plan. This subsidy is also a liability for the District under GASB 43 and 45 reporting requirements. We understand that early retiree (under age 65) premiums for benefits provided through the Trust Plan are not blended with the active rates. Premiums for retirees age 65 and over are also unblended. Therefore, there is no rate cross subsidy reflected in Table 1. As the District's contributions are limited to fixed dollar amounts under the substantive plan valued, and as premiums are set to represent only the cost of covered union retirees, we have not reflected any age related subsidy within premium class.

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Trust Plan July 1, 2014 Valuation Report 157

Mr. Ralph Martini February 27, 2015 Page 4 As noted, the District contributions valued here are not adjusted for the age of the covered participants. According to the Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOP) currently effective, in certain circumstances 1 measurement of retiree medical liabilities may be based on premiums without adjustment for age. However, the ASOP applicable for measurements on or after March 31 , 2015, provides significant new guidance around premium rates for pooled arrangements. In particular, it indicates that unaged premium rates only should be used in very limited circumstances. 2 The results in these calculations do not reflect this guidance. We anticipate that when the plan's arrangement is evaluated in light of this new guidance, there is a possibility that we may conclude that age adjustments will be necessary for future valuations.

Substantive Plan Appendix B summarizes our understanding of the key plan provisions of the Trust retiree medical program as of July 1, 2014. The eligibility requirements used in this valuation are different from the previous valuation due to a clarification from the District. For ATU employees, the requirement is age 55 with 8 years of service whereas in our previous valuation, it was age 55 with 10 years of service. For AFSCME employees, the requirement is age 55 with 10 years of service whereas in our previous valuation, it was age 50 with 10 years of service. These changes increased the AAL by about 1.4% and the normal cost by about 2.3%.

Participant Data The valuation was based on census data provided by the District for purposes of this valuation. Although we did not audit the data, we did check it for reasonableness and compared it to the data from last year. The valuation relies on the accuracy of the data provided. For active employees, the data included date of birth, date of hire, sex and bargaining unit. For retirees, the data included information on date of birth, sex, coverage information, and bargaining unit. Appendix C summarizes the demographics of active employees and retirees separately.

Actuarial Certification The consulting actuary listed below is a member of the American Academy of Actuaries, and meets the Academy's Qualification Standards to issue this Statement of Actuarial Opinion. If you have any questions on this material, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Buck Consultants, LLC

Brian J. Hlava, ASA, MAAA, FCA Director, Consulting Actuary cc: David Kershner 1

See for example ASOP 6, Measuring Retiree Group Benefit Obligations, §3.4.5, which says "the actuary may use a single unadjusted premium rate applicable to both active employees and non-Medicare-eligible retirees if the actuary has determined that the insurer would offer the same premium rate if only non-Medicare-eligible retirees were covered." 2

ASOP 6, Measuring Retiree Group Benefits Obligations and Determining Retiree Group Benefits Program Periodic Costs or Actuarially Determined Contributions, §3.7.7.c

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Trust Plan July 1, 2014 Valuation Report 158

xerox ~~ ~ ~® EXHIBIT 1 ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT July 1, 2014 GASB 45 Valuation Results Trust Plan Discount Rate: 4.00% (A) - Summary of Postretirement Benefit Liabilities

ATU

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) at 7/1 /2014 Active Employees Retirees Total Assets at 7/1/2014' Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) at 7/1/2014

IBEW

AFSCME

Total

$40,588,936 48,770,174 $89,359, 110

$609,004 441,329 $1,050,333

$4,321,257 3,917,352 $8,238,609

$45,519,197 53,1 28 ,855 $98,648 ,052

$1,578,939

$234,069

$783,623

$2,596,631

$87,780,171

$816,264

$7,454,986

$96,051,421

$3,135,059 1,909,008 $5,044,067

$29,153 29,829 $58,982

$266,254 190,923 $457,1 77

$3,430,466 2,129,760

(B) - Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Amortization of UAL Normal Cost TOTAL ARC for Fiscal 2015

$5,560,226

(C) - Balance Sheet Information Estimated Net OPEB Obligation (NOO) · 6/30/2014

$

Annual OPES Cost (AOC) for FY 2015 ARC Adjustment to ARC Interest on NOO at beg. of year TOTAL AOC for FY 2015

7,011 ,785

$5,560,226 (260,442) 280,471 $5,580,255

Contributions

$

Estimated Net OPEB Obligation (NOO)- 6/30/2015*'

$ 10,092,040

·Assets reflect accounts payable, accounts receivable, and current liabilities . .. To be updated when actual contribution amounts become available.

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Trust Plan July t, 20 t4 Valuation Report 2/27/20 15 ACCTD Trust FYI 5 GASB45 Results

159

2,500,000

EXHIBIT 2 Trust Plan Development of Annual OPEB Cost (AOC) and Net OPEB Obligation (NOO) a) NOO (beg. of fiscal year) b) ARC c) Interest on NOO d) ARC Adjustment e) AOC (b + c +d) f) Contribution (estimated) g) NOO (estimated end of fiscal year)

$

FY 2014 4,618,758 $ 5,164,501 207,844 (184 ,318} 5,188 ,027 2,795,000 7,011 ,785

FY 2015 7,011,785 5,560,226 280,471 (260,442} 5,580,255 2,500,000 10,092,040

FY 2015 AOC is estimated and will vary depending upon actual FY2015 contribution.

Schedule of Contributions t-1sca1 Year t:noeo June Annual Ut-'t:t::S 30 Cost 2012 4,561,000 $ 2013 $ 5,023,127 2014 $ 5,188,027 2015* $ 5 580,255

Annual Amount Contributed 1,819,000 $ 1,808,369 $ 2,795,000 $ 2,500,000 $

Percentage Contributed 40% 36% 54% 45%

Net Ut-'t::l::i Obligation $ 1,404,000 $ 4 ,618,758 $ 7,011 ,785 $ 10,092,040

"' FY15 amount based on estimated contributions.

