BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT
AGENDA
Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the Planning and Operations Committees Public Hearing AC Transit General Offices 2nd Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612
Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Closed Session: 4:00 p.m. (Item Nos. 12A-12E)
Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS GREG HARPER, PRESIDENT (WARD 2) JOE WALLACE, VICE PRESIDENT (WARD 1) ELSA ORTIZ (WARD 3) MARK WILLIAMS (WARD 4) JEFF DAVIS (WARD 5) JOEL YOUNG (AT-LARGE) H. E. CHRISTIAN PEEPLES (AT-LARGE) TELECONFERENCE: H. E. Christian Peeples, Director At-large Hostelling International 1009 11th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001 BOARD OFFICERS DAVID J. ARMIJO, GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY To access live and archived audio of Board of Directors and Standing Committee meetings as well as agendas, staff reports, and the schedule of future meetings please visit www.actransit.org and click on “Board Meetings”. Dial (510) 891-7200 to access agendas by telephone. For questions, contact the District Secretary’s Office at (510) 891-7201.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
January 14, 2015
Page 1 of 8
MEETING PROCEDURES Public Comment: Members of the public wishing to present comments should complete a Speaker’s Form and submit it to the District Secretary. For subjects not listed on this agenda, the public will be invited to speak under the "PUBLIC COMMENTS" section of the agenda. For specific agenda item(s), speakers will be invited to address the Board/Standing Committee(s) at the time the item is being considered. All speakers are allowed two (2) minutes to present comments. Individuals wishing to present more detailed information are encouraged to submit comments in writing. Written comments are included in the record for meeting(s), and as such, are available for public inspection and may be posted to the District’s website. Electronic Devices: All electronic devices (cell phones, pagers and similar-sounding devices) shall be placed on mute, vibrate or silent mode during Board and Committee meetings pursuant to District Ordinance No. 12. Time of Meetings: Times included on this agenda for commencement of Standing Committee meetings are estimates only. Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole. Order of Agenda Items: The Board or Standing Committee(s) may discuss any item listed on this agenda and in any order. Agenda Planning: The Agenda Planning portion of the agenda is designed to assist the Board and staff in the preparation of future Board and Committee agendas. Each item requested shall have the concurrence of at least two Directors in order to place a proposed agenda item on a future agenda. LIVE AUDIO STREAMING OF BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Live audio streaming and an archive of previously recorded meetings is available on the District’s website at www.actransit.org. For technological reasons, recordings of meetings held outside of the Board Room cannot be streamed to the web. AVAILABILITY OF AGENDA RELATED MATERIALS Written agenda related materials for all open session regular meetings are available to the public 72 hours prior to the meeting or at the time the materials are distributed to a majority of the Board. Written materials presented at a meeting by staff or a member of the Board will be available to the public at that time, or after the meeting if supplied by an outside party. Agenda related materials are available on the District’s website or by contacting the District Secretary’s Office. ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC MEETINGS Meetings of the Board of Directors are accessible to individuals in wheelchairs. The Board Room is equipped with Assistive Listening Devices for individuals with a hearing impairment. Written materials in appropriate alternative formats, disability-related modification/accommodation as well as sign language and foreign language interpreters must be made 72 hours in advance of the meeting or hearing to help ensure availability. Please direct requests for disability related modification or accommodation and/or interpreter services to Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, 94612 or call (510) 891-7201. AC Transit’s General Offices are generally served by bus lines 1, 11, 12, 51A, 72, 72M. The nearest accessible bus th service is provided at the intersection of Broadway and 17 Street in Oakland. The nearest accessible BART station th is the 19 Street Station in Oakland. District Ordinance No. 13 prohibits bringing non-service animals to District facilities unless specifically authorized by federal or state law. To accommodate individuals with severe allergies and environmental illnesses, meeting participants should refrain from wearing scented products to the meeting.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
January 14, 2015
Page 2 of 8
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING – Greg Harper, President Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. 1.
ROLL CALL
2.
PUBLIC HEARING a) Hold Public Hearing to receive public comment on the following: the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan; new service on street segments not previously served in Oakland; and the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the aforementioned service expansion and service on new streets. b) Consider approving one San Pablo Corridor service expansion option. c) Consider the adoption of Resolution No. 15-003 approving the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and new service on new streets in Oakland; authorize the filing of a Notice of Determination; and approving the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and service on new streets in Oakland (Report 14-267b).
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT
4.
GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
5.
BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS
6.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact or Presenter
Aida Asuncion 891-4979
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. David Armijo
(Government Code Section 54954.2) 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.
6A. Consider approving Board of Directors and Standing Committee minutes of December 10, 2014.
Linda Nemeroff 891-7284
6B. Consider receiving Retirement Board minutes of November 7, 2014 (Report 15-037).
Hugo Wildmann 891-4889
6C. Consider approving the first amendment to the General Manager’s employment agreement (Report 15-052).
President Harper
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
January 14, 2015
Page 3 of 8
7.
REGULAR CALENDAR
7A. Consideration of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Program (Report 14-285a).
James Pachan 891-7215
7B. Consider receiving report regarding the actuarial impact on future annual costs of proposed Amendment 15-A-17 to the AC Transit Employees’ Retirement Plan; and direct the District Secretary to provide public access to its contents for a period of at least two weeks from January 15, 2015 through January 30, 2015 in order for the comments to be considered at the February 11, 2015 Board of Directors meeting (Report 15-011).
Denise Standridge 891-4833
RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole)
Speakers will be invited to address a Committee at the time an item on the agenda is being considered or under Public Comment for items not on the agenda. Immediately following the Standing Committee Meetings, the Board meeting will reconvene at which time the Board may take action on any of the following Committee agenda items.
ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY.
A.
PLANNING COMMITTEE – Mark Williams, Chairperson Held immediately following the Board Meeting recess.
Staff Contact or Presenter(s)
Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) Consent Items: A-1.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 15-007 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications and funding agreements with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) for allocations of Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA) Funds for FY 2014-15 for the Transbay Transit Center (Report 15-031).
James Pachan 891-7215
Briefing/Action Items: A-2.
Consider recommending that the General Manager be authorized to amend the design consultant services contract for the Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability Project between the District and Kimley-Horn and Associates (Report 12-297e).
Aida Asuncion 891-4979
A-3.
Consider recommending receipt of report on the analysis and feasibility of operating double deck buses, and authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Alexander Dennis for an in-service demonstration of one double-deck bus [Requested by Director Peeples – 4/9/14] (Report 15-004).
James Pachan 891-7215
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
January 14, 2015
Page 4 of 8
A-4.
Consider recommending acceptance of future passenger surveys sponsored and conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as the passenger survey for the District as required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Requested by Director Peeples – 6/24/09 and Director Davis – 5/22/13] (Report 15-005).
Aida Asuncion 891-4979
A-5. Consider recommending receipt of report regarding the Fall 2014 public outreach activities related to the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (Report 15-024).
Aida Asuncion 891-4979
A-6. Consider recommending receipt of an update on the Short Range Transit Plan operating and capital budget projections (Report 14-033c).
Aida Asuncion 891-4979
B.
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE – Joe Wallace, Chairperson Held immediately following the Planning Committee meeting.
Staff Contact or Presenter(s)
Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) Briefing/Action Items: B-1.
Consider recommending receipt of report regarding modifications to classification specifications approved by the General Manager in 2014 (Report 15-008).
Tom Prescott 891-7221
B-2.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 15-002 approving new classification specifications for Network Security Engineer and Network/Server Administrator (Report 15-025).
Tom Prescott 891-7212
B-3.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 15-009 approving amendments to Board Policy 222 – Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy (Report 14-301a) [Continued from the December 10, 2014 Operations
Tom Prescott 891-7221
B-4.
Consider recommending receipt of report on the state of the District’s bus fleet for fixed route services (Report 15-006).
James Pachan 891-7215
B-5.
Consider recommending authorization to issue a solicitation for on-call project management/construction management services in support of capital project implementation (Report 15-030).
Aida Asuncion 891-4979
B-6.
Consider recommending receipt of the PeopleSoft Alternatives Analysis Report (Report 15-026).
Tom O’Neill 891-7278
B-7.
Consider recommending adoption of Board Policy 190 - Access to Public Records - Requests and Fees (Report 15-012).
Denise Standridge 891-4833
Committee meeting.]
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
January 14, 2015
Page 5 of 8
RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING – Greg Harper, President 8.
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES
The District Secretary will report on the recommendations made by the Committees, including those items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda. If discussion or comment is desired, any person may request that an item be considered individually.
A. PLANNING COMMITTEE: A-1. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-007 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications and funding agreements with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) for allocations of Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA) Funds for FY 2014-15 for the Transbay Transit Center (Report 15-031). A-2. Consider authorizing the General Manager to amend the design consultant services contract for the Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability Project between the District and Kimley-Horn and Associates (Report 12-297e). A-3. Consider receiving report on the analysis and feasibility of operating double deck buses, and authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Alexander Dennis for an in-service demonstration of one double-deck bus [Requested by Director Peeples – 4/9/14] (Report 15-004). A-4. Consider accepting future passenger surveys sponsored and conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as the passenger survey for the District as required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Requested by Director Peeples – 6/24/09 and Director Davis – 5/22/13] (Report 15-005). A-5. Consider receiving report regarding the Fall 2014 public outreach activities related to the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (Report 15024). A-6. Consider receiving an update on the Short Range Transit Plan operating and capital budget projections (Report 14-033c). B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE: B-1. Consider receiving report regarding modifications to classification specifications approved by the General Manager in 2014 (Report 15008). B-2. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-002 approving new classification specifications for Network Security Engineer and Network/Server Administrator (Report 15-025). B-3. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-009 approving amendments to Board Policy 222 – Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy (Report 14301a) [Continued from the December 10, 2014 Operations Committee Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
January 14, 2015
Staff Contact or Presenter(s) Linda Nemeroff 891-7284
James Pachan 891-7215
Aida Asuncion 891-4979
James Pachan 891-7215
Aida Asuncion 891-4979
Aida Asuncion 891-4979 Aida Asuncion 891-4979
Tom Prescott 891-7221 Tom Prescott 891-7212 Tom Prescott 891-7221
Page 6 of 8
meeting.]
B-4. B-5. B-6. B-7.
Consider receiving report on the state of the District’s bus fleet for fixed route services (Report 15-006). Consider authorizing the issuance of a solicitation for on-call project management/construction management services in support of capital project implementation (Report 15-030). Consider receiving the PeopleSoft Alternatives Analysis Report (Report 15-026). Consider recommending adoption of Board Policy 190 - Access to Public Records - Requests and Fees (Report 15-012).
9.
CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA
10.
REPORT FROM THE BOARD PRESIDENT Report on District accomplishments in 2013 and 2014.
11.
SELECTION OF PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD REPORT FROM THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE Consider report from the Nominating Committee and election of 2015 Board President and Vice President.
12.
CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT
James Pachan 891-7215 Aida Asuncion 891-4979 Tom O’Neill 891-7278 Denise Standridge 891-4833
The Board is requested to authorize as recommended from the committee meetings above.
President Harper
Chair of the Nominating Committee Denise Standridge
The items for consideration are listed below and will be reported on by the General Counsel as necessary at the end of the meeting.
12A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))
Alice Wang v. AC Transit, Claim No. 12-3397, ACSC No. RG14717517 Jeffery Robbert v. AC Transit, Claim No. 11-3837, ACSC No. RG12653591
12B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Three Cases)
12C. Conference with Labor Negotiators
(Government Code Section 54957.6): Agency Designated Representative: David J. Armijo, General Manager Employee Organizations: ATU Local 192, AFSCME Local 3916, IBEW Local 1245, Unrepresented Employees
12D. Conference with Labor Negotiators – Board Officers
(Government Code Section 54957.6): Agency Designated Representative: Greg Harper, Board President Title: General Manager
12E. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957)
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
January 14, 2015
Page 7 of 8
Title: General Manager, General Counsel, District Secretary
13.
AGENDA PLANNING
14.
ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting: January 28, 2015, at 5:00 p.m.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
January 14, 2015
Page 8 of 8
PUBLIC HEARING
January 14, 2015 Agenda Item 2
9
This page intentionally blank
10
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-267b January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing for Spring 2015 Service Improvements
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION($):
1. Receive public comment regarding: a) 2015 Service Expansion; and b) New Service on Street Segments not previously served in Oakland; and c) Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the 2015 Service Expansion and New Service on New Street Segments in Oakland. 2. Consider approving one San Pablo Corridor Service Expansion Option. 3. Consider approving the findings set forth in Section 1 of Resolution No. 15-003 concerning the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and Service on New Streets in Oakland. 4. Consider adopting Resolution No. 15-003. Staff requests the same day approval of Resolution No. 15-003 to allow time to implement the changes in the Spring 2015 driver sign-up. Any postponement of this decision will delay implementation until the Summer 2015 sign-up. Subsequent to the November 12, 2014 Board meeting, staff concluded that the District previously operated along the street segments in Alameda, as originally proposed in the expansion plan for Line 31. Consequently, Line 31 changes were not included in this public hearing but will automatically be included in the Spring 2015 sign-up. Public comments received prior to the hearing will be summarized and included as Attachment
6. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Specific expansion proposals include two options to increase weekend service along the San Pablo Corridor on Lines 72, 72R and 72M in West Contra Costa County; weekend service on lines 46, 339 and extended weekday trips on Line 680 to the East Bay Innovation Academy in Northern Alameda County. In South Alameda County, proposals include increased spans on Saturdays on lines 200 and 212, and increased weekend frequency on line 217. In addition to the increase in service hours, changes on Lines 680 and NL require new service on street
11
Report No. 14-267b Page 2 of 8 segments not previously served in Oakland. The District hired a consultant to conduct a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis and their initial study determined a negative declaration was the appropriate filing for this project. Staff also conducted a Title VI Analysis, which showed there are no disparate impacts to minority populations from all the proposed changes. Direct mailings to affected properties and the regular outreach methods were deployed for the public hearing noticing. Staff will develop a marketing campaign for the approved changes prior to implementation in March. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
Depending on which option the Board approves for the San Pablo Corridor service, the total cost of the proposed expansion plan is between $373,430 and $450,486 for the remainder of FY 2014-15; and between $1,521,497 and $1,829,721 annually, assuming a marginal rate of $86. There is no fiscal impact associated with service on new streets.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: a)
Spring Service Expansion
With an improved financial situation and the passing of Measure BB, the District is able to consider expanding service and staff has developed a series of District-wide expansion proposals totaling approximately $2.5 million. The minor expansion adjustments went into effect in December 2014. Under Board Policy 163, eight of these proposals are major adjustments and require a public hearing due to the increase in weekend service hours, or service on new street segments not previously served. Attachment 2 describes the costs associated with these changes along with the service details.
Increased Weekend service on the San Pablo Corridor Lines 72 and 72M currently operate at 30-minute frequencies on the weekend. As Line 72R does not run on the weekend, these two lines experience regular overcrowding. Staff proposes two options for expanding weekend service to accommodate the heavy ridership and growing demand:
Option 1: Operate Line 72R, which currently runs only on weekdays, every 15 minutes between 9:00a.m. and 8:00p.m. This option would require an additional15,008 platform hours and costs $1,290,688 annually to operate, or $322,672 for the remainder of FY14/15.
Option 2: Operate lines 72 and 72M every 20 minutes, an increase from the current weekend 30-minute frequencies.
12
Report No. 14-267b Page 3 of 8 The lines will maintain the same service spans, but will operate at increased frequencies of every 20 minutes on Saturday and Sunday between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. This option requires 11,424 additional platform hours and costs approximately $982,464 annually to operate, or $245,616 for the remainder of FY 14/15. Both options will provide better overall service with higher frequencies along the San Pablo corridor - the primary trunk line for West Contra Costa County. Only Option 2 will provide better service in Richmond along Macdonald Avenue and to Hilltop Mall but with less frequency south of the Del Norte BART Station than Option 1. Staff recommends Option 2 for Board approval, pending the outcome of public comments, as it provides greater geographic equity with better service provision in Richmond. In addition, the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) will provide further recommendations for the 72 lines, which may include a larger expansion, service design and rebranding effort for the 72 Rapid. Staff would like to wait for this expansion effort before significantly changing the weekend Rapid. Staff will likely implement phase 1 ofthe COA changes in conjunction with the Fall 2015 sign-up, pending Board approval. Weekend service on Line 46 to the Oakland Zoo
For many years staff has received requests for weekend service to the zoo from passengers and Oakland Zoo staff. The zoo receives most of its visitors on the weekend, and this expansion will support local access to a recreational facility for families in Oakland and the Inner East Bay, and help regional access through the connection at Coliseum BART. In addition, staff received requests for Sunday service on Line 46 to provide access to churches in the area. The service span deliberately mirrors the opening hours of the zoo and so the service runs between 9:00a.m. and 5:00p.m., which is shorter than the weekday span. As the zoo receives more visitors in the summer vacation period, increasing the frequency for summer weekend service from every 60 minutes to every 30 minutes will better accommodate the increase. The non-summer weekend frequencies will remain the same as the weekday at GO-minute frequencies. The weekend expansion requires 1,067 additional platform hours and costs approximately $91,762 annually to operate, or $15,996 for the remainder of FY 2014-15. Weekend Service on Line 339 to the Chabot Space and Science Center
Over the years, both passengers and staff at Chabot Space and Science Center have requested AC Transit service to the Center on weekends. The Chabot Center, much like the zoo, receives most of their visitors on the weekends. This expansion will provide transit access for local visitors as well as visitors from across the region via the connection at the Fruitvale BART Station. The service span of the weekend route coordinates with the opening times of the Center - 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. The weekend service will operate at an increased 40-minute frequency, providing better service than the weekday service for the higher weekend demand.
13
Report No. 14-267b Page 4 of 8 In addition to the Chabot Center, there are other weekend destinations on the route, which should help increase productivity. Other destinations include the Greek Orthodox Church, the Mormon Temple and Wood minster Amphitheater in Joaquin Miller Park. The weekend service also provides better frequency along Fruitvale Avenue. The new service will provide transit access at the busiest times for the Center and will grow ridership on the line. The weekend expansion requires an additional 2,544 service hours and costs approximately $218,784 annually to operate, or $54,696 to operate for the remainder of FY 20114-15. Saturday Span Extension of Line 212
In December 2013, staff implemented the South County Restructuring Plan, which included new weekend service on Line 212. Line 212 serves Pacific Commons, a major retail destination that includes a movie theater, along with many restaurants. Staff concluded there is enough late night activity on the weekend to warrant a late night service to Pacific Commons. The expanded service will require an additional 312 platform hours at an annual cost of $26,832 to operate, or $6,708 to operate for the remainder of FY 2014-15. Saturday Span Extension of Line 200
The South County Restructuring Plan implemented the new Line 200, which serves the major corridors in Fremont and Newark along Mowry Avenue and Decoto Road. The Line also serves New Park Mall and other major retail and restaurant destinations around Lido Faire. Staff concluded there is enough late night activity on Saturday nights to warrant a late night service to these major corridors. The expanded service will require an additional 676 platform hours and an annual cost of $58,136 to operate, or $14,534 to operate for the remainder of FY 2014-15. Weekend Increased Frequency on Line 217
Line 217 experienced significant increased weekend ridership over the last year, largely due to the opening of the North Western Polytechnic University on Warm Springs Boulevard. Many of their students rely on AC Transit for their commute and some trips on Line 217 suffer from overcrowding issues. Staff proposes to relieve the weekend overcrowding by increasing the frequency from 40-minute headways to 30-minute headways. The expanded service will require an additional 1,568 platform hours at an annual cost of $134,848 to operate, or $33,712 for the remainder of FY 2014-15. Extending Line 680
The District received a request for new bus service from the East Bay Innovation Academy {EBIA), a new Oakland Unified School District charter school serving grades 6-12. The new school is located at 3400 Malcolm Avenue in Oakland. Staff recommends extending Line 680 {Lakeshore to Bishop O'Dowd) to serve EBIA. The existing service carries 22-28 passengers per trip and has sufficient remaining capacity to accommodate
14
Report No. 14-267b Page 5 of8 the additional loads from EBIA. Attachment 3 shows a map of the existing and proposed Line 680. The proposal requires an additional 101 annual platform hours at an annual cost of $8,671 to operate, or $2,168 for the remainder of FY14/15.
b)
New service on street sections not previously served in Oakland
Attachments 3 and 4 show the following proposed new street sections for revised routes NL and 680.
Mandela Parkway between West Grand Avenue and ih Street Staff proposes to serve this street on Line NL at 15 minute frequencies in the peak and 30 minute frequencies in the off-peak between 5:30a.m. and 12:30 a.m. This will allow a re-route of the Nl to San Francisco to avoid heavy traffic on West Grand Avenue leading onto the freeway.
106th Avenue east of the MacArthur Freeway; Sheldon Street between Malcom Avenue and 106'h Avenue, Malcom Avenue between Sheldon Street and Maggiora Drive, and Maggiora Drive. Staff proposes to serve these streets on weekdays while school is in session for one trip in the morning and one trip in the afternoon. Public Outreach Staff published the required legal notices in the appropriate newspapers and issued a press release. In addition, an advertisement was published in several local newspapers. Detailed proposal information was posted to the District website, and printed materials were available on the buses and sent to key community organizations and locations. A range of electronic communications -- eNews messages, social media posts, emails to elected officials and community organizations, and posts on city websites-- directed the public to the District's website. The public was invited to submit comments in person at the public hearing; in writing via fax and email, and via separate voicemail boxes in English, Spanish, and Chinese. In addition to the required notices, staff mailed public hearing notices in English, Chinese and Spanish to the specific properties lining the routes of the new service on new street segments. If the Board approves the proposed service changes, AC Transit Marketing & Communications staff will conduct appropriate outreach to inform riders and affected organizations of the changes, and also develop a comprehensive marketing and outreach campaign that would be implemented around the time that the service changes go into effect (March 2015). This campaign would likely include on-board signage, electronic and other communications, social media, as well as other methods determined by available budget and staff resources.
15
Report No. 14-267b Page 6 of8 Title VI Analysis Staff conducted a service equity analysis to understand the effects of the proposals, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and District policies. The analysis found that the proposed
changes
would
not
result
in
disparate
impacts
on
Title
VI-protected
populations. Attachment 7 contains details of the analysis. c)
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the 2015 Service Expansion and New Service on New Street Segments in Oakland
The District's consultant conducted a CEQA analysis and determined that a negative declaration was the appropriate filing for this project.
The consultant prepared a Draft Initial Study -
Negative Declaration (DIS/ND), which was posted on the District's website on December 9, 2014. It was also filed with the State Clearinghouse on December 11, 2014, and mailed to the applicable city and county clerks, school districts and main libraries in the project area. On December 11, 2014, the public notice regarding the January 14, 2015 public hearing on the Document and the Project was published in the Oakland Tribune. Additional publications were made and additional community outreach as outlined elsewhere in this report. The public was invited to provide comments either in writing before January 12, 2015 or in person at the January 141h public hearing. To date, no written comments on the environmental document have been received. Any written comments received will be placed in a binder and made available for review by the Board and public in the District Secretary's Office. All comments received, including those provided at the public hearing will be included in the record of proceedings on the Document and the Project. Resolution 15-003, Attachment 1, has been prepared for the Board's consideration. The final Exhibits A and B will be included upon the final Board decision. Since the DIS/ND must be approved before the Board can act on the 2015 Service Expansion and New Service on New Streets in Oakland, it is the first action item in the resolution. As of the date of this report, no comments have been received. A copy of the Document is provided as Attachment 5. The Board has the discretion of modifying the Project following the close of the public hearing, although it must be aware that a significant change to the Project would have to be evaluated to determine if there would be any impact on the DIS/ND. The environmental consultant will be present to help in this determination so, if possible, the Board can act on the adoption of the resolution that evening. Implementation Schedule The schedule for implementing the aforementioned service changes is as follows: November 12, 2014
Request the Board to set a public hearing
16
Report No. 14-267b Page 7 of 8 January 14, 2015
Public Hearing for Service Changes/ Request Board Approval of Changes
End of January 2015
Finalize Schedule Adjustment in Hastus
March 2015
Implement Service Changes in conjunction with the Spring Sign-up
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The advantage of the proposed service expansion is improved bus service thoughout the District, particularly on weekends where service is lacking, to meet capacity and recreational attractions. There are no disadvantages with the proposed service expansion.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed all possible options for expansion given the existing resources and determined the increase in weekend service was the best option to optimize the service given limited fleet resources and division capacity. Weekend service took a large cut in the 2010 service reductions and this is the first opportunity to try to redress the balance. In addition, the weekend expansion does not require any additional buses or operators, and is significantly more affordable than weekday service. If staff were to apply these operating funds to weekday service, the District would be limited to an expansion of one or two non-trunk routes or minor span changes, which may not provide the daily ridership benefit as compared to the weekend proposals in this report.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy 163- Public Hearings Process for the Board of Directors Board Policy 100- Board of Directors Rules for Procedure Board Policy 512- Environmental Evaluations of Transit Disctrict Projects SR 14-267a- Set Public Hearing for Proposed Spring 2015 Service Expansion on 1/14/15 SR 14-267- Set Public Hearing for Proposed Spring 2015 Service Expansion on 12/10/14
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 15-003 2. Costs and Service Details of Proposed Service Expansion 3. Map of Proposed Line 680 Extension 4. Map of Proposed Line NL Re-route 5. Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 6. Summary of Public Comments 7. Title VI Analysis oft he Proposed Spring 2015 Service Expansion Department Head Approval:
Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering and Construction Officer 17
Report No. 14-267b Page 8 of 8
Reviewed by:
Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Jim Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer
Prepared by:
linda Morris, Senior Transportation Planner Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Sally Goodman, Senior Transportation Planner Sean Diest Lorgion, Senior Transportation Planner Stephen Newhouse, Transportation Planner Becca Homa, Transportation Planner John Urgo, Transportation Planner
18
SR 14-267b
Attachment 1 ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 15-003 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 2015 SPRING SERVICE EXPANSION PLAN AND NEW SERVICE ON NEW STREETS IN OAKLAND; AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION; AND APPROVING THE 2015 SPRING SERVICE EXPANSION PLAN AND SERVICE ON NEW STREETS IN OAKLAND WHEREAS, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (District or AC Transit) Service Development Department developed a District-wide package of improvements (the Plan) under the provisions of Board Policy No. 550 (Service Standards and Design Policy) amounting to $2 million annually, as more particularly identified in Staff Report 14-267b; and WHEREAS, the Plan includes service on streets previously unserved by AC Transit in the City of Oakland; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2014 the District's Board of Directors approved setting a public hearing on the Plan and Service on New Streets (collectively the Project) at its scheduled meeting in Oakland on January 14, 2015; and WHEREAS, notices of this public hearing were published in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Board Policy No. 163, as well as mailed to affected properties on the new street segments; posted on the District's website and on car cards in District buses; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Board received oral and written comments from individuals on the Project; and WHEREAS, the District retained Rincon Consultants, Inc. to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project and to prepare the appropriate draft environmental document under the provisions of the CEQA) and Board Policy No. 512 (Environmental Evaluations of Transit District Projects); and WHEREAS, Rincon's analysis, concurred in by staff, concluded that the Project would have no significant impact on the environment, as set forth in a Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2014, the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was filed with the State Clearinghouse and with the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder and the Contra-Costa County Clerk-Recorder; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2014, a copy of the public hearing notice and the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration were sent to the city and county clerks, school districts, and Main libraries in the Project area; and
Resolution No. 15-003
Pagel o/4 19
SR 14-267b
Attachment 1 WHEREAS, on December 11, 2014, a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was published in the Oakland Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the Project area; and WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014 a copy of the public hearing notice and the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration were posted on the District's website and were available for public review in the District Secretary's Office located at 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California; and WHEREAS, in addition to the aforementioned notices, the District prepared a brochure explaining the Project, the availability of the environmental document and the time and place of the public hearing, as well as car cards which were placed on District buses in the Project area commencing on December 18, 2014; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned brochures were placed on the buses between December 31, 2014 and January 1, 2015; and WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed directly to the affected properties on new route segments and local community groups on December 18, 2014; and WHEREAS, emails to community groups, eNews and social media posts were sent on December 18, 19 and 22, 2014; and WHEREAS, prior to its January 14, 2015 meeting, the Board received Staff Report 14267b regarding the consideration of the Project, including the draft environmental document, and a Title VI analysis prepared pursuant to Board Policy 551 (Title VI Service Review and Compliance Report Policy) which concluded that the Project would not have a disproportionally high and adverse impact on minority or low-income communities in the Project area; WHEREAS, on December 31, 2014, as well as on January 7, 2015, a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was printed in the following newspapers in the Project area - the Oakland Tribune, Alameda Times Star, Fremont Argus, Hayward Daily Review, Tri Valley Herald, San Mateo Times, The Post, El Mundo (in Spanish), Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese), and the West County Times; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors met on January 14, 2015, at the AC Transit General Office, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California and held a public hearing on the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration and on the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and Service on New Streets in Oakland; and WHEREAS, a binder has been compiled containing the oral and written comments received from the public on the environmental document and the Project received during the open comment period from December 11, 2014 to January 12, 2015, and it will include comments received on January 12, 13 and 14, 2015 prior to and at the public hearing, all of which shall constitute part ofthe public record; and
Resolution No. 15-003
Page2of4 20
SR 14-267b
Attachment 1 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors were provided with copies of the aforementioned public comments received prior to the public hearing and considered those comments, as well as comments received at the public hearing, together with the comments of staff and the content of the staff reports prepared on the environmental document and the Project prior to making its decision. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows:
Section 1.
With respect to the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, the Board
determines:
1. It complies with the requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act and Board Policy No. 512, as amended on June 26, 2013; 2. The public notices required by the California Environmental Quality Act and Board Policy No. 163 have been provided, and the minimum requirements for public notice and opportunity to comment have been exceeded, as more particularly outlined in the Whereas Clauses to this resolution; 3. The Board considered the proposed Negative Declaration (and public comments, if any received) before making its decision; 4. The Board finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received) that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration reflects the District's independent judgment and analysis; 5. The Board approves the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration as the Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration. A copy of the final document shall be attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and shall be incorporated herein by reference; 6. The General Counsel is directed to file a Notice of Determination or any other documentation, as required; and 7. The documents or other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision on the Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration is based are on file with the District Secretary's Office, located on the 10th Floor at the AC Transit General Offices, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California 94612.
Section 2.
The Board approves the Title VI Evaluation of the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and Service on New Streets in Oakland.
Section 3.
The Board approves the 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and Service on New Streets in Oakland, as more particularly set forth in Exhibit B and shall be incorported herein by reference.
Resolution No. 15-003
Page 3of4 21
SR 14-267b
Attachment 1
Section 4.
The 2015 Spring Service Expansion Plan and the Service on New Streets shall go into effect with the Spring 2015 sign-up.
SectionS.
This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January 2015.
Greg Harper, 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 regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 14th day of January, 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. 15-003
Page4of4 22
Costs for Proposed 2015 Service Expansion Route(s)
Change
72/72M
Increase service from 30 to 20 minutes
Option
on both routes between 9am and 81Jm.
72R Option
Jack London Sq to Contra Costa College
Change in Hours weekday Sat Sun
Change in Vehicles Weekday Sat Sun AM PM
Annual Hours
FY 14/15 Cost
Annual Cost
Estimate
Estimate
102.00 102.00
6
6
11,424
$245,616
$982,464
134.00 134.00
11
11
15,008
$322,672
$1,290,688
Operate 72 Rapid every 15 minutes from
between 7am and 7pm
46 46 (Summer sign-up only)
Extend service to the Zoo at exisiting weekday hourly frequency Extend service to the Zoo at 30 minute
frequency
8.00
8.00
1
1
744
$15,996
$63,984
17.00
17.00
2
2
323
-
$27,778
200
Increase span from 8:00pm to midnight
13.00
676
$14,534
$58,136
212
Increase span from 8:00pm to midnight
6.00
312
$6,708
$26,832
217
Increase frequency from 40 minutes to
30 minutes all day
14.00
14.00
1
1
1,568
$33,712
$134,848
27.00
19.00
2
2
2,544
$54,696
$218,784
101
$2,168
$8,671
Service to Chabot Center at 40 minute
339 680
frequency between 9am and lOpm
Saturdays, and between 9am and 6pm Sundays Extend route to serve new school
0.55
Total Cost Including 72R Option
21,276
$
450,486
$ 1,829,721
Total Cost Including 72/72M Option
17,692
$
373,430
$ 1,521,497
(/)
;;o
23
This page intentionally blank
24
Line 680 - Proposed Extension ~-
Line 680 (Existing)
• • • Line680 (Proposed Extension)
(f)
;;o
L\ N
25
Line NL- Proposed Alternate Route
~
Line NL (Proposed Alternate Route)
-
Line NL (Existing)
(f)
::0
.... '
1\J Q)
.....
o-
;!';: ~
_\
"'-:r
N
CD
0
3
"'....
26
BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 14, 2015
Staff Report 14-267b Public Hearing for Spring 2015 Service Improvements Attachment 5: Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AS A SEPARATE FILE
27
This page intentionally blank
28
SR 14-267b Attachment 6
Summary of Public Comments
To be completed just prior to 1/14
29
This page intentionally blank
30
SR 14-267b Attachment 7 Title VI analysis of Proposed Spring 2015 changes Changes under consideration at the Public Hearing include the following proposals: Increase frequency for lines 72, 72M, and 72R on weekends Options include: • New Line 72R would operate between 9:00am and 8:00pm at 15-minute frequencies. • Increased frequencies on existing Lines 72 and 72M from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes between 9:00am and 8:00pm. These three routes are all "minority routes" as defined by Title VI requirements. The proposal would provide additional service to riders of the routes, regardless of which proposal is implemented. No Title VI impact. Changes on lines 46, 339, 200, 212, and 217 The proposals all involve increased service, either by increasing frequency or the number of hours the service is provided. These four lines ar~ consid~red ({minority routes" e~s defined by Title VI reqL1irementsl so no adverse effects wouid be experienced by Title VI protected populations. No Title VI impact. Service on new street segments for line 680 This extension would provide service to census biock groups with a higher percentage of people of coior than the service area as a whole. While the population around the new street segments is not low-income (according to Title VI policy), low-income riders of route 680 will benefit from the extension. in general, service on these new streets wouid improve service to the rest of the ridership of Route 680 (both a "minority route" as defined by Title VI requirements and a route serving a large number of low-income households) by providing access to Grass Valley Elementary School. No Title VI impact. Service on new street segments for line NL in West Oakland There are two possible implementations of this proposal, and each was considered for its potential impact on Title VI populations. • Serve the route by installing new stops along the new segment to provide neighborhood access to this transit line. This proposal would improve access to transit in an area with a population that is made up of more people of color and more !ow income people th~n the service arPa as a who!e. Nn Title V! impact. • Operate along the route but do not serve any stops. Although this is considered "service on new streets" for the purpose of requiring a public hearing, it would involve no change in access to the route; that is, there would be no increase (nor decrease) in service provided to the new street segments. Line NL is a "minority route" as defined by Title VI requirements and this proposal would implement an improvement of service to that line; technically there would be no Title VI impact. However, the population around those streets (which has more people of color and low-income people than the AC Transit Service Area as a whole), could potentially have buses running down their streets as early as 5:30 in the morning, and may experience this as an adverse effect of the proposal. In order to assess the impact of this proposal, the District conducted a California Environmental Quality Act study, which found no environmental impacts. In addition, to ensure people in the community had an opportunity to learn about and to voice any concerns related to this proposal, staff provided additional information in the community about the proposals and the public hearing (by mail to residents and by dropping off information at businesses and community organizations).
31
This page intentionally blank
32
BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSENT CALENDAR
January 14, 2015 Agenda Items 6A – 6C
33
This page intentionally blank
34
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT
MINUTES Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the Operations, External Affairs and Finance and Audit Committees AC Transit General Offices 2nd Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 Wednesday, December 10, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Closed Session: 4:00 p.m. (Items 10A-10E) Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS GREG HARPER, PRESIDENT (WARD 2) JOE WALLACE, VICE PRESIDENT (WARD 1) ELSA ORTIZ (WARD 3) MARK WILLIAMS (WARD 4) JEFF DAVIS (WARD 5) JOEL YOUNG (AT-LARGE) H. E. CHRISTIAN PEEPLES (AT-LARGE) BOARD OFFICERS DAVID J. ARMIJO, GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 35
Page 1 of 19
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- Greg Harper, President Wednesday, December 10, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.
ACTION SUMMARY
I The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Board of Directors held a i regular meeting on Wednesday, December 10, 2014.
I I The
meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. for the purpose of 1 Closed Session. All Board members were present, with the exception I of Director Davis who arrived at 4:08 p.m. The District Secretary announced that the Board would convene in Closed Session to discuss I Items 10A-E as listed on the agenda. Closed Session concluded at 14:30 p.m.
i j
l At 5:05 p.m., President Harper called the Board of Directors meeting
I' to order. 1.
I I ROLL CALL
! Present: Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Young, Wallace, Harper ! Absent: None 2.
I ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE
2A.I Consider receiving the Certificates of Election Results and the Official Canvass for Directors Elsa Ortiz, Mark Williams, Jeff Davis, and Joel Young (Report 14-323}.
RECEIVED
District Secretary linda Nemeroff gave a brief summary of the election i results. J
MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to receive the Certificates of Election
i Results and the Official Canvass for Directors Elsa Ortiz, Mark Williams, i Jeff Davis, and Joel Young. The motion carried by the following vote:
I 1
AYES:7: Peeples, Wallace, Ortiz, WiUiams, Davis, Young, Harper
I
2B. i Administration of the Oath of Office to re-elected Board members by I AC Transit Bus Operator Durelle Barksdale:
OATH OF OFFICE ADMINISTERED
!
Elsa Ortiz, Ward 3 Mark Williams, Ward 4 Jeff Davis, Ward 5 Joel Young, At-Large Directors thanked their constituents for their confidence and their supporters for their help and support throughout their respective campaigns.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 36
Page 2 of 19
3.
i PUBLIC COMMENT l•
I•
I
I 4.
I
Jane Kramer commented on transparency and accountability with regard to the Finance and Audit Committee noting that several items on the November 12, 2014, agenda were passed without discussion or public comment. She objected on the basis that the public had a right to hear discussion of how their tax money is being spent. Jerry Grace commended drivers and passengers for remaining patient during the disruptions caused by protestors in Berkeley and Oakland, and urged everyone to be alert.
I GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT There General Manager's report is attached as Exhibit A and I incorporated into the minutes by reference.
1
I
INFORMATION ONLY
I
I With
regard to the reference in the report to the BART Late Night i Service, Director Ortiz expressed concern and wanted to ensure that I contract terms with BART were beneficial to AC Transit both financially and in terms of liability.
I
! i General
Counsel Denise Standridge reported on the financial I arrangement, noting that negotiations were ongoing and that while she had some concerns about liability and who is taking the lead, she felt those issues could be worked out. General Manager David Armijo i advised that there is an agreement in-concept on reimbursable costs. i He added that another problem that has arisen is the term of the contract noting that BART wants a multi-year contract in advance, I while staff believes this is a pilot and anything beyond the next 12 I months needs to go back to the respective Boards for approval.
I I I
I I The item was presented for information only. 5.
6.
j BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS
i Members of the Board commented on meetings and events attended I since the last meeting. I CONSENT CALENDAR I MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to approve or receive the items on the I Consent
Calendar as indicated. The motion carried by the following
APPROVED OR RECEIVED AS INDICATED
! vote:
I AYES:7: Peeples, Wallace, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Young, Harper 1
!
6A. I Consider approving the Board of Directors/Retirement Board joint Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014
37
Page 3 of 19
meeting minutes of September 24, 2014.
6B. Consider approving Board of Directors and Standing Committee minutes of October 22, 2014. 6C. Consider approving Board of Directors and Standing Committee minutes of November 12, 2014. 6D. Consider receiving the Accessibility Advisory Committee minutes of October 14, 2014 (Report 14-289). 6E. Consider receiving Retirement Board minutes of October 13, 2014 (Report 14-288). 6F. Consider receiving Quarterly Retirement Board Report (Report 14201). 6G. Consider authorizing the General Manager to attend the American Public Transportation Association's 2015 Transit CEO's Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona on February 6-9, 2015 (Report 14-318). 6H. Consider authorizing members of the Board of Directors and the General Manager to attend the American Public Transportation Association's 2015 Legislative Conference in Washington D.C. on March 8-10, 2015 (Report 14-324). 61. Consider authorizing the General Counsel to attend the American Public Transportation Association's Legal Affairs Seminar on February 21 - 24, 2015, in New Orleans, Louisiana (Report 14-311). 7.
REGULAR CALENDAR
7A. Consider adoption of Ordinance No. 16, an Ordinance Regulating the Use of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District's Registered Logo and Service Marks and repealing Ordinance No. 11 and its associated Board Policy 505 (Report 14-241b).
APPROVED
[A minor administrative correction to the Ordinance was provided at the meeting for the Board's consideration.] General Counsel Denise Standridge presented the staff report. Ms. Standridge advised the Board that the delegation of authority to the General Manager to approve the use of the logo needed to be addressed. The Board offered no direction at this time as to whether authority should be delegated for a period of time or for specific projects. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 38
Page 4 of 19
I I MOTION: WALLACE/PEEPLES to adopt Ordinance No. 16, an Ordinance I Regulating the Use of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District's I Registered Logo and Service Marks and repealing Ordinance No. 11 and I its associated Board Policy 505. The motion carried by the following I vote: 1
'
.
I
AYES:7: Wallace, Peeples, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Young, Harper
I
7B. Consider approving award of a contract to Parsons Transportation · Group for architectural and engineering services associated with the development of the San Leandro Transit Center located at the San leandro BART station (Report 14-143a).
APPROVED
Senior Project Manager Joe Callaway presented the staff report.
i
! When asked why the names of the bidders were disclosed in some
I reports
and not others, Director of Capital Projects Dennis Butler i responded that it was an omission that would be corrected in future reports through standardization of the report template.
I
1
!
I
Director Williams asked why there were so few responses to the solicitation. Director of Procurement Jon Medwin advised that the nature of specialized work and how vendors had registered themselves was part of the problem. He advised that staff will consider outreach to 1 vendors to ensure they are registered under the proper category.
I
I
1
1
MOTION: ORTIZ/WALLACE to approve award of a contract to Parsons i Transportation Group for architectural and engineering services I associated with the development of the San Leandro Transit Center i located at the San Leandro BART station. The motion carried by the i following vote:
l
i AYES:7: Ortiz, Wallace, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Young, Harper
I
7C. Consider approving award of a contract for architectural engineering services to Dreyfuss & Blackford Architects for the 1 Division 3 Richmond Yard Reactivation Project (Report 14-107a).
APPROVED
I
Project Manager Michael Hass presented the staff report. Director Peeples remarked that this was an expensive contract for the amount of work involved. Director of Capital Projects Dennis Butler I advised that this engineering assessment for the project was very detailed and would involve an investigation of the underground
I
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 39
Page 5 of 19
storage tanks.
President Harper asked if the award was going to the lowest bidder, noting that he would be fine with placing low bid reports on consent. Director of Procurement Jon Medwin advised that the since price is negotiated, staff doesn't know what each firm's pricing is until they are called upon to negotiate. General Manager David Armijo advised that his concerns were with the cost and timing of the project, noting that construction needed to start in 2016 in order for the facility to be in operation in late 2016. Public Comment: Jerry Grace asked when buses will be running out of Division 3. [Staff advised that it would be several months before this would happen.] MOTION: ORTIZ/WALLACE to approve award of a contract for architectural and engineering services to Dreyfuss & Blackford Architects for the Division 3 Richmond Yard Reactivation Project. The motion carried by the following vote:
1
!
AYES:7: Ortiz, Wallace, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Young, Harper 7D. Consider approving award of a contract for architectural and engineering services to STV Inc. for the Operations Control Center Relocation Project (Report 14-107b).
APPROVED
Senior Project Manager Craig Michels presented the staff report. MOTION: YOUNG/PEEPLES to approve award of a contract for architectural and engineering services to STV Inc. for the Operations Control Center Relocation Project. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Young, Peeples, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Wallace, Harper 7E. Consider adopting the 2015 regular Board meeting schedule taking into consideration the District's holiday schedule and any additional days requested by Directors to be included in the holiday schedule (Report 14-304).
APPROVEDW/ MODIFICATIONS
District Secretary Linda Nemeroff advised the Board of the regular meeting dates for 2015. President Harper requested that the August meeting be moved to August 19, 2015 and Director Davis asked if the September meeting
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 40
Page 6 of 19
schedule could be adjusted to accommodate Yom Kippur. It was suggested that the September meeting schedule be adjusted to September 3'd and September 16th for the regular meetings. CONSENSUS to approve the 201S regular Board meeting schedule as presented with the following adjustments: the August meeting will be held on August 19th and the meetings in September will be held on September 3'd and 16th. The motion carried unanimously by the following vote: AYES:7: Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Young, Peeples, Wallace, Harper 7F. Consider accepting an offer from the California Transit Association (CTA) to host the Fall Conference and Expo in 2016. (Verbal)
ACCEPT OFFER WITH MODIFICATIONS
General Manager David Armijo reported that CTA asked if the District could host the conference in 2016 on either November 2-4, 2016 or November 16-18, 2016. Given the proximity of the 2016 election, the Board felt it would be best to host the conference on November 16-18, 2016. The Board was advised that all fundraising activities associated with the conference would be handled by CTA. Public Comment: Jerry Grace commented that it was a good idea to hold the conference in Oakland, noting that the San Francisco could host the Olympics in the future.
MOTION: YOUNG/WilLIAMS to host the conference on November 1618, 2016. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Young, Williams, Ortiz, Davis, Peeples, Wallace, Harper 7G. Announcement of appointments to the Nominating Committee for the selection of President and Vice President for 2015 (Verbal).
APPOINTMENTS ANNOUNCED
President Harper announced the appointment of Directors Young, Davis, and Vice President Wallace to the Nominating Committee for the selection of President and Vice President for 2015. Director Young will serve as chair of the committee.
RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole) The Board meeting recessed to the Standing Committees at 6:16p.m.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 41
Page 7 of 19
ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY.
A.
i OPERATIONS COMMITTEE- Joe Wallace, Chairperson
I ~:m~:~::~~:sp~:~n~.ittee
convened at 6:16 p.m. All
Committee
ACTION SUMMARY
II Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) I There was no public comment offered.
i
i Consent Items: i MOTION:
PEEPLES/HARPER to forward to the Consent Calendar f Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the I • ! followmg vote:
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
I AYES:7: Peeples, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Young, Wallace A-1.
! 1
Consider recommending authorization to release a solicitation for a construction contract to upgrade the General Office Boardroom (Report 14-315). Briefing/Action Items:
A-2.
!1 Consider recommending authorization to release a solicitation for a construction contract for structural and architectural repairs to the General Office building (Report 14-314).
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Project Manager Magnus Hienzsche presented the staff report.
i MOTION: PEEPLES/DAVIS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda ! recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote:
I AYES:7: Peeples, Davis, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Young, Wallace A-3.
l Consider recommending authorization to release a solicitation for a 1
' construction contract in support of the Division 2 {Emeryville) transportation building roof replacement project (Report 14-312).
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Senior Project Manager Craig Michels presented the staff report. i
I Director
Peeples asked if it would be possible to determine whether support solar panels. Mr. Michels advised that the new roof would be light-weight and would allow for seismic bracing to be added later to support solar panels.
i the roof could
MOTION: DAVIS/HARPER to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 42
Page 8 of 19
I recommending approval.
The motion carried by the following vote:
i AYES:7: Davis, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Peeples, Young, Wallace A-4. I Consider recommending authorization to release a solicitation for a . construction contract in support of the Pavement Rehabilitation I Project (Report 14-313).
I
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
I Senior Project Manager Craig Michels presented the staff report. I
I Director Peeples asked how confident staff was in its ability to control I costs once digging started. Mr. Michels advised that the engineering
, firm would take soil samples at the fuel island and determine how much soil would need to be removed, which would then be factored I into the construction contract. He added that there was some 1
J
contingency in the overall budget in case something unexpected arose.
I MOTION:
PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar \ Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote:
I I J
A-5.
AYES:7: Peeples, Williams, Harper, Ortiz, Davis, Young, Wallace
Consider recommending authorization to release a solicitation for a J construction contract in support of the General Office Fire Sprinkler 1 Compliance Project (Report 14-253). J
RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS
\
i Senior Project Manager Craig Michels presented the staff report.
II President Harper asked whether it had been confirmed if the City of ' Oakland had an ordinance that required the repair work. He requested
1
1 that the General Counsel review state statutes and local ordinances to I confirm that the building official has the right to require an upgrade of the fire protection system in order to obtain a permit. He suggested i that the solicitation be approved conditionally pending confirmation by the General Counsel.
I
I
! MOTION: HARPER/YOUNG to forward to the Consent Calendar
I Addenda recommending conditional approval subject to verification by \ the General Counsel that the city could attach upgrades or repairs to 1the issuance of a permit. The motion carried by the following vote:
I
I AYES:7: Harper, Young, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Wallace A-6.
I Consider
recommending authorization to release a solicitation for 1 two Storage Area Network (SAN) Storage Arrays to replace the i existing storage arrays at the General Office and disaster recovery site in Sacramento, California (Report 14-319).
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
I
Alameda~Contra
Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 43
Page 9 of 19
Acting Chief Information Services Officer Tom O'Neill presented the staff report. MOTION: PEEPLES/ORTIZ to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Ortiz, Harper, Williams, Davis, Young, Wallace A-7.
Consider recommending receipt of the Clipper Program Quarterly Update [Requested by Director Ortiz- 6/11/14] (Report 14-252).
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
Customer Services Manager Victoria Einhaus presented the staff report. Discussion ensued concerning the Clipper Retail Vendor Network and how Cubic would change to accommodate new vendors. Ms. Einhaus advised that it was up to the District to provide direction to Cubic. She added that the planners were preparing a boarding study which would help determine the best placement for vendors. This information will be provided to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Cubic so that the areas identified can be canvassed for vendors. MOTION: PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Williams, Harper, Ortiz, Davis, Young Wallace
A-8.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-053 approving amendments to Board Policy 222 -Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy (Report 14-301).
CONTINUED
Human Resources Administrator Uta Jamerson presented the staff report. She also addressed process questions concerning drug testing. Director Peeples asked if anyone spoke with the union, if they had received the letter, and if they had any concerns. Acting Chief Administrative Officer Tom Prescott advised that a letter and fax were sent to the union office and that he had spoken with the union's attorney and provided him with a copy of the letter. He advised that this was not a meet and confer issue because the District has no discretion as the changes are required by the federal government. Ms. Jamerson offered that she had sent the unions the actual changes to the policy and also notified the AFSCME president of the changes and did not receive a response.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 44
Page 10 of 19
General Manager David Armijo advised that there was a reopener in \ the ATU contract on the entire policy and that staff would have further I discussions and, at the right time, will work with the union. ! Public Comment I Yvonne Williams, President and Business Agent of ATU Local 192, disagreed that there was no response from ATU, noting she had sent an email to the General Manager asking to delay any meetings on the topic until after December 101h due to union elections and difficulty in coordinating schedules with the leadership. She requested that the Board delay the item until the parties can sit down and discuss it. 1 MOTION: PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to continue the item to the next scheduled Committee meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Williams, Harper, Ortiz, Davis, Young, Wallace
! 1
i
i
I
Consider recommending that the General Manager be authorized to \ RECOMMEND execute a one-year contract option with Toshiba Business Solutions 1 APPROVAL for managed print services (Report 14-310}. i
A-9.
! Acting Chief Information Services Officer Tom O'Neill presented the \ staff report.
I
Public Comment: I Nathaniel Arnold, ATU, wanted to ensure that the contract was for \ I equipment only and not to replace print shop workers. It was clarified i that the item concerned equipment only and did not affect the print I shop.
I
MOTION: PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Williams, Harper, Ortiz, Davis, Young, Wallace The Operations Committee adjourned at 7:00p.m.
B.
i EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE- Elsa Ortiz, Chairperson
I The External Affairs Committee convened at 7:00p.m.
All Committee
ACTION SUMMARY
I members were present.
i
i Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) ! There was no public comment offered. !
i Briefing/Action Items:
!
Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 45
Page 11 of 19
B-1.
Consider recommending receipt of the Monthly Legislative Report (Report 14-292).
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
Director of Legislative Affairs and Community Relations Beverly Greene presented the staff report. Public Comment Jerry Grace invited the Board to attend an event at the state building in Oakland. Mr. Grace will provide additional information to staff on the event. MOTION: YOUNG/WALLACE to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote:
I AYES:7: Young, Wallace, Harper, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Ortiz I
B-2.
I Consider recommending approval of the District's Federal and State
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
i Advocacy Programs for 2015 (Report 14-293).
I Director of Legislative Affairs and Community Relations Beverly Greene
I presented the staff report.
I
MOTION: WILLIAMS/WALLACE to forward to the Consent Calendar j Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the i' following vote:
I
i AYES:7: Williams, Wallace, Harper, Davis, Peeples, Young, Ortiz '
B-3.