Schedule of Funding Progress Actuarial Valuation Date 7/1/2010 7/1/2011** 7/1/2012** 7/1/2013 7/1/2014

Actuarial Value of Assets $ 8,895,000 $ 8,542,000 $ 7,100,000 $ 3,868,431 $ 2 596 631

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) 70,574,000 $ 80,381 ,000 $ 78,305,000 $ 88,290,514 $ 98 648,052 $

unrunaea Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) 61,679,000 $ 71,839,000 $ 71,205,000 $ 84,422,083 $ 96 051 421 $

Funded Ratio 13% 11% 9% 4% 3%

•• Amounts as shown in Required Supplementary Information section of June 30, 2014 Consolidated Annual Financial Report for AC Transit. July 1, 2011 valuation was described in CAFR as Actuarial Valuation Date of June 30, 2012. July 1, 201 2 valuation was described as Actuarial Valuation Date of June 30, 2013. Values shown for 7/1/12 val AVA was 6,237,000, AAL was 81,355,000 UAAL was 75, 11 8,000 Funded ratio 8%.

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Trust Plan July 1, 2014 Valuation Report 2/27/201 5 ACCTD Trust FY15 GASB45 Results.xlsx

160

xerox ~ ®

~~

APPENDIX A Valuation Assumptions Discount Rate - 4.00%. Overall Payroll Increase Rate - 3.50%. Actuarial Cost Method date of full eligibility. Amortization Method -

Projected unit credit with benefits attributed on a level basis from date of hire until

Level percentage of pay, 30 year open period.

Asset Valuation Method - Market value. Asset amounts are net of liabilities recorded on plan's financial statements and do not include assets held or receivable if specifically earmarked for dependent care benefits. Mortality Rates - RP-2014 headcount weighted Blue Collar Mortality Table with application of the MP2014 improvement scale on a fully generational basis Withdrawal Rates -

Age Any_

Representative values are shown below

Years of Service 0 1 2 3 4 5-9 10+

Probability of Termination During Year ATU/IBEW 8.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.5%

Probability of Termination During Year AFSCME 12.0% 7.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 1.5%

New Entrants - None Assumed. Participation Assumption - Medical plan elections were based on reported information for current retirees. For future retirees, 87% are assumed to elect coverage upon retirement. Dependent Assumptions - Not applicable. Administrative Costs - The cost of administering the Trust is assumed to represent 3% of the cost of benefits provided based on actual costs.

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Trust Plan July 1, 2014 Valuation Report 161

xerox ~ ~® ~

Health Care Cost Trend - The following medical trend schedule was assumed. However, given that the District subsidizes medical benefits only up to specified amounts shown in Appendix B, and given that we assume that all participating retirees have costs in excess of these amounts, whether they take medical insurance through the District or otherwise; the trend rates do not have any direct impact on the results of the valuation. The calculations included in this report would not be appropriate for assessing the sufficiency of funding were the specified amounts shown in Appendix B to be increased by negotiation such that the plan continued the current percentage of cost subsidy into future periods. Fiscal Year

Pre-65

Post-65

2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023+

9.5% 9.0% 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0%

6.75% 6.50% 6.25% 6.00% 5.75% 5.50% 5.25% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%

Retirement Rates

Retirement Age

Rate of Retirement ATU/IBEW

50 51 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70+ Rates and Contributions shown in Appendix B.

-

-

11 .7% 10.4% 9.1% 9.1% 7.8% 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 15.0% 15.0% 54.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 100.0%

Rate of Retirement AFSCME

3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 50.0% 26.3% 26.3% 26.3% 26.3% 100.0%

Retires are not required to contribute. The amounts subsidized by the Plan are

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Trust Plan July 1, 2014 Valuation Report 162

xerox /~ ~®

·~

APPENDIXB Plan Provisions Eligible for retiree benefits with the following subsidies at age 55 with 8 years of service for ATU and at age 55 with 10 years of service for AFSCME/IBEW. Medical benefits - the Trust subsidizes a portion of medical insurance premiums or reimburses eligible medical expenses in an amount not to exceed the following negotiated monthly amounts:

Pre Age 65 $691 $691 $601

ATU IBEW AFSCME

Post Age 65 $335 $335 $282

For purposes of this valuation, the above rates , without further increase are assumed to be the substantive plan to be measured. No subsidy is provided for spouse coverage. After the death of an ATU retiree, a subsidy of $150 per month is available for the life of the surviving spouse. Additional subsidy amounts are provided directly from the District for District sponsored coverage under the non-Trust Plan. Dental benefits - the Trust does not subsidize. Vision benefits - the Trust does not subsidize. Life insurance benefits - the Trust does not subsidize. Contribution Amounts-The District makes contributions to the Trust based on negotiated cents per hour amounts. The current contribution rates are:

_ Bargaining Unit ATU

AFSCME IBEW

Contribution Rate $1 .10 per hour per employee (will increase to $1 .30 per hour if the Trust's fund falls below $2 million in assets.) No contribution $1 .04 er hour er em lo ee

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Trust Plan July 1, 2014 Valuation Report 163

APPENDIX C Trust Plan Summary of Census Data as of July 1, 2014

Union AFSCME ATU IBEW Total

Pre-65 Retirees Average Age Heads 25 62.0 254 61.5 g 63.1 281 61.6

Union AFSCME ATU IBEW Total

Active Em~loyees Average Average Service Age Heads 14.1 220 49.4 13.4 1,562 48.4 12.1 24 49.0 13.5 1,806 48.6

Alameda Contra Costa Transa District Trust Plan July 1, 2013 Valuation Report 2/26/2015 ACCTD 2014 Trust Census Exhibit

Post-65 Retirees Average Age Heads 69.6 58 694 73.8 71.1 759 73.4

z

164

Grand Total Average Age Heads 67.3 83 948 70.5 69.3 ~ 1,040 70.2

xerox ~ ~

~~

APPENDIXD Glossary of Terminology Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) - The actuarial present value of benefits attributed to employee service rendered to a particular date. Active Plan Participant - Any active employee who has rendered service during the credited service period and is expected to receive benefits, including benefits to or for any beneficiaries and covered dependents, under the postretirement benefit plan. Actuarial Present Value - The value, as of a specified date, of a future benefit cost or a series of benefit costs, with each amount adjusted to reflect (a) the time value of money (through discounts for interest and (b) the probability of payment (for example, by means of decrements for events such as death, disability, withdrawal or retirement) between the specified date and the expected date of payment. Amortization - Systematic reduction of the principal portion (only) of an asset or liability. Annual Required Contribution - Consists of the normal cost and a portion of the total unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL). The normal cost and UAAL are derived from the actuarial present value of benefits, the actuarial cost method, and the plan assets. Discount Rate - The interest rate used in developing present values to reflect the time value of money. Health Care Cost Trend Rate - An assumption about the annual rate(s) of change in the cost of health care benefits currently provided by the postretirement benefit plan, due to factors other than changes in the composition of the plan population by age and dependency status, for each year from the measurement date until the end of the period in which benefits are expected to be paid. The Health Care Cost Trend Rate implicitly considers estimates of health care inflation, changes in health care utilization or delivery patterns, technological advances, and changes in the health status of plan participants. Differing types of service, such as hospital care and dental care, may have different trends. Normal Cost - The portion of the present value of future benefits attributed to employee service during a period. Substantive Plan - The terms of a postretirement benefit plan as understood by an employer that provides postretirement benefits and the employees who render services in exchange for those benefits. The substantive plan is the basis for the accounting for that exchange transaction. In some situations an employer's cost-sharing policy, as evidenced by past practice or by communication of intended changes to a plan's cost-sharing provisions, or a past practice of regular increases in certain monetary benefits may indicate that the substantive plan differs from the extant written plan.

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Trust Plan July 1, 2014 Valuation Report 165

This page intentionally blank 

166

SR15- 121 ATT.3

New rules try to spotlight hidden retirement debt An accounting board best known for requiring the calculation and reporting of the debt owe.d for retiree health care promised government workers, which often turned out to be shockingly large, is having another moment. This month the Governmental Accounting Standards Board applied new rules for reporting pension debt to retiree health care. It's a broader look, shows year-to-year changes, and requires local governments in state systems to report their share of debt. And the new numbers must be reported on the face page of financial documents, not buried deep in the notes of lengthy documents known only to those with green eyeshades. This month also is the end of the first fiscal year for which local governments are required to report their share of pension debt under the new rules. The two big state pension systems, CalPERS and CalSTRS, are helping local governments do the paperwork. The purpose of the new rules was briefly outlined last week by the accounting board chairman, David Vaudt, in an interview with CNBC about the change for retiree health care, often called in government Other Post-Employment Benefits. "Previously, what happened under current standards is that the pension and OPEB liabilities appeared in the footnotes of the financial statement, and regretfully that didn't get the attention of the policymakers, the mayors and councils, the governors and the legislators," Vaudt said.

David Vaudt

"So, what the new standards will do is they will elevate that pension liability, that OPEB liability to the face of the financial statement. And this will provide a much clearer picture, an enhanced picture, of what these promises actually are, what the magnitude of those promises are, and whether assets are being set aside to actually pay for those benefits in the future." Needless to say, public knowledge of a problem does not necessarily lead to a prompt political solution.

167

The first report of California state worker retiree health care debt, following the earlier GASB directive, was $47.8 billion in 2007. By last year the debt had grown to $72 billion, larger than the $50 billion debt or "unfunded liability" for state worker pensions. State worker retiree health care has been one of the fastest-growing state expenses: $1.9 billion next fiscal year, up fourfold from $458 million in 2001. It's also one of the most generous benefits, requiring no contribution from most state workers. The subsidy pays 100 percent of the average health care premium for retirees, 90 percent for their dependents. It's an incentive for early retirement at age 50 or 55, some argue, because the subsidy for active state workers is 80 to 85 percent of the premium. On becoming eligible for Medicare at age 65, retired state workers are expected to enroll and switch to a supplemental state health insurance plan for costs not covered by the federal plan. Last January Gov. Brown proposed a long-term plan to cut costs. State worker retiree health care would be shifted from "pay-as-you-go" funding, which only pays the health insurance premiums each year, to pension-like "prefunding" that invests additional money to earn interest. State workers would contribute half of the normal cost of the plan, work longer to qualify for full retiree health care, receive a subsidy no higher than active workers, have the option of a lowercost health plan, and face tighter dependent eligibility and Medicare switch reviews. The plan must be bargained with unions. An incentive for unions might be that agreeing to the plan would strengthen the "vested right" to retiree health care, which some think may not have the legal protection currently given to pensions. A chart in the governor's revised budget proposal last month shows retiree health care costs rising for nearly three decades under the plan, as prefunding is added to pay-as-you-go costs, before dropping sharply to yield big savings. r lgUte SWE.O I Annual Rotlroo Hoalth Costs: Long -Torm Savings 52~

- - No ActiOn

-

Gove!I\Of't Plan

520

~

.i

= $ 15

Ill

,,'

.!:

i 8

SIO

,,

, , ,

I

I

Long-Term Savings

s~

so

~".

~.......

#

~ ~

...

~,.,

~ ~

r:P

"'

-!

~~ ~~

#'

One of the big criticisms of public pensions, that investment earnings are too optimistic and

168

conceal massive debt, surfaced in the Legislature in 2006, when the state Senate removed David Crane from the CalSTRS board. For almost a year, Crane had repeatedly questioned whether the CalSTRS earnings forecast was too high. His opponents reportedly said he was undermining support for public pensions, leading to a Senate vote not to confirm his appointment. How important are pension fund earnings? CalSTRS and CalPERS both expect a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds and other investments to pay about two-thirds of future pension costs, with another third from employer-employee contributions. The current earnings forecast of the two big pension systems is 7.5 percent a year, down from 8 percent a decade ago. What happens when the earnings forecast drops was shown in a wellpublicized paper by Stanford graduate students in 2010. Using a risk-free bond rate recommended by some economists for pensions, 4.14 percent, the debt or " unfunded liability" for CalPERS, CalSTRS and UC Retirement ballooned from $55.4 billion to $500 billion. A credit-rating firm, Moody's, began using a lower earnings forecast for pension debt in 2013. The stricter stance is costing Moody's business as some cities use other firms to get higher bond ratings, the Wall Street Journal reported this month. The new GASB rules, aiming for middle ground with a "blended" rate, allow a pension fund to use its earnings forecast. But if the projected assets fall short of covering future pension obligations, a lower bond earnings rate must be used for the shortfall. Two years ago CalSTRS feared its debt under the new rules would be the nation's largest, $167 billion. But last year legislation raised employer-employee contributions $5 billion over seven years, dropping the debt to $58.4 billion. The part of CalSTRS debt school districts and other employers will report is based on their share of total contributions. The districts have the option of using financial data from last fiscal year or waiting until October for data from the cmTent year. The CalPERS debt for non-teaching school employees also will be based on the district's share of total contributions. CalPERS is preparing accounting valuation repotis for its state, local government and school plans, charging $850 or $2,500 per plan. In the early years of California pension funds, there was no controversy over earnings forecast and no ballooning debt. Public pension funds like CalPERS, formed in 1932, were only allowed to invest in bonds with a predictable yield. Then in 1966 voters approved Proposition 1 that allowed up to 25 percent of pension fund investments to be in large-company stock that paid dividends and met other safety tests.