Consider recommending approval of proposed amendments to Board Policy 404- Advertising on District Property [Report originally presented on November 12, 2014] (Report 14-232a).
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Director of Marketing and Communications Michele Joseph presented the staff report. Director Peeples felt the exclusion of political or issues advertising , might hinder freedom of expression, and requested that this be i revisited after the policy has been in effect for a year or two. MOTION: PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following vote:
i AYES:7: Peeples, Williams, Wallace, Harper, Davis, Young, Ortiz,
IThe External Affairs Committee adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 46
Page 12 of 19
c.
ACTION SUMMARY
FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE- Jeff Davis, Chairperson The Finance and Audit Committee convened at 7:10 p.m. All 1 I Committee members were present.
I Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) ! There was no public comment offered.
I
I Consent Items: ! MOTION: WILLIAMS/WALLACE to forward items C-1 and C-2 only to the ! Consent Calendar Addenda, recommending receipt as indicated. The
C-1.
RECOMMEND RECEIPT OF j ITEMS C-1 AND C-2
I motion carried by the following vote:
I
\ AYES:7: Williams, Wallace, Harper, Ortiz, Peeples, Young, Davis
1
I \ Consider recommending receipt of the Monthly Report 1 Investments for October 2014 (Report 14-294).
on
I
C-2.
! Consider recommending receipt of the Budget Report for September I and October, 2014 (Report 14-295).
C-3.
I Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. authorizing the General Manager, or his designee, to ! allocation requests and execute any documents necessary for I j Cycle Four Program Funds; and consider receiving the final report on Welfare-to-Work Grants (Report 14-285).
!
I
i
14-054 submit Lifeline annual
litem C-3 was pulled off the Committee Consent Calendar by Director
i Peeples and Director Ortiz for questions.
I I Directors Peeples and Ortiz expressed concern that the funds would be I used to provide private shuttle operators with an avenue to request transit funding and contract out work. Questions arose ! regarding the District's role as a possible fiscal sponsor, including the ! need to ensure that any pass through of funds were in agreement with ! the Board's policies and objectives.
I; federal
I Senior
Capital Planning Specialist Ben Stupka explained the fiscal sponsorship process, noting that AC Transit would offer fiscal 1 sponsorship for eligible participants and would serve as a pass through i for the funds if approved by the Board. Interim Chief Financial Officer Jim Pachan advised that this was a program that the Metropolitan ! Transportation Commission (MTC) requested that AC Transit manage.
I I
I General Manager David Armijo Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
expressed concern that AC Transit may December 10, 2014 47
Page 13 of 19
be getting less money because of MTC's JARC and Lifeline Programs. He added that AC Transit was the federal grant recipient for the East Bay, but the program requirements are being stipulated by MTC and the burden placed on AC Transit to make decisions. An added concern was whether AC Transit had authority and/or input into how the sponsorships were to be awarded. Acting Manager of Capital Planning and Grants Chris Andrichak added that BART had opted not to act in the fiscal sponsorship role and AC Transit is in the position it is in because of changes in funding and MTC policy. Director Ortiz asked if AC Transit could decline as well, to which staff advised that it could. The issue of sponsorships will be addressed at the January 14, 2015 meeting. Director Peeples requested that the District's federal lobbyist and General Counsel weigh in on whether MTC can designate 5307 funds to fund the MTC sponsored lifeline Program when AC Transit is the federal grantee and when MTC's only job is to act as a pass through. Public Comment: Yvonne Williams, President of ATU local 192, was concerned by the report and requested an immediate meeting with the General Manager to discuss AC Transit's intentions with regard to contracting out service. She felt there could be some 13(c) implications, noting that the funding the District received was for AC Transit to provide service. She requested more information about it before the staff report is presented in January. MOTION: PEEPLES/YOUNG to recommend adoption of Resolution No. 14-054 authorizing the General Manager, or his designee, to submit allocation requests and execute any documents necessary for lifeline Cycle Four Program Funds; and consider receiving the final annual report on Welfare-to-Work Grants. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Young, Wallace (with concerns), Harper, Ortiz (with concerns), Williams, Davis C-4.
Consider recommending that the General Manager, or his designee, be authorized to submit an application to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for FV 2014-15 Ladders of Opportunity Workforce Development Funds for a project to expand training opportunities for District staff (Report 14-317). Item No. C-4 was pulled off the Committee Consent Calendar by
I Director Peeples for a question. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 48
Page 14 of 19
Director Peeples expressed concern that staff was responding to grant opportunities rather than seeking funding based on the District's training needs. He also requested that staff look at a broader range of training providers. Chief Operating Officer Jim Pachan clarified that training providers would not be limited to the schools named in the report and would include public as well as private schools. MOTION: YOUNG/PEEPLES to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the i following vote: AYES:7: Young, Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Davis Briefing/Action Items:
C-5.
Consider recommending receipt of report from the District's Parcel Tax Fiscal Oversight Committee on FY 2013-14 Measure VV Tax Proceeds for the Year Ended June 30, 2014 (Report 14-296).
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
[Draft minutes from the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee meeting held on December 2, 2014, were provided at the meeting for the Committee's information.] Interim Chief Financial Officer James Pachan presented the staff report. With regard to the property tax information requested by the Committee, Director Ortiz asked if there was a reason why the information could not be provided by city, unincorporated area, special transit service district, etc. Mr. Pachan advised that staff had requested this information from Alameda County and was informed that the distribution of the funds was in accordance with AB 8 and the specific percentage allocation for each city. He added that while this information was provided to the Committee, staff will go back to the county with a request for more detailed information. Director Peeples asked if the Committee would have another meeting. Mr. Pachan advised that all of the open issues were addressed except for the property tax issue and if the Committee felt it wanted to hpld another meeting, staff would arrange it. Director Peeples commented that one member of the Commit~ee seemed to be getting into issues that were outside the scope of the Committee. President Harper reiterated his feeling that the manner in which it is Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 49
Page 15 of 19
determined that Measure VV funds are being used for their intended purpose was flawed. He outlined a four-part test he developed, which members of the Committee agreed should be agendized at a later date for further review (See Agenda Planning, Item No. 11) MOTION: YOUNG/PEEPLES to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Young, Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Davis C-6.
Consider recommending receipt of report on existing Certificates of Participation {COPs) agreements (Report 14-236).
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
Internal Audit Manager Alan Parella presented the staff report. 1
Discussion ensued regarding interest rates and which COPs should be
! prepaid, with agreement that the focus should be on retiring the 2009 i because of its high interest rate.
I MOTION:
PEEPLES/WALLACE to forward to the Consent Calendar \ Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following ! vote:
I I AYES:7: Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Young, I
Davis
l The Finance and Audit Committee adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
I l RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- Greg Harper, President i The Board of Directors meeting reconvened at 7:50 p.m. All Board
ACTION SUMMARY
I members were present. 8.
i REPORT GIVEN
I REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES
! District Secretary Linda Nemeroff reported that all of the items from i \ the Operations, External Affairs and Finance and Audit Committee ! meetings had been referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda ! recommending receipt, approval, or adoption as indicated, with the [ exception of Item A-8 (Substance Abuse Policy) which was continued ! to the next Operations Committee meeting and conditional approval j of Item No. A-5 {General Office Fire Sprinklers) subject the General ! Counsel verifying that the city could attach upgrades or repairs to the i issuance of a permit.
9.
CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA MOTION: PEEPLES/ORTIZ to receive, approve or adopt the items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda as indicated on the agenda, including conditional approval of Item A-5 (General Office Fire 1
Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 50
RECEIVED, APPROVED OR ADOPTED AS INDICATED
Page 16 of 19
Sprinklers) subject to verification by the General Counsel that the city could attach upgrades or repairs to the issuance of a permit. The
:::~::::a:::::::::,f:~l:i::,v::::s,.Young,
Wallace, Harper
i I
II
The items brought before the Board were as follows:
A. A-1. A-2.
A-3.
A-4.
A-5.
A-6.
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE: Consider authorizing the release of a solicitation for a construction i contract to upgrade the General Office Boardroom (Report 14-315). i Consider authorizing the release of a solicitation for a construction contract for structural and architectural repairs to the General Office building (Report 14-314). Consider authorizing the release of a solicitation for a construction I contract in support of the Division 2 (Emeryville) transportation building roof replacement project (Report 14-312). Consider authorizing the release of a solicitation for a construction contract in support of the Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Report 14I 313). Consider authorizing the release of a solicitation for a construction contract in support of the General Office Fire Sprinkler Compliance I Project (Report 14-253). j Consider authorizing the release of a solicitation for two Storage Area I Network (SAN) Storage Arrays to replace the existing storage arrays at the General Office and disaster recovery site in Sacramento, California I (Report 14-319). I Consider receiving the Clipper Program Quarterly Update [Requested by Director Ortiz- 6/11/14] (Report 14-252). 1 Consider authorizing the General Manager to execute a one-year j contract option with Toshiba Business Solutions for managed print j services (Report 14-310). 1
I I
i
I I
I
1
I !
!
i
I
I A-7. A-9.
I
B. I EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: B-1. B-2. B-3.
I
Consider receiving the Monthly Legislative Report (Report 14-292). I Consider approving the District's Federal and State Advocacy Programs for 2015 (Report 14-293). 1 Consider approving proposed amendments to Board Policy 404 ! Advertising on District Property [Report originally presented on November 112, 2014} (Report 14-232a). 1
I I
•
c. I FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE: I Consider receiving the Monthly Report
C-1. C-2.
i 2014 (Report 14-294). i Consider receiving the
I 2014 (Report 14-295).
on Investments for October
Budget Report for September and October,
I Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 51
Page 17 of 19
C-3.
C-4.
C-5.
C-6.
10.
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-054 authorizing the General Manager, or his designee, to submit allocation requests and execute any documents necessary for Lifeline Cycle Four Program Funds; and consider receiving the final annual report on Welfare-to-Work Grants (Report 14-285). Consider authorizing the General Manager, or his designee, to submit an application to the Federal Transit Administration {FTA) for FY 201415 Ladders of Opportunity Workforce Development Funds for a project to expand training opportunities for District staff (Report 14-317). Consider receiving report from the District's Parcel Tax Fiscal Oversight Committee on FY 2013-14 Measure VV Tax Proceeds for the Year Ended June 30, 2014 (Report 14-296). Consider receiving report on existing Certificates of Participation {COPs) agreements (Report 14-236). CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT General Counsel Denise Standridge reported out on the following:
REPORT GIVEN
MOTION: PEEPLES/YOUNG to approve settlement in the amount of $93,240.37 in the matter of Advanced Drilling Warks, Inc. v. AC Transit, et a/., ACSC Case No. RG14739552, Claim No. 14-2962. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Young, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Wallace, Harper No other reports were given. lOA.
Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))
Advanced Drilling Works, Inc. v. AC Transit, eta/., ACSC Case No. RG14739552, Claim No. 14-2962
lOB.
Conference with Legal Counsel- Potential Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Two Cases)
lOC.
Conference with Labor Negotiators {Government Code Section 54957.6): Agency Designated Representative: David J. Armijo, General Manager Employee Organizations: ATU Local 192, AFSCME Local 3916, IBEW Local 1245, Unrepresented Employees
100. Conference with Labor Negotiators- Board Officers (Government Code Section 54957.6): Agency Designated Representative: Greg Harper, Board President Title: General Manager
lOE.
Public Employee Performance Evaluation {Government Code Section 54957) Title: General Manager, General Counsel, District Secretary
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014 52
Page 18 of 19
11.
AGENDA PLANNING
Referred to Finance and Audit Committee Director Davis requested a review and discussion of President Harper's formula for evaluating whether funds generated by Measure VV have been expended in Special District Two. [President Harper concurred] 12.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board of Directors, the meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. The next meeting of the Board of Directors is schedu led for Wednesday, January 14, 2014.
I
Respectfully submitted,
~~ District Secretary
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
December 10, 2014
53
Page 19 of 19
This page intentionally blank
54
Staff Report 15-03 7
Approved Minutes Special Meeting of the AC TRANSIT RETIREMENT BOARD November 7, 2014
ROLLCALL
Chair Jeffrey Lewis called the meeting to order at 9:12AM 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 Liaison; Carolyn Smith, and Kevin Novak, NEPC. 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 October 13, 2014
APPROVED B. Approval ofFinancials for September 2014 APPROVED C. Approval of Invoices in the Amount of$146,742.11 APPROVED
55
AC Transit Retirement Board November 7, 2014 D. Approval of Retirements for November/December 2014 I. 2. 3. 4.
Mamie Barnes Richard Fiol Margaret Price-Burns Debbie Dowdell
#33117 (November) #30243 (December) #338 (December) #40734 (December)-- Term Vested
APPROVED REGULAR CALENDAR
Hugo mentioned that Measure BB, which included substantial funding for AC Transit, had passed on November 4. E. Approval of Retirements for November/December 2014 with conditions, if any: I. L.B. Baltrip #32713 (December) contingent upon Completion of the Benefit Option Form in November. 2. Lewis Clinton #42235 (November) 3. Paula Howard-Baltrip #32295 (December) contingent upon Completion of the Benefit Option Form in November 4. Dianne Butler-Brox #31003 (December)- Term Vested contingent upon Completion of the Benefit Option Form in November MOTION: RIEMER/WILLIAMS to approve the retirements listed above effective November and December 2014 with the conditions as stated. (5-0-0-0)
The Board congratulated retiree Margaret Price-Bums for 34 years of service; and retiree Richard Fiol for 31 years of service. (Carolyn Smith ofNEPC joined the discussion of Agenda items F through K, N and 0.) F.
Draft of the Investment Policy Statement Carolyn referred to the draft Investment Policy Statement, included in the Board Package. She added that all changes had been "redlined" in the document, and some were changes approved in the past, but included in the document for the first time. For example, the target asset mix included International small cap, Real Estate and Private Debt, all added in the last three years. Hugo told the Board that there would be some date changes in the document, and there would be future changes as policies are updated. Member Riemer questioned the target of a "neutral bias" with respect to style allocation (growth vs. value), because he sees value at a premium. Chair Lewis asked that this issue be placed on the agenda for a future meeting, and suggested that
2 56
AC Transit Retirement Board November 7, 2014 Member Riemer and Carolyn provide material for that discussion. The Board made suggestions regarding formats and wording and discussed the benchmarks as well as the need to ensure that the reports are received as required. The Board agreed to accept the changes "redlined" in the document and to indicate only additional changes in the document to be discussed in December. (Kevin Novak joined the discussion of Agenda Items G through K.) G. Quarterly Investment Performance Report Kevin described the increasing volatility of markets during the third quarter declines in July and September, and improvement in August, and then in October. Central Banks took divergent paths- the Fed wound down purchases of bonds, while the European Central Bank began a program of stimulus. The dollar strengthened, contributing to losses by some managers, oil prices fell to $80 a barrel and commodities put in the worst performance. Emerging Market equities were a negative influence, with weakness in Russia and South Korea, and strength in India and Thailand. Parametric/Eaton Vance, were underweight in larger countries, and outperformed in the third quarter. The Plan ended the quarter with assets of $561 million, down $10 million from a quarter earlier. Turning to the Manager update, Kevin noted that Eaton Vance/Parametric announced that CIO David Stein will retire from the firm next November. However, NEPC advises no action because of the long lead time and transparency of the move. At PIMCO (discussed at the October Board meeting) Bill Gross' departure resulted in a recommendation of Client Review. AC Transit invests in two funds that were not managed by Bill Gross, so NEPC recommends remaining in those funds. Overall there have been outflows from PIMCO. Hugo said that he would like more detailed information on the outflow. Kevin told the Board that the outflows were relatively small for a firm with assets of$2 trillion, and PIMCO's costs are relatively low compared to their income. The Board discussed the possible impact of an increase in outflows. Kevin recommended monitoring the flows, and told the Board that NEPC had asked for end-of-October figures. Hugo concluded that he is comfortable with the investments at this time, but if the outflows continue it might be best to considering moving the money elsewhere. The Board consensus was to maintain the investments in the two PIMCO funds, and asked Carolyn and Hugo to monitor the situation. Kevin returned to the performance of the Fund, which declined 1.6% in the third quarter and gained 3.2% in the first nine months, underperforming the median for public funds. The fund was overweight in international equities and small cap equities, but other funds lost ground from investments in commodities. The Allocation Index (applying index returns to the actual allocation) outperformed year to date, one, five and ten years, and active management added value only in the last three years. During the third quarter active management added .I% to the fund's performance.
3 57
AC Transit Retirement Board November 7, 2014 Chair Lewis called a recess at I 0:39 AM. The meeting reconvened at 10:50 AM. H. Asset Allocation Mix Alternatives Carolyn recalled that at the October meeting the Board asked how the funds invested with Global Asset Allocation (GAA) managers might be re-allocated if that asset class were eliminated. She said that these assets could be pro-rated to current asset classes, or the Board could look at other alternatives. Carolyn referred to the table of the current, and alternative asset mixes in the Alternative Asset Allocation booklet, included in the Board Package. She noted that the expected returns were from early 2014, as NEPC's 2015 expected returns are currently under review. Mix B moves half of the GAA assets to Real Estate, Mix C moves all of the GAA assets to real assets, which could include Real Estate. Carolyn added that these assets do well in an inflationary environment. They could be liquid real assets, traded on exchanges (TIPS, REITS, index funds holding natural resources), or Private Real Assets such as investments in mining, energy or timber, which might require time to sell. Mix E includes private equity, investment in companies that have not gone public. Carolyn noted that CALPERS has a large private equity program. The Board discussed their observations of the GAA asset class, its performance and future potential. Carolyn recommended against pro-rating the funds within the current asset mix. Chair Lewis favored including Real Estate in the mix. Hugo suggested that Carolyn provide the Board material on alternative asset classes, for a discussion at a future meeting. He stressed the need to begin by understanding any new asset classes. Chair Lewis called a recess at 11 :44 AM. The meeting reconvened at II :52 AM.
I. Emerging Market Debt/Stone Harbor Overview J. Emerging Market Debt Manager Review Carolyn pointed out that although Emerging Markets Debt manager Stone Harbor has not performed well, she believed that AC Transit has benefitted from Emerging Markets investments and should continue to hold this asset class. She told the Board that Stone Harbor invested in bonds issued by governments in local currencies, but the Emerging Market Debt - Blended Manager Review under discussion, and included in the Board Package, would focus on sovereign and private debt denominated in hard currencies, as well.
4 58
AC Transit Retirement Board November 7, 2014 The manager review profiled four firms that specialize in Emerging Market Debt: Ashmore, BlueBay. Investec, and Stone Harbor. Carolyn reviewed the tables of assets under management, fees, investments in these products, and the breakdown of investments in Corporates, Local Currency Sovereign and Hard Currency Sovereign. She pointed out that all performance figures in the manager review are net of fees. The Board discussed the advantages of investment in blended managers in order to diversity the currency risk. In response to a question Carolyn explained that the Board had hired Stone Harbor to increase diversification and expected returns. The Board agreed to schedule presentations by Ashmore, BlueBay and Investec at the December meeting. Kevin said that NEPC will be sure that the returns are net of fees, and the presentations include information on the firms' diversity, and their Placement Agent policies. K. Asset Allocation, Performance and Rebalancing Member Riemer asked if the assets are rebalanced in order to get back to the investment policy allocation. Hugo replied that it depends how far the actual allocation is from the limits. He added that he asks the Board before rebalancing. L. International Small Cap Equity Manager (DFA) Update Hugo told the Board that the question of how our bank would hold these funds had been resolved, and they will not be held in an omnibus structure. He planned to begin to move the funds in mid-November. M. Park Square Update Hugo said that he planned to sign and remit the Park Square contract during the next week. N. NEPC Work Plan 0. Calendar for 2014-2015 The Board rescheduled the December 2014 meeting for Monday, December 15. The tentative schedule for 2015 Retirement Board meetings was included in the Board Package. The NEPC work plan will include Emerging Market Debt manager review in December, and schedule some asset class education in 2015. P. Draft Quarterly Report to the District Board The Board discussed the draft quarterly report, included in the Board Package, and approved the report.
5 59
AC Transit Retirement Board November 7, 2014
Q. District Recruitment for Non-ATU Retirement Board Members Hugo referred to the memorandum from District Secretary Linda Nemeroff to the District Board of Directors, included in the Board Package. The memorandum described the recruitment process and schedule for the terms to commence April I, 2015. Those interested in pubic positions or non-ATU positions must apply. R. Retirement Board Determination on Plan Amendment 14-A-17 Hugo referred to the draft Amendment 14-A-17, which deletes Plan Amendment 13A-116 (implementing PEPRA). The amendment was brought to the Retirement Board for review under Board Policy 170. MOTION: WILLIAMS/RIEMER to inform the District that the language of Amendment 14-A-17 is acceptable to the Retirement Board. (5-0-0-0) S. Update on Calculation of Pension Benefit for Former Union Officer James Gardner Hugo told the Board that he and Counsel Richeda had met with ATU Counsel Shawn Graff. The Board agreed to place it on the agenda for discussion at the December 2014 meeting. T. Hearing Officer Update Hugo recalled that the District and the bargaining parties had submitted the names of five possible hearing officers, and there was one name in common. He will contact the District and the bargaining parties again. U. Disability Determination Process The Board agreed to take up this question in December. V. Retirement System Manager Report I. Public Pension Issues in the News (a) WSJ Article on Mortality Hugo referred to a Wall Street Journal article on the impact of increasing lifespans on pension costs. (b) Stockton Court Ruling Counsel Richeda noted that a U.S. Bankruptcy judge approved Stockton's plan to repay its creditors without reducing the city's pension obligations. 2. CALAPRS Board Meeting in Burbank (December 5, 2014) MOTION RIEMER/WILLIAMS to approve Hugo's trip to Burbank on December 5, 2014 to attend the CALAPRS Board meeting. (5-0-0-0)
6 60
AC Transit Retirement Board November 7, 2014
3. Upcoming Division Visits Representatives of Retirement, benefits and deferred compensation were scheduled to hold drop-in meetings during the week of November 17. W. (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. Gary Bennett - Occupational Disability f. Kelryn Johnson- Occupational Disability g. Vaughn Roberts- Total and Permanent Disability h. Robin Cobb -- Occupational Disability 1. Harold Peters - Occupational Disability J. Michael Jefferson - Total and Permanent Disability k. Michael Garay - Occupational Disability 2) Matters Relating to Pending or Threatened Litigation a. Conference with Legal Counsel- (Government Code Section 54956.9(a)): 1) Ansar Muhammad - Appeal of Denial of Occupational Disability Application 2) Gwendolyn Randle - Appeal of Denial of Total and Permanent Disability Application 3) Iris Oliver- Survivorship Benefits X. (RESUME OPEN SESSION) I) Report and/or Action on Closed Session Items There were no actions to report. STAFF COMMENTS
None RETIREMENT BOARD COMMENTS
None ATTORNEYS' REPORT
None
7 61
AC Transit Retirement Board November 7, 2014
ADJOURNMENT MOTION: RIEMER/LEE to adjourn (5-0-0-0) The meeting adjourned at 1:28 PM
8 62
Report No: Meeting Date:
15-052 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
Greg Harper, Board President
SUBJECT:
First Amendment to the General Manager's Employment Agreement
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider approving the First Amendment to the General Manager's Employment Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Board of Directors entered into an employment agreement with the General Manager on February 22, 2012. The Board evaluated the General Manager in the Spring of 2014; however, negotiations regarding his employment agreement only recently concluded. The Board must take action in open session to approve amendments to the General Manager's employment agreement to effect the negotiated terms. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
The f iscal impact to salaries and wages is $7,350 for FY 2014-15 and each fi scal year thereafter.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
On February 22, 2012, the Board of Directors entered into an employment agreement with the General Manager. Contract negotiations have concluded and the Board is now required to approve the amendment to the employment agreement in open session at a regular meeting pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54956(b) and 54957.6 and Board Policy 152. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
There are no practical alternatives to the course of action outlined in this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
BRD Memo No. 12-058- Approval of the General Manager's Employment Agreement. Board Policy 152- Board Officers: Employment Agreements, Performance Evaluations, Leave Notification
63
Report No. 15-052 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS: 1: First Amendment to the General Manager's Employment Agreement
Reviewed by:
Greg Harper, Board President
64
Staff Report 15-052 Attachment 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Dated December 26, 2014 THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into this 26"' day ofDecember2014 by and between Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District ("EMPLOYER" or "the District") and David Armijo ("EMPLOYEE"); but shall be effective as of July I, 2014. WHEREAS, EMPLOYER desires to continue to employ the services of EMPLOYEE as General Manager for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sec. 24926 et. seq. WHEREAS, EMPLOYEE has the necessary training, background and skills to perform the duties of General Manager. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the continued faithful performance of the terms, conditions, promises and covenants contained in the underlying Agreement and this Agreement, the parties agree to amend the designated subsections below of the underlying Agreement to now read in full as follows: Section 4. Compensation A. EMPLOYER agrees to pay EMPLOYEE for services rendered under this Agreement an annual base salary of Two Hundred Fifty Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($252,350), payable in equal installments at the same time compensation for other employees of the District is paid. This reflects a 3 percent merit increase effective July I, 2014. CJ.
General Leave.
(a) In lieu of vacation, sick leave, or management leave, EMPLOYEE shall accrue general leave. General leave shall be credited to EMPLOYEE on a monthly basis, at a rate of 2.8 days per month, not to exceed 25 days per calendar year. Any accrued but unused General Leave may be carried over into subsequent calendar years, except that EMPLOYEE may not accrue more than 70 days of general leave at any time ("maximum accrual"). Any accrued general leave may be paid as an EMPLOYER contribution to EMPLOYEE'S deferred compensation plan when and as may be allowed pursuant to the terms of the plan. Any accrued general leave remaining at the time of termination of employment shall be paid to EMPLOYEE. This Agreement is signed and executed as of the day and year first above written.
Greg Harper. President of the Board
date
David Armijo, General Manager
date
First Amendment to General Manager Employment Agreement Page 1 of 1 65
This page intentionally blank
66
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR
January 14, 2015 Agenda Items 7A – 7B
67
This page intentionally blank
68
Report No: Meeting Date:
TRI'?NS/T
14-285a January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Program
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receiving a report on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission {MTC) Lifeline program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission {MTC) established the Lifeline Transportation Program {Lifeline) in 2006 to address the mobility needs of low-income Bay Area residents. The program is or has been funded by a mix of State and Federal funds, including Federal Transit Administration {FTA) Section 5316 Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and Section 5307 Formula funds. The multiple funding sources accommodate different types of projects, but can also result in confusion in both applicant and project eligibility for the program. Due to changes in funding source requirements, transit agencies are essentially the only directly eligible recipients for the current Lifeline Cycle Four. Non-transit agencies seeking funding must now identify a 'fiscal sponsor' transit agency that can pass through funding. Eligible project types in Cycle Four have not changed significantly from the prior cycle. BUDGETARY/FISCALIMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact as this is an informational report, although the report discusses a funding program with direct fiscal impacts for the District.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The MTC established the Lifeline program in 2006 to address the mobility needs of low-income residents of the Bay Area. The Lifeline program supports community-based transportation projects that: • • •
Are developed through a collaborative and inclusive planning process; Improve a range of transportation choices by adding new/expanded services; Address transportation gaps identified in Community-Based Transportation Plans {CBTP) or other plans with priority given to projects in CBTPs; and
69
Report No. 14-285a Page 2 of 4 • Provide transportation needs specific to elderly and disabled residents. The program has been funded by a mix of California State Transit Assistance {STA), Federal Transit Administration {FTA) Section 5316 Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC} and Section 5307 Formula, FTA/Federal Highway Administration {FHWA) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality/Surface Transportation Program (CMAQ/STP), and Proposition 1B State Bond Funds. The multiple funding sources accommodate different types of projects, but this also has resulted in confusion in both applicant and project eligibility for the program. The major difference between Lifeline Cycle Four and previous cycles is the type of federal funds available. Prior cycles included FTA Section 5316 JARC funding, which could be distributed directly by MTC to recipients that included non-profit agencies or cities, with the eligibility based more on project type than agency type. Prior cycles also included FHWA CMAQ/STP funds, which could be programmed directly to cities by the MTC and the Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) for capital projects. The current Lifeline Cycle Four program is a three-year funding cycle from Fiscal Years 2013-14 through 2015-16, and includes STA, FTA Section 5307 Formula, and Proposition 1B funds. Transit agencies have essentially become the only directly eligible recipients for the current Lifeline Cycle Four. FTA Section 5316 JARC I 5307 Formula Funding
The current transportation legislation- Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21'' Century (MAP-21} - was signed into law in July 2012, and resulted in several changes to existing FTA funding programs. In particular, MAP-21 discontinued Section 5316 JARC funds, which were designated for the improvement of access to transportation services to employment and related activities for welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals. While the Section 5316 JARC program was discontinued, MAP-21 made Section 5316 JARC projects eligible for Section 5307, increased Section 5307 authorizations by roughly the amount that had previously been authorized for Section 5316, and specified that 3.07 percent of Section 5307 be apportioned to urbanized areas using the JARC low-income population formula. Further, MAP-21 allowed the designated recipient of Section 5307 funds to fund JARCtype projects at any level it decided. MTC, as the designated recipient of Section 5307 funds in the Bay Area region, assigned approximately 1% of its annual estimated Section 5307 Formula apportionment to fund JARC-type projects through the Lifeline program. Section 5307 Formula funding is the largest source of federal transit funding in the region, with programming through the MTC's Transit Capital Priorities {TCP) process. Section 5307 funds are generally used for revenue vehicle replacements, and there is always more demand for these funds than availability. MTC's action has reduced the amount Section 5307 funds available for distribution through the TCP process by approximately $2.8 million in Fiscal Year 2015. This reduction in TCP funding becomes more significant in FY 2016 due to the large difference between funds requested and funds available. In previous Lifeline cycles, the JARC funds in particular could more easily be directed to nonprofits and local government agencies for non-traditional transit projects with MTC acting as
70
Report No. 14-285a Page 3 of4 the fiscal sponsor. However, in MAP-21, since any funding for JARC-type projects now comes out of the FTA Section 5307 Formula program, the MTC is no longer able to act as a passthrough agency. There are also additional federal requirements that make it more difficult for non-FTA grantees to receive the funds (e.g., National Transit Database reporting, drug and alcohol testing, fare discount requirements). Non-profits and local government agencies are still eligible sub-recipients of Section 5307 funds for JARC-type projects, but the non-profits and local government agencies must partner with an entity (i.e. a transit agency) that is an eligible direct recipient and that is willing to pass-through the funds. Other Lifeline Cycle Four Funds Lifeline Cycle Four also includes STA and Proposition 1B funding. Eligible recipients for STA funds are transit agencies and specially designated operators of paratransit services. The Proposition 1B funding available through Lifeline is assigned directly to transit agencies through a statewide formula. Transit agencies only have to identify an eligible project to receive the funding. Non-Transit Agency Fiscal Sponsorship The MTC adopted their guidelines for Lifeline Cycle Four in October of 2014. The MTC delegates programming duties to the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in each county, who then adopt MTC's guidelines with their own specific project selection and process rules. The Alameda County Transportation Commission {ACTC) adopted their guidelines in October 2014, and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) adopted their guidelines in December. Due to the changes in federal funding described above, the MTC modified their Lifeline Cycle Four guidelines to require all non-transit agency applicants for the county-share program to be sponsored by an eligible transit agency that is willing to serve as a fiscal sponsor. ACTC staff initially announced that they would require agreement from the sponsoring transit agency prior to accepting project applications, which were due on December 19th. ACTC subsequently agreed to proceed with technical evaluation of applications pending sponsorship decisions by the AC Transit Board of Directors in January 2015. CCTA requires that applications be submitted by January 24th, but has contacted potential non-transit agency applicants to alert them to request sponsorship by December 19th. For reference, Attachment 41ists the prior Lifeline Cycle Three project awards in both counties. The District has currently received fiscal sponsorship requests from two applicants in Alameda County- the City of Oakland for the B-Shuttle, and Alameda County Public Works for Transit Access/Sidewalk Improvements on Hathaway Avenue. No applicants from Contra Costa County have yet contacted the District, although given the timeline the District might anticipate requests coming in late. Fiscal sponsorship confers the following responsibilities on the District: project reporting, project invoicing, project delivery, and ensuring that sub-recipients are meeting the guidelines and mandates of the funding source. This is a complex relationship that will require extra work from several departments in the District. Federal funds also have many regulations that passthrough to sub-recipients such as Title VI reporting, drug and alcohol testing, and federal
71
Report No. 14-285a Page 4 of 4 contracting practices. All of these regulations can make compliance very difficult for the subrecipient and the District. If the Board of Directors decides to accept sponsorship of any applications, staff will work with ACTC and CCTA to attempt to make all pass-through funding STA type funds to at least alleviate the overhead of FTA specific regulations. As for other sponsors in the District's service area, BART has previously sponsored the Oakland Library Shuttle project and plans to do so again.
Federal Funding Availability The MTC has committed federal funding at its discretion to the Lifeline Cycle Four program from the FY 2014, FY 2015, or FY 2016 appropriations. Current federal transportation funding authority expires at the end of the federal fiscal year 2015 on September 30, 2015. Any issues with future federal funding appropriations may affect MTC's ability to fulfill Lifeline commitments with FTA funds.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: There are no advantages or disadvantages to accepting this informational report.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: There are no alternatives as this is an information report. Alternatives for Board action will be considered in a follow-up staff report.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Staff Report 14-285/Resolution 14-054 - Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-054 authorizing the General Manager, or his designee, to submit allocation requests and execute any' documents necessary for Lifeline Cycle Four Program Funds
Department Head Approval:
James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer
Reviewed by: Prepared by:
Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Chris Andrichak, Acting Manager, Capital Planning & Grants
ATIACHMENTS: 1: ACTC Lifeline Cycle Four Call For Projects
2: CCTA Lifeline Cycle Four Call For Projects 3: MTC Lifeline Cycle Four Guidelines
4: Lifeline Cycle Three Awards
72
SR 14-285a Attachment 1
~,·::;ill~
~/
~ ALAMEDA ~
CountvTra ~p.ortation
~
CommiSSion
:·'·-
_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ 1111 Broad way. Suite 800. Ook1ond. C A 94607
510.208.7400
www.Aiom e d oCTC .org
' ... .,,.\\\~ November 7, 2014 NOTICE OF CALL FOR PROJECTS
Fourth Cycle Lifeline Transportation Program The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) has released a call for projects for the Fourth Cycle (Cycle 4) Lifeline Transportation Program. The Lifeline Transportation Program is intended to fund projects that result in improved mobility for low-income residents. The Lifeline Program supports community-based transportation projects that are developed through a collaborative and inclusive planning process, improve a range of transportation choices, address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified in Community-based Transp01tation Plans (CBTPs) or other substantive local planning efforts involving outreach to low-income populations. The Cycle 4 Lifeline Program is funded with a mix of federal Section 5307 Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) funds, State Transit Assistance (STA), and State Proposition lB Transit funds. The JARC and STA funds are available on a discretionary (competitive) basis to capital and operations projects, while MTC is distributing the Proposition lB Transit (capital) funds by formula to eligible transit operators. Based on the Cycle 4 fund estimate, a total of approximately $8.6 million (total STA and JARC) is anticipated to be available for Alameda County projects over the three year funding cycle. In order for proposed projects to be eligible for Lifeline funding, projects must meet the Lifeline program goals and also meet the eligibility requirements of at least one of the available funding sources.
Application due date All requests, including applications for STA and /or JARC funds and Transit Operator requests for Proposition lB funds are due by 3:00p.m. December 19,2014. Applicants must submit a complete Lifeline Program application along with the required attachments, by the application deadline. Late applications will not be accepted. Application material, including instructions, forms and MTC's Fourth Cycle Lifeline Transportation Program Guidelines, are available through the Alameda CTC's website: http://www.alamedactc.org/app pages/view/ 14105.The provided application instructions file includes links to additional reference material and detailed application submittal requirements. The Alameda CTC will be hosting an application workshop at l :00 p.m., Tuesday, November 18th at 1111 Broadway, Suite 800, Oakland, California.
Please contact Vivek Bhat,
[email protected], or 510-208-7430, with questions.
73
This page intentionally blank
74
SR 14-285a Attachment 2
D ECEMBER
19,2014
LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA or "the Authority") is issuing a Call for Projects for the Lifeline Transportation Program . The purpose of the Lifeline Transportation Program is to fund projects that result in improved mobility for low-income residents of "Communities of Concern" in Contra Costa . Communities of Concern have been identified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) . Within Contra Costa, these areas include: • • • • • •
South Richmond, Central Concord (the Monument Corridor), San Pablo/North Richmond, North Martinez, Bay Point/Pittsburg/Antioch, Other areas that can demonstrate that the threshold criteria is met.
All applicants must complete a lifeline Transportation application, which may be downloaded from CCTA's website at www.ccta.net. DEADLINE: Submit one (1) hard copy of the completed lifeline Transportation Program applications and one electronic copy in .pdf format by 1 p.m. on January 24, 2015. Electronic copy can be provided on CD or emailed. Mail or hand-deliver completed hard copy and CD to: Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2999 Oak Road, Ste. 100 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Attn: Peter Engel In addition to the hard copy, the application shall be subm itted electronically, either on CD or by e-mail to
[email protected]. Faxed copies will not be accepted. The Authority will evaluate projects with the assistance of an Evaluation Comm ittee . The selection of projects shall be based upon the project selection criteria shown in the Program Guidelines and application. Upon completion of the evaluation, the Authority plans to approve a final set of projects in March 19, 2015, and forward it to MTC for final approval and funding action . For further information, please contact: Peter Engel Program Manager 925-256-4741
[email protected]
1-10 75
SR 14-285a Attachment 2
Contra Costa's Lifeline Transportation Program
Cycle 4 December 19, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
j
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
1
1.
Introduction
1
2.
Name of Program
2
3.
Purpose
2
4.
Eligible/Ineligible Applicants
2
s.
location of Projects and Population Served
2
6.
Eligible/Ineligible Use of Program Funds
3
7.
Eligible/Ineligible Types of Projects
3
8.
Eligible Project Activities and Costs
4
9.
Viable Project
4
10.
Funding Cycle and Schedule
4
11.
Programming of Funds
4
12.
Total Fund Amount
4
13.
Required Match
4
14.
Project Delivery
4
15.
Governing Body Project Commitment
4
16.
Evaluation Criteria
5
17.
Balance of Project Types
7
18.
Evaluation Process
7
19.
Timely Use of Funds
7
20.
Funding Agreements
8
21.
Payments
8
22.
Monitoring
8
23.
Project Oversight
8
1-11 76
SR 14-285a Attachment 2
Contra Costa's Lifeline Transportation Program
Cycle 4 December 19, 2014
PROGRAM GUIDELINES 1.
Introduction The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA or "the Authority") is administering the Contra Costa Lifeline Transportation Program. The program has been established to fund projects that result in improved mobility for low-income residents of Contra Costa. Low income communities are defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). As the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Contra Costa, the Authority is responsible for administering local, state, and federal funding for transportation projects and programs. The Authority accepted delegation of the Lifeline Transportation Program (LTP) from MTC in September 2005. The purpose of the LTP is to fund projects that result in improved mobility for lowincome residents of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The Program is expected to support community-based transportation projects that adhere to the following regional Lifeline Program goals: •
Are developed through a collaborative and inclusive planning process that includes broad partnerships among a variety of stakeholders such as public agencies, transit operators, community-based organizations and other community stakeholders, and outreach to underrepresented stakeholders.
•
Improve a range of transportation choices by adding a variety of new or expanded services including but not limited to: enhanced fixed route transit services, shuttles, children's programs, taxi voucher programs, improved access to autos, and capital improvement projects.
•
Address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified in Community-Based Transportation Plans (CBTP) or other substantive local planning efforts. While preference will be given to community-based plan priorities, strategies emerging from countywide or regional welfare-to-work transportation plans, the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan or other documented assessment of need within the designated communities of concern will also be considered. Findings emerging from one or more CBTPs or other relevant planning efforts may also be applied to other low-income areas, or otherwise be directed to serve low-income constituencies within the county, as applicable.
1-12 77
SR 14-285a Attachment 2
Contra Costa's Lifeline Transportation Program
•
Cycle 4 December 19, 2014
Transportation needs specific to elderly and disabled residents of low-income communities may also be considered when funding projects. Existing transportation services may also be eligible for funding.
On October 22, 2014 MTC adopted Resolution 4159, which incorporates program guidelines specific to the LTP. Expenditure of funds to support program activities must be consistent with those guidelines. A complete copy of those guidelines is available at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/lifeline/LTP4_guidelines. pdf. The program is funded with a combination of federal Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds therefore projects must meet all applicable requirements, including match requirements, for at least one of these funding sources as described further in this document.
2.
Name of Program
Lifeline Transportation Program (LTP)
3.
Purpose
To improve mobility for the low-income residents of Contra Costa County who reside in Communities of Concern as defined by MTC.
4.
Eligible/Ineligible Applicants
Public transit operators that are eligible recipients of Federal Transit Administration funds or State Transit Assistance funds. County social service agencies, cities and counties may be eligible sub-recipients of the funds but must partner with an eligible transit operator applicant that will allow the pass through of funds. Eligible project sponsors must be identified at the time that the project application for funding is submitted. Private for-profit entities are not eligible to receive Lifeline Transportation Program funds.
5.
Location of Projects and Population Served
Projects must be located in Contra Costa County, or be an inter-county project that includes Contra Costa. Priority project locations in Contra Costa have been identified by MTC as Communities of Concern. These areas include South Richmond, Central Concord, San Pablo/North Richmond, North Martinez, and Bay Point /Pittsburg/ Antioch . Other areas that meet the threshold criteria may also be eligible. Maps of the Communities of Concern for the Bay Area may be viewed on MTC's website at www.mtc.ca .gov.
1-13 78
SR 14-285a Attachment 2
Contra Costa's Lifeline Transportation Program
6.
Cycle 4 December 19, 2014
Eligible/Ineligible Use of Program Funds
LTP funds are intended to fund innovative and flexible programs that address transportation barriers faced by low-income residents of the Bay Area, many of whom are transit dependent. These may be either capital, operating or program projects. Existing projects, operations or programs are eligible to receive l TP funding to the extent the project meets the goals of the LTP program. The project must supplement, not supplant, existing funds. The project must not duplicate existing services, and must demonstrate that no other funding sources are available to fund it, and that it is coordinated with existing services to the extent feasible. Project eligibility is ultimately determined by funding source.
7.
Eligible/Ineligible Types of Projects
Eligible Projects As described above and further in these Guidelines, lifeline Transportation funds may be used for either capital or operating or program purposes. Capital projects that do not require ongoing funding are encouraged. Examples of eligible capital projects include, but are not limited to, purchase of vehicles, provision of bus shelters, benches, lighting, sidewalk improvements or other enhancements, or hiring a mobility manager' to improve transportation access for residents of low-income communities. Eligible projects for operations and programs must be consistent with requirements of funding sources, including demonstrating ongoing funding beyond the grant period. Operating projects may include, but are not limited to, new or enhanced fixed route transit services, restoration or continuation of lifeline-related transit services which have been eliminated or slated for elimination due to budget shortfalls, and shuttles. Eligible programs may include children's programs, taxi voucher programs, or improved access to autos, for example.
Transportation needs specific to elderly and disabled residents of low-income communities may also be considered. Ineligible Prolects/Programs include: •
Duplication of existing services,
•
Routine maintenance of roads, trails, bicycle paths, transit vehicles, and
•
Planning studies, such as Bicycle or Pedestrian Plans.
Projects funded must meet the eligibility requirements of the source from which they are funded.
Mobility Management is defined by FTA in the November 30, 2005 Federal Register as activities that "allow(s) short-range planning and management activities and projects for improving coordination among public transportation and other transportation service providers carried out by a recipient or sub-recipient to be funded as a capital project." The definition excludes the actual costs of operating public transportation services, but allows the costs of planning and coordination with human service transportation to be treated as capital rather than operating costs.
1-14 79
SR 14-285a
Attachment 2
Contra Costa's Lifeline Transportation Program
8.
Cycle 4 December 19, 2014
Eligible Project Activities and Costs
More information regarding eligible activities and costs is provided in Attachment B. In addition eligible activities can be found in each funding source guidelines.
9.
Viable Project
In order to be eligible for funding, the project or program must be viable. It must: a. Demonstrate sufficient existing or planned staffing and funding resources and institutional capability to deliver the project, and b. Have been reviewed by all applicable Project Sponsor staff.
10.
Funding Cycle and Schedule
The funding cycle varies depending on the funding source. Anticipated funding cycles are provided at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/lifeline/LTP4 funding.pd£
11.
Programming of Funds
Funds will be programmed for one three-year cycle. Additional three-year funding cycles are expected to continue, subject to an evaluation of the program's effectiveness.
12.
Total Fund Amount
The funding cycle will allocate an estimated $5.6 million in Contra Costa County over a three year period, fiscal years 2014 through 2016 2 •
13.
Required Match
A minimum 20% match is required for all applications with the exception of automobile loan programs, which require a 50% match. The local match share of the project budget must be provided in cash or in the form of in-kin d services that have a discernable cash value that is directly attributable to the service to be provided . Projects that demonstrate higher than the minimum matching funds will receive a higher ranking in the evaluation process.
14.
Project Delivery
All projects funded under the Lifeline Transportation Program will be subject to fund requirement obligation deadlines and project delivery requirements. The Authority and MTC will determine the most appropriate fund source for selected projects and will inform the project sponsor of fund requirements.
15.
Governing Body Project Commitment
Project Sponsor must submit one of the following Resolutions, either of which must confirm that the approved project meets LTP goals and that the local project sponsors 2
The total program estimate is intended for planning purposes only. Actual allotment of funds may differ than those indicated above, based on assignment of funding to eligible projects and the adoption of the State budget and subsequent STA funding levels.
1-15 80
SR 14-285a Attachment 2
Contra Costa's Lifeline Transportation Program
Cycle 4 December 19, 2014
understand and agree to meet all project delivery and funding match and obligation deadlines. The resolution may be either of the following: a. A Resolution adopted by their Governing Body authorizing acceptance of the l TP grant, or b. A Resolution adopted by their Governing Body specifically supporting the project or program, which does not refer to the l TP grant application. (This could be a resolution authorizing the submittal of a grant application for the same project, but for a different grant source.)
16.
Evaluation Criteria
All projects will be evaluated using the following criteria:
Project Criteria All of the criteria, except for "Project Readiness," apply to the Overall Project, of which the Submitted Project may be one phase/component, or may be the Overall Project.
MTC Specific Criteria Project Need/Stated Goals and Objectives:
Project application should clearly state the overall program goals and objectives, and demonstrate how the project is consistent with the objectives of the Lifeline Transportation Program, as follows: a. Project should directly address transportation gaps and/or barriers, and improve transportation choices for a low income community: Applicants should describe the unmet transportation need or gap that the proposed project seeks to address and the relevant planning effort that documents the need. Describe how project activities will mitigate the transportation need. Project application should clearly state the overall program goals and objectives, and demonstrate how the project is consistent with the goals of the Lifeline Transportation Program. b. Project must be developed through a collaborative planning process including community based organizations and stakeholders. or is otherwise based on a documented assessment of needs: Project was developed through a collaborative and inclusive planning process that includes broad partnership among a variety of stakeholders such as public agencies, transit operators, community-based organizations and other community stakeholders, and outreach to underrepresented stakeholders. Findings emerging from one or more CBTPs may also be applied to other low-income areas, or otherwise be directed to serve low-income constituencies within the county, as applicable. Implementation Plan and Project Management Capacity:
Operations: For projects seeking funds to support program operations, applicants must provide a well-defined service operations plan, and describe implementation steps and timelines for carrying out the plan. Project application should indicate the number of persons expected to be served, and the number of trips (or other units of service) expected to be provided. The service operations plan should identify key personnel assigned to this project, and their qualifications. Project sponsors should demonstrate their institutional capability to carry out the service delivery aspect of the project as described.
1-16 81
SR 14-285a Attachment 2
Contra Costa's Lifeline Transportation Program
Cycle4 December 19, 2014
Capital: For projects seeking funds for capital purposes, applicant must provide a solid rationale for use of L TP funds for this purpose, demonstrate that no other sources of funds are available to meet this need, and provide an implementation plan and time lines for completing the capital project Applicants shall also provide evidence of the agencies experience and ability implementing and managing similar projects. This will include projects previously implemented by the agency and any relevant experience of individuals proposed in the application as critical to the implementation of the proposed project In addition the applicant must provide evidence of its financial capacity to fund the project on a cost reimbursement basis. Project Budget/Sustainability: Projects must submit a clearly defined project budget, indicating anticipated project expenditures and revenues, including documentation of matching funds. Applications should indicate the source of the matching funds and if the matching funds have been fully secured. Projects that exceed the minimum match requirement will score higher than those that meet the minimum match. In addition to current funding applications should address long-term efforts and identify potential funding sources for sustaining the service beyond the grant period. Coordination and Program Outreach: Proposed projects will be evaluated based on their ability to coordinate with other community transportation and/or social service resources. Project sponsors should clearly identify project stakeholders, and how they will keep stakeholders involved and informed throughout the project Project sponsors should also describe how they will promote public awareness of the project Performance Indicators and Cost-effectiveness: The project will be scored based on the project sponsor's ability to demonstrate that the proposed project is the most appropriate match of service delivery to the need, and is a cost-effective approach. Project sponsors must also identify clear, measurable outcomebased performance measures to track the effectiveness of the service in meeting the identified goals. A plan should be provided for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the service, and steps to be taken if original goals are not achieved. Community-Identified Priority: The project will be scored based on how it directly addresses transportation gaps and/or barriers identified through a Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) or other substantive local planning effort involving focused outreach to low-income populations. Applicants should identify the CBTP or other substantive local planning effort, as well as the priority given to the project in the plan. JARC projects must be derived from the Bay Area's Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan).
Other projects may also be considered, such as those that address transportation needs identified in countywide or regional Welfare-to-Work Transportation plans, or are based on a documented assessment of needs within designated communities of concern. Findings emerging from one or more CBTPs may also be applied to other low-income areas, or be directed to serve low-income constituencies within the county, as applicable.
1-17 82
SR 14-285a
Attachment 2
Contra Costa's Lifeline Transportation Program
Cycle 4 December 19, 2014
Contra Costa -Specific Criteria
Project Readiness:
Submitted projects will be ranked for their project readiness. Priority will be given to: a. Projects which are fully funded, if application is approved. b. Projects which have considered and, if needed, resolved any foreseeable implementation issues. c. Projects that are fully supported by the local community in which the project will be implemented, and have agency governing body approval. 17.
Balance of Project Types
The lifeline Transportation Program will seek to fund a balance of capital, operating and program type projects that best serve the identified low-income populations and meet the program criteria. In addition, some level of geographic equity will be sought which will ensure some level of funding throughout Contra Costa County. This may be accomplished by establishing target funding levels by transit operator service area.
18.
Evaluation Process
The Authority, with input from the LTP Evaluation Committee, will approve final project selection. Authority staff will work with the LTP Evaluation Committee to apply the criteria described above to the evaluation of project proposals. Together, the Authority and MTC will confirm project/ applicant eligibility. Projects funded must also meet the eligibility requirements of the respective source of funds.
19.
Timely Use of Funds
Projects funded must meet the eligibility requirements of the respective source of funds, including timely use of funds. MTC will determine which of the three fund sources will be used for selected projects. Based on the selected fund source, the Authority or MTC will inform selected applicants of timing requirements for starting and completing projects. These requirements will be included in the funding agreement for the project.
1-18 83
SR 14-285a Attachment 2
Contra Costa's Lifeline Transportation Program
20.
Cycle 4 December 19, 2014
Funding Agreements
The project sponsor will be required to enter into a funding agreement with MTC, the Authority, or another eligible entity. Agreements may be made between MTC and the Authority for pass-through of funds to project proponents, or funding may come directly from MTC to the proponent. If STA or JARC funds are used, MTC will allocate funds directly to a transit operator or other eligible entity. Projects funded must meet the eligibility requirements of the respective source of funds.
21-
Payments
Payments to sponsors will be made in accordance with approved funding agreements. To receive payment, the project proponent will have to incur the costs of the program and submit invoices accordingly. Payment is generally on a reimbursement basis, unless otherwise specified.
22.
Monitoring
Project applicant is responsible to identify performance measures to track the effectiveness of the service in meeting the identified goals. At a minimum, performance measures for service-related projects would include: documentation of new "units" of service provided with the funding (e.g. number of trips, service hours, workshops held, car loans provided, etc.), cost per unit of service, and a quantitative summary of service delivery procedures employed for the project. For capital-related projects, project sponsor is responsible to establish milestones and report on the status of project delivery. Applicant should describe a plan for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the service, and steps to be taken if original goals are not achieved. Project sponsors receiving JARC or STP funds are subject to program reporting requirements as defined in those program guidelines. Every six months after projects approvals, progress reports must be submitted to the Authority.
23.
Project Oversight
The Authority will be responsible for oversight of all projects - capital, operating and program-type projects funded under the LTP. The Authority will also be responsible for ensuring projects meet MTC obligation deadlines and project delivery requirements. In addition, the Authority will ensure, at a minimum that projects substantially carry out the scope described in the grant applications. All scope changes must be fully explained and must demonstrate consistency with lifeline Program goals. MTC's guidelines require that the CMAs, as the designated program administrators, are responsible for programmatic and fiscal oversight of new lifeline projects. As part of the Call for Projects, applicants are required to establish project goals, and to identify basic performance indicators to be collected in order to measure the effectiveness of the program projects.
1-19 84
SR 14-285a Att.3
Date: W.l.: Referred by:
October 22, 2014 1310 PAC
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page I of 19
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Lifeline Transportation Program Cycle 4 Guidelines
October 2014
85
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 2 of 19
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CYCLE 4 GUIDELINES FY 2014 THROUGH FY 2016
October 2014
Table of Contents
I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
PROGRAM GOAL. ............................................................................................................. 3 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................... 4 FUNDING APPORTIONMENT AND AVAILABILITY .................................................. 4 ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS/SUBRECIPIENTS ..................................................................... 6 STA AND SECTION 5307 PROGRAMMING PROCESS ................................................ 7 PROPOSITION IB PROGRAMMING PROCESS ............................................................. 7 ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................... 8 LOCAL MATCHING REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................... 9 COORDINATED PLANNING ............................................................................................ 9 GRANT APPLICATION ................................................................................................... 10 APPLICATION EVALUATION ....................................................................................... I 0 COUNTYWIDE PROGRAM OF PROJECTS .................................................................. II POLICY BOARD ADOPTION ......................................................................................... II PROJECT DELIVERY...................................................................................................... II PROJECT OVERSIGHT ................................................................................................... 12 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ........................................................................................ 12 FUND ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................. 13 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................... 13 TIMELINE ......................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix I. Appendix 2.
Funding Source Information Standard Evaluation Criteria
86
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 3 of 19
METRO PO LIT AN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CYCLE 4 GUIDELINES FY 2014 THROUGH FY 2016 October 20 14 l. PROGRAM GOAL. The Lifeline Transportation Program is intended to fund projects that result in improved mobility for low-income residents of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The Lifeline Program supports community-based transportation projects that: •
•
•
1
Are developed through a collaborative and inclusive planning process that includes broad pattnerships among a variety of stakeholders such as public agencie~, transit operators, community-based. organizations and other community stakeholders, and outreach to underrepresented stakeholders. Improve a range of transportation choices by adding a variety of new or expanded services including but not limited to : enhanced fixed route transit services, shuttles, taxi voucher programs, improved access to autos, and capital improvement projects. Address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified in Community-Based Transportation Plans (CBTP) or other substantive local planning efforts involving focused outreach to low-income populations. While preference will be given to community-based plan priorities, strategies emerging from countywide or regional welfare-to-work transportation plans, the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan or other documented assessment of need within the designated communities of concern will also be considered. Findings emerging from one or more CBTPs or other relevant planning efforts may also be applied to other low-income areas, or otherwise be directed to serve low-income constituencies within the county, as applicable. A communities of concern (CoC) mapping tool showing both CoCs adopted with Plan Bay Area as well as the most recent socioeconomic data available from the Census Bureau is available at: 1 http://gis.mtc.ca.gov/samples/Interactive Maps/cocs.htm1.
There is a user's guide availab le to aid in the use of thi s tool.
87
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page4 ofl9
2. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. The Lifeline Program will be administered by county congestion management agencies (CMAs) or other designated county-wide agencies as follows: County Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo
Santa Clara Solano Sonoma
Lifeline Program Administrator Alameda County Transportation Commission Contra Costa Transportation Authority Transportation Authority of Marin Napa County Transportation Planning Agency San Francisco County Transportation Authority City/County Association of Governments Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and Santa Clara County Solano Transportation Authority Sonoma County Transportation Authority
3. FUNDING APPORTIONMENT AND AVAILABILITY. Fund sources for the Cycle 4 Lifeline Transportation Program include State Transit Assistance (STA), Proposition 1BTransit, and Section 5307 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) 2 funds. Cycle 4 will cover a three-year programming cycle, FY20 13-14 to FY20 15-16. a. STA and Section 5307 (JARC). Funding for STA and Section 5307 (JARC) will be assigned to counties by each fund source, based on the county's share of the regional low-income population (see Figure 1). 3 Lifeline Program Administrators will assign funds to eligible projects in their counties. See Section 5 for details about the STA and Section 5307 (JARC) programming process and Appendix I for detailed eligibility requirements by fund source.
2
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century (MAP-21) federal transportation authorizing legislation eliminated the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program (Section 5316) and combined JARC functions and funding with the Urbanized Area Formula (Section 5307) and the Non-urbanized Area Formula (Section 5311) programs. JARC projects were made eligible for 5307 funding, and, consistent with MTC's Transit Capital Priorities (TCP) Process and Criteria (MTC Resolution Nos. 4072 and 4140), in the FY2013-14, FY2014-15 and FY2015-16 Section 5307 programs, a portion of the Bay Area's large urbanized area funds have been set aside for the Lifeline program. FTA Section 5307 funds are apportioned by urbanized area (UA), so the distribution of5307 funds will also need to take UA boundaries into consideration.
88
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 5 of 19 Figure 1. County and Share of Regional Poverty Population Shure of Regional Low Income (<200% Poverty) County Population Alameda 22.6% Contra Costa 14.3% Marin 2.6% Napa 2.0% San Francisco 12.5% San Mateo 8.4% Santa Clara 23.1% Solano 6.4% Sonoma 7.9% Total 100% Source. ACS 20 I 0 and 2012 1-Year Estimates
b. Propositi0n lB. Proposition IB funding will be assigned by MTC directly to transit operators and counties based on a formula that distributes half of the funds according to the transit operators' share of the regional low-income ridership, and half of the funds according to the transit operators' share of the regional low-income population. The formula distribution is shown in Figure 2. See Section 6 for details about the Proposition 1B programming process and Appendix I for detailed eligibility requirements by fund source. Figure 2. Transit Operator & Hybrid Formula (Share of Regional Low Income Ridership & Share of Regional Low Income Population) Transit Operator AC Transit BART County Connection (CCCTA) Golden Gate Transit/Marin Transit Wheels (LAVTA) Muni (SFMTA) SamTrans Tri Delta Transit (ECCTA) VINE {NCTPA) VTA WestCat (WCCTA) Solano County Operators Sonoma County Operators Total
Hybrid Formula Share 17.3% 18.5% 1.0% 3.2% 0.5% 24.9% 5.0% 0.7% 1.2% 19.5% 0.3% 3.6% 4.2% 100% ..
Note: Only transit operators who have prevtously recetved Proposttlon lB Lifeline funds are included in the formula distribution
c. Regional Means-Based Transit Fare Program. MTC will set aside up to $700,000 in Cycle 4 STA funds toward the potential development and implementation of a regional
89
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 6 of 19
means-based transit fare program. In Lifeline Cycle 3, MTC set aside $300,000 for Phase I of this project. In Phase I, MTC is conducting a study to develop the regional concept, including identifying who would be eligible, costs, funding, relationship to other discounts, and other policy elements. Depending on the results of the Phase I study, funds from the Cycle 4 $700,000 set-aside may be used for Phase II implementation activities. d. Local Fund Exchanges. Consistent with MTC Resolution No. 3331, MTC will allow County Lifeline Program Administrators to use local fund exchanges to fund projects that are not otherwise eligible for the state and federal funds in Cycle 4. Lifeline Program Administrators must notifY MTC about their intent to exchange funds, and MTC staff will review and approve the exchanges on a case-by-case basis. MTC staff is supportive of these fund exchanges to the extent that the exchange projects meet the spirit of the Lifeline Transportation Program. 4. ELIGIBLE REClPIENTS/SUBRECIPIENTS a. STA. There are three categories of eligible recipients of STA funds: a) transit operators; b) Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies (CTSAs); and c) Cities and Counties that are eligible to claim Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4, 4.5 or 8 funds. Non-profit organizations and Cities/Counties that are not eligib!p,IDA Article 4, 4.5 or 8 claimants are only eligible for STA funds if they partner with an eligible STA recipient (e.g., a transit operator) that is willing to serve as the recipient of the funds and pass through the funds to the non-profit or City/County, and if they have a project eligible to use. b. Section 5307 (}ARC). Transit operators that are FTA grantees are the only eligible recipients of Section 5307 (JARC) funds. Non-profit organizations and public agencies that are not FTA grantees are only eligible for Section 5307 (JARC) funds if they partner with an FTA grantee (transit operator) that is willing to serve as the direct recipient of the Section 5307 (JARC) funds and pass through the funds to the subrecipient non-profit or public agency. Section 5307 (JARC) recipients/subrecipients will be required to have a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and provide it during the application process. 4 A DUNS number may be obtained from D&B by telephone (866-705-5711) or the Internet (http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform). c. Proposition lB. Transit operators are the only eligible recipients of Proposition IB funds.
4
A Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number is a unique, non-indicative 9digit identifier issued and maintained by D&B that verifies the existence of a business entity. The DUNS number is a universal identifier required for Federal financial assistance applicants, as well as recipients and their direct subrecipients.
90
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 7 of 19
5. STA AND SECTION 5307 PROGRAMMING PROCESS. For STA and Section 5307 funds, Lifeline Program Administrators are responsible for soliciting applications for the Lifeline Transportation Program. Consistent with MTC's Public Participation Plan and FTA's Title VI Circular (FTA C 4702.18), MTC encourages Lifeline Program Administrators to conduct a broad, inclusive public involvement process, and use multiple methods of public outreach. Unlike previous cycles of the Lifeline Transportation Program, the funds in the Cycle 4 program are predominantly restricted to transit operators (see Section 4 for recipient eligibility restrictions). Therefore, MTC also acknowledges that each Lifeline Program Administrator's public outreach strategy will be tailored accordingly. Methods of public outreach may include, but are not limited to, highlighting the program and application solicitation on the CMA website, and sending targeted postcards and e-mails to all prospective applicants, including those that serve predominantly minority and low-income populations. Further guidance for public involvement is contained in MTC's Public Participation Plan. a. Competitive Process. STA and Section 5307 (JARC) projects must be selected through an open, competitive process with the following exception: In an effort to address the sustainability of fixed-route transit operations, Lifeline Program Administrators may elect to allocate some or all of their STA and/or Section 5307 (JARC) funds directly to transit operators for Lifeline transit operations within the county. Projects must be identified as Lifeline projects before transit operators can claim funds, and will be subject to Lifeline Transportation Program reporting requirements. b. STA Contingency Programming. Due to the uncertainty of forecasting STA revenues, the Lifeline Program Administrators will program 95 percent of their county's estimated STA amount, and develop a contingency plan for the remaining five percent should it be available.
6. PROPOSITION IB PROGRAMMING PROCESS. In most cases, Proposition IB Transit funds will be allocated directly to transit operators by MTC, due to the limited eligibility and uses of this fund source. Upon concurrence from the applicable CMA, 5 transit operators may program funds to any capital project that is consistent with the Lifeline Transportation Program and goals, and is eligible for this fund source. Transit operators are encouraged to consider needs throughout their service area. Projects must be identified as Lifeline projects before transit operators can claim funds, and, at the discretion of the Lifeline Program Administrators, may be subject to Lifeline Transportation Program reporting requirements. For Marin, Solano and Sonoma counties, Proposition I B funds are being directed to the CMA, who should include these funds in the overall Lifeline programming effort (keeping in mind the limited sponsor and project eligibility of Proposition IB funds).
5
CMA concurrence may be provided via a board resolution or a letter from an authorized representative.
91
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 8 of 19
7. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES a. Eligible operating projects. Eligible operating projects, consistent with requirements of funding sources, may include (but are not limited to) new or enhanced fixed route transit services, restoration of Lifeline-related transit services eliminated due to budget shortfalls, shuttles, taxi voucher programs, auto loan programs, etc. See Appendix I for additional details about eligibility by funding source. b. Eligible capital projects. Eligible capital projects, consistent with requirements of funding sources, may include (but are not limited to) purchase of vehicles; bus stop enhancements; rehabilitation, safety or modernization improvements; or other enhancements to improve transportation access for residents of low-income communities. See Appendix I for additional details about eligibility by funding source. c. Section 5307 restrictions (I) Job Access and Reverse Commute requirement. For the Lifeline Transportation Program, the use of Section 5307 funds is restricted solely to Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) projects. For details regarding eligible JARC projects, see the FTA Section 5307 Circular (FTA C 9030.IE), Chapter IV, Section 5 available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FINAL_FT A_circular9030.1 E.pdf. Also see Appendix I for detailed eligibility requirements by fund source (2) New and existing services. Consistent with FTA's Section 5307 circular (FTA C 9030.1E), Chapter IV, Section 5.a, eligible job access and reverse commute projects must provide for the development or maintenance of eligible job access and reverse commute services. Recipients may not reclassify existing public transportation services that have not received funding under the former Section 5316 program as job access and reverse commute services in order to qualify for operating assistance. In order to be eligible as a job access and reverse commute project, a proposed project must qualify as either a "development project" or "maintenance project" as follows: 1.
Development Projects. "Development of transportation services" means new projects that meet the statutory definition and were not in service as of the date MAP-21 became effective October I, 2012. This includes projects that expand the service area or hours of operation for an existing service.
ii.
Maintenance Projects. "Maintenance oftransportation services" means projects that continue and maintain job access and reverse commute projects and services that received funding under the former Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute program.
92
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 9 of 19
8. LOCAL MATCHING REQUIREMENTS. The Lifeline Transportation Program requires a minimum local match of20% of the total project cost. Lifeline Transportation Program funds may cover a maximum of 80% of the total project cost. a. Exceptions to 20% requirement. There are two exceptions to the 20% local match requirement: (I) FTA Section 5307 (JARC) operating projects require a 50% match. However, consistent with MTC's approach in previous funding cycles, Lifeline Program Administrators may use STA funds to cover the 30% difference for projects that are eligible for both JARC and STA funds. (2) All auto-related projects require a 50% match. b. Sources of local match. Project sponsors may use certain federal, state or local funding sources (Transportation Development Act, operator controlled State Transit Assistance, local sales tax revenue, etc.) to meet the match requirement. In-kind contributions such as the market value of in-kind contributions integral to the project may be counted as a contribution toward local share. For Section 5307 JARC projects, the local match can be non-Department of Transportation (DOT) federal funds. Eligible sources of non-DOT federal funds include: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Community Services Block Grants (CSBG) and Social Services Block Grants (SSBG) administered by the US Department of Health and Human Services or Community Development Block grants (CDBG) and HOPE VI grants administered by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Grant funds from private foundations may also be used to meet the match requirement. Transportation Development Credits ("Toll Credits") are not an eligible source of local match for the Lifeline Transportation Program. 9. COORDINATED PLANNING. Under MAP-21, projects funded with Section 5307 JARC funds are no longer required by FTA to be derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan ("Coordinated Plan"); however, in the Bay Area's Coordinated Plan, MTC continues to identify the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes, and to provide strategies for meeting those local needs. Therefore, projects funded with Lifeline Transportation Program funds should be consistent with the transportation needs, proposed solutions, and enhanced coordination strategies presented in the Coordinated Plan to the extent practicable considering any other funding source restrictions. The Bay Area's Coordinated Plan was updated in March 2013 and is available at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/pths/.
93
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 10 of 19
Mobility management was a key coordination strategy recommended in the 2013 plan update. The designation of lead mobility managers or Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies (CTSAs) at the County or subregional level was an essential component of that strategy. Consistent with those recommendations, the Lifeline Program Administrators may, at their discretion, choose to award extra points to---{)r otherwise give priority to-projects sponsored by or coordinated with County or subregional Mobility Managers or CTSAs. Transportation needs specific to senior and disabled residents of low-income communities may also be considered when funding Lifeline projects. I 0. GRANT APPLICATION. To ensure a streamlined application process for project sponsors, a universal application form will be used, but, with review and approval from MTC, may be modified as appropriate by the Lifeline Program Administrator for inclusion of countyspecific grant requirements. Applicants with multi-county projects must notify the relevant Lifeline Program Administrators and MTC about their intent to submit a multi-county project, and submit copies of their application to all of the relevant counties. If the counties have different application forms, the applicant can submit the same form to all counties, but should contact the Lifeline Program Administrators to determine the appropriate form. If the counties have different application deadlines, the applicant should adhere to the earliest deadline. The Lifeline Program Administrators will work together to score and rank the multi-county projects, and, if selected, to determine appropriate funding. (Note: Multi-county operators with projects that are located in a single county need only apply to the county where the project is located.) II. APPLICATION EVALUATION a. Evaluation criteria. Standard evaluation criteria will be used to assess and select projects. The six criteria include (I) project need/goals and objectives, (2) community-identified priority, (3) implementation plan and project management capacity, (4) coordination and program outreach, (5) cost-effectiveness and performance indicators, and (6) project budget/sustainability. Lifeline Program Administrators will establish the weight to be assigned for each criterion in the assessment process. Additional criteria may be added to a county program but should not replace or supplant the regional criteria. MTC staff will review the proposed county program criteria to ensure consistency and to facilitate coordination among county programs. See Appendix 2 for the detailed standard evaluation criteria. b. Evaluation panel. Each county will appoint a local evaluation panel of CMA staff, the local low-income or minority representative from MTC's Policy Advisory Council (if available), and representatives oflocal stakeholders, such as transit operators, other transportation providers, community-based organizations, social service agencies, and local jurisdictions, to score and select projects. Counties are strongly encouraged to appoint a diverse group of stakeholders for their local evaluation panel. Each county will
94
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Pagellofl9
assign local priorities for project selection by establishing the weight for each criterion and, at the CMA' s discretion, adding local criteria to the standard regional criteria.
12. COUNTYWIDE PROGRAM OF PROJECTS. A full program of projects is due to MTC from each Lifeline Program Administrator on March 13, 2015. However, given state and federal funding uncertainties, sponsors with projects selected for FY20 15 and FY20 16 Section 5307 (JARC) funds and FY2016 STA funds should plan to defer the start of those projects until the funding is appropriated and secured. Lifeline Program Administrators, at their discretion, may opt to allot FY20 14 and FY20 15 funds to high scoring projects so they can be started quickly. MTC staff will work with Lifeline Program Administrators on this sequencing; MTC staff expects that more will be known about the FY2015 Section 5307 (JARC) funds and the FY2016 STA and Section 5307 (JARC) funds in calendar year 2015. 13. POLICY BOARD ADOPTION a. Project sponsor resolution of local support. Prior to MTC's programming of Lifeline Cycle 4 funds (STA, Section 5307 JARC and/or Proposition I B) to any project, MTC requires that the project sponsor adopt and submit a resolution oflocal support. The resolution shall state that approved projects not only exemplify Lifeline Program goals, but that the local project sponsors understand and agree to meeting all project delivery, funding match and eligibility requirements, and obligation and reporting deadlines and requirements. MTC will provide a resolution of local support template. The County Lifeline Program Administrators have the option of collecting the resolutions of local support from project sponsors along with the project applications, or after the project is selected by the County for funding. ~
Caltrans requires that Proposition lB -Transit projects either be consistent with the project sponsor's most recent short-range transit plan (SRTP), as evidenced by attaching the relevant SRTP page to the allocation request, or be accompanied by a certified Board Resolution from the project sponsor's governing board. b. Lifeline Program Administrator/CMA Board Resolution and Concurrence (I) STA and Section 5307 (JARC). Projects recommended for STA and Section 5307 (JARC) funding must be submitted to and approved by the respective governing board of the Lifeline Program Administrator.
(2) Proposition I B. Projects funded with Proposition I B Transit funds must have concurrence from the applicable Lifeline Program Administrator/CMA. Concurrence may be provided by a board resolution or by a letter from an authorized representative. 14. PROJECT DELIVERY. All projects funded under the county programs are subject to the following MTC project delivery requirements:
95
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 12 of 19
a. Section 5307 (JARC). Project sponsors must expend the Lifeline Transportation Program Section 5307 (JARC) funds within three years of the FTA grant award or execution of agreement with pass-through agency, whichever is applicable. To prevent the Section 5307 (JARC) funds from lapsing on the federal obligation deadline, MTC reserves the right to reprogram funds if direct recipients fail to submit their FTA grant by the following dates: • June 30,2015 for FY2014 and FY2015 funds (the deadline to submit grants for FY15 funds may be extended depending on the availability ofFYI5 apportionments.) • June 30, 2016 for FY20 16 funds Direct recipients are responsible for carrying out the terms of their grants. b. STA. Project sponsors must expend the Lifeline Transportation Program STA funds within three years of the date that the funds are programmed by MTC or the date that the agreement with pass-through agency is executed, whichever is applicable. c. Proposition lB. Project sponsors must expend the Lifeline Transportation Program Proposition I B funds within three years of the date that funds are available. Disbursement timing depends on the timing of State bond sales. 15. PROJECT OVERSIGHT. For Lifeline projects funded by STA and Section 5307 (JARC), Lifeline Program Administrators are responsible for programmatic and fiscal oversight, and for monitoring project sponsors in meeting the MTC obligation deadlines and project delivery requirements. In addition, Lifeline Program Administrators will ensure that projects substantially carry out the scope described in the grant applications for the period of performance. All project budget and scope of work changes must be approved by the MTC Commission; however the Lifeline Program Administrators are responsible for approving budget and scope of work changes prior to MTC's authorization. All scope changes must be fully explained and must demonstrate consistency with Lifeline Transportation Program goals. For projects funded by Proposition IB, the Lifeline Program Administrators are encouraged to continue coordination efforts with the project sponsors if they determine that it would be beneficial toward meeting the Lifeline goals; however, this may not be necessary or beneficial for all Proposition I B projects. See Appendix I for detailed accountability and reporting requirements by funding source. 16. PERFORMANCE MEASURES. As part of the Call for Projects, applicants will be asked to establish project goals, and to identify basic performance indicators to be collected in order to measure the effectiveness of the Lifeline projects. At a minimum, performance measures for service-related projects would include: documentation of new "units" of service provided with the funding (e.g., number of trips, service hours, workshops held, car loans provided), cost per unit of service, and a qualitative summary of service delivery procedures employed for the project. For capital projects, project sponsors are responsible for establishing
96
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 13 of 19
milestones and reporting on the status of project delivery. Project sponsors are responsible for satisfying all reporting requirements, as referenced in Appendix I. Lifeline Program Administrators will forward all reports containing performance measures to MTC for review and overall monitoring of the Lifeline Transportation Program. 17. FUND ADMINISTRATION a. Section 5307 (]ARC). MTC will enter all Lifeline Section 5307 (JARC) projects into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Transit operators that are FTA grantees are the only eligible recipients of Section 5307 (JARC) funds. FTA grantees will act as direct recipients, and will submit grant applications directly to FTA. For Section 5307 (JARC) projects sponsored by non-FTA grantees (e.g., nonprofits or other local government entities), the FTA grantee who was identified as the partner agency at the time of the application will submit the grant application to FTA directly and, following FTA approval of the grant, will enter into funding agreements with the subrecipient project sponsor. FTA recipients are responsible for following all applicable federal requirements and for ensuring that their subrecipients compty'witlil.all federal requirements. See Section 18 for federal compliance requirements. b. STA. For transit operators receiving STA funds, MTC will allocate funds directly through the annual STA claims process. For other STA eligible projects administered by sponsors who are not STA eligible recipierrts; the project sponsor is responsible for identifying a local transit operator who will act as a pass-through foqhe STA funds, and will likely enter into a funding agreement directly with the project sponsor. Project sponsors are responsible for entering their own STA projects into the TIP. c. Proposition IB Transit. Project sponsors receiving Proposition IB funds must submit a Proposition IB allocation request to MTC for submittal to Caltrans with prior review by MTC. The state will distribute funds directly to the project sponsor. Note that although the Proposition I B Transit Program is intended to be an advance-payment program, actual disbursement of funds is dependent on the State budget and State bond sales. Project sponsors are responsible for entering their own Proposition I B projects into the TIP. 18. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. a. Lifeline Program Administrator Responsibilities. For the selection ofFTA Section 5307 (JARC) projects, in accordance with federal Title VI requirements, Lifeline Program Administrators must distribute the Section 5307 (JARC) funds without regard to race, color, and national origin, and must assure that minority populations are not being denied the benefits of or excluded from participation in the program. Lifeline Program Administrators shall develop the program of projects or competitive selection process to ensure the equitable distribution of FTA Section 5307 (JARC) funds to project sponsors
97
Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 14ofl9
that serve predominantly minority populations. Equitable distribution can be achieved by engaging in outreach to diverse stakeholders regarding the availability of funds, and ensuring the competitive process is not itself a barrier to selection of applicants that serve predominantly minority populations. b. Project Sponsor Responsibilities. FTA Section 5307 (JARC) applicants should be prepared to abide by all applicable federal requirements as specified in 49 U.S.C. Section 5307; FTA Circulars C 9030.1E, 4702.18 and 4703.1; the most current FTA Master Agreement; and the most current Certifications and Assurances for FTA Assistance Programs. FTA Section 5307 (JARC) direct recipients will be responsible for adhering to FTA requirements through their agreements and grants with FTA directly and for ensuring that all subrecipients and third-patty contractors comply with FTA requirements. 19. TIMELINE. The anticipated timeline for Cycle 4 is as follows: Program All All Prop lB Prop lB 5307 (JARC) &STA All 5307 (JARC) Prop lB & STA Prop lB STA
Action Commission approves Cycle 4 Program Guidelines MTC issues guidelines to counties Transit operators submit draft project lists to County Lifeline Program Administrators Allocation requests due to MTC (concurrence* • from the CMA is required) Board-approved** programs due to MTC from CMAs
Anticipated Date* October 22, 2014
Commission approval of Program of Projects MTC submits TIP amendment for FY14, FY15 and FY 16 projects Project sponsors submit TIP amendments MTC submits allocation requests to Caltrans Operators can file claims for FY14 and FY15
April 22, 2015 End of April- Deadline TBD
5307 (JARC)
Deadline for transit operators (FTA grantees) to submit FTA grants for FY14 and FY15 funds
STA 5307 (JARC)
Operators can file claims for FYI6 Deadline for transit operators (FTA grantees) to submit FTA grants for FY16 funds
October 22, 2014 January 15,2015 March 13, 2015 March 13, 2015
End of April -Deadline TBD Deadline TBD by Caltrans* After 4/22/15 Commission Approval June 30,2015 After July I, 2015 June 30, 2016
.. * Dates subJect to change dependmg on State and Federal deadhnes and avatlabthty of funds . ** CMA Board approval and concurrence may be pending at the time of deadline.
98
.'
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 15 ofl9
Appendix 1 Lifeline Transportation Program Cycle 4 Funding Source Information
Purpose ofFund Source
State Transit Assistance (STA) To improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination
Detailed Guidelines
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/DocsPdfs/STIP/TDA_4-17-2013.pdf
Use ofFunds
For public transportation purposes including community transit services
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Subrecipients (must partner with an eligible recipient that will serve as a pass-through agency)
• Transit operators • Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies (CTSAs) • Cities and Counties if eligible to claim TDA Article 4, 4.5 or 8 funds • Private non-profit organizations • Cities and counties that are not eligible to claim TDA Article 4, 4.5 or 8 funds
Proposition lB -Transit To help advance the State's goals of providing mobility choices for all residents, reducing congestion, and protecting the environment http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/D ocs-Pdfs/Prop%2018/PTMISEAGuidelines 2013.pdf For public transportation purposes
• Transit operators
• N!A
Section 5307 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) To support the continuation and expansion of public transportation services in the United States
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FINAL_FTA_cir cular9030.1E.pdf For the Lifeline Transportation Program, the use of Section 5307 funds is restricted solely to Job Access and Reverse Commute projects that support the development and maintenance of transportation services designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment. • Transit operators that are FTA grantees
• Private non-profit organizations • Public agencies that are not FTA grantees (e.g., cities, counties)
99
,. • ,_
Eligible Projects
State Transit Assistance (STA) Transit Ca(!ital and O(!erations, including: • New, continued or expanded fixed-route service • Purchase of vehicles • Shuttle service if available for use by the general public • Purchase of technology (e.g., GPS, other ITS applications) • Capital projects such as bus stop improvements, including bus benches, shelters, etc. • Various elements of mobility management, if consistent with STA program purpose and allowable use. These may include planning, coordinating, capital or operating activities.
Proposition 1B- Transit Transit Capital (including a minimum operable segment of a project) for: • Rehab, safety, or modernization improvements • Capital service enhancements or expansions • New capital projects • Bus rapid transit improvements • Rolling stock procurement, rehab, or replacements Projects must be consistent with most recently adopted short-range transit plan or other publicly adopted plan that includes transit capital improvements.
Attachment A MTC Resolution No_ 4159 Page 16 ofl9 Section 5307 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) New and existing services. Eligible job access and reverse commute projects must provide for the development or maintenance of eligible job access and reverse commute services. Recipients may not reclassify existing public transportation services that have not received funding under the former Section 5316 program as job access and reverse commute services in order to qualify for operating assistance. In order to be eligible as a job access and reverse commute project, a proposed project must qualify as either a "development projecf' or a "maintenance project" (see Section 7.c.(2) of these guidelines for details regarding "development" and "maintenance" projects). CaQital and 0Qerating Qrojects. Projects that comply with the requirements above may include, but are not limited to: • Late-night & weekend service; • Guaranteed ride home service; • Shuttle service; • Expanding fixed route public transit routes, including hours of service or coverage; • Demand-responsive van service; • rudesharing and carpooling activities; • Transit-related aspects of bicycling; • Administration and expenses for voucher programs; • Local car loan programs; • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS}; • Marketing; and • Mobility management. See FTA C 9030.1E, Chapter IV, Section 5 for details regarding eligible JARC projects.
100
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 17 ofl9
State Transit Assistance (STA)
Proposition IB- Transit
Lifeline Program Local Match 20%
Estimated timing for availability of funds to project sponsor
Transit operators, CTSAs and eligible cities and counties can initiate claims for FY14 and FY15 funds immediately following MTC approval of program of projects, and can initiate claims for FY16 funds after July 1, 2015.
20%
Project sponsors must submit a Proposition I B allocation request to MTC for submittal to Caltrans by March 13, 2015. Disbursement timing depends on bond sales.
For subrecipients, the eligible recipient acting as fiscal agent will likely initiate a funding agreement following MTC approval of program of projects. Funds will be available on a reimbursement basis after execution of the agreement.
Accountability & Reporting Requirements
Transit operators and eligible cities and counties must submit annual performance (i.e., ridership) statistics for the project, first to Lifeline Program Administrators for review, and then to MTC along with annual claim.
Depending on the arrangement with the passthrough agency, subrecipients will likely submit quarterly performance reports with invoices, first to the pass-through agency for reimbursement, and then to Lifeline Program Administrators for review.
Using designated Cal trans forms, project sponsors are required to submit project activities and progress reports to the state every six months, as well as a project close-out form. Caltrans will track and publicize progress via their website.
Section 5307 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) • 50% for operating projects (may use STA funds to cover up to 30% if project is eligible for both JARC and STA) • 50% for auto projects • 20% for capital projects Following MTC approval of the program of projects, MTC will add projects to the TIP. Following TIP approval, FTA grantees must submit FTA grants for FY14 and FY15 funds by June 30, 2015. (The deadline to submit grants for FY15 funds may be extended depending on the availability ofFY15 apportionments.) FTA grantees must submit FTA grants for FY16 funds by June 30, 2016. FTA grantees can begin their projects after the funds are obligated in an FTA grant (estimated Fall2015 for FY14 & FY15 funds; estimated Fa112016 for FY16 funds). For subrecipients, the FTA grantee acting as fiscal agent will likely initiate a funding agreement following FTA grant award. Funds will be available on a reimbursement basis after execution of the agreement. FTA grantees are responsible for following all applicable federal requirements for preparing and maintaining their Section 5307 (JARC) grants. MTC and/or the Lifeline Program Administrators may request copies ofFTA grantees' quarterly Section 5307 (JARC) grant reports to FTA.
Project sponsor will not be required to Depending on the arrangement with the pass-through submit progress reports to the Lifeline agency, subrecipients will likely submit quarterly Program Administrator unless the LPA performance reports with invoices, first to Lifeline believes that county-level project Program Administrators for review, and then to the monitoring would be beneficial. MTC pass-through agency for reimbursement. Subrecipients will also submit Title VI reports annually to the passand/or the Lifeline Program through agency. Administrators may request to be copied on progress reports that are submitted to Caltrans. .. Note: Information on thiS chart IS accurate as of October 2014. MTC Will strive to make Lifelme Program AdminiStrators aware of any changes to fund source gUidehnes that may be enacted by the appropriating agencies (i.e. State of California, Federal Transit Administration).
101
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page18ofl9
Appendix 2 Lifeline Transportation Program Cycle 4 Standard Evaluation Criteria The following standard evaluation criteria are intended to provide consistent guidance to each county in prioritizing and selecting projects to receive Lifeline Transportation Program funds. Each county, in consultation with other stakeholder representatives on the selection committee, will consider these criteria when selecting projects, and establish the weight to be assigned to each of the criterion. Additional criteria may be added to a county program but should not replace or supplant the regional criteria. MTC staff will review the proposed county program criteria to ensure consistency and to facilitate coordination among county programs. a. Project Need/Goals and Objectives: Applicants should describe the unmet transportation need or gap that the proposed project seeks to address and the relevant planning effort that documents the need. Describe how project activities will mitigate the transportation need. Project application should clearly state the overall program goals and objectives, and demonstrate how the project is consistent with the goals of the Lifeline Transportation Program. b. Community-Identified Priority: Priority should be given to projects that directly address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified through a Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) or other substantive local planning effort involving focused outreach to low-income populations. Applicants should identify the CBTP or other substantive local planning effort, as well as the priority given to the project in the plan. Other projects may also be considered, such as those that address transpotiation needs identified in countywide or regional welfare-to-work transportation plans, the Coordinated Public TransitHuman Services Transportation Plan, or other documented assessment of needs within designated communities of concern. Findings emerging from one or more CBTPs or other relevant planning efforts may also be applied to other low-income areas, or otherwise be directed to serve low-income constituencies within the county, as applicable. A communities of concern (CoC) mapping tool showing both CoCs adopted with Plan Bay Area as well as the most recent socioeconomic data available from the Census Bureau is available at: http ://gis.mtc.ca.gov/samples/lnteractive Maps/cocs.html. 1 c. Implementation Plan and Project Management Capacity: For projects seeking funds to suppm1 program operations, applicants must provide a well-defined service operations plan, and describe implementation steps and timelines for carrying out the plan. For projects seeking funds for capital purposes, applicants must provide an implementation plan, milestones and timelines for completing the project. Priority should be given to projects that are ready to be implemented in the timeframe that the funding is available.
1
There is a user' s guide available to aid in the use of this tool.
102
Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 4159 Page 19 of 19
Project sponsors should describe and provide evidence of their organization's ability to provide and manage the proposed project, including experience providing services for low-income persons, and experience as a recipient of state or federal transportation funds. For continuation projects that have previously received Lifeline funding, project sponsor should describe project progress and outcomes.
d. Coordination and Program Outreach: Proposed projects will be evaluated based on their ability to coordinate with other community transportation and/or social service resources. Applicants should clearly identify project stakeholders, and how they will keep stakeholders involved and informed throughout the project. Applicants should also describe how the project will be marketed and promoted to the public. e. Cost-Effectiveness and Performance Indicators: The project will be evaluated based on the applicant's ability to demonstrate that the project is the most appropriate way in which to address the identified transportation need, and is a cost-effective approach. Applicants must also identify clear, measurable outcome-based performance measures to track the effectiveness of the service in meeting the identified goals. A plan should be provided for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the service, as well as steps to be taken if original goals are not achieved. r.
Project Budget/Sustainability: Applicants must submit a clearly defined project budget, indicating anticipated project expenditures and revenues, including documentation of matching funds. Proposals should address long-term efforts and identify potential funding sources for sustaining the project beyond the grant period.
103
This page intentionally blank
104
Lifeline Cycle 3 (FY11-FY13) Funding- Alameda and Contra Costa Counties Agency
Prop 18
STA
JARC
STP/CMAQ
Total
Projects
Alameda County ACTransit
2,703,487
4,397,889
BART
3,597,360
297,800
240,910
366,000
Wheels (LAVTA)
525,429
1,225,539
115,666
Union City Transit
430,000
Alameda County Public Works
336,000
San leandro (SLTMO)
475,000
Alameda CTC City of Alameda Public Works
187,957
City of Oakland
723,000
Oakland Public library {via BART)
185,000
6,541,757
5,362,355
2,177,386
660,000
984,087
299,353
2,300,000
198,311
westCAT
147,335
201,325
75,007
County Connection
484,534
707,302
150,055
Tri Delta Transit
327,019
757,775
126,353
115,666 430,000 336,000 475,000 187,957 723,000 185,000 405,000
405,000
Cycles of Change
San Leandro BART Terminal Improvements Preserve Service in CoCs Bike lockers 3,895,160 Wayfinding/Real-time Signage Transbay Owl Express Service Bus Stop Repair/Upgrades 606,910 Route 14 Service
8,852,344
2,130,539
Route 2 Service Cherryland Transit Access/Sidewalk Improvements LINKS Shuttle Update Community-Based Transportation Plans Estuary Crossing Shuttle B-Shuttle Shuttles for Schoolkids to Libraries Neighborhood Bike Centers Bike-~o-round Education Effort
16,212,037
Contra Costa County AC Transit
BART
City of Concord
161,648
CC County Employment and Human Services Dept.
126,353
3,918,888
3,136,801
Replacement Buses Preservation of Services in CoCs Antioch Park & Ride Facility 1,211,147 Routes 200 & 201 Service 161,648 Monument Neighborhood Shuttle
1,341,891
403,685
277,332
140,000
1,000,000 203,291
1,068,100
1,203,291
CC County Public Works City of Richmond
Contra Costa College Terminal Improvements Preserve Service in CoCs Richmond Station Access Improvements Pittsburg/Bay Point Station Wayfinding 2,498,311 Concord Station Jntermodal Improvements Transba Owl Service 423,667 Bus Shelters, Bus Pads, Realtime Info
1,943,440
105
KEYS Auto loan Program Taxi Referral Program (via Tri Delta Transit)
1,000,000 Canal Road Bike/Ped Improvements 343,291 EasyGo Program 9,327,080
This page intentionally blank
106
Report No:
T/?9NS/T
Meeting Date:
15-011 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel
SUBJECT:
Actuarial Report/Retirement Plan Amendment
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider receiving a report regarding the actuarial impact on future annual costs of the proposed Amendment 15-A-17 to the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan; direct the District Secretary to provide public access to its contents for a period of at least two weeks from January 15 through January 30, 2015, in order for the comments to be considered at the February 11, 2015 Board of Directors meeting, at the earliest. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 25, 2014, the Board adopted Resolution 14-031 confirming the inclusion of employees hired July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014 in the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan (Tier 1) and repealing resolutions 12-030 and 13-006. This required compliance with Board Policy 170 and Government Code 7507, which requires an actuary to provide a statement of the actuarial impact upon future costs prior to authorizing changes in public retirement plan benefits or other post-employment benefits. The statement must be available for public review at last two weeks prior to the meeting at which adoption of the changes in the retirement plan are considered. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no fiscal impacts resulting from receipt of the report. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
On February 27, 2013, the Board adopted PEPRA via Plan Amendment 13-A-16. Subsequently, in June 2014, the Board adopted Resolution 14-031 confirming the inclusion of employees hired July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014 in the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan (Tier 1) and repealing resolutions 12-030 and 13-006. These actions essentially returned the Plan back to the terms existing before Amendment 13-A-16, the PEPRA amendment. Because this resulted in another plan amendment, the provisions of Board Policy 170 had to be followed as did the provisions of Government Code §7507. After the adoption of Resolution 14-031, the District's retirement counsel drafted a new Plan amendment to implement the actions taken by the Board. The draft amendment was provided to the Retirement System Manager and Counsel for the Retirement Board, who were satisfied with the amendment. The District forwarded the amendment to ATU, AFSCME and IBEW for review and comment.
107
Report No. 15-011 Page 2 of 2 Representatives of all three bargaining units expressed their agreement with the amendment. The Retirement Board's counsel and the Retirement System Manager were notified that all parties were in agreement with the proposed plan amendment. The amendment was placed on the Retirement Board's November 7, 2014 agenda and was found acceptable. The proposed plan amendment was then sent to Buck Consultants for the actuarial review required by California Government Code §7507, which requires a statement of the actuarial impact when the Board considers a change in retirement or post-employment benefits. Buck Consultants concluded that the proposed plan amendment would have no effect on the Plan's unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities or Annual Required Contributions. Buck arrived at this determination based on the understanding that the Plan had been operated as though PEPRA never went into effect, i.e., employee contributions collected due to PEPRA requirements were returned to employees, and benefits were calculated without regard to PEPRA. This statement is attached as Attachment 1. Section 7507 requires that the actuarial impact statement be made public at a public meeting at least two weeks prior to the adoption of the proposed changes. Because there is no impact, it will not be necessary for the actuary to be present. Once the two week period has passed, the proposed plan amendment will be brought to the Board for adoption. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The advantage of receiving this report is that it is consistent with Board Policy 170 and Government Code §7507. There is no disadvantage to receive this report. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
The alternative is to not receive the report and not provide the public notice of the actuarial impact. This is not recommended because it is contrary to the law and would prohibit the District from completing the plan amendment process. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
1. 2. 3.
Resolution 12-030 Resolution 13-006 (includes Plan Amendment 13-A-16) Resolution 14-031
ATTACHMENTS:
1: 2:
Actuarial Statement Draft Amendment 15-A-17 to the AC Transit Employees' Pension Plan
Reviewed by:
James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer
Prepared by:
Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel
108
Att. 1 to SR 15-011
xerox t~· Charlie Chittenden Principal
Buck Consultants, LLC 3200 North Central Avenue Suite 2200
December 4, 2014
Phoenix, AZ. 85012
[email protected] tel602.864.3530 fax 602.864.3535
Mr. James D. Pachan Interim Chief Financial Officer Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612-2800
David J. Kershner Principal
Buck Consultants, LLC 3200 North Central Avenue Suite 2200
Complying with California Government Code Section 7507 Regarding Changes to Pension Benefits as of December 2014 Dear Mr. Pachan: We have been asked to estimate the effect on the District's current and future unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities and Annual Required Contributions resulting from an amendment to remove the provisions of the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA} from the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan (Plan}. Under PEPRA, benefit and cost-sharing provisions were to be changed for employees who became members of the Plan on or after January 1, 2013 1. However, it is our understanding that the Plan has been operating as though PEPRA never went into effect -employee contributions collected due to PEPRA requirements have been returned to employees, and benefits have been calculated without regard to PEPRA. As a result, an amendment to remove the PEPRA provisions from the Plan will have no effect on the Plan's unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities or Annual Required Contributions. The undersigned actuaries are independent. They are both Fellows of the Society of Actuaries, Enrolled Actuaries, and Members of the American Academy of Actuaries. They have both met the Qualification Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinions contained herein. They are not attorneys or accountants, so their views on such matters are subject to the opinion of counsel and auditors.
1
Please see our letter dated January 2, 2013 for estimated future savings due to PEPRA.
109
Phoenix, AZ. 85012
david.ke
Mr. James D. Pachan December4, 2014 Page2
Please let us know if you have any questions or need anything more. Sincerely,
Charles E. Chittenden, FSA, EA, MAAA Principal and Consulting Actuary
David J. Kershner, FSA, EA. MAAA Principal and Consulting Actuary
110
Att. 2 to SR 15-011
DRAFT 12/22/2014 AMENDMENT 15-A-17 AC TRANSIT EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN
Effective January 1, 2013, the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended as follows :
Article XIII , titled "Public Employees' Pension Reform Act," (as added to the Plan by Amendment 13-A-16) is deleted in its entirety. The Plan is to be operated and administered as if Article XIII had never been adopted.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth above on this _ _ day of _ _ _ , 2015.
By:------------Name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Title:------------
602324702v3 111
This page intentionally blank
112
PLANNING COMMITTEE
January 14, 2015 Agenda Items A-1 – A-6
113
This page intentionally blank
114
Report No: Meeting Date:
15-031 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Application for California Proposition 1B Security Funds for the Transbay Transit Center
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-007 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications and funding agreements with the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for allocations of Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account {TSSSDRA) Funds for FY 2014-15 for the Trans bay Transit Center. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The District is applying for $2,148,388 in California Proposition 1B TSSSDRA funding to pass-thru to the new Transbay Transit Center project as part of the District capital commitment to the project. With this grant, the District will have programmed $16,292,075 in capital funds to the Transbay, Transit Center project. The total District obligation for the new Transbay terminal is $38.4 million; therefore, the District will have a remaining obligation of $22.1 million for the terminal. BUDGETARY/FISCALIMPACT:
Staff anticipates receiving $2,148,388 in state funding to pass-through to the Transbay, Transit Center project. There is no matching requirement for these funds and no resulting fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters on November 7, 2006, established $1 billion to be deposited in the Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA). The funds were made available to transit operators eligible to receive State Transit Assistance (STA) for security and emergency preparedness. As in past years, the funds available to AC Transit in FY 2014-15 will be used for the new Transbay Transit Center project's Safety and Security Improvements as part of AC Transit's total capital contribution to the Transbay Transit Center project. With the FY 2014-15 funds, the
115
Report No. 15-031 Page 2 of 2 District will have provided approximately $16.3 million of its $38.4 million commitment due by the completion of the new terminal; therefore, the District will have a remaining obligation of $22.1 million for the terminal. The revenues will be directed to the following project: Transbay Transit Center- Emergency Preparedness, Safety & Security Elements
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Staff cannot identify any disadvantages to approving this staff report and resolution.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The District can choose to apply for the funds for purposes other than the Transbay Transit Center; however, this would require the identification of other capital funds to continue paying off the commitment to the project.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Staff Report 13-294 I Resolution 13-047 - Authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications and funding agreements with the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services {Cal OES) for allocations of Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account Funds for FY 2013-14.
ATTACHMENTS: 1: Resolution 15-007 Department Head Approval:
James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer
Reviewed by: Prepared by:
Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Chris Andrichak, Acting Manager, Capital Planning and Grants
116
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 15-007 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO FILE AND EXECUTE APPLICATIONS AND FUNDING AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR ALLOCATIONS OF TRANSIT SYSTEM SAFETY, SECURITY & DISASTER RESPONSE ACCOUNT FUNDS FOR FY 2014-15 FOR THE TRANSBAY TRANSIT CENTER WHEREAS, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including, but not limited to, funding made available for capital projects that provide increased protection against security and safety threats, and for capital expenditures to increase the capacity of transit operators to develop disaster response transportation systems; and WHEREAS, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) administers such funds deposited in the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account under the California Transit Security Grant Program (CTSGP); and WHEREAS, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District is eligible to receive CTSGP funds; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District will apply for FY2015 CTSGP funds in an amount up to $2,148,388 per year for eligible safety and security-related capital projects for the Transbay Transit Center; and WHEREAS, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District recognizes that it is responsible for compliance with all Cal OES CTSGP grant assurances, and state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, laws governing the use of bond funds; and WHEREAS, Cal OES requires the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to complete and submit a Governing Body Resolution for the purposes of identifying agent(s) authorized to act on behalf of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, to execute actions necessary to obtain CTSGP funds from Cal OES, and to ensure continued compliance with Cal OES CTSGP assurances, and state and federal laws; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows:
Section 1. David J. Armijo, General Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance provided by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services under the CTSGP.
Resolution No. 15-007
Page 1 of2 117
Section 2.
This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 2015.
Greg Harper, 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 regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 14th day of January, 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
Page2 of2
Resolution No. 15-007 118
Report No: Meeting Date:
12-297e January 14, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability Project Design Consultant Contract Amendment
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider authorizing the General Manager to amend the design consultant services contract for the Line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability (CDRS) Project between the District and Kimley-Horn & Associates (KHA). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Although early permit application cost issues and traffic control plan requirements have resulted in a delay to the project, Line 51 CDRS construction is proceeding through Alameda and Oakland with considerable progress in both cities. Construction in Berkeley will be underway shortly. However, current schedule forecasts estimate a three to four month delay in construction completion due to design changes, city coordination and other unanticipated construction delays. As a result, design consulting construction support services need to be extended accordingly. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or fiscal impact to the District's approved Capital budget associated with this action as any additional costs imposed onto the project would be paid for with existing project budget funding. There is, however, a fiscal impact on a contractual level. Design Support During Construction (DSDC) is a necessary (standard) part of roadway construction projects. Due to design changes and other unanticipated construction delays, an amendment to the design consultant contract with KHA is needed to allow DSDC support to continue through project completion . The following outline shows the contract budget changes to date along with proposed changes:
119
Report No. 12-297e Page 2 of 3 Original Design Consultant Contract (Committed)
$1,393,553
Contract Amendment #1 (Contract Duration Extension)
$0
Contract Amendment #2 (Executed)
$186,000*
Contract Amendment #3 {Proposed)
$196,000 Total
* Contract Amendment #2 includes $86,000 in
$1,775,553
additional traffic data collection & studies required by Oakland
and Berkeley not considered DSDC services.
This additional $196,000 proposed change equates to 14% of the original contract or a cumulative $382,000 (27%) overall contract change. This change requires the Board to approve a Contract Amendment #3 for a total, not to exceed amount of $250,000 to continue DSDC services. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
The duration of the construction contract (#2014-1287) awarded to West Bay Builders {WBB) is for a period of 216 calendar days, which expires on February 10, 2015. The District started construction on the Line 51 CDRS Project in the City of Alameda on August 18, 2014. WBB has worked in Alameda and Oakland since that time and made considerable progress in both cities. However, permit processing challenges associated with permit application cost issues and traffic control plan requirements in the three cities delayed the start of construction and resulted in slower progress than expected. A delay in the execution of the Cooperative Agreement with the City of Berkeley has also added to construction delays. Other significant delays can be attributed to late changes in designs required by the cities for approval of construction permits. Staff continues to work through the permit issues on a case-by-case basis in order to have WBB continue work without further delay. Although recent waivers granted by the City of Oakland to proceed with select construction activities through a holiday moratorium has helped offset some of the construction delays, current schedule forecasts still estimate a three- four month delay in construction completion. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The advantage of extending KHA consultant contract for DSDC is that it continues to provide professional support needed to manage construction activities associated with the project. The disadvantage is the additional costs associated with a longer contract period. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
As an alternative to extending DSDC for the KHA contract, the District could end the contract immediately. This would require the District to initiate a separate procurement process, as staff does not have the capability to provide DSDC in-house. A new procurement would result
120
Report No. 12-297e Page 3 of3 in months without technical oversight and management over project construction. The procurement itself would also create additional project expenses. Kimley-Horn has played a vital role in addressing many of the city's design comments and requests for additional analysis in order to proceed with construction. Their continued participation is necessary to complete this project successfully. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: SR 12-297 -line 51A/B Corridor Delay Reduction and Sustainability Project PA/PC Procurement 5R 12-297a - Contract Award for line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction & Sustainability Project Administration I Project Control Consultant SR 12-297b - Contract Award for line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction & Sustainability Project Design Consultant SR 12-297c- Construction Management & Program Management Services for Construction for line 51 Corridor Delay Reduction & Sustainability (CDRS) Project SR 12-297d - line 51 Corridor Delay and Reduction Study Project Construction Manager Contract Extension ATTACHMENTS: None.
Department Head Approval:
Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering & Construction Officer
Reviewed by:
James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Denise Standridge, District General Counsel Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development and Planning Jon Medwin, Procurement and Materials Director
Prepared by:
Wil Buller, Traffic Engineer
121
This page intentionally blank
122
I
Report No: Meeting Date:
15-004 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Double Deck Bus Analysis and Demonstration
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider receiving a report on the analysis and feasibility of operating double deck buses at AC Transit, and authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Alexander Dennis for an in-service demonstration of one double-deck bus. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A feasibility study of operating double deck buses at the District was conducted . The study included an evaluation of bus specifications, review of facility infrastructure limitations, analysis of the benefits and limitations on existing bus routes, and interviews with other agencies utilizing double deck buses. The advantages of double deck buses include increased passenger capacity within a typical 40 to 45 foot bus platform to ease crowding on popular commuter lines as well as residential streets. Double deck buses will be less costly to operate than the longer articulated buses, which require considerable maintenance on the articulation joint in the middle of the bus. Alexander Dennis is the only double deck bus manufacturer that currently meets Buy America requirements. Alexander Dennis is planning to complete Altoona bus testing with the model Enviro 500 by late April 2015. The Enviro 500 model is Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant with a 1:6 ratio front door ramp and two forward facing wheelchair securement positions on the lower salon. Pending Board authorization, a double deck bus demonstration is currently being planned at the District in February 2015 to assist Planning, Transportation, Maintenance and Technical Service Departments to confirm any required operational requirements and compare the vehicle to published American Public Transportation Association bus procurement configuration standards. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
The preliminary cost estimates for each Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 is $850,000 to $900,000, not including any support equipment, extended warranty packages, and delivery costs.