169

Voters rejected a measure in 1982, Proposition 6, that would have allowed 60 percent of pension fund investments to be in stocks. But in 1984 voters approved Proposition 21 allowing any investment that followed the "prudent person" rule. The ballot pamphlet argument for Proposition 21 said pension board trustees would be "personally liable" if they fail to exercise the care of a "prudent person" knowledgeable in investment matters. Now CalPERS and CalSTRS purchase insurance to protect board members from being personally liable for bad investment decisions. There have been no lawsuits or legal claims alleging board members made imprudent decisions. Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at Calpensions.com. Posted 29 Jun 15

170

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-144a July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager

SUBJECT:

Notice of Scheduled Adoption of Appropriations Limit for FY 2015-16

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider the adoption of Resolution No. 15-035 providing notice of the scheduled adoption of an Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and repeal of Resolution No. 15-026. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District must make available to the public the Appropriations Limit for FY 2015-16 and supporting documentation . Article XIII B of the California Constitution places limitations on the annual appropriations of the State and each local government. The limit for any fi scal year is equal to the previous year's limit, adjusted for population changes and by a cost of living factor. For the past several years, the Population Factor for calculating the Appropriation s limit was based on a weighted average of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The weighting was based on property tax contribution . Staff completed an extensive analysis of the legislative requirements for the appropriation limit and identified that the legislative language did not provide specific language for a blended rate between Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The legislative language does support the District using the calculation of the Population Factor (a) the percentage change in population of the county in which the District is located, (b) the percentage change in the jurisdiction in which the District is located, or (c) for Special Districts located in two or more counties, the District may use the change in the county in which the District has the highest assessed valuation . Option (b) was considered not appropriate since the District boundaries are not defined by individual counties and jurisdiction but Option (c) will be the best method for the District to follow moving forward. Staff recalculated the Appropriation Limit based upon the county with the highest assessed valuation (Alameda) that resulted in an increase of approximately $12,000 from the proposed appropriation limit proposed in June 2015. For the District, the FY 2015-16 Appropriations limit allowable growth factor was positively influenced by the 3.82% annual growth in the California Per Capita Personal Income and a 1.30% annual growth in the Population Factor.

171

Report No. 15-144a Page 2 of 4 BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Proposition 4 ond 111 Proposition 4 approved by the voters in November 1979 added California Constitution, Article XIII B. Article XIII B limits the level of most appropriations from tax sources that the state and most local government entities are permitted to make in any given year. The limit is equal to the limit for the prior year, adjusted for changes in the cost-of-living and population. The first year in which appropriations limits applied to state and local governments in California was fiscal year (FY) 1980-81.

Proposition 111, passed by the voters in June 1990, updated the base year for calculating the limit for each government entity to FY 1986-87. Proposition 111 also updated several adjustment factors. Specific impact to the District was the adjustment for the population factor to include either (a) the percentage change in the jurisdiction in which the agency is located, (b) the county in which the agency is located, or (c) for Special Districts located in two or more counties, the District may use the change in the county in which the District has the highest assessed valuation. Staff completed an extensive analysis of the legislative requirements and determined that option (b) was not appropriate since the District boundaries are not defined by individual counties and jurisdictions but that option (c) would be the best method for the District to follow. The California Department of Finance publishes each May (See Attachment 2) the statistical information needed to calculate the appropriations limit. This includes (a) the California per Capita Personal Income Index which provides the cost-of-living factor and (b) the change in population from the previous year by county and cities and unincorporated areas within each county which provides the population factor. To calculate the appropriations limit for FY 201516, local jurisdictions are required to use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2015, in conjunction with the change in the cost of living. The special districts that are required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Change to the Calculation of the Population Factor For the past several years, the District calculated the Population Factor based on a weighted average of the two counties. Since the legislative language did not provide for a blended rate between Alameda and Contra Costa counties, the Appropriation Limits were recalculated based upon the county with the highest assessed valuation (Alameda County), which resulted in an increase of about $12,000 from the appropriation limit provided in June 2015.

The District will be using the change in population in the county in which the portion of the District is located which has the highest assessed valuation for the calculation of the FY 2015-16 Appropriations Limit calculation for the first time this fiscal year. This change will be included in

172

Report No. 15-144a Page 3 of 4 the Appropriation Limit resolution presented to the Board at the August 19, 2015 meeting. The 1.30% annual growth rate in the Population Factor represents the growth rate of Alameda County which was slightly higher than the growth rate for Contra Costa County.

The Appropriation Calculation For the District, the FY 2015-16 Appropriations Limit allowable growth factor was positively influenced by the 3.82% annual growth rate in the California Per Capita Personal Income Index and 1.30% annual growth rate in the Population Factor. The growth rates for both factors were the result of a strong State and Bay Area economy. The following table illustrates the FY 2015-16 Appropriation Limit for the District:

Line 1 2

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATION Step 1: Compute Cost-Of-Living Factor Change in Per Capita Personal Income (3.82+100) 100

CPI change converted to a ratio:

3.82

1.0382

Step 2: Compute Population Factor Population percentage change by County

3

Alameda County percent change in population

1.30

4

Contra Costa County percent change in population

1.28

5

Highest Assessed Value of Lines 3 & 4

6

Step 3: Calculate Appropriation Limit Factors to Apply (Line 2 x Line 5)

7

Last Year's Appropriation Limit

8

FY 2015/2016 Appropriations Limit (Line 6 x Line 7)

(1.30+100) 100

1.0130

1.05170 $411,195,815

$ 432,454,639

Next Steps In 1980, the State Legislature added Section 9710 of the Government Code stating that the governing body of each local jurisdiction must establish, by resolution, an Appropriations Limit for the following year. The Fiscal Year 2015-16 Appropriations Limit and supporting documentation (Exhibits A-C of the attached resolution) will be available for review by the public in the office of the District Secretary located on the 10'h Floor at 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, on July 30, 2015. This schedule meets the requirements of law for public review fifteen days prior to the District's scheduled adoption of the Appropriations Limit, which will be placed on a Board meeting agenda on August 19, 2015.