123
Report No. 15-004 Page 2 of 7
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: A feasibility study of operating double deck buses at the District was conducted, that included an evaluation of bus specifications, review of facility infrastructure limitations, analysis of the benefits and limitations on existing bus routes, and interviews with other agencies utilizing double deck buses. In the United States, double deck buses are being used at the following locations: •
Unitrans in Davis, CA currently operates a fleet of six double deck buses- four AEC London Regents and two Alexander Dennis buses, acquiring their first double deck bus in 1968.
•
Las Vegas, NV operates over 100 Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 models in regular passenger service, with the first double deck bus being delivered in 2005.
•
Community Transit in Everett, Washington currently operates 23 double deck buses and has 17 additional double deck buses on order with delivery in early 2015.
•
New York, NY currently has 73 Alexander Dennis open top Enviro 500 models in use as tour buses.
•
Gray Line Tours in San Francisco, CA currently has 12 Alexander Dennis buses in operation as tour buses.
Alexander Dennis meets Buy America requirements for the Enviro 500 model bus with United States corporate offices in Las Vegas, Nevada and a new factory based in Nappanee, Indiana. Currently, Alexander Dennis builds the majority of their buses at factories in the United Kingdom (England and Scotland), but the new production facilities in the United States allows Alexander Dennis to be the only double deck bus manufacturer that meets Buy America requirements. Alexander Dennis has initiated Altoona bus testing with the Enviro 500 bus and expects completion ofthe testing by late April 2015. The projected cost estimate for the Enviro 500 is $850,000 to $900,000 without including any support equipment, extended warranty packages, and delivery. Currently, there are no joint procurement "piggyback" opportunities available with other transit properties to purchase double deck buses. The current lead-time for bus availability for the Erviro 500 is approximately 12 to 14 months from the date of order.
Demonstration of Buses In August 2014, staff from the Planning, Transportation and Maintenance departments visited UC Davis to observe Unitrans' double deck buses in operation. Unitrans operates four Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 2009 models, which have an 81 seat capacity and are 13.5 feet high and 40 feet long. UC Davis operates their double deck buses on service with different characteristics than AC Transit fixed route service. Students dominate the passenger base, so the ridership patterns are quite regular and the trip length is relatively short. However, their staff was very positive about the general double deck bus operations. The UC Davis staff organized a road test in regular local
124
Report No. 15-004 Page 3 of7 service and on the freeway to allow District staff to observe how the buses performed on surface streets and to assess passenger comfort in high speed operations. The results from the road test were generally positive. The freeway experience on the top deck was very smooth with only a slight increase in lateral movement, which should not affect seated passengers. Bridges and overpasses were not an issue and all participants enjoyed the elevated view of the landscape. The main issue experienced by Unitrans has been low tree limbs hitting the buses and resulting in replacement of expensive imported parts. As a result, Unitrans has equipped their vehicles with windshield guards and has not replaced a windshield since they started operating these buses. Passenger Accessibility When compared to a typical commuter bus, the Enviro 500 provides more passenger seating with a total of 77 passenger seats- 27 seats in the lower level and 49 seats in the upper level. In reviewing the bus seating layout for the lower level, the majority of passenger seats (21) would require a passenger to step up to access each seat, which has been problematic for some passengers with disabilities. The provision of 27 passenger seats in the lower level may limit seating for passengers with disabilities, strollers, shopping carts and require passengers to walk up the stairs to the upper level. The Enviro 500 model is ADA compliant with a 1:6 ratio front door ramp and two forward facing wheelchair securement positions on the lower level. Both UC Davis and SF Muni stated that they experienced longer dwell times with the double deck bus, which may impact on-time performance. California Air Resources Board Compliance The propulsion system currently being used on the Alexander Dennis double deck bus is a California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified Cummins ISL engine rated at 330/380 horsepower coupled with an Allison B500R transmission. The Cummins ISL engine and Allison transmission are currently used in other buses at the District; therefore, both the Maintenance and Stores departments would be familiar with the existing propulsion system in these buses. The performance information for the buses has not been provided from Alexander Dennis as of this writing to determine bus acceleration and grade ability. Axle Weight The rear drive axle weight of the Enviro 500 exceeds the current 20,500 lbs. maximum axle weight provided in Section 35554 of the California Vehicle Code. Effective January 1, 2013, a new bus exceeding 20,500 lbs. cannot be purchased unless certain provisions are met, including the Board adopting a finding at a public hearing that the fleet class expansion or change in fleet class is necessary to address a need to serve a new or existing market pursuant to its most recently adopted short-range transit plan, or to meet a federal, state, or regional statuary requirement that include a consideration of vehicle needs and fleet size. Safety and Security Passenger security for the upper and lower salon areas is achieved by numerous security cameras. The bus operator area provides a small LCD screen specifically to view the upper salon 125
Report No. 15-004 Page 4 of 7 and stair areas. Staff and the union have noted that the LCD screens could take away operator attention from viewing the road while driving. The area of most concern for passenger safety is the stairs between the lower and upper levels. Although equipped with handrails, the stairs may increase the opportunity for passenger injury especially while the bus is moving. Unitrans staffs the bus with an ambassador to help monitor the stairs. Interior dimensions supplied by Alexander Dennis provide a maximum ceiling height of 6 feet 5 inches at the tallest locations dropping to 5 feet 6 inches at the rear of the bus, which may provide a challenge for taller passengers. Operation California Vehicle Code 35250 states that double deck buses may not exceed a height of 14 feet 3 inches. The height limit may present some challenges to the District's towing contractor, since the height of 14 feet 3 inches cannot be exceeded by law when towing a double deck bus. The District's towing contractor advised that the bus height may create safety considerations and is looking at various options for towing these buses. The fuel tank capacity of 118 gallons along with an estimated 3.5 miles per gallon provides for a range for the vehicle of approximately 413 miles. The actual range of the Enviro 500 bus could be confirmed by operating a demonstration vehicle on District routes to verify fuel economy and range. Service and Maintenance An assessment of existing facilities was performed to evaluate the feasibility to service and maintain a double deck bus with a clearance of 14.5 feet. Staff measured the clearances of the bus wash, fuel island, steam bay, and one maintenance bay at each of the maintenance shops to ensure proper clearance to hoist up a double deck bus for maintenance activity. Bus Washers • The District bus washers are not designed to clean buses with a height of 14 feet. The current bus wash brushes reach just over 12 feet with wash equipment structural arches at about 13 feet. To accommodate double deck buses, the wash racks will need to be modified or replaced with new wash equipment designed to clean both 14 foot and standard buses. The surrounding structural bus wash buildings have enough room to accommodate a taller wash rack at Division 2 (D2), Division 4 (D4), Division 6 (D6) and Division 3 (D3) but the building structural supports at the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) will need major modifications. Fuel Islands •
The fuel islands at D2 and D6 will not need any modifications; however, the fuel island at D4 has a sprinkler line running across the fueling lanes with a 14 foot clearance that will need to be raised to accommodate double deck buses.
Maintenance Shops •
A maintenance bay at D2, D6, CMF can accommodate a double deck bus with minor modifications. The relocation of a sprinkler line, exhaust system metal ducting, existing lighting, and bird netting will be required to accommodate double deck buses. 126
Report No. 15-004 Page 5 of 7 •
D4 would require major structural modifications to the maintenance bay to accommodate double deck buses. Multiple fluid piping and electrical lines would need to be raised or relocated; also the major structural beams for the building are only 18 feet from the floor. Sprinkler lines would also need to be relocated or adjusted to accommodate the height clearance requirements.
Steam Bays •
D2, D6, and CMF would require minor modifications to relocate sprinkler lines, lighting, and bird netting.
•
D4 requires major modifications if the bus is to be raised more than 3 feet. Structural beams that support the building will need modifications to accommodate double deck buses.
The Richmond division was not included in this assessment; however, staff will work with the Architectural and Engineering contractor for the D3 property to include double deck bus accessibility into the design of the refurbished facility. Service Planning for Double Deck Buses The primary benefit and purpose for incorporating double deck buses into the AC Transit fleet is to increase passenger capacity on Transbay express buses while minimizing additional operating expense. To maximize this benefit, Planning staff has developed the following criteria to identify service routes for the double deck buses: 1. 2. 3. 4.
High ridership demand for service Limited-stop service to minimize dwell time and delay Lines that serve at least one major ridership generator No vertical clearance constraints
Based upon the criteria noted above, the Planning Department has identified lines FS, J, L, NX, NX1, NX2, and U as potential routes that could best accommodate and benefit from the use of double deck buses. The U Line meets all of the criteria identified above with only 11 bus stops along the route, major trip generators at the Fremont BART Station, ACE Train Station, and Ardenwood Park & Ride, along with the highest ridership productivity among all Transbay lines. The FS and the J have similar characteristics as the U with service through Downtown Berkeley and Emeryville, respectively; however, both routes have over 20 bus stops. The NX lines that serve the MacArthur Boulevard corridor in East Oakland have between 11 and 28 stops. The L Line serves the San Pablo Boulevard corridor in Contra Costa County with 30 stops, which is the most stops of the selected lines for the demonstration. Staff will monitor the dwell times during the proposed demonstration and measure the impact to on-time performance from the number of stops on the line with service being provided by double deck buses. Double Deck Bus Demonstration Pending Board authorization, Alexander Dennis has agreed to loan the District a bus for testing in revenue service beginning in February 2015 for up to six weeks on the FS, J, L, NX, NX1, NX2, U and 51B lines. The routes selected will provide feedback on both transbay and local service. While line 51B does not meet all of the criteria for double deck buses, the test on a local route 127
Report No. 15-004 Page 6 of 7 will allow staff to analyze passenger reactions and operational constraints. The routes identified were investigated by staff to ensure there are no non-negotiable vertical constraints along the path of travel and at stops, including the Bay Bridge. The demonstration will also assist Planning, Transportation, Maintenance and Technical Service Departments to confirm any operational requirements and compare the vehicle to published American Public Transportation Association bus procurement standards in vehicle configuration. Staff will also exhibit the bus to local agencies, stakeholder groups, and advisory committees. Ambassadors will be on board the bus to assist passengers and provide information about the pilot and to ensure the operations run smoothly and safely. The ambassadors will also conduct passenger surveys to solicit feedback on the use of double deck buses. Staff will interview the operators and maintenance employees at the end of the test to collect their opinions of the bus. The passenger and internal feedback will help staff determine if the double deck bus is a vehicle the District should consider procuring for replacement vehicles. The findings from the demonstration will be reported to the Board after completion of the demonstration. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The advantages of utilizing double deck buses is the increased passenger capacity while providing less road space and easing crowding on popular commuter lines and residential streets. Double deck buses are expected to have less maintenance when compared to articulated buses that require considerable maintenance for the articulation joint that is located in the middle of the bus. The disadvantages to the proposed use of double deck buses would include the safety considerations identified in this report, issues with towing the double deck buses, and increased dwell time. The District will also need to work with local cities to ensure trees are properly trimmed to avoid incidents affecting the operators and buses. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
The analysis in this report was provided at the request of the board. The demonstration for the double deck buses and any further consideration for procurement could be discontinued; however, this alternative is not recommended since the continued increase in ridership will result in either the need for higher capacity buses or for the District to take on the additional costs to provide a higher number of lower capacity buses and trips in response to the increased ridership demands. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
None ATTACHMENTS: 1: 2:
Photo Specification Sheet- Alexander Dennis Double Deck Bus
128
Report No. 15-004 Page 7 of7
Department Head Approval:
James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer I Interim Chief Financial Officer
Reviewed by:
Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel
Prepared by:
Stuart Hoffman, Manager oflechnical Services
129
This page intentionally blank
130
131
This page intentionally blank
132
SR 15-004
ALEXANDER DENNIS
Attachment 2
II CONTRACT No
WA4930 (12.8mtr)
CUSTOMER
COMMUNITY TRANSIT (13'- 6" HEIGHT)
CHASSIS TYPE
DENNIS E500 (USA) - 12.8m
BODY TYPE
ENVIRO 500
SEAT TYPE
AMERICAN N2000/PRACTICO
SEATING CAPACITY L.S.
28
SEATING CAPACITY U.S.
49
STANDEES
10
TYRES
305/70R 22.5 - 154/150E
PASSENGER MASS ( Kg )
68
WHEELBASE
7150
I II I
TOTAL
II
87
II ESTIMATED VEHICLE WEIGHT
F.A.
A.A.
TOTAL
CHASSIS LADEN WEIGHT
1410
7990
9400
BODY UNLADEN WEIGHT
3090
4810
7900
Kerb Wt ( Chassis, Body, Luggage )
4500
12800
17300
WEIGHT DUE TO PASSENGERS
2308
3608
5916
CHASSIS PLATED WEIGHT
II
6808
i
164Q8
232~ 6
I
7100
I
1000017100
24000
133
This page intentionally blank
134
Report No: Meeting Date:
15-005 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Passenger Survey Requirements
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider accepting the future passenger surveys sponsored and conducted by The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to be the passenger survey for the District as required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is committed to conducting a passenger survey for each transit agency in the San Francisco Bay Area every five (5) years. The most recent guidelines of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 calls for transit agencies to collect and report survey data regarding customer demographic and travel patterns on the same cycle. MTC's next passenger survey for AC Transit is planned for 2017. MTC last surveyed AC Transit in 2012, and the Board accepted that survey to serve as the District's rider profile survey as it fulfilled the requirements of Title VI and other survey analyses. Since the MTC survey asks for the type of demographic information required for Title VI, staff recommends that it serve as the survey required for Title VI compliance going forward . The demographic and travel survey requirements under Title VI eliminate the need for a separate Board policy on the frequency of conducting passenger and demographic surveys. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: Future surveys will cost the District approximately $140,000 each based on MTC's request that transit agencies match 20% of the survey' s cost for that agency. MTC Staff stated that the AC Transit 2012 survey cost $696,000; 20% of this amount would be approximately $140,000.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: AC Transit regularly conducts a rider profile survey to assist the District in assessing servicerelated issues, such as policies or plans that may impact ridership. With this information, the District can examine ways to increase ridership, improve outreach to minority and low-income communities, set fare policy, and assess overall customer satisfaction. The data is also used for
135
Report No. 15-005 Page 2 of 3 grant applications that call for such information, and it is regularly provided to other local, state, and national entities. This survey data is critical for conducting analyses under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Current Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI compliance guidelines require larger transit agencies to collect and report survey data regarding customer demographic and travel patterns every five years. Beginning in 2012, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) began a coordinated effort to collect transit passenger data from all Bay Area transit properties as part of the region's Transit Sustainability Project (TSP). MTC's vision was to provide consistency in data gathering and to reduce costs by eliminating duplicative efforts. MTC would survey each transit agency every five years. AC Transit was surveyed in Fall 2012, and the next survey according to the five year cycle would be Fall 2017. The demographic and travel survey requirements under Title VI eliminate the need for a separate Board policy on the frequency of conducting passenger and demographic surveys. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The advantage of accepting the MTC-sponsored survey as the District's survey required under Title VI is an efficient and effective use of resources. Specifically, Title VI requires the collection of information on race, color, national origin, English proficiency, language spoken at home, household income, and travel patterns through surveys. The questions in the MTC survey fulfill all of these requirements. The disadvantage is that the MTC survey is not thorough and comprehensive to meet all the District's data needs. In particular, the MTC survey does not ask questions about passengers' riding habits and experiences (how often they ride in a day or a week, their perceptions of the service, their access to different forms of payment, etc.). Staff may be able to work with MTC to include additional or alternate questions that will meet those needs. By shifting the responsibility of the passenger survey collection effort to MTC, AC Transit would be able to conduct other surveys annually that answer questions not posed by the MTC survey, or that look at a broader population other than bus riders. This could include public perception and image surveys, and surveys and focus groups to non-transit riders to encourage more transit use. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
The alternative would be for the District to conduct its own surveys. However, the District would incur significant additional costs and require devotion of resources for survey implementation that could be used for other targeted research and analytic needs. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
Staff Report 13-114a, Results of the 2012 On board Rider Profile Survey Board Policy 551, Title VI Environmental Justice Service Review and Compliance Report Policy
136
Report No. 15-005 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS: None
Executive Staff Approval: Reviewed by:
Prepared by:
Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering and Construction Officer Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Howard Der, Planning Data Administrator Sally Goodman, Title VI Coordinator
137
This page intentionally blank
138
Report No: M eeting Date:
15-024 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Planning Committee AC Tra nsit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armij o, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Summary of Public Outreach for Comprehensive Operations Analysis, Round 1
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Receive a summary of Fall 2014 public outreach activities related to the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report summarizes outreach methods and findings from AC Transit' s Fall 2014 public outreach campaign for t he COA. This feedback will be used to develop service recommendations for public comment in early 2015. Based on information from this outreach process and goals established through the original Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transit Sustainability Project (TSP) and COA processes, Staff will develop guiding principles and recommendations for their application to incorporate into the District's ShortRange Transportation Plan (SRTP) submittal to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). BUDGETARY/ FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE Background
In 2012-13, AC Transit conducted a Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) with technical support from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Staff presented a set of recommendations to the Board of Directors on June 12, 2013. Recognizing the need for public input and support to advance the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA); AC Transit requested and was granted outreach support from MTC. Outreach was initially scheduled to begin in Summer 2014. To minimize conflicts with other outreach efforts, staff rescheduled the COA outreach for Fall 2014. The report below summarizes the outreach methods and findings from the Fall 2014 outreach campaign and outlines next steps for the COA process.
139
Report No. 15-024 Page 2 of 5 PlanACT
The COA coincides with the Major Corridors Plan and an update to the Short-Range Transportation Plan (SRTP). This presents a unique opportunity to address a full range of issues in a robust public outreach process, including routes and schedules, infrastructure, and policies. Attachment 1 illustrates how these three planning activities are interrelated and respond to a range of questions about transit. For legibility, clarity, and consistency, staff developed a single identity or brand for the three major planning activities called "PianACT." Characterized by clean design aesthetic and vivid color scheme, PlanACT marketing materials are meant to be contemporary, eye-catching, and interesting for existing and potential customers. The simple subheadings (Routes & Schedules, Infrastructure, and Policies & Vision) clearly communicate to the public the general topic and purpose for each piece of collateral.
Methods AC Transit welcomed public input and interaction through a variety of channels in this outreach process. The outreach method, locations, format, manner of notification, and level of participation are summarized in Attachment 2. Each element is discussed in more detail below. Public Workshops AC Transit hosted eleven public workshops throughout the District between Oct 1 and Nov 10. Although only eight workshops were initially scheduled, AC Transit accommodated three requests for additional meetings. Workshop locations were chosen to provide maximum coverage for public convenience and to allow focused conversation on specific areas. These workshops were designed to solicit feedback about existing service, explain common transit trade-offs, and receive specific and realistic network recommendations based on a fixed set of resources. The majority of each workshop session was reserved for a small-group activity to design a transit network. Using maps and ribbon, groups were asked to create a network of 15 and 30 minute routes constrained by current revenue hours. Workshops in Alameda County included additional ribbon to estimate the benefits of Measure BB on operating funds. This hands-on activity allowed participants to explore common transit trade-offs such as coverage versus frequency. Finally, a representative from each group shared major points from their discussion. Findings are summarized in this report. Surveys In addition to the workshops, AC Transit Staff designed a short survey to understand public preferences. The survey had two major components: (1) ranking characteristics that influence an individual's decision to use transit over other modes and (2) preferences about four common trade-offs. The surveys also collected optional travel-behavior and demographic data. The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Chinese online and on paper at the public workshops. Seven hundred and seventy-five (775) surveys were collected. The complete English-language survey is provided in Attachment 3. Findings are summarized in this report. 140
Report No. 15-024 Page 3 of 5 Comment Forms AC Transit also accepted open-ended comments in the form of email, telephone voicemail, written comments, and verbal comments at meetings. Comment forms were available in English, Spanish, and Chinese at public workshops. Approximately 120 open-ended comments were submitted during this outreach process. Findings are summarized in this report. Youth Engagement Y-PLAN ("Youth- Plan, Learn, Act. Now!") is a program championed by UC Berkeley's Center for Cities and Schools to engage young people in civic activity and develop problem-solving and communication skills in a professional setting. AC Transit staff collaborated with the program and approximately 40 Eleventh grade students from MetWest High School reviewed routes and ridership data, surveyed customers, developed recommendations and delivered their final presentations in the AC Transit Board Room. Findings AC Transit received almost 900 completed surveys and open-ended comments, as well as dozens of additional notes and network maps from the public workshop exercises.
Staff
analyzed this feedback and Attachment 4 outlines the analysis in detail. Below are the common themes. •
•
• • • •
Reliability. Although the COA outreach focused on route and network design, schedule reliability is undeniably the primary concern among current AC Transit customers. Asked if improved frequency would reduce concerns about schedule adherence, members of the public cited bus-bunching on high frequency corridors (San Pablo, International Blvd/Telegraph Ave, and Broadway/College Ave) as examples of why reliability improvements are necessary. Staff is equally concerned about reliability and has implemented several strategies to improve the system's on-time performance (OTP). In conjunction with the eventual implementation of COA recommendations, Staff will continue to focus on reliability as a top concern. Frequency. Coupled with improved schedule reliability, improved frequency was one of the most common requests. Frequency is critical to growing transit mode-share and implementing efficient network design. In general, participants were willing to accept moderately longer walking distances and less network coverage in exchange for improved frequency. Speed. Improved speed (or reduced travel time) is also critical to growing transit modeshare. Route and stop design should emphasize speed. Cross-town Service. New or improved cross-town routes were a common request from participants. Simplified service. Participants generally mapped straight lines along major arterials with minimal diversions. This reflects a desire for a clean, legible network. Higher-frequency cross-town routes. Participants expressed strong desire for new and improved cross-town routes to serve as a connection between major corridors or connection to BART stations.
141
Report No. 15-024 Page 4 of 5 •
•
BART connections. BART is a key destination, particularly in Central/Southern Alameda and West Contra Costa. This reflects a willingness to use bus-to-BART connections for commuting. Grid Networks. Given a fixed set of resource, participants generally identified a grid of strong north-south and east-west routes to maximize access and mobility.
Next Steps
As shown in the timeline below (Figure 1. Timeline for PlanACT planning activities), staff will return to the public in early-2015 with a set of updated route and network recommendations for public comment. Recommendations will reflect the comments from public workshops and surveys, guiding principles from the original Transit Sustainability Project and COA effort, as well as general best practices. Recommendations will include before/after route maps (where necessary) and a description of proposed frequency and span. Total revenue hours in Alameda will reflect the approximate 14.3% increase in revenue hours anticipated as a result of Measure BB. Where possible, concerns about reliability will be addressed through route design and through Staff's effort to improve On-time Performance. Other reliability-as well as speedimprovements may be developed as part of the Major Corridors Study (MCS), kicking off shortly after the second round of COA outreach. Figure 1. Timeline for PlanACT planning activities
COA Network Recommendations
I
SRTP
•
Draft Plan Final Pla n
Major Corridors Plan
Draft Plan
* •
Public Outreach Meetings Major Milestones
142
Final Plan
Report No. 15-024 Page 5 of 5 ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: There are no advantages or disadvantages associated with this Briefing Report. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: Although staff conducted a robust outreach effort, there are opportunities for improvement in future rounds of outreach. First, staff can incorporate "pop-up" outreach methods such as intercept surveys and tabling key activity nodes (transit hubs, downtown centers, and major events). This has the benefit of engaging people who do not have time, interest, or means to attend a public meeting, as well as people who do not currently ride AC Transit. Second, staff can improve the online presence for PlanACT. Currently, all information is limited to a single web page on the AC Transit site. Staff can consider ways to enhance online presence through improved web design, more prominent placement of information and paths to the website, and quality/quantity of content to increase interest. Conversely, Staff could have opted not to conduct any public outreach related to the COA and advanced the original recommendations for approval and implementation. However, those recommendations would not go through a critical public vetting process in the planning phase. With effective outreach in the planning phase, implementation becomes easier and more efficient due to early public buy-in on the recommendations. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: SR 12-291b
Planning Agenda: Report on the final service recommendations under the Inner East Bay Comprehensive Operations Analysis
ATTACHMENTS: 1: PlanACT Framework for linking coinciding planning activities
2: Summary of COA public outreach methods, notification, and participation 3: PlanACT- COA Survey- Round 1 4: Survey Results 5: Workshop Activity Results, Map of High-Priority Corridors
Executive Staff Approval:
Aida R. Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering, and Construction Officer
Reviewed by:
Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development
Prepared by:
Stephen Newhouse, Transportation Planner
143
This page intentionally blank
144
SR 15-024 Attachment 1 PlanACT Framework for linking coinciding planning activities
Routes & Schedules Planning Activity: Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) Questions Answered: • Where does transit go? • When does it go there?
Infrastructure
Policies & Vision
Planning Activity: Major Corridors Plan (MCP)
Planning Activity: Short-Range Transportation Plan (SRTP) Questions Answered: • Why is transit service provided in a given location at a given level? • Who has access to transit?
Questions Answered: • What kind of vehicle will I travel in? What kind of bus shelter will I use? • How is transit enhanced to make it convenient, comfortable, safe, and reliable?
145
This page intentionally blank
146
SR 15-024 Attachment 2
Summary of COA public outreach methods, notification, and participation Method Public Workshops
Location 8 workshops: • Fremont • Hayward • Oakland (Fruitvale) • Oakland {Eastmont) • Oakland {West Oak.) • Alameda • Berkeley • Richmond
3 additional workshops by request:
Notification/Publicity
Participation
• 700 postcards mailed to key stakeholders • 60,000 brochures placed on buses • eNews messages
Approx. 150 participants, including vice mayors, city council members, city planning and transportation commission or committee members, city and county transportation planners, and advocacy groups.
• Social media announcements • Media buys in 9 major papers including Spanish and Chinese language papers
• Hayward {Community Resources for Independent Living)
Youth Engagement
Survey
• San Leandro • UC Berkeley MetWest High School {Oakland), 11'h Grade Y-PLAN Fall semester project
Approx. 40 students
• 700 postcards mailed to key stakeholders • 60,000 brochures placed on buses • eNews messages • Social media announcements • Media buys in 9 major papers including Spanish and Chinese language papers
775 completed surveys
• Online (via email to
[email protected])
• 700 postcards mailed to key stakeholders
• Paper (at public workshops)
• 60,000 brochures placed on buses • eNews messages • Social media announcements • Media buys in 9 major papers including Spanish and Chinese language papers
Approx. 120 comments received via email, paper, or voicemail
•· Online (via Survey Monkey) • Paper (at public workshops) All survey materials were available in English, Spanish, and Chinese
Comment Forms
Coordinated through partnership with UC Berkeley's Center for Cities and Schools, Oakland Unified School District, and AC Transit
• Voicemail All comment forms were available in English, Spanish, and Chinese
147
This page intentionally blank
148
SR 15-024 Attachment 3
Survey Comprehensive Operations Analysis Public Workshops, Oct 2014 Tell us about how you ride AC Transit Plan ACT is a detailed study of AC Transit service, infrastructure, and policies to develop a near- and long-term vision for transit in the East Bay. This survey is intended to collect your input about AC Transit bus routes and schedules. Please fill out this short survey to let AC Transit know what kind of future improvements would best serve you.
1.
What is your home address or nearest major intersection to your home address?
2.
What is the address or nearest intersection to your primary destination (i.e. school, work)? leave this answer blank if you do not know.
3.
How often do you use AC Transit?
D D D D D 4.
Most days (5-7 days per week) A few times per week A few times per month A few times per year Never
Think about what you value about riding the bus. Which of the following characteristics would you prioritize in order to improve your experience? Which would most encourage you to take the bus over other alternatives? Please rank the following characteristics from 1 (MOST important) to 7 (LEAST important). In order to make your input most useful to us, please use numbers rather than check marks so that your priorities are clear.
D
Hours of Operation. The bus should be available most hours of the day and on weekends, not just weekday rush hour.
D
Simplicity. The bus system should be easy to understand, especially when I need to take an unfamiliar route.
D D D
Reliability. The bus should be on time, so I can plan my trip. Speed/Time. The bus should get me to my destination quickly. Frequency. The bus should come often, so I can plan my day easily. If I miss my bus, I should not have to wait long for the next one.
D
Coverage. The bus should be widely available in most areas, including those with low demand.
D
location. Bus stops should be close to my home and/or destination. I should not have to walk far to or from the bus. 149
Transit Trade-Offs The next four questions explore common TRADE-OFFS in transit. All answers are valid, but may lead to different outcomes. It is difficult to achieve all of these characteristics at the same time. Trade-Off: Walking vs Waiting (Stop Spacing)
~
-
0
~C!~
~~~
~
0~--oo---oo--~o~~~~--~o
6 00-1,000'
~
~~~
eAa
~
t'?C!~
1~1
~
o----~o~----~o~----~o~----~o~----~o~--~0>----------.-o 900-1,200'
5.
For convenience, many buses stop every 1-2 blocks (600- 1,000 feet). By spreading out stops to every 3-4 blocks (900 - 1,200 feet), buses can travel faster and get you to your destination quicker. Stops would be maintained at major destinations. Minor stops would be consolidated where necessary.
Which option below describes the type of transit you prefer to use?
0
A. I prefer the convenience of wal king a short distance to get to a bus stop and having a slower bus trip to my destination.
0
B. I prefer walking further to a bus stop and having a faster bus trip to my destination.
150
Trade-Off: Walking vs Waiting (Route Design)
o----~o~--------~o~------------
----------
6.
Some bus routes travel through neighborhood streets, shopping center parking lots, and other detours to provide door-to-door service. This is convenient for some users, but makes the bus trip longer by contrast. Routes that travel on main streets generally travel faster and more reliably. This may allow AC Transit to increase frequency of service.
In general, which option below BEST describes the type of transit you prefer to use?
0 0
A. I prefer to WALK LESS, but WAIT LONGER. B. I prefer to WAIT LESS, but WALK FARTHER.
151
Trade-Off: Connections vs Complexity (Network)
7.
A collection of routes is called a network. Some networks provide a one-seat ride between activity centers (Diagram A). Routes are generally less direct and less frequent. Other networks rely on transfers between routes (Diagram B). This allows service to be concentrated in simple, more frequent routes, but some trips require transfers.
D D
A. I prefer a ON E SEAT RIDE, with less f requent and less direct se rvi ce. B. I prefer a network of more frequent se rvice that relies o n TRANSFERS betwee n routes.
152
Trade-Off: Coverage vs Frequency (Area)
...... '.,...., •
•
SIAl
8.
When transit agencies consider expanding service, they almost never have enough funds to add all the service that people request. The transit agency therefore has a difficult choice; they can serve a smaller number of people by adding new service where homes and businesses are more spread out and therefore have fewer potential riders. Alternatively, they can serve a larger number of people by adding more buses to existing routes where many people travel.
Ultimately, AC Transit will strike a balance between these two extremes, but in general, what do you think is the BEST use of new resources?
0
A. New resources sho uld be used to increase coverage to areas without existing se rvice.
0
B. New resources sho uld be used to add buses to ro utes with high ridership.
153
Tell us a little more about you Thank you for taking our survey! The three remaining questions are optional, but will help AC Transit better understand who is providing feedback. Please remember all answers are anonymous.
9.
What is your age?
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.
11.
18-24 25-34 35-54 55-64 65-74 75 or older I prefer not to answer
What is your gender?
0
Male
0 0
Female Other/1 prefer not to answer
How do you identify? (Select all that apply)
0 0 0
12.
Younger than 18
White not Hispanic/Latina Hispanic or Latino African American/Black
0 0
Other
0
I prefer not to answer
Asian or Pacific Islander
What is your annual household income?
0
$0- $24,999
0 0
$25,000- $49,999
0 0 0
$75,000- $99,999
0 0 0
$150,000- $174,999 $175,000- $199,999
0
I prefer not to answer
$50,000- $74,999
$100,000- $124,999 $125,000- $149,999
$200,000 or more
Thanks for taking the time to complete our survey! Your input is important, as it will help us develop recommendations to improve AC Transit routes and schedules. 154
If you have any questions or additional comments about Plan ACT or this survey, send a message to planning@act ra nsit.org.
13.
If you would like to be notified about future meetings and other news related to Plan ACT, please enter your email address below. Your email address will not be used for any other purposes.
155
This page intentionally blank
156
SR 15-024 Attachment 4 Survey Results and Analysis Survey AC Transit received 775 completed surveys throughout the District. Surveys focused on prioritizing characteristics about transit that influence usage and attitudes about common trade-offs. Demographics and Mode-choice
Approximately half of respondents reported using AC Transit 5-7 days per week. Only five percent of respondents reported never using AC Transit. Age of respondents was approximately normally distributed, with the largest portion (34%) between 35 and 54 years old. Of respondents who reported race/ethnicity, most respondents (59%) identified as "white, non-Hispanic/Latina." Of respondents who reported annual household income, the majority (53%) reported earning less than $75,000 per year. Transit Priorities
Survey-takers were asked to rank transit characteristics that influence usage. Results are ordered by respondent priority in Table 2. Histograms (found in Attachment 2} illustrate the distribution of priority-ranking for each characteristic. Survey respondents identified reliability as the most important transit characteristic, followed closely by frequency. These two characteristics far outweighed other options, consistent with research about consumer behavior and mode-choice. Speed, span, and stop location were ranked third, fourth, and fifth most important transit characteristics. Speed and span were common topics in conversation and written comments. Speed was usually mentioned in the context of peak-hour commutes but frequently brought up with respect to non-commute trips (shopping, appointments, and entertainment). Slow travel speeds-combined with infrequent service-made transit uncompetitive with automobiles for these non-commute trips. Span was most often mentioned in residential areas where service is limited or unavailable in evenings and weekends. Finally, coverage and network simplicity were ranked sixth and seventh, respectively. Table 1. Transit Priorities Question
Think about what you value about riding the bus. Which of the following characteristics would you prioritize in order to improve your experience? Which would most encourage you to take the bus over other alternatives? Please rank the following characteristics from 1 (most important) to 7 (least important). Answer Choice
Average Rank
Reliability. The bus should be on time, so I can plan my trip.
2.70
Frequency. The bus should come often, so I can plan my day easily. If
2.71
157
I miss my bus, I should not have to wait long for the next one.
Speed/Time. The bus should get me to my destination quickly.
3.96
Hours of Operation. The bus should be available most hours of the
4.01
day and on weekends, not just weekday rush hour.
Location. Bus stops should be close to my home and/or destination. I
4.16
should not have to walk far to or from the bus.
Coverage. The bus should be widely available in most areas, including
4.83
those with low demand.
Simplicity. The bus system should be easy to understand, especially
5.63
when I need to take an unfamiliar route.
Trade-offs Survey-takers were asked to select a preference between pairs of common transit trade-offs. For each question, the majority of respondents expressed a preference for options that improve speed or frequency.Of survey respondents, • 69% preferred wider stops spacing (900- 1,200 ft); • 81% preferred more direct routes without deviations; • 55% preferred simplified, more frequent routes; and • 59% preferred investing new funds in more frequency rather than more coverage. Staff will consider this strong preference for speed and frequency when updating the route and network recommendations for public review. Complete survey results are available in Attachment 2.
Comment Forms Staff collected open-ended comments in the form of approximately 120 email, voicemail, and hand-written comment cards. A summary of the volume of comments related to general topics is shown below in Table 2. Some comment forms addressed multiple topics, thus the number of specific comments exceeds the number of comment forms submitted.
Table 2. Summary of open-ended comments Subject Route or StopSpecific
#Received 38
Workshop
24
Span Frequency Other
21 19 18
Reliability
16
Customer Service
11
General themes • Various • • • •
20 positive comments thanking staff, complementing activity Insufficient internet presence Longer span of service, particularly later service Greater frequency of service
• • • • • •
Various Bus-bunching Timed-transfers to/from BART or buses Missed trips Operator courtesy Call-center 158
Vehicles
9
Speed
7
• Request s for larger buses, capacity issues • Expansion of Rapid/limited services
Distribution of priority-ranking for each transit characteristic.
f
Span
Reliability
.
50<.4
50<.4
...~ 40<.4
40%
~
~ 10<.4 ~
...c 20'.4 ..::! l0<.4 .....
0
0<.4
:IO'l'
II I I 4
2
l O%
I s
• 6
Rank
-
l 0".4
I
0%
I
Frequency W .4
40'.4
40'.4
10'.<0
lO%
l0'.4 0'.<0
III l
1
I I 4
s
Speed
•6
lO% 0%
10'.4
30<.4
20".4
20".4
2
I I I I
I
s
6
7
III 4
I 6
s
6
7
Coverage 40%
I
I I
4
40%
I
1
7
50<.4
0% '
I
4
20%
50<.4
l 0".4
II
I
3
Location
50<.4
l0'.4
I
lO%
I
(l
7
•
•I
2
159
I I 1
4
II s
6
I 7
Proportion of survey respondents favoring specific trade-off choices
. 0
~ 0
~
oo
~
0
0
0
~ 0
0
~
0
0
600 · 1,000'
9A9 _____. 900 · 1,200'
For convenience, many buses stop every 1-2 blocks {600 - 1,000 feet). By spreading out stops to every 3-4 blocks {900 - 1,200 feet), buses can travel faster and get you to your destination quicker. Stops would be maintained at major destinations. Minor stops would be consolidated where necessary. Which option below describes the type of transit you prefer to use? A. I prefer the convenience of walking a short distance to get to a bus stop and having a slower .: bus trip to my destination B. I prefer walking further to a bus stop and having a faster bus trip to my destination.
Some bus routes travel through neighborhood streets, shopping center parking lots, and other detours to provide door-to-door service. This is convenient for some users, but makes the bus trip longer by contrast. Routes that travel on main street generally travel faster and more reliably. This may allow AC Transit to increase frequency of service. In general, which option below BEST describes the type of transit you prefer to use? A. I prefer to WALK LESS, but WAIT LONGER. B. I prefer to WAIT LESS, but WALK FARTHER.
160
J~
l
I A collection of routes is called a network. Some networks provide a one-seat ride between activity centers (Diagram A). Routes are generally less direct and less frequent. Other networks rely on transfers between routes (Diagram B). This allows service to be concentrated in simple, more frequent routes, but some trips require transfers. In general, which option below BEST describes the type of transit you prefer to use? A. I prefer a ONE SEAT RIDE, with less frequent and less direct service. B. I prefer a network of more frequent service that relies on TRANSFERS between routes.
"
.
When transit agencies consider expanding service, they almost never have enough funds to add all the service that people request. The transit agency therefore has a difficult choice: they can serve a smaller number of people by adding new service where homes and businesses are more spread out and therefore have fewer potential riders. Alternatively, they can serve a larger number of people by adding more buses to existing routes where many people travel. Ultimately, AC Transit will strike a balance between these two extremes, but in general, what do you think is the BEST use of new resources? A. New resources should be used to increase coverage to areas without existing service. B. New resources should be used to add buses to routes with high ridership.
161
Demographics and Mode-Choice How often do you use AC Transit?
A fe\'l times per
0%
10 %
30%
20%
40 %
What Is your age?
18-24 Youngerthan 18
35 - 54
65 .74 55-64
162
I Jlfef.t nou o a nr,.• r
75 Clt
Cikt•t
50%
What is your annual household income?
S100.000 S125.000·
I prefer not to ans\',oer
0%
5%
10 %
15%
20 %
25%
How do you identify? (Select aU that apply)
-
l<.'lliter-ct Hisparic;.b1iro
-
Hispanic or Latir.o
-
AfricanAmericaniBiack
- ~~~:::,Pacific - Ot~r
-
163
I !l
This page intentionally blank
164
SR 15-024 Attachment 5
West Contra Costa County
Score 26-50% . . 51-75%
""'Y
. . 76-100%
0 -
0 .5 c:=:-
1 C=:J Miles
Given strong north-south connectivity along San Pablo Ave up to Contra Costa College~ participants identified key corridors for frequency. Participants generally used existing transit corridors except for new service to the future Richmond Bay Campus. I
This map represents input from workshop participants. "Scoren reflects the percentage of small-group maps that identified a given corridor for frequent service. This map is intended to identify corridors of primary concern. This map is not a suggested route map.
165
North Alameda County (Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, North Oakland)
Score Upto25% 26-50% . . 51 -75% . . 76-100%
0
0.5
Given strong north-south service (Lines 1/lR, 72/72M/72R, SlA/B), participants expressed desire for more east-west connectivity (Gilman/Hopkins, Ashby, Dwight, and Alcatraz), enhanced frequency along Sacramento and Hollis/6th/7th, and service into major destinations (Emeryville, 4th Street, Berkeley Bowl) This map represents input from workshop participants. "Scoren reflects the percentage of small-group maps that identified a given corridor for frequent service. This map is intended to identify corridors of primary concern. This map is not a suggested route map.
166
West Oakland N
A
Participants generally frequency.
maintained the existing grid with improved
This map represents input from workshop participants. ascoreN reflects the percentage of small-group maps that identified a given corridor for frequent service. This map is intended to identify corridors of primary concern. This map is not a suggested route map.
167
City of Alameda
Score Up to 25% 26-50% . . 51-75% . . 76-100%
0
0.5
1
-~=--.;;::::=JMiles
Given strong east-west service (Line 51A), participants expressed desire for more north-south mobility within the island (Grand St, Park St) and access to Kaiser Hospital (Otis Dr)
This map represents input from workshop participants. "Score" reflects the percentage of small-group maps that identified a given corridor for frequent service. This map is intended to identify corridors of primary concern. This map is not a suggested route map.
168
East Oakland (Inner)
Given strong connectivity to/from Downtown Oakland along International, Foothill, and Macarthur, participants focused on improved crosstown connectivity, especially along Park, 14th Ave, 23rd Ave, Fruitvale Ave, High Street, Seminary Ave, and 73rd Ave. This map represents input from workshop participants. NScoreN reflects the percentage of small-group maps that identified a given corridor for frequent service. This map is intended to identify corridors of primary concern. This map is not a suggested route map.
169
East Oakland (Outer) N
A
26-50% . . 51-75%
r~~
,. . 76-100%
0
0.5
1 Miles
Given strong connectivity to/from Downtown Oakland along International, Foothill, and Macarthur, participants focused on improved crosstown connectivity, especially along High St, Seminary Ave, 73rd Ave/ Hegenberger Rd, and ggth Ave.
This map represents input from workshop participants. "Score" reflects the percentage of small-group maps that identified a given corridor for frequent service. This map is intended to identify corridors of primary concern. This map is not a suggested route map.
170
Central Alameda County (San leandro, Hayward, Union City) N
A
.._.,
Score
Despite a somewhat radial, inconsistent street network, participants identified a simplified grid of linear routes, enhanced crosstown service connecting to BART, and simplified, frequent service between Mission Blvd and Hesperian.
This map represents input from workshop participants. "Score// reflects the percentage of small-group maps that identified a given corridor for frequent service. This map is intended to identify corridors of primary concern. This map is not a suggested route map.
171
South Alameda County (Fremont, Newark) '
A
Score Upto25%
-
-===--
2 -=:==:JMiles
Participants identified a frequent grid-network that would enhance access to major trip generators like college campuses, shopping centers, and BART stations.
This map represents input from workshop participants. "Scoren reflects the percentage of small-group maps that identified a given corridor for frequent service. This map is intended to identify corridors of primary concern. This map is not a suggested route map.
172
Report No:
14-033c
Meeting Date:
January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Update on the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)-Operating and Capital Budget Projections
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider receiving an update on the SRTP operating and capital budget projections. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report transmits revised SRTP operating and capital budget projection chapters for the Board's review and comment. These chapters, particularly the operating budget, have been revised to incorporate funding from Alameda County Measure BB. Staff plans to bring a complete draft of the SRTP in March 2015, which will include a summary of the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) process and guiding principles. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no budgetary/fiscal impacts associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
This is the fourth in a series of updates to the Board on the preparation and submission of the SRTP. The SRTP is a financial, regulatory, and planning document mandated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Each of the seven major transit agencies in the Bay Area is currently preparing an SRTP, per MTC's direction. The SRTP is also an opportunity for the District to consider its policies and service, particularly in conjunction with Comprehen sive Operations Analysis (COA) and the upcoming Major Corridors study (MCS). These three planning projects constitute the Plan ACT program. Together with the upcoming review of Board Policy 550-Service Development-Plan ACT constitutes a wide-ranging effort to review and renew AC Transit's service and infrastructure. Operating Plan The operating budget projection, known in the SRTP as the Operating Plan is a core component of the SRTP. See Attachment One for the budget and narrative. The SRTP Operating Plan serves
173
Report No. 14-033c Page 2 of 4 as an outline of the District's operating budget-full details on the budget will be provided in the mid-year budget review. The SRTP is designed in part to assure MTC and FTA that AC Transit will have adequate funds to support the service we intend to provide. This chapter outlines expected funding, while the COA will describe the service we plan to operate. Therefore, a summary of the service must be included in the SRTP. Staff also plans to provide the Board with a more detailed analysis of projected Measure BB spending next month. Service Increases: The passage of Measure BB required staff to revise previous operating budget projections which did not include BB funds. The new operating plan/budget in the SRTP proposes, starting in FY 16-17, to use approximately 85% of anticipated Measure BB income to augment service. Measure BB revenue is projected to gradually increase from $30.3 million in FY 15-16 to $39.4 million in FY 24-25, the end of the SRTP period. These projections do not include potential revenue from the State's Cap and Trade program, or increases from other sources. The BB revenue would pay for some 270,000 additional (platform) operating hours per year. This increase would translate into 243,000 actual (revenue) service hours per year, or just over 665 revenue hours per day. 243,000 new revenue hours would represent a 14.3% increase over the current level of roughly 1,700,000 revenue hours per year. This would increase AC Transit's total revenue hours to nearly 1,950,000, which is the level of service provided in 200809-the highest level of service in the last ten years and the level of service prior to significant service cuts in 2010-11. Assuming other sources of operating revenue are stable, Measure BB funding will allow a significant, but moderate, growth in District service. Staff expects that this new service will be financially sustainable over the ten year SRTP period, assuming that Measure BB sales tax funds increase at a moderate rate. The SRTP operating plan must be based on reasonable assumptions of anticipated costs and revenue, including farebox revenue. Service increases are proposed to begin next year (FY 15-16) at a lower level, due to a lack of available buses and division capacity. Staff expects to have additional buses-and D3 as a storage/maintenance site-available in FY 16-17 (see the discussion of the capital budget). Other Uses for BB funds: In the interim, Measure BB funds would be used in part as matching funds for capital grants. Funds not used for service in future years would also be applied to this purpose. This will improve AC Transit's ability to compete for grant funding. Measure BB funds-particularly FY 15-16 funds--would also be used to augment operating reserves held in case of financial difficulties. Within three years, it should be possible to reach the maximum level stated in the Reserves Policy (Board Policy 360) or 20% of the operating budget.
174
Report No. 14-033c Page 3 of 4 Capital Improvement Program The SRTP must also address the capital stock (equipment and facilities), which is necessary to provide the District's transit service. The operating budget in the SRTP is fiscally constrained by MTC's requirements, but the capital budget is less so. Transit agencies do not need to demonstrate that they can anticipate all the capital funds that they need, and can show shortfalls in capital funding. The proposed capital budget and supporting narrative is included as Attachment Two. The capital budget includes seven main categories: • Vehicle replacement-Replacement of existing buses and non-revenue vehicles • Vehicle expansion-Additional buses to provide additional service • Facilities rehabilitation and expansion-D3 reopening and new facilities • Technology-New electronic systems for buses and facilities • Corridor improvements-Additional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects, contraflow lanes, other roadway improvements • Transit Centers-Transbay Transit Center capital commitment, transit centers at BART stations • Greenhouse Gas Reduction Initiatives-Efficient District operations and alternate fuels The full projected capital need, including all categories, is $1.4 billion over 10 years. like the operating budget, the capital program (if fully funded) would represent a significant but moderate expansion of district facilities. It should be noted that all vehicle replacement buses after 2020 (and 25% of those buses before 2020) would be hybrid buses, except for zero emission vehicles. The budget does not assume that AC Transit would operate any potential new modes, such as streetcars, in our service area. Under current funding programs, the District can reasonably anticipate receiving approximately $700 million for capital projects from all sources. This funding-50% of the capital budget-is listed as "committed. "There is an additional over $600 million set of funding sources which AC Transit will have to compete for-these funds are listed as "discretionary." The discretionary funds include revenue from an anticipated bridge toll increase (known as "Regional Measure 3"), a regional gas tax proposed to the ABAG/MTC Plan Bay Area, and from MTC's "Other Anticipated but Undetermined Revenues." Chart One of Attachment Two shows when committed and discretionary funds would likely be available. The SRTP capital improvement plan represents a working framework with the outer limits of the District's capital needs, rather than a detailed line item budget. The plan anticipates expanding the bus fleet by 104 buses-this may or may not be necessary. It anticipates an additional BRT project-this may or may not be possible or appropriate. The budget anticipates the relocation of Emeryville Division 2-a long held but to date infeasible goal of both AC Transit and the City of Emeryville.
175
Report No. 14-033c Page 4 of 4 However, it is important to include projects which are somewhat speculative because projects must be listed in the SRTP to be eligible for funding in MTC's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Not Applicable-this report does not recommend any action or expenditure.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The SRTP is required by MTC and the Federal Transit Administration, so there is no alternative to preparing it. Staff could take alternate proposals to drafting the operating and capital budget chapters of the SRTP such as a more vetted capital plan. However, such proposals could limit the District when MTC references the final SRTP for use in the RTP or when allocating funds.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Report 14-033b, July 9, 2014, Update on the Development of the Short Range Transit Plan Report 14-033a, May 9, 2014, Report on the Development ofthe Short Range Transit Plan Report 14-033, February 12, 2014, Discussion Concerning the Short Range Transit Plan
ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Draft SRTP Draft SRTP Draft SRTP Draft SRTP
Chapter 5- System and Service Evaluation Chapter 6- Operations Plan and Budget Chapter 6-10 year Revenue Table Chapter 7- Capital Improvement Program
Department Head Approval:
Aida R. Asuncion, Acting Chief Planning, Engineering and Construction Officer
Reviewed by:
James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Chris Andrichak, Acting Capital Planning and Grants Manager Hernan Vargas, Budget Manager Jim Cunradi, Transportation Planning Manager Ben Stupka, Senior Capital Planning and Grants Analyst
Prepared by:
Nathan Landau, Senior Transportation Planner
176
SR 14-033c Attachment 1
CHAPTER 5-SYSTEM AND SERVICE EVALUATION Earlier sections of the SRTP have provided a description of AC Transit as an agency, our operation, and our goals. This is the evaluative chapter of the SRTP. The MTC Guidelines for the SRTP focus our analysis on effectiveness---how many passengers are we carrying, and on efficiency-what does it cost to do so. After this chapter, the SRTP goes on to plan for the future-our operating plan, our operating budget, our capital budget, etc. This chapter draws on the Key Performance Indicators (the KPis) outlined in the previous chapter as the basis for its evaluation. The outward-facing KPis, which focus on passenger service measures and system-wide impacts, are used in this chapter. It also uses service standards from Board Policy 550. This chapter also includes a review of planning and evaluation processes that AC Transit participates in, such as the Title VI program development process. Key Performance Indicators used in this chapter: • • •
On Time Performance Ridership level Fare Revenue
Policy 550 Service Standards Used in this Chapter:' • Frequency of Service by service type • Span of Service by service type • Distance to bus stops Transit Sustainability Policy Standards used in this Chapter • •
Cost per Revenue Hour Cost per Passenger
On time performance, ridership, frequency, and span of service are reviewed on a line by line level. Percentage of service operated, revenue service percentage, fare revenue, cost per revenue hour, and cost per passenger are reviewed on a system-wide level. Distance to bus stops is evaluated in terms of the percentage of the population with access to a bus stop.
1
AC Transit plans to review Board Policy 550 in 2014/2015,as a project implementing this SRTP. Policy 550 was initially
approved in 1994, and last updated in 2007. This review could lead to changes in service standards and/or the route classification system.
177
Service Types under Policy 550. As noted above, AC Transit operates several different types of bus service. Service effectiveness is evaluated by type. Service types are defined in part operationally, such as for trunk and rapid routes, and Transbay {express) routes. Several service types are defined by the land use characteristics of their corridors-urban Crosstowns, suburban Crosstowns, and very low density routes. *Trunk Routes-The main routes that operate-primarily in a north-south direction-- along major streets in high ridership areas, the "backbone" or "spine" routes of the AC Transit system *Rapid Routes-Routes that operate along trunk corridors with elongated stop spacing and transit signal priority for greater speed *Urban Crosstown Routes-The secondary routes in the higher density {generally over 10,000 people per square mile) that connect to the trunk routes and form a four direction system *Suburban Crosstown Routes-Connectors and feeders similar to urban Crosstown routes in lower density {5,000-10,000 people per square mile) portions of the district *Very Low Density Routes-Routes that operate in areas with population densities below 5,000 people per square mile. *Transbay Routes-Routes that cross one or more of the San Francisco Bay bridges, operating between the East Bay and San Francisco or other West Bay destinations. When the Bus Rapid Transit {BRT) line begins to operate, generally with in-roadway stations on a dedicated right-of-way,it will represent an additional service type. Community Flex Routes which provide service to an area rather than a delineated route are another service type which is not currently used, although proposed for a pilot project. As noted above, this classification of service types will be reviewed and potentially modified as part of the review of Board Policy 550. A.
EVALUATION OF SERVICE
The indicators listed on Page 1 measure three different areas---effectiveness, service availability and quality, and efficiency. Ridership is the key measure of service effectiveness. Since AC Transit's purpose is to transport people, that is measured by the number of people who ride the buses. The metric used is passengers per revenue hour (revenue hours are hours that the bus is actually operating on its route and collecting passengers)
Service availability evaluates the bus service which passengers should be able to use. Is there a bus stop within reasonable walking distance? What hours does the bus run, what is it "span of service"? How frequently does the bus operate? Does the bus meet its schedule-what is its "on time performance?"
Efficiency considers the resources AC Transit uses to provide service.
2
178
Effectiveness 1. Ridership Service Availability and Quality 1. Distance to Bus Stops 2. 3. 4.
Span of Service Frequency On Time Performance
Efficiency 2. 3.
Cost Per Revenue Hour Cost per Passenger Mile
Effectiveness-Ridership System-wide Ridership is generally considered the single most important measure of a transit agency's performance. Transit agencies exist to carry passengers, ridership statistics measure to what degree we are doing so. Policy 550 sets standards for the minimum level of ridership each type of AC Transit service should have. These standards are designed to assure that bus service provided is effective- used by an adequate number of riders. Different types of service are expected to carry different number of riders-trunks, major corridor lines, and rapids should carry the most. Urban crosstowns operating in denser areas are expected to carry more passengers than suburban crosstowns, which operate in lower density areas. The standard used to measure ridership is "passengers per revenue hour." This is the average number of passengers who get on a bus over an hour when the bus actually in operation-which is known as revenue service. AC Transit's levels of bus ridership are among the highest in the region. Only San Francisco MTA (Muni) consistently achieves higher ridership. Looking at these service types as a whole, almost all of them meet or exceed their ridership target. Rapids had the highest ridership per hour, followed by trunks and major corridors, urban Crosstowns, and suburban Crosstowns. Only the urban Crosstowns fail to meet their standard, on weekends only. This may be in part due to the fact that many urban Crosstowns operate on reduced frequencies on weekends, due to financial constraints. In general, higher frequency service gets more passengers per revenue hour. Very Low Density routes are not evaluated because there is no standard for the level of ridership they are expected to meet. Shaded cells indicate service not meeting standards.
3
179
Table 5.1 -Ridership and Ridership Standards by Type of Service (by passengers per revenue hour) Service Type Trunks & Major Corridors Rapids Urban Crosstowns Suburban Crosstowns Very Low Density Trans bay
Weekday Service Standard 40
Weekday Service Actual (2013) 46.5
Weekend Service Standard 35
Weekend Service Actual (2013) 38.6
40 30
49.3 33.3
35 25
20
21.6
15
No standard set 25 pertrip
NA 31 per trip
No standard set Most Transbay not operated
46.2 24.3 Saturday 22.1 Sunday 19.6 Saturdays 15.7 Sundays NA NA
Ridership by line Ridership can vary considerably even within a service type. The trunk and major corridor and the rapid lines average 46.5 passengers per revenue hour on weekdays. However on any given line, performance can vary wildly and average ridership can fall anywhere between 27 and 75 passengers per revenue hour. Most of the lines which fail to meet the ridership standard are "major corridors" rather than trunk routes, and have less frequent service than trunks. Shaded routes are below this productivity standard.
4
180
Table 5.2-Routes Ranked by Productivity within Service Types, 2013 Part 1- Trunk, Major Corridor and Rapid Routes Part 2 - Urban Crosstown Routes Part 3 -Suburban Crosstown Routes Part 4- Transbay Productivity
Table 5.2- Routes Ranked by Productivity within Service Types, 2013 Part 1, Trunk, Major Corridor and Rapid Routes
Route
Type
51B 51A
Trunk Trunk
40 1
Trunk Trunk
57 73
Trunk Major Corridor
18 72M
Trunk Trunk
97
Major Corridor
72 88
Trunk Major Corridor
99 210 1R
Major Corridor Major Corridor Rapid
72R
Rapid
Route Description
College-University BroadwayAlameda Foothill, Oakland InternationalTelegraph local 40'"-MacArthur 73rd Ave.Hegenberger Albany-Montclair San PabloMacdonald Hesperian- Union City San Pablo SacramentoMarket Mission Fremont Blvd. InternationalTelegraph Rapid San Pablo Rapid
Weekday Passengers
Revenue Hours per weekday
10,532 10,587
140.4 192.5
Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour 75.0 55.0
10,558 12,005
198.8 238.6
53.1 50.3
7,543 3,096
157.5 66.9
47.9 46.3
8,293 4,233
191.6 108.4
43.3 39.0
4,550
122.1
37.1
4,534 2,745
124.3 78.5
36.5 35.0
2,786 1,743 10,964
102.1 68.2 198.9
27.3 25.5 55.1
6,998
165.8
42.2
Ridership on Urban Crosstown Routes Among urban Crosstown routes, 13 meet the weekday ridership standard, while 11 do not. The routes meeting the standard generally operate more frequently, in areas with more transit-supportive land uses. Of the routes meeting the standard, eight of 13 operate every 20 minutes or more frequently in the peak period. By contrast, of the routes failing the standard, only two have 20 minute service or better. The routes meeting the standard-11 of 13 routes-generally operate in the higher density core cities of the district, especially Berkeley, Oakland, and Alameda. Only six of the lllower ridership routes operate in those cities, and generally in lower density areas within them. Shaded routes fall below the standard.
5
181
Table
5.2- Routes Ranked by Productivity within Service Types, 2013
Part 2, Urban Crosstown Routes
Route
Type
Route
Weekday
Revenue
Weekday
Description
Passengers
Hours
Passengers I
per weekday 52
Urban Crosstown
54
Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban
39 76 62
Crosstown 20
Urban
Crosstown 14
Urban Crosstown
46
Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown
22 49 26 12 21 45
11 70 31 58L 74 32 25 37
Revenue Hour
UC Berkeley· Albany VHiage 35'" Ave.Redwood Rd. Fruitvale-Skyline
2,966
51.0
58.1
2,561
44.2
58.0
642
13.9
46.1
Del Norte-Hilltop via N. Richmond West OaklandFruitvale DowntownAlameda-Fruitvale DowntownFruitvale BART Coliseum BARTOakland Zoo Winton-Tennyson loop Ashby-Dwight loop EmeryvHieLakeshore Oakland-Berkeley via Grand, MLK Oakland AirportDimond Dist. Sobrante ParkEastmont Piedmont-Dimond via Oakland Ave. San Pablo DamAppian AlamedaEmeryville Downtown OakMacarthur Marina BayEl Sobrante Hayward-Castro Vly.-Bayfair loop North BerkeleyEl Cerrito loop WhitmanSanta Clara loop
2,629
61.6
42.7
3,526
83.0
42.5
3,084
75.2
41.0'
3,470
94.1
36.9
491
13.4
36.8
2,452
69.0
35.5
2,273
66.4
34.2
2,636
79.7
33.1
2,490
76.4
32.6
1,975
60.9
32.4
2,314
78.6
29.5
1,654
56.5
29.3
1,261
43.1
29.3
1,841
65.3
28.2
1,107
39.2
28.2
1,189
46.4
25.6
768
33.3
23.0
886
'39.4
22.5
501
28.9
17.3
6
182
Crosstown Santa Clara loop Fruitvale BARTUrban Crosstown Maxwell Park Bayfair-Castro 48 Urban Valley BART Crosstown R1dershm on Suburban Crosstown Routes 47
134
7.9
17.1
440
48.7
15.3
Suburban Crosstown routes are concentrated in Central Alameda County, with some additional routes in the Berkeley Hills. Among the dozen suburban Crosstown routes, 7 met the ridership standard, while 5 did not. The suburban routes, however, fell within a relatively narrow range of ridership. The most productive route-line 65 in the Berkeley Hills-had roughly twice as many passengers per hour as the least productive, line 94 in Hayward. The suburban crosstowns clearly had lower ridership than the urban crosstown routes. Only one suburban crosstown route-line 65-- would have met the urban crosstown productivity standard. Table 5.2-Routes Ranked by Productivity within Service Types, 2013 Part 3, Suburban Crosstowns Route
65
67 95 93 7 60 86 ..
cros~towtl
.
83
suburban CrosstoWn suburban ..
89 .
.
.
:
'cro~~tbwH •·· ··
921
29.6
Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour 31.1
876
30.6
28.7
322
12.5
25.7
420
15.4
27.2
751
30.7
24.5
743
30.9
24.1
Hayward BARTCSU East Bay
762
34.7
22.0
Winton'·
806
41.4
19;5.
588
31.4
18.7.
67.0
18.5
>iennys~in
·.
.•. ·...
A st.-Tennyson, Hayward · · · .
Revenue Hours per weekday
Weekday Passengers
EuclidGrizzly Peak San LeandroUnion Landing Spruce St., Berkeley Hayward BARTKelly Park Bayfair-San Lorenzo-Haywd. The Arlington
Suburban Crosstown Suburban Crosstown Suburban Crosstown Suburban Crosstown Suburban Crosstown Suburban Crosstown Suburban Crosswtown · Suburban) c
85
.
Route Description
Type
San Le~Q~r~ ·
1,241 .
..
I
.·• 7
183
75 94
--,-
Suburban Crosstown Suburban Crosstown
EastmontBayfair loop East Av.Hayward Blvd.
545
29.7
18.3
171
10.6
16.2
Ridership on Transbay Routes Under Policy 550, Transbay routes are evaluated by a different standard than East Bay routes. Most Transbay routes are relatively long in both distance and time. They also often require "deadhead" trips not carrying passengers from San Francisco to the East Bay. So that these common characteristics do not overwhelm the comparative analysis, Transbay routes are evaluated by the number of passengers they carry on each trip. Most Transbay routes, unlike most other AC Transit routes, operate only during weekday commute hours, often only in the main commute direction (i.e .. into San Francisco in the morning). Three Transbay routes-lines F from Berkeley and Emeryville, NL from the Grand/Macarthur corridor, and 0 from Alameda-operate all day, 7 days per week. Many passengers on these routes-especially the F and the NL-ride within the East Bay rather than to San Francisco. The Transbay ridership standard is 25 passengers per trip. Eighteen Trans bay routes meet this standard, 7 do not. In general, ridership on Transbay buses has been increasing in the wake of BART crowding and the BART strike. Now some Transbay lines have passengers standing. Policy 550, recognizing the length of Transbay trips, calls for a seat for each Transbay passenger, but AC Transit does not currently have capacity to meet this requirement. Further analysis is required to determine why certain Transbay routes are less productive.
8
184
Table 5.2-Routes Ranked by Productivity within Service Types, 2013 Part 4, Transbay Productivity by Line, 2013 Route
Type
u
Commute
F L SB FS
All day Commute Commute Commute
J
Commute
H G
Commute Commute
NL
All Day
v
Commute Commute Commute Commute All Day
NX4 NX NX1
0 p
w
Commute Commute
NX3
Commute
CB .
s
. .
LA
I Commute
. ·
.
LC
.
Commute
. '.<.
c E
•·
. .
'
.
·•
8
42.9 36.7 36.7 36.6
697
19
35.9
597 345
17 10
35.1 34.5
3,193
93
34.3
761 360 293 228 1,981
23 11 9 7 63
33.1 32.7 32.6 32.6 31.5
751 642
21 21
34.3 30.6
527 328
19 12
27.7 27.3
189
8
23.6
11
23.5
13
.
. ' 600
27
.
·, 63
22.2
.
.
3
.
· ·. 272
.
21.0 .
'•
.
13
.· 20.9
14
19.1
15
16.8
.
1
4() ~ §i,"SF .
·.· ..
Commute
78 19
.
Pie~fuoiif Ave/
.... .... cCommute· ;.''
3,344 697 477 293
258
Ri¢h!f1ond . Pk#)•SF
.
Passengers per Trip 48.3
11
Montclair/ N. Hayward/ San leandto-SF RicHmond Pkwy.-SF·
Weekday Trips
531
oa~land,SF
.··
Commute .
Weekday Passengers
Shattuck/ University-SF Sacramento St.Emeryville-SF Arlington-SF El Cerrito/ Albany-SF Macarthur Blvd., Oak.-SF Oakland Hills-SF Castro Valley-SF Eastmont-SF Dimond-SF Santa Clara St. Alameda-SF Piedmont-SF Harbor Bay/ E. Alameda-SF Alameda-SF Macarthur Blvd. south-SF
Commute Commute
ox
.
Route Description FremontStanford Berkeley-SF El Sobrante-SF Newark-SF
.
.Cl.~t~mont Ave.·
267.
Sf B
Commute
Trestle Glen-SF
252
.
9
185
Service availability and quality Service availability and quality is the key to how passengers judge transit, and can strongly affect their decision whether or not to ride. This overall attribute has several elements:
1.
Span of Service-What hours of the day is the bus running? This may vary between weekdays and weekends. Frequency-How often does the bus come? This is likely to vary between weekdays and weekends. On Time Performance-Does the bus operate on time and meet its schedule?
2. 3.
Staff is developing information on another key transit characteristic-distance from the passenger's origin and destination to bus stops. This information will be included in future versions of the SRTP. Board Policy 550 sets for the two items, on time performance is part of the District's Key Performance Indicators system. 1.
Span of Service/Hours of Operation
A bus route is only useful to a passenger if it is operates at the time when the passenger needs it. Therefore, Policy 550 sets standards for the hour routes should be operating: Trunks and Major Corridors: Rapids: Urban Crosstowns: Suburban Crosstowns: Very Low Density Routes:
19 to 24 hours per day, for example 5 a.m. to at least midnight 14 to 16 hours per day, for example 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m. 14 to 16 hours per day, for example 5 a.m. to at least 7 p.m. 14 to 16 hours per day, for example 7 a.m. to at least 9 p.m. 14 to 16 hours per day, for example, 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m.
Rapid routes have a shorter span requirement under the assumption that they will generally be operating on the same street as other service which will be available for longer hours. Since most Transbay lines only operate in the commute period, they are effectively exempt from standards for hours of operation. Most AC Transit lines meet or exceed their minimum requirement for span of service. Of 70 lines covered by the standard, only 9 fail to meet it. AC Transit's standard for trunk line span of service is similar to other agencies, such as San Francisco MTA (Muni), Metro in Los Angeles and VTA. However, some systems, such as Muni and LA Metro operate more extensive all night or "owl" service. 2.
Frequency
Frequent service is fundamental to attracting and retaining passengers. Most passengers are unwilling to accept long waits for the bus. The transit industry in recent years has placed renewed focus on providing frequent service. Policy 550 sets these target frequencies for various service types during peak hours: Trunks and Major Corridors
Every 15-20 minutes
10
186
Rapids
Every 10-14 minutes
Urban Crosstowns
Every 15-20 minutes
Suburban Crosstowns
Every 21-30 minutes
Very Low Density Routes
Every 31-60 minutes
Transbay
Every 21-30 minutes
Almost 60% (36) of East Bay routes meet or exceed the frequency standard, while 26 routes do not. Trunks and major corridor routes generally meet the frequency standard. A number of urban and suburban Crosstown routes, especially in West Contra Costa County and Central Alameda County, fail the standard. The Transit Sustainability Project has determined that improving frequency, especially on routes than run less than once every half hour, is important for service quality. In addition to the frequency standards, Policy 550 (in Attachment One) sets goals for greater frequency for most service types. The types with higher goals are: Trunks and Major Corridors
Every 10-14 minutes
Urban Crosstowns
Every 15-20 minutes
Suburban Crosstowns
Every 15-20 minutes
Very Low Density Routes
Every 21-30 minutes
Transbay
Every 15 minutes or greater during peak hours
3.
On-Time Performance, Weekdays, May, 2014
On time operation of buses is critical for passengers. Passengers need to be able to rely on a bus to deliver them on time to work, school, medical appointments, and other activities. AC Transit sets a standard that at least 72% of the trips on a line should arrive on time. On time is defined as between one minute early and five minutes late. Unfortunately, most AC Transit lines do not meet this standard. System-wide, 69.8% of weekday trips were on time as of July 2013. Lines which operate in lower density suburban areas were most likely to meet the on time performance standard. As a service type, trunk/major corridor, and rapid lines are the most likely to be late-none met the 72% standard. These lines often operate on congested streets, and serve the most passengers. Because they serve the most passengers, the impact of late buses on passengers is magnified. Therefore, if AC Transit calculated a "Passenger On Time" performance statistic, as some transit systems do, the number would be lower than 69%. In comparison with other large Bay Area transit agencies: AC Transit's on time performance is inferior to Santa Clara VTA which reports over 90% on time performance. However, AC's on time performance is superior to San Francisco Muni's, which is approximately 60%.
11
187
Routes which failed to meet the standard are shaded. On Time Performance, Part 1-Trunks/Major Corridors, Rapids Route 51B 51A 88 73 18 99 40 97 210 57 72R 72 1 72M 1R
Route Description College-University Brpadway~Aiameda
.sacramento-Market 73'd Ave.-Hegenberger Albany-Montclair . Mission Blvd. Foothill Blvd., Oakland Hesperlan Blvd. Fremont Blvd. 40'" St.-Macarthur San. Pablo Rapid San Pablo Ave. International-Telegraph . local San.Pablo-Macdonald lnterationai-Telegraph Rapid
Type of Service Trunk Trunk Major Corridor Major Corridor Trunk Major Corridor Trunk Major Corridor Major Corridor Trunk Rapid Trunk Trunk
On Time Performance 71.0% 70.2% 70.1% 69.6% 69.3% 68.9% 67.9% 66.6% 66.5% . 63.7%, 60.9% 59.2% 56.8%
Trunk Rapid
53.7% 48.2%
12 188
On Time Performance Table, Part Z-Urban Crosstowns Route 48 BSD 70 52 71 22 37 45 46 12 47 31 25 .
26 11 20 32
On Time Performance 84.4% 80.7% 79.2% 75.9%
Urban Crosstown
78.5%
Urban Crosstown
75.8%
Urban Crosstown
75.5%
Urban Crosstown
75.4%
Urban Crosstown
74.9%
Urban Crosstown
74.8%
Urban Crosstown
73.6%
Urban Crosstown
72.3%
Urban Crosstown
71.6%
Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown
69.9% 69.6%
Downtown.Qaklarod~
Urban Crosstown
69.6%
Bavf~ir-lobp >
14
.
. •
54 74
-··
..
.
21 ·,·
76 _·_.
...
..
35'"·!IV!"kREidV/d!id Rd". Marlna•Qay,~l¢1\.mond,-EI Sobrante· oakland•AI(port,ilimond . •. District·:· ·~;-" .
'·
: ...
..
.•
.. ·
.::. ·•·..
58L
.
.
;·· <•
.
'
•'
Urban Crosstown
·_· .
...
69;5% .
68:1%
.-._._.
Urban crosstown • Urban Crosstown .
.
.
.
.
Del Norte BJ\1'\T'Hill\op • • l)rba!l Crg~stown · .•:. M"ailviaNorMRichmond · utban,Crosstowri ·. AshtiYiDWI~[i(qqp,. . . k f •..•.. -· ·.·_ " . . . • Ber ·e ey_,::, :-.. "· . · Dqw~f~~~;9~N~.Mr- _-- · ·- urb~n Crosstqwn ·F'rultv~1~.BART-' ·.· · ._ • -· ·Fruitvale BART-Skyline
..
·
65.4%
. ·.
65,3%
....
•. WestQakiai\:d'.~'At\1'"
.
65.5%
·-_.-..
.
.
67.7% 65;9%
Urban Crosstown
·eastmontv!a·M~.c~rthur
..
--··_
Urban Crosstown
;'
.,\_ '·
.
-·
..
,'
• •••
49.
.
Downtowii:Oak.-~nlitvale .·._ B!IRT --- :•.
.
39
Type of Service Urban Crosstown Circulator Urban Crosstown Urban Crosstown
Alameda-Fruitvale .. Hayward,CastroValley-
•
62
Route Description Bayfair-Castro Valley BART Broadway Shuttle San Pablo Dam-Appian UC BerkeleyAlbany Village El Cerrito-Contra Costa CoiL-Richmond Pkwy. Winton-TennysonMission loop, Hayward Whitrman-Santa Clara loop, Hayward Sobrante Park-Eastmont, East Oakland Coliseum BARTOakland Zoo Oakland-Berkeley via Grand, MLK Fruitvale BARTMaxwell Park, Oakland Alameda-Downtown Oak.Emeryville via Peralta St. North BerkeleyEl Cerrito loop Emeryvllleilakeshore Pledmont'Dimond Dis!. via Oakland live.·
65:0% .
·.
'
•,.- 'Ulba.n'Crosstown·--_· •• ··-·· . ·. Urban·crqsst
.
62;3% 60.2%
13
189
On Time Performance Table, Part 3-Suburban Crosstowns and Very Low Density Routes Route 86
Route Description Winton-Tennyson, Hayward Hayward BARTCal State East Bay A Street-Hayward Industrial-Tennyson Euclid-Grizzly Peak, Berkeley The Arlington, BerkeleyKensington-EI Cerrito Spruce St., Berkeley Bayfair-San LorenzoHayward Loop East Ave.-Hayward Blvd. San Leandro Loop Hayward BARTKelly Park San·LeandroUnion Landing Eastmont-Bayfair Loop
60 83 65 7 67 93 94 89 95
.
85 75 251 275 232 239 215 217
Type of Service Suburban Crosstown
On Time Performance 85.1%
Suburban Crosstown
79.5%
Suburban Crosstown
78.9%
Suburban Crosstown
77.1%
Suburban Crosstown
75.5%
Suburban Crosstown Suburban Crosstown
68.6% 68.3%
Suburban Crosstown Suburban Crosstown Suburban Crosstown
66.1% 64.2% 62.6%
Suburban Crosstown
53.6%
Suburban Crosstown
52.5%
Paseo Padre-Thornton Very Low Density Union City BART-Lido Very Low Density Fa ire via Thornton Paseo Padre-Cedar Very Low Density Blvd. Fremont BART-Warm Very Low Density Springs via Grimmer Fremont BART-Warm · Very Low Density Springs via Osgood Rd. Mission Blvd. Fremont' Very Low Density ·.· Warm Springs Rd. UnionCity BA~TVery Low Density Newpark'Fremont BARr· Fremont BART-Pacific Very Low Density Cotnmons'Newpark Union Gity-Newpark via · Very Lolli Density . Stevenson .
200 212 .
.
216 ;
. .
80.1% 80.1% 76.0% 73.3% 67.5% 64.9%
.
63.7% 63.2% 61.1% .
14
190
Efficiency The last section evaluated service effectiveness, seeking to answer the question of how well AC Transit is doing at a providing service. The evaluation of efficiency in this section seeks to answer the question of how well the District is doing at minimizing the cost of providing that service. Increasing the efficiency of AC Transit operations would allow AC Transit to provide more service, or to provide the same service at a lower cost. MTC is very concerned about transit operating efficiency. Plan Bay Area-approved by MTC and ABAG-seeks to increase the transit share of travel in the region. More transit service can be funded if operating costs are lower. This was a central concern of the Transit Sustainability Project. The TSP required the Bay Area's major transit operators to commit to cost reductions, or at least slowing of the rate of cost growth. These reductions are to be achieved by Fiscal Year 2016-17. AC Transit has focused on three cost metrics as targets for reduction under the TSP-Cost per unlinked trip, cost per passenger mile, and cost per revenue hour. The operating costs listed below cover fixed route service, excluding the cost of operating paratransit service. Cost Per Revenue Hour Cost per revenue hour (hour when the bus is actually operating) is a fundamental measure of AC Transit operations, driving other costs. Earlier in the 2000s, AC Transit's per hour costs had been increasing faster than the Consumer Price Index-the rate of inflation-but this is no longer the case.
Cost Per Revenue Hour 2013-14
2016-17 projected
Increase
$182.97
$190.87
4.3% (within acceptable TSP cost range)
Cost per Unlinked Trip Cost per unlinked trip is derived from the cost per revenue hour, and the number of passenger trips taken in that hour. An "unlinked" trip is a single trip on a vehicle, regardless of whether the passenger transfers to another bus. A journey from origin to destination could include one, two, or occasionally more unlinked trips. By attracting more passengers to the system, AC Transit hopes to drive down the cost per unlinked trip. Cost per unlinked trip 2013-14
2016-17 projected
Decrease
$5.57
$5.45
-2.2%
15
191
Cost per Passenger Mile Cost per unlinked trip shows the cost of each trip, but trips vary--some are longer than others. Cost per passenger mile introduces the element of distance to the analysis of efficiency. Longer trips, unsurprisingly, require more resources--primarily bus operating time--than shorter ones. The change in cost per passenger mile closely mirrors the cost per unlinked trip. This is because the average length of a passenger trip on AC Transit (3.25 miles) is not expected to change significantly over the life of the SRTP. Cost per Passenger Mile 2013-14
2016-17 projected
Decrease
$1.71
$1.67
-2.3%
AC Transit's cost per revenue hour is higher than most Bay Area bus operators, but lower than Muni or VTA. Our cost per unlinked trip is relatively low, lower than most major operators except Muni, because of high ridership on AC Transit buses.
16
192
A.
Community Based Transportation Plans (CBTPs) AC Transit has participated in MTC's Community Based Transportation Planning Program (CBTP) in both Alameda and Contra Costa County. The CBTPs are designed to help low income communities articulate their transportation needs, to serve as a basis for future planning and funding. The plans initially focused on transit needs, then expanded to include pedestrian and bicycle needs as well. The two counties are now taking different approaches to the Plans which have been developed.
1. Alameda County Between 2004 and 2009, five CBTPs have been prepared for the Alameda County portion of AC Transit's service area. In order from north to south they covered the following areas: •
South and West Berkeley
•
West Oakland
•
Central and East Oakland
•
City of Alameda
•
Central Alameda County-focusing on Ashland, Cherryland, and South Hayward
The agency then known as the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) oversaw the development of these Plans. That agency, now known as the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), now intends to consolidate and update all of these plans and integrate the result into the Countywide Transportation Plan in 2015./2016. The original plans were done separately from each other and varied widely in approach, analysis, and recommendations. 2.
Contra Costa County
In AC Transit's Contra Costa service area, a CBTP was prepared in 2004 for the Richmond area. It covered northwestern neighborhoods in the city of Richmond (including Parchester Village), as well as Old Town San Pablo. This plan remains in effect and there are no plans' to update it.
17 193
B.
PARATRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDED As a fixed route transit provider, AC Transit is required under the Americans With Disabilies Act (ADA) to fund paratransit service. Paratransit provides shared point to point transportation for people who cannot use fixed route service. People must live within% mile of a fixed route to receive paratransit service. The great bulk of residents in the AC Transit district meet this criterion, although some people living in upper hill areas fall outside of it. Service is provided during the same hours and days of the week as it is on adjacent fixed route service. Most rides are provided within the AC Transit district, but paratransit rides to other parts of the Bay Area may be provided as direct or connecting service. AC Transit provides paratransit service through East Bay Paratransit, which is jointly managed by AC Transit and BART. Under the consortium's agreement, AC Transit pays 69% of costs. This figure is estimated to be $24.9 million in the current Fiscal Year 2014-15. This figure is projected to increase to $29 million by Fiscal Year 2018-19. In Fiscal Year 2012-13, East Bay Paratransit provided 716,681 rides. This figure is slightly over 1% of the rides taken on fixed route service. The total cost (not the AC Transit cost) of these paratransit rides was $34,015,000. The cost per ride was $47.46. Ridership was down from approximately 754,000 in 2011-12, which represented the highest level ever. AC Transit provides training to assist passengers who can use fixed route transit rather than paratransit to do so. This provides more travel flexibility for the passenger and cost savings for the District.
C.
TITLE VI REPORT AC Transit is required to assess its service performance on minority and non-minority transit routes (which are defined how?). The analysis was conducted in Spring 2014 using data from Fall 2011, 2012 and 2013. Staff assessed performance of each route according to definitions in Board Policy 550 and methods described in the FTA Circular. Differences found for the Minority and non-Minority transit routes in average load factor, maximum load factor, headway, on-time performance, service accessibility, vehicle assignment, and distribution of transit amenities did not find any discriminatory practice.
18
194
D.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE OUTREACH In preparation for updating Title VI compliance related Board Policies, AC Transit conducted a series of public outreach activities in May and June 2014 before a Public Hearing. The public outreach activities were not required by the Title VI program, but they were provided to ensure populations protected by Title VI and Environmental Justice executive orders have a full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the development and review of the proposed Board Policy updates. The most recent round of outreach activities included four community forums, one held in each of the planning areas of the District, advertising on buses, information packets, and advertisements in both traditional and social media outlets. In addition, staff directly contacted 160 community-based organizations and made presentations to 22 of them, and spoke directly about the proposals with more than 575 individuals. Five of the presentations were provided in Spanish. In addition, the materials were translated into Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and Tagalog. On June 11, 2014, AC Transit held public hearing to receive public comment on revisions to Board Policies 163, 501 and 551 to meet Federal Transit Administration requirements related to Title VI (Civil Rights Act) compliance. A total of xx comments were submitted throughout the process. The Board will be asked to adopted the updated policies on September 24, 2014 (pending). The Title VI Program triennial update is due to be submitted to the FTA by October 1, 2014.
E.
TRIENNIAL REPORT ISSUES There are no triennial report issues which require changes in service
19 195
This page intentionally blank
196
SR 14-033c Attachment 2
SRTP Operations Plan and Budget-Chapter 6 The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that funding is available to support planned service. Under reasonable cost and revenue assumptions, AC Transit will be able to maintain existing "baseline" service and add very modestly to it. The District is engaged in several planning activities outlined below which could generate additional service plans and require additional revenue. The outcome of the COA process should be known by the time of the final SRTP, but flex service and major corridors planning will still be in progress.
OPERATIONS PLAN
1. Transit Services to be Operated This section is based on the assumption that available funding for transit operations will remain at approximately current levels, rising only slowly. In this scenario, no new sources of funding are available. If new sources of funding become available this section will be revised. One potential source of increased funding is the Measure B sales tax augmentation, subject to a vote of the people of Alameda County on November 4 (2/3 affirmative vote required for passage). Another, though smaller, potential source of funding is the state of California's new "cap and trade" emissions credit trading system. a.
Service Cuts
Our projects do not assume that any service cuts will be a financial necessity. However specific routes may be reduced, eliminated, or increased as part of service restructuring plans. b.
Title VI
No service changes are required now to address Title VI concerns. Major service changes will be reviewed under the District's Title VI policy.
2.
Existing Transit Service-Revenue Hours
In Fiscal Year 2013-14, AC Transit operating 1,685,688 hours of revenue service. This is AC Transit's baseline service level. AC Transit intends to keep operating this service, however, as noted above, service may be reconfigured. This is the same number of hours as the District operated in 2012-13. However, it is 11% below the District's recent peak service of 1,897,000 hours in 2008·09. The recession forced sharp cuts in service which AC Transit has not yet been able to recover. In terms of comparative service intensity, AC Transit provides 1.19 revenue hours per resident of the district. For comparison, Santa Clara County VTA provides .77 hours (bus and rail) and Muni operates 3.95 hours per resident (one of the highest levels in the US).
1
197
SR 14-033c Attachment 2
3.
Potential Changes to Transit Service
AC Transit is reviewing the bulk of its service, through a variety of planning projects. This includes local service through the district, Fremont/Newark service, trunk and major corridors through the district, and Transbay service. The Service Improvement Plan will provide small increases in bus service this fiscal year. These will total less than 1% of revenue hours. For future years, operating funding is anticipated to grow slowly. Therefore, AC Transit has no definite plans at this time to either add or remove service-other than the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit line-during the SRTP period. However, the District's planning activities which could lead to service increases or restructuring. These would only be implemented as revenue permits They are outlined below. A.
Service Improvement Plan
The approved 2014-15 budget includes $2._ million in additional operating funds to improve service. The specific routes where service would be added have generally not been fully determined. One change planned for December, 2014 is an increase of peak hour frequency on line 97 (Hesperian) and line 99 (East 14'"/Mission) from every 20 minutes to every 15 minutes. However, staff plans to propose that service on the San Pablo rapid line (line 72R), currently weekday only, also be operated on weekends. B.
Flex Service
AC Transit is exploring the possibility of implementing "flex" service in low density parts of the district. Ridership is generally low in these areas, such as Fremont and Newark, where low population densities make it difficult to operate efficiently. Under the flex proposal, for Fremont and Newark, fixed route service would be limited to a few major, frequent routes. Other service would operate from these trunk lines and BART stations to any bus stop within a specified flex area. This model has been implemented by other transit agencies, notably the Regional Transit District in Denver. The Board of Directors has been asked to improve a pilot flex route to begin operating in spring 2015 as proof of concept.
C.
Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA)
The COA represents an extension and refinement of MTC's Transit Sustainability Project. MTC managed the "Inner East Bay COA'' which developed proposed service changes for BART and AC Transit within the AC Transit district. In the fall of 2014 and spring of 2015, AC Transit will be conduct public outreach and develop proposals to improve the bus network. Participants will be introduced to the tradeoffs inherent in operating a bus system with limited resources. One key tradeoff is "coverage vs. frequency" -having a larger network of
2
198
SR 14-033c Attachment 2 routes operating less frequently as opposed to a smaller network operating more frequently. Potential restructuring of service in the city of Alameda, known as the Alameda Transit Plan, is part of this effort.
D. Bus Rapid Transit Unlike the previous items, the BRT is a defined project which is being implemented. The East Bay Bus Rapid Transit line is a $178 million MTC Resolution 3434 (regional transit expansion) project. It will provide high speed, high capacity transit service between Downtown Oakland
1
(Broadway & 19 h) and San Leandro BART. The BRT will operate every 5 minutes along its 10 mile route, using dedicated bus lanes over most of that distance. The District is now preparing a plan to restructure intersecting and overlapping service for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. There will be 34 stations which will be similar in design to small light rail stations. The BRT is scheduled to begin revenue service in 2017.
E.
Major Corridors Study
The Major Corridors Study (discussed further in the Capital Budget chapter) is primarily an analysis of appropriate capital improvements for each corridor. It may, however, lead to service changes within the SRTP period. Corridors recommended for less intensive improvements-such as a Transit Performance Initiative project rather than Bus Rapid Transit-would be most likely to see these service improvements. Other small service improvements may be made over the course of the SRTP period, resources permitting.
F.
Transbay Core Capacity
AC Transit has partnered with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), BART and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)-Muni--to prepare the San Francisco Bay Area Core Capacity Transit Study. This study is intended to develop a regional strategy to address short-, medium- and long-term transit capacity challenges confronting the major high-capacity corridors serving downtown San Francisco, including the Transbay Corridor. The region has been awarded a $1 million United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) TIGER 6 Planning Grant for this study. Combined with the local funding, this will be a $2 million study.
3
199
SR 14-033c Attachment 2 G. Other Agencies' Transit Planning Efforts Other agencies located within the AC Transit district are engaged in transit planning efforts. These could lead, although this is by no means certain, to additional service by either AC Transit and/or other agencies during the SRTP period. Key Studies in this category include:
1. West Contra Costa County High Capacity Transit Study (WCCHCTS). This study, being led by the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) and BART, is designed to evaluate transit solutions which could provide high capacity transit augmentations in the 1-80 corridor. This study is multimodal and could result in recommendations for either bus or rail projects. 2.
Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Transit Study (EBOTS)-This study, which will be completed in a few months, is designed to recommend transit improvements for the West Oakland-Emeryville-West Berkeley corridor. The study is being managed by the city of Emeryville on behalf of the three cities in the corridor.
4
200
SR 14-033c Attachment 2
OPERATIONS BUDGET
Note: The financial data in this chapter is based on projections as of June, 2014. Actual data for Fiscal Year 2013-14 will be available in October. In addition, MTC is reviewing financial data for the Transit Sustainability Plan, and may develop revised cost estimates. Subsequent revisions of the SRTP will incorporate any changes indicated by these sources. AC Transit's operating budget for Fiscal Year 2013-14 exclusive of paratransit was $308,438,858. We anticipate the operating budget to rise by 2% per year through 2022-2023, end of the SRTP period., for a projected total of $376,400,000. This is 22% above the current level. At the same time, cost per revenue hour is projected to rise some 14% from $182.97 (fully allocated cost) in Fiscal Year 13-14 to $209.45 in FY 2022-23. In (non-adjusted) dollar terms, cost per revenue hour is projected to rise $26.52. The amount of additional service the District can support is calculated taking the available budget and dividing it by the cost per revenue hours. Given these revenue and cost increases, AC Transit could operate 1,797,000 hours of service in 2022-23. This would represent an approximately 7% increase over the current level of 1,686,000 hours. Fares are assumed to rise 4% every two years, consistent with the schedule of increases under Board Policy 328, adopted in 2011. However, it must be noted that the planned fare increase was not approved in 2013. Instead a package of fare changes designed to be revenue neutral, increase Clipper usage, and reduce dwell times was adopted instead. The Board of Directors has discretion whether or not to follow that schedule.
5
201
Draft SRTP Chaper 6 Table 10-Vear Revenue Projection Yearl
Year2
Year 3
Year4
Year 5
YearG
Year7
Years
Year9
Year 10
FY1314
FY1415
FY1516
FY1617
FY1718
FY1819
FY1920
FY2021
FY2122
FY2223
Fare box baseline growth rate due to fare increases only adjusted farebox w fare increases, no ridership growth
$
$
$ 55,650.00 $ 55,650.00 $ 55,650.00 $ 55,650.00 $ 55,650.00 $ 55,650.00 $ 55,650.00 $ 55,650.00 $ $ 2,226.00 $ 2,226.00 $ 4,541.04 $ 4,541.04 $ 6,948.68 $ 6,948.68 $ 9,452.63 55,650.00 $ 55,650.00 $ 57,876.00 $ 57,876.00 $ 60,191.04 $ 60,191.04 $ 62,598.68 $ 62,598.68 $ 65,102.63 55,650.00
contract services baseline growth rate adjusted contract services
$
5,600.00 $
$
$ 5,600.00 $
Other operating revenues baseline growth rate adjusted other operating revenues
$
7,937.00 $
$
$ 7,937.00 $
sales taxes without STA baseline growth rate adjusted sales taxes w/o STA
$ 128,246.00 $ 128,246.00 $ 128,246.00 $ 128,246.00 $ 128,246.00 $ 128,246.00 $ 128,246.00 $ 128,246.00 $ 128,246.00 $ 5,129.84 $ 9,131.12 $ 11,878.66 $ 14,681.15 $ 14,681.15 $ 17,539.69 $ 21,184.34 $ 25,667.25 $ 128,246.00 $ 133,375.84 $ 137,377.12 $ 140,124.66 $ 142,927.15 $ 142,927.15 $ 145,785.69 $ 149,430.34 $ 153,913.25
STA baseline growth rate adjusted sales taxes w/o STA
$
Property Taxes growth rate adjusted prop taxes
$
$
$ $ 9,730.00 $ 9,730.00
5,600.00 $ 112.00 $ 5,712.00 $
5,600.00 226.24 5,826.24
7,937.00 $ 119.05 $ 8,056.06 $
7,937.00 $ 239.90 $ 8,176.90 $
9,730.00 $ (277.57) $ 9,452.43 $
$ $ $
9,730.00 $ (593.38) $ 9,136.62 $
$ $ $
5,600.00 $ 343.35 $ 5,943.35 $
5,600.00 $ 343.35 $ 5,943.35 $
7,937.00 $ 321.66 $ 8,258.66 $
7,937.00 $ 404.25 $ 8,341.25 $
7,937.00 404.25 8,341.25
5,600.00 284.50 5,884.50
9,730.00 $ (716.29) $ 9,013.71 $
9,730.00 $ (896.56) $ 8,833.44 $
$ $ $
9,730.00 $ (1,073.23) $ 8,656.77 $
$ $ $
5,600.00 $ 522.84 $ 6,122.84 $
5,600.00 645.29 6,245.29
7,937.00 $ 487.66 $ 8,424.66 $
7,937.00 $ 656.16 $ 8,593.16 $
7,937.00 828.02 8,765.02
5,600.00 402.78 6,002.78
9,730.00 $ (1,246.37) $ 8,483.63 $
9,730.00 $ (1,416.04) $ 8,313.96 $
9,730.00 (1,582.32) 8,147.68
$ 79,942.00 $ 79,942.00 $ 10,977.19 $ 13,704.77 $ 90,919.19 $ 93,646.77
$
79,942.00 $ 79,942.00 $ 79,942.00 $ 79,942.00 $ 79,942.00 $ 79,942.00 $ 79,942.00 $ 1,998.55 $ 4,047.06 $ 6,146.79 $ 7,868.57 $ 8,746.67 $ 9,633.56 79,942.00 $ 81,940.55 $ 83,989.06 $ 86,088.79 $ 87,810.57 $ 88,688.67 $ 89,575.56
AC Transit Measure W growth rate adjusted Meas VV
$
29,241.00 $
$
29,241.00 $ 29,241.00 $ 29,241.00 $ 29,241.00 $ 29,241.00 $ 29,241.00 $ 29,241.00 $ 29,241.00 1,036.85 $ 1,188.24 $ 1,340.39 $ 1,646.20 1,036.85 $ $ 292.41 $ 587.74 $ 811.46 $ 29,241.00 $ 29,533.41 $ 29,828.74 $ 30,052.46 $ 30,277.85 $ 30,277.85 $ 30.429.24 $ 30,581.39 $ 30,887.20
ADA revenue baseline growth rate adjusted ADA revenue
$
11,395.00
$
$ 11,395.00 s 11,395.00 $ 11,395.00 $ 11,395.00 s 11,395.00 $ 11,395.00 $ 11,395.00 $ 11,395.00 1,313.06 698.65 $ 698.65 $ 819.59 $ 1,063.88 $ 227.90 $ 460.36 $ 578.91 $ $ 11,395.00 $ 11,622.90 $ 11,855.36 $ 11,973.91 $ 12,093.65 $ 12,093.65 $ 12,214.59 $ 12,458.88 $ 12,708.06
,
V>
Federal Assistance baseline growth rate adjusted federal assistance Other local assistance, inc RM2, lifeline baseline growth rate New RM2, new Lifeline adjusted other local assistance
$
$
$
$
$
16,625.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$ $
$
$
$
~
6w
$
w
n
$ 16,625.00 $ 16,625.00 $ 16,625.00 $ 16,625.00 $ 16,625.00 $ 16,625.00 $ 16,625.00 $ 16,625.00 $ 249.37 $ 418.12 $ 588.55 $ 760.69 $ 760.69 $ 934.54 $ 1,197.94 $ 1,465.28
~
"'n::r 3
$
16,625.00
$ 16,874.38 $ 17,043.12 $ 17,213.55 $ 17,385.69 $ 17,385.69 $ 17,559.54
202
s
17,822.94 $
18,090.28
..."' :J
w
Draft SRTP Chaper 6 Table 10-Year Revenue Projection
Yearl FY1314
Year2
Year3
Year4
YearS
FY1415
FY1516
FY1617
FY1718
$ $
$ $
0.04 0.04
$ $
0.04
$ $
0.04 0.08
$ $
0.02
Year6 FY1819
Year7
YearS
Vear9
Year 10
FY1920
FY2021
FY2122
FY2223
Growth rates Farebox annual
cumulative
0.08
$ $
0.04 0.12
$ $
0.01 0.06
$ $
0.04 0.17
0.09
$ $
0.02 0.12
0.02 0.08
$ $
0.02 0.10
0.03 0.17
$ $
0.03 0.20
$ $
0.12
0.01
$
0.02
0.07
$
$
Contract services annual cumulative
$ $
0.02 0.02
$ $
0.04
$ $
0.01 0.05
$ $
0.01 0.06
$
0.06
$ $
0.02 0.01
$ $
0.02 0.03
$ $
0.01 0.04
$ $
0.01 0.05
$ $
0.05
$
$ $
0.04 0.04
$
$
0.03 0.07
$ $
0.02 0.09
$ $
0.02 0.11
$ $
0.11
$
$ $
(0.03) $ (0.03) $
$ $
0.03 0.02
$ $
0.03 0.05
$ $
0.03 0.08
$ $
0.02 0.10
$ $
0.01 0.11
$
0.01
$
0.01
$
0.01
$
0.02
$
0.01 0.03
$
$
$
0.01 $ 0.04 $
$ $
0.02 0.02
$ $
0.02 0.04
$ $
0.01 0.05
$ $
0.01 0.06
$ $
$
Other operating revenues
annual cumulative
$
$
Sales taxes w/o STA annual
cumulative
$
0.02 0.14
$
$
5TA annual cumulative
Property Taxes annual cumulative
MeasVV annual cumulative
(0.03) $ (0.06) $
(0.01) $ (0.07) $
(0.02) $ (0.09) $
(0.02) $ (0.13) $
(0.02) $ (0.15) $
(0.02) (0.16)
$ $
0.01 0.12
$ $
0.02 0.14
$
0.03 0.17
$ $
0.01 0.04
$ $
0.01
$
0.04
0.05
$
0.01 0.06
0.06
$ $
0.01 O.D7
$ $
0.02 0.09
$ $
0.02 0.12
(0.02) $ (0.11) $
$
ADA annual cumulative
Federal Assistance annual cumulative
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$
$
$ $
Other local assistance annual
cumulative
$ $
0.02 0.01
$ $
0.01 0.03
203
$ $
0.01 0.04
$ $
0.01 0.05
$ $
0.05
$ $
0.01 0.06
$ $
0.02 0.07
$
$
0.02 0.09
This page intentionally blank
204
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 CHAPTER 7- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1.0 Introduction to the AC Transit CIP This chapter presents AC Transit's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is a ten-year snapshot of AC Transit's capital needs and potential capital funding sources. The purpose of the CIP is to provide an overview of the capital projects that are needed to meet AC Transit's goals of maintaining a state of good repair and providing an efficient and financially sustainable service. The CIP is not financially constrained so it should not be considered a capital budget. Instead, it should be seen as overview of projected needs against reasonable funding forecasts. AC Transit maintains the flexibility to prioritize certain aspects of the CIP based on timing, funding, impact on overall agency goals, and capacity for project delivery. While the District has identified capital funding that it could reasonably access over the next ten years, there is still a significant shortfall between projected need and available funding. Additional funding at the federal, state, and local level will be needed to fully fund AC Transit's capital program. One of the key components of the CIP is identifying its interaction with the Operating Budget. The most direct relationship between the CIP and the Operating Plan is the capital contribution from the operating budget. Each year AC Transit contributes funding from the operating budget for capital projects, to fulfill local match requirements of grant funds and for projects that do not qualify for grant funds. Capital contribution has averaged $9 million over the last four years (FY 2012- FY 2015). Further, service enhancements or cost efficiencies identified in the Operating Budget would need to be supported by associated capital investments. A clear example of this is an Operating Budget that calls for the expansion of service would require a capital investment in expansion transit vehicles. The Operating Budget in this SRTP calls for additional services funded by the operating surplus generated by Measure BB. This additional service will require an additional vehicles and a facilities expansion, along with other capital needs that will require an average annual capital contribution of $17 million from a variety of sources
1.1 Overview of Capital Needs and Financial Outlook AC Transit used the financial assumptions in Plan Bay Area: Final Financial Assumptions document to guide the capital funding projections in the SRTP. As in Plan Bay Area, the SRTP also defines Committed funding and Discretionary funding. Committed funding is funding already allocated or programmed to AC Transit, funding identified in an agreement or resolution, or funding that can be reasonably assumed to be available to AC Transit. Discretionary funding is more speculative as it may require voter approval, legislative action or is part of a highly competitive discretionary program. AC Transit uses Plan Bay Area as a source for discretionary revenues and therefore this estimate includes a new regional bridge toll; a regional gas tax; and other anticipated, but unidentified revenues. Section 8 will further describe the sources and methodology for the funding assumptions.
205
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 AC Transit has identified $1.5 billion in capital project needs over the ten-year SRTP time period (FY 2015 - FY 24). Of the $1.5 billion there is $725 million in committed funding and $592 million in discretionary funding. Assuming that the District only receives committed funding there is an $837 million {54%) shortfall against the full CIP. Assuming the District receives all committed and discretionary funding listed there is still a $245 million {16%) shortfall. This further highlights the need for new funding sources at the federal, state, and local levels. Table 1- CIP Project Need and Capital Financial Outlook 1.2 CIP Chapter Overview The remainder of the cost section of the CIP chapter is organized around AC Transit's major capital program categories: Fleet, Facilities, Corridors, Customer Service, and Information Services and Communications. Each of those sections will discuss existing conditions of that program, pertinent agency policies and/or plans governing the implementation of the program, and the recommended CIP projects and associated cost projection for the program. The final section of the chapter will discuss the financial assumptions and provide an overview of all the capital funding sources.
2. Fleet (includes revenue, non-revenue, and paratransit vehicles) AC Transit has a fleet of 576 revenue vehicles (buses) that is broken up into 354 40' vehicles, 90 30' vehicles, 86 60' vehicles, and 46 45' vehicles (see Table 2 for more details). AC Transit maintains a spare ratio of 19.75% of its maximum service peak vehicle need of 471 revenue vehicles. Table 2- Revenue Fleet Overview AC Transit has a fleet of 154 non-revenue vehicles (everything other than buses) that is broken up into 48 full-size cars, 30 pieces of support equipment (i.e. forklifts and yard tugs), 19 SUVs, 36 trucks, and 21 vans (see Table 3 for more details). Two of the full-size cars are hybrids. Table 3- Non-Revenue Fleet Overview The current average revenue fleet age is 7.2 years, compared to the target average age of between 6-7 years. The target average age is based on an optimal average age that is half the useful life of the buses in the fleet; the federal standard useful life of 12-years for urban transit buses and 14-years for overthe-road commuter buses. Achieving the target average age is accomplished by maintaining the replacement schedule based on the useful life., Deviations from that target occur due to late or missed procurements, or extended periods of time from order to manufacture based on supplier backlog. Table 4 shows the revenue vehicle replacement plan over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 202324). The current average age of the non-revenue fleet is 11.5 years. It is AC Transit's goal for non-revenue vehicles is similar to buses in that it is based on the useful life of the vehicles. The target average age for the fleet can vary a bit more with non-revenue vehicles, as the types and mix of vehicles can vary based
206
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 on District needs. Table 4 also shows the non-revenue vehicle replacement plan over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 2023-24). The Comprehensive Operations Analysis and the resultant service planning and SRTP Service Plan show a need for an expansion of the fleet by 47 vehicles over the period 2015-2024. Table 5 shows the vehicle expansions over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 2023-24). It includes a larger potential envelope of vehicle expansions which will not necessarily be implemented. Table 4- Vehicle Replacement Cost Table 5- Vehicle Expansion Cost The vehicle replacement plan shown in Table 4 is based on the simple assumption of replacing vehicles at the end of their mandated useful life. AC Transit regularly evaluates the fleet mix and needs of current and planned service, and makes required changes in fleet replacement projects.
3. Facilities (includes maintenance and fueling facilities. administration building. and other operational facilities) 3.1 Existing Conditions AC Transit has six operating and administrative facilities in regular use and seven transit centers that are utilized in regular service. AC Transit is also currently in the process of rehabilitating another operating facility (D3) for regular use: • • • • •
Three open operating facilities (D2, D4, D6) One maintenance facility (CMF) One Administrative facility (GO) One training facility (TEC) Seven transit centers (Transbay Terminal, Ardenwood, Richmond Parkway, Eastmont, Contra Costa College, San Leandro BART Terminal, Uptown Transit Center)
Table 6 details the size, location, age, and other characteristics of the facilities. Most of AC Transit's major operating facilities were built in the 1980s and have reached the point of needing major rehabilitation, including replacement of major subsystems. Facilities State of Good Repair - Most of AC Transit's operating and maintenance facilities are 25-30 years old and are in need of significant rehabilitation and replacement of systems. Isolated projects to replace the most aged components such as roofs and yard paving/concrete have been completed in recent years, and a systematic rehabilitation schedule to address obsolete and aged components is being developed through the State of Good Repair Asset Management Project. D3 - AC Transit is beginning the process of reopening the Richmond D3 facility. The District is nearing capacity at its current facilities so reopening D3 is necessary to allow for proposed service expansion. The current schedule has the facility fully reopening for service in 2016. At the same time, the City of Richmond has expressed interest in having AC Transit move the facility so they can develop it for other
207
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 residential and commercial uses, given its proximity to the Richmond BART lntermodal Station. They are in the process of identifying other suitable sites for AC Transit to occupy. With a suitable alternate location and sensible financial and operational terms, AC Transit could relocate the facility. If an arrangement is worked out in the near term, AC Transit would likely reduce the rehabilitation scope to the minimum needed for short term operations until a replacement facility is developed. Facilities Relocations - The City of Emeryville has expressed interest in having AC Transit move our facility from its current location. They have a developer interested in purchasing and developing the site, and are in the process of identifying suitable locations where we could relocate to. With a suitable alternate location and sensible financial and operational terms, AC Transit could relocate the facility. New Paratransit Facility - AC Transit, through the East Bay Paratransit Consortium, operates demandresponsive paratransit service for eligible passengers in its operating area. The service uses three contractors who operate their own facilities, and pass the cost of maintaining those facilities along to AC Transit through the contract costs. AC Transit could acquire or construct its own facility which the operators could use reducing contract costs, or could restart AC Transit provided paratransit service with its own facility. Additional Bus Facility - The re-opening of D3 will provide capacity for several years of service expansion, but AC Transit must continue looking towards future conditions and the possible need for another facility. Table 7- Facilities Rehabilitation/Expansion Cost
4. Technology (includes all Information Technology and communications infrastructure projects (e.g.
CAD/AVLII AC Transit is in the middle of major technology upgrades, and must continue to plan for replacement and upgrade of these systems. They have a relatively short useful life and there are efficiencies and opportunities that new technologies can bring. Major systems upgrades in progress include: •
Computer Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Location/Radio System (CAD/AVL/Radio)
•
PeopleSoft financial tracking system
•
Hastus Integrated Operations (HIOPS) bus scheduling system
The CAD/AVL/Radio project is AC Transit's largest and most costly system and provides schedule adherence information for the operator, real-time vehicle location and schedule adherence information for the controllers, and automatic data collection of the date, time, and location of many onboard events such as door openings, wheelchair ramp/lift use, and dwell times at service stops. The system provides an effective means for operators and controllers to share information on the current status of service, and is expected to improve on time performance. The current project is budgeted at over $39 million and is expected to complete in 2018. A related project will relocate the Operations Controls Center from D2 to CMF to better serve the upcoming BRT line and isolate the facility from potential hazards posed by the hydrogen fueling station at D2.