173

Report No. 15-144a Page 4 of 4

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

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: Staff found no practical alternatives to the course of action recommended in this report. The establishment of an appropriations limit is a statutory requirement the District must meet.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Staff Report 15-144 and Resolution No. 15-026 Notice of Scheduled Adoption of Appropriations limit for FY 2015-16

ATTACHMENTS: 1: Resolution No. 15-035 with Exhibits A-C 2: California Department of Finance Pricing and Population Information 3: Government Code Section 7900-7914 Department Head Approval: James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer

by: Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Prepared by: Donald Eckert, Director of Management and Budget Reviewed

174

SR15-144a ATT.1

ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 15-035 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING NOTICE OF THE SCHEDULED ADOPTION OF AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII B OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND REPEAL RESOLUTION NO. 15-026 WHEREAS, Article XIII B to the Constitution of the State of California places appropriations limitations on the fiscal powers of the State and each local government; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 7910 provides that each year the governing body of each jurisdiction shall establish its Appropriations Limit pursuant to Article XIII B at a regularly scheduled meeting or special meeting; and WHEREAS, Section 7910 further provides that 15 days prior to such meeting, the documentation used in the determination of the Appropriations Limit shall be made available to the public; and WHEREAS, this resolution provides notice to the public of the scheduled adoption of an Appropriations Limit on August 19, 2015 which will meet the 15 day noticing requirement. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows: Section 1. At a meeting on August 19, 2015, the Board will consider and may adopt a

resolution establishing the District's Appropriations Limit for the 2015-16 Fiscal Year pursuant to Article XIII B of the Constitution of the State of California. Section 2. The documentation used in the determination of the District's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2015-16, as provided in Exhibits A, B and C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, shall be made available for public review in the office of the District Secretary, 101h Floor, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California on July 30, 2015. Section 3. This resolution shall be posted in the lobby area of the District's General

Offices located at 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California. Section 4. Resolution No. 15-026 adopted on June 24, 2015, is hereby repealed in its

entirety. Section 5. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of July, 2015.

Resolution No. 15-035

Page 1 ofZ 175

H. E. Christian Peeples, President

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 special meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 29th day of July, 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. 15·035

Pagelofl 176

EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATION For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016

2014/2015 Appropriations Limit

$411,195,815

Change in Per Capita Personal Income

3.82

Change in Population

1.30

Factor to apply to 2014/2015 Limit 2015/2016 Appropriations Limit

1.05170 $432,454,639

177

EXHIBIT B COMPUTATION OF ALLOWABLE GROWTH FACTORS As of Fiscal Year Ending June 30,2016

Change in Per Capita Personal Income CPI change converted to a ratio:

3.82

(3.82+100) 100

1.0382

Population percentage change by County Alameda County percent change in population

1.30

Contra Costa County percent change in population

1.28 (1.30+100) X 100% 100

Highest Assessed Value of the two Counties

1.0130

Change in Population Factor

1.01300

Factor to Apply to 2014/2015 Limit (1.0382 x 1.3000)

1.05170

$ 432,454,639

FY 2015/2016 Appropriations Limit (411,195,815 X 1.05167)

178

EXHIBITC ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF HISTORICAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT As of Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016

Total District Appropriations for FY 1978/79

$101,094,137

Non-Proceeds of Taxes

37,897,550

Appropriations Subject to Limitation for FY 1978/79

$63,196,587

Less:

1979/80 growth factor

1.10324

$69,721,153

1980/81 growth factor

1.12962

$78,758,434

1981/82 growth factor

1.09851

$86,517,009

1982/83 growth factor

1.07687

$93,167,603

1983/84 growth factor

1.05134

$97,941,217

1984/85 growth factor

1.10071

$107,805,137

1985/86 growth factor

1.04907

$113,095,216

1986/87 growth factor

1.04442

$118,119,089

1987/88 growth factor

1.05679

$124,826,900

1988/89 growth factor

1.05602

$131,819,995

1989/90 growth factor

1.06586

$140,501,916

1990/91 growth factor

1.05874

$148,754,999

1991/92 growth factor

1.05847

$157,452,704

1992/93 growth factor

1.00989

$159,009,900

1993/94 growth factor

1.04394

$165,996,795

1994/95 growth factor

1.01778

$168,947,431

1995/96 growth factor

1.0472

$179,287,014

1996/97 growth factor

1.0556

$189,255,372

1997/98 growth factor

1.0638

$201 ,329,865

1998/99 growth factor

1.0632

$214,053,912

1999/00 growth factor

1.0596

$226,811,525

179

EXHIBITC ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF HISTORICAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT As of Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016

2000/01 growth factor

1.0599

$240,397,535

2001/02 growth factor

1.0958

$263,427,619

2002/03 growth factor

1.0034

$264,336,199

2003/04 growth factor

1.0322

$272,848,058

2004/05 growth factor

1.0407

$283,957,170

2005/06 growth factor

1.0606

$301 '159,939

2006/07 growth factor

1.0469

$315,279,978

2007/08 growth factor

1.0554

$332 '761 ,463

2008/09 growth factor

1.05672

$351,634,961

2009/10 growth factor

1.01867

$358,199,986

2010/11 growth factor

0.98533

$352,945,192

2011112 growth factor

1.03317

$364,652,384

2012/13 growth factor

1.04769

$382,042,656

2013/14 growth factor

1.06342

$406,271 ,801

2014/15 growth factor

1.01212

$411,195,815

2015/16 growth factor

1.05170

$432,454,639

180

...

~~T 0~:-

A ~

SR15-144a ATT.2 ~

'

if "'

0

,z

"'1-

n

" DEPARTMENT OF

,_ <>..q(./F"Qfltol\,.

FIN A N

c

E

-----;=:::-::==--=-c=~:-:-:=:-:::-'E=::D::-M:::::U::N::D:--;:::13;',, -=-B;;.R;;:C;;:Wc:N;'-:;-;J~R"'.;-;•:-::::13::=:=D=::V::=E:-:R,:.:N,:,D=R STATE CAPITOL. ROOM 1 145 • SACRAMENTO C A . 9581 4 · 4 9 9 8 . WWW.Dor.C:A,,{3QV

OF"F'ICE OF" THE DIRECTOR

May 2015 Dear Fiscal Officer: Subject: Price and Population Information Appropriations Limit The California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 2227, mandates the Department of Finance (Finance) to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2015, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2015-16. Attachment A provides the change in California's per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate the 2015-16 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides city and unincorporated county population percentage change. Attachment C provides population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations. Population Percent Change for Special Districts Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. Consult the Revenue and Taxation Code section 2228 for further information regarding the appropriations limit. Article XIII B, section 9(C), of the State Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. The Code and the California Constitution can be accessed at the following website: http://leqinfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml.

Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this issue should be referred to their respective county for clarification, or to their legal representation, or to the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits. Population Certification The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. Revenue and Taxation Code section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller's Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2015. Please Note: Prior year's city population estimates may be revised.

If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086. MICHAEL COHEN Director By: KEELY M. BOSLER Chief Deputy Director Attachment 181

May 2015 Attachment A

A.

Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2015-16 appropriation limit is: Per Capita Personal Income

B.

Fiscal Year (FY)

Percentage change over prior year

2015-16

3.82

Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2015-16 appropriation limit.

2015-16: Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 3.82 percent Population Change= 0.93 percent

Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio:

3.82 + 100 = 1 0382 100

Population converted to a ratio:

0.93 + 100 = 1.0093 100

Calculation of factor for FY 2015-16: 1.0382

182

X

1.0093 = 1.0479

Fiscal Year 2015-16

Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015 and Total Population, January 1, 2015 I2ll!L County

Percent Change

City

2014-2015

--- populatjon Minus Exc!usjons ---

1-1-14

Popylatjon

1-1-15

1-1-2015

Alameda Alameda Albany

Berkeley

Dublin

Emeryville Fremont

Hayward

Livennore Newark Oakland Piedmont

Pleasanton San Leandro Union City

Unincorporated County Total

0.90 0.59 1.19 5.24 0.85 1.09 1.22 1.39 0.87 1.21 0.93 2.49 0.89 0.88 0.91

74,735 18,457 117,383 51 ,614 10,481 224,116 151,047 84,815 43,821 405,703 11 ,011 73,028 87,661 72,109 145,390

75,410 18,565 118,780 54,316 10,570 226,551 152,889 85,990 44,204 410,603 11,113 74,850 88,441 72,744 146,706

76,638 18,565 118,780 55,844 10,570 226,551 152,889 85,990 44,204 410,603 11,113 74,850 88,441 72,744 146,787

1.30

1 ,571 ,371

1,591 ,732

1,594,569

*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

183

Fiscal Year 2015-16 Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015 and Total Population, January 1, 2015

!2liL County

Percent Change

City

2014-2015

--- Population Minus Exclysjons --1~~4

Population

1~~5

1-1-2015

Contra Costa Antioch Brentwood Clayton Concord Danville El Cerrito Hercules Lafayette Martinez Moraga Oakley

Orinda Pinole Pittsburg Pleasant Hill Richmond San Pablo San Ramon Walnut Creek Unincorporated County Total

1.51 3.04 0.70 1.09 1.12 0.72 0.71 1.88 1.34 0.63 1.74 2.78 0.71 1.73 0.72 0.90 0.78 1.49 0.83 1.04

106,691 54,824 11,209 124,709 43,206 24,115 24,601 24,690 36,788 16,363 38,124 18,109 18,813 66,479 33,917 106,388 29,499 77,410 66,319 166,510

108,298 56,493 11,288 126,069 43,691 24,288 24,775 25,154 37,281 16,466 38,789 18,612 18,946 67,628 34,162 107,346 29,730 78,561 66,868 168,239

108,298 56,493 11,288 126,069 43,691 24,288 24,775 25,154 37,384 16,466 38,789 18,612 18,946 67,628 34,162 107,346 29,730 78,561 66,868 168,323

1.28

1,088,764

1,102,684

1,102,871

*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

184

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-196 July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Finance and Audit Committee Board of Directors

FROM:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager

SUBJECT:

Project Submissions for Regional and County Transportation Plans

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider authorizing the Interim General Manager, or her designee, to submit project requests to the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and the Western Contra Costa Tran sportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) for the update of the PlanBayArea Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), to ACTC for the update of their Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP), and to WCCTAC for preliminary investigation of an augment to Mea sure J. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The M etropolitan Transportation Commi ssion (MTC) is updatin g the PlanBayArea RTP, and has requ est ed updated project submission s through the county Congestion M anagement Authorities (CMAs). In addition, ACTC is updating its CWTP and programming the next two years of funding through its Comprehensive Investm ent Plan (CIP), and the Contra Cost a Tran sportation Authority (CCTA) is investigating an augment of the Mea sure J half-ce nt sa les tax in Contra Costa County. Staff has asse mbled a list of project s and plan s that span from nearterm programming request s for the ACTC CIP to longer-term proposa ls for the CWTP and RTP updates. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate budget impact from these submi ssions, although the near-term CIP programming request s could lead to fund s programming by ACTC. The request for funds for the East Bay Bus Rapid Tran sit Project (EBBRT) would be matched by existing project fund s, while the Dumbarton Corridor Study project may require some amount of matching fund s. Staff will return to the Board if matching fund s above th e budgeting ability of the Interim General M anager are required.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: In March 2015, MTC announced it was beginning an update to th e PlanBayArea RTP and with it the required inputs for projects, operating projections, and capital asset inventories. The update will build on the existing plan and refin e particular elements. The project inputs for the RTP will go through the CMAs for this cycle, so the District must submit project s t o both ACTC

185

Report No. 15-196 Page 2 of 3 and WCCTAC (which will then submit them to CCTA). Having projects included in the RTP does not guarantee funding, but does allow a project to seek federal and state funding. The PlanBayArea update will use the same target year- 2040- as the original, giving it a 23-year span. The RTP must be updated every four years, so if the District is unsure of a particular project in the outer years of the plan, it will have another chance to submit the project in 2021. The operating projections and capital asset inventories were submitted directly to MTC at the beginning of July. The operating projections were based on the draft SRTP that was reviewed by MTC, and the asset inventory is an update of what was submitted to MTC in 2011 for the original PlanBayArea. The asset inventory and the operating projections are combined with other agency submissions for regional plan estimates and projections, and will not have a direct effect on AC Transit funding in the near term. For the project submissions detailed in Attachment 1, staff started with the existing projects from Plan BayArea and the countywide plans of the respective CMAs. Adjustments were made to projects that will be re-submitted based on updated information. Based on preliminary information from both the District's Major Corridors study and ACTC's Countywide Transit Plan, staff is re-submitting or adding corridor projects that the District would likely pursue in the next several years. As per Board policy, staff would return to the Board for any new grant funds sought for a particular corridor, and will also keep the Board apprised of the status and results of the Major Corridors Study. For Contra Costa County, CCTA asked each Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) to provide an updated financially constrained project list by July 24, 2015. The total project cost cap given to WCCTAC by CCTA for the RTP is $480 million. Simultaneously, CCTA is also seeking updates to its financially unconstrained "Vision" list, which is not included in the RTP. Because the update of the RTP overlaps with some aspects of the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) development process for the possible Measure J augment, CCTA combined the efforts. Staff is concerned about the lack of representation of transit agencies in the WCCTAC/CCTA process for developing the possible Measure J augment TEP. It may be useful for the District to consider approaching WCCTAC and/or CCTA directly with its concerns, or explore forming a committee with the other transit operators to enhance transit's voice in the process. For Alameda County, ACTC developed a combined application to serve three functions develop an RTP project list, develop a CWTP project list, and program funding for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 fiscal years through their CIP. The CWTP is the basis for and informs the RTP update regarding long-term transportation improvements for Alameda County, and ACTC will coordinate the CWTP development with the RTP update. The varied time scales of these three functions mean that projects submitted to ACTC will have varying levels of specificity for scope, schedule, and budget information. Because the RTP and CWTP represent 25 year plans, staff approached the project submission as those that help the District achieve its overall mission over that timeframe. Staff also strives to ensure that the District's expansion projects help improve the service so that AC Transit remains competitive in the marketplace, while providing the best possible service to the District's diverse constituents. This includes projects that modernize and upgrade District