208
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 Table 8- Technology Cost 5. Corridors (includes BRT, Line 51, and other improvements to the service on the routes (e.g. terminal upgrades like CCCTCll AC Transit pursues corridor enhancement projects to improve efficiency and reliability of its service. The major corridors are particularly important, given that they carry almost half of AC Transit's ridership. Corridor enhancements include a range of treatments, including physical improvements like bus bulbs and queue-jump lanes to traffic signal modifications for bus priority. 'Rapid Bus' improvements package the physical and signal enhancements with service redesign of specific line that reduces of the number of stops to speed travel time and often includes special branding. At the high end of corridor 1
enhancements is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which the District is implementing on East 14 h/lnternational Boulevard between Downtown Oakland and San Leandro. The East Bay BRT project includes all of the elements of the 'Rapid Bus' projects as well as level boarding with a specially modified bus fleet to accommodate it, raised platform center-median and side stations with enhanced lighting and security, off-board fare collection and vending, bus-only lanes, and further enhanced branding. The Line 51 Corridor project, currently in construction and planned for completion in the Spring of 2015, aims to improve performance along the 51A/B routes from Alameda through Oakland and into Berkeley. The East Bay BRT project, scheduled to open for service in late 2017, will be the region's first full BRT. AC Transit has also received funding from MTC's Transit Performance Initiative for signal and other improvements on line 97 from Hayward to Union City. Beyond these projects, AC Transit is currently working on a Major Corridors Study to identify the appropriate level of treatment for the District's top ten corridors and build local support for their implementation. Table 9- Corridor Enhancement Cost 6. Transit Centers/Park and Rides Transit centers are focal points of District service, often at route terminals and/or intermodal connections such as BART stations. They are served by multiple bus routes. While the District does not have a formal policy for the development of transit centers, they often arise from a natural combination of service design and connection and land use particulars. AC Transit's use and development of park-and-ride transit centers is guided by Board Policy 317 'District Operated Park And Ride Lot Pricing and Cost Recovery Policy'. In essence the policy states that park-andride facilities are not a part of the District's primary on-street pickup service design, any such facilities must have a thorough planning process, and must be supported by user (parking) fees. AC Transit is also a member of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA), an agency created to develop and operate the new Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco. AC Transit currently operates 28 Transbay lines to San Francisco, providing commute and some all-day service in an era when BART is at or above capacity. While new Transbay Terminal is under construction, AC Transit uses a temporary terminal site nearby. The District is the major bus operations tenant of the temporary terminal and will
209
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 be the main tenant when the new Terminal opens in late 2017. In 2008 the District signed a Lease and Use Agreement with the TJPA in 2008 which includes a capital commitment of $57 million in 2011$ by 2050 and an operating commitment for the terminal. The District has contributed nearly $13 million of capital funding, and will program another $22 million in FY 2016 and FY 2017. The remainder of the capital commitment will likely be funded by a passenger facility charge to be added to the standard rider fare, but the exact mechanism is still being developed. AC Transit and the TJPA currently receive RM2 funding to cover the operating costs of the Temporary Terminal. Costs will increase when the new Terminal opens, this may require significant additional funding starting in FY 2018. TJPA is currently working on updated operations cost estimates along with plans for increased grant funds. Table 10- Transit Centers/Park and Rides Cost The plan provides for the rehabilitation and maintenance of current transit and park-and-ride locations. Expansion projects in this category consists of a second District 2 park-and-ride facility based on the success of the Ardenwood facility in Fremont and a Downtown Oakland 'hub' transit center as Downtown revitalizes and grows in regional prominence.
7. GHG Reduction Initiatives AS noted in Board Policy 550, AC Transit's greatest contribution to greenhouse gas reduction comes from shifting travelers from cars to buses. The District is also deeply involved in efforts to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions. AC Transit is a leading partner in the regional Zero-Emissions Bay Area (ZEBA) effort and nationally to bring fuel cell powered transit to commercial reality. The District has been operating buses powered by hydrogen fuel cells for nearly 14 years, with the current fleet of 12 fuel cell buses in their third year of operation. The buses run on many District routes and together have driven nearly 900,000 miles and carried over 3.2 million passengers. As part of this effort, the District has built two hydrogen fueling stations and converted one maintenance bay to handle the fuel cell buses, with a second maintenance bay conversion in progress. Both of the fueling stations feature on-site hydrogen generation to meet the California State SB 1505 renewable hydrogen generation requirements. To meet the requirement, the electrolyzer at Division 2 is partially powered by solar and at Division 4 by a biogas fed solid-oxide stationary fuel cell. The District has also installed solar power generation at two additional facilities in an effort to reduce both power costs and greenhouse gas emissions. The ZEBA effort was initially prompted by still-pending California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations that will likely require some level of zero-emission vehicles in public transit bus fleets. CARB plans to announce the updated regulations at the end of 2014. The District is currently developing a strategy to meet expected zero-emission regulations, and projects in this category will pursue that end. Most of the funding for these projects is expected to come from grant sources and agencies such as CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), or the Cap & Trade grant programs being developed. In the near
210
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 term the District is investigating the expansion of its zero-emission bus fleet, and the replacement of key propulsion systems in the existing fuel cell bus fleet. Emissions reductions through strategic facilities investments are also regularly considered, along with low- and zero-emissions vehicles for the District's non-revenue fleet. Table 11- GHG Reduction Initiatives Cost
8. Overview of Funding Sources The chapter now shifts from discussion of the District's spending needs to discussion of the funding sources which are available to pay for those needs. One of the key methodologies used to develop this funding source projection was MTC's recently approved Core Capacity Challenge Grant program (MTC Resolution No. 4130). This 15-year funding program for the three largest operators in the Bay Area, AC Transit, BART, and Muni, includes funding for fleet replacements, fleet expansions, and facilities upgrades. AC Transit's share of the Core Capacity program includes $1.138 billion for fleet replacements ($780 million), fleet expansions ($90 million), and facility rehabilitation and replacement ($268 million). The funding is split among several fund sources, including Federal Transit Administration Formula funds, Cap and Trade funds, AB 664 Bridge Toll funds, BATA project savings, and various local fund sources. AC Transit used the assumptions in this program as a baseline for all of those sources.
Committed Funding: Committed funding is funding already allocated or programmed to AC Transit, funding identified in an agreement or resolution, or funding that can be reasonably assumed to be available to AC Transit. Federal Sources Federal Transit Administration Formula Funds- The main source of AC Transit's FTA funding is from the Section 5307 program. AC Transit is eligible to receive this funding within the San Francisco-Oakland urbanized area along with 10 other operators, including BART and the San Francisco MTA. The large needs of this group of operators generally outstrip available funding. To handle the funding distribution, the MTC manages the Transit Capital Priorities (TCP) process to determine funding priorities on a recurring basis. For this SRTP AC Transit used the FTA funds programmed in MTC's Core Capacity program to project available funds over the term of the SRTP. The Core Capacity program includes $481 million in FTA funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015- FY 2030) or $30 million/year. AC Transit assumed $38 million in FY2015 based on MTC programming recommendations. This leaves $443 million for the remaining 15 years of the Core Capacity program, or $29.53 million/year. Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Funds - Both of these fund sources originate from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Surface Transportation Program (STP) is generally considered flexible funding that can be used on a variety of transportation projects, including transit, bicycle, pedestrian, road, and highway projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air
211
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding requires that projects reduce air pollution in areas that are considered to be in non-attainment under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These funds are apportioned to the region and administered by MTC. AC Transit is eligible to receive funding from both of these federal programs through a variety of discretionary programs established by MTC and the Congestion Management Agencies for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. These programs include, but are not limited to, the OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) program, the Transit Performance Initiative (TPI) program, and the Freeway Performance Initiative program. Plan Bay Area assumes $186.3 million total from both these funding sources in Fiscal Year 2013 with a 3% escalation rate per annum throughout the life of Plan Bay Area. AC Transit estimates that it could receive this funding distributed through a variety of regional programs (e.g. TPI and OBAG) at a rate of $7 million bi-annually. State Sources Regional Transportation Improvement Program - The Regional Transportation Improvement Program identifies projects programmed to receive various state and federal funds, and acts as a proposal from MTC and the Congestion Management Agencies for Alameda and Contras Costa Counties to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for programming State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds. AC Transit anticipates $26 million in funds in the RTIP in the SRTP period for the East Bay BRT project. Infrastructure Bond Funds - In November 2006, the voters in the State approved Proposition 1B entitled the "Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006". Proposition 1B authorized the sale of $19.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund State and local transportation projects aimed at relieving congestion, improving movement of goods, improving air quality, and enhancing safety and security of the transportation system. AC Transit receives funding from two Prop 1B programs: the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) and the Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA). By the end of Fiscal Year 2014-15 AC Transit will have received approximately $100 million in PTMISEA funding and $15 million in TSSSDRA funding. Staff estimates that $43 million of that funding will be used for capital priorities within this SRTP; the bulk of which are existing projects that are carrying forward into this time period. Cap and Trade (Low Carbon Transit Operations Program)- The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is one of the main Cap and Trade funded programs that can be accessed by transit operators. Unlike the other programs, LCTOP funding will flow to transit operators and the region by formula. The funding must be used to support operating and capital projects that lead to greenhouse gas reductions with a priority to delivering those improvements to disadvantaged communities. Based on current information from the State and MTC, AC Transit believes it could secure as much as $2.5 million per year from this program. How these funds would be used has not yet been determined.
212
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 Local Sources AB 664- AB 664 is an increment of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay, San Mateo-Hayward, and Dum barton Bridge tolls and is intended to fund transit capital projects that relieve congestion in the bridge corridors. MTC commits these funds to match federally-funded transit projects. MTC Resolution 4123 Transit Core Capacity includes $25 million in AB 664 funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015- FY 2030) or $1.5 million/year for AC Transit Core Capacity projects. Regional Measure 2 -Approved by voters in March 2004, Regional Measure 2 (RM2) increased tolls on the state owned bay bridges. RM2 allocates additional bridge toll revenues for various transportation projects and operations within to reduce congestion or to make improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors. AC Transit anticipates $15 million in RM2 funds in the SRTP period to fund existing projects including the renovation of Richmond Parkway Transit Center, purchase of replacement buses for the Dum barton Express Bus Service, and the East Bay BRT project. Transportation Fund for Clean Air- Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) funds have been developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. They are available through two main channels: the Regional Fund and the County Program Manager Fund. Eligible projects must result in the reduction of motor vehicle emissions within the Air District's jurisdiction. The Regional Fund receives about 60% of the TFCA revenues and is administered directly by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Program Manager Fund receives approximately 40% of the TFCA revenues and is administered in coordination with the Bay Area's nine county congestion management agencies (CMAs). The primary CMAs in the AC Transit service area in the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). Both of these fund sources are available through discretionary programs on an annual basis. Generally, $4 million is available from the regional program annually and approximately $1 million is available from the county program annually for transit projects. AC Transit believes it can secure a small portion of that funding for projects that enhance existing operations. Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) Project Savings- With the completion of the Regional Measure 1 highway and bridge projects and the opening of the New East Span of the Bay Bridge, BATA project savings are proposed to be directed to the Core Capacity Challenge Grant Program. Staff has determined that these transit projects are eligible bridge improvement projects because they will improve functioning or use of one or more of the state-owned bridges. As such, these project expenditures, in an amount of $250 million, are proposed to be added to BATA's long-range plan and budget. The Core Capacity program includes $83 million in FTA funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015 - FY 2030) or $30 million/year. AC Transit $83 million in BATA Project Savings for AC Transit over a 16 year period (FY 2015 - FY 2030) or $5.18 million/year. Alameda County Transportation Commission Vehicle Registration Fee (VRFl - The Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) Program was approved by the voters in November 2010, the fee generates about $11 million per year by a $10 per year vehicle registration fee. The goal of the VRF program is to sustain the County's transportation network and reduce traffic congestion and vehicle
213
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 related pollution. The program includes 25% for Transit for Congestion Relief, which seeks to make the existing transit system more efficient and effective, and improve access to schools and jobs. AC Transit believes it can secure a small portion of that funding for projects that enhance existing operations. Measure BB Capital - ACTC's Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) includes $35 million for four Rapid Bus projects over 30 years (FY 2015 - FY 2045). This is a project specific program so AC Transit is assuming the use of funding for at least three of four projects within the SRTP timeframe. The TEP also includes $300 million for Community Development Investments that improve transit connections to jobs and schools, or $10 million/year. AC Transit assumes $1 million every two years in capital funding to mitigate impacts on transit of development. District Funding - AC Transit provides funding from its operating budget to support capital projects. From FY 2012- FY 2015 AC Transit provided an average of $9 million per year in capital funding. MTC Resolution 4123 -Transit Core Capacity includes a required contribution of $341 million in local funds from AC Transit over a 16 year period (FY 2015 - FY 2030) or $21 million/year. Early years of the commitment (FY 2015 - FY 2016) are offset by $38 million in Prop 1B PTMISEA funds. This lowers the necessary commitment to $18 million/year. This SRTP includes an increase of District Funding to an average of $17 million/year. The increase may be partially supported by the recent passage of Measure BB. AC Transit assumes that other state and local funds will be available to help off-set this need. Table 12- Committed Funding Projections
Discretionary Funding: Discretionary funding is more speculative as it may require voter approval, legislative action or is part of a highly competitive discretionary program. AC Transit used Plan Bay Area as a source for discretionary revenues and therefore this estimate includes a new regional bridge toll; a regional gas tax; and other anticipated, but unidentified revenues-a residual funding category used by MTC Federal Sources FTA New Starts Program - AC Transit is working through a Major Corridors plan that will identify strategies for improvements for the 10 largest corridors in the service area. Those improvements could be a minimal as transit signal priority and as large as new proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects. For the purposes of the SRTP, staff assumes that it will secure an additional $75 million Small Starts grant towards a future BRT project. Other US Department of Transportation (DOT) Discretionary Grants - There are several discretionary federal programs that are specific to the US DOT (i.e. FHWA and FTA) could support AC Transit projects. These include the TIGER program, the Elderly and Disabled, Alternative Fuel, Research and Development, and the Asset Management, and Safety Programs. Other Federal Grants - There a few federal programs outside of the US DOT that could support AC Transit projects, particularly advancements to the zero emission bus projects. AC Transit has included
214
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 some probable funding from the US OOE for possible enhancements to the zero emission bus projects. AC Transit has also included funding from FEMA and/or DHS to support safety and security projects. State Sources Active Transportation Program - The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program. The purpose of ATP is to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation. AC Transit assumes that it can secure a modest amount of funding from this program to help support corridor projects, particularly complete street projects that are done in coordination with local jurisdiction. AC Transit may be able to draw on this program to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to transit centers and stops. Cap and Trade (Transit and Intercity Rail Capital. and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Programs) - The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program are both discretionary programs where AC Transit could compete for capital funding at the state-level. The focus of both of these programs is capital projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a priority focus on those reductions in disadvantaged communities. AC Transit is looking at these programs through MTC Resolution 4123 - Transit Core Capacity, which includes $207 million in Cap and Trade funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015 - FY 2030) or $13 million/year for AC Transit. Cap and Trade (Low Carbon Transportation) and California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Air Quality Improvement Program - The Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) is designed to support development and commercialization of advanced technologies that are necessary to meet California's air quality and climate goals. Because of the program's success, AQIP continues to expand. The Governor's FY 2014-15 proposed budget identifies $200 million from the State's share of auction proceeds under ARB's Cap-and-Trade program to be spent on Low Carbon Transportation projects that reduce GHG emissions primarily in disadvantaged communities. Because the Governor's goals for the investment of Cap-and-Trade. In Fiscal Year 2015 CARB staff combined the two funding sources (AQIP and Low Carbon Transportation Investments) into one funding plan. The key program of focus for AC Transit is the Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Pilot, which has $20 - $25 million available in FY 2015. AC Transit assumes it could receive $2 million from this program in FY 2015 and $1 million per year for the remainder of the SRTP. California Energy Commission (CEC) -The CEC's Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program has a $100 million Investment Plan in FY 2015. AC Transit would most likely be eligible for the $15 million Medium-and Heavy-Duty Advanced Vehicle Technology Demonstration Program, $15 million from the Electric Charging Infrastructure program, and $20 million from the Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure program. The latter two programs have more of a light-duty focus so AC Transit would need to examine how it could augment its non-revenue fleet to compete for those funds. assumes it could receive $3 million every three years from this program.
215
AC Transit
SR 14-033c Attachment 4 Local Sources Additional Bridge Toll - $1 bridge toll increase assumed in Plan Bay Area (PBA). Expected to generate $2.7 billion over the life of PBA, FV 2013- FV 2040 (28 years) or $96 million/year. AC Transit received 6% of RM2. That assumption for RM3 would yield $5.8 million/year. Regional Gas Tax- PBA assumes $5.1 billion over a 22-year period starting in 2018, or $231 million/year. AC Transit assumes that it will be able to capture 5% of this revenue (-$11.59 million/year). Other Anticipated. but Undetermined Revenues- PBA assumes $14 billion over a 22-year period starting in 2018, or $636 million/year. AC Transit assumes that it will be able to capture 5% of this revenue (-$31 million/year). Table 13- Discretionary Funding Projections
216
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
January 14, 2015 Agenda Items B-1 – B-7
217
This page intentionally blank
218
Report No: Meeting Date:
15- 008 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Review of Revised Classification Specifications
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider receiving a report regarding modifications to Classification Specifications approved by the General Manager in 2014. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2014, fifteen Classification Specifications were revised, and approved by the General Manager. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
Resolution No. 2045 delegates authority to the General Manager to approve revisions to existing Classification Specifications that do not involve significant alterations in job functions, changes in compensation or bargaining unit. The resolution requires that an annual report on revised classifications be presented to the Board of Directors. Pursuant to the authority delegated by Resolution No. 2045, in 2014, the General Manager approved revisions to the following : •
Capital Planning & Grants Manager {Unrepresented, Grade 12) was updated pursuant to a recruitment to fill the formerly vacant position. References to legislative affairs were removed from the job title and from the representative functions.
•
Chief Financial Officer {Unrepresented, Grade 15) was revised from the previous {1999) version with updated language reflect ing changes in the functions of the position .
•
Director of Maintenance {Unrepresented, Grade 14) was updated to increase the minimum qualifications, and to clearly delineate and contrast the levels in the job series.
•
Division Senior Clerk- Maintenance (ATU, Maintenance Grade 4) was updated from the
219
Report No. 15-008 Page 2 of 3 previous version to add a requirement for skills in Microsoft Office, and to make it clear that incumbents will be inputting data into computerized payroll systems. •
Executive Administrative Assistant (Unrepresented, Grade 4) was revised to expand the reporting structure.
•
Labor Relations Administrator (Unrepresented, Grade 9) was revised to more clearly delineate and contrast the levels in the job series.
•
Labor Relations Manager (Unrepresented, Grade 11) was revised to update language in the previous (1998) specification because functions have evolved; and to increase the minimum qualifications for experience.
•
Maintenance Superintendent (Unrepresented, Grade 10) was updated to include an additional representative function regarding the development and implementation of performance goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and work plans to meet Key Performance Indicators and Quality Assurance goals.
•
Parts Clerk (ATU, Purchasing & Materials Grade 2) was revised with updated representative functions in regard to new inventory software technologies.
•
Principal Financial Analyst (Unrepresented, Grade 8) was updated from the previous (1998) version to delete payroll functions no longer performed by this classification; and to add required functions, including the development of revenue and expense projections. Also, the minimum requirements for experience were increased.
•
Project Manager (Unrepresented, Grade 10) received a revision in class title from "Manager of Special Projects" to be consistent with the title of the higher level Senior Project Manager, and to match the standard industry title.
•
Real Estate Manager (Unrepresented, Grade 10) was revised pursuant to the recruitment for the vacant position and to emphasize the property management functions.
•
Senior Human Resources Administrator (Unrepresented, Grade 9) was revised to include staff development and training functions.
•
Senior Network/PC Analyst (AFSCME, Grade 6) was revised to clarify that incumbents could be assigned either to network administration or to computer Help Desk functions.
•
Training Instructor (AFSCME, Grade 6) was updated from the previous (2006) version to reflect recent changes in the representative functions of the classification, including the elimination of training for Paratransit Drivers, and the addition of the Department of Motor Vehicles Employer Testing Program.
220
Report No. 15-008 Page 3 of3
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report is provided to the Board for informational purposes, so there are no advantages or disadvantages.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: No actions are proposed. This report is for informational purposes only.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None.
ATTACHMENTS: None
Department Head Approval:
Thomas Prescott, Acting Chief Administrative Services
Prepared by:
Llew Keller, Senior Human Resources Administrator
221
This page intentionally blank
222
Report No: Meeting Date:
15-025 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
New Classification Specifications in the Information Technology Department
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-002 approving new classification specifications for Network Security Engineer and Network/Server Administrator. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Operations & Maintenance Plan projects that two additional fulltime positions will be needed to support the District's imminent obligation to more than triple the size and comp,lexity of the District's network infrastructure. The need for a specialized Network Security Engineer is urgent, so that design of the network can begin as soon as possible. The District will also require a Network/Server Administrator to monitor the integrity of networks, servers, and related hardware. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact. Any fiscal impact from new positions will be considered in the FY 15-16 budget.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
The Network Security Engineer classification (AFSCME, Grade 9) will bring a specific skill set required by the presence of ticket machines at the BRT stations and their use of credit cards. The secure transmission of credit card data requires strict compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS) including continual monitoring and regular audits. The Network Security Engineer will also be responsible for perimeter and internal infrastructure security, contributing to new designs, monitoring our infrastructure and assessing and mitigating risks. The BRT system will require the design and implementation of at least 420 new Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs), which is a significant increase from the 130 currently in place. This includes 46 stations with 9 VLANs per station for ticket machines, Clipper readers, security cameras, and more. As this will be a major extension of our core network, this work should be
223
Report No. 15-025 Page 2 of 2 done by internal staff in order to ensure compliance with our design standards, and so those who will maintain the network have the knowledge and commitment to do so. The Network Security Engineer's job will be to design a secure infrastructure, and also to monitor and maintain it; including the critical PCI-DSS compliance requirement. This will be a significant and ongoing responsibility that will not end with the implementation of the BRT project. The addition of the Network/Server Administrator classification (AFSCME, Grade 7) will allow the Network/Server Engineers (AFSCME, Grade 8) to delegate the more routine aspects of daily server, storage, and network administration duties, freeing them to do vital network and server upgrades and troubleshooting. This will save the District the cost differential involved in hiring additional Network/Server Engineers to do this work for our 130 wired and wireless networks and 190+ physical and virtual servers. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
This work could be done by contractors; however, for reasons stated in the report, this is not a desirable option for this work. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
There are no practical alternatives to the course of action recommended in this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
None ATTACHMENTS: 1: Resolution 15-002 and related exhibits.
Executive Staff Approval:
Thomas Prescott, Acting Chief Administrative Services Officer
Reviewed by:
Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Tom O'Neill, Acting Chief Information Services Officer Llew Keller, Senior Human Resources Administrator
Prepared by:
224
Staff Report 15-025 Attachment No. 1
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 15-002 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NEW CLASSIFICATIONS OF NETWORK SECURITY ENGINEER AND NETWORK/SERVER ADMINISTRATOR. WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code Section 24886 authorizes the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to determine and create such number and character of positions in the District as are necessary to carry on the functions of the District; and WHEREAS, Section 24886 also authorizes the Board of Directors to establish the appropriate salary, salary range, or wage for each classification created by the District; and WHEREAS, the General Manager has assessed the current personnel needs of the District and determined amendments to the classification plan are necessary for the proper operation of the District; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the General Manager to adopt the new classifications of Network Security Engineer and Network/Server Administrator as set forth in Exhibits A and B of this resolution. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does hereby resolve as follows:
new classifications of Network Security Engineer and Network/Server Administrator as set forth in Exhibits A and B of this resolution. Section
1. Adopts the
Section 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four
affirmative votes of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January 2015.
Greg Harper, President Attest:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
Resolution No. 15-002
Page 1 of2 225
Staff Report 15-025 Attachment No. 1
I, Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 14'h day of January, 2015 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
Approved as to Form and Content:
Denise Standridge, General Counsel
Resolution No. 15-002
Page 2 of2 226
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Classi Exhibit A ion to Resolution
Network Security Engineer
15-002
DEFINITION: Under general direction, performs Information Technology (IT) security functions associated with designing and maintaining a secure and reliable network infrastructure. Works independently to identify and remediate potential threats, and maintain security of internal and external networks; and in a team environment to accomplish larger department goals. REPRESENTATIVE FUNCTIONS may include, but are not limited to the following: •
Analyzes and monitors network traffic to provide early intrusion detection and prevention, and rapid reaction to unexpected and suspicious situations; such as unusual traffic volume, port attacks, and rogue devices in the network.
•
Performs operational processes related to satisfying regulatory requirements, including requirements of the Payment Card Industry's Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS); and refines security awareness programs and communications and security policy and procedure documents required for compliance.
•
Performs regular internal and external IT security assessments and network penetration testing, reporting, and issue resolution to ensure the security of traffic that passes through the network, and that robust security is built into the design and implementation of all networks, servers, and storage.
•
Performs routine audits of hardware and software entities on the network in order to find and address security vulnerabilities.
•
Documents computer and network security and emergency measures; and tests and monitors compliance with information security procedures and policies.
•
Serves as the District's network security resource to IT project team members, and consults on security issues with other District departments.
•
Provides consultation and reviews on project designs with infrastructure components, and ensures compliance prior to moving designs into production.
•
Performs operational processes related to satisfying regulatory compliance requirements.
•
Develops, maintains and refines security awareness program communications and security policy and procedure documents required for regulatory compliance.
•
Provides infrastructure design solutions that conform to the security standards and requirements of the District, as well as IT best practices, as applicable.
•
Configures and troubleshoots software and hardware issues.
•
Performs detailed analyses of web server security.
•
Maintains up-to-date knowledge of available and emerging technologies as they relate to networks, network security, and information systems.
•
Performs related duties, as required.
Page 1 of 2 227
~I
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Classi Exhibit A ion to Resolution
Network Security Engineer
1s-oo2
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Knowledge of: Principles and practices of computer networks in virtualized client-server, and operating environments consistent with current technologies; PCI-DSS controls, and procedures for maintaining compliance; security analysis tools and techniques, including Nessus, Webinspect, Paros, Fiddler, sql injection, MiTM and OWASP; Cisco security products including ASA firewalls, routers, switches, IDSIIDP sensors, and wireless LAN controllers; Active Directory authentication including Radius, TACACS, and Kerberos; change control concepts in a highly regulated environment; VMware and Windows hardening, as well as client OS hardening; large or complex Firewall and IDPIIPS environments; IPSEC and IKE security protocols; Windows security tools and products including PKI and ISA; security concepts including Netlogon logging, and Group Policy; third party security tools including Microsoft Anti-Virus and web filter proxies including Websense; security websites and vulnerability disclosure reports from Mitre, SANS, Security Focus, Microsoft and Cisco; and virus breakout mitigation and prevention. Ability To: Monitor multiple computer networks on an ongoing basis; use forensic investigation tools and techniques, as well as chain of custody; identify, contain, and mitigate virus intrusions; develop strategic technical documentation and written communications relative to field of expertise, including Security Policies, standards documents, and procedural documents; implement changes in a large network environment; maintain strong analytical skills commensurate with changing IT technology and security requirements; organize and plan work effectively, and perform duties quickly and accurately in emergency situations, and under firm deadlines; work both independently, and collaboratively in a team environment, and lead teams when required; communicate effectively in English, both orally and in writing with District staff at all levels; develop and deliver effective presentations to various District departments; and establish and maintain effective working relations with District personnel using principles of excellent customer service. Education: A Bachelor's degree in computer science, management information systems or related field. Additional experience beyond the minimum may be considered in lieu of the required education on a year-foryear basis. Experience: Six (6) years of recent and verifiable experience in Information Technology, including two (2) years in security infrastructure. Special Requirement: Must be able to: (1) work outside regular business hours as required by implementation of special projects, and emergencies; and (2) travel between the various District divisions to perform the duties of the job. Physical Requirements: (1) Must maintain the physical condition necessary to perform tasks in an office setting and operate computers, keyboards, and other peripheral equipment; and (2) lift up to fifty (50) lbs. (3) must possess the mobility necessary to travel expeditiously within a large office building and to other District facilities.
S:\HR\Data 12-01-01\Ciass-Comp\Ciass Specs- DRAFTS A-0\Network Security Engineer 1-15.doc
Page 2 of 2 228
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Classi Exhibit 8 ion to Resolution
Network-Server Administrator Class Code TBD
FLSA Status Non-exem t
EEO Cate o
Re resented Status AFSCME
Computer Technician
Sala
1s-oo2 Grade 7
Effective Date 1-15
Resolution# 15-002
DEFINITION: Under general direction, monitors the integrity of networks, servers, and related hardware upon which the District relies for uninterrupted business and management operations; identifies issues, proposes fixes, and installs patches and updates on networks, operating systems, servers, and related hardware and software. REPRESENTATIVE FUNCTIONS may include, but are not limited to the following: •
Monitors the integrity of networks, servers, and related hardware upon which the District relies for uninterrupted business and management operations.
•
Analyzes network performance and recommends performance improvements.
•
Monitors firewall utilization and identifies bottlenecks.
•
Monitors the VMware virtual environment.
•
Monitors the storage area network (SAN) arrays.
•
Patches network connections, and performs basic switch and router configurations.
•
Monitors and identifies malfunctions with networked systems, operating systems, servers, and related equipment including routers and switches.
•
Monitors the District's Local Area Networks (LANs) and Wide Area Networks (WANs).
•
Updates procedures, and provides user information and training materials.
•
Performs periodic systems maintenance on computer and network equipment.
•
Performs network and server data and configuration backups and restores.
•
Creates and administers Network Operating System user accounts, groups, and permissions.
•
May connect workstations and PCs to networked systems.
•
May install, configure, and upgrade server and network hardware and software.
•
Performs related duties as required.
Page 1 of 2 229
~I
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Classi Exhibit 8 ion to Resolution
Network-Server Administrator
15-002
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Knowledge of: Principles and practices of computer networks in virtualized client-server, and Microsoft Operating System environments; systems monitoring, and PC internals; data recovery techniques including backup and restore; information technology documentation procedures; basic mathematics and algebra; current office methods and procedures.
Ability To: Monitor multiple computer networks on an ongoing basis; identify malfunctions with networked systems, physical servers, virtualized servers, and workstations; administer network operating system permissions; patch and update computer and network hardware, software, and peripheral equipment; use discretion and independent judgment; perform duties quickly and accurately in emergency situations, and under firm deadlines; keep abreast of current developments in information technology; work collaboratively in a team environment; communicate effectively in English, both orally and in writing; and establish and maintain effective working relations with District personnel using principles of excellent customer service. Education & Experience: Equivalent to an Associate's degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or a related field; plus four (4) years of experience monitoring and administering computer, and network hardware and software - OR equivalent to a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering or a related field; plus two (2) years of experience monitoring and administering computer, and network hardware and software. Experience must have included working with advanced routing protocols such as EIGRP, OSPF, BGP, STP, VTP, MPLS, and IPSEC; and the use of network management tools to analyze, monitor, and troubleshoot network related problems. Special Requirement: Must be able to: (1) work outside regular business hours as required by implementation of special projects, and emergencies; and (2) travel between the various District divisions to perform the duties of the job. Physical Requirements: (1) must maintain the physical condition necessary to perform tasks in an office setting and operate computers, keyboards, and other peripheral equipment; (2) and lift up to fifty (50) lbs. (3) must possess the mobility necessary to travel expeditiously within a large office building or to other District facilities.
S:\HR\Data 12-01-01\Ciass-Comp\Ciass Specs- DRAFTS A-0\Network Security Engineer 1-15.doc
Page 2 of 2 230
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-301a January 14, 201S
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION IS):
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 15-009 approving amendments to Board Policy No. 222Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff Report 14-301a is a follow up to the report presented to the Board on December 10, 2014 regarding the Federal Transportation Administration's (FTA) required updates to the District'sAlcohol and Substance Abuse Policy, Board Policy No. 222. Staff has now had the opportunity to meet with ATU Local 192 to review the changes made to the policy submitted. These revisions reflect a strict adherence to the FTA checklist. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
As a follow-up to the December 10, 2014 Board meeting, a meeting was held at the General Office on December 12, 2014 with ATU Local 192 to review the Policy updates. ATU requested some minor revisions be made to the Policy. On December 18, 2014, ATU met with staff for final review of the policy updates. The ATU President signed an acknowledgement letter of receipt and review of the policy to be submitted to the Board for approval on January 14, 2015 (Attachment 2}.
231
Report No. 14-301a Page 2 of 2 A reopener with the unions to negotiate the full policy is scheduled for the beginning of 2015. Once completed, the new policy will be brought to the Board of Directors for approval. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The District's Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy will be compliant with the Department of Transportation {DOT) regulations mandated by the FTA to administer a DOT drug and alcohol testing program in accordance with CFR Part 655- Prevention of Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations and CFR 49 Part 40 -Procedures for Transportation Workplace
Drug and Alcohol Testing Program. Failure to amend the policy could result in the suspension of the District's federal transit funding. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
Staff has determined that there are no alternatives to the course of action recommended in this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
Resolution No. 05-042 ATTACHMENTS: 1: Resolution No. 15-009 with Attachments 2: Acknowlegement letter of receipt and review of the policy revisions from Yvonne Williams, President ATU Local192.
Executive Staff Approval:
Tom Prescott, Interim Chief Administrative Service Officer
Reviewed by:
Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Due Le, Human Resources Manager Lit a Jamerson, Human Resources Administrator
Prepared by:
232
SR. NO. 14-301a Attachment 1 ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 15-009 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE APPROVAL OF A REVISED ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY- BOARD POLICY NO. 222 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District has from time-to-time adopted Board Policies and Resolutions related to the policies and procedures for drug and alcohol testing that apply to the employment of safety sensitive District employees; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors approved the adoption of Board Policy No. 222 Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy on November 9, 2005; and WHEREAS, following the Triennial Audit recently conducted by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), deficiencies were identified in the District's Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy; and WHEREAS, the FTA has mandated that the District bring its Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy into compliance with current FTA requirements; and WHEREAS, the District has provided an advance copy of the required amendments to Board Policy No. 222 to each of the three unions representing District employees (ATU, AFSCME, and IBEW), offered to discuss the required changes with the unions, and met with ATU to discuss the changes; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. To update Board Policy No. 222- Alcohol and Substance Abuse Policy, to include the required missing elements identified by the FTA as part of its Triennial Audit of the District. Section 2.
The updated policy attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby adopted.
Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January 2015
Greg Harper, President
Resolution No. xx-xxx
Pagel o/2 233
Attest: Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
I, Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 14th day of January, 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. xx-xxx
Pogelo/2 234
Exhibit A to Resolution No.15-009
AC Transit BOARD POLICY
Policy No. 222
Category: Administrative and Personnel Services
ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY
ENACTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 05-042 ADOPTED NOVEMBER 9, 2005 AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. 15-009 ADOPTED JANUARY 14,2015
Adopted: Amended:
Page 1 of 1
235
01/01/1995 12/99. 11/05..•
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
1-
INTRODUCTION In compliance with regulations governing anti-drug and alcohol programs in the transit industry, including 49 CFR Parts 40 and 655 and the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (District) and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local192; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local1245; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3916 (Unions), agree that District employees must be able to work in a drug and alcohol-free environment. In furtherance of this Policy, the District and the Unions are committed to the following principles: Respect for an employee's dignity and right to privacy; safety of the public, our passengers and District employees; providing assistance to employees when needed; and the recognition that alcohol and/or drug dependency are potential health problems which are treatable.
II. ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY STATEMENT All District employees are covered by this Policy statement. It is the policy of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to provide a drug and alcohol-free workplace and environment for all employees and patrons. A drug and alcohol-free workplace protects this agency's most valuable resources- its employees as well as the health and safety of the public. No employee may perform a safety-sensitive function when that employee has any prohibited drug and/or alcohol in his or her system. The FTA defines "safety-sensitive" as those functions critical to the safety of the traveling public, including operators of revenue vehicles and operators of non-revenue vehicles who are required to maintain a Commercial Driver's License (CDL), dispatchers, employees maintaining revenue service vehicles or equipment used in revenue service, and first line supervisors whose responsibilities include the performance of a safety-sensitive function. Contractors and volunteers who perform one of these safety-sensitive functions, and security personnel who carry a firearm are also covered by this Policy. (See footnote 1, V.A.16.f, below). The unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution or possession of any prohibited drug or alcohol by an employee, whether or not the employee performs a safety-sensitive function, will result in disciplinary action as provided in District rules and regulations and the applicable labor agreement. The use or presence in the body of any prohibited drug or alcohol by an employee, whether or not the employee performs a safety sensitive function, may result in disciplinary action as provided in this Policy. A.
The following tests will be administered under FTA guidelines for all safety- sensitive employees, and under this Policy for all non-safety-sensitive employees· ' Safety-Sensitive Non-Safety-Sensitive (1)
Pre-employment
X
X
(2)
-
X
(3)
Transfer to safetysensitive nosition Reasonable suspicion
X
X
(4)
Return to Duty
X
X
1
236
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 (5)
Post-accident
X
..
(6)
Follow-up
X
X
(7)
Random
X
-
(8)
DOT Biennial
X
-
B. The following substances will be tested for· Drug
Alcohol
Drugs and/or
(1)
Pre-employment
X
X
(2)
X
X
-
(3)
Transfer to safetysensitive oosition Reasonable suspicion
X
X
-
(4)
Return to Duty
-
-
X
(5)
Post-accident
X
X
-
(6)
Follow-up
-
-
X
(7)
Random
-
-
X
(8)
DOT Biennial
X
-
-
All employees will be subject to urine drug testing and breathe alcohol testing. Any employee who refuses to comply with a request for testing, who provides false information in connection with a test, or who attempts to falsify test results through tampering, contamination, adulteration, or substitution, or refuses to sign a consent form, will be subject to the consequences identified in Section V.G.2. of this Policy. Refusal to cooperate may include an inability to provide a urine specimen or breath sample without a valid medical explanation, as well as a verbal refusal, obstructive behavior, or voluntary absence resulting in the inability to conduct a test pursuant to FTA collection procedures. The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 and the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 require AC Transit to notify the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) within 10 days after receiving notice of an employee's criminal conviction for a workplace drug violation. Within 30 days of receiving such notice, the District is also required to take appropriate personnel action, up to and including termination, against any employee who is so convicted, or to require the employee's satisfactory participation in an alcohol/drug abuse rehabilitation program. All employees are required to notify their immediate supervisor or the supervisor's representative of any criminal conviction for a workplace drug conviction no later than five (5) days after such conviction. Failure to comply with this regulation will be subject to the consequences identified in Section V.G.2. of this Policy. Employees are encouraged to voluntarily utilize the services of the District's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to deal with any alcohol/drug use or dependency before it affects on-the-job performance. Voluntary referral to EAP does not eliminate the requirement to take any scheduled test. Once an employee is notified of any test under this Policy or has an accident, he/she is no longer eligible to voluntarily refer him/herself to the District's EAP until the employee tests negative
2
237
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 for that particular test (below .04 for alcohol). If the employee tests positive, he/she will be subject to the consequences for a positive test under this Policy. Questions regarding this Policy and/or the District's EAP services should be directed to the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator or the appropriate Union. The current name and phone number of the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator is attached to this Policy in Appendix 1.
1111. CONFIDENTIALITY All test results are confidential and may only be forwarded to the Medical Review Officer (MRO), Substance Abuse Professional (SAP), and Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program staff responsible for administering this Policy. Except as required by law, or FTA regulations, the District shall not release any information from the records it is required to maintain under the regulations. Any other release of this information except during the District's initiation of an action under this Policy and/or the grievance or arbitration process is prohibited without the written permission of the employee tested. The employee is entitled, upon written request, to copies of all records pertaining to his/her test. Test results and records will normally be mailed within twenty-four hours ·Of the request (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays). Every reasonable effort will be made to protect and respect an employee's privacy when administering this Policy. Notification of the employee's absence from work as a result of a referral to the EAP or Mandatory EAP shall be made in such a way as to maintain the confidentiality of the employee. In addition, any District representative or other employee who is found to have breached confidentiality shall be disciplined up to and including discharge. IV. ALCOHOL/SUBSTANCEABUSE JOINT LABOR MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE A. A Subcommittee of the existing Joint Labor Management Councils between ATU, Local 192; IBEW Local 1245; and AFSCME, Local 3916 and the District will be established. The Subcommittee will be comprised of an equal number of members appointed by Management and the Unions. The Subcommittee shall:
1. Compose the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Policy procurement review panel, together with the appropriate technical advisers, to review and recommend to the District's General Manager the appointment of the following: a. the MRO; b. the SAP; c. the collection and analytical laboratory, the quality assurance laboratory (all laboratories shall be DHHS certified}, and other applicable medical facilities; and, d. contracted BAT services, if applicable. 2.
Review and Monitor the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program, and address issues raised by the parties concerning the Program.
3.
Review the current literature and research on all facets of this program including the latest alcohol and drug testing technology, the latest procedures and techniques for successful rehabilitation, and the latest legal opinions and rulings that impact on the subject. Joint
3
238
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 recommendations on changes and improvements in the program should be developed for future inclusion in this Policy. 4.
Develop and administer an employee education and training program for all employees who perform safety sensitive functions.
V- GENERAL INFORMATION This Policy is based, in part, on FTA's Drug and Alcohol Regulations found at 49 CFR Parts 40 and 655, as enacted under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, and as later amended. A description of the parts of this Policy not mandated by the FTA is attached as Appendix 6. Following are the definitions of key terms used both in this Policy and relevant FTA regulations. These definitions are for purposes of this Policy and do not affect any other definitions included in other District policies, rules or regulations.
A.
Definitions 1. "Accident" is an event associated with the operation of a vehicle if, as a result: a. An individual dies; b.
An individual suffers a bodily injury and immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or,
c.
With respect to an event in which the mass transit vehicle involved is a bus, van, or automobile, or any non-revenue service vehicle, and one or more vehicles incurs disabling damage as the result of the event and is transported away from the scene by tow truck or other vehicle. For purposes of this definition, "disabling damage" means damage that precludes departure of any vehicle from the scene of the event in its usual manner in daylight after simple repairs. Disabling damage includes damage to vehicles that could have been operated but would have been further damaged if so operated, but does not include damage that can be remedied temporarily at the scene of the event without special tools or parts; tire disablement without other damage even if no spare is available; or damage to headlights, taillights, tum signals, horn or windshield wipers that makes them inoperative.
2.
"Alcohol" means beverage alcohol, ethyl-alcohol or other low molecular weight alcohols, including methyl or isopropyl alcohol.
3.
"Breath Alcohol Technician" (BAT) is an individual trained to proficiency in operation of the Evidential Breath Testing (EBT) he or she is using and in the alcohol testing procedures of 49 CFR Part 40. The BAT who operates an EBT shall instruct and assist employees in the alcohol testing process.
4.
"Chain-of-custody procedures" are those procedures contained in49 CFR Part 40 that account for the integrity of each urine specimen by tracking its handling and storage from point of specimen collection to final disposition.
5.
"Collection site" is a place designed by the employer where individuals present themselves for the purpose of: (1) providing a specimen of their urine to be analyzed for the presence of drugs or (2) providing a specimen of their breath to be analyzed for the presence of alcohol. This includes the District's mobile collection site (van).
4
239
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
6. "Evidential breath testing device" (EBT) is a breath alcohol testing device approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the evidential testing of breath and which is on the NHTSA's "Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Measurement Devices" (CPL). 7. "FTA" means the Federal Transit Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 8.
"Mandatory EAP Referral" occurs when an employee tests positive on any test under this Policy. (NOTE: The first return-to-duty positive under the Voluntary EAP results in a return to the Voluntary EAP).
9. "Medical Review Officer" (MRO) is a licensed physician (Medical Doctor or Doctor of Osteopathy) responsible for receiving laboratory results generated by an employer's alcohol/drug testing program who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has appropriate medical training to interpret and evaluate an individual's confirmed positive test result, together with his or her biomedical information. -!-.!.Q__"Monitoring" is the process used by the Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) to ensure an employee follows the prescribed treatment/aftercare program agreed to by the SAP and the employee.
&1J..
"Over-the-counter drugs" are drugs sold lawfully without prescription.
+_l_ _ "Pass a drug test" means that a Medical Review Officer has determined, in accordance with
FTA regulations, that the results of a drug test: a. Indicated the presence of a prohibited drug or drug metabolite, but determines there is a legitimate medical explanation for the result; b. Indicated no evidence or insufficient evidence of a prohibited drug or drug metabolite; c. Were scientifically insufficient to warrant further action; or, d. Were suspect because of irregularities in the administration of the test or observation of chain-of-custody procedures. +.LL_"Prescription medication" is a drug that can be obtained only by means of a physician's written direction for a therapeutic or corrective agent. "+--_!_"Prohibited drug" is defined and limited to the following substances: a. Marijuana b. Cocaine c. Opiates d. Phencyclidine (PCP) e. Amphetamines f. ~lcohO~SKWll Urine specimens will not be used to conduct any other analysis or test unless the Union and District agree.
5
240
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 .W.12:_"Return-to-duty evaluation" will consist of the passing of an alcohol and/or drug test and may include a physical examination as determined by the MRO. -1+.-l§.,_"Safety-sensitive" employees are defined as those employees who perform the following functions (lUst of Safety-Sensitive Job Classifications - see Appendix 7):~dle2J a. Operate a revenue service vehicle, including when not in revenue service; b. Operate a non-revenue service vehicle, when required to be operated by a holder of a Commercial Driver's License; c. Control dispatch or movement of a revenue service vehicle; d. Maintain a revenue service vehicle or equipment used in revenue service; e. Carry a firearm for security purposes; and f. Any supervisor, contractor, or volunteer1 ~!L_"Split sample" is the procedure whereby a urine sample is separated into two specimen
bottles . This provides an employee with the option of having an analysis of the split sample performed at a separate laboratory (at the employee's own expense) should the primary specimen test result be verified positive . ±3-:-.l§.._" Substance Abuse Professional" (SAP) is a licensed physician (Medical Doctor or Doctor of Osteopathy}, or a licensed or certified psychologist, social worker, employee assistance professional, or addiction counselor (certified by the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors Certification Commission}, with knowledge of, and clinical experience in, the diagnosis and treatment of drug and alcohol-related disorders. 19. "Testing notification process" is the verbal or written notification to the employee by a District Representative of his or her selection for any alcohol and/or drug test. 20. "Voluntary EAP Referral" occurs when an employee notifies the District that he/she has an alcohol or drug dependency problem prior to an accident_or the testing notification process. B. Substance Testing
1. Types of tests to be given : All safety-sensitive and non-safety-sensitive employees will be subject to urine. drug testing and breath alcohol testing. Testing of urine for prohibited drug use or a breath sample by EBT to detect alcohol misuse shall be conducted as provided by this policy, and/or as required by applicable law or regulations. Testing procedures for all employees, as contained in 49 CFR Part 40, include collection of all specimens/samples, chain of custody procedures, laboratory procedures and qualifications, interpretation of test results by the Medical Review Officer, retesting procedures, record keeping and reporting procedures.
1
"Volunteer," as used in this paragraph only, does not refer to any District employee but only to an individual who voluntarily perform s a safety-sensitive function for the District, for which a comm ercial driver's license is required, or for compensation in excess of actual expenses incurred while engaged in th e volunteer activity.
6
241
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
a.
Alcohol: (i) Initial EBT screen: to detect the presence of alcohol; (ii) Second EBT screen: to confirm initial test.
b. Drugs: (i) Initial screen (General Urinalysis): to detect the presence of controlled substances using an Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Test (EMIT). (ii) Confirmatory analysis: Positive results from the initial screen will be confirmed using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). 2.
The testing laboratory site must be certified by the Department of Health and Human Services. Alcohol testing will be performed by qualified BATs.
~~The
employee has the right to Union representation at any time, including when he/she is
notified of a requirement to submit to any test under this Policy. If he/she requests such representation, a reasonable amount of time will be provided for a Union representative to arrive prior to any questioning of the represented employee. The testing collection process will continue without undue delay while questioning is deferred. The process will be conducted with respect for the employee's dignity and right to privacy. +4,AII alcohol or drug tests shall be administered at the test site by trained personnel as defined in the FTA regulations. The employee will be required to sign the District's Alcohol/Drug Testing Consent form. &~An
employee's pay status shall be reconfirmed (paid run or shift pay until test results are known) and the employee will be informed that a District representative will contact him/her as soon as the examination test(s) results are known.
fl.,§oAs required by the FTA, random testing will be evenly distributed throughout the year, and will be scheduled throughout all employee shifts and among all operating Divisions. Testing will commence at any time within the employee's shift. If completion of the test requires more time than remains in the shift, the test must be completed but the additional time will be paid as work time or overtime, as determined by the applicable collective bargaining agreement and laws. In keeping with FTA requirements, the District will not schedule disproportionate numbers of tests near the end of employees' shifts to avoid associated costs. The parties understand that random testing often incurs fill-behind costs to the District, and the District will not use end-ofshift testing for purposes of avoiding or reducing these costs. ~_7._Random
tests shall be commenced at least three (3) hours before the end of the employee's shift for employees who provide advance, verifiable notice of a scheduled medical or childcare commitment occurring immediately following the end of that shift. This notice must be received by the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator in writing at least three (3) work days prior to the medical or childcare commitment, unless "exceptional circumstances" apply as defined below. The District may provide and require completion of a form for this notice, including the name, address and phone number of the medical or childcare provider, the date(s) and time(s) of the commitment, an authorization to verify the commitment, and in the case of a childcare commitment, the name(s) and age(s) of the children and their relationship to the employee. A childcare commitment under this section must pertain to a minor child of
7
242
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 sufficient relation to the employee to be eligible for AC Transit benefits. Notices of recurring commitments shall be updated at least annually and when a material change in the commitment occurs. Notices that do not comply with this section, or that unreasonably interfere with the availability of the employee for random testing, may be rejected by the District. Exceptional circumstances" for purposes of this paragraph arise when the employee must attend a medical appointment, pertaining to a serious health condition; which could not reasonably have been scheduled in time to allow 3 days' notice. The appointment may be for the employee or a member of the employee's immediate family (as defined in the Bereavement Leave provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement) who requires the employee's assistance in attending the appointment. When these circumstances apply, the employee shall give the required notice to the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator as soon as practicable, not more than 24 hours after learning of the appointment, and in any event prior to selection for random testing. The District may require documentation substantiating the presence of exceptional circumstances, but will allow the employee 72 hours following the appointment to obtain the documentation. C. Test Procedure~[U3] All FTA required testing conducted in accordance with 49 CFR Part 40. Collection and testing procedures in found in ~ppendi~[U4l 9.
1
S.D.
Required Tests
Under FTA guidelines, all safety-sensitive employees are required to submit to drug bnd'[ U5l alcohol tests as a condition of employment in accordance with 49 CFR Part 655. Employee can be tested for drugs anytime while on duty, alcohol test (random, reasonable suspicion, and follow-up} just before, during or immediately after actual performance of safety-sensitive functions and under the authority of this Policy, all non-safety-sensitive employees will be required to submit to testing for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs under the following circumstances: ~l,_Pre-employment-
All applicants will be subject to alcohol and drug testing. The District will not hire any applicant who fails an alcohol or drug test. Any applicant that receives a canceled, invalid or no test result will not be hired until he/she has retaken his/her test and receives a negative test result. Applicant who previously failed/refused a DOT test must show evidence of 1 ~reatment [U6) . As required by FTA regulations, a pre-employment drug and alcohol test will also be administered before an employee returns to performing safety-sensitive work after being out of the random- testing pool for 90 days or more. When an employee is removed from the random-testing pool by reason of absence, a notification letter shall be sent to the employee, advising the employee that this requirement must be met prior to return to work in a safetysensitive position and giving the employee contact information to arrange testing. A sample of the form of this letter is attached as Appendix 2.
4-,.L_Transfer to a safety-sensitive position -Any employee who wishes to transfer to a safetysensitive function from a non-safety-sensitive function is subject to alcohol and drug testing. An employee with a confirmed positive drug test as certified by the MRO or an alcohol test result of .04 or greater will be disqualified from transfer or promotion on the pending application, but shall not be barred from reapplying at a later date for subsequent openings.
8
243
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
+-l._Reasonable suspicion All supervisory personnel shall receive a minimum of two hours lo~[U7] training on the recognition of drug abuse and alcohol issue (one hour on drug and one hour on alcohol), including the physica l, behavioral, and performance indicators of probable drug use and the physical, behavioral, speech and performance indicators of probable alcohol misuse. All employees, including all levels of management, shall be subject to reasonable suspicion testing for drugs or alcohol when there is reasonable suspicion to believe the employee has engaged in drug use or alcohol misuse. Alcohol testing only permissible just lbefore~[U81/.during/just after safety-sensitive duty No retaliation will be permitted for reporting that any employee is reasonably suspected of being under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. The employee under reasonable suspicion must be independently observed by two supervisors trained in the detection of drug abuse and alcohol misuse. The supervisors' determination that reasonable suspicion exists shall be based solely on specific behavioral, performance or contemporaneous physical indicators of probable drug use or alcohol misuse. ised!U9] Reasonable Suspicion Testing Checklist Appendix 8. ~Return-to-Duty -This test is administered after an employee has been referred to EAP and
before return to duty. The SAP will determine when each employee is ready to .return to work. Prior to returning to work, an employee must take and pass an alcohol and/or drug test as determined by the MRO in consultation with the SAP. Return to duty for lmandator~[UlO] follow-up drug tests are conducted under direct observation and must be conducted in accordance with Part 40, subpart 0.
5. ftOST-ACCIDENTTHRESHOLDS FOR TESTING:ldielll • • • • • •
Fatality Medical treatment away from scene, unless driver discounted Disabling damage, unless driver discounted All other covered employees whose performance could have contributed to the accident Readily available (or considered a refusal to test) Readily available (testing is stayed while employee assists in resolution of the accident or receives medical attention following the accident)
a.
Fatal Accidents: In the event of an accident as defined in this Policy involving the loss of human life, an alcohol and drug test will be administered to safety sensitive employees operating the mass transit vehicle at the time of the accident (whether or not the vehicle is/was in revenue service). The District will also test any other safety-sensitive employee whose performance could have contributed to the accident; using the best information available at the time· the decision to test is made.
b.
Non-Fatal Accidents: Pursuant to this Policy, in those accidents as defined in Section V.A.l, band c, where there is no loss of human life, an alcohol and drug test will be administered to safety sensitive employees on duty in the vehicle at the time of the accident if the employee's performance was a contributing factor to the accident as determined by the District using the best information available at the time of the decision to test.
9
244
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
c.
Testing: (i) Alcohol : The specimen/sample collection will be done as soon as possible. If a test required by this section is not administered within two (2) hours following the accident, the District shall prepare and maintain on file a record stating the reasons why the test was not promptly administered. A test will be conducted no later than eight (8) hours after the accident. (In most cases, the decision regarding alcohol testing can be made at the accident site because the threshold events are obvious, e.g., someone is taken to a medical treatment facility.) (ii) Drugs: The specimen/sample collection will be completed as soon as possible, but not later than thirty-two (32) hours after the accident (as with post accident alcohol testing, in most cases, the decision regarding drug testing can be made at the accident site) . Any employee who leaves the scene of an accident without authorization prior to submission to drug and alcohol testing may be deemed by the District to have refused to submit to a test. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the delay of necessary medical attention for injured people following and accident or to prohibit a covered employee from leaving the scene of an accident for the period necessary to obtain assistance in responding to the accident or to obtain necessary emergency medical care .
.§:_Follow-up Testing -These tests are administered on an unannounced basis after return to duty from the District's EAP. a. Voluntary EAP-The following-up testing period after Voluntary referral will be two (2) years. During that period, there will be up to five (5) unannounced tests. !L_Mandatory EAP - Follow-up drug tests are conducted under direct observation and 1 :must [U12) be conducted in accordance with Part 40, subpart 0 . Follow-up alcohol testing only permissible just before/during/just after actual performance of safety sensitive functions. The SAP will determine the frequency and duration of follow-up testing. Such employees will be required to take a minimum of six (6) follow-up drug and/or alcohol tests during the first twelve (12) months after returning to work. After that period of time, the SAP will determine the frequency and duration of continued follow-up drug testing, provided that the follow-up testing period ends no later than sixty (60) months after the employee returns to duty.
h..£:... In the event an employee who is subject to follow-up testing has an absence of thirty (30) days or more due to industrial injury, illness, or leave of absence, the District may refer the employee to the SAP who will determine whether the follow -up testing period should be extended. bLRandom testing for Safety-Sensitive Employees - All safety- sensitive employees will be subject to random drug and/or alcohol tests and will be assigned an identifying number or symbol other than name that will be placed in a pool and selected for testing using a scientifically valid
10
245
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 random selection method. There should be an equal chance of selection on each draw with no discretion on the part of management/supervisors. Testing is conducted on all days and hours throughout t he year; test unannounced and immed iate. Alcohol testing only permissible just before/during/just after actual performance of safety-sensitive ~unctions1 [ U 13). The number of random drug tests administered annually shall equal at least fifty percent (W 25%) of the number of safety sensitive District employees, and the number of random alcohol tests administered annually shall equal at least ten percent (10%) ofthe number of safety sensitive District employees, except that if these percentages are changed by the FTA, the new percentages issued by the FTA shall apply. Before obtaining a specimen, the District shall provide oral and written notice to an employee selected for random testing that termination is the consequence of adulteration or substitution or otherwise falsifying the testing process or results. See Appendix 3. -5-,§_DOT (DMV) biennial physical- Under this Policy and not FTA regulations, the District requires a drug screen as part of the DOT biennial physical.
4-,~Test Refusai)[U14) The following situat ions constitute a refusa l to subm it to t esting under DOT requirements. a. Failure to remain until the testing process is complete b. Failure to attempt to provide a breath or urine specimen c. Failure to provide a sufficient quantity of urine or breath without a valid medical explanation d. Failure to undergo a medical evaluation as required by the Medical Review Officer (MRO) or Designated Employer Representative (DER) e. Failure to cooperate with any part of the testing process f. Failure to permit an observed or monitored collection when required g. Failure to follow an observer's instructions to raise and lower clothing and t urn around (observed) h. Possessing or wearing a prosthetic or other device used to tamper with the testing process i. Failure to take a second test when required j. Admitting the adulteration or substitution of a specimen to the collector or MRO k. MRO verified adulterated/substituted sample I. Refusal to sign Step 2 of alcohol test form m. Failing to appear within a reasonable time n. For pre-employment, NOT a refusal: Failure to appear, failure to remain at site prior to start of test. aborting collection before test commences fr~Observed
Collection under Direct Observation -As required by the FTA, under each of the following circumstances, employees will be required to provide a urine sample under the direct observation of trained collection personnel:
a. When the laboratory has reported to the MRO that a specimen was invalid, and the MRO reports to the District that there is no adequate medical explanation for that result.
11
246
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 b.
When the MRO reports to the District that a test result was cancelled because the secondary specimen from the split sample could not be tested, and that the primary specimen indicated a positive test result or that the sample had been adulterated or substituted.
£:._When the MRO reports to the District that the employee has provided a negative dilute specimen, as defined by FTA regulations, and direct that a new sample be taken under direct observation. However, if the MRO does not direct the District to take a second specimen under direct observation, the second specimen will be taken without direct observation, as allowed by FTA regulations.
L
d.
When personnel collecting a urine sample determine that the temperature of the sample is outside the acceptable range (90-100 degrees Fahrenheit or 32- 38 degrees Celsiu s), or that observation of physical characteristics of the sample such as its color or odor indicates that tampering with the sample appears to have occurred.
e.
When collection-site personnel determine in the course of preparing to obtain a sample that the person to be teased has any material that appears to be brought to the collection site with the intent to alter the specimen, or the employee's conduct clearly indicates an attempt to tamper with a specimen.
Exam/Test Results 1. The cutoff levels for Drug testing shall be : Initial Test Level (ng/ml) 50 150 2,000
Initial Screening
• • •
•
•
2
Marijuana Cocaine Metabolites 3 Opiates metabolites4 Codeine Morphine 6AM (Heroin)~dlelS] Phencyclidine Amphetamines 5 M eth am ph eta mines MDMA {Ecstas~l
25 500
Confirmatory Test (GC/MS) • Marijuana metabolites
• •
(ng/ml) 15 100 2000
Cocaine metabolites Opiates:
2
Delta-9-tetra hyd rocanna bi no l-9-ca rboxyl ic ac id. Benzoylecgonine. 4 25 ng/ml if immunoassay specific f or free mo rphin e. 3
5
Specimen must also contain amphetamine at a concentrat io n greater than o r equal t o 200 ng/ ml.
12
247
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 0 0 0
•
•
Morphine Codeine 6AM (Heroin) 25
Phencyclidine Amphetamines 0 Methamphetamine MDMA (Ecstasy) 0 6 0 MDEA
250
The laboratory shall report as negative all specimens which are negative on the initial test or negative on the confirmatory test.
b.._The cutoff levels for Alcohol testing will be: (i) .02 - .039
Removal from the safety sensitive position in accordance with section V.G.5(a) of this Policy
(ii) .04 and above
This constitutes a positive alcohol test. An employee is removed from his/her safety sensitive position and treated in accordance with Section V.G .5(b) of this Policy.
&._LRole of the Medical Review Officer (MRO): AC Transit will have available the services of a designated MRO who will be a licensed physician with knowledge of substance abuse disorders and appropriate medical training to interpret and evaluate an individual's positive test result(s) in conjunction with his or her relevant medical history. The MRO will receive the results of all drug tests from the laboratory, verify those results, determine whether an individual has passed a particular test as defined above, and report each test that does not pass to the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program staff responsible for receiving such results. The MRO will also report invalid specimens, cancelled test results, negative dilute specimens, and any drug test results and medical information that the MRO, using reasonable medical judgment, determines is likely to result in the employee being determined to be medically unqualified under an applicable DOT agency regulation, or that indicates that continued performance of the employee's safety-sensitive function is likely to pose a significant safety risk (see V.C.9, above). When reviewing each confirmed positive test result under this section, the MRO may review the individual's relevant medical history and records to determine whether there is a legitimate medical explanation for the positive result, including the use of a legally prescribed medication. The MRO may request the laboratory to re-analyze the original sample in order to verify the accuracy of the initial test result reported to the MRO. Test results and records will normally be mailed within twenty-four hours of receipt of a written request from the employee (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays).
6
Also MDA (Met hylenedioxyamphetamine) and MDEA (Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine)
13
248
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 The MRO shall notify each employee who has a confirmed test that the employee has 72 hours in which to request a test of the split specimen, if the test is verified as positive. If the analysis of the split specimen is reconfirmed by the second laboratory for the presence of drug(s) or drug metabolite(s), the MRO will notify the employee and the District of the results of the test. The name and phone number of the current MRO are listed in Appendix 1.
M. Role of the Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) A substance abuse professional (SAP) is neither a counselor nor a treating professional. A SAP evaluates an employee who either has a verified positive alcohol or drug test result to determine whether the employee needs help resolving an alcohol or drug problem. The SAP then makes certain recommendations to the employee which the employee must follow. Before returning to duty, the employee is re- evaluated by a SAP to determine whether the employee has followed the SAP's recommendations. The SAP will provide written notification to the District that an employee is unavailable for work and will subsequently provide written notification when the employee is ready to return to work. The SAP also determines the number offollow-up tests the employee will be subjected to: a.
Voluntary EAP-The following-up testing period after Voluntary referral will be two (2) years. During that period, there will be up to five (5) unannounced tests.
b.
Mandatory EAP - After Mandatory EAP, the employee will be required to undergo a minimum of six (6) Mandatory follow-up tests in the first twelve (12) months after the employee's return to duty. After the first year, the SAP will determine the frequency and duration of additional follow-up testing, if appropriate. The maximum duration of testing is sixty (60) months after the employee returns to duty. As required by FTA regulations, the SAP will also evaluate any employee who refuses to submit to a required test to determine if the employee needs help in resolving an alcohol or drug problem. A referral to the SAP after the employee refused to submit to a required test does not in any manner guarantee continued employment with the District. The name and phone number ofthe current SAP are listed in Appendix 1.
~-\_Split
Samples:
An employee who does not pass a drug test may request that his or her split urine sample be analyzed. An employee requesting an analysis of a split sample must submit a written request to the MRO within seventy- two (72) hours of the employee's receipt of the test results. The employee may request that the MRO send the split sample to a second laboratory site that is certified by the Department of Health and Human Services. The original laboratory must follow chain-of-custody procedures when transferring the sample. An employee requesting a split sample test will be required to advance the cost of the additional analysis (in the form of cash a money order personal check or cashier's check), and any other cost associated with the transfer of the specimen to another laboratory, including shipping and
14
249
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 handling. If payment is not made within seventy-two (72) hours, the split sample will not be processed. If the split sample result is negative, AC Transit will reimburse any costs collected m advance within two weeks, and will convert any suspension based on the positive initial result to paid administrative leave. An employee may obtain test results and records upon written request to the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator or the MRO. ~§:_Laboratory :
The laboratory shall store the sample securely in compliance with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 40. See 49 C.F.R. sections 40.99. 4,.
•F. Use of Prescription Medication and/or Over-the-Counter Drugs 1.
Reporting the Use of Prescription and/or Over-the-Counter Drugs:
The legitimate use of controlled substances prescribed by a licensed physician is not prohibited . It is the employee's responsibility to determine from the physician whether or not a prescribed drug would impact his/her Job performance. Employees performing safety sensitive functions shall notify their immediate supervisor or his/her designee of the use of prescription medications which would adversely affect job performance. These actions shall be taken prior to the commencement of the employee's work shift. An employee who is absent due to the use of a prescribed medication that may impair his/her ability to perform a safety-sensitive function will not be considered to have had an "absence" under the applicable District Attendance Program, provided the employee submits the following information : a. Written verification that the prescribed drug will or may impair work and b.
performan~;:e
or safety;
A written statement of the specific duration of the prescription use and/or impairment.
The above information must be provided to the employee's immediate supervisor upon return to work. Failure to provide the above information upon return to work will result in the time off being considered an absence subject to the provisions of the applicable District Attendance Program. If the prescription is extended, the employee must present additional verification from the medical provider who issued the original prescription stating the need for continuation of the prescription and the continued duration. If the District believes there is abuse of this provision, the case will be referred to a Joint Labor/Management Team for investigation and resolution satisfactory to both parties. By agreeing to this provision, neither the District nor the Union waives any other provision in this Policy, the appropriate collective bargaining agreement, or other District rules and regulations.
15
250
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 If the District believes that this prov1s1on is unworkable, it reserves the right to reopen negotiations of this provision with thirty (30) days' notice to the Unions. Employees are also expected to understand the effects of all over-the- counter drugs and must read all warning labels and consult a physician if necessary. However, no excused absences will be granted for the use of over-the-counter medications. §,_Consequences for Violating Policy/Employee Status Positive drug or alcohol (above 0.04) test result or test refusal requires a SAP :referrai:[U16]. ihL_Employees who are referred to the Voluntary EAP in an effort to seek treatment and rehabilitation will not be disciplined for their participation. '+-"-Violation of any of the following Sections of this Policy will result in immediate suspension, and being subject to discipline up to and including termination: i. Section II (refusal or failure to comply or cooperate); ii.
Section V.G.3. (refusal to cooperate or take a required drug or alcohol test)
iii. Section V.G.6. (a positive test after a second Mandatory EAP); iv. Section VI.C.2.c. (a positive test on a second return to duty test following a second Mandatory EAP); v.
Section VI.C.2.e. (a positive test following return to duty after a second Mandatory EAP).
"Being subject to discipline up to and including termination" shall not mean automatic discharge. Prior to the issuance of any notice of intent to terminate under this Policy, the District shall advise the Union that a notice of intent to terminate is pending and shall provide the opportunity to raise mitigating circumstances for consideration on a case by case basis by the District in determining the level of discipline. 6;Lif an employee performing a safety-sensitive function refuses to cooperate or take a required drug or alcohol test, that employee shall be relieved of his or her safety-sensitive duties immediately and shall be subject to the consequences identified in Paragraph 2 above. Any employee who adulterates or substitutes a specimen for drug or alcohol testing or otherwise falsifies the testing process or results shall be subject to termination. AC Transit shall provide a warning of this penalty in the "Steps to Be Completed" form used in the collection process. Scheduling papers pertaining to biennial DOT (DMV) physicals shall be designed to remind employees of this penalty. Examples of these warnings and reminders appear in Appendixes 3 4 and 5. No changes are to be made on the consent form by the employee or by the AC Transit representative without authorization. Refusal to cooperate includes the inability to provide a urine specimen or breath sample without a valid medical explanation, or conduct that clearly obstructs the testing process or fails to comply with all aspects of their rehabilitation treatment plans, after-care agreements, and/or return-to-duty agreements.
16
251
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 .W,._ cl _
Failure to pass a drug test as defined in the FTA regulations will result in a Mandatory EAP referral, except in those cases where before the testing notification process or an accident, an employee voluntarily admits to a drug or alcohol problem and is immediately referred into the Voluntary EAP. (NOTE : The first return-to-duty under the Voluntary EAP results in a return to the Voluntary EAP)
-l--h_S_ Under FTA regulations, employees are prohibited from consuming alcohol during a four (4) hour period immediately prior to performing a safety-sensitive function, or while on call ~ ndj[U17] also for an eight (8) hour period following an accident as defined in this Policy for employees who are required to take a post-accident test and have not yet taken such a test. An alcohol test result within the following EBT ranges (as defined in the FTA regulations) will result in the following actions: a.
For an EBT Level of .02 to .039:
(i) On a first test result within this EBT range, the employee will be removed from his/her duties without pay until the employee's next regularly scheduled shift, but not less than eight (8) hours following administration of the test, or, with the employee's consent, until the employee tests below this EBT range in a test administered at the discretion of the District with justification for allowing an employee to remain on the property for a retest. This removal shall not constitute an absence under the applicable District Attendance Program. Any subsequent removal from duties under steps ii through iv of this provision shall constitute an absence subject to the provisions of the applicable District Attendance Program. (ii) On a second test result within this EBT range during a rolling twelve (12) month period, the employee will be removed from his/her duties without pay until employee's next regularly scheduled shift, but not less than eight (8) hours following administration of the test, or, with the employee's consent, until the employee tests below the EBT range in a test administered at the discretion of the District with justification for allowing an employee to remain on the property for a retest. In addition, the employee will receive information on alcohol misuse from the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator. (iii) On a third test result within this EBT range during a rolling twelve (12) month period, the employee will be removed from his/her duties without pay until the employee's next regularly scheduled shift, but not less than eight (8) hours following administration of the test, or, with the employee's consent, until the employee tests below this EBT range in a test administered at the discretion of the District with justification for allowing and employee to remain on the property for a retest. In addition, the employee must be assessed by the SAP. The SAP will determine a treatment and/or aftercare plan, if appropriate, which the employee is required to follow. (iv) On a fourth test result within this EBT range during a rolling twelve (12) month period, the employee will be removed from his/her duties without pay until the employee's next regularly scheduled shift, but not less than eight (8) hours following administration of the test, or, with the employee's consent, until the employee tests below this EBT range in a test administered at the discretion of the District with justification for allowing an employee to remain on the property for a retest.
17
252
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
In addition, the Union, the District, the SAP, and other interested parties as determined by the SAP, will intervene in an effort to address potential problems with alcohol misuse. b.
For an EBT level of .04 or higher: Employees are prohibited from performing safety-sensitive functions while having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greate Q[U18] .
Employees are placed in the Mandatory EAP (with the exception of the first Return to Duty positive during Voluntary EAP). -R,_b_An employee who has not volunteered for the District's Voluntary EAP prior to test notification or an accident, and who fails any test, will be referred to the Mandatory EAP. An employee who has already been referred twice to the District's Mandatory EAP and who subsequently fails any test will be subject to the consequences identified in Section V.G.2. of this Policy. fr.L_The parties agree that if, out of the facts and circumstances surrounding reasonable suspicion or post-accident testing, the District otherwise has just cause for discipline (e.g., serious preventable accident), the District reserves all rights to pursue appropriate action. +.~An
employee's absence from work as a result of anything contained in this Policy shall not be considered an "absence" under the applicable District Attendance Program, with the exception of failure to comply with the prescription drug provision and as set forth in Section V.G.5(a)(ii-iv) during a rolling twelve {12) month period.
&.9. Pursuant to Section 5.05 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties stipulate that expedited arbitration will be used for discipline cases arising under the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Policy. Consistent with Section 5.05, expedited arbitration shall not be used for cases involving an issue of contract interpretation, including interpretation of the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Policy. The procedures for expedited arbitration in the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be followed. The expedited arbitration panel may consider any evidence presented by the parties, subject to the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Union and employee may present evidence of mitigating and/or extenuating circumstances. These may include, for example, length of service and commitment to rehabilitation. 9-..!Q,__Employees shall be afforded the opportunity to resign prior to arbitration and have their records sealed. The District will maintain the confidentiality of sealed records after the employee resigns, but may release information as required by law or when the employee provides a waiver or release in writing that provides for release of the information. H-:-ln view of the number of cases currently pending, the parties shall immediately schedule a sufficient number of days of expedited arbitration for all pending cases, in addition to scheduling any monthly arbitrations provided for in Section 5.06 (f). The parties will jointly identify all pending disciplinary cases within 30 days of the execution of this Policy, in order to commence the exped ited arbitration of pending cases as soon as possible. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Policy, the provisions of the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Policy in effect at the time disciplinary action was initiated by the District shall govern in each case. Nothing in this 18
253
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 policy shall be construed as modifying the terms of any Last Chance Agreement. VI. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GUIDELINES A.
Introduction
1. The District offers an EAP which provides confidential counseling services to help resolve various personal problems. The District encourages employees to take advantage of this assistance. The EAP provides for assistance with problems not necessarily related to alcohol/substance abuse (e.g., domestic problems, stress, etc.). Employees can call the EAP provider directly, 24 hours a day, for counseling in areas of concern. Employees can obtain the telephone number of the EAP provider from their immediate supervisor, the District's Human Resources Department, or the appropriate Union. 2.
The District also offers an Alcohol/Substance Abuse EAP to address alcohol and/or drug dependency problems. The parties recognize that denial is an important psychological component of dependency problems. This Policy attempts to address those issues of denial. Employees are strongly encouraged to seek professional assistance through the EAP.
3. There are three (3) ways an employee can receive help under the Alcohol/Substance Abuse EAP: a. Self-Referral - Employees can utilize the services of the District's EAP on their own by directly contacting the EAP provider or the employee's own medical provider for information on available benefits to obtain assistance in areas of concern. b. Voluntary EAP Referral - Employees may also seek help for dependency problems by contacting their supervisor or the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator. c. Mandatory EAP Referral- Employees are placed in this program after any positive drug or alcohol test under this Policy. (NOTE: The first return-to-duty positive under the Voluntary EAP results in a return to the Voluntary EAP). B. Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation 1. Since alcohol and drug dependency are health problems which are treatable, employees suffering from these illnesses will be given the same consideration and offer of assistance presently extended to employees with other illnesses. An employee who comes forward prior to either notification of selection for any alcohol and/or drug test and/or accident and voluntarily requests assistance for an alcohol and/or drug problem will not have his/her job security jeopardized by a request for help.
2.
An employee's absence from work as a result of a referral to an EAP (Voluntary, Mandatory, or Self-Referral) or a treatment program shall not be considered an "absence" under the applicable District Attendance Program.
3.
The SAP will determine if the referred employee is in need of an in- patient or out-patient program. The SAP and the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator will make reasonable efforts to find a treatment facility, and to place employees in treatment, as expeditiously as possible.
19
254
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 ±4-,L_In every case where an employee is referred to EAP, a confidential memo should immediately go to the employee's department manager/supervisor informing him/her that the employee will be unavailable for work from the effective date that the employee entered the EAP, as well as the estimated length of time the employee is expected to be away from work. (See attached Samples 1 and 2) ±J>,_S._Employees are responsible for following the recommended treatment and aftercare plans set up by their counselor and/or SAP (e.g., support programs such as Kaiser's outpatient program, Cocaine Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, etc.) ±&L_Monitoring: The SAP will monitor the employee in the inpatient or outpatient program for two (2) years after the employee's return to duty from Voluntary EAP, and for up to sixty (60) months after his/her return to duty from Mandatory EAP. However, the employee should never be discouraged from continuing an outpatient program. Responsibility for the rehabilitation process rests with the drug and alcohol abuse professional, responsibility for progress rests with the employee. ±+,_7._Time Away from Work: Employees will be allowed six (6) months from the date positive results are reported to the District to return to work, absent mitigating circumstances (such as having taken reasonable steps to rehabilitate themselves and, through circumstances beyond their reasonable control, be unable to complete a rehabilitation program within rolling twelve (12) month period, the employee will be six (6) months). Inability of an employee to meet his/her financial obligations is not considered a mitigating circumstance. lk_S._Benefits Available: Participants in the EAP may use accumulated vacation, sick leave, and/or leave to which an employee is entitled under state or federal law, or under applicable collective bargaining agreements to cover the time off while in EAP. If while in treatment an employee's paid leave is exhausted, he/she will be placed in an unpaid medical leave of absence status. In cases of a Mandatory EAP referral after a positive post-accident or reasonable suspicion test, the first thirty (30) days off shall be treated as a suspension. After that, the employee shall be carried on an unpaid extended leave of absence, unless the employee chooses to use available paid leave. ±9-,_9._Medical Benefits: Rehabilitation programs offered by an employee's medical provider are available to meet p,rescribed treatment requirements. C.
How to Seek Help Under this Policy: 1.
Voluntary Referral to EAP:
a.
Employees are encouraged to talk to supervisors and/or department managers when alcohol and/or drug problems occur, particularly before the situation interferes with job performance. Supervisors must immediately refer employees who disclose such problems to the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator. The District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator must then enter the employee into the Voluntary EAP Program.
20
255
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 Once an employee discloses an alcohol and/or drug problem to the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator, the employee will be subject to all terms and conditions of the District's Voluntary EAP, including follow-up testing. b.
The Voluntary EAP will consist of a meeting with the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator and compliance with the recommendations of the SAP, a medical provider, treatment facility personnel, and/or EAP provider in conjunction with the employee. The employee will be asked to sign a release with the SAP and/or treatment provider in order that the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator may receive feedback on the employee's progress from the SAP and/or treatment provider. In the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator's continued counseling with the employee, such feedback should be seriously weighed in tracking the employee's continued progress.
c.
Following successful participation in the Voluntary EAP and the passing of a return to duty test, employees will be allowed to return to work. A positive test on the first return to duty test will result in the employee being referred back to the SAP for continued treatment. A positive test on a second return to duty test will result in a mandatory referral.
d.
An employee who has returned to work following participation in the Voluntary EAP will be subject to follow-up testing for two (2) years. An employee will be tested up to five (5) times during that period. An employee who has a positive test after returning to work from a Voluntary referral will receive a Mandatory referral. If during the two (2) year follow-up period, an employee has a relapse and discloses that fact to the District prior to the testing notification process or an accident, the employee will be referred back to the Voluntary EAP for the SAP to determine necessary treatment. Following successful completion of additional treatment, the employee shall have a follow-up testing period consisting of the remainder of the original follow-up period and number of tests, plus an additional one (1) year period with up to five (5) follow-up tests during that one-year period.
g,_Employees who seek help through their supervisor or the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator shall be referred to the Alcohol/Substance Abuse program. Employees may participate in Voluntary EAP at any time. iH
An employee may receive alcohol/substance abuse assistance and/or treatment through Self-Referral at any time.
'' LAn employee may receive help under an alcohol/substance abuse EAP through Self-Referral at any time, including during the periods identified in Sections VI.C.l.e. and f. above. 2.
Mandatory Referral to EAP
c- •_An employee will be allowed only two (2) referrals to Mandatory EAP during any employment with the District. However, an employee may receive a "clean slate" and/or additional referrals to Mandatory EAP in accordance with the provisions in the Policy
21
256
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 regarding "clean slate" or consequences" (See Section V.G.2. above and Section VI.C.3.f. below) . a-:.Q,_An employee who tests positive on any test under this Policy, or is otherwise referred to the Mandatory EAP under this Policy, shall be referred to the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator and the SAP for a determination of a Mandatory treatment/rehabilitation plan. (NOTE: The first return- to-duty positive under the Voluntary EAP results in a return to the Voluntary EAP.) &.-£:_Following the successful participation in the Mandatory EAP and the passing of a Return to Duty test, an employee will be allowed to return to work. A positive test on the first Return to Duty test will result in the employee being referred to the SAP for initiation of an Alcohol/Substance Abuse Intervention process. Such a process shall include District and Union representatives, the SAP, the MRO, and other interested parties as determined by the SAP. A positive test on a second return to duty test following a first Mandatory EAP referral will result in a second Mandatory EAP referral; a positive test on a second return to duty test following a second Mandatory EAP referral will result in the consequences identified in Section V.G.2. of this Policy. &!h_An employee who has returned to duty following successful participation in the Mandatory EAP shall be subject to follow-up testing for up to five (5) years, including a minimum of six (6) unannounced, follow-up alcohol and/or drug tests during the first twelve (12) months after returning to duty. The SAP can direct additional testing during this initial follow-up testing period, or for an additional period up to a maximum of sixty (60) months from the date the employee returns to duty. The SAP can terminate the requirement for additional follow-up testing in excess of the minimum at any time, if the SAP determines that the testing is no longer necessary. 4g,_Any positive test under this Policy following an employee's return to duty after a second Mandatory EAP will result in the consequences identified in Section V.G.2. of this Policy (except for the first return-to-duty test under Section VI.C.1c. and subject to Section VI.C.3.F.). 3.
General Provisions Applicable to Both Voluntary and Mandatory EAP:
L_ln the event an employee who is subject to follow-up testing has an absence of thirty (30) days or more due to industrial injury, illness, or leave of absence, the SAP shall determine whether the follow-up testing period should be extended. ,;,J ~No
employee will have his/her job security or promotional opportunities jeopardized by a request for EAP services prior to notification of selection for any alcohol or drug test under this Policy, or an accident. An employee who accepts treatment in a program approved by the District will be considered ill and unable to work. An employee's absence from work as a result of a referral to the EAP or a treatment program will not be considered an "absence" under the applicable District Attendance Program.
~l...:... The
services provided by the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse EAP are designed to identify and correct alcohol and/or drug dependency problems. The decision to request EAP
22
257
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 services, follow-through with an EAP referral, seek treatment, and comply with the treatment provider's and/or SAP's recommendations is the sole responsibility of the employee. hd. The District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator will discuss available educational and rehabilitation programs, employment benefits, and financial responsibilities with employees seeking help with problems resulting from the use of alcohol and/or drugs. g,~AII
follow-up testing after either Voluntary or Mandatory EAP will include: (1) alcohol testing for employees who initially tested positive for alcohol; and (2) drug testing for employees who initially tested positive for drugs, unless the SAP determines that the employee should be tested for both alcohol and drugs during the follow-up testing period.
lT,L"Ciean Slate" provisions (i) An employee who, after a first positive test under this Policy, does not test positive on any test under this Policy for three (3) years shall automatically receive a "clean slate." An employee who, after a second positive test under this Policy, does not test positive on any test under this Policy for four (4) years, shall automatically receive a "clean slate." An employee who, after a third positive test under this Policy, is not terminated from District employment and does not test positive on any test under this Policy for five (5) years shall automatically receive a "clean slate." When an employee receives a "clean slate" under this paragraph, the next subsequent positive test under this Policy, if any, will be treated as a first positive test, and the next positive test under this Policy thereafter, if any, as a second positive test, for purposes of eligibility for a Mandatory referral under section VI.C.2.a, and no discipline shall issue for any such first or second positive test. This provision shall not preclude discipline based on an employee's refusal or failure to comply or cooperate with an employee's treatment or aftercare plan. (ii) If an employee is absent from work for a cumulative period of time exceeding six months (one hundred thirty working days for employees working normal five day weeks), the District may, at its discretion, have these absence periods excluded from the time needed to acquire a "clean slate". Scheduled vacations and holidays will not be considered absence periods. The District will notify the employee and the Union if absence periods are being excluded and the time needed for a "clean slate" has been extended.
D. Return to Duty Employees in compliance with their rehabilitation program, as confirmed by their medical provider, will be returned to work after completing a return-to- work evaluation when the following conditions are met:
1.
Return-to-Work Evaluation: The employee must pass a return to duty evaluation which will include an alcohol and/or drug screen and may include .a physical examination as determined by the MRO in consultation with the SAP. The SAP will provide a written release to the District's Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator allowing the employee to return to duty.
23
258
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 2.
Treatment Agreement: Employees will be required to sign a Treatment and/or Aftercare Agreement(s). This certifies that the employee agrees to comply with all terms and/or conditions of his/her prescribed treatment and/or Aftercare plan.
1.._Return to Duty Notice: Employees will also be required to sign a "Return to Duty Notice." This notice certifies the employee was notified of the terms and conditions of returning to duty which include the follow-up testing requirements. VII.
TERM OF POLICY This Policy shall take effect on December 1, 2005 and remain in full force and effect during the term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties, and shall continue without modification unless the party desiring such modification serves a written notice upon the other party of the proposed termination or modification no less than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date, and offers to meet the other party and confer for the purpose of reaching a new agreement. If one of the parties serves the above-referenced notice, this Policy shall remain in effect until the parties either reach a new agreement or impasse. If neither party gives such notice, this Policy shall continue thereafter in full force and effect, through successive collective bargaining agreements until one party or the other gives the aforementioned notice no less than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
I VIII.
INTERPRETATION OF POLICY All disputes arising out of the interpretation or enforcement of this Policy shall be subject to the grievance and formal arbitration provisions of the appropriate collective bargaining agreement between the parties. By entering into this Policy, the parties do not waive any provisions of the appropriate collective bargaining agreement. When interpreting this Policy, the District will follow all relevant FTA Regulations. SAVINGS CLAUSE If any article, section, or paragraph of this Policy, or any side letters or Memoranda of Understanding thereto should be held invalid by operation of law or by any tribunal of competent jurisdiction, or if compliance with or enforcement of any article or section is restrained by such tribunal pending final determination as to its validity, the remainder of this Policy and of any article, section or paragraph to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it has been held invalid or as to which compliance with or enforcement of has been restrained, shall not be affected thereby. Any substitute action allowed will be the subject of negotiation between the Employer and the Union(s).
The parties agree that in the event FTA modifies the regulations contained in 49 CFR Parts 40, and 655, they will meet and confer for the purpose of modifying this Policy, if necessary to comply with the revised regulations.
24
259
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
SAMPLE ONE
Date: To: From
Human Resources Administrator
Re:
John Doe, (Position), (Badge Number)
Please be advised that effective (Day) (Date) the above referenced employee will be unavailable for work. I will keep you apprised of the employee's status. Please note that all time should be recorded as sick leave, or vacation time until his/her accrual is exhausted. At that time the employee is to be placed on unpaid sick leave. If you have any questions, please call me at tLJ19J X4808.
25
260
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
SAMPLE TWO
Date: To: From Human Resources Administrator Re:
John Doe, (Position), (Badge Number)
Please be advised that effective (Day) (Date) the above referenced employee wi II be unavailable for work. The first thirty (30) days should be carried as an unpaid suspension. That would be during the period (Day) (Date) through (Day) (Date). After this period, he/she or may elect to use sick leave, or vacation time until his/her accrual is exhausted. I will keep you apprised of the employee's status. If you have any questions, please call me at P<4808:[U20].
26
261
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 APPENDIX 1 CONTACT INFORMATION
The District's current Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator is (51 0) 891-j4808(LJ21]. The District's current MRO is D~LJ22]. Paul Teynor (888) 249-4575. The District's current Substance Abuse Professionals (SAP) are: Patricia Altemura, MFT, CEAP, ~APtLJ23] Direct 510-995-1112 Eliza McKenna, LCSW, CEAP, SAP Direct 510-995-1103 Local and 800# that reach BOTH of us 510-337-8834 800-834-3773 This contact information is subject to updating upon written notice to all parties.
27
262
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
~I Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
APPENDIX2 RANDOM DRUG TESTING POOL
August 22, 2005 John Doe Safety Sensitive Employee General Office Dear Mr. Doe: In keeping with FTA regulations, your name will be removed from the Random Testing Pool if you are absent from work for in excess of ninety days or you work out of your safety sensitive position in excess of ninety days. If you are out of the Random Testing Pool for 90 days or more, you must submit to pre-employment drug and alcohol tests before performing any safety-sensitive work.
Your name was removed from the Random Testing Pool o n - - - - - - - Therefore, if you return to work later than , you will have to contact this office at (51 0) 891-4808 or (51 0) 891-4849 to schedule an appointment to be given "pre-employment" drug and alcohol screens. This should be done a week before your expected return date as you will not be permitted to work until the results of these tests have been received by the District. Sincerely,
Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator
1600 Franklin Street .. Oakland, CA 94612 .. TEL (510) 891-4777 • www.actransit.org
28
263
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District
APPENDIX 3 Start Test Time _ _ __
Time Test Ended _ _ __
STEPS TO BE COMPLETED OBTAINING DOT URINE SPECIMENS
Donor's Initials
Collector's Initials 1.
Donor identity verified by photo I. D. and time of arrival noted.
2.
Procedure explained to Donor.
3.
Collector made sure Donor's Social Security number and badge number were entered on Ply 1. Collector made
sure Donor's name and telephone number were entered on Ply 2. 4.
Donor removed coat, hat, etc., and left in exam room. Donor retained his/her wallet.
5.
Donor washed his/her hands prior to collection.
6.
Bluing agent has been placed into toilet bowl & tank and all water sources/potential adulterants secured from Donor access.
7.
Donor asked to furnish a urine specimen, Collector waited outside restroom door until Donor exited. Donor instructed not to flush the toilet.
8.
Once Donor handed urine specimen to Collector the urine was in full sight of donor and collector until completely packaged. The splitting of the sample was done in the oresence and full view of the Donor.
9.
In the presence of the Donor, collector checked specimen for color and odor, signs of contamination, temperature and quantity, All of the above characteristics documented on the chain of custody form. Temperature must be taken within 4 minutes of collection. If temperature was out of range, Collector obtained authorization for an observed re-test.
10 Collector placed lid on container and tightened securely in the presence and fu/f view of Donor.
11 Container sealed with tamper evident tape in donor's presence and full view: Donor initialed the tape. Collector verified that information on label was identical to information on chain of custody form, and then attached label to specimen bottle. DONOR MUST SIGN NAME THE SAME WAY EACH TIME. 12
Collector's Signature
Specimen I. D.#
Collector made sure that Donor signed Ply 2. Collector completed the Chain of Custody block. Laboratories copies 2, 3, and 8 (optional) inserted with the specimen into the mailer and sealed per instructions.
Date
Donor Signature
Badge#
29
264
Date
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
APPENDIX 3
WARNING!! Mobile vehicle personnel must read this warning to each donor when notification regarding selection for random testing is given. IF YOU ADD ANYTHING TO YOUR SPECIMEN, OR SUBSTITUTE ANYTHING FOR YOUR SPECIMEN, YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDED, PENDING TERMINATION.
IF YOU FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS AND TEST POSITIVE, YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO A TREATMENT PROGRAM AND IN MOST CASES YOU CAN KEEP YOUR JOB.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DRUG POLICY, CALL YOUR UNION REP AT (510) 635-0192 OR Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator at (51 0) 891-4808.
DONOR SIGNATURE
DATE
BADGE#
30
265
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
APPENDIX4
StartTest Time, _ _ __
Time Test Ended1 _____
STEPS TO BE COMPLETED OBTAINING DOT URINE SPECIMENS
Donor's Initials
Collector's Initials 13 Donor identity verified by photo I.D. and time of arrival noted.
14 Procedure explained to Donor. 15 Collector made sure Donor's Social Security number and badge number were entered on Ply 1. Collector made sure Donor's name and telephone number were entered on Ply 2.
16 Donor removed coat, hat, etc., and left in exam room. Donor retained his/her wallet. 17 Donor washed his/her hands prior to collection. 18 Bluing agent has been placed into toilet bowl & tank and all water sources/potential adulterants secured from
Donor access. 19 Donor asked to furnish a urine specimen, Collector waited outside restroom door until Donor exited. Donor instructed not to flush the toilet. 20 Once Donor handed urine specimen to Collector the urine was in full sight of donor and collector until completely packaged. The splitting of the sample was done in the presence and full view of the Donor.
21 In the presence of the Donor, collector checked specimen for color and odor, signs of contamination, temperature and quantity, All of the above characteristics documented on the chain of custody form. Temperature must be taken within 4 minutes of collection. If temperature was out of range, Collector obtained authorization for an obseiVed re-test. 22 Collector placed lid on container and tightened securely in the presence and full view of Donor.
23 Container sealed with tamper evident tape in donor's presence and full view: Donor initialed the tape. Collector verified that information on label was identical to information on chain of custody form, and then attached label to specimen bottle. DONOR MUST SIGN NAME THE SAME WAY EACH TIME. 24
Collector's Signature
Specimen I. D.#
Collector made sure that Donor signed Ply 2. Collector completed the Chain of Custody block. Laboratories copies 2, 3, and 8 (optional) inserted with the specimen into the mailer and sealed per instructions.
Date
Donor Signature
Badge#
31
266
Date
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
APPENDIX 4
WARNING!! IF YOU ADD ANYTHING TO YOUR SPECIMEN, OR SUBSTITUTE ANYTHING FOR. YOUR SPECIMEN, YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDED, PENDING TERMINATION.
IF YOU FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS AND TEST POSJTIVE, YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO A TREATMENT PROGRAM AND IN MOST CASES YOU CAN KEEP YOUR JOB.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DRUG POLICY, CALL YOUR UNION REP AT (510) 635-0192 OR Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program Administrator at (510) 891-4808.
DONOR SIGNATURE
DATE
BADGE#
32
267
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District
APPENDIX5 BIANNUAL PHYSICAL NOTIFICATION YOUR BIANNUAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION IS NOW DUE. APPOINTMENT: DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION: - - - - - - - - - -
WARNING You will be required to take a drug screen as part of your physical examination.
IF YOU ADD ANYTHING TO YOUR SPECIMEN, OR SUBSTITUTE ANYTHING FOR YOUR SPECIMEN, YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDED, PENDING TERMINATION. IF YOU FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS AND TEST POSITIVE, YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO A TREATMENT PROGRAM AND IN MOST CASES YOU CAN KEEP YOUR JOB. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DRUG POLICY, CALL YOUR UNION REP AT (510) 635-0192 OR ALCOHOUSUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR AT (510) 891-4808.
33
268
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 APPENDIX 6 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND NEGOTIATED PROVISIONS Not all provisions of this Policy are specifically required by the FTA. Many have been negotiated between the District and its Unions. In particular, the FTA requires that positive drug tests. violations of testing procedures and failures to comply with a substance abuse treatment pI an must have consequences However, the specific consequences of a violation of this Policy are not set by law. These are subject to the negotiated provisions of this Agreement and any applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement provisions. Below is a table of particular program elements of this Policy that are not required by the FTA but have been included by agreement. These are provided for descriptive purposes pursuant to FTA regulations on t y and shall not be considered as evidence in any proceeding between the District and Union
Section
AS!;!ects of this !;!:rovision not reguired by FTA
Provision
IIA
Tests to be administered
Testing of non-safety-sensitive employees.
Ill
Confidentiality
Discipline for violating confidentiality.
IV
Alcohol/Substance Abuse Joint Labor Management Subcommittee
This subcommittee is not required by FT A FTA does require that all laboratories be DHHS certified and that employee education and training programs be conducted.
VB.3.
Union representation
The right to union representation.
VB.S.
Pay status pending test results
Reconfirming pay status.
V.B.7
Excluding testing of qualifying employees last 3hours of shift
V.C.1.
Pre-employment tests
Alcohol testing under this paragraph.
V.C.B.
DOT (Biennial) Physical tests
Entire provision.
V.C.9c
Negative dilute specimens
Retesting of employees with negative dilute specimens without direct observation
V.E.
Prescription drug policy
Entire provision
during
Entire provision.
Aspects of this provision not required by FTA
V.G.
Consequences of Policy violations
Consequences of violating Policy, other than relieving the employee from safety-sensitive functions; Voluntary and Mandatory EAP opportunities; warning notices; interventions; arbitrations.
VIA
EAP Guidelines reintroduction
Description of non-mandatory EAP
VI. B.
Rehabilitation
Protections of job security and time off work; benefits available; medical benefits.
VI.C.1.
Voluntary referral to EAP
Entire provision.
VI.C.2.
Mandatory referral to EAP
Protections of job security and time off work; benefits available; medical benefits.
VI.C.3.
General provisions about EAP
Job security protections (para. b.); Clean Slates ™ provisions.
VI. D.
Return to Work
Return to duty following rehabilitation.
34
269
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 APPENDIX 7
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT
Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy
AC Transit Safety-Sensitive Job Classifications Job Code
Classification
Union
Job Code
Classification
Union
949
Apprentice Mentor
ATU
902
Pre-Apprentice MechanicOTC
ATU
901
Apprentice Mechanic
ATU
109
Protective Services Manager
UNREP
990
Bus Driver
ATU
963
Senior Body Mechanic
ATU
991
Bus Driver (42)
ATU
864
Service Employee
ATU
856
Body Mechanic B
ATU
792
Senior Maintenance Supervisor
AFSCME
966
Body/Frame Mechanic
ATU
142
Sr. Transportation Supervisor
AFSCME
505
Chief Dispatcher
ATU 690
Shipping/Receiving Clerk
ATU
778
Small & Med Duty Vehicle Mechanic
ATU
275
Training Instructor
AFSCME
380
Transportation Supervisor
AFSCME
381
Transportation Supervisor Assistant (p/t)
AFSCME ATU ATU
530
834
815 947
Dispatcher
Lift Mechanic
Machinist Maintenance Trainer
ATU
ATU
ATU ATU
795
Maintenance Supervisor
AFSCME
817
Welder/Sheetmetal Mechanic A
837
Mechanic A/Unit Room
ATU
819
Welder/Sheetmetal Mechanic AA
610
Parts Clerk
ATU
35
270
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 APPENDIXS
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy Appendix K: Sample of a Reasonable Suspicion Testing Checklist
For copy of the form can be found on District internal website under HR-Drug and Alcohol Compliance Unit
AlAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT ALCOHOl/SUBSTANCE ABUSE COMPUANCE PROGRAM
REASONABLE SUSPICION TESTING CHECKLIST Employee Name:
IBadge#:
I Employee Job Title:
Division:
Location where observation was conducted:
I Time:
Observation Date:
DAM
DPM
Check all that apply: BEHAVIOR: 0 Hyperactivity- fidgety, agitated D Breathing irregularly or with
difficulty D 0 D D 0 0
Nausea or vomiting Slow reactions Unstable walking Poor coordination Hand tremors Shaking
0 Extreme fatigue, sleeping on the job
0 Irritable, moody BODY ODORS: D Odor of alcoholic beverage on breath or clothes
APPEARANCE: D Flushed complexion D Cold, clammy sweats D Bloodshot eyes, tearing, watering eyes D Wetting lips frequentlycomplaining of dry mouth D Dilated (large) pupils D Unfocused, blank stare [j Disheveled clothing, unkempt appearance D Runny or bleeding nose D Sensation of bugs crawling on skin
0 Distinct pungent aroma on clothing or person 0 Smell of cat urine
D Strong chemical odor Additional Comments or Other Observations:
Observer Name:
I Badge#:
Observer Job Title:
Observer Signature:
Date:
36
271
SPEECH: D Slurred, or slowed speech D Incoherent D Exaggerated enunciation D loud, boisterous D Rapid, pressured D Excessively talkative D Nonsensical, silly D Cursing, inappropriate speech D Quiet, whispering
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 APPENDIX 9
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy
8.
COLLECTION PROCEDURES Testing and procedures stated in this section are conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 40. 1.
Basic Test Process Standard Testing and collection will be conducted in a manner which assures a high degree of accuracy, integrity, and reliability, using techniques, equipment, and laboratory facilities which have been approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Testing for prohibited drugs and alcohol will be conducted in accordance with the Federal regulations. Federal urine and breath forms will be used.
2.
Notification of Testing Before administering a drug or alcohol test, AC Transit will inform and notify employees that a urine sample will be tested for prohibited drugs as required under the DOT regulations, and that a breath sample will be tested for the presence of alcohol in excess of limits established by Federal regulations. Employees will be given a copy of these testing procedures.
8.1
EMPLOYEE SPECIMEN COLLECTION PROCEDURES: URINE DRUG TESTING Tests conducted are analytical tests of urine for prohibited drug use as required by Federal regulations. Testing will be done in compliance with Federal regulations to ensure the integrity of the sample. Strict chain of custody procedures will be followed. An initial urine drug screen will be conducted on each primary specimen; for those specimens that are not negative, a confirmatory Gas Chromatography (GC/MS) test will be performed. 1. Report to the specimen collection site as soon as possible after notification to report. Failure to report for collection within a reasonable time, or refusal to cooperate with the collection process, will result in a determination of a refusal to provide a specimen. 2. Show the collector an official photo identification card. 3.
Remove outer garments (retain wallet). Empty pockets and display the items in them to the collection site personnel.
4. Wash and dry hands.
37
272
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
8.2
5.
Collector will provide a specimen container.
6.
Proceed to the privacy enclosure and provide a specimen in the collection container. Do not flush the toilet. At least 45 milliliters (mL) of urine are required for analysis. If an insufficient amount of urine is provided, the original specimen will be discarded and the applicant/employee will be provided with up to 40 ounces of fluids in three hours to provide another specimen. Do not tamper with the specimen or make substitutions. The specimen will be visually inspected for unusual color and sediment.
7.
If the employee is unable to provide an adequate amount of urine, the DER, after consulting with the MRO, shall direct him/her to obtain, from a licensed physician who is acceptable to the MRO, an evaluation concerning medical ability to provide an adequate amount of urine. The evaluation shall be made as soon as is practical after the attempted urine test. If the physician indicates that there was a valid medical reason for the inadequate amount of urine, the failure to provide an adequate amount of urine will not be considered a refusal. If no valid medical reason is determined, the inadequate amount of urine must be considered a refusal to take the test.
8.
Give the specimen to the collector and watch the sealing and labeling of the bottles. The label will be preprinted with a unique specimen ID number. Initial the labels verifying that the specimen is yours.
9.
Applicant/employee may wish to note on the back of donor copy of the custody and control form any medications currently being used. This list may serve as a memory jogger in the event a Medical Review Officer calls to discuss the results of the test.
EMPLOYEE SPECIMEN COLLECTION PROCEDURES: BREATH ALCOHOL TESTING Breath Alcohol Testing. Tests for alcohol concentration are breath samples and will be conducted with a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approved evidential breath-testing device (EBT), operated by a trained Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT). Testing will be done in compliance with Federal regulations to ensure the integrity of the sample. 1.
Report to the collection site as soon as possible after notification to report.
2.
Show the collection site personnel a photo identification card.
3.
After the testing procedures are explained, the Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) will complete step 1 of the Alcohol Testing Form (ATF) and ask the applicant/employee to read, sign and date step 2. The BAT will inform the employee/applicant of the need to conduct a screening test. The BAT must open an individually sealed, disposable mouthpiece in view and attach it to the Evidential Breath Testing Device (EBT).
4.
The BAT will instruct the applicant/employee to blow forcefully into the mouthpiece for at least six seconds or until an adequate amount of breath has been obtained. Following the screening test, the BAT must show you the result displayed on the EBT or the printed result.
38
273
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009
5.
If the result of the screening test is an alcohol concentration of less than 0.02, no further testing is required. The BAT will complete step 3, sign, date, and distribute copy 1 to the DER, copy 2 to the applicant/employee, and retain copy 3. The test will be reported to the DER as a negative test. The employee may then return to his/her safety sensitive position.
6.
If the result of the screening test is an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater, a confirmation test must be performed. The confirmation test must be conducted between 15 and 30 minutes after the completion of the screening test. This waiting period prevents any accumulation of alcohol in the mouth from leading to an artificially high reading. The employee/applicant will be required to remain under observation during the waiting period.
7.
The BAT will inform the employee/applicant of the need for a confirmation test. He/she will be instructed not to eat, drink or put any object or substance in the mouth. The BAT will also instruct the employee/applicant not to belch to the extent possible while awaiting the confirmation test.