186

Report No. 15-196 Page 3 of 3 assets to allow the District to provide faster, more reliable and more convenient service. The recommended projects are consistent with projects and programs included in the current draft Short Range Transit Plan. The combination of these plan types and their varying time scales and purposes have made choosing a coherent set of projects difficult. The timing of the application process is also problematic, as the District is in the middle of its Major Corridor Study, and ACTC is in the middle of its related Countywide Transit Plan. The asset inventory and the operating projections will have project recommendations that would ideally go into CWTP and/or RTP plans, but staff has only partial information to go on at this point. The projects chosen are those that are most consistent with existing District policies and have the greatest likelihood of beginning in the four-year window before the next CWTP and RTP updates. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: There are no disadvantages staff can identify to submitting the project lists. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The alternatives available are mainly which specific projects to submit. Not submitting projects would cause the District's projects not to be listed in the various planning or programming documents, which will likely harm the funding prospects for the projects. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None ATTACHMENTS: 1: Proposed RTP Projects 2: MTC RTP Update Memo and Schedule Executive Staff Approval: Reviewed by:

James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer/Chief Operating Officer Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Jim Cunradi, Transportation Planning Manager

Prepared by:

Chris Andrichak, Manager, Capital Planning & Grants

187

This page intentionally blank 

188

In Prior RTP County

Regional

Project Title

San Pablo Transit Corridor Improvements

Description

Timeframe

Rapid or BRT improvements on San Pablo and MacDonald corridors in Alameda and Contra Costa County.

2016-2026

$270 million

Yes

2016-2030

$93 million

No

Phase 1 would include the purchase of land and environmental

Total Cost

orCWTP?

Regional

New Operating Facility- Phase 1

Contra Costa

Expansion Buses

Procure buses for service expansion

2016-2030

$7 million

Yes

Transit Preferential improvements

Transit preferential treatments in CC County along Cutting, MacDonald, San Pablo Dam Road, and other arterials. Includes

2016-2030

$23.5 million

Yes

Contra Costa

in Contra Costa County

studies required for relocating operations in a new location.

signals, transit signal priority, bus bulbs, stop relocations.

Contra Costa

Technology Upgrades

Additional projected technology upgrades including off board fare payment, upgrades to computer storage, upgrades to scheduling system and promotion of electronic fare media usage.

2016-2026

$3 million

No

Alameda

College/Broadway Improvements

Further improvements along College/Broadway (Line 51A/B) corridor. $10 million allocated in Measure BB.

2016-2026

$10 million

Yes

2016-2026

$6 million

Yes

2016-2018

$178 million

Yes

The Major Corridors Study will provide preliminary recommendations

Alameda

Alameda

Alameda Alameda Alameda

Grand-MacArthur Service

for improvements in the sections of this corridor. Further study and

Enhancements

engineering would be required to bring those recommendations to implementation. $6 million allocated in Measure BB.

East Bay Bus Rapid Transit

The BRT project is not yet complete, and will be re-submitted for the RTP and CWTP.

East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Extension Extend East Bay BRT to Bay Fair BART. Originally proposed EBBRT to Bay Fair BART alignment. Expansion Buses Procure buses for service expansion Study service and capital enhancements for Dum barton Corridor and Dumbarton Corridor Study and initial engineering and environmental work for resulting project Development recommendations.

189

2020-2030 2016-2030 2016-2026

No $103 million $5 million

Yes No

i!:

, "' "' >-' <.n .:..

n

3"' "';:::. >-'


"'

This page intentionally blank 

190

SR 15-196 Attachment 2 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakllnd, CA 94607-4700

COMMISSION

TEL 510.817.5700 TDDfiTY 510.817.5769 FAX510.817.5848 E·MAIL info@mrc.~.gov WEB www.mtc.ca.gov

Memorandum TO: Partnership Board

DATE: March 25,2015

FR: Deputy Executive Director, Policy RE: Plan Bay Area - Update It's that time once again. MTC, in partnership with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), is beginning the process to update the Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), Plan Bay Area Over the past few years, MTC staff has been working with CMA, transit agency, local jurisdictional and regional agency staff to advance a number of Plan Bay Area implementation efforts that include regional goods movement, transit capacity and connectivity, climate adaptation, as well as the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program. Based in part on the input of many of your agencies and organizations, and as outlined in the attached Plan schedule, it is our intent to continue implementation initiatives, build upon the existing, adopted plan, and advance a limited and focused Plan Bay Area update. In the weeks and months ahead, MTC staff will be contacting and convening meetings with your

staff in relation to various aspects of the Plan Bay Area update. Key upcoming milestones include the first round of county-level Open Houses for the update slated to occur in each of the nine Bay Area counties beginning in late April 2015. We will also be reaching out to you regarding the Revenue Forecast, Project Solicitation and Evaluations, revisions to the Plan's Goalsffargets, Scenario Development/Analysis and other key inputs as we move toward adoption of the updated Plan in Spring 2017. In keeping with SB 375 and the goal of ensuring dialogue across various sectors and being efficient as we work with you to update the Plan, the Regional Advisory Working Group (RAWG) will serve as the technical working group for the Plan update. More information on the Plan Bay Area update will be posted online at http://planbayarea.org/ as the process unfolds. If you have any questions, please contact one of the following individuals at MTC: Ken Kirkey, [email protected] or Adam Noelting, [email protected], or one of the following individuals at ABAG: Miriam Chion, [email protected]; or Gillian Adams, Gillian A@ abag.ca.gov.