8.
Before the confirmation test is administered, the BAT shall conduct an air blank on the EBT. The confirmation test is conducted using the same procedures as the screening test. A new mouthpiece will be used.
9.
If the initial and confirmatory test results are not identical, the confirmation test result is deemed to be the final result.
10. If the screening or confirmation test result displayed on the EBT is not the same as that on the printed form, the test will be cancelled, and the EBT removed from service. 11. The BAT will complete step 3. If the results are 0.02 or greater, the BAT will ask the employee/applicant to read, sign and date the certification statement (Step 4) on the Alcohol Testing Form. The BAT will notify the DER immediately and transmit all results to the DER in a confidential manner. 12. If a screening or confirmatory test cannot be completed, the BAT must, if practicable, begin a new test using a new alcohol testing form with a new sequential test number. 13. Refusal to complete and sign step 2 of the alcohol testing form, to provide an adequate amount of breath, or otherwise to cooperate with the collection process must be noted on the form and the test will be terminated and the DER immediately notified. 14. If the employee/applicant is unable to provide an adequate amount of breath, the DER shall direct him/her to obtain, from a licensed physician who is acceptable to AC Transit, an evaluation concerning medical ability to provide an adequate amount of breath. The evaluation shall be made as soon as practical after the attempted breath test. If the physician indicates that there was a valid medical reason for the inadequate amount of breath, the failure to provide an adequate amount of breath will not be considered a refusal. If no valid medical reason is determined, the inadequate amount of breath must be considered a refusal to take the test.
39
274
Exhibit A to Resolution 15-009 a.
If the initial test indicates an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater, a second confirmatory test will be performed to confirm the results of the initial test. A positive breath alcohol test is one that results in an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater on a confirmatory test. If the initial test is above 0.02, but the confirmatory test is below 0.02, the employee will be allowed to return to work.
b.
If the employee tests between 0.02 and 0.039 on a confirmed breath alcohol test, he/she shall not be permitted to resume safety sensitive duties until retested with an alcohol concentration of less than 0.02 or until a minimum of eight (8) hours have elapsed. The employee shall be in a non-pay status for the eight (8) hour period of non-availability.
c.
An alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater on a confirmation test is considered a positive alcohol test and is a violation of Federal regulations. An employee testing with a concentration of 0.04 or greater will be removed from duty and referred to the SAP.
40
275
This page intentionally blank
276
SR. NO. 14-301a Attachment 2
-t4Bt~ll!bw
L'E1~:;e
'
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRIG AlCOHOl/SUBSTANCE ABUSE COMPliANCE PROGRAM
TO:
Yvonne Williams, President, ATU Local192
FROM:
Uta Jamerson, HR Administrator Drug & Alcohol Testing Program
DATE:
December 18, 2014
RE:
FTA Mandated Updates to the District's Alcohol & Substance Abuse Policy
We met on Friday December 12, 2014 to discuss the required updates I made to the Alcohol & Substance Abuse Policy as a result of deficiencies found in the Policy by the auditors at our · recent Triennial Review. Attached is a copy of the revised Policy that reflects the changes we discussed in accordance with the FTA Drug and Alcohol Policy Requirements Checklist. You questioned whether we conducted random drug test of Dispatchers and if so, asked if we could provide documentation. Danny Marshall met with me later that afternoon on Friday December 12, 2014. I showed him the District's random testing database and reviewed several test records of Dispatchers dating from year 2000 to current year. He stated he would relay this information to you. I have made the changes to the Policy that we discussed at our meeting. Please review the Policy again to ensure you are in agreement for the Board of Directors to approve the Policy. Please acknowledge by signing below that you have received and reviewed the Policy changes.
(Date)
1600 Franklin Street'' Oakland, CA 946120TEL (510) 891-4808
277
This page intentionally blank
278
~I
Report No: Meeting Date:
T/?19/VS/T
15-006 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
State of the District's Bus Fleet
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receiving a report on the State of the District's Bus Fleet for AC Transit Fixed Route Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report provides an update on the state of the District's bus fleet and includes an overview of the existing bus fleet, age of the fleet, maintenance activities, new bus procurement, and a summary of Quality Assurance and Warrant programs. During calendar year 2014, the District added 106 new buses to replace some of the oldest buses in the fleet, which reduced the average age of the fleet from approximately 8 years to 6.2 years. The addition of new buses moved the District closer to the goal of an average fleet age of less than 6 years. The addition of ten new El Dorado 24' small transit buses in the coming months will increase the total bus fleet from the 2014 average of 569 buses to at least 586 buses. The District will begin receiving buses from the next procurement of 80 buses in late 2015, which will allow for fleet expansion and the replacement of some of the oldest and least reliable buses in the fleet. The procurement of new buses will also allow the maintenance staff to focus on improvements to the reliability and appearance of the existing bus fleet. Quality Assurance and Warranty programs ensure compliance with the Federal Transit 51 Administration's Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 Century (MAP21), State of Good Repair and Asset Management requirements. The enhancement of maintenance programs and optimization of the quality of work performed by District staff ensures the achievement of both financial and operational targets of the fleet to ensure high quality service. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or Fiscal impact associated with this report.
279
Report No. 15-006 Page 2 of6 BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
This report provides an update on the state of the District's bus fleet and includes an overview of the existing bus fleet, age of the fleet, maintenance activities, new bus procurement, and a summary of Quality Assurance and Warrant programs. Bus Fleet Age - During calendar year 2014, the District added a total of 106 new 40' low floor buses, including 68 Gillig 40' urban buses and 38 Gillig 40' commuter buses, to replace some of the oldest and poorest performing buses in the fleet. The addition of ten new El Dorado 24' small transit buses and retention of seven MCI 45' commuter buses will increase the total bus fleet size to at least 586 buses.
The procurement of new buses allowed for the improvement in the average fleet age from approximately 8 years to 6.2 years in 2014. This investment will help enhance operations, customer satisfaction, and will contribute to the following: • • •
Improved bus reliability and reduced service disruptions Reduced vehicle maintenance costs Improved bus appearance
To achieve the goal of an average fleet age of less than 6 years, the District will need to continue replacing older buses in the fleet as the older fleet reaches the end of its useful life. Heavy duty-cycles for buses operating in an urban environment continue to impact the older vehicles, which results in higher failure rates and increased wear and tear on equipment. Establishing programs to maximize the effective and efficient useful life of the bus fleet is a requirement of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Quality Assurance and Warranty Programs support elements of FTA's Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 51 Century (MAP21), State of Good Repair and Asset Management requirements. Quality Assurance Program - A primary function of the Quality Assurance program is to serve as an extension of the framework and foundation for a quality fleet. By enhancing maintenance programs and optimizing the quality of work performed by staff, the District is able to achieve financial and operational targets of having a fleet that meets daily pullout requirements and provides high quality and reliable service. A strong Quality Assurance Program ensures that the fleet is exceeding customer expectations, both internally and externally. In addition, the FTA requires that the District have a quality program established to ensure the continual improvement in the quality of service. AC Transit's Quality Assurance Program consists of the following primary sub-programs:
• • •
Bus Cleanliness Inspection (BCI) California Highway Patrol (CHP) Simulated Inspection Preventative Maintenance Inspection (PM I) Audit
280
Report No. 15-006 Page 3 of 6 Bus Cleanliness Inspection (BCI) Quality Assurance performs a monthly Division Bus Cleanliness Inspection using a grading criterion focused on 19 areas of the bus (14 internal and 5 external) to allow Divisions to align resources and programs to target low rated areas and improve the overall cleanliness and appearance of the fleet. Ratings from 1 to 10 are possible. Ratings of 1-4 are listed as unsatisfactory, 5-7 is good, and 8-10 is satisfactory. Quality Assurance inspected 720 buses as part of the BCI program in FY 2013/14. The following graph represents the fiscal year, Quarter 1 to Quarter 4, BCI scores for the District. The BCI scores have improved from 4.55 at program inception in February 2013 to 7.85 in October 2014. The District is working hard to achieve a score of 8.0 by end of FY 2014/15.
Fiscal 2014 (Q1-Q4) BCI Scores 7.70 . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.60 + - - - - - - 7.50 +---7.40 +---7.30 + - - - 7.20 7.10 7.00 6.90 6.80 6. 70 6.60 Division 2
Division 4
Division 6
• Ql • Q2 • Q3 • Q4
California Highway Patrol Simulated Inspection Program An inspection program was developed that mirrors the California Highway Patrol Motor Carrier Safety Unit Terminal Inspection guidelines. The inspections are performed once per quarter at each of the Division's Transportation and Maintenance Department. Quality Assurance staff will inspect buses, maintenance records, and transportation records to determine work processes that are in compliance and those needing improvement. Quality Assurance then researches the results of each inspection and recommends a course of action to improve compliance. All three Divisions received a "Satisfactory" rating on the annual California Highway Patrol Motor Carrier Safety Unit Terminal Inspection in 2014. Preventative Maintenance Inspection (PMI) Audit Program A Preventative Maintenance Inspection (PMI) Audit Program was rolled out in the fourth quarter of FY 2013/14. Quality Assurance staff audit one PMI at each Division and analyze the findings to provide a score card to maintenance staff on the consistency and quality of preventive maintenance inspections. Feedback includes best practices and recommendations to improve the PMI program. The first PMI audit at each Division was performed in June of 2014.
281
Report No. 15-006 Page 4 of 6 The following chart is an example of the results of a PMI audit at a Division.
ENGINE/ TRANSMISSION BUS ELECTRICAL HVAC ROA TEST OVERALL
94%
Buses are inspected after the PMI is performed by Division mechanics. A comparison of the findings from Quality Assurance staff and Division mechanics is performed to evaluate variations in identified defects and calculate a score for each category and an overall accuracy percentage. The results are then shared with maintenance staff along with recommendations to further analyze the PMI process at each Division . Warranty Program -The FTA requires AC Transit to have a warranty program and a system established for identifying warranty claims, recording claims, and enforcing claims against manufacturers. Most importantly, FTA requires grantees to have an aggressive warranty recovery program to ensure that the cost of a defect is borne properly by the equipment manufacturer. FTA also states that the warranty program needs to include procedures that clearly identify repairs, claims, submission to the manufacturer, and reconciliation of unpaid claims. During a triennial audit, an FTA representative reviews how timely and aggressive the District has been in pursuing warranty, and compares claim records submitted to received settlements.
The warranty program currently monitors 231 of 586 buses that contain warranty coverage in our revenue fleet. The administration of warranty requires an established set of business principles that is systematic, proactive and collaborates within the organization. The warranty program recovered $2.1 million in claims between FY2010 and FY2014. A total of 893 claims were processed this past fiscal year with a total recovery of $451,000. The claim recovery should continue to increase with the introduction of additional new buses that will expand the warranty coverage to 41 percent of the fleet by FY2016/17. The FTA requires that the District have a warranty program established to ensure the costs of defects are abided by equipment manufacturers.
282
Report No. 15-006 Page 5 of 6 Fiscal Warranty Recovery
$600
"' c
'0
$400
IV
"'
:l
0
.s::.
$200
1-
$FYlO
FYll
FY12
FY13
FY14
Based on the District Short Range Transportation Plan, the chart below forecasts warranty dem ands through FY2022/23 based on contracted bus procurements. Base Warranty Coverage Bus Procurement Projects
I
FY13
I
FY14
I
FY15
I
FY16
I
FY17
I
FY18
FY19
I
FY20
I
FY21
I
FY22
lll2l 3l4ltl2l3l4ltl2l3l4111213l4 1112 13l4111213l4 tl2l3l4ltl2l3l4lll2l3l4111213l4
Gillig 40' Urban (65) New Flyer 60' Transit Bus (23) Gillig 40' Commuter (16) Gillig 40' Commuter (38) Gillig 40' Urban (68) El Dorado Small Transit (10) 40' Urban Diesel {40) 40' Urban Hybrid (25) 40' Expansion Bus (15) 60' BRT Bus (27)
Next Steps- Th e District will begin receiving 80 additiona l new Gillig buses to replace 80 older buses starting in the third quarter of FY 2015/ 16, which will result in a further reduction of the average fleet age. Staff will return to the Board for approval to procure additional new buses in the coming months, since the District will need to replace approximately 50 buses on an annualized basis to maintain the desired fleet age. Maintenance staff is also assessing fleet performance, specifica lly looking at cost per mile to eva lu ate the next retireme nt fleet. The retirement of older and higher maintenance buses will allow maintenance and quality ass urance staff to continue their efforts on improving the reliability and appearance of the remaining buses at each division. The goal is to maintain the condition and appearance of new buses, while improving the condition and appearance of the older fleet to a higher standard. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This report is being provided to inform the Board of the status of the District's bus fleet.
283
Report No. 15-006 Page 6 of6
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None.
ATTACHMENTS: None.
Department Head Approval:
James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer
by: Prepared by:
James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer
Reviewed
Salvador Llamas, Director of Maintenance
284
Report No: Meeting Date:
15-030 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
On-Call Project Management I Construction Management Services
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION{S): Consider authorizing the issuance of a solicitation for on-call Project Management I Construction Management services in support of capital project implementations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The resulting contract from the solicitation will provide on-call Project and Construction Management services to be used as staff augmentation for projects relating to the construction, alteration or repair of public facilities and real property. These services will permit the District to retain specialty firms, such as construction managers, construction testing, and special inspectors, specialized engineering and project managers, fire protection engineers, cost estimators, and schedulers to support projects on an as-needed basis. This solicitation will be issued as a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) as required by law. Staff will solicit all pre-registered firms, of which many are small/local/disadvantaged business enterprises. Additionally, the solicitation will be advertised and posted on our website, whereby additional firms, perhaps those not already registered may decide to submit their qualifications. Finally, an aggressive Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE) campaign will be utilized to identify the type of firms that may be qualified to respond to the solicitation. The District intends to enter into not more than five "on-call" agreements for a term of three years. The total amount per agreement per year is limited to $500,000. The per task order minimum is $2,500 and the maximum is $250,000. BUDGETARY/FISCALIMPACT: Award of this contract has no immediate fiscal impact. All task orders issued shall be funded by the project requiring the services.
285
Report No. 15-030 Page 2 of 3
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Contract Description. These "on-call" service agreements will provide the District with access to specialized firms required for facility upgrades and other transit renovation projects. It also allows the District access to specialized disciplines and services needed during the course of construction. It is anticipated that the prime consultant's team will provide the core construction management effort and the specialty sub-consultant work will provide the remaining work. Examples of specialty firms are fire protection, construction testing, special inspections, geotechnical and environmental sampling & laboratory analysis, and hazardous materials testing. Implementation Approach. The resulting contract will be an on-call, multiple-award task order based contract. When the need for services under this contract is identified, the District will order the services via the existing requisition/purchase order system, in a similar manner to the way on-call transportation planning contracts are used. Procurement Type and Timeline. The procurement approach used for the subject contracts is a qualifications-based, price not determinative, "Brooks Act", as defined by FTA Circular 4220.1F Rev 3. The procurement is expected to proceed according to the timeline in Table 1. Proposed Action Board authorization to issue this solicitation Solicitation to be issued Due date for Statements of Qualifications Board approval of contract(s) First Task Order issued Table 1. Procurement T1meline.
Date January 14, 2015 February, 2015 March, 2015 April, 2015 May, 2015
Staff will convene an evaluation panel in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation and shown in Table 2. Proposed Evaluation Criteria Relevant past performance Technical specialized experience Professional qualifications and technical competence of team members and depth of firm Capacity of firm to accomplish the work in the required time Quality control program Total .. Table 2. Qualif1cat1ons Evaluation Cntena
286
Weighting 20 30 25 20 5 100
Report No. 15-030 Page 3 of 3
Pursuant to Board Policy 351, the Contracts Compliance Administrator and the Project Manager are actively assessing the still-evolving work scope to identify specific tasks for small business enterprise (SBE) set-aside opportunities.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Award of this contract would permit staff to obtain the various specialized skills on an asneeded basis. These services are not needed full time and will allow the District to expand and contract its capacity as needed. One solicitation could handle multiple projects, allowing staff resources to focus on other prioritized projects.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The alternative to contracting for these services is to develop them in-house using employees. The District does not have the technical capability or capacity to provide the specialty services needed for this project. Moreover, the District does not have the long term requirement for the technical capability or capacity. Hiring long-term employees to accommodate a short term requirement is not cost effective.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None
AITACHMENTS: None
Department Head Approval:
Reviewed
Prepared
by:
by:
Aida Asuncion, Interim Chief Planning, Engineering & Construction Officer Dennis W. Butler, Director of Capital Projects Denise Standridge, General Counsel James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Jon Medwin, Director of Purchasing and Materials Phillip McCants, Contracts Compliance Administrator Craig Michels, Sr. Project Manager
287
This page intentionally blank
288
Report No: Meeting Date:
15-026 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
PeopleSoft Alternatives Analysis
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receipt of the PeopleSoft Alternatives Analysis report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District has based its financial and human resources processes on Oracle's PeopleSoft version 9.0 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system since 2009. Implementation costs were roughly $15.7 million, and annual operating costs, part of the systems lifecycle, are $2.1 million including Oracle's annual support fees, Sierra-Cedar's hosting fees, and support and development staff costs. This report presents an analysis of several alternatives, including: 1} Continuing to invest in the support, training, development and upgrade of PeopleSoft; 2} Shifting to a model where PeopleSoft is co-hosted and supported with another public agency; and 3) Migrating to an ERP platform with lower annual operating costs. A comparison of our PeopleSoft support costs with those of other agencies running PeopleSoft and similar ERP systems shows that our costs are roughly in line with theirs. Shifting to a cohosted approach or migrating to a different ERP system would incur significant start-up capital costs in order to achieve modest, if any, operational savings. The most cost-effective approach is to commit to upgrading PeopleSoft to version 9.2, to revitalize our use of it through training and process improvements, and to re-evaluate market alternatives in three to five years. BUDGETARY/FISCALIMPACT: There are no budgetary or fiscal impacts associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The District's Finance-Human Resources (FHR) project upgraded the PeopleSoft Human Capital Management (HCM) suite to version 9.0 in late 2008, and implemented PeopleSoft Financials (FIN) version 9.0 which went live in July 2009.
289
Report No. 15-026 Page 2 of9 The current version of PeopleSoft HCM and FIN have been in use for more than five years without an upgrade. Oracle will cease support of the current version in September 2015, though third parties can provide tax updates and other critical patches after that time. A capital project request to perform a strict technical upgrade of PeopleSoft to version 9.2 was submitted last year and funded for this fiscal year.
Application Lifecycle Major software applications such as our ERP system (PeopleSoft), scheduling system (HA5TUS), and Maintenance & Materials Work Order system (Ellipse) all have an expected lifecycle. Phases include:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Procurement, implementation and configuration Data migration, training and go-live System Maintenance (user support, bug-fixes, patches & minor upgrades) Major upgrades (every three to five years) Replacement
Unlike most hardware purchases, software isn't static. Vendors offer a continuing stream of patches and both minor & major upgrades to fix specific problems and to add new features. And support staff may respond to user needs by re-configuring or customizing the application throughout its lifecycle, and by developing new reports and processes. The active vendor support period for a given software version is seldom more than five years and never more than ten. In order to reap the most benefit from the applications software at the lowest risk, customers must make plans to upgrade systems on a regular basis, budget for it, and execute those plans. For a large system such as PeopleSoft, major upgrades should be planned every four or five years. This schedule takes best advantage of the vendor's active support period by regularly freshening the application, fixing bugs and adding new features. This also helps keep users engaged, and gives an opportunity to address shortcomings and new requirements. Support costs should be considered as leveraging our initial investment, maximizing our return and maximizing the period until we need to replace the system. A major upgrade, though a significant expense in itself, will always be cheaper than migrating to another product given the cost to transform data, re-train staff, and (unless moving to a SaaS product,) acquire new software licenses. Our informal survey of other transit systems found that their annual ERP support costs, including annual support fees, on-site or remote hosting costs, and staff support, are about 1015% of their implementation cost. Our annual PeopleSoft support costs are in this range as well. Every system is eventually replaced, typically after ten to fifteen years of active use. That decision can be driven by changing requirements, the loss of vendor support, or the rise of a stronger competitor with a better product. Seldom is support cost alone a sufficient reason. Given the high cost of moving from one application to another, on the order of $6 to $12 million for our ERP system, any savings would take a decade or more to accrue.
290
Report No. 15-026 Page 3 of9
FHR Project and Lifecycle Costs The FHR project's capital procurement and implementation costs in 2008 and 2009 were roughly $15.7 million. They were funded by $2.3 million in section 5307 grants and $13.4 million in Certificates of Participation (COPs). Project expenses included: • • • • • • • • • • •
$212,000 for training, $310,000 for equipment and supplies, $347,000 for facilities (project office lease costs), $400,000 for application interface development, $462,000 for Oracle's annual support & maintenance fees, $600,000 for change management services, $825,000 for project management, $1.15 million for District staff time charged to the project, $1.25 million for PeopleSoft licenses, $1.7 million for application hosting during the project, and $8.15 million for the implementation and integration contractor's project staff.
The District's annual PeopleSoft operating, support and maintenance cost of about $2.1 million includes: 1. Oracle's annual support fees, which provide access to their technical support team and, more importantly, allows access to software updates and patches. These are 20% of the original software license fees with an annual increase based on the consumer price index (CPI). 2. Hosting fees, which includes the use of computer hardware and software (operating systems, database management systems, and utilities) on which to run PeopleSoft, remote access, and 24x7 systems maintenance and monitoring services. 3. The burdened costs of five full-time and one part-time PeopleSoft Engineers providing application development and technical support expertise for PeopleSoft itself and for associated interfaces and external applications. An assessment of nearby transit agencies running similar ERP systems shows that our support staff levels and annual support costs are consistent with theirs, relative to their size. The choice of ERP system and the server hosting arrangements, if any, have little impact on total operating costs. Implementation costs are always the much more significant expense.
Alternatives In 2013, the Government Finance Officers' Association was invited to assess the District's Budget processes. Their final report was delivered on April 30, 2014, and included recommendations regarding financial policy, processes and documentation, and the PeopleSoft system. The report acknowledged that PeopleSoft is a popular and capable ERP system but noted deficits stemming from decisions made during the implementation and a lack of user training. It recommended the upgrade and enhancement of PeopleSoft along with process documentation and improvements, user training, and policy updates. Finance process documentation has been substantially completed, and planning for user training is underway.
291
Report No. 15-026 Page 4 of 9 Board members receiving that report expressed concern at the ongoing costs of supporting and continuing to enhance PeopleSoft, and they requested this analysis of alternatives. Alternatives considered include:
1. Continuing to invest in the support, training, development and upgrade of PeopleSoft; 2. Shifting to a model where PeopleSoft is hosted and supported by another public agency; and 3. Migrating to another ERP platform with lower annual operating costs. These alternatives will be explored below. 1. Continue to Invest in PeopleSoft
Any significant software application requires support and continued development in order to leverage the initial investment and to continue to reap benefits. The larger the system, the more support will be required. Continuing with PeopleSoft, opportunities exist to increase our productivity and to redirect, if not reduce, our support costs. • •
•
•
Revitalize PeopleSoft by implementing unused modules and developing needed reports. Functional training will be provided this fiscal year for those that use PeopleSoft in their daily work. This should begin to reduce our support load and increase staff efficiency. Documentation and then improvement of business processes, particularly interdepartmental processes. The documentation of processes in the Budget area has just been completed, and other areas of Finance will follow. A PeopleSoft Knowledgebase has been started on our Intranet site, MyACT, containing how-to's, quick reference sheets, and short videos of common procedures. All departments that rely heavily on PeopleSoft are contributing.
The FY14-15 Capital Budget includes $950k to upgrade PeopleSoft to version 9.2, the latest release available. Staff recently evaluated version 9.2 and were impressed both by a number of new features and by the completely redesigned user interface (UI). The enhanced Ul promises a faster learning curve, streamlined processes, and easier adoption by new users. With version 9.2, Oracle has shifted PeopleSoft to a different architecture. From that version forward, fixes and enhancements can be downloaded and applied at will as smaller unit releases. Major upgrades such as the one to 9.2 will no longer be required. This will simplify maintenance and will reduce the cost of keeping the system current. This major upgrade will extend the system's usable life by at least four years. That gives time for SaaS competitors to mature, for our COPS to be paid off, and for the District to continue to amortize its investment in software licenses and implementation costs.
292
Report No. 15-026 Page 5 of 9 The first step to seeping and procuring this upgrade is a Gap Assessment, a study comparing what we have and how we're using it to the functions and features of PeopleSoft 9.2. That will produce a roadmap showing the high-value areas on which to focus, from the reimplementation of existing functions to the implementation of new modules. 2. Shift to a Co-Hosting Model
Alternative hosting arrangements may reduce our hosting costs and possibly our support staff costs. But these approaches incur significant capital costs to migrate as well as potential risks and limitations. The District's PeopleSoft licenses permit the application to be hosted discretely at any site, whether on-premise here, at a professional hosting provider like Sierra-Cedar as we do now, or at another PeopleSoft customer such as a peer transit agency. There are two scenarios under which this could be done. a. Shared Services Model
Through the creation of a PeopleSoft Shared Services Model with another transit agency, the District could potentially realize cost savings in hosting costs and local support staff. This would likely require both agencies to re-implement PeopleSoft to a single, common environment, with shared code and a common architecture, chart of accounts or business rules, but discrete business rules and data sets. This would be a major challenge and require compromises by both agencies. A formal change management process would be required including signoff by both agencies. A somewhat larger support and development staff would be needed than for one agency alone but an overall net reduction should be possible. The possible savings of this approach are outweighed by the compromises and limitations necessary to implement it. b. Discrete PeopleSoft Instances
In this model, one agency commits to hosting discrete instances of PeopleSoft for two (or more) agencies. These would be logically, if not physically, separate environments running separate sets of code, business rules and data. This wouldn't require either agency to re-implement PeopleSoft or to agree to a common architecture, chart of accounts or business rules. It's unlikely that another agency could commit the additional resources to adequately support our installation as well as their own, would consistently do so equitably, or that they could do so more cost-effectively than our current hosting contract. Simply moving to a different hosting location wouldn't permit a reduction in on-site support staff. And with two unique instances to support, little if any hosting agency support staff reduction would be possible. The risks and expenses of this model are large relative to the potential savings. Staff found no examples of transit or other customers using or considering this approach.
293
Report No. 15-026 Page 6 of9 3. Migrate to a Lower-Cost ERP System
There are other ERP systems that might meet the District's needs. ERP systems are often categorized as Tier 1, the largest and most robust systems geared to large agencies and corporations, and Tier 2 systems that, while somewhat smaller, simpler and less capable, provide business functions adequate for mid-size organizations. a. Tier 1 ERP Applications like PeopleSoft, SAP, and Oracle's E-Business Suite (EBS) are commonly used in large corporations and public agencies. The capabilities of these applications are enormous and leverage best practices developed over many years of heavy use. Customers for these Tier 1 applications include: PeopleSoft- Sam Trans, BART, WMATA, Miami-Dade Transit, New York Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, Hampton Roads Transit SAP- Santa Clara VTA, Sacramento Regional Transit District, Omnitrans (San
Bernardino), Port Authority of New York/New Jersey, Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston), San Diego Metropolitan Transit System E-Business Suite- Denver RTD, Pace (Chicago), Tri-Met (Portland), Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, St Louis Metro
b. Tier 2 ERP Applications include Microsoft Dynamics AX, Tyler Technologies, Lawson and lnfor. The capabilities of these applications may lack some functionality and may not meet the entire requirements of the District when compared to Tier 1 applications. Customers for these Tier 2 applications include: Microsoft Dynamics AX- Capital Metro (Austin)- Financials only Tyler Technologies- Antelope Valley Transit Authority, Spokane Transit Authority Lawson- Dallas Area Rapid Transit
c.
SaaS, Cloud-based ERP Applications like Workday or Oracle Cloud applications are cloud-based ERP system offered only on a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model, essentially a subscription basis. These offerings are newer, in some areas incomplete, and have less of a track record than more traditional packages. A lack of upfront licenses fees is offset by higher annual costs, which include hosting, maintenance and upgrades. Implementation fees can be as significant as Tier 2 or even Tier 1 packages. Customers for these SaaS applications include: Workday- None yet in transit, but many others. Oakland Unified School District will
implement for human resources (HR). San Mateo County is implementing HR, Timekeeping and Payroll. The City of Orlando is live on the full suite.
294
Report No. 15-026 Page 7 of9
Oracle Cloud Services- None yet in transit, but over 800 others. There are other Tier 1 ERP systems with functionality comparable to PeopleSoft but their implementation and support costs are similar as well; they do not offer significant operational savings. Tier 2 systems suffer from reduced functionality for only modest cost savings. Cloud-based ERP systems are maturing quickly but all involve compromises in functionality; they have somewhat lower but still significant migration costs. Changing ERP systems offers no easy avenues to near-term operational cost savings.
4. Recommendation and Road map Any significant software application requires support and continued development in order to leverage the initial investment and to continue to reap benefits. The larger the system, the more support will be required. The most cost-effective approach is to commit to upgrading PeopleSoft to version 9.2, to revitalize our use of it through training and process improvements, and to re-evaluate market alternatives in three to five years. This approach requires the least capital outlay and provides the quickest return on investment. It also gives time for alternative SaaS products and migration strategies to mature. The upgrade also sets the stage for the District to take advantage of Oracle's new architecture, introduced in version 9.2, allowing the download and application of smaller unit releases in lieu of periodic larger, expensive upgrades. Version 9.2 will be the last major upgrade required; subsequent upgrades will all be smaller, more modular, and far less expensive and time-consuming to apply. Step one is a Gap Analysis to provide a roadmap for the 9.2 upgrade. This will form the foundation for a scope of work and will identify the high-value areas on which to focus our efforts. This may include the re-implementation of modules already in use and the implementation of new modules. The upgrade project is minimally budgeted this fiscal year for a strict technical upgrade only so the scope will have to be carefully developed and managed. In parallel with the upgrade, staff will use the road map to improve supporting processes and documentation, to develop new reports, and to enhance the overall use of the application. This is the "Revitalize PeopleSoft" track on the chart below.
295
Report No. 15-026 Page 8 of9
Recommended PeopleSoft Road map FY 2015 Oracle Support & Patches/Fixes
FY 2016
.,
"'•~"
FY 2017
I
PS Uperade 9.2
I
I
'"':
FY2019
I
~
I
I
-"'~.-~
I :_;:!;
._..,..
l
Oudaetlna Plannloa Tool
+
I
I I
k='>."":~cf-:':z'7.":-:~':'::::o~?..~~--~·
Revitalize PeopleSoft alone with Uperade
User Support & Dev
I
.::L~il"_ '!~--- ·"'"':-...~ :'"'-~-
~
Gap Analysis
FY2018 I
1·;•-o·'•·.·::.,.
;=.:~--
L ~-.
I
I
.
-·~" -~-' --~=
..
~-,:::
,_ ... "' · .~:--
- ~~~-- ~,c;.-
·""· ·-.
~-
~:-- '~" ,.,~;,;;"'
I
PeopreSoft Support Exp ires
Th e District should carefully eva luate Cloud/SaaS options in two t o three years. This wi ll give products time t o mat ure and to better meet ou r needs, and should provi de more data on their strengths, limitat ions and typica l implementation and support cost s. A decisio n to migrat e away f rom PeopleSoft at that t ime wou ld require another one to two years to m ake t he change, furt her leveraging the investments in the system to date.
ADVANTAG ES/DISADVANTAGES:
There are no disadvantages t o receiving t his Briefing repo rt . ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
The various alternatives available are outlined in the body of this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
1:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1, Background on ERP Systems, Lifecycle Cost s, Risks and Alte rn atives 296
Report No. 15-026 Page 9 of9
Department Head Approval:
David Armijo, General Manager
Reviewed by:
James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Tom Prescott, Acting Chief Administrative Services Officer
Prepared by:
Tom O'Neill, Acting Chief Information Services Officer
297
This page intentionally blank
298
Report No. 15-026, Attachment 1 Page 1 of 6
Attachment 1: Background on ERP Systems, Lifecycle Costs, Risks and Alternatives What is an ERP System? PeopleSoft, like SAP and JD Edwards, is an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. These large-scale software applications are designed to manage the data needed for organizations with large numbers of staff, equipment, locations, production materials, and the like, integrating discrete business functions and their data thereby increasing the visibility of operationally important information.
"Enterprise resource planning (ERP) is a software solution that integrates information and business processes to enable information entered once into the system to be shared throughout an organization." EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin volume 2004, Issue 1, Jan. 6, 2004
PeopleSoft Financials (FIN) and Human Capital Management (HCM) together comprise our largest and most complex software application with modules covering areas as diverse as Purchasing, Accounts Payable, General Ledger, Absence Management (LMS), Benefits Administration, and Time & Labor.
How Did We Get Here? As computer technology has evolved over time, the District's software applications have evolved as well. From the 1980s until the end of the 1990s, most applications ran on HP3000 minicomputers connected to green-screen terminals located at key points throughout the District. Applications used include BiTech Systems' IFAS Financials system, the MMMIS maintenance-materials system, and OTS & TIS, our operator and coach dispatching systems. The Trapeze FX scheduling system, OrbCAD CAD/AVL system, and PeopleSoft HCM system were some of our first microcomputer server-based systems. PeopleSoft HCM ver. 7.0 went live in 1998 and replaced a legacy application.
What Does It Cost to Support? Is what we spend for support reasonable, and typical? An informal survey of nearby transit agencies determined that they spend comparable amounts to maintain their PeopleSoft and similar ERP systems. Considering the cost elements, there's little opportunity for savings: • •
Oracle's annual support costs are a fixed percentage of initial license costs, which are based on the number of employees (HCM) and the size of our operating budget (FIN). Some agencies choose to host the required servers and applications on-premise and to employ the additional staff needed to support them. Others, like us, have the
299
Report No. 15-026, Attachment 1 Page 2 of 6
•
applications hosted elsewhere and make use of experienced vendor staff shared across multiple customers. (Sam Trans is moving from the former model to the latter.) The level of on-site support staff needed depends on many factors including initial and recurring user training, work processes around the application, and the complexity of the implementation, interfaces and integrations.
There are no shortcuts to ERP success: Continued investment, robust support, and stakeholder leadership are all needed.
Life Cycle of ERP Benefits
"Get It Working''
\
\ Time <1fter Go-Live
Courct CG!!& Y
Alternatives Considered The tables below show some of the prominent risks, advantages and cost implications of the different alternatives considered.
300
Report No. 15-026, Attachment 1 Page 3 of 6 1. Continue to Invest in PeopleSoft Risks Limited budget could limit the enhancements that could be implemented which could result in diminished support for the initiative
Advantages This approach requires the lowest capital outlay over the next 5 years while building on the investments the District has made in the PeopleSoft applications
Costs The cost for this approach is estimated to be $6-10M over a 3-5 year period, apart from the cost of the 9.2 upgrade
By focusing on application , reporting, functionality improvements will provide more value additions to the Business bringing in increase in efficiencies as well as the adherence to compliance and best business practices
2. Shift to a Co-Hosting Model Risks PeopleSoft applications are capable of managing and reporting on multiple business operations within a single instance of the application through the use of Business Units and Set IDs, the organizations would have to agree to a set of common business processes and configurations-most importantly the chart of account structure needs to be all encompassing and will be very complicated The ability for unique organizations to agree to common business processes and configurations is critical for a shared services model to be successful
Advantages District could realize some savings in support staff costs
The organizations also face the risk of a expectations not being met which could result in one or both of the organizations wanting to dissolve the shared service agreement. This could also happen if one partner wants to upgrade or shift to another ERP system
301
Costs We would estimate these reimplementation costs to be $8-10M in total ($45M per org). The ongoing support costs could potentially be reduced by approximately 25-40% through the sharing of resource and software maintenance costs
Report No. 15-026, Attachment 1 Page 4 of 6
3. Migrate to a Lower-Cost ERP System a. Tier 1 ERP Applications Risks While another Tier 1 system is likely similar, some gaps may appear
The District could end up in the same predicament with the new system A full system replacement is not a guarantee of improved processes and operations
b.
Advantages
Costs District would have a large capital expense to replace PeopleSoft with a Tier 1 solution, similar to our initial PeopleSoft implementation, ranging from $10-16M No anticipated operational cost savings
A full system replacement presents many opportunities in the form of a fresh start
Tier 2 ERP Applications
Risks The biggest challenge is the loss offunctionality and best practices; We may be forced to have manual work processes and acquire other external systems to bridge the gaps in functionality The District could end up in the same predicament with the new system. This risk is accentuated with the loss of key functionality that will accompany a Tier 2 solution. A full system replacement is not a guarantee of improved processes and operations
Advantages
Costs District would have a large capital expense to replace PeopleSoft with a Tier 2 solution, ranging from $812M.
Any operational cost savings would likely be modest.
A full system replacement presents many opportunities in the form of a fresh start
302
Report No. 15-026, Attachment 1 Page 5 of 6
c.
SaaS, Cloud-based ERP Applications Risks The current versions of the Sa aS ERP solutions may not contain the robust functionality to deal with complexities of the business needs of the District. The District would be forced to have manual work processes and/or use other external systems to bridge the gaps in functionality. We would be forced to use the software as delivered since the SaaS applications cannot be customized, only configured within the limits set by the provider A full system replacement in not a guarantee of improved processes and operations. This risk is accentuated with the loss of key functionality that will accompany a Sa aS solution The District could end up in the same predicament with the new system
Advantages
Limited change brings greater application stability; upgrades are included and are applied semiautomatically A full system replacement presents many opportunities in the form of a fresh start
Costs District would have a large capital expense migrating to popular Sa aS solutions ranging up to $5M+ The costs associated with the implementation of Sa aS ERP solutions has not been normalized in the marketplace. No annual support fees, they're replaced by subscription costs; no periodic upgrade costs
A reduction in long-term support staff needs is likely after year one
Sa aS applications trade a lower upfront cost (no license fees) for a higher monthly/yearly subscription cost
Here's more information on several alternative ERP systems that we've evaluated at a high level. A detailed fit-gap analysis is beyond the scope of this report and would be required prior to a decision to move to another system. Oracle's Cloud Applications (formerly Fusion). This ERP system was developed from scratch to replace both Oracle's original ERP system and their acquired JD Edwards and PeopleSoft systems. Live since 2011, it's offered only as a cloud-based, SaaS application, which means that it runs in Oracle's data centers and offers a limited set of configurable options. That's good if these meet our core requirements as it constrains us from overly configuring or customizing the application. This reduces implementation cost and increases stability. On
303
Report No. 15-026, Attachment 1 Page 6 of6 the downside, while a substantial set of features is complete, development continues in areas such as Grants management. They have a growing list of public agency customers but as yet no transit agencies. Workday. David Duffield, originally an Oracle VP and one of the founders of PeopleSoft, created Workday once he sold PeopleSoft to Oracle in 2004. Workday offers a robust and fairly mature HCM platform, widely used by universities and many public companies, and a newer and less mature Financials platform. Workday lacks a few key features that we need including Grant management, commitment control, and robust procurement. They have a growing list of public agency customers but as yet no transit agencies. SAP. Germany's SAP is a high-end ERP system, commonly used in large manufacturing and other corporate environments. Capabilities and operational support costs are comparable to PeopleSoft, but with the additional upfront cost of new licenses. Of nearby transit agencies, only Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority uses SAP. Microsoft Dynamics AX. "Microsoft Dynamics AX 2012 R3 is a business solution that supports both operational and administrative processes of organizations." Primarily known for its Customer Relationship Management (CRM) component, Dynamics AX has a fairly complete financial system but is weaker in human resources. No public transit agencies have been identified as using Dynamics AX, though Capital Metro (Austin, TX) is planning to implement their Financials suite.
304
Report No: Meeting Date:
15-012 January 14, 2015
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel
SUBJECT:
Board Policy 190- Access to Public Records- Requests and Fees
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider the Adoption of Board Policy 190- Access to Public Records- Requests and Fees. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District is subject to the California Public Records Act (CA Government Code § 6250 et seq.) yet it currently has no policy in place regarding how to respond to requests under the Act. Although the Legal Department responds to known requests, it has recently been learned that requests routinely come in to various departments and records are produced. Adopting this policy will provide uniformity and guidance to staff and clarify the process for members of the public. The policy mirrors the requirements in the code. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts resulting from the adoption of Board Policy 190.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The District is subject to the California Public Records Act (PRA) which is codified in California's Government Code, Sections 6250-6270. The Act requires public agencies to make public records available for inspection, unless there are exceptions as set forth in the code. When the District receives a request for public records, the District has ten (10) days in which to determine if the records are disclosable and to respond to the requestor with that decision. In unusual circumstances, the District can request a 14 day extension in which to respond. Because not all records are disclosable, an analysis needs to be conducted once the records are identified . If a record is not disclosable, the District needs to provide the reasons therefor. Should a request be denied, the requestor can petition the court for relief. The court will rule on the District's objections and may conduct a review of the documents that were withheld. If the court finds the District's objections were without merit, the court may not only order the records be disclosed, but may also award attorney's fees and costs. Likewise, if the court finds the petitioner's case was without merit, the District may recover costs and fees. Because an analysis of the records needs to be performed and because of the legal ramifications, staff recommends that all public records requests be directed to, and handled by, 305
Report No. 15-012 Page 2 of 2 the General Counsel's office. This centralized approach will allow all requests to be tracked and will provide for consistency and accountability. As it currently stands, while many of the requests are forwarded to the General Counsel's office, other requests are not, sometimes because they are not recognized as being an actual PRA request. At times, deadlines have been missed and many requests have never been tracked. This policy will provide staff and the public direction on PRA requests. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The advantage of adopting the policy is to provide a clear process on how the District receives and responds to Public Records Act requests. There is no disadvantage of adopting the policy. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The alternative is to not adopt a policy and allow things to continue as they are now. This is not recommended because most employees are unaware of the legal requirements of a PRA request and they may unknowingly violate one of the relevant Government Code sections that govern these requests. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None ATTACHMENTS: 1:
Proposed Board Policy 190
Reviewed by: Prepared by:
David J. Armijo, General Manager Linda Nemeroff, District Secretary Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel
306
Att. 1 to SR 15-012
AC Transit BOARD POLICY
Policy No. 190
Category: Board & General Administrative Matters
ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS -REQUESTS AND FEES I.
PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the District's handling and response to California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests. The Office of the General Counsel has sole responsibility for determining whether a public record is disclosable and for handling and preparing the District's response to requests made by members of the public under the CPRA. The General Counsel shall advise the General Manager and District Secretary of any significant CPRA requests and District departments will cooperate fully with the General Counsel in producing records in a timely manner.
II. DEFINITIONS "Exempt Record" means a record that is exempt from disclosure as described in Section Ill, or is otherwise exempt from disclosure or is not considered to be a public record under California law. "Electronic Record" means a record, document, or writing contained, transcribed or held in electronic format, such as computer records, listings, electronic mail and similar. "Member of the Public" means any person, except a member, agent, officer, or employee of a federal, state, or local agency acting within the scope of his/her membership, agency, office or employment. "Person" means any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or association. "Public Records" include any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by the District regardless of physical form or characteristics.
Ill. LIMITATIONS The CPRA does not compel a public agency to create records that are not in existence or to provide for inspection or reproduction of records that are not disclosable public records. Common exemptions include, but are not limited to: personnel files, pending litigation records, closed session records, software or proprietary information, or drafts or notes not kept in the ordinary course of business. The Office of the General Counsel Page 1 of 3
Adopted: Amended: 307
DRAFT
Att. 1 to SR 15-012 shall respond in writing to any request made for exempt records and explain why it is exempt from public disclosure.
IV. POLICY
The CPRA compels a public agency to disclose, make available for inspection, or copy a document that does exist, if it is a public record, and disclosable.
A. Inspection of Public Records: 1. Public records are open to inspection at the District's General Offices Monday through Friday, except holidays, during regular business hours (8:30a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). The District may request, but shall not require an individual to identify himself/herself and make a written request. Any reasonable portion of a record must be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. It is requested that any person wishing to inspect public records contact the Office of the General Counsel to schedule an appointment to minimize delays. Under no circumstances shall any record be removed from the premises. B. Requests For Copies of Public Records: 1. A member of the public has a right to receive exact photocopies of public records, provided the requestor describes an identifiable record, pays the necessary fees for copy costs, and providing an exact copy is not impracticable. The District is not obligated to reconstruct unavailable computer data. 2. The individual requesting to inspect records or have copies produced will provide the following information: name and title of the document(s) or material(s) requested, the number of copies required, and requested inspection or pick up date. If the name or title of the document is unknown, a written description will be required to ensure the correct document is made available for inspection or reproduction. The General Counsel's Office will assist members of the public in identifying the records requested whenever necessary. C. Response Time: 1. Upon request for a copy of records, the Office of the General Counsel shall, within ten (1 0) days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the District and shall promptly notify the requestor of the determination and reasons therefor. The District will make every effort to make the requested documents or materials available within 10 days. 2. When unusual circumstances exist, the Office of the General Counsel may extend the 10-day response time by no more than 14 days. Written notice to the requester shall set forth reasons for the extension and the date for determination. Unusual circumstances include the following: the need to search and collect records from a separate facility; the need to search for, collect and examine a voluminous amount of records; the need to consult another agency that has an Page 2 of 3
Adopted: Amended: 308
DRAFT
Att. 1 to SR 15-012 interest in the determination; the need to compile data or write programming language, a computer program or construct a computer report to extract data.
D. Fees for Copies of Records: 1. Photocopies: Upon request for a copy of an identifiable record, the District shall make the records, not exempt from disclosure, promptly available upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication. a. A request for a copy of an identifiable record or information produced will cover the direct costs of duplication, based on the current cost per standard reproduced page established by the District's Print Shop. Direct costs do not include tasks associated with retrieval, inspection and handling of the file from which the copy is extracted. The same rule applies to copies made from electronic records. b. The General Counsel may elect to waive the fees in certain cases in his/her sole discretion. 2. Electronic Format: If the District has an identifiable public record, not exempt from disclosure, in an electronic format, the District shall make that information available in electronic format when requested. a. The requestor will be responsible for the direct cost of producing a record in electronic format, including the direct cost of the data storage device, i.e. compact disk, flash drive, etc., unless provided in advance by the requestor in its new and unopened original packaging. b. An additional fee may be charged if there is a cost to construct the record including the cost of programming and computer services to produce a copy of the record when either (1) the District would be required to produce a copy of an electronic record that is produced only at otherwise regularly scheduled intervals or (2) the request would require data compilation, extraction or programming to produce the record. An hourly rate covering the salary of employees required to construct a record, including the cost of programming and computer services necessary to compile data, extract data, or computer programming to produce a record may be charged.
Page 3 of 3
Adopted: Amended: 309
DRAFT
This page intentionally blank
310
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
311
This page intentionally blank
312
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITIEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
~XTERNAL AFFAII~S COMMiliEE
I
Monthly
Legislative Report [Updates on State, Federal, Regional and Local Legislation, including Measure Band the APTA Reauthorization process for T-4]. Annual
•
State/Federal Advocacy Program
Pending Not Scheduled
•
Status report on the Oral History Project. [Request from Director 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]. PlaRRiRg staf:f te ~reviae eeFRFReRts aRa reeeFRFReRaatieRs ~ertaiRiAg te CalifeFRia ~RvireARReRtal Q~alit·t /\et {C~QA) ReferFR. [Re!;l~estea ey 9ireeter Pee~les 19/24/12)
~I NANCE AI\IO.A.UOil COMMITTEE April
Review and discussion of President Harper's suggested formula for evaluating whether funds generated by Measure V V have been expended in Special District Two. [Requested by Director Davis - 12/10/14] May be referred ta Board Retreat August
Development of a policy concerning ex parte communications and disclosures by Directors during the entire procurement process from issuance of an RFP, IFB, or RFQ through protest. It was suggested
that staff review the California Public Utilities Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure pertaining to ex parte situations. [Requested by Director Peeples- 9/5/12] September
Report on the advisability of having the Internal Audit Department report directly to the Board. [Requested by Director Peeples- 5/28/14] Referred to September Board Retreat Monthly
•
Report on Investments Fiscal Policies (Review one per month) Budget Update
Bi-Monthly
Budget Update Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug)
Board/Officer Travel/Meeting Expense Employee Out-of-State Travel Surplus/Obsolete Materials Contracts/Purchasing Activity Report
Agenda Planning January 14, 2015
Page 1 of4 313
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITIEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Finance and Audit Committee, Cont. Semi Annual Reports DBE/FTA Report and DBE Goal Update (May/Nov) Annual Reports • Appropriations Limit (June); Adoption (July) • Audit Engagement Letter (June) Budget Calendar (Nov) Externally Funded Welfare to Work (Nov) Parcel Tax Oversight Committee (Dec to Board) Year-End Audited Financial Statements (Nov) Pending Not Scheduled Report on Other Post-Employment Benefits other than pensions (OPEB) and associated liability issues. [Requested by Director Davis -10/22/14]
OPERATIONS COMMitTEE February • Report on set asides for small business (SBE) participation as directed by Board Policy 326, section V, paragraph 2 and how many contracts have been set aside for small businesses in the last two years. [Requested by Director Ortiz- 10/22/14] Report from staff on the modifications/improvements that were made to the Gillig 1400 series buses to address complaints and issues raised by the Accessibility Advisory Committee and others about the 1300 series buses. [Requested by Director Peeples - 9/10/14] Referred to joint meeting with the Accessibility Advisory Committee Review Board Policy 163 with respect to environmental issues. (Board Policy 512) [Requested by Director Peeples] Note: General amendments will be proposed to Policy 163. April Report on the Heavy Duty Coach Mechanic Apprenticeship program [Requested by Director Peeples9/24/14] • Resolution supporting continuation and expansion of the District's Fuel Cell Program, subject to funding availability. The resolution will be drafted by Director Peeples [Requested by Director Peeples - 6/11/14] June Implementation of a District-wide calendaring system to track contracts, license renewals, etc. [Requested by Director 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 Director Peeples -11/14/12] Referred to Board Retreat
Agenda Planning
Page 2 of4
January 14, 2015
314
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Operations Committee, cont. Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug)
•
Operations Performance Report (includes report on the Call Center) Clipper Outreach efforts
Pending Not Scheduled
•
Re~~est fer staff te iRvestigate reJlerts tRat ll~s stalls are lleiRg JlaiRtea ever witR grey JlaiRt aRa Jlre¥iae a reJlert eR wRetRer tRere is a east effeetive way te aeterFRiRe if tRese iReiaeRts were iselatea er FRere fre~~eRt eee~rreRees aRa wRat ee~la lle seRe. [Re~~estea lly 9ireeter PeeJlles
7/9/11] •
ReJlert eR tRe sa'liRgs asseeiatea witR tRe Oeteller serviee e~ts. [Re~~estea lly 9ireeter MarJler
2/23/11] •
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 Director Peeples - 2/12/14. Director Peeples to provide additional information to be included in the draft policy.] ReJlert eR tRe llaRIEr~Jltey ef ClearEage aRa tRe eeRse~~eRees fer AC TraRsit. [Re~~estea lly Qireeter Ortiz S/28/14] 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]
PLANNING COMMITTEE February
• •
Report on coordination efforts and routing of buses associated with the Oakland Running Festival. [Requested by Director Peeples- 3/26/14] Report on the performance of Clear Channel in dealing with bus shelter maintenance including repair, cleaning and responding to customer complaints [Requested by Director Peeples -10/22/14].
April
•
Report on AC Transit's attitude toward shuttles. [Requested by Director Harper- 5/9/12] Referred to
Boord Retreat June
Report on the implications of a study by the California Transportation Commission on anticipated transportation needs in California and the implications to AC Transit. [Requested by Director Peeples
-11/16/11]
Agenda Planning
Page 3 of 4
January 14, 2015
315
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITIEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Planning Committee, Cont. July
•
Report on the Brooklyn Basin Project (Oak to 9'h Street in Oakland) and details of the negotiations with Signature Properties, including commitments made between the District and Signature Properties [Requested by Director Peeples- 3/25/06] Update on the impacts of the Lake Merritt Park Master Plan on AC Transit service [Requested by Director Peeples- 3/9/11; updated 12/31/14]
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 Director Peeples -10/27/10] Review Baara Palicv 163 ·.vitA resraect ta eAviraAA'IeAtal iss~es. (Baara Palic'{ 512) (Re€J~estea B'{ 9irectar Peerales] Note: Report scheduled and moved to the Operations Committee. 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 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 Director Peeples - 5/28/08] Reraart a A tfle feasiBility af caAcelliAg tfle B~s Raraia TraAsit Praject. [Re€J~estea By 9irectar Peerales
7/31/13] •
Reraart a A wfletfler BloiS staras a A tAe Aew eastem sraaA af tAe Bay Briage caR Be ~o~tilizea ta let raearale fraA'I Sa A FraAcisca aAa raarts af tAe East Bay aff sa tRey caR access tAe Bay Briage Trail PatAway. [Re€)~o~estea BV PresiaeAt ~arraer 3/26/14]
Agenda Planning
Page4of4
January 14, 2015 316