j :\committe\partnership\boardvn-pba. doc

191

This page intentionally blank 

192

Plan Bay Area Update: Key Milestones 2014-2017

•••

•• •• •lieabl ••

-

Tagm

••••• ••

Policy Element

2014

I

--

)

- . -•

~

2015

~

~

~

~

~

--

AnachmentA

)

.-

)

Scenario Analysis

2016

~

~

~

~

~

~

Pllii

--

.-

Plan Development

~

~

2017

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

I

Re!Nst Air Quality Confonnny

I

and Titlt Vl/(' AnalysiS Conduct Art Qualllty Conformtty

o ~TIIk!Vl/(J Analy!IS

I 0

IiiAlJII./MTC lnfot111o1toon Ell ABA
j

1!.1

Rtltase Dnft : an & Dnfl DR

PrepRDnftPIM!andDraftEIR



e

TU7fi P01TA.T10N

T

193

I

Q

AdoptPian &ElJIB

~ ~ ~ ~

3 NETIOPOLITAN

COMMISSION

0

~

U1

Association of ~ .:.. - m

This page intentionally blank 

194

OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

July 29, 2015 Agenda Item C-2

195

This page intentionally blank 

196

Report No: Meeting Date:

15-199 July 29, 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

Kathleen Kelly, Interim General Manager

SUBJECT:

Construction Contract for Operations Control Center Relocation Project

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider authorizing the release of a solicitation for a construction contract in support of the Operations Control Center Relocation Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This Invitation For Bids (IFB) is for renovation and construction work needed for the Operations Control Center (OCC) relocation from Division 2 in Emeryville to Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) location in Oakland. Plans and specifications have been prepared by the District's architecture and engineering firm hired for this project. Purchasing has prepared the procurement package to be formally advertised on the District's website. This procurement will result in a firm-fixed price contract with a period of performance of 12 months. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

The anticipated cost of construction is based on the Engineer of Record's estimate but is withheld until the contract award is presented to the Board to ensure that the District receives the best possible pricing. Sufficient funding to cover the award based on the estimate is in the current Capital Budget with the type of funds as shown below: Funding Source

Funding Split

District

100%

197

Report No. 15-199 Page 2 of 2 BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: This project will relocate the current OCC from the D-2 (Emeryville) location to the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) on International Blvd. in Oakland. Since this location is along the BRT route, the District will be able to run the BRT's fiber optics directly to the new OCC location, saving the capital expense of extending the fiber optic network to the current OCC location at D-2 and the annual operating expense of maintaining the link. In addition, the new OCC will have a more robust and reliable back-up power system that will ensure our ability to maintain contact with our operators should PG&E power fail for any reason. Finally, having the new OCC available will simplify the process of implementing the new Computer Aided Dispatch/Automated Vehicle Location (CAD/AVL) system by eliminating the need to conduct parallel operations out of a single facility. The IFB to construct the new OCC will be publicly advertised on the District's website and openly bid. The contract award will be authorized by the Board once the bids are received and evaluated by staff. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The advantages of this project include the cost savings, improved reliability and simplification of the CAD/AVL system mentioned above. Staff can identify no disadvantages to implementing this state-of-the-art facility at CMF. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: Staff considered a modernization and retrofit of the existing dispatch center at D-2 which would include the cost required to extend the high speed fiber to D-2. This option has high implementation costs and high annual operating costs. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Report 14-107b, December 10, 2014, Contract award for Architectural and Engineering services for Operations Control Center Relocation Project P2096, RFQ 2014-1295 ATTACHMENTS: None.

Executive Staff Approval: Reviewed by:

Prepared by:

Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering & Construction Officer Dennis W. Butler, Director of Capital Projects Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Jon Medwin, Director of Purchasing and Materials Craig Michels, Sr. Project Manger

198

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

199

This page intentionally blank 

200

AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Monthly

Legislative Report [Updates on State, Federal, Regional and Local Legislation] Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug)

Clipper Usage and Marketing Initiatives 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].

FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE August

Donation of a retired bus to Lava Mae for use as a mobile shower facility for the homeless. [Requested by Director Williams- 4/8/11] 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) Bi-Monthly

Budget Update Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug)



Board/Officer Travel/Meeting Expense Employee Out-of-State Travel Surplus/Obsolete Materials

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)

Agenda Planning July 29, 2015

Page 1 of 4

201

AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 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 porte situations. [Requested by President Peeples- 9/5/12] 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 February Report on the Heavy Duty Coach Mechanic Apprenticeship program [Requested by President Peeples - 9/24/14] Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug) Operations Performance Report (includes report on the Call Center) • Contracts/Purchasing Activity Report Semi Annual Reports DBE/FTA Report and DBE Goal Update (May/Nov) 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] Report on the upholstery department, including projects the upholstery department could do inhouse rather than outsourcing. [Requested by Director Williams- 6/10/15]

PLANNING COMMITTEE August- Include in Quarterly Report on External Planning Processes 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] Agenda Planning July 29. 2015

Page 2 of 4 202

AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS



AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Report on the Brooklyn Basin Project (Oak to 91h 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] Report on ridership numbers for Trans bay service given complaints about capacity issues. [Requested by Vice President Ortiz- 6/24/15]

September

Report on whether the District is required under Title VI to provide detour signs in other languages and, if not, is it a good practice in general. [Requested by Vice President Ortiz- 6/24/15] October

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] Report on the experience of LA METRO and other agencies with the "First Mile-Last Mile" planning concept. [Requested by Director Davis- 6/10/15] Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug)



Bus Rapid Transit Project Trans bay Transit Center Project Update on District Involvement in External Planning Processes

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] Report on the cost to provide each Priority Development Area (PDA) within the District with the minimum transit required under Plan Bay Area. [Requested by President Peeples- 4/8/15]

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Resolution in support of the preservation of a possible exit ramp for the contra flow lane, and research what near-term actions might be taken in furtherance of that resolution. [Requested by Director Harper- 4/22/15]

Agenda Planning July 29, 2015

Page 3 of 4 203

AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

October 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] Pending Not Scheduled 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]

Agenda Planning July 29, 2015

Page 4 of4 204